Blog

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is scheduled to appear before lawmakers on Wednesday in his first congressional testimony since the Trump administration initiated military action against Iran, a conflict that Democratic leaders have criticized as an unauthorized and expensive military engagement.

The House Armed Services Committee session is planned to review the administration’s proposed 2027 defense budget, which seeks to increase military spending to an unprecedented $1.5 trillion. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine are anticipated to emphasize requirements for additional drone technology, missile defense capabilities, and naval vessels.

Democratic committee members are expected to challenge officials on the escalating expenses of the Iranian conflict, the significant depletion of essential U.S. weapons stockpiles, and a school bombing incident that resulted in civilian casualties. Legislators may also examine the military’s readiness to counter Iranian drone attacks, particularly after some aircraft breached American defenses and caused casualties among U.S. personnel.

Although a temporary ceasefire is currently active, the United States and Israel initiated hostilities on February 28 without seeking congressional authorization. Democratic members in both chambers have been unsuccessful in advancing war powers legislation that would compel President Trump to suspend operations pending congressional approval.

Republican lawmakers have expressed continued support for Trump’s military strategy, pointing to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, diplomatic possibilities, and the risks associated with military withdrawal. However, GOP members are anxious for the conflict’s conclusion, with some considering future legislative actions that could challenge the president if hostilities continue.

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil transport route, has caused fuel costs to surge and created political challenges for Republicans approaching midterm elections. The United States has implemented a naval blockade against Iranian vessels and increased regional military presence, deploying three aircraft carriers to the Middle East simultaneously for the first time in over two decades.

Both nations seem trapped in a military deadlock, with Trump reportedly rejecting Tehran’s recent proposal to reopen the shipping lane in exchange for ending the war, removing the naval blockade, and delaying nuclear negotiations.

Hegseth has evaded public congressional scrutiny regarding the conflict, though he and Caine have conducted televised Pentagon press conferences. The defense secretary has primarily engaged with conservative media representatives while referencing biblical texts to criticize mainstream news organizations.

Wednesday’s hearing will present a significantly different environment for Hegseth, as will Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee appearance with Caine. Lawmakers’ inquiries are expected to extend beyond budget matters and the Iranian situation to address Hegseth’s dismissal of senior military officials.

Following Navy Secretary John Phelan’s exit last week, Hegseth has also removed Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and multiple other high-ranking generals, admirals, and defense officials.

“Tell us why. You know these are important positions. We are in a war posture with Iran,” said North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican.

Tillis, whose vote was essential for Hegseth’s confirmation, stated that the defense secretary’s Pentagon management has led him to reconsider his endorsement.

“He may be able to clean it up, but on its face, you don’t go through the number of highly reputable, senior-level officials, admirals and generals,” Tillis added.

Georgia Republican Rep. Austin Scott criticized George’s dismissal during last week’s House Armed Services Committee session, declaring that “some of us are not through asking the questions about that.”

“I think the firing of Gen. George was an extreme disservice to the United States Army,” Scott said. “And I think it was reckless conduct.”

CAPE ELIZABETH, Maine (AP) — When Maine Governor Janet Mills wants to illustrate why others shouldn’t count her out politically, she recalls an incident from her early career involving a powder blue outfit she once donned in court.

More than 40 years ago, Mills made history as the state’s first female prosecutor in the attorney general’s criminal division when she won a murder case. However, the newspaper coverage the next day highlighted something entirely different: “The prosecutor wore pale powder blue.”

“That wasn’t the first time someone underestimated me. And it certainly wasn’t the last,” Mills, who is now seeking a U.S. Senate seat, stated in a recent message to her campaign supporters.

This theme has become central to the two-term governor’s messaging as she campaigns for the Democratic nomination to challenge veteran Republican Senator Susan Collins. Although Mills brings decades of government experience and has earned backing from Washington’s Democratic leadership, she finds herself trailing in the race leading up to next week’s initial primary debate.

Her primary challenger, Graham Platner, a former military member turned oyster farmer, has been attracting larger and more energetic audiences. Platner has also outpaced Mills in fundraising and has saturated television and radio with advertisements since launching his campaign last summer.

Mills contends she represents the Democrats’ best option against Collins in what could be a pivotal Senate contest. She believes her smaller, more personal campaign events allow for deeper voter connections. With their first debate set for May 7 — the opening round of five planned debates — Mills expects Platner’s previous controversial statements to become a major talking point. She emphasizes her extensive governmental background, contrasting it with Platner’s limited experience serving only on a small town’s planning committee.

Following a Portland demonstration supporting Planned Parenthood, Mills highlighted her role in establishing the Maine Women’s Lobby, an organization advocating for gender equality since the 1970s, and her long-standing commitment to reproductive rights. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund recently endorsed her candidacy.

“He’s been nowhere on these issues,” Mills said of Platner. “He’s never walked the walk.”

Mills boasts an impressive list of firsts in Maine politics. She broke barriers as the state’s inaugural female district attorney, attorney general, and governor. For this Senate campaign, she has secured endorsements from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

However, her past successes may not guarantee victory in this year’s Democratic primary, as party members debate whether seasoned politicians or fresh candidates offer the better path forward. Platner has won support from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and other progressive figures who argue that Democrats’ 2024 electoral setbacks demonstrate the need for new leadership.

Age has emerged as another campaign issue. At 78, Mills has committed to serving just one term if elected. Platner, who is 41, argues that voters should choose a senator willing to build long-term influence in Washington, where gaining seniority and policy influence typically requires years. This age difference presents both opportunities and challenges, given Maine’s older population but Democrats’ growing concerns about elderly candidates following Joe Biden’s decision to abandon his reelection bid at age 81.

“I’m really torn, I want the person who can win,” said Karen Tilbor, 79, who supports Mills as governor but remains undecided about the primary. She believes “many more young people” will support Platner.

While Platner organizes large rallies across the state, Mills’ supporters argue the governor doesn’t need massive events because she already enjoys broad name recognition and voter familiarity with her positions and character.

Denham Ward, 79, finds this approach appealing.

“She has got supporters who have known her for a long time, who know what she can do,” Ward explained. “She’s a known commodity for the state and has an organization that I think can take on Susan Collins.”

Emily Cain, a former Maine legislator and past executive director of EMILY’s List, which supports female Democratic candidates and has endorsed Mills, believes the fundamental question for primary voters is: “Who do you think has the best chance of beating Sen. Collins?”

Although Maine voters chose Democrat Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in 2024, Collins has maintained her Senate seat for decades by positioning herself as a moderate in a predominantly Democratic state.

“If it’s just about who you like better, or who makes you feel better, then that is different than who you think can win in the fall,” Cain observed.

Even Mills’ supporters like Cain avoid claiming she has a clear advantage in the Democratic primary.

“I think the governor has a path to victory,” Cain said. “I think it’s going to be up to her, her team and her supporters to get across that finish line.”

Mills maintains that Platner’s controversial background makes him a riskier choice for the general election.

Questions persist about inflammatory statements Platner posted online previously, which he has since renounced but which Mills featured in an attack advertisement where women called his remarks “disgusting.” He has also faced scrutiny over a skull-and-crossbones tattoo associated with Nazi imagery that he received while drinking during military leave in Croatia. Platner has since had the tattoo covered.

Mills also confronts some challenges. Liberal voters have criticized her opposition to a ballot measure creating a red flag gun law in the state, though the measure ultimately passed.

Additionally, Mills has positioned herself as a Trump opponent, which may help in much of Maine but could alienate voters in rural areas. Trump has won the presidential vote in the Republican-leaning 2nd Congressional District in three consecutive elections.

Platner has built his campaign around economic concerns like housing and healthcare costs while targeting billionaires and what he terms “oligarchy.”

During a recent Saturday rally, he appeared alongside Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who told the crowd of hundreds that the nation requires significant change.

Meanwhile, Mills recently spent a Friday meeting with small business owners in Cape Elizabeth and South Portland, coastal communities near the state’s largest city.

These events weren’t intended to draw massive crowds, and they didn’t. One involved casual conversations with restaurant patrons during lunch, while another featured discussions with a flower shop owner and employees. Each event attracted approximately five to 10 attendees.

Some voters present believed Mills’ governmental experience would benefit the state.

“Janet Mills has a ton more experience at many levels of government and I think has the best chance to hopefully give Maine a little bit of a leg up in terms of getting federal funding for us, and some federal recognition,” said Shelley Stevens, 51, who owns Fiddleheads florist in Cape Elizabeth. “It’s just very pragmatic for me.”

WASHINGTON — The nation’s highest court will consider Wednesday whether the Trump administration has the authority to terminate legal safeguards for migrants who escaped conflict zones and natural catastrophes, marking another significant immigration dispute before the justices during the president’s comprehensive border enforcement efforts.

Federal officials are challenging lower court rulings that prevented the Department of Homeland Security from rapidly terminating temporary protected status for individuals from Haiti and Syria. Should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Trump administration, officials could remove protections from as many as 1.3 million individuals across 17 nations, making them vulnerable to removal proceedings.

The justices have previously supported the administration and permitted the termination of protections for Venezuelan nationals while litigation continues, though they provided no explanation for their decision.

Government lawyers maintain that the Homeland Security secretary possesses authority to terminate the program called TPS, and that statutory language prevents courts from reviewing such determinations. Federal attorneys stated in legal filings that “‘No judicial review’ means no judicial review.”

However, attorneys representing approximately 350,000 Haitian migrants and 6,000 Syrian nationals argue that courts can examine whether officials adhered to all procedural requirements outlined in federal law. They maintain that in both situations, the government bypassed proper procedures.

Following President Donald Trump’s return to office, Homeland Security has terminated protections for 13 nations. Legal advocates report that some individuals who maintained lawful residence and employment in America for over ten years have lost their livelihoods and homes within weeks. Returning to Haiti and Syria remains impossible for many due to continued violence and chaos in those nations, according to Sejal Zota, co-founder and legal director of Just Futures Law.

“This really is life or death,” she said. Legal documents reveal that four Haitian women deported from America in February were later discovered beheaded and abandoned in a river.

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court after federal judges in New York and Washington, D.C., agreed to postpone the termination of protections. One court determined that “hostility to nonwhite immigrants” likely influenced the decision to end Haitian protections. During his campaign, Trump promoted unfounded claims that Haitian immigrants were stealing and consuming pets. Federal officials have rejected allegations that racial bias influenced TPS determinations.

Syrian nationals received protected status initially in 2012 during a civil conflict that persisted over a decade until President Bashar Assad’s regime collapsed in late 2024.

Haitians entered the program following a devastating 2010 earthquake and have received multiple extensions due to persistent gang warfare that has forced over one million people from their homes, court records show.

Maryse Balthazar was visiting the United States when the earthquake devastated her homeland of Haiti. She has maintained temporary legal status for 16 years, raising two children while working as a nursing assistant for elderly patients. Healthcare industry representatives argue in court filings that the field depends on Haitian immigrants like Balthazar and would suffer significantly if the Supreme Court permits their status to end.

For Balthazar, losing protection would be catastrophic. The earthquake destroyed her Haitian residence, and another potential home was lost in a fire possibly linked to gang activity. “I’d be homeless,” she said. “I’m scared … it’s a fear we are all living with.”

Additional immigration matters before the Supreme Court this term include Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship and the administration’s authority to reinstate restrictive asylum policies.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is alerting lawmakers that money to compensate Department of Homeland Security employees will be depleted by May, raising concerns about potential airport delays and national security risks as Congress continues to delay action on ending the agency’s historic funding shortage.

The Office of Management and Budget delivered a memo to legislators Tuesday evening, stating that emergency funds President Trump allocated through executive orders to pay Transportation Security Administration employees and other DHS workers will be exhausted next month. The memo urged the House to swiftly pass the budget measure that senators approved during an overnight session last week, which would establish a pathway for complete department funding.

“DHS will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk,” the memo said.

The administration’s urgent appeal may assist House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose slim Republican majority has been paralyzed by internal party disagreements on multiple pending matters, including the Homeland Security budget dispute that has brought legislative progress to a near halt.

The House is anticipated to vote Wednesday on the Senate budget measure designed to initiate a complex procedure that would eventually restore department funding. The administration cautioned GOP members against proposing modifications that could delay approval.

“Restoring funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has never been more urgent, as demonstrated by recent events,” the memo said, referencing last weekend’s incident when an armed individual attempted to breach the annual White House correspondents’ dinner attended by Trump, the vice president, and senior Cabinet members.

The Department of Homeland Security has operated without standard funding for more than two months following Democrats’ refusal to authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding without operational reforms after fatalities occurred during protests against Trump’s deportation policies.

Immigration enforcement personnel have primarily received compensation through additional funding — approximately $170 billion — that Congress authorized as part of Trump’s tax reduction legislation last year. However, other employees, including TSA staff, have depended on Trump’s executive intervention to guarantee their wages.

With payroll expenses exceeding $1.6 billion biweekly, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin recently indicated those emergency funds are diminishing.

Congressional Republicans from both chambers have pursued an independent approach, seeking to approve Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funding without Democratic support. Their goal is securing $70 billion for immigration operations throughout Trump’s remaining term to prevent future disruptions.

This complex procedure, identical to the method used for Trump’s tax legislation last year, will unfold across several weeks.

The Senate initiated the process last week and now awaits House action. After the budget resolution receives approval, both chambers must develop the actual funding legislation, which typically requires weeks to complete.

Meanwhile, Johnson is expected to quickly address legislation this week that would fund remaining Homeland Security components, including TSA, the Coast Guard, and other agencies.

This bipartisan measure has Democratic backing and already cleared the Senate a month ago, when Republicans reluctantly agreed to separate the immigration-related funding that Democrats opposed. However, House progress has stalled as Republicans in that chamber disagreed with the Senate’s strategy.

A fresh national survey has uncovered a striking pattern in American news consumption habits: roughly 60% of adults across the country make deliberate efforts to sidestep coverage of President Donald Trump either frequently or occasionally.

The research, conducted by the Media Insight Project, reveals sharp contrasts between political affiliations when it comes to news engagement and emotional responses to media coverage.

Take Denver resident Don Cohen, a 72-year-old retiree who dedicates approximately two and a half hours daily to news consumption through his iPad and television broadcasts. Despite his extensive media habits, Cohen acknowledges his desire to escape Trump-related stories.

“It would be to avoid media,” Cohen explained. The independent voter has maintained his opposition to Trump since the 2016 presidential campaign announcement.

The survey data indicates that Democrats and Republicans experience vastly different emotional reactions to news consumption. Republican voters are significantly more inclined to describe their news intake as providing an optimistic worldview, while Democratic voters rarely report feeling hopeful after consuming media.

David Sterrett, who serves as a principal research scientist at the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and participated in the project, suggests Democrats might be engaging in unrealistic expectations about avoiding Trump coverage.

“They would like to avoid Trump news, but they’re probably not because most national politics news is somewhat connected to the president,” Sterrett observed.

The research found that Democratic voters demonstrate greater confidence in media organizations, especially national news outlets, compared to their Republican counterparts. Democrats also show higher rates of regular engagement with national political coverage.

However, Republicans express more positive feelings about their news consumption, while Democrats frequently describe media as overly stressful to engage with.

Approximately two-thirds of both Democratic and independent voters report making active attempts to avoid Trump-related stories either often or sometimes. Fernando Ocegueda, a 50-year-old phlebotomist from Los Angeles and registered Democrat, recently reduced his political news consumption for this exact reason.

“I don’t agree with his decisions,” Ocegueda said regarding the president. “I don’t think he’s fit, so I don’t even want to bother in paying attention to what he has to say.”

Cohen believes the president has generated widespread instability that triggers defensive responses in many Americans. He theorizes this anxiety paradoxically drives continued news consumption.

“People don’t want to know, but they sort of want to know, because of the imminent sense of threat that is attached to him,” Cohen explained. “You know it’s a train wreck, and you just can’t take your eyes off of it.”

The avoidance pattern extends beyond Democratic voters. Roughly half of Republican respondents also reported frequently or occasionally trying to avoid Trump news coverage. Nicole Pratt, who describes herself as a moderate Republican, exemplifies this group.

The 62-year-old Torrance, California resident supports certain Trump administration initiatives and wants to stay informed, but has grown weary of stories focusing on what she perceives as presidential narcissism.

“His fights with other people, his arguments — I don’t bother with that anymore,” Pratt stated. “It’s like, I have other things to do.”

Sterrett suggests some Republicans claim to avoid Trump news not from fatigue with the president, but from distrust of conventional media sources.

“A lot of his followers do get news directly from him via social media, and his posts and announcements,” he noted.

Social media serves as a daily news source for approximately 40% of both Republican and Democratic voters, though both groups acknowledge the platform’s problems with accuracy.

Most voters from both parties assign significant responsibility to social media users for spreading false information about current events and important topics.

The parties diverge when assigning blame elsewhere. About 75% of Democrats hold politicians highly responsible for misinformation spread, compared to 65% of Republicans. Additionally, 64% of Democrats place substantial blame on social media companies like Facebook, Meta, X, and YouTube, while only 53% of Republicans share this view.

A majority of Democrats (58%) also attribute considerable responsibility for misinformation to artificial intelligence companies developing chatbots. Fewer Republicans (47%) view AI companies as responsible.

Meanwhile, most Republicans point to national news media as bearing significant responsibility for spreading false information about events and issues. Approximately half of Democrats agree with this assessment.

Independent voters show less overall engagement with news compared to party-affiliated Americans. About 80% of both Democrats and Republicans regularly follow various news topics, while only around 70% of independents maintain similar habits.

Beyond Trump-related coverage, voters from both parties show similar patterns in avoiding celebrity news, general news, or news on specific devices like social media or smartphones. Most Americans from both political sides occasionally try to avoid news discussions with friends and family.

Despite partisan differences in news preferences, Sterrett notes the survey reveals some common ground. Americans from both parties show similar interest in following sports, weather, and crime coverage.

“Especially when it comes to local issues and the stuff that affects people’s daily lives, it does seem like Republicans and Democrats are following similar sources and following similar topics,” Sterrett concluded.

The Media Insight Project represents a collaboration between the American Press Institute, Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, the Local News Network at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. The survey included 2,101 Americans: 1,092 adults aged 18 and older, plus 1,009 teenagers aged 13-17, though partisan questions were limited to adults. Adult polling occurred February 5-8, while teen polling ran February 2-16 using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points for adults and plus or minus 4.3 percentage points for teenagers.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Missouri residents will confront an extraordinary decision at the ballot box this November that no other state voters have faced in more than 100 years: whether to completely phase out their state’s individual income tax.

This historic ballot measure represents the first instance since modern income taxation began that a state legislature has directly asked citizens to eliminate their income tax entirely. Approval would simultaneously authorize lawmakers to broaden the state’s sales tax base.

This groundbreaking proposal represents the culmination of a nationwide five-year period of aggressive tax reduction efforts across states that benefited from surplus revenues during the post-COVID economic recovery. That trend only recently slowed as some Democratic-controlled states moved toward higher tax rates for wealthy residents. Throughout this period, nearly every state implemented either temporary or permanent reductions to various taxes including income, sales, property, or gasoline levies. More than half of all states with income taxes lowered their highest tax rates.

Unlike previous tax reduction efforts, Missouri’s approach openly recognizes the challenge of eliminating income tax revenue without finding alternative funding sources to maintain government operations.

Federal income taxation authority was established through the 16th Amendment’s ratification in 1913. Missouri followed suit with its own income tax in 1917, joining many states that adopted similar measures in subsequent years.

However, several states including Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming never implemented individual income taxes, instead depending on sales taxes, oil revenues, or other funding mechanisms. New Hampshire and Tennessee, which previously taxed investment income but not wages, both eliminated those taxes within the last five years.

Alaska stands alone as the only state to have implemented and later abolished a general individual income tax, eliminating it in 1980 during a period of substantial oil revenue.

Massachusetts citizens voted down income tax elimination proposals in both 2008 and 2002, though those measures originated from citizen initiatives rather than budget-responsible lawmakers.

Kentucky passed legislation in 2022 that reduced income tax rates and established revenue-based milestones that could gradually eliminate the tax entirely. The law also extended sales tax coverage to services like personal fitness training and website design. However, these revenue triggers require legislative approval for each additional rate reduction.

Mississippi enacted legislation last year that gradually decreases income tax rates from 4% to 3% by 2030, with revenue growth benchmarks that could trigger further cuts. Complete elimination could take more than a decade if all benchmarks are achieved.

Oklahoma also passed legislation last year establishing gradual income tax rate reductions tied to revenue growth until complete phase-out. The state won’t determine until next year whether it has met the revenue threshold for the initial rate reduction.

South Carolina recently joined this movement when Republican Governor Henry McMaster signed legislation last month that could eventually eliminate individual income tax as revenues increase.

Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment instructs the General Assembly to eliminate individual income tax through gradual reductions based on revenue growth. To facilitate this transition, it grants lawmakers authority to generate revenue by applying sales tax to “any goods and services,” bypassing a constitutional restriction on sales tax base expansion that voters approved in 2016.

Lawmakers would have five years to determine which additional sales to tax without requiring another public vote.

However, some voters may not understand they are authorizing expanded sales taxes. The ballot language asks whether to phase out income tax and “modify” sales tax, avoiding terms like “increase” or “expand.”

The amendment, approved by the legislature last week, will appear on November’s ballot unless Republican Governor Mike Kehoe schedules an earlier election.

Governor Kehoe has prioritized individual income tax repeal, contending it will stimulate economic growth while attracting businesses and new residents.

During a House committee hearing this year, Will Spartin testified that although he attended business college in St. Louis, he established his beverage company headquarters in Florida due to that state’s lack of individual income tax. He expressed interest in returning to Missouri, but only if financially viable.

“If Missouri moves in this direction, even gradually, it would be a meaningful signal to people like us that Missouri wants to compete for modern industries,” Spartin told lawmakers.

Sharon Wells, a retired elementary school teacher from suburban St. Louis, reported paying several hundred dollars in state income tax this past year. She worries her total tax burden could increase if income tax is replaced with broader sales tax coverage.

Wells employs lawn care services, visits a hair salon twice monthly, and requires periodic medical, dental, and automotive maintenance services. None of these services currently face taxation, but all could under Missouri’s proposal.

“I think it’s a huge mistake,” she said. “We’re already paying far more than we have in the past for groceries, medicine, all kind of services. Everything has gone up.”

According to estimates from the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, families earning between $49,000 and $78,000 annually would pay an average of $535 more in taxes if Missouri repeals its income tax and implements higher sales taxes. Lower-income earners would face even larger increases, the organization stated.

“Pretty clearly, this is going to be a tax increase for most people,” said Carl Davis, the institute’s research director.

Additional data indicates that income tax policies, while not the primary factor, can influence interstate migration patterns. Texas, Florida, and Tennessee all ranked among the top five states for net interstate migration of federal income tax filers in 2023, while higher-tax states California, New York, and New Jersey ranked near the bottom, according to IRS data analysis by the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

If Missouri voters approve this referendum, “it could embolden other states to accelerate their own planned income tax reductions,” said Katherine Loughead, the foundation’s director of state tax projects.

A top Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives has summoned the leader of a prominent civil rights organization to appear before Congress next month after federal prosecutors brought criminal charges against the group.

Representative Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, sent a formal request Tuesday to Bryan Fair, the interim president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center, asking him to appear at a May 20, 2026 committee hearing.

The request comes after the Trump administration secured a criminal indictment against the SPLC last week, alleging the organization misled its financial supporters by employing paid sources to penetrate far-right groups.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors political extremist movements across the country, has dismissed the charges, calling them “false allegations.”

In his letter to Fair, Jordan stated the hearing would investigate how the SPLC “has played in distorting federal civil rights policy in recent years.” The Republican congressman also accused the organization of presenting a “highly partisan understanding of ‘hate’” that targets conservative viewpoints in its research on extremism in America.

Civil rights advocates have expressed concern about what they describe as the current administration’s campaign against organizations that advocate for civil rights and challenge government policies.

The 55-year-old organization had maintained a long-standing relationship with federal law enforcement agencies, regularly providing intelligence to the FBI and other agencies, until the Trump administration severed those connections six months ago.

SPLC officials defend their informant operations, stating the program has “saved lives” and was conducted with full knowledge of federal authorities. They note that the FBI similarly employs paid sources in its own investigative work.

During a White House state dinner on Tuesday, President Donald Trump brought up Middle East tensions while claiming that Britain’s King Charles shares his opposition to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

The remarks occurred on the second day of King Charles’s four-day official visit to the United States, coming at a time when diplomatic relations have been strained due to Trump’s repeated public criticism of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer regarding what the president characterizes as insufficient support in the Iran conflict.

Speaking to dinner guests, Trump addressed ongoing Middle East operations, stating: “We’re doing a little Middle East work right now and we’re doing very well.”

The president continued: “We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever — Charles agrees with me even more than I do — we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”

When King Charles spoke following the president’s remarks, he avoided any discussion of Iran or Middle Eastern conflicts. As the British monarch, King Charles does not serve as a government spokesperson for official policy positions.

The British Embassy in Washington directed inquiries about Trump’s dinner comments to Buckingham Palace, which had not provided a response by press time.

Earlier in the day, during an address to Congress, King Charles avoided direct references to the Iran situation but touched on Trump’s NATO critiques, emphasized the need for continued American support for Ukraine against Russia, and warned against isolationist policies.

For years, both the United States and Britain have consistently maintained their position that Tehran must not develop nuclear weapons capabilities.

Iran, which currently does not possess nuclear weapons, continues to deny pursuing such capabilities while asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes, including uranium enrichment.

The Biden administration is reportedly working on new guidelines that would enable government agencies to work around safety warnings when implementing artificial intelligence systems, according to a report published Tuesday by Axios.

The proposed guidance would specifically allow federal departments to move forward with AI model adoption despite supply-chain risk warnings from Anthropic, an AI safety company. Among the systems that could be affected is an AI model called Mythos.

Reuters has not been able to independently confirm the details of this report.

TACOMA, Wash. — Washington state officials filed a federal court petition Tuesday seeking to compel private prison company The Geo Group to permit state health inspectors access to its immigration detention facility in Tacoma, following years of detainee complaints about conditions.

State health department officials have been repeatedly turned away from the Northwest ICE Processing Center, where The Geo Group houses immigrants under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to Gov. Bob Ferguson, who spoke at a press conference outside the facility Tuesday. The center can house approximately 1,600 individuals awaiting deportation proceedings.

Washington enacted legislation in 2023 establishing its “broad authority to enforce generally applicable health and safety laws against contractors operating private detention facilities.” The Geo Group challenged the statute in court, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the law’s validity. The company has until June 11 to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.

“Despite the mandate of the court and the seriousness of the problem, The Geo Group continues to defy our law by refusing to admit DOH inspectors,” Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said during the press conference. “In my view, this is not just a legal obligation. It is a moral obligation.”

When contacted by The Associated Press, The Geo Group declined to provide comment and directed inquiries to ICE, which did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Officials report receiving approximately 3,500 complaints from facility detainees over recent years, with nearly 1,000 concerning water, food and air quality issues. Detainees have reported finding burned plastic, splinters, hair, worms and other foreign materials in their food, while also complaining about foul-tasting water.

Ferguson stated that health inspectors have been denied entry during all 10 attempted visits since the law took effect. The most recent rejection occurred April 20 when inspectors sought to examine the water system. Since Tacoma’s municipal water supply meets quality standards, officials suspect potential problems with the detention center’s internal plumbing maintenance.

According to the state’s court filing, inspectors were instructed to contact ICE’s Seattle field office, despite having previously attempted that approach without success.

WASHINGTON – During Tuesday’s formal White House reception for King Charles and Queen Camilla, President Donald Trump reflected on how the forebears of both leaders would be amazed to witness “the Anglo-American revolution in human freedom” enduring into modern times.

Following his remarks, Trump moved away from the podium to greet Charles with a handshake, and the two leaders shared a moment of laughter. The White House later shared a photograph of their interaction with the caption “TWO KINGS.”

This marks another instance of Trump embracing royal symbolism during his current presidency. Last October, he shared an artificial intelligence-created video showing himself crowned and flying a military aircraft over protesters displaying “No Kings” signs – demonstrations that Republican congressional leaders have labeled “Hate America” gatherings.

In the video, Trump’s depicted character releases waste material onto the crowd below. That same day, he posted additional AI content portraying himself in royal regalia including a crown, ceremonial cape, and sword while Democratic lawmakers bowed before him.

The historical context adds irony to the “Two Kings” reference, as American colonists fought an eight-year independence struggle against Charles’ ancestor King George III starting in 1775. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 accused the British crown of “repeated injuries and usurpations” aimed at establishing “absolute Tyranny over these States.”

“One interesting difference between America and the UK is the people are the sovereign. We don’t have one person that’s sovereign,” said Representative Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, speaking to Reuters. “I don’t think the president, respectfully, understands that difference.”

White House representatives did not provide immediate responses to requests for comment. The presidential couple is hosting Charles and Camilla for an official state dinner Tuesday night.

During his address to Congress earlier Tuesday, King Charles highlighted the nations’ common heritage and democratic values, referencing the Magna Carta, Britain’s 1689 Declaration of Rights, and America’s 1791 Bill of Rights to emphasize that “executive power is subject to checks and balances.”

When questioned about accusations of monarchical behavior during a CBS “60 Minutes” interview following Saturday’s thwarted assassination attempt, Trump dismissed the claims.

“I’m not a king,” Trump told correspondent Norah O’Donnell. “If I was a king, I wouldn’t be dealing with you.”

The Trump administration has implemented stricter background check requirements for individuals seeking immigration benefits, according to internal documents from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services obtained by news outlets.

USCIS staff received direction to halt approval of any pending immigration cases until applicants complete the expanded security screenings. The new protocol took effect April 27, 2026.

“Effective April 27, 2026, USCIS will begin receiving enhanced criminal history record information (CHRI) for all fingerprint-based background checks submitted to the FBI’s Next Generation Identification system,” stated an internal email sent to USCIS personnel in the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations division last week.

The immigration enforcement measures represent part of President Trump’s broader initiative to tighten border security and reduce unauthorized immigration since returning to office in early 2025.

Critics including human rights organizations, civil liberties advocates and faith leaders have denounced the administration’s approach, arguing it undermines constitutional protections and creates a hostile atmosphere for minority communities.

The heightened screening requirements stem from a February executive order that instructed the Department of Homeland Security to “access criminal history record information (CHRI) in the custody of federal criminal justice agencies to the maximum extent permitted by law.”

Applications requiring fingerprint submission will face delays under the new policy, including requests for permanent residency status and citizenship processing.

Immigration officers must resubmit fingerprint data for cases where FBI records were obtained before the April 27 deadline, internal guidance specified.

A USCIS representative told media outlets that the agency “has implemented new security checks to strengthen the vetting and screening of applicants through expanded access to federal criminal databases.”

Officials indicated that “any delay in decision issuance should be brief and resolved shortly.”

PHOENIX — A federal court on Tuesday threw out a Justice Department legal action against Arizona that sought to compel the state to hand over comprehensive voter registration records, marking another courtroom defeat for federal officials in their nationwide push to access voter information.

U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich, who was appointed during the Trump presidency, determined that Arizona’s comprehensive voter registration database does not fall under materials that federal law allows the Attorney General to demand. The judge ruled against the lawsuit permanently, stating that any modifications to the case would serve no legal purpose.

This Arizona decision continues a pattern of judicial rejections facing the Justice Department in comparable litigation across multiple states. Federal prosecutors have initiated legal action against no fewer than 30 states plus Washington D.C., attempting to compel the release of comprehensive voter information that encompasses birth dates, home addresses, driver’s license identification numbers, and portions of Social Security numbers.

Beyond Arizona, courts have turned down these federal efforts in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon. In Georgia, a judge threw out a Justice Department case due to improper venue selection, forcing federal attorneys to restart their case in a different jurisdiction.

The Justice Department initiated legal proceedings against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in January after he refused to comply with federal demands for the comprehensive voter data.

“This moment is a win for voter privacy,” Fontes said in a statement. “I will never comply with illegal requests that put Arizona voters in harms way.”

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to research by the Brennan Center and Associated Press coverage, no fewer than 13 states have either delivered or agreed to deliver their comprehensive voter registration databases to federal authorities: Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming.

Federal authorities claim they require the voter information to verify that states are following federal election regulations concerning voter registration list maintenance. During the Rhode Island litigation, a Justice Department lawyer admitted the department wanted complete voter roll data to share with the Department of Homeland Security for citizenship verification purposes.

Officials from both major political parties have opposed these federal demands, arguing such requests breach state and federal privacy protections.

WASHINGTON — Republican senators voted down Democratic-sponsored legislation Tuesday that would have forced President Donald Trump to obtain congressional authorization before continuing America’s energy embargo against Cuba.

The war powers resolution vote demonstrated continued GOP support for Trump’s unilateral approach to international conflicts across multiple regions, including Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba — a nearby Caribbean nation that has remained a long-standing U.S. opponent.

Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly attempted to pass measures limiting the president’s military authority in these conflicts, though all previous efforts have failed. Tuesday marked the first Cuba-focused vote, which would have mandated congressional approval before any military strikes against the island.

GOP senators successfully dismissed the measure by claiming it was procedurally improper since America isn’t directly fighting Cuba. The dismissal motion passed 51-47, with Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman as the sole Democratic supporter, while Maine’s Susan Collins and Kentucky’s Rand Paul were the only Republicans opposing dismissal.

Cuba currently faces severe water and electricity shortages as U.S. sanctions continue and oil deliveries from Venezuela remain blocked. The Trump administration maintains pressure on Cuban leaders to stop political oppression, free political detainees, and reform the struggling economy.

Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who sponsored the resolution, described the embargo as creating “humanitarian crises across Cuba,” disrupting healthcare services, leaving millions without potable water, and driving up food costs.

“My argument is that under the terms of the resolution we are already engaged in hostilities with Cuba because we are using American force, primarily the Coast Guard, but other assets as well, to engage in a very devastating economic blockade of the nation,” Kaine said.

During a recent Turning Points USA gathering, Trump promised “a new dawn for Cuba” and indicated the island would receive his focus following the Iran conflict.

Democratic senators emphasized the resolution’s importance in preventing potential military action against Cuba.

“The United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist,” said Vermont Democrat Peter Welch.

Democrats have consistently used the 1973 War Powers Act to challenge Trump’s military decisions, legislation originally designed to strengthen congressional authority over war declarations.

Florida Republican Rick Scott criticized Democrats for overlooking Cuban leadership’s human rights violations.

“President Trump is doing everything he can to bring back freedom and democracy all across Latin America, and we should do everything we can to support him,” Scott said.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling Tuesday declaring that digital voting records from individual ballots must be treated as public information, granting access to “cast vote records” that an election researcher working for the Trump Administration had sought last year.

The court’s Democratic majority stated their decision aimed to “satisfy the voting public that our elections are safe, secure and accurate” while upholding constitutional protections for ballot secrecy.

Election officials in Lycoming County’s Williamsport office had rejected Heather Honey’s application for electronic copies from the 2020 presidential race, claiming such access would essentially permit examination of individual ballot contents. These cast vote records generate automatically when voters make selections electronically or through scanned paper ballots.

State election statutes grant broad public access to county voting records, with exceptions for ballot box contents, voting machine data, and documentation related to voters who received assistance. Lycoming’s election office had contended that their scanning and tabulation equipment qualified as voting machines, making the cast vote records equivalent to protected ballot box contents.

When Honey’s non-resident status in Lycoming County became an issue, three local Williamsport residents took over the legal challenge — including a business owner, a former state police officer, and Republican state Representative Joe Hamm.

Attorney Thomas Breth, representing the plaintiffs, argued the information would enable citizens to examine what occurred during the contentious 2020 election cycle.

“In short, it’s not solely about the past,” Breth said. “It’s about the future. This significantly improves election integrity moving forward in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Lycoming’s election supervisor Forrest Lehman stated Tuesday that he believes the records, which contain scrambled data, will not compromise any confidential voting information and expressed readiness to fulfill requests for the materials.

“The court made its decision, and anybody who wants it can have at it,” Lehman said.

The Supreme Court determined that cast vote records “are spreadsheets of raw data pulled from the cast ballots. They are not the physical ballots contained in the ballot box.” This classification makes them public records, the justices reasoned: “This interpretation does not destroy the secrecy of the vote any more than a tally of all votes from a specific election.”

The court emphasized its ruling applied specifically to the Lycoming County situation and noted that other counties might not adequately scramble their data. “Whether the Election Code requires disclosure of CVRs that clearly link the contents of a ballot with personally identifying data is not before us,” Justice Daniel McCaffery wrote.

Breth rejected concerns about voter privacy, explaining that Pennsylvania’s current voting equipment standards mandate protections for voter anonymity.

LOS ANGELES — Eight contenders seeking California’s top executive office are gearing up for another televised face-off Tuesday evening as the state prepares to send out mail-in ballots within the coming week.

The mix of Democratic and Republican hopefuls — many still unfamiliar to much of the electorate — will attempt to convince voters they should succeed outgoing Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who cannot run for a third consecutive term.

The battle for leadership in America’s largest state by population comes as Sacramento grapples with persistent homelessness issues, wildfire insurance availability problems, anticipated budget deficits, and astronomical housing prices. Residents are simultaneously dealing with rising expenses for food, utilities, and fuel.

The hour-and-a-half forum will feature the top two GOP contenders, conservative media personality Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, alongside six Democratic candidates: former U.S. Representative Katie Porter, wealthy businessman Tom Steyer, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former Biden administration Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, ex-Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and state education chief Tony Thurmond.

Porter told her supporters via email that she planned to take the stage “to fight for lowering costs for working families and Californians.”

“Because right now, Californians are getting crushed,” Porter stated.

A previous debate held last week, which did not include Villaraigosa and Thurmond, failed to produce any decisive moments or clear winners among the participants.

President Donald Trump — whose relationship with the heavily blue state has been consistently tense — will likely feature prominently in Tuesday’s discussion once again. Both Hilton and Bianco back the president, with Hilton receiving Trump’s official endorsement, while Democratic contenders have pledged to resist federal immigration enforcement operations and Trump’s conservative policy agenda.

California’s primary system places all candidates on one ballot, with the top two vote-getters advancing to November’s general election regardless of party affiliation. Democrats worry their large field of candidates could allow two Republicans to move forward, which would represent an unprecedented disaster for the party.

The Democratic Party has controlled California’s state government for many years. No Republican has won a statewide race in two decades, and Democratic voter registration exceeds Republican registration by approximately two-to-one across the state.

Steyer, a former hedge fund executive who became a progressive political activist, has spent heavily from his personal wealth on television advertisements but has not separated himself from other candidates.

The campaign landscape shifted significantly earlier this month following the dramatic exit of U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell amid sexual assault allegations. His departure from both the race and Congress removed what had been considered one of the frontrunning campaigns.

CBS will host the debate, broadcasting it on its California television stations and online platforms.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge hearing a case that could determine the fate of Washington’s Kennedy Center challenged the Trump administration’s decision to completely shut down the renowned performing arts facility for two years of renovations beginning in July.

During Tuesday’s court session, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper pressed government representatives on their rationale for the total closure, questioning whether adequate research supported such a drastic measure.

The hearing marked the first of two consecutive court proceedings addressing legal challenges to Kennedy Center changes. Judge Cooper refrained from immediate action after extensively questioning lawyers from both sides, leaving his eventual ruling uncertain.

Cooper pressed government attorney Brantley Mayers about missing financial analysis regarding the closure’s economic impact, including lost sponsorships, canceled bookings, and revenue shortfalls. “I didn’t see any numbers,” the judge stated.

The judge also inquired why the government rejected phased renovation approaches, noting this had been the “status quo” before the administration abruptly shifted toward complete closure.

The legal challenge stems from a lawsuit filed by Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat serving as an ex officio Kennedy Center trustee. Beatty’s case, originally filed last year against President Trump and other administration officials, expanded in February to contest the two-year closure plan.

Trump has focused considerable attention on the Kennedy Center since returning to office, removing previous leadership and installing a handpicked board that appointed him chairman. These changes sparked criticism from numerous artists and worsened the venue’s financial difficulties. Trump’s name was subsequently added to the building’s exterior, and he announced the renovation project earlier this year.

Judge Cooper devoted over half the two-hour session to questioning Nathaniel Zelinsky, senior counsel at the Washington Litigation Group, about technical aspects of Beatty’s legal standing to pursue the lawsuit.

The judge postponed any immediate decisions, including potential injunctions against the center’s name modification.

During proceedings, Norm Eisen, a Democracy Defenders Action board member serving as co-counsel with Zelinsky, cited numerous statutory references establishing the intended name as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

After the hearing, Beatty expressed concerns about potential changes during closure. “We went through the same thing at the White House. I was right outside there when we saw the bulldozers,” she said, referencing Trump’s modifications to the East Wing and Rose Garden.

Despite assurances from new executive director Matt Floca about appropriate renovation practices, Beatty said she doesn’t trust the president’s approach.

A second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, addressing a separate lawsuit filed by eight cultural preservation organizations also opposing the closure and renovation plans.

Cooper indicated he wants specific questions answered at Wednesday’s hearing, particularly regarding what happens to Kennedy Center operations during closure, including whether any public access would remain available.