Politics Desk

SACRAMENTO — As Democratic leaders in California challenge President Trump’s latest effort to restrict the use of mail-in ballots, they also must grapple with a troubling development in the last election.

A significant number of mail-in ballots arrived too late to be counted in the Nov. 4 special election for Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s successful measure to reconfigure the state’s congressional districts, according to state data.

Ballots came in late at an average rate four times higher than that of the 2024 election, with rural counties seeing some of the biggest increases, according to a Times review.

“Something changed,” said Melvin E. Levey, who heads the Merced County Registrar of Voters. “We don’t like seeing late ballots and if someone has made the effort to vote, we want to count it.”

Merced saw almost a sevenfold increase in late-arriving mail ballots in the November election compared with the year before.

Vote-by-mail ballots are considered late if they are not postmarked on or ahead of election day or do not arrive within seven days of election day.

The issue appears to be linked to the U.S. Postal Service, which last year reduced the number of trips to pick up mail at post offices in mostly rural areas. Election officials warned before Nov. 4 that the Postal Service changes could delay the postmarking of ballots and lead to votes not being counted.

During the Nov. 4 election in California, an average of 8 out of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected by counties because they arrived too late, according to Secretary of State data. In the 2024 general election, which included the presidential race, an average of 2 of every 1,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected for being late.

In Kern County, for example, 3,303 mail-in ballots — or 1.95% of returned mail-in ballots — were not counted in the 2025 special election because they arrived too late. In 2024, that number was 332 — or 0.14%. And in Riverside County, 5,831 ballots — or 0.95% of those mailed in — were deemed too late to count, more than double the number of late ballots rejected in 2024.

Postal Service spokesperson Cathy Purcell recommended that voters mail their ballot a week in advance of when it must be received by election officials to ensure it arrives on time.

“You should never be mailing your ballot on election day,” Purcell told The Times.

Before last’s year’s special election, California Secretary of State Shirley Weber issued a similar warning about the delays. Anyone dropping off their ballot at a post office on election day should get it postmarked at the counter, she said.

“We don’t want anyone to just toss it into the mailbox as we have been able to do in the past and have it counted,” she said. “The Postal Service has said that they may not be counted in certain areas.”

California voter data expert Paul Mitchell expressed astonishment about the Postal Service’s guidance.

“We’ve had six, eight years of elections where people were feeling confident about mailing in their ballot,” said Mitchell, vice president of the voter data firm Political Data Inc. “Now the USPS is saying they have to mail it in a week early.”

“That is a dramatic change that can disenfranchise voters who are just following the same pattern that they’ve used in prior elections,” he added.

Democrats have been defending the vote-by-mail system in the face of Republican attacks. Trump recently signed an executive order to impose federal restrictions on mail-in ballots and, without evidence, has long criticized mail-in ballots as a source of fraud and a factor in his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

The Nov. 4 special election on Proposition 50 was the Democrats’ attempt to counter Trump’s push for Republican-led states, most notably Texas, to redraw their electoral maps to keep Democrats from gaining control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms and upending his agenda. The ballot measure overwhelmingly passed.

Nearly 89% of votes in the Nov. 4 election were vote-by-mail ballots, according to Weber’s office. In addition to Proposition 50, tax measures were also on the ballots in some counties.

Postal Service changes

About a month before the Nov. 4 election, Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta held a news conference to encourage California voters to vote early because of service changes at the U.S. Postal Service.

Bonta told reporters that voters living 50 or more miles from six large mail processing centers in urban areas who mailed their ballots on election day would not have those ballots postmarked in time. The centers are in Los Angeles, Bell Gardens, San Diego, Santa Clarita, Richmond and West Sacramento, according to Bonta’s office.

The changes at the U.S. Postal Service are part of a 10-year plan that kicked off several years ago aimed at improving services and reducing costs at the independent federal agency.

In the 17 counties that are mostly or entirely within the 50-mile distance from the mail facilities, the average rate of late ballots doubled in the November 2025 election compared with the election the year before — from 2.5 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 5.6 per 1,000 in 2025.

But in counties that are entirely or mostly outside of the 50-mile radius, the average rate of late ballots quadrupled — from 2 per 1,000 ballots received in 2024 to 9.3 per 1,000 in 2025, state election records show.

Similar complaints about late ballots because of the mail changes have been reported in other states, including in Snohomish County, Wash., according to the New York Times.

The U.S. Postal Services told the Times that there are “any number of factors” that may affect the timeliness of mail.

“The Postal Service has successfully delivered America’s election mail, and we are confident that we will do so again this year,” spokesperson Nikolaj Hagen said. “We rely on long-standing, robust and tested policies and procedures, which have proven successful in the secure and timely delivery of election mail.”

Hagen added that “adjustments to our transportation operations will result in some mailpieces not arriving at our originating processing facilities on the same day that they are mailed.”

Postmarks are generally applied at those processing facilities, Hagen said, so the postmark date may not reflect the date the mail was collected by a letter carrier, dropped off at a retail location, or placed in a collection box.

While the U.S. Postal Service uses postmarking as an internal tool to track the place and date the mail was accepted, outside entities also use the postmarks for their own purposes, including the Internal Revenue Service, which requires federal tax returns to be mailed by April 15.

Several U.S. senators, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), sent a letter in January to USPS Postmaster Gen. Dave Steiner warning that changes to postmarking will make it more difficult for people, particularly those in rural areas, to vote by mail and pay tax bills on time.

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order that seeks to put new federal controls on voting by mail in states, repeating his long-held but unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots are a source of widespread fraud in U.S. elections.

The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to take control of mail balloting by designing new envelopes with special bar codes that will allow the federal government to ensure that such ballots go out only to eligible voters.

States must follow the USPS process if they plan to use the federal mail system for sending or receiving ballots. They also must submit to the USPS lists of eligible voters in advance of such ballots passing through the mail system.

Separately, the Republican National Committee is challenging a Mississippi law that allows ballots that arrive up to five days after election day to be accepted and counted. The case was argued before the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court in March.

Times staff reporter Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

MIAMI — A leading member of Congress said Wednesday he is seeking a Justice Department investigation of a Utah-based group of “tough love” schools, in which he believes the health and welfare of hundreds of American children may be in jeopardy because of “an extensive and consistent pattern of abuse.”

Rep. George Miller of the Northern California city of Martinez, the senior Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has asked Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft to investigate allegations of child abuse, human rights violations, deceptive advertising, fraud and unjust enrichment under the Internal Revenue Code at the 11 schools belonging to the World Wide Assn. of Specialty Programs and Schools, headquartered in St. George, Utah. The privately owned schools for troubled teens have facilities in the United States and overseas.

“We just continue to get reports from various organizations and individuals and media about mistreatment of children, about parents in many cases who are in very desperate situations trying to get suitable care for their children,” Miller said in a telephone interview from Washington. “They are lured into these programs with promises of care and treatment and professional standards, and then find none of this exists.”

At WWASPS schools, the congressman said, there “is a very long laundry list of abuse toward children: deprivation of food, deprivation of contact with their peers, physical abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse.” In a letter he sent Monday to Ashcroft, a copy of which was provided to The Times, Miller referred to “allegations that hundreds of children have been mistreated.”

Miller wrote: “We believe that the Department of Justice should investigate whether federal laws concerning child abuse and neglect, interstate commerce or unfair or deceptive advertising have been broken by WWASPS or those operating these facilities.” He asked Ashcroft to report in writing by Nov. 17 on what actions the government would take.

Justice Department spokesman Jorge Martinez said Wednesday evening that the department will review the letter and “determine whether any federal action is warranted.”

Interviewed after learning of Miller’s request, WWASPS President Ken Kay said no one had presented proof of wrongdoing.

“Where is the evidence?” Kay asked by telephone from St. George. “Our schools have been investigated by government officials, law enforcement, parents, educational consultants, accrediting authorities, child protective services — and there is no proof.”

Currently, 2,200 children are enrolled in the 10 WWASPS schools that are open in locations from New York state to the Caribbean island of Jamaica. “Overall, the one encapsulating term is, the schools … are in the business of saving lives,” Kay said.

In July, The Times published a story that detailed claims from parents and former students that boys and girls enrolled in the schools were subjected to brutal discipline, filthy living conditions and physical abuse by staff members who frequently lacked professional qualifications. Similar allegations were reported in the New York Times.

Last May, police in Costa Rica raided Dundee Ranch Academy, a WWASPS school, after reports that the human rights of students there were being violated. Kay said the school’s operator has voluntarily closed the facility while authorities in the Central American country conduct an investigation.

In his letter to Ashcroft, Miller said that no fewer than seven facilities affiliated with WWASPS or its marketing arm, Teen Help, had been shut since 1996 after running afoul of the law, including schools in Mexico, Utah and Western Samoa. In September, Bell Academy in Terra Bella, Calif., closed after failing to meet state licensing requirements, Miller said.

The congressman, who has long been active in children’s issues, estimated that parents pay WWASPS schools between $30,000 and $50,000 in yearly tuition and fees. “Big money is being paid for services not rendered,” Miller said. Because hundreds of minors may be at risk, he said, the government needs to intervene.

“These kids are obviously crossing state boundaries, international boundaries,” Miller said. “They [WWASPS schools] are really trafficking in these kids for profit.”

Kay responded: “If he had concerns, he could at least have had someone contact me or our schools. I checked, and none of them has any record of being contacted by him.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump is singling out the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority as a cautionary tale about Democratic mismanagement of publicly funded programs, using it to justify proposed cuts to homeless assistance services across the country.

Trump’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, released Friday, asks Congress to eliminate the Continuum of Care — a federal program that funds housing and services for homeless Americans — citing concerns about “fraud and corruption” among local agencies that administer it.

The White House points to LAHSA, which manages many homeless services for the city and county, as the example of why the program needs to go.

The agency has faced criticism locally for years for lack of proper oversight and the county is in the process of transitioning programs to an internal department.

“LAHSA has an abysmal record of reducing what is the highest number of street homeless individuals in the United States, and an independent audit issued in March 2025 found that the authority failed to accurately track billions of Federal and local dollars,” the budget says.

The local agency pushed back in a statement after the budget was released.

“Cutting this funding or destabilizing the Continuum of Care program would directly result in more tents on our streets, not fewer,” said Gita O’Neill, the agency’s interim chief executive, adding that under its leadership unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles has fallen 15% and that 90% of the program’s funding goes “directly to rental assistance.”

Local officials are already grappling with homeless service cuts at the state and county level given budget constraints and LAHSA warned Trump’s proposal would make matters worse.

“If anything, we need additional funding to cover rising costs, not fewer, to maintain our current momentum,” the agency said Friday.

The funding dispute over homelessness services is one front in a broader budget assault on California programs by the Trump administration.

Trump’s proposal also asks Congress to eliminate millions in funding from state initiatives the White House is characterizing as wasteful, ineffective or “woke.”

The cuts, if enacted, would cancel $4 billion in unspent funding for the state’s high-speed rail project, which the White house called a “boondoggle,” and strip grants from the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, which the budget criticized for “actively working to dismantle systems of power and privilege that favor whiteness.”

Smaller items are also targeted on the White House’s chopping block: a Los Angeles gelato festival, a dance building in Santa Cruz — which the White House dubs “one of the richest cities in the nation” — and a $3-million grant for a playground tied to an unspecified performing arts center in California.

Trump’s proposed cuts to California projects are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape federal spending priorities, largely by trading social programs for a massive military buildup.

The president is asking Congress to approve $1.5 trillion for defense and to slash $73 billion from domestic programs, a massive restructuring that would leave states, including California, to absorb costs Washington no longer wants to carry.

Trump made that vision explicit at a private Easter lunch at the White House on Wednesday, telling guests that the federal government should no longer be responsible for funding social programs that many Americans rely on.

“We can’t take care of daycare. We are a big country,” Trump said. “We are fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare.”

If states want to offer those services, Trump said, they should raise taxes to pay for them.

“Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis,” he said. “We have to take care of one thing: military protection.”

His proposed budget reflects that priority, which lawmakers will need to contend with as they grapple with the mounting costs of the Iran war and an economic fallout from a military operation that has left Americans paying more items, including gas pump.

Under the proposed budget, Trump is also seeking to make some investments in California projects.

The White House, for example, is seeking $152 million from Congress to turn Alcatraz back into a maximum-security prison, an idea the president has talked about for several years.

He also called on Congress to establish a National Center for Warrior Independence at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center.

Times staff writer Andrew Khouri, in Los Angeles, contributed to this report.

President Trump signed an executive order aimed at fixing college sports Friday that would give federal agencies authority to cut funding at schools that don’t comply with mandates covering transfers, eligibility and pay-for-play in the rapidly changing industry.

The order is a laundry list of proposed fixes, many of which lawmakers and college leaders have been pushing for since the approval of a $2.8 billion settlement changed the face of games that were once played by pure amateurs.

Among the notable parts of the order was a call to establish “clear, consistent and fair eligibility limits, including a five-year participation window” — an element that could fend off the dozens of lawsuits the NCAA has faced of late.

It also calls for “structured transfer rules,” but offered no specifics for a system that allows players to move around freely, sometimes in the middle of the season, which adds uncertainty to roster building that many consider unsustainable.

As much as the changes he directs, Trump’s call for the Education Department, the Federal Trade Commission and the attorney general’s office to evaluate “whether violations of such rules render a university unfit for Federal grants and contracts” stands out as a proactive way to force change.

Several universities across the country have made policy changes related to diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender rights and even the sorts of courses they teach to comply with federal orders and avoid funding-related showdowns with the government.

At a college sports roundtable last month, Trump said he anticipated any order he signed would trigger litigation. Attorney Mit Winter, who follows college sports law, agreed, saying the order “appears to direct the NCAA to create rules that would likely violate” court orders.

NCAA President Charlie Baker, however, did not signal any intent to litigate, saying Trump’s order “reinforces many of our mandatory protections — including guaranteed health care coverage, mental health services and scholarship protections.”

“This action is a significant step forward, and we appreciate the administration’s interest and attention to these issues,” Baker said. “Stabilizing college athletics for student-athletes still requires a permanent, bipartisan federal legislative solution.”

Trump, in the order, also called on Congress to “quickly pass legislation,” the likes of which has stalled multiple times.

The president’s mandate is likely to set up a situation where the NCAA and schools have to decide whether to follow a federal court order or an executive order, Winter said.

“Federal court orders prohibit the NCAA from making athletes sit out a season if they transfer more than once and prohibit the NCAA from enforcing rules that limit collectives from being involved in recruiting,” he said. “The EO appears to direct the NCAA to create rules that would likely violate both of these court orders. Will the NCAA create rules that do that? And if they do, will schools follow them?

“Either way, we’re likely going to see litigation challenging the EO by athletes and third parties.”

Winter added that the order also appears to urge schools to pay new revenue share amounts.

“Most schools are paying 90-95% of their rev-share funds to men’s basketball and football players,” he said. “And those funds are already promised via contracts signed with those athletes. Will the order purport to make schools not adhere to those contracts?”

Long and Pells write for the Associated Press. AP writer Maura Carey contributed.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is requesting $152 million from Congress to begin “rebuilding” the prison on Alcatraz Island for operational use, though his administration appears to have taken few steps toward advancing the project.

The request, in the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027, resurrects Trump’s attention-grabbing concept of converting the crumbling site — which has stood as a piece of history for more than 60 years — into a working federal prison.

But the Bureau of Prisons on Friday said it had no new information to share about the potential project and no updates about whether assessments that the agency had said it launched last year had been completed.

A spokesperson said the bureau was “moving forward, evaluating, and formulating the actions necessary” and pointed to to a May 2025 statement from bureau director William K. Marshall pledging to “vigorously pursue all avenues to support and implement the President’s agenda.”

The funding request was included in Trump’s budget proposal, which provides Congress with a look at the administration’s priorities ahead of the next fiscal year. Congress makes the ultimate funding decisions for the government.

Creating a working prison on the San Francisco Bay island would be extremely costly, the administration’s critics say, and would raise questions about its fate as a historic site that draws more than a million tourists a year.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Friday she would attempt to block Trump’s proposal in Congress by any means possible, calling it “a stupid notion that would be nothing more than a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

“Alcatraz is a historic museum that belongs to the public, and San Franciscans will not stand for Washington turning one of our most iconic landmarks into a political prop,” she said in a statement.

The $152-million request is for only the first year of the project’s costs. How long the project could take or what the total cost could be are not clear. The budget proposal described the project as a “state-of-the-art secure prison facility.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

“It represents something very strong, very powerful, in terms of law and order,” Trump told reporters last year. “It housed the most violent criminals in the world. … It sort of represents something that’s both horrible and beautiful, strong, and miserable.”

He characterized the historic site as “rusting and rotting.”

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington), vice chair of the Senate appropriations committee, said Trump would waste taxpayer money on Alcatraz “while ignoring billions of dollars in repair-backlog needs for existing” federal prisons.

The government opened the federal penitentiary on Alcatraz in 1934, hoping to use the remote island to house particularly difficult prisoners, according to the National Park Service. Its cells held infamous criminals such as Al Capone, and several unsuccessful escape attempts captured public imagination.

The prison was closed in 1963 after becoming too costly to run. A group of Native American activists occupied the land during a period between 1969 and 1971, and in 1972, Alcatraz became a national recreation area under National Park Service management. It opened to the public as a national park attraction the following year and was later designated a National Historic Landmark.

Trump, who has pushed to round up criminals and pursued plans to open new detention centers in his second term, floated the Alcatraz idea last year, saying he wanted to send “America’s most ruthless and violent Offenders” there.

He directed the Bureau of Prisons to take up the task. In July, then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum visited the island.

“Alcatraz could hold the worst of the worst, it could hold middle-class violent prisoners, it could hold illegal aliens,” Bondi told Fox News during the visit. “This is a terrific facility; it needs a lot of work, but no one has been known to escape from Alcatraz and survive.”

The Bureau of Prisons said at the time that no final decision had been made as to whether to use the site, but that the agency would determine whether “it makes sense operationally, legally, and financially.”

The bureau said then that was working on a cost estimate and feasibility report to present to Congress following a site assessment with the National Park Service and work by engineers and planners on potential budgets and models.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Friday opening Alcatraz would be “prohibitively expensive” for the federal government to undertake. He has previously characterized the concept as part of an attack by the Trump administration on national parks.

“Trump’s continued push to reopen it as a federal prison is a wasteful exercise in futility,” Schiff said. “He should focus on lowering the cost of living for the American people, not raising the cost of our prisons.”

WASHINGTON — A crew member was rescued after an American aircraft went down Friday in Iran, the Associated Press reported, citing U.S. and Israeli officials.

U.S. forces launched a rescue mission in southwestern Iran after at least one American crew member ejected from a fighter jet downed by Iranian defenses, according to a U.S. official and news outlets.

The downing of the jet, an F-15E, was confirmed to The Times by a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. That type of jet reportedly carries a standard crew of two, but it was not clear if more than one crew member ejected.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has maintained for weeks that the U.S. has “complete, uncontested control of Iranian airspace” after destroying the country’s air defenses.

“Iran has no air defenses, Iran has no air force,” he said at a March 13 Pentagon news conference. “Today, as we speak, we fly over the top of Iran and Tehran, fighters and bombers all day, picking targets as they choose, as our intelligence gets better and better and more refined.”

But the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that a new type of Iranian air defense system deployed for the first time in recent days had shot down a warplane on Friday.

The statements stirred a flurry of conflicting instructions from Iranian state-affiliated broadcasters. One local television channel initially encouraged viewers to search for the downed pilot and “shoot them as soon as you see them.”

It then changed the instructions, according to the Associated Press, after local police issued a statement asking the public to capture and turn in American pilots alive to security agencies to “receive a precious prize.”

On social media, Iranian accounts posted videos purporting to show helicopters searching for downed pilots in Iran’s western and southern provinces, according to a report from Fars News.

Fars also reported officials in Iran’s southwest were offering a “valuable reward” to anyone “who captures the American pilot alive.”

Images of a tail section posted on social media had markings indicating it was from the 48th Fighter Wing, which is based at RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, according to Peter Layton, a visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute in Australia, in an interview with NBC News.

U.S. and Israel escalate attacks on infrastructure

The development came as U.S. and Israeli forces escalated attacks on civilian sites and key infrastructure across Iran Friday, including strikes on residential buildings, health centers and Iran’s largest bridge, with President Trump warning that the U.S. “hasn’t even started destroying what’s left in Iran.”

On his social media, the president posted dramatic images of the smoldering B1 bridge, a towering cable-suspended viaduct that was severed in U.S.-Israel strikes late Thursday.

“The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again — Much more to follow!” Trump wrote.

Connecting Tehran to the city of Karaj, the $400-million bridge was Iran’s largest, and was often regarded as one of the most prominent, expensive and complex engineering endeavors in the Middle East.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei labeled the attack a “war crime in the style of ISIS terrorism.” Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi called the act a sign of moral collapse by “an enemy in disarray,” stating that such actions will not compel Iranians to surrender.

“Every bridge and building will be built back stronger. What will never recover: damage to America’s standing.”

The attacks come after Trump announced what he described as a two- to three-day “off-ramp” from hostilities, while simultaneously warning he would bring Iran “back to the Stone Ages” if it didn’t cede to U.S. demands.

Reports from Iranian state media and international monitoring groups indicate strikes have also hit homes, religious centers, universities and municipal infrastructure across multiple provinces, raising concerns among humanitarian organizations about the widening scope of targets.

World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Friday that the U.S. and Israel have carried out routine attacks on Iranian healthcare facilities since March 1.

“WHO has verified over 20 attacks on health care in Iran, resulting in at least nine deaths, including that of an infectious diseases health worker and a member of the Iranian Red Crescent Society,” Tedros wrote on X.

Iran’s health ministry estimated about 2,076 people have been killed and 26,500 wounded by U.S.-Israeli attacks since fighting broke out Feb. 28. An estimated 1,300 have been killed in Lebanon, according to its health ministry, while more than two dozen people have died in Gulf states and the occupied West Bank.

Thirteen U.S. service members have been killed, and 19 Israeli service members have been reported dead in a five-week-old war that has triggered growing unease stateside.

A recent Pew Research Center survey conducted in late March found that most Americans opposed direct U.S. military involvement in a war with Iran. A separate Gallup poll reported declining approval for the administration’s handling of foreign policy.

Lawmakers in both parties have raised concerns about Israel’s influence in the Trump administration’s decision to enter a lengthy conflict, stoking debates over military aid and executive war powers.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that she plans to oppose future military aid to Israel, including for its Iron Dome defense systems. She argued that the Israeli government recently funded a $45-billion defense budget and is “well able” to bankroll its war without U.S. help.

“I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. law,” she said on X.

Iran hit desalination plant and oil refinery

Iran returned fire, again aiming at infrastructure targets operated by its Gulf neighbors. A series of airstrikes set Kuwait’s Mina al-Ahmadi oil refinery on fire, the Associated Press reported, as Kuwaiti firefighters were working to knock down several blazes there.

Kuwait also reported that an Iranian attack significantly damaged a desalination plant, which supplies drinking water to the region.

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Israel all scrambled to intercept incoming Iranian missiles Friday, according to reports, despite the Pentagon’s assurances that Iran’s military facilities and missile capacity have been largely wiped out.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates shut down a gas field after a missile interception reportedly rained debris on it and started a fire, the Associated Press reported.

The war has pushed Iran to tighten its grip over the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring 50%, upending stock markets, and stirring supply chain disruptions that threaten to destabilize global food markets.

Americans felt the oil rally again this week, after Trump’s Wednesday address dashed investors’ hopes of a swift end to the conflict, sending U.S. crude prices up 11% Thursday and another half point on Friday.

The Afghan man had fled the Taliban for refuge in upstate New York when U.S. immigration authorities ordered him deported to Uganda. The Cuban woman was working at a Texas Chick-fil-A when she was arrested after a minor traffic accident and told she was being sent to Ecuador.

There’s the Mauritanian man living in Michigan told he’d have to go to Uganda, the Venezuelan mother in Ohio told she’d be sent to Ecuador and the Bolivians, Ecuadorians and so many others across the country ordered sent to Honduras.

They are among more than 13,000 immigrants who were living legally in the U.S., waiting for rulings on asylum claims, when they suddenly faced so-called third-country deportation orders, destined for countries where most had no ties, according to the nonprofit group Mobile Pathways, which pushes for transparency in immigration proceedings.

Yet few have been deported, even as the White House pushes for ever more immigrant expulsions. Thanks to unexplained changes in U.S. policy, many are now mired in immigration limbo, unable to argue their asylum claims in court and unsure if they’ll be shackled and put on a deportation flight to a country they’ve never seen.

Some are in detention, though it’s unclear how many. All have lost permission to work legally, a right most had while pursuing their asylum claims, compounding the worry and dread that has rippled through immigrant communities.

And that may be the point.

“This administration’s goal is to instill fear into people. That’s the primary thing,” said Cassandra Charles, a senior staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which has been fighting the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda. The fear of being deported to an unknown country could, advocates believe, drive migrants to abandon their immigration cases and decide to return to their home countries.

Things may be changing.

In mid-March, top Immigration and Customs Enforcement legal officials told field attorneys with the Department of Homeland Security in an email to stop filing new motions for third-country deportations tied to asylum cases. The email, which has been seen by the Associated Press, did not give a reason. It has not been publicly released, and Homeland Security did not respond to requests to explain if the halt was permanent.

But the earlier deportation cases? Those are continuing.

An asylum seeker says she’s in panic over possibly being sent to a country she doesn’t know

In 2024, a Guatemalan woman who says she had been held captive and repeatedly sexually assaulted by members of a powerful gang arrived with her 4-year-old daughter at the U.S.-Mexico border and asked for asylum. She later discovered she was pregnant with another child, conceived during a rape.

In December, she sat in a San Francisco immigration courtroom and listened as an ICE attorney sought to have her deported.

The ICE attorney didn’t ask the judge that she be sent back to Guatemala. Instead, the attorney said, the woman from the Indigenous Guatemalan highlands would go to one of three countries: Ecuador, Honduras or across the globe to Uganda.

Until that moment, she’d never heard of Ecuador or Uganda.

“When I arrived in this country, I was filled with hope again and I thanked God for being alive,” the woman said after the hearing, her eyes filling with tears. “When I think about having to go to those other countries, I panic because I hear they are violent and dangerous.” She spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing reprisal from U.S. immigration authorities or the Guatemalan gang network.

There have been more than 13,000 removal orders for asylum seekers

ICE attorneys, the de facto prosecutors in immigration courts, were first instructed last summer to file motions known as “pretermissions” that end migrants’ asylum claims and allow them to be deported.

“They’re not saying the person doesn’t have a claim,” said Sarah Mehta, who tracks immigration issues at the American Civil Liberties Union. “They’re just saying, ‘We’re kicking this case completely out of court and we’re going to send that person to another country.’”

The pace of deportation orders picked up in October after a ruling from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, which sets legal precedent inside the byzantine immigration court system.

The ruling from the three judges — two appointed by former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and the third a holdover from the first Trump administration — cleared the way for migrants seeking asylum to be removed to any third country where the U.S. State Department determines they won’t face persecution or torture.

After the ruling, the government aggressively expanded the practice of ending asylum claims.

More than 13,000 migrants have been ordered deported to so-called “safe third countries” after their asylum cases were canceled, according to data from San Francisco-based Mobile Pathways. More than half the orders were for Honduras, Ecuador or Uganda, with the rest scattered among nearly three dozen other countries.

Deported migrants are free, at least theoretically, to pursue asylum and stay in those third countries, even if some have barely functioning asylum systems.

Deportations have been far more complicated than the government expected

Immigration authorities have released little information about the third-country agreements, known as Asylum Cooperative Agreements, or the deportees, and it’s unclear exactly how many have been deported to third countries as part of asylum removals.

According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the groups Refugees International and Human Rights First, fewer than 100 of them are thought to have been deported.

In a statement, Homeland Security called the agreements “lawful bilateral arrangements that allow illegal aliens seeking asylum in the United States to pursue protection in a partner country that has agreed to fairly adjudicate their claims.”

“DHS is using every lawful tool available to address the backlog and abuse of the asylum system,” said the statement, which was attributed only to a spokesperson. There are roughly 2 million backlogged asylum cases in the immigration system.

But deportations clearly turned out to be far more complicated than the government expected, restricted by a variety of legal challenges, the scope of the international agreements and a limited number of airplanes.

Mobile Pathways data, for example, shows that thousands of people have been ordered deported to Honduras — despite a diplomatic agreement that allows the country to take a total of just 10 such deportees per month for 24 months. Dozens of people ordered to Honduras in recent months did not speak Spanish as their primary language, but were native speakers of English, Uzbek and French, among other languages.

And while hundreds of asylum-seeking migrants have been ordered sent to Uganda, a top Ugandan official said none have arrived. U.S. authorities may be “doing a cost analysis” and trying to avoid dispatching flights with only a few people on board, Okello Oryem, the Ugandan minister of state for foreign affairs, told the Associated Press.

“You can’t be doing one, two people” at a time,” Oryem said. “Planeloads — that is the most effective way.”

Many immigration lawyers suspect that the March email ordering a halt in new asylum pretermissions could indicate a shift toward other forms of third-country deportations.

“Right now they haven’t been able to remove that many people,” said the ACLU’s Mehta. “I do think that will change.”

“They’re in a hiring spree right now. They will have more planes. If they get more agreements, they’ll be able to send more people to more countries.”

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Garance Burke in San Francisco, Joshua Goodman in Miami, Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda, Marlon González in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, and Molly A. Wallace in Chicago contributed to this report.

ATLANTA — The Georgia General Assembly ended its annual session early Friday without a plan for new equipment to overhaul the state’s voting system by a July deadline, plunging into doubt the future of elections in the political battleground.

The lawmakers’ failure to offer a solution after months of debate raises uncertainty about how Georgians will vote in November and leaves confusion that could end in the courts or a special legislative session.

“They’ve abdicated their responsibility,” Democratic state Rep. Saira Draper said of inaction by Republicans who control the legislature.

Currently, voters make their choices on Dominion Voting machines, which then print ballots with a QR code that scanners read to tally votes. Those machines have been repeatedly targeted by President Trump following his 2020 election loss, and Trump’s Georgia supporters responded by enacting a law in 2024 that bans using barcodes to count votes.

But state law still requires counties to use the machines. No money has been allocated to reprogram them, and lawmakers failed to agree on a replacement.

“We’ll have an unresolvable statutory conflict come July 1,” said House Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Victor Anderson, a Cornelia Republican who backed a proposal to keep using the machines in 2026 that Senate Republicans declined to consider.

House Republicans and Democrats backed Anderson’s plan, which would have required that Georgia choose a voting process that didn’t use QR codes by 2028. Election officials preferred that solution.

“The Senate has shown that they’re not responsible actors,” Draper said. She added that Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a Trump-endorsed Republican running for governor, seemed more interested in keeping Trump’s backing than “doing right by Georgia voters.”

A spokesperson for Jones didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment early Friday.

Joseph Kirk, Bartow County election supervisor and president of the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, said he’ll look to the secretary of state for guidance and assumes a judge will rule to instruct election officials how to proceed.

“This is uncharted territory,” he said.

Robert Sinners, a spokesperson for Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is also running for governor, said officials are “ready to follow the law and follow the Constitution.”

Republican House Speaker Jon Burns told reporters that his chamber was seeking to minimize changes this year.

“You can’t change horses in the middle of the stream,” Burns said.

Burns said he would meet with Gov. Brian Kemp and “take his temperature” on the possibility of a special session. A spokesperson for Kemp didn’t answer questions about what the outgoing Republican governor would do.

Anderson said without action, the state could be required to use hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots in November.

Election officials say switching to a new system within just a few months, as advocated by some Republicans, would be nearly impossible.

“They made no way for this to happen except putting a deadline on it,” Cherokee County elections director Anne Dover said of the switch away from barcodes. Dover said one problem under some plans is that a very large number of ballots would have to be printed.

Lawmakers seemed more concerned about scoring political points than making practical plans, Paulding County Election Supervisor Deidre Holden said.

“If anyone is resilient and can get the job done, it’s all of us election officials, but the legislators need to work with us, and they need to understand what we do before they go making laws that are basically unachievable for us,” Holden said.

Supporters of hand-marked paper ballots say voters are more likely to trust in an accurate count if they can see what gets read by the scanner.

Right-wing election activists lobbied lawmakers for an immediate switch to hand-marked paper ballots, but the House turned away from a Senate proposal to do so.

Anderson said he wasn’t sure if a special session could escape those political crosswinds, but said Georgia lawmakers must fix the problem.

“This is a legislative problem,” Anderson said. “It’s a legislative solution that has to happen.”

Kramon and Amy write for the Associated Press.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Governors in Florida and Mississippi signed into law measures that require officials to verify the citizenship of voters, just as similar legislation being pushed by President Trump has stalled in Congress.

The law signed Wednesday by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was immediately challenged in court by civil rights organizations that said it will make it harder for Floridians to vote.

The citizenship provision of the law goes into effect Jan. 1. It requires voters to provide a birth certificate, passport or naturalization certificate as proof of citizenship if their eligibility to vote is challenged by government officials through cross-referencing voter registration applications with motor vehicle records.

“Many eligible voters do not have these documents and cannot obtain them for a variety of reasons — including because they were born without a birth certificate in the segregated South, because their documents were destroyed in a hurricane, or because they cannot afford the hundreds of dollars it costs to replace them,” the civil rights groups said in a lawsuit filed in federal court in South Florida.

The voting legislation being pushed aggressively by Trump in Congress would mandate that people provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, such as a U.S. passport, citizen naturalization certificate or a combination of a birth certificate and government-issued photo identification. It passed the House but was stalled in the Senate before lawmakers took a spring recess.

Under the Florida law, credit cards, student IDs and retirement community identifications can no longer be used as IDs when voting, and the citizenship status of a driver must be reflected on driver’s licenses starting in July 2027.

DeSantis said the law improves the security and transparency of Florida’s election system.

“In Florida, we will always stand up for election integrity,” the Republican governor said.

The new Mississippi law signed Wednesday requires local officials registering people to vote to run additional citizenship checks if applicants don’t have or can’t provide driver’s license numbers on their voter application. The law, which takes effect July 1, also requires the secretary of state to run annual checks of the voter rolls against an online database from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to flag any potential noncitizens who could be asked to provide proof of their eligibility.

“This is another win for election integrity in Mississippi [and America],” Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, said in a social media post. “We will continue to do everything in our power to make it infinitely harder — with a goal to make it impossible — to cheat in our elections!”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has said that the law could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Mississippians who don’t have a passport, lack a birth certificate or whose last names don’t match their birth certificates because of name changes due to marriage.

Four Republican-led states — Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah — have enacted laws this year to strengthen proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters. In Michigan, supporters of voter citizenship documentation have submitted 750,000 petition signatures in a bid to get a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

The Republican-led Kansas Legislature also has passed legislation, though it still must go before the Democratic governor. Gov. Laura Kelly has until next week to decide whether she’ll sign the bill and hasn’t said publicly what she will do, though she has regularly vetoed past GOP-election bills. Supporters would need a two-thirds majority to override a veto — and thanks to Republican dissenters, the bill appeared to be a few votes short of that in the House.

Any efforts in Kansas to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote are shadowed by one of the state’s biggest political fiascos in recent memory — a requirement imposed in 2013 that people registering to vote in the state for the first time provide documentation of their U.S. citizenship.

That law ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote, or 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn’t been enforced since 2018.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press. AP writers David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Pam Bondi is out of her job after failing to deliver criminal cases against President Trump’s political enemies.

But there’s no guarantee her successor will have any better success at placating the president.

Over the last year, Bondi’s Justice Department has encountered resistance from judges, grand jurors and its own workforce in trying to establish criminal conduct by one Trump foe after another. A new attorney general will confront not only Trump’s demand for political prosecutions — a constant dating back to his first term in the White House — but also the same skeptical court system, and factual and legal hurdles, that have impeded efforts to deliver the sought-after results.

“At the end of the day, it’s not like there were some magic steps that Pam Bondi could have taken to make bad cases look good to grand juries or judges,” Peter Keisler, a former acting attorney general in President George W. Bush’s administration, said in an email. “The problem is that the president is demanding that prosecutions be brought when there’s no evidence and no valid legal theory. A new Attorney General won’t change that.”

Bondi was just the latest Trump attorney general pressed to meet the president’s demands of loyalty and desire for retribution. Trump in his first term called for Jeff Sessions to investigate Democrat Hillary Clinton and ultimately pushed him out over his recusal from the Russia election interference investigation. He berated another attorney general, William Barr, over Barr’s refusal to back his false claims of election fraud in the 2020 contest. Barr resigned soon after.

Bondi arrived at the Justice Department 14 months ago seemingly determined to remain in Trump’s good graces unlike her predecessors had, heaping praise on him, offering unflinching support and embarking on investigations into Democrats and the president’s adversaries — even amid concerns from career prosecutors about the sufficiency of evidence.

Days after Trump implored Bondi via social media last September to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, the Justice Department did just that, securing indictments in Virginia.

But the win was short-lived: a judge weeks later dismissed the cases after finding that the prosecutor who filed them, Lindsey Halligan, was illegally appointed. Grand juries have since refused to bring new mortgage fraud charges against James and the Comey case is mired in a thorny evidentiary dispute and statute of limitations concerns. Both Comey and James have vigorously denied any wrongdoing and called the cases against them politically motivated.

Since then, a federal grand jury in Washington refused to return an indictment against Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video in which they urged U.S. military members to resist “illegal orders.” And a federal judge has quashed Justice Department subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve as part of an investigation into testimony last June by Chair Jerome Powell about a $2.5 billion building renovation.

The judge, James Boasberg, said that the government has “produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime” and called its justifications for the subpoenas a “thin and unsubstantiated” pretext to force Powell to cut interest rates. A prosecutor on the case subsequently conceded in court that the investigation had not found evidence of a crime.

An additional investigation into a Trump enemy remains underway with prosecutors in Florida scrutinizing former CIA Director John Brennan over testimony to Congress related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. That investigation has been open for months, but has not produced charges and it’s not clear that it will. Brennan’s lawyers have similarly called the investigation baseless.

One high-profile Trump critic who could face trial in the years ahead is his former national security adviser, John Bolton, though the investigation that produced that indictment and examined Bolton’s handling of classified documents began before Trump took office.

For now, the Justice Department will be led by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who has a longstanding relationship with Trump after having served as one of his personal lawyers. Several people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday that Lee Zeldin, a Trump loyalist and head of the Environmental Protection Agency, has been privately mentioned by Trump as a possible pick.

Whoever holds the job in the long term will almost certainly be expected to carry out Trump’s retribution campaign with more success, said Jimmy Gurule, a former Justice Department official and law professor at Notre Dame. Blanche appeared to acknowledge as much in a Thursday evening interview with Fox News, saying “I think the president is frustrated, everybody is frustrated ” and that “what we saw happen for the past four years is unforgivable and can never happen again.”

“If she was fired because Trump did not think that she was moving quickly enough in bringing criminal cases against his political enemies, then you would expect that the person that would replace her would probably agree to escalate those efforts,” Gurule said.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — This is not the run up to the midterm elections that Republicans wanted.

A year and a half after winning the White House by promising to lower costs and end wars, Donald Trump is a wartime president overseeing surging energy costs and an escalating overseas conflict that many in his own party do not like.

He offered little clarity to a nation eager for answers this week during a prime-time address from the White House, his first since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran more than a month ago, simultaneously suggesting that the war was ending and expanding.

“Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly,” Trump said. “We’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks.”

Trump’s comments come roughly six months before voters across the nation begin to cast ballots in elections that will decide control of Congress and key governorships for Trump’s final two years in office. For now, Republicans, who control all branches of government in Washington, are bracing for a painful political backlash.

“You’re looking at an ugly November,” warned veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “At a point in time when we need every break possible to hold the House and Senate, our edge is being chipped away.”

Republicans confront evolving political landscape

It’s hard to overstate how dramatically the political landscape has shifted.

At this time last year, many Republican leaders believed there was a path to preserve their narrow House majority and easily hold the Senate. Now they privately concede that the House is all but lost and Democrats have a realistic shot at taking the Senate.

Republicans are also struggling to coalesce around a clear midterm message on Iran.

The Republican National Committee has largely avoided the war in talking points issued to surrogates over the last month. The leaders of the party’s campaign committees responsible for the House and Senate declined interview requests. Many vulnerable Republican candidates sidestep the issue, unwilling to defend or challenge Trump publicly.

The president remains deeply popular with Republican voters, and he has vocal supporters like Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“That was the best speech I could’ve hoped for,” he wrote on social media after Trump’s address on Wednesday evening. Graham said Trump “gave the American people a clear and coherent pathway forward.”

Trump made little effort to sell the conflict to Americans before the initial attack. Five weeks later, at least 13 U.S. service members have been killed and hundreds more injured. Thousands more troops have converged on the region, and the Pentagon requested $200 billion in new funding.

The Strait of Hormuz, a key passage for a fifth of the world’s oil, remains closed. The average price for a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. was $4.08 on Thursday, according to AAA, almost a full dollar higher than on President Joe Biden’s last day in office.

On Wednesday, Trump insisted that gas prices would fall quickly once the war concluded but offered no solution for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, he invited skeptical U.S. allies to do it themselves.

He insisted that the war would be worth it.

“This is a true investment in your grandchildren and your grandchildren’s future,” Trump said. “When it’s all over, the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before.”

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican who was once among Trump’s most vocal allies in Congress, lashed out against his Iran policy.

“I wanted so much for President Trump to put America First. That’s what I believed he would do. All I heard from his speech tonight was WAR WAR WAR,” she wrote on social media. “Nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans.”

Time is not on Trump’s side

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults say the U.S. military action in Iran has “gone too far,” according to AP-NORC polling from March. Roughly a third approve of how he’s handling Iran overall.

The possibility of sending U.S. forces into Iran also appears politically unpalatable.

About 6 in 10 adults are “strongly” or “somewhat” opposed to deploying U.S. troops on the ground to fight Iran. That includes about half of Republicans. Only about 1 in 10 favor deploying troops.

At the same time, Trump’s approval ratings have remained consistently weak. About 4 in 10 Americans approve of how he’s handling the presidency, roughly in line with how it’s been throughout his second term.

Republican strategist Ari Fleischer, a senior aide in former President George W. Bush’s administration, acknowledged that Trump has not received the polling bump in this war that Bush got after invading Iraq.

Bush, of course, worked to build public backing for the Iraq War before going in. Immediately after the 2003 invasion, Bush’s popularity soared, as did the stock market.

Public sentiment and the economy soured only after the conflict stretched on. It ultimately spanned more than eight years, spawning a generation of anti-war Republicans — and sowing the seeds of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.

“My hope is that the Trump experience is the exact opposite of the Bush experience,” Fleischer said.

He said Trump must win the war decisively and quickly to avoid a further backlash, saying there could be a “very significant political upside if things end well, oil comes down and markets rally.”

Fleischer added that Trump’s actions will matter much more than his words.

“Ultimately, he is not going to get judged on his persuasion or his explanations or his assertions, he’s going to get judged on results,” he said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

The sizable increase for the Pentagon had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president’s plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10% by shifting some responsibilities to state and local governments.

“President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength,” the budget said.

The president’s annual budget is considered a reflection of the administration’s values and does not carry the force of law. The massive document typically highlights an administration’s priorities, but Congress, which handles federal spending issues, is free to reject it and often does.

This year’s White House document, prepared by Budget Director Russ Vought, is intended to provide a road map from the president to Congress as lawmakers build their own budgets and annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded. Vought spoke to House GOP lawmakers on a private call Thursday.

Trump, speaking ahead of an address to the nation this week about the Iran war, signaled the military is his priority, setting up a clash ahead in Congress.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,” he said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

Immigration enforcement, air traffic controllers and national parks

Among the budget priorities the White House called for:

-Supporting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and deportation operations by eliminating refugee resettlement aid programs, maintaining Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds at current year levels and drawing on last’s year’s increases for the Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

— A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice, which the White House said would be focused on violent criminals.

— A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for beautification projects in Washington, D.C..

— A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

About two-thirds of the nation’s estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

The rest of the annual budget has typically been more evenly split between defense and domestic accounts, nearly $1 trillion each, which is where much of the debate in Congress takes place.

The GOP’s big tax breaks bill that Trump signed into law last year boosted his priorities beyond the budget process — with at least $150 billion for the Pentagon over the next several years, and $170 billion for Trump’s immigration and deportation operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to again push the president’s priorities, particularly the Defense Department spending, through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year.

It suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would come through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

Congress still fighting over 2026 spending

The president’s budget arrives as the House and Senate remain tangled over current-year spending and stalemated over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding changes to Trump’s immigration enforcement regime that Republicans are unwilling to accept.

Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 49 days. The Republican leadership in Congress reached an agreement this week on a path forward to fund the department, but lawmakers are away on spring break and have not yet voted on any new legislation.

Last year, in the president’s first budget since returning to the White House, Trump sought to fulfill his promise to vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reflecting the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

As DOGE slashed through federal offices and Vought sought to claw back funds, Congress did not always agree.

For example, Trump sought a roughly one-fifth decrease in non-defense spending for the current budget year ending Sept. 30, but Congress kept such spending relatively flat.

Some of the programs that Trump tried to eliminate entirely, such as assisting families with their energy costs, got a slight uptick in funding. Others got flat funding, such as the Community Development Block Grants that states and local communities use to fund an array of projects intended mostly to help low-income communities through new parks, sewer systems and affordable housing.

Lawmakers have also focused on ensuring the administration spends federal dollars as directed by Congress. This year’s spending bills contained what Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described as “hundreds upon hundreds of specific funding levels and directives” that the administration is required to follow.

Mascaro and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Bill Barrow in Atlanta contributed to this report.

ALBANY, N.Y. — Gov. Mario Cuomo vetoed a bill today that would have given New York companies powerful new defenses against corporate raiders, saying the measure was too far-reaching and might be unconstitutional.

Assemblyman G. Oliver Kopell, a chief sponsor of the legislation, said he would make no effort to round up a two-thirds majority in the Assembly to override the governor’s veto. The corporate takeover bill was designed to cover companies incorporated in New York with at least 15% of their stock owned by New Yorkers and with significant ties to New York.

Thanks in large part to President Trump’s disastrous policies, Democrats have a decent shot at not just retaking the House, but maybe even flipping the Senate.

Here’s the thing to know: Midterms are a referendum on the incumbent president. And this is especially true when the president is Donald Trump, who dominates every news cycle. He creates weather. He is, in short, always the issue.

But what happens when Trump is gone? What happens when Democrats have to defend their record of leadership? What happens when the referendum is on them?

Even now — as Dems appear to be surging — polling suggests that fewer than 40% of Americans view the Democratic Party favorably. That’s not exactly a mandate.

Yes, voters might choose Democrats as the lesser of two evils this November, but that doesn’t mean Americans are out there buying Democratic foam fingers. Not yet, anyway.

It also doesn’t mean Democrats are technically competent. As I type this, the Republican National Committee currently has a 7-to-1 money advantage over Democrats.

While Dems might win in 2026 in spite of all of their problems, a false sense of security would not bode well for 2028 — and beyond.

In fact, “beyond” starts to look structurally challenging, with things like the 2030 census and potential changes to voting laws threatening to rearrange the electoral map in ways Democrats will not enjoy.

But before we spiral into a dystopian future, let’s focus on the single most important decision Democrats will make: their 2028 presidential nominee. I’m not saying issues don’t matter. They do. But candidates function as shorthand for those policies.

That’s how politics works now: less like a detailed policy seminar, and more like a series of vibes that overwhelm us on our iPhones.

The next Democratic nominee will redefine what their party stands for. This one choice could spell defeat or a stunning victory that ushers in a political reordering.

Part of the challenge is that Trump has scrambled traditional political categories. He has borrowed selectively from modern Democratic economic policy preferences — tariffs, skepticism of free trade — while discarding unpopular ideas like entitlement reform and parts of the old Republican moral framework.

The next Democratic nominee will have to scramble things, too.

This isn’t a call for them to “move to the center” or “radicalize to the left.” Scrambling isn’t a linear project.

Let’s start with the premise that Democrats cannot afford to be outflanked on populism again. That already happened once, and it was not their finest hour.

Economic inequality is rising, and artificial intelligence threatens to widen that gap while disrupting millions of jobs. Meanwhile, the tech billionaires (who will profit handsomely from AI) are all lining up behind MAGA.

Putting these tech bros on the ballot should be a no-brainer.

Likewise, young people who were wooed in part by Trump’s “no new wars” promise are suddenly disenchanted.

Democrats should capitalize by nominating a candidate who can credibly promise “no stupid wars.”

In 2024, Trump capitalized on areas where progressives became out of step with mainstream values on cultural issues. Here, Democrats face a different challenge: realigning with mainstream public opinion without sounding inauthentic or uncompassionate.

Let’s take the issue of immigration. Democrats can vehemently oppose the ICE raids while also promising to keep most of Trump’s border policies in place.

Consider the recent comments of Texas Democrat James Talarico, the Senate nominee who recently criticized outside advocacy groups that convinced the Biden administration “that it was racist to support border security.” He added: “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

But that’s not the only issue that has proven to be devastating for Dems. As Thomas B. Edsall recently wrote in the New York Times, “The trans issue clearly weakened Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, leaving her open to devastating pro-Trump ads.”

Here, a future Democratic nominee might simply say, “What adults do is none of our business, but I am not going to support taxpayer funding of ‘gender-affirming surgery’ — or the use of irreversible treatments or procedures for kids, or trans women competing in women’s sports.”

This statement might not sit well with some progressives, but it would decidedly be on the side of public opinion (three-quarters of adults say trans women shouldn’t be allowed to play female sports).

Don’t hold your breath waiting for Dems to take my advice in the 2028 presidential race — especially if they have a great midterm election night.

Indeed, Ruy Teixeira, a political scientist who has warned Democrats that they have shifted too far to the left, recently lamented that “the desire for change seems to be hovering around zero, as more and more Democrats have convinced themselves that their problems have essentially been solved.”

The path forward is not especially mysterious, but it is very difficult.

In the short term, Democrats can probably ride the blue wave. But in the long term, they need a standard bearer who can synthesize economic populism with mainstream American cultural credibility.

The future may rest on whether that political savior ever arrives.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

You know the political silly season is upon us when campaigns start to make fools of themselves trying to court Latino voters.

In the Los Angeles mayoral race, that moment kicked off last week.

On Friday, a social media account called Latinos Por Pratt released an AI-animated music video praising the mayoral candidate and former reality television star Spencer Pratt. It starts with a fit, sunglasses-wearing Pratt rolling a trash bin brimming with detritus and Mayor Karen Bass past a crowd of cheering Angelenos. The Hollywood sign looms in the background as the title “Spencer, Saca La Bassura” flashes on the screen — Spencer, Take Out Trashy Karen, with “Bassura” a play on the mayor’s last name and the Spanish word for “trash.”

Cut to scenes of Bass playing tourist on her infamous trip to Ghana while the Palisades burn. Splice in Pratt dancing with his wife, Heidi Montag, onstage at a street party where onlookers wave a Mexican and a U.S. flag. And because L.A.’s Latino majority is overwhelmingly of Mexican descent, the thing was anchored by a peppy accordion, dramatic guitar plucks and a bold tuba, right? Right?

Uh, no.

Lyrics such as “Latinos for Pratt we’re singing / Because we’re tired of this dirty beat” play over brassy salsa rhythms that are more Miami and Cuban than L.A., where Latinos are mostly of Mexican and Central American heritage and the soundtrack of the city — corridos tumbados, cumbias, Latin rock and pop — reflect that.

That didn’t stop clueless, mostly non-Latino Pratt fanboys and fangirls from going gaga over it online. Nor did it stop Bass from joining in the we-need-Latino-voters fiesta.

Soon after the video was released, a group called Latinos Con Bass brought out big-name speakers to Plaza de la Raza in Lincoln Heights — state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights head Angélica Salas, Service Employees International Union California President David Huerta — so they could pledge support for the incumbent with all the dutifulness of doctors reminding people to take their flu shot. Bass greeted the crowd with a peppy “¡Sí se puede!” — the standard Latino politico rallying cry for decades but one that’s not so kosher right now given its association with César Chávez, the legendary labor leader whom a New York Times investigation recently revealed to have sexually assaulted teenage girls.

Latinos Con Bass came off as a bunch of establishment types sticking up for one of their own instead of anything organic. But at least we know the track record of those involved. Latinos Por Pratt seems to be just one guy: Adrian E. Alvarez, a Cuban American whose online profile says he splits his time between the Miami area and L.A. If the lawyer by trade — who didn’t respond to numerous requests for comment — was really serious about winning Latino votes for his guy, he would’ve commissioned a corrido instead of a salsa tune. The Mexican ballad form has been trotted out by Angelenos for decades for everything from the tragic deaths of Robert F. Kennedy and Kobe Bryant and his daughter to the capture of sundry narco lords.

Those songwriters got it. Alvarez’s diss track doesn’t. And his use of Cuban Spanish on social media to promote it — carajo, fajame, mi gente — in place of Mexican Spanish equivalents such as güey, éntrale and raza sounds like a guy who doesn’t know South L.A. from South Beach.

But to dismiss “Spencer, Saca La Bassura” as an inauthentic joke is to miss what it says about this political moment. In a year when Latinos nationwide will make or break the Democrats’ effort to win back Congress, they’ll play an even more crucial role in L.A.’s mayoral race.

And it’s the Bass campaign that needs Latinos more than any of her opponents — because there’s no guarantee she’ll get them.

Then-L.A. mayoral candidate Karen Bass, center, is flanked by pioneering farm labor leader Dolores Huerta, left, and former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, right, during a 2022 campaign event in Mariachi Plaza.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll released last month and co-sponsored by The Times revealed that 56% of likely voters view the mayor unfavorably, the only candidate to have a majority of those surveyed look negatively on her. She’s the top choice among Latinos — 29%, compared with Pratt’s 16%. But 27% of Latinos remain undecided about whom they want as mayor, the highest percentage of any ethnic group.

Pratt has some name recognition among Latinos as a C-list celebrity, but he’s also a registered Republican who thinks L.A. should coordinate with the Trump administration’s deportation leviathan, a position that’s as popular among Angelenos as rooting for the San Diego Padres. That obviously presents an opportunity for Councilwoman Nithya Raman, who’s running for mayor to the left of Bass — if she can smartly seize it. But Raman represents a district with one of the lowest Latino populations in the city and has yet to make a name for herself across town — no wonder the Berkeley poll found just 9% of Latinos favored her, trailing even Presbyterian pastor Rae Huang.

Those shortcomings should give Bass — whose children are Mexican American and who has worked alongside Latino L.A.’s political establishment for nearly her entire political career — an advantage among Latinos. But all that star wattage didn’t win her the Latino vote four years ago against Rick Caruso. And L.A.’s biggest problems during the mayor’s first term — homelessness, beat-up streets, busted streetlights, President Trump’s immigration deluge — unduly affected the Latino areas of L.A. Even the inferno that engulfed the Palisades led to the loss of thousands of jobs for the nannies, house cleaners and gardeners that kept the neighborhood as pristine as it was.

Bass’ campaign will trumpet all of her supposed accomplishments and trot out endorsements as it did at the Plaza de la Raza event, but she lost the narrative of a healthy L.A. a long time ago.

Pratt — who doesn’t seem to know Los Angeles besides the Westside and television studios — will have to do far more than Bass and Raman to attract Latinos. But by repeatedly referring to the mayor as “Karen Bassura” — a juvenile, obvious insult that nevertheless sticks once you hear it — he’s at least making Spanish a far more constant part of his campaign than his rivals. And Alvarez’s music video, as silly and un-L.A. as it is, speaks to an enthusiasm among at least one Latino Pratt supporter that will most likely remain catchier and more inspired than anything the Bass and Raman campaigns come up with.

That reality seems to have already made Bass blink. She responded to “Spencer, Saca La Bassura” on social media a few days later with a photo of people at her Plaza de la Raza rally holding “Latinos Con Bass” signs with the caption “Latinos Con Bass > Ai Latinos.” It was meant as a political flex but came off as insecure posturing. Meanwhile, Latinos Por Pratt just released a teaser for another video, this time featuring Pratt as Batman carting out a clown-faced Bass and Raman as the villainous Two-Face.

Playing, again, to salsa. That’s weak sauce. Can someone try to really get Latino L.A.?

I promise: Sí se puede.

WASHINGTON — One year ago, Donald Trump stood in a sun-kissed, unpaved Rose Garden and defiantly announced a new era of global trade, raising tariffs on countries worldwide and sending shock waves through the global economy.

The president promised short-term pain rippling through American households would make way for a U.S. economy that would soon take off. But experts say they are still waiting for receipts — and question whether they will ever come.

A year of turbulence

Tariff rates shifted so unpredictably for so long — across countries and with remarkable speed — that companies are still struggling to build stable, long-term supply chains capable of supporting future planning and growth. U.S. markets recorded one of the most volatile years in history, marked by extreme swings and modest gains driven by a handful of stocks for tech companies largely inoculated from import duties.

A customer visits a Costco food court in San Diego on March 18.

(Kevin Carter / Getty Images)

Federal customs duties brought in tens of billions of dollars. But a study published this week by the European Central Bank found that U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters, bore the brunt of the costs that paid for it — and that an even larger share of the burden will fall on American households and companies the longer Trump’s tariff policies stay in place.

Despite the president’s pronouncements, tariff earnings have barely made a dent in the federal debt.

Tax cuts and additional spending on defense and immigration enforcement have increased the annual deficit. In the months of January and February alone, net customs duties hit an average of $27 billion — a significant figure that has essentially offset the costs of Trump’s war with Iran, now estimated to be more than $57 billion since its start.

In February, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to impose tariffs on an emergency basis. But the decision has merely prompted the Trump administration to look for ways to bypass the high court, as well.

“Even after the court ruling, the Trump administration continues to wield tariffs in a haphazard and ill-conceived fashion,” said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax policy and law at UCLA School of Law. “One year in, Trump’s tariffs have only generated higher prices, economic disruption, frayed alliances, and manufacturing job loss.”

Farmers in New Delhi take part in a March 19 protest demanding a minimum support price for crops.

(Sajjad Hussain / AFP / Getty Images)

Since the court ruling, Trump has moved away from using broad emergency powers to justify tariff rates, now citing laws on national security and unfair trade practices to keep them in place. Those are being challenged, as well.

“Trump’s tariff mania injected uncertainty into global business supply chains that he is refusing to let the Supreme Court undo,” said Aaron Klein, chair of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

“It would be one thing if Trump replaced the existing tariff system with a coherent strategy approved by the very Republican Congress he controls,” Klein added. “Instead, Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff by tweet and let the courts figure it out months later destroys business’ ability to plan and undermines global confidence in America’s trustworthiness.”

‘Mounting downside’

Whether or not the president’s tariff policies survive, they have succeeded in ushering in a new era of international trade, shifting global reliance on the U.S. dollar and on the American consumer market, experts said.

“The euro, the Chinese yuan and crypto will be the biggest beneficiaries as the dollar loses market share,” said Kenneth Rogoff, an economist and professor at Harvard. “Future historians may well look back some day and see Liberation Day as marking the beginning of the end of the dollar’s absolute dominance in global markets, and the ‘exorbitant privilege’ it has given to the United States as issuer of what once upon a time was the world safest currency.”

Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that Trump’s tariff policies have upended global shipping, prompted China to increase offshore investments in countries like Vietnam to process Chinese inputs for the U.S. market, and elevated long-term uncertainty over investing in North America — a trifecta that has ensured that U.S. companies and consumers bear the costs.

“While the president promised an American ‘industrial renaissance,’ manufacturing jobs have been lost every month since early 2023,” Lovely said. “Easy to see the mounting downside of his tariff barrage, hard to find much upside.”

More than 100,000 net jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector have been lost over the last year, in part due to the increased costs facing U.S.-based manufacturing companies for parts and inputs, said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

That has made domestic manufacturing less competitive. “The trade war has also increased the prices facing consumers at a time when affordability is their top concern,” Strain added.

Customers shop at the Sanya International Duty Free City in Sanya, in south China’s Hainan province, on Jan. 10. In December 2025, China launched special customs operations in the Hainan Free Trade Port, allowing easier entry of overseas goods and expanding zero-tariff coverage.

(Guo Cheng / Xinhua / Getty Images)

The policy has become a political albatross for the president, who now proceeds through a midterm year with a bipartisan majority of Americans dissatisfied with his approach to their top concern. Seven in 10 Americans believe that tariffs have increased their costs of living, according to a recent poll, including 64% of Republicans and 67% of independents.

Sung Won Sohn, a former commissioner at the Port of Los Angeles, said that inflation aggravated by Trump’s tariff actions has complicated policy at the Federal Reserve, fueling uncertainty in the U.S. stock market.

The Supreme Court’s decision, which prompted legal ambiguity on the administration’s path forward and opened the door to a flood of litigation for potential tariff refunds, further added to uncertainty. “The net result is decreased economic efficiency,” Sohn said.

Trump faces worse poll numbers on inflation than former Presidents Carter and Biden, both of whom faced challenges with increased prices on goods. Today, 72% of Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of rising prices, according to a CNN poll released this week.

“The real damage from the tariffs — and their uneven unwinding — is not captured in headline GDP figures,” Sohn added. “It shows up in slower decision-making, reduced productivity, and a persistent fog over the economic outlook.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A serial arsonist terrorized Hollywood. It ended only after two sisters died in a house fire, authorities say
The deep dive: The books that created the César Chávez myth — and those that brought him down
The L.A. Times Special: Electric bikes can be fast and dangerous. Here’s how to stay safe

On a personal note, hats off to my colleagues for stepping in during my parental leave — it’s great to be back.

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — Less than a week after he and other House Republican lawmakers rejected a Senate plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security — but not its immigration enforcement operations — Speaker Mike Johnson has made a complete about-face.

Johnson’s embrace of a two-track Senate bill marks a sharp reversal, after he had derided it as a “joke,” and said he was “quite convinced that it can’t be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.”

But now that Johnson appears to be fully on board, securing support from his own conference could prove more difficult after a sizable group of House Republicans blasted the Senate-passed bill last week.

President Trump said Thursday he will sign an order to pay all Homeland Security employees who have gone without paychecks during the partial government shutdown that has reached a record 48 days.

Trump used a similar maneuver to resume pay for the Transportation Security Administration after many employees had called out from work, resulting in long delays at airport security lines for travelers. Trump’s latest intervention is expected to apply to other non-law enforcement employees at the department, including many employees at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the agency responsible for coordinating federal cybersecurity efforts.

Despite that unilateral move announced in a social media post, the funding lapse for some Homeland Security needs is likely to stretch into next week as the House contemplates passing the very same Senate plan it previously rejected.

There was no legislative resolution Thursday after both the House and Senate met for just a few minutes in pro forma sessions. Nonetheless, the Republican leadership and Trump have coalesced around a plan to fully fund Homeland Security as part of a two-step process. The agreement puts the congressional leaders on the same page for ending the impasse after they had pursued separate paths that resulted in Congress leaving Washington for its spring recess without a fix.

During the brief sessions, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) put aside the House plan to fund the entire department for 60 days. Then the House met briefly without taking up the bipartisan Senate plan that had been worked out with Democrats, though Thune is looking toward eventual passage.

“I don’t know the particulars around what the House will do with it,” Thune told reporters. “My assumption is, at some point, hopefully, they’ll move it.”

Johnson’s about-face

Johnson (R-La.) and Thune announced Wednesday that they would return to the Senate measure, which funds most of Homeland Security with the exception of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol. Republicans will try later to fund those agencies through party-line spending legislation that could take months to finish.

Neither outcome is guaranteed, and the strategy could potentially still face opposition from the GOP’s ranks even though Trump has given his support.

House Republicans held a conference call later Thursday to discuss the next steps. The GOP leadership indicated to lawmakers that it does not expect to recall them to Washington during the spring recess; they are due back April 14.

Public backlash was swift after lawmakers left Washington last week without a resolution, with the tabloid website TMZ posting paparazzi-style photos of members at airports and out of town. The regularly scheduled break, while drawing criticism, is typically used by lawmakers to reconnect with constituents and travel abroad.

Lawmakers also heard from White House budget director Russ Vought. The White House is expected to release Trump’s 2027 budget proposal on Friday.

Funding ICE remains a hurdle

Democrats in both chambers were aligned last week with the Senate’s plan, and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York blamed House Republicans on Thursday for taking no action on it during the brief morning session.

“The deep division and dysfunction among House Republicans is needlessly extending the DHS shutdown and hurting federal workers who are missing another paycheck,” Schumer said.

Johnson will look to persuade the most conservative lawmakers within his conference to go along with the two-step approach agreed upon with the president, and Trump’s latest social media post could help. The president thanked Thune and Johnson for their work, and sought to project Republican unity.

“Republicans are UNIFIED, and moving forward on a plan that will reload funding for our FANTASTIC Border Patrol and Immigration Enforcement Officers,” Trump wrote.

Many in the GOP conference have taken the stance that ICE and the Border Patrol need to be included as part of any funding agreement.

“Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) posted on X. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”

Meanwhile, the budget package that Trump wants voted on by June 1 is expected to fund ICE and Border Patrol through the remainder of Trump’s term, as a way to try to ensure those agencies are no longer at risk from Democrats objecting to his immigration enforcement agenda.

Thune acknowledged the potential hurdles to that route, such as efforts to expand the scope of the bill. He said the goal is to keep it “as narrow and focused as possible” in order to pass it “with haste.”

The vast majority of Homeland Security employees have reported to work during the shutdown, but many thousands have gone without pay. As more Transportation Security Administration agents called out from work, there was increasing frustration for air travelers confronted by long waits at some airport security lines. Those bottlenecks appeared to be clearing this week as agents began receiving backpay after Trump signed an executive order.

About 10,000 FEMA workers are being paid because their wages come out of the non-lapsing Disaster Relief Fund. At least 4,000 FEMA employees are furloughed or currently working without pay.

Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, to step down, the Pentagon said Thursday, as the United States wages a war against Iran.

A Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter, confirmed that George has been asked to take early retirement from the post of Army chief of staff, which he has held since August 2023.

The ouster of George is just the latest of more than a dozen firings of top generals and admirals by Hegseth since he first took office last year.

CBS News was first to report the ouster.

George is a graduate of West Point Military Academy and an infantry officer who served in the first Gulf War as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. He also served as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s top military aide from 2021 to 2022, during the Biden administration, before taking on top leadership roles in the Army.

George survived the initial round of firings last February, which saw the removal of top military leaders, including Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. Jim Silfe, the No. 2 leader at the Air Force, by Hegseth. President Donald Trump also fired Gen. Charles “C.Q.” Brown, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same time.

Since then, more than a dozen other top military generals and admirals have either retired early or been removed from their posts.

Among these departures was George’s deputy, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. James Mingus, who was in the post for less than two years when Trump suddenly nominated Lt. Gen. Christopher LaNeve for the position. LaNeve was then serving as Hegseth’s top military aide, having been plucked for that post from commanding the Eighth Army in South Korea after less than a year in the job.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s meandering speech on the Iran war late Wednesday — in which he paired promises of a swift exit with new threats of escalated bombing and denied responsibility for the Strait of Hormuz — did little to assuage U.S. allies and world markets concerned about the conflict’s ongoing disruptions to the global oil supply.

Stocks dropped after markets opened Thursday and oil prices soared, with the price of U.S. crude oil jumping more than 10%, to above $110.

In the wake of the speech, diplomats from more than 40 nations — not including the U.S. — met to strategize on how to lift Iran’s continued stranglehold on the strait, the vital oil corridor that the U.S.-Israeli war drove Iran to restrict but which Trump on Wednesday said wasn’t his problem.

Iranian officials remained unbowed, asserting the U.S. and Israel “know nothing” of its remaining capabilities, that “not a single life will be spared” if either attempts a ground incursion into its territory, and that “every last” Iranian would become a soldier if necessary.

“Iranians don’t just talk about defending their country. They bleed for it,” Iranian parliament Speaker Mohammad Qalibaf, a pugilistic figure and one of Iran’s most prominent wartime voices, wrote on X. “You come for our home… you’re gonna meet the whole family. Locked, loaded, and standing tall. Bring it on.”

Meanwhile, remarks Trump made earlier Wednesday about leaving NATO elicited subtle rebukes from both international and domestic allies, including French President Emmanuel Macron and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), while the president’s comments about the U.S. not being able to focus on social services like Medicare or other domestic needs such as child care as it wages its foreign war sparked outrage at home.

Far from a call for a unified push to end the war alongside allies, Trump’s speech — his first formal address to the nation since the war began a month ago — further isolated the U.S. and the Trump administration on the global stage.

Trump firmly asserted in his speech that reopening the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic was not the responsibility of the U.S., despite it causing the war, because it receives less oil from the corridor than other nations.

“The countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it. They could do it easily. We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on,” Trump said.

“To those countries that can’t get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran — we had to do it ourselves — I have a suggestion: No. 1, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much,” Trump continued. “And No. 2, build up some delayed courage.”

He said those nations should have been better assisting the U.S. in its war effort already, but should now “go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves.”

“Iran has been essentially decimated,” he said. “The hard part is done, so it should be easy.”

Trump has consistently downplayed the threat Iran continues to pose in the region. And securing the strait — which runs along Iran’s mountainous coast, full of strategic locations from which Iranian forces can threaten ship traffic — is not an easy task, as was acknowledged by the foreign diplomats meeting to solve the issue without the U.S. on Thursday.

“We have seen Iran hijack an international shipping route to hold the global economy hostage,” said U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper.

Meanwhile, Macron, speaking in South Korea, said the U.S. “can hardly complain afterward that they are not being supported in an operation they chose to undertake alone.”

Macron also slammed Trump’s criticism of NATO, which Trump called a “paper tiger” in remarks prior to his speech Wednesday.

“If you cast doubt on your commitment every day, you erode its very substance,” Macron said.

Trump for weeks has suggested that NATO allies who declined to join the U.S. war had failed to live up to their treaty obligations, and that remaining in the alliance may not be worth it for the U.S., though he made no mention of NATO in his Wednesday evening speech.

Trump has no power to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NATO. That power sits with Congress — where Trump’s own allies downplayed the idea.

“We got an awful lot of people who think that NATO is a very critical, incredibly successful post-World War II alliance,” Thune said. “I think in the world today, you need allies.”

Trump’s formal speech appeared to be geared in part toward his allies at home, including his MAGA base, where frustrations with the war have mounted among the cohort of Trump supporters who’d championed his “America First” message and campaign promises to extricate the U.S. from foreign entanglements, not start new ones.

Trump said he has promised since his first foray into politics in 2015 that he would never let Iran develop a nuclear weapon. He told Americans listening that the war “is a true investment in your children, and your grandchildren’s future,” because it was making the world safer.

However, Trump exacerbated frustrations over the war’s distraction from domestic priorities with separate comments he made earlier on Wednesday at a private Easter luncheon, video of which the White House posted online and then deleted.

In those remarks, Trump said U.S. military needs had to take priority over social services and other major costs for Americans, such as child care, which maybe states could pay for by increasing taxes.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things,” Trump said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”

The president’s political opponents leaped on the remarks as out of touch.

“Trump says we can pay for war in Iran but can’t afford childcare,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) wrote on X, before asserting that the billions of dollars the U.S. has spent in Iran could have been used to offset Americans’ daycare costs.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response, accused Democrats and the media of taking Trump’s remarks “out of context,” and claiming he was only talking about “stopping the scams” and rooting out fraud in such programs.

Democrats also took broader swipes at Trump’s framing of the war.

“Donald Trump’s month-long war with Iran has come at a big cost to taxpayers and has tragically taken the lives of 13 American service members. He dragged our country into a conflict that rattled markets, drove up gas prices, squeezed working families, and further destabilized the Middle East,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote on X. “With his poll numbers falling to record lows, Trump is now trying to cut and run with little to show for it. He started this unauthorized war with no clear or consistent justification and the consequences of his choices won’t disappear when he walks away.”

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Thursday said the war was “inflicting immense human suffering and already triggering devastating economic consequences,” and called directly on the U.S. and Israel to end it. He also called on Iran to “stop attacking their neighbors” and “respect navigational rights and freedoms along critical maritime routes, including the Strait of Hormuz.”

“Conflicts do not end on their own,” Guterres said. “They end when leaders choose dialogue over destruction.”

In addition to defending NATO, Macron and other French politicians on Thursday were also reacting to Trump mocking Macron in his remarks Wednesday. He mimicked a French accent while accusing Macron of only wanting to aid the U.S. war effort once the battle had been “won” and referenced a moment last year when Brigitte Macron was caught on video pushing her husband’s face, which he said was them joking with each other.

“There is too much talk, and it’s all over the place,” Macron said, according to French newspaper Le Monde. “We all need stability, calm, a return to peace — this isn’t a show!”

Yaël Braun-Pivet, president of France’s lower house of parliament, told the French broadcaster franceinfo that the Iran war is “having consequences for the lives of millions of people, people are dying on the battlefield, and we have a president who is laughing, who is mocking others.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

DENVER — A Colorado appeals court ruled Thursday that a former county clerk convicted in a scheme that sought to prove fraud in the 2020 presidential election should be resentenced because a judge wrongly punished her for statements protected as free speech.

Tina Peters is serving a nine-year prison term after being convicted of state crimes for sneaking in an outside computer expert to make a copy of her county’s election computer system during a software update in 2021. A photo and video of confidential voting system passwords were later posted on social media and a conservative website.

Calls for Peters’ release have become a cause celebre in the election conspiracy movement. President Trump has sought unsuccessfully to pardon Peters and pressured Colorado to set her free.

Judges on the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld her conviction in a 74-page ruling that rejected the notion that Trump has authority to pardon her state crimes. But they said a lower court judge should not have considered Peters’ continued promotion of election fraud conspiracies when he sentenced her in 2024.

One of Tina Peters’ lawyers, John Case, said the court’s ruling affirmed the importance of free speech.

“Tina Peters was punished for words that she used to criticize our insecure and illegal voting system,” Case said. “The decision affirms that people are free to speak what they believe in Colorado as well as the rest of the United States of America.”

Case said he would likely ask at resentencing for Peters to receive the approximately 540 days she’s served already. That would allow her to be freed.

Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, who has been considering granting clemency to Peters, praised the court’s decision for rejecting Trump’s pardon but upholding her free speech rights.

“This case has been very challenging and a true test of our resolve as a state to have a fair judicial system, not just for people we agree with but a fair system for Coloradans that we vehemently disagree with,” Polis said in statement.

Peters was the former clerk in Mesa County, in the far western part of Colorado, and convicted by jurors in the Republican stronghold that has supported Trump.

She was unapologetic when she was sentenced by Judge Matthew Barrett and insisted that she tried to unearth what she believed was fraud for the greater good. He ripped into her, calling her a “charlatan” who had used her position to “peddle snake oil.”

The appeals court found that Barrett violated her rights to free speech by punishing Peters for persistently alleging fraud in the 2020 election. They noted that because Peters is no longer serving as an election clerk, she can no longer engage in the conduct that led to her conviction.

“The trial court obviously erred by imposing sentence at least partially based on Peters’ protected speech,” Judge Ted Tow wrote in Thursday’s ruling.

The court sent Peters’ case back to a lower court for a judge to issue a new sentence.

Trump has threatened to take “harsh measures” against Colorado unless the state releases Peters. In February, Trump said Colorado was “suffering a big price” for refusing to release her.

Colorado Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is running for governor, has accused the Trump administration of waging a revenge campaign by choking off funds and ending federal programs over the state’s refusal to free Peters.

Weiser said in response to the ruling that the original sentence had been “fair and appropriate.”

“Whatever happens with her sentence, Tina Peters will always be a convicted felon who violated her duty as Mesa County clerk, put other lives at risk, and threatened our democracy. Nothing will remove that stain,” Weiser said in a statement.

The Justice Department inserted itself into Peters’ bid to be released while her state appeal was considered. The federal Bureau of Prisons also tried to get Peters moved to a federal prison. After both efforts failed, Trump in December announced a pardon for Peters.

However, the appeals court judges said they could find no prior example of a president pardoning someone for a state crime. And they rejected her attorney’s claims that Peters actions had been carried out while “defending a federal interest.”

“We have found no instance where the presidential pardon power has been stretched in such a way as to invade an individual state’s sovereignty,” they said, adding that the president’s pardon has “no impact” on the state’s case against Peters.

The Associated Press left messages with the White House for comment.

She was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one count each of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failure to comply with the requirements of the secretary of state.

Peters’ lawyers didn’t deny that she used the security badge of a local man she pretended to hire to allow an associate of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell to make a copy of the Dominion Voting Systems election computer server during an annual software update in 2021.

But they said she only wanted to preserve election data and find out whether any outside actor had accessed the system while ballots were being counted. They said she didn’t want the information made public.

Slevin and Brown write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s White House ballroom won final approval from a key agency on Thursday, days after a federal judge ordered a halt to construction unless Congress allows what would be the biggest structural change to the American landmark in more than 70 years.

The National Capital Planning Commission, the agency tasked with approving construction on federal property in the Washington region, went ahead with the vote because U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s ruling on Tuesday affects construction activities, not the planning process, commission spokesperson Stephen Staudigl said.

But despite the agency’s approval, the judge’s ruling and the legal fight over the ballroom could stall progress on a legacy project that Trump is racing to see completed before the end of his term in early 2029. It’s among a series of changes the Republican president is planning for the nation’s capital to leave his lasting imprint while he’s still in office.

The vote by the 12-person commission, including three members appointed by Trump, had initially been scheduled for March but was pushed to Thursday because so many people signed up to comment on it at the commission’s meeting. The comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the ballroom.

Trump tweaks the ballroom design

Before voting Thursday, the commission considered some design changes to the 90,000-square-foot ballroom addition that Trump announced aboard Air Force One on Sunday as he flew back to Washington from a weekend at his Florida home.

He removed a large staircase on the south side of the building and added an uncovered porch to the west side. Architects and other critics of the project had panned the staircase as too large and basically useless since there was no way to enter the ballroom at the top.

Trump gave no reason for the changes, but a White House official said the president had considered comments from the National Capital Planning Commission and another oversight entity, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, which approved the project earlier this year, as well as members of the public.

The official, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the ballroom design and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that additional “refinements” had been made to the building’s exterior and that lead architect Shalom Baranes would present them on Thursday.

The ballroom, now estimated to cost $400 million, has expanded in scope and price tag since Trump first announced the project last summer, citing a need for space other than a tent on the lawn to host important guests. Trump demolished the East Wing in October with little warning, and site preparation and underground work have been underway since then. Officials said above-ground construction would not start until April, at the earliest.

Judge says Trump isn’t the owner of the White House

The National Capital Planning Commission is chaired by Will Scharf, a top White House aide who has spoken in support of the ballroom addition. The president appoints three of the members, and Trump named two other White House officials along with Scharf.

Trump went ahead with the project before seeking input from the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts, which he reconstituted with allies and supporters.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private nonprofit organization, sued after Trump demolished the East Wing last fall to build the ballroom addition — a space nearly twice as big as the mansion itself. Trump says it will be paid for with donations from wealthy people and corporations, including him, though public dollars are paying for underground bunkers and security upgrades on the White House grounds.

The trust sought a temporary halt to construction until Trump presented the project to both commissions and Congress for approval. Leon, the judge, agreed but said that his order would take effect in two weeks and that construction related to security would be allowed.

That work continued Wednesday as new photos by the Associated Press show the site of the former East Wing bustling with activity as cranes stretched toward the sky.

The judge, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, wrote in his ruling: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” He concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Trump disputed that Congress must also approve his project.

“We built many things at the White House over the years. They don’t get congressional approval,” he told reporters in the Oval Office after the ruling.

Representatives for the House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over the project did not return telephone messages seeking comment. Congress is on spring break.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has privately discussed the possibility of firing Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and replacing her with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, three people familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday.

In those conversations, Trump has discussed his ongoing frustration with Bondi over her handing of the Jeffrey Epstein files and hurdles the Justice Department has encountered in investigations into Trump’s perceived enemies, the people said. The Republican president has mentioned other candidates but has raised Zeldin’s name as recently as this week, the people said.

The people were not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversations and spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity.

No decision has been announced, and Trump has been known to change his mind on personnel decisions.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Trump said in a statement produced by the White House.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, has been publicly and privately praised by Trump, who at an event in February described him as “our secret weapon.”

Bondi, a former state attorney general in Florida and a Trump loyalist who was part of his legal team during his first impeachment case, has been in her position for more than a year. She came into office pledging that she would not play politics with the Justice Department, but she quickly started investigations of Trump foes, sparking an outcry that the law enforcement agency was being wielded as a tool of revenge to advance the president’s political and personal agenda.

She has also endured months of scrutiny over the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files that made her the target of angry conservatives even with her close relationship with Trump.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the department opened investigations into a string of Trump foes, including Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan.

The high-profile prosecutions of Comey and James were quickly thrown out by a judge who ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases was illegally appointed. Other politically charged investigations have either been rejected by grand juries or failed to result in criminal charges.

Richer, Tucker, Balsamo and Price write for the Associated Press.