POLITICS

WASHINGTON — Entering the third week of a government shutdown, Democrats say they are not intimidated or cowed by President Trump’s efforts to fire thousands of federal workers or by his threats of more firings to come.

Instead, Democrats appear emboldened, showing no signs of caving as they returned to Washington from their home states Tuesday evening and, for an eighth time, rejected a Republican bill to open the government.

“What people are saying is, you’ve got to stop the carnage,” said Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, describing what he heard from his constituents, including federal workers, as he traveled around his state over the weekend. “And you don’t stop it by giving in.”

Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said the firings are “a fair amount of bluster” and he predicted they ultimately will be overturned in court or otherwise reversed. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, speaking about Republicans, said the shutdown is just “an excuse for them to do what they were planning to do anyway.” And Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York said Wednesday that the layoffs are a “mistaken attempt” to sway Democratic votes.

“Their intimidation tactics are not working,” added House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. “And will continue to fail.”

Democratic senators say they are hearing increasingly from voters about health insurance subsidies that expire at the end of the year, the issue that the party has made central to the shutdown fight.

Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said that the impact of the expiring health insurance subsidies on millions of people, along with cuts to Medicaid enacted by Republicans earlier this year, “far outweighs” any of the firings of federal workers that the administration is threatening.

Republicans, too, are confident in their strategy not to negotiate on the health care subsidies until Democrats give them the votes to reopen the government. The Senate planned to vote again Wednesday and Thursday on the Republican bill, and so far there are no signs of any movement on either side.

“We’re barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said earlier this week.

Moderate Democrats aren’t budging

In the first hours of the shutdown, which began at 12:01 a.m. EDT Oct. 1., it was not clear how long Democrats would hold out.

A group of moderate Democrats who had voted against the GOP bill immediately began private, informal talks with Republicans. The GOP lawmakers hoped enough Democrats would quickly change their votes to end a filibuster and pass the spending bill with the necessary 60 votes.

But the bipartisan talks over the expiring health care subsidies have dragged on without a resolution so far. Two weeks later, the moderates, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Gary Peters of Michigan, are still voting no.

“Nothing about a government shutdown requires this or gives them new power to conduct mass layoffs,” Peters said after the director of the White House’s budget director, Russell Vought, announced that the firings had started on Friday.

D.C.-area lawmakers see advantages to shutdown

Another key group of Democrats digging in are lawmakers such as like Kaine who represent millions of federal workers in Virginia and Maryland. Kaine said the shutdown was preceded by “nine months of punitive behavior” as the Republican president has made cuts at federal agencies “and everybody knows who’s to blame.”

“Donald Trump is at war with his own workforce, and we don’t reward CEOs who hate their own workers,” Kaine said.

Appearing at a news conference Tuesday alongside supportive federal workers, Democratic lawmakers from Maryland and Virginia called on Republicans to come to the negotiating table.

“The message we have today is very simple,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. “Donald Trump and Russ Vought stop attacking federal employees, stop attacking the American people and start negotiating to reopen the federal government and address the looming health care crisis that is upon us.”

Thousands are losing their jobs, and more to follow

In a court filing Friday, the White House Office of Management and Budget said well over 4,000 federal employees from eight departments and agencies would be fired in conjunction with the shutdown.

On Tuesday, Trump said his administration is using the shutdown to target federal programs that Democrats like and “they’re never going to come back, in many cases.”

“We are closing up Democrat programs that we disagree with and they’re never going to open again,” he said.

On Capitol Hill, though, the threats fell flat with Democrats as they continued to demand talks on health care.

“I don’t feel any of this as pressure points,” Jeffries said. “I view it as like the reality that the American people confront and the question becomes, at what point will Republicans embrace the reality that they have created a health care crisis that needs to be decisively addressed?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., held firm that Republicans would not negotiate until Democrats reopen the government.

The firings, Thune has repeatedly said, “are a situation that could be totally avoided.”

Jalonick and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

MELBOURNE, Australia — Australia’s highest court on Wednesday rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens ’ bid to overturn an Australian government decision barring her from visiting the country.

Three High Court judges unanimously rejected Owens’ challenge to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s decision in 2024 to refuse her a visa on character grounds.

Owens had planned to begin a speaking tour in Australia last November and also visit neighboring New Zealand.

Burke used his powers under the Migration Act last October to refuse her a visa because she failed the so-called “character test,” court documents said.

Burke found there was a risk Owens would “incite discord in the Australian community” and that refusing her a visa was in the national interest.

Burke found that as a political commentator, author and activist, Owens was “known for her controversial and conspiratorial views.”

She had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred,” Burke said in court documents.

Owens’ lawyers had argued the Migrant Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communications.

Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment that states a right to free speech. But because Australia is a democracy, the High Court has decided that the constitution implies free speech limited to governmental and political matters.

Owens’ lawyers had argued that if the Migration Act was constitutional, then Burke had misconstrued his powers under that law in refusing her a visa.

The judges rejected both arguments and ordered Owens to pay the government’s court costs.

Burke described the ruling as a “win for social cohesion.”

“Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke said in statement.

Owens’ spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Wednesday Owens would comment on the court decision later on social media.

Burke had told the court that while Owens already had an ability to incite discord through her 18 million followers across social media platforms, her presence in Australia would amplify that potential.

He noted that when Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated from “possible” to “probable” last year, the national domestic spy agency reported an “increase in extremism.”

Australia has long used a wide discretion under the character test to refuse foreigners temporary visas.

Burke stripped Ye, the U.S. rapper formerly known as Kanye West, of an Australian visa after he released his single “Heil Hitler” in May this year.

Ye had been traveling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born.

Burke’s decision to ban Owens prompted neighboring New Zealand to refuse her a visa in November on the grounds that she had been rejected by Australia.

But a New Zealand immigration official overturned that refusal in December, citing “the importance of free speech.”

Owens’ spokeswoman on Wednesday had no information about plans to visit New Zealand.

McGuirk writes for the Associated Press.

As the partial government shutdown grinds on, with no end in sight, Catherine Cortez Masto stands ready to end it right now.

The lawyerly senator from Nevada is one of just two Democrats to repeatedly vote with Republicans and Maine’s independent senator, Angus King, to have the federal government up and running.

She’s not only bucking her Senate colleagues with her contrarian stance, but also placing herself squarely at odds with the animating impulse of her party’s political base: Stop Trump! Give no quarter! Now is the time! This is the fight!

Cortez Masto evinces not a flicker of doubt.

“I have been very consistent about the cost of a shutdown and the impact to Americans and the fact that I believe we need to work in a bipartisan way to find solutions to what we’re seeing right now, which is this looming healthcare crisis,” Cortez Masto said from Washington.

“And I think we can do that by keeping the government open. I don’t think we should do it by swapping the pain of one group of Americans for another.”

Unlike the Democrats’ other defector, Pennsylvania’s quirky Sen. John Fetterman, Cortez Masto hasn’t developed a reputation for partisan heresy, or antagonized party peers by playing footsie with President Trump and the MAGA movement.

Despite her temporary alliance with the GOP, she’s unstinting in her criticism of the president and the Republican stance on healthcare, the issue at the heart of the shutdown fight.

“Of course we need to stand up to Trump’s attacks on our families and our country,” she said. “I’ve been one of the most vocal opponents of Trump’s disastrous trade and tariff policies.”

Her split with fellow Democrats, she suggested, is not over ends but rather means.

It’s entirely possible, Cortez Masto insisted, to keep the government open for business and, at the same time, work through the parties’ differences over healthcare, including, most imminently, the end of subsidies that have kept insurance costs from skyrocketing.

It comes down to negotiation, trust and compromise, which in Cortez Masto’s view, is still possible — even in these rabidly partisan times.

“That’s what Congress is built on,” she said. “Congress is built on compromise, working together across the aisle to get stuff done. I still believe in it.”

Although she noted — with considerable understatement — “there are those in the administration and some of my colleagues” who disagree.

Not to mention a great many Democratic activists who believe anything short of jailing Trump and dispatching the entire GOP-run Congress to a far-off desert island amounts to cowardly capitulation.

Nevada, where Cortez Masto was born and bred, is a state that was Republican red for a very long time before turning blue-ish for a while, starting under Barack Obama in 2008. It went back to red-ish under Trump in 2024.

Cortez Masto, a former state attorney general, was first elected to the Senate in 2016, replacing the onetime Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, after the Democrat retired.

Six years later, when she sought reelection, Cortez Masto was widely considered Democrats’ most endangered incumbent. She was not nearly as powerful or prominent as Reid had been. Inflation was raging, and Nevada was still suffering an economic hangover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Her opponent was a middling Republican, Adam Laxalt, a failed gubernatorial candidate and one of the architects of Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election. He also seemed to harbor a soft spot for the Jan. 6, 2021, rioters.

Still, Cortez Masto barely beat him, winning by fewer than 10,000 votes out of more than 1 million cast. In retrospect, the result could be seen as a harbinger of Trump’s success in carrying the state after twice losing Nevada.

Cortez Masto next faces reelection in 2028, which is politically ages away. By then, the shutdown will be long forgotten. (And presumably long over.)

Her focus, she said, is the here and now and, especially, the shutdown’s economic effect at a time Nevada is already feeling the negative consequences of Trump’s trade and immigration policies. Las Vegas, which runs on tourism, has experienced a notable slump, and Cortez Masto suggested the shutdown only makes things worse.

That, however, hasn’t deterred Nevada’s other U.S. senator, Jacky Rosen, who has repeatedly voted alongside nearly every other Democrat to keep the government shuttered until Republicans give in.

“Nevadans sent me here to fight for them,” Rosen said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Not to cave.”

Asked about the fissure, Cortez Masto responded evenly and with diplomacy. “She’s a good friend.… Our goal is to fight for Nevada and we are doing it,” she said. “We both are doing it in different ways.”

So, negotiation. Bipartisanship. Compromise.

What makes Cortez Masto think Trump, who’s run roughshod over Congress and the courts, can be trusted to honor any deal Democrats cut with Republicans to reopen the government and address the healthcare crisis she sees?

“Well, that’s the rub, right? We know what he’s doing,” she replied. He’s “flouting the law when it comes to … taking the role of legislators and appropriating funds at his own whim…. So, of course, no, you can’t trust him.

“But he is there. What you got to figure out is how you work together with Republican colleagues to get something done.”

Cortez Masto noted, dryly, that Congress is, in fact, a separate branch of government with its own power and authority. Republicans have ceded both to Trump and if they really want to solve problems, she said, and do more than the president’s bidding, they “need to come out and do bipartisan legislation to push back on this administration.”

“We’ve got to govern,” Cortez Masto said. “We’ve got to work together.”

Wouldn’t that be something.

Until recently, no one would have mistaken Arianna Barrios for a wokosa.

The Orange city council member comes from O.C. Republican royalty. Her grandfather, Cruz, was a Mexican immigrant and civil rights pioneer who registered with the GOP in the late 1940s after Democratic leaders wouldn’t help him and other activists fight school segregation against Mexican American students in Orange County. Her second cousin, Steve Ambriz, was a rising GOP star serving on the Orange City Council when he was killed by wrong-way driver in 2006.

The 55-year-old has helped Republicans on policy and handled communications for the Orange County Taxpayers Assn. and the Richard Nixon Foundation. Friendly, smart, quick-witted and a total goodie-goodie, she corrected me last fall when I introduced her to my Chapman University history students as a Republican. To my surprise, the Orange native proclaimed that she has never been a Republican — she started out as a Democrat and is now an independent.

And that’s not the first surprise she’s sprung on me. Her recent rise as one of O.C.’s most vocal politicians opposing President Trump’s deportation machine has been unexpected — and welcome.

She called out her council colleagues in July for not approving a resolution that would have required federal immigration agents to remove their masks and wear IDs within city limits. She connects young activists to legal and financial resources and has participated in neighborhood patrols alerting people that la migra is coming. She has accompanied Orange residents to hearings at Adelanto’s immigration court and hosted a two-part video series for the civic affairs group Orange County Forum on how the U.S. got to this moment in immigration.

Why, Barrios has become so radicalized that she used the hash tag #brownwar throughout the summer and into the fall when posting immigration-related stories on Facebook. That stopped after her husband, an anti-Trump Republican, suggested it was a bit much.

You would expect this of a politician from an O.C. city with a progressive streak, like Santa Ana, Anaheim or even Laguna Woods. But not from Orange, whose city fathers have long cast it as a slice of small-town Americana free from big-city problems or national issues.

And definitely not from Barrios, whose demeanor is usually more baseball mom than strident activist.

“I’ve been asked multiple times, ‘What’s up with Arianna? This is not her,’” said Orange Councilmember Ana Gutierrez, who has seen ICE agents invade her street twice. “Well, when she cares about something, she’s loud.”

Working with Barrios on pro-immigrant actions is “like talking to a young person,” said 20-year-old Chapman student Bianey Chavez, who belongs to a local youth activist group. The two connected at a protest in their hometown’s picturesque Orange Circle. “It’s fresh air for someone of her age and power to be so open-minded and helpful.”

Anaheim Councilmember Natalie Rubalcava, who has known Barrios for over a decade, said she had “never heard Arianna speak on any issue like this in the past. But it’s great. Maybe she just felt empowered at this point. Maybe anger just boiled up in her, and she couldn’t be quiet anymore.”

That’s exactly what happened, Barrios told me over breakfast at a Mexican café in Old Towne.

The immigration raids that have rocked Orange County as hard as L.A. “just hit all of those buttons,” she said. Wearing a blouse decorated with orange poppies, the bespectacled Barrios looked every bit the polite pol that O.C. leaders had taken her to be. “Not only is it just patently unfair, it’s just so wrong. And it’s so inhumane.

“And one of the things that I can’t stand — and one of things I taught my kids — is if you see a kid being bullied, my expectation of you is that you go up to that kid and you go protect them.”

Councilmember Ariana Barrios holds up a vest and hat she bought from Amazon while arguing about the dangers of ICE imposters.

She credits what her father jokes is “an overactive sense of justice” to her grandparents, who ran a corner store in Santa Ana in the 1940s. Barrios Market became a meeting place for the families who helped organize the 1946 lawsuit that ended Mexican-only schools in California.

Their granddaughter didn’t know any of that history until her 20s, because her upbringing in 1980s Orange County was “like a John Hughes movie.”

“We didn’t even really think of ourselves really as, like, Hispanic — I mean, we all were, but it wasn’t the end-all be-all,” Barrios said. “We were all trying to be Valley girls.”

Living in Nacogdoches, Texas, for a few years in the 1990s “woke her up” to anti-Latino racism. But after returning home to find county and state officials passing anti-immigrant laws, she didn’t join the resistance, as many Latinos of that era did. Instead, Barrios focused on starting on her career in communications and later raising two sons.

“I remember even having my own stereotypical thoughts about [illegal immigration], not really understanding what the experience was, how people got here,” she said.

Things began to change as Barrios worked for school districts “making sure that kids had access. I didn’t care about their status.” It became personal once she was appointed to the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board of Trustees in 2011 and met refugees as well as recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which grants a reprieve from deportation to some immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. She hired some at her PR firm.

The council member brought up the 1986 immigration amnesty that Ronald Reagan signed and an unsuccessful 2001 bill co-sponsored by the late U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) that would have created a pathway to citizenship for people who came to this country without papers as minors.

“That’s what’s so odd about where we are right now,” Barrios said. “The two biggest programs, to get people to protected status and to legal resident status, came out from under Republicans.”

After winning another four-year term in 2024, Barrios figured she’d spend her time trying to fix Orange’s fiscal crisis, especially because she thought “so much of what [Trump] was promising on immigration was rhetoric.”

An onslaught of federal immigration raids in the L.A. area starting in June made her realize things would be different. What finally sparked her furor was when federal agents handcuffed U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla after he crashed a June news conference featuring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“All of this garbage about [Noem claiming], ‘I didn’t know who he was and he didn’t identify himself’ was bulls—,” she said. “It was just bulls—. But if you’re willing to do that, you’re willing to do anything. There are no limits.”

She admits to sometimes “los[ing] my cool” while speaking out against Trump and his deportation deluge, arguing it’s necessary to spark change in a place like Orange, which has a long history of anti-Latino sentiment. Within walking distance from her home is a former movie theater where Latinos were forced to sit in the balcony into the 1950s. In 2010, the City Council tried to ban day laborers and voted to support an Arizona law that made it legal for local law enforcement to question people about their immigration status.

It’s history Barrios knows and cites now but that barely registered with her back then.

“If people want to be nasty to me, I can’t stop them,” she said. “But I can try and explain where I’m coming from so that, as I told my sister once, it’s not for the person I’m talking to, it’s [for] everybody who’s watching the fight.”

Her husband — who joined her at a No Kings rally during the summer and will join her this weekend at one she helped organized — feels “nervous” about her newfound advocacy, she said.

But her late grandfather and her father, a Democrat who was the first Latino elected to the Orange Unified school board, wouldn’t have hesitated to protest against Trump’s cruelty, she said. “They wouldn’t even think twice about it.”

Barrios asked for a to-go box for her chorizo and eggs, which she barely touched during our hourlong chat. Then she reached into a cream-colored Kate Spade purse to pull out red cards.

“Know Your Rights,” they read, delineating what people can and can’t do if la migra asks them questions.

“I carry these all the time,” she said, leaving some on the table. “I see people and go, ‘Here you go. Just take some, OK?’”

Days before the Trump administration was supposed to file its response to a California lawsuit challenging its targeting of gender-affirming care providers, attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge to temporarily halt the proceedings.

Given the federal shutdown, they argued, they just didn’t have the lawyers to do the work.

“Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,’” they wrote in their filing Oct. 1, the first day of the shutdown.

The district judge presiding over the case, which California filed in federal court in Massachusetts along with a coalition of other Democrat-led states, agreed, and promptly granted the request.

It was just one example of the now weeks-old federal shutdown grinding to a halt important litigation between California and the Trump administration, in policy battles with major implications for people’s lives.

The same day, in the same Massachusetts court, Justice Department attorneys were granted a pause in a lawsuit in which California and other states are challenging mass firings at the U.S. Department of Education, after noting that department funding had been suspended and it didn’t know “when such funding will be restored by Congress.”

The same day in U.S. District Court in Central California, the Trump administration asked for a similar pause in a lawsuit that it had brought against California, challenging the state’s refusal to provide its voter registration rolls to the administration.

Justice Department attorneys wrote that they “greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the other litigants,” but needed to pause the proceedings until they were “permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions.”

Since then, the court in Central California has advised the parties of alternative dispute resolution options and outside groups — including the NAACP — have filed motions to intervene in the case, but no major developments have occurred.

The pauses in litigation — only a portion of those that have occurred in courts across the country — were an example of sweeping, real-world, high-stakes effects of the federal government shutdown that average Americans may not consider when thinking about the shutdown’s impact on their lives.

Federal employees working in safety and other crucial roles — such as air traffic controllers — have remained on the job, even without pay, but many others have been forced to stay home. The Justice Department did not spell out which of its attorneys had been benched by the shutdown, but made clear that some who had been working on the cases in question were no longer doing so.

Federal litigation often takes years to resolve, and brief pauses in proceedings are not uncommon. However, extended disruptions — such as one that could occur if the shutdown drags on — would take a toll, forestalling legal answers in some of the most important policy battles in the country.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has sued the Trump administration more than 40 times since January, has not challenged every request for a pause by the Trump administration — especially in cases where the status quo favors the state.

However, it has challenged pauses in other cases, with some success.

For example, in that same Massachusetts federal courthouse Oct. 1, Justice Department attorneys asked a judge to temporarily halt proceedings in a case in which California and other states are suing to block the administration’s targeted defunding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Their arguments were the same as in the other cases: Given the shutdown, they didn’t have the attorneys to do the necessary legal work.

In response, attorneys for California and the other states pushed back, noting that the shutdown had not stopped Department of Health and Human Services officials from moving forward with the measure to defund Planned Parenthood — so the states’ residents remained at imminent risk of losing necessary healthcare.

“The risks of irreparable harms are especially high because it is unclear how long the lapse in appropriations will continue, meaning relief may not be available for months at which point numerous health centers will likely be forced to close due to a lack of funds,” the states argued.

On Oct. 8, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the government’s request for a pause, finding that the states’ interest in proceeding with the case “outweighs” the administration’s interest in pausing it.

Talwani’s argument, in part, was that her order denying a pause would provide Justice Department officials the legal authority to continue litigating the case despite the shutdown.

Bonta said in a statement that “Trump owns this shutdown” and “the devastation it’s causing to hardworking everyday Americans,” adding that his office will not let Trump use it to cause even more harm by delaying relief in court cases.

“We’re not letting his Administration use this shutdown as an excuse to continue implementing his unlawful agenda unchecked. Until we get relief for Californians, we’re not backing down — and neither are the courts,” Bonta said. “We can’t wait for Trump to finally let our government reopen before these cases are heard.”

Trump and Republicans in Congress have blamed the shutdown on Democrats.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and left in place the $1.4-billion judgment against him over his description of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a hoax staged by crisis actors.

The Infowars host had argued that a judge was wrong to find him liable for defamation and infliction of emotional distress without holding a trial on the merits of allegations lodged by relatives of victims of the shooting, which killed 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Conn.

The justices did not comment on their order, which they issued without asking the families of the Sandy Hook victims to respond to Jones’ appeal. An FBI agent who responded to the shooting also sued.

A lawyer who represents Sandy Hook families said the Supreme Court had properly rejected Jones’ “latest desperate attempt to avoid accountability for the harm he has caused.”

“We look forward to enforcing the jury’s historic verdict and making Jones and Infowars pay for what they have done,” lawyer Christopher Mattei said in a statement.

A lawyer representing Jones in the case didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment. During his daily show on Tuesday, Jones said his lawyers believed his case was “cut and dry,” while he had predicted the high court wouldn’t take up his appeal.

“I said no, they will not do it because of politics,” Jones said.

Jones mocked the idea that he has enough money to pay the judgment, saying his studio equipment, including five-year-old cameras, was only worth about $304,000.

“It’s all about torturing me. It’s all about harassing me. It’s about harassing my family. It’s about getting me off the air,” said Jones, who urged his listeners to buy merchandise to keep the show running.

Jones filed for bankruptcy in late 2022, and his lawyers told the justices that the “plaintiffs have no possible hope of collecting” the entire judgment.

He is separately appealing a $49-million judgment in a similar defamation lawsuit in Texas after he failed to turn over documents sought by the parents of another Sandy Hook victim.

In the Connecticut case, the judge issued a rare default ruling against Jones and his company in late 2021 because of what she called Jones’ repeated failure to abide by court rulings and to turn over certain evidence to the Sandy Hook families. The judge convened a jury to determine how much Jones would owe.

The following year, the jury agreed on a $964-million verdict and the judge later tacked on another $473 million in punitive damages against Jones and Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company, which is based in Austin, Texas.

In November, the satirical news outlet The Onion was named the winning bidder in an auction to liquidate Infowars’ assets to help pay the defamation judgments. But the bankruptcy judge threw out the auction results, citing problems with the process and The Onion’s bid.

The attempt to sell off Infowars’ assets has moved to a Texas state court in Austin. Jones is now appealing a recent order from the court that appointed a receiver to liquidate the assets. Some of Jones’ personal property is also being sold off as part of the bankruptcy case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

New laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom aim to make the artificial intelligence and social media landscape in California safer, especially for minors.

Senate Bill 243, sponsored by state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista) will require AI companies to incorporate guardrails that prevent so-called “companion” chatbots from talking to users of any age about suicide or self-harm. It also requires that all AI systems alert minors using the chatbots that they are not human every three hours. The systems also are barred from promoting any sexually explicit conduct to users who are minors.

The law, to be enacted on Jan. 1, follows several lawsuits filed against developers in which families allege their children committed suicide after being influenced by an AI chatbot companion.

In the same vein, Newsom signed Assembly Bill 316, which removes a civil legal defense that some AI developers have been using to make the case that they are not responsible for any harm caused by their products. They have argued that their AI products act autonomously — and so there is no legal case to blame the developers.

In a bill analysis meant for legislators, Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) wrote that this change will force developers to vet their product better and ensure that they can be held to account if their product does cause harm to its users.

Another bill, AB 621, increases civil penalties for AI developers who knowingly create nonconsensual “deepfake” AI pornography. The maximum penalties go from $30,000 to $50,000, and from $150,000 to $250,000 in cases where the courts determine that the actions were done with malice.

The author of the bill, Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), has pointed out how this technology has been used to harm minors. “In one recent instance,” she noted in an analysis supporting the proposed legislation, “five students were expelled from a Beverly Hills Middle School after creating and sharing AI generated nude photos of their classmates.”

Another AI bill, Sen. Scott Wiener’s (D-San Francisco) SB 53, was signed into law by Newsom in late September. It will require large AI companies to publicly disclose certain safety and security protocols and report to the state on critical safety incidents. It also creates a public AI computing cluster — CalCompute — that will provide resources to startups and researchers developing large AI systems.

Bauer-Kahan also was the author of AB 56, which will require social media companies to place a warning label on their platforms for minors starting in 2027. The warning label must tell children and teens that social media is associated with mental health issues and may not be safe.

“People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with Big Tech’s failure to protect children who interact with its products. Today, California makes clear that we will not sit and wait for companies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits,” Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who sponsored the bill, said in a news release. “By adding warning labels to social media platforms, AB 56 gives California a new tool to protect our children.”

Other bills recently approved by Newsom look to challenge the Internet’s grip on young people and their mental health.

AB 1043, for example, will require app stores and device manufacturers to take age data from users in order to ensure that they are complying with age verification requirements. Many tech companies, including Google and Meta, approved of the bill, which was written by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).

AB 772 will require grade K-12 schools in the state to develop a policy by mid-2027 on handling bullying and cyberbullying that happens off campus. “After-school bullying follows the pupil back to school and into the classroom, creating a hostile environment at school,” author and Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) wrote in a bill analysis.

Proponents at the Los Angeles County Office of Education wrote in an earlier analysis that because students these days are constantly connected to the internet, bullying does not stop when school lets out. In addition, social media and texting can broadcast instances of bullying to larger audiences than ever before, according to the analysis.

The California School Boards Assn. opposed AB 772, saying that it wasn’t appropriate for school officials to take responsibility for student actions outside of school. Newsom signed the bill last weekend and included it in a larger package of bills meant to protect children from the effects of social media.

“Emerging technology like chatbots and social media can inspire, educate, and connect — but without real guardrails, technology can also exploit, mislead and endanger our kids. We’ve seen some truly horrific and tragic examples of young people harmed by unregulated tech, and we won’t stand by while companies continue without necessary limits and accountability,” Newsom said in a news release Monday. “We can continue to lead in AI and technology, but we must do it responsibly — protecting our children every step of the way. Our children’s safety is not for sale.”

A federal judge heard arguments Tuesday to decide whether maneuvers used by the Trump administration to install Bill Essayli as acting United States attorney in Los Angeles are improper — and, if so, what should be done about it.

During a Tuesday hearing in downtown L.A., Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright — who flew in from Hawaii for the proceeding — wondered how to proceed after defense attorneys sought to dismiss indictments against three clients and to disqualify Essayli “from participating in criminal prosecutions in this district.”

Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April.

His term was set to expire in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. But the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term for an additional nine months without any confirmation process.

Seabright was selected from the District of Hawaii after L.A.’s federal judges recused themselves from the proceedings. He questioned the consequences of dismissing any charges over Essayli’s title.

“If I did this for your client, I’ll have to do it for every single defendant who was indicted when Mr. Essayli was acting under the rubric of acting U.S. attorney, correct?” Seabright said to a deputy federal public defender.

“I don’t think you will,” replied James A. Flynn. “This is a time-specific, case-specific analysis and the court doesn’t need to go so far as to decide that a dismissal would be appropriate in all cases.”

“Why not? You’re asking for a really draconian remedy here,” Seabright said, before questioning how many indictments had been made since Essayli was designated acting U.S. attorney at the end of July.

“203, your honor,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins responded.

In a court filing ahead of the hearing Tuesday, lawyers bringing the challenge against Essayli called the government’s defense of his status a handbook for circumventing the protections that the Constitution and Congress built against the limitless, unaccountable handpicking of temporary officials.”

During the nearly two-hour hearing, Flynn cited similar legal challenges that have played out elsewhere. A federal judge ruled in August that Alina Habba has been illegally occupying the U.S. attorney post in New Jersey, although that order was put on hold pending appeal. Last month, a federal judge disqualified Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, from several cases, concluding she “is not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.”

The judges who ruled on the Nevada and New Jersey cases did not dismiss the charges against defendants, instead ordering that those cases not be supervised by Habba or Chattah.

Flynn argued that the remedies in other states “have not been effective to deter the conduct.”

“This court has the benefit of additional weeks and has seen the government’s response to that determination that their appointments were illegal and I submit the government hasn’t gotten the message,” Flynn said.

Flynn said another option could be a dismissal without prejudice, which means the government could bring the case against their clients again. He called it a “weaker medicine” than dismissal with prejudice, “but would be a stronger one than offered in New Jersey and Nevada.”

The hearing grew testy at times, with Seabright demanding that Assistant U.S. Atty. Robbins tell him when Essayli’s term will end. Robbins told the judge the government believes it will end on Feb. 24 and that afterward the role of acting U.S. attorney will remain vacant.

Robbins noted that Essayli has also been designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, essentially allowing him to remain in charge of the office if he loses the “acting” title.

Bondi in July also appointed him as a “special attorney.” Robbins told the judge that “there’s no developed challenge to Mr. Essayli’s appointment as a special attorney or his designation as a first assistant.”

“The defense challenge here, the stated interest that they have, is Bill Essayli cannot be acting,” Robbins said. “But they don’t have a compelling or strong response to Bill Essayli is legitimately in the office and he can be the first assistant … he can supervise other people in the office.”

Seabright asked both sides to brief him by Thursday on “whatever hats you believe [Essayli’s] wearing now” and “whether I were to say he wasn’t legitimately made acting U.S. attorney … what hats does he continue to wear.”

“If I understand the government’s proposed remedy correctly … it would essentially be no remedy at all, because they would be re-creating Mr. Essayli as the acting United States attorney, he’d just be wearing a first assistant hat,” Flynn said.

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When asked by a Times reporter last month about the motion to disqualify him, Essayli said “the president won the election.”

“The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president,” he said during a news conference.

Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language verbatim at news conferences. His tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of prosecutors quitting.

Fesia Davenport, L.A. County’s chief executive officer, received a $2 million settlement this summer due to professional fallout from Measure G, a voter-approved ballot measure that will soon make her job obsolete, according to a letter she wrote to the county’s top lawyer.

Davenport wrote in the July 8 letter, which was released through a public record request Tuesday, that she had been seeking $2 million for “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress caused by the Measure G.”

“Measure G is an unprecedented event, and has had, and will continue to have, an unprecedented impact on my professional reputation, health, career, income, and retirement,” Davenport wrote to County Counsel Dawyn Harrison. “My hope is that after setting aside the amount of my ask, that there can be a true focus on what the real issues are here – measure G has irrevocably changed my life, my professional career, economic outlook, and plans for the future.”

The existence of the $2 million settlement, finalized in mid-August, was first reported Tuesday by the LAist. It was unclear what the settlement was for.

Davenport began a medical leave last week. She told staff she expects to be back early next year.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn first announced Measure G in July 2024, branding it as a long overdue overhaul to the county’s sluggish bureaucracy. Under the charter amendment, which voters approved this November, the number of supervisors increased to nine and the county chief executive, who manages the county government and oversees its budget, will be now be elected by voters instead of appointed by the board starting in 2028.

In August 2024, a few weeks after the announcement, Davenport wrote a letter to Horvath saying the measure had impugned her “professional reputation” and would end her career at least two years earlier than she expected, according to another letter released through a public records request.

“This has been a tough six weeks for me,” Davenport wrote in her letter. “It has created uncomfortable, awkward interactions between me and my CEO team (they are concerned), me and other departments heads (they are apologetic), and even County outsiders (they think I am being fired).”

This story will be updated.

SACRAMENTO — Gun rights organizations filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new California law that bans certain types of Glock-style semiautomatic firearms.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week, prohibits the sale of semiautomatic pistols with a “cruciform trigger bar” — a feature that allows gun owners to attach a device, commonly called a switch, that boosts the weapon’s firepower and converts it into a machine gun capable of spraying dozens of bullets in a fraction of a second.

“Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights,” John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “They are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges the law violates the 2nd Amendment. Plaintiffs include the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as some individuals and smaller businesses.

The legal action alleges that California’s new law essentially bans the sale of certain Glock-brand handguns and others with similar features that allow modification by owners.

“A law that bans the sale of — and correspondingly prevents citizens from acquiring — a weapon in common use violates the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit states. “Semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way. The Supreme Court has already held that handguns are in common use and cannot be banned.”

The lawsuit states the only justification for banning a firearm is when the weapon is “dangerous and unusual” and argues that semiautomatic pistols are neither.

“They are also unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes,” the lawsuit states. “In fact, they are among the most popular handguns in the nation.”

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who introduced Assembly Bill 1127, said his bill was intended to help protect communities from gun violence.

“Automatic weapons are exceptionally lethal and capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute; they are illegal in California,” he told the Senate Public Safety Committee in July. “Unfortunately, some semiautomatic firearms feature a dangerous design element allowing them to be converted to automatic weapons through the attachment of an easy-to-use device known as a switch.”

Over the last few years, handguns retrofitted with switches were used in several prominent shootings in California, including the 2022 mass shooting in downtown Sacramento that left six people dead and a dozen injured.

Machine gun conversion switches are illegal in the United States and are mostly manufactured overseas. They also can be built at home using 3D printers. Instructions for installing one on a firearm can be found online and require little to no technical expertise.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, according to the Associated Press.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter, under fire for recently emerged videos showing her scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide, expressed remorse for her behavior on Tuesday in her first public remarks since the incidents were publicized.

Porter, a former Orange County congresswoman and a top candidate in California’s 2026 governor’s race, said that she “could have handled things better.”

“I think I’m known as someone who’s able to handle tough questions, who’s willing to answer questions,” Porter told Nikki Laurenzo, host of Inside California Politics and anchor on Fox40 in Sacramento. “I want people to know that I really value the incredible work that my staff can do. I think people who know me know I can be tough. But I need to do a better job expressing appreciation for the amazing work my team does.”

Last week, a video emerged of Porter telling a separate television reporter that she doesn’t need the support of the millions of Californians who voted for President Trump, and brusquely threatening to end the interview because the reporter asked follow-up questions. The following day, a second video emerged of Porter telling a young staffer “Get out of my f—ing shot!” while videoconferencing with a member of then-President Biden’s cabinet in 2021.

Porter on Tuesday said that she had apologized to the staffer. She repeatedly sidestepped Laurenzo’s questions about whether other videos could emerge.

“What I can tell you … is that I am taking responsibility for the situation,” Porter said.

Porter’s behavior in the videos underscored long-standing questions about her temperament and high staff turnover while she served in Congress.

The most recent polls showed that Porter held a narrow lead in the competitive race to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is serving his second and final term as governor. After the videos emerged last week, several of Porter’s rivals criticized her behavior, including former state Controller Betty Yee, who said she should drop out of the race.

On Tuesday, Yee argued that Porter’s temperament could imperil Democrats’ efforts to pass Proposition 50, the Nov. 4 ballot measure to redraw congressional districts in California to boost their party’s numbers in the House.

Yee, a former vice chair of the state Democratic party, warned that a Republican could potentially win the governor’s race and Democrats could lose the U.S. House of Representatives because of Porter’s “demeanor.”

“I don’t relish picking a fight, and it’s not even a fight,” Yee said during a virtual press conference. “I’m doing what’s best for this party.”

Porter is also expected to address the issue Tuesday night during a virtual forum with the California Working Families Party.

Prior to her statements on Tuesday, Porter had released one statement about the 2021 video, saying, “It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard, and that was especially true as a member of Congress. I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”

The UC Irvine law professor has not responded to multiple interview requests from the Times.

Mehta reported from Los Angeles and Smith reported from Sacramento.

WASHINGTON — An extraordinary new policy from the Defense Department that equates basic reporting methods to criminal activity has prompted a revolt among Pentagon journalists that could leave the nation’s largest agency and the world’s largest military without a press corps.

The new policy, from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is a dramatic departure from historic standards at the department, which previously required credentialed reporters to sign a simple, single-page document laying out safety protocols.

Replacing that document is a 21-page agreement that warns reporters against “soliciting” information, including unclassified material, without the Pentagon’s official authorization, characterizing individuals who do so as a “security risk.”

The policy would force journalists and media organizations to refrain from publishing any material that is not approved by the military — a clear violation of 1st Amendment protections to free speech, lawyers for media outlets said.

Major news organizations including the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, as well as right-leaning outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Times, have refused to sign the document, with only one far-right outlet — the cable channel One American News — agreeing to do so.

The Los Angeles Times also will not agree to the policy, said Terry Tang, the paper’s executive editor.

In a rare joint statement, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC said that the policy “is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections.”

“We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press,” the news outlets said.

But Hegseth, who has aggressively pursued leaks and sources of unfavorable news stories since the start of his turbulent tenure as secretary, has doubled down in recent days, posting emojis on social media waving goodbye as media organizations have issued statements condemning the policy. Journalists were given a deadline of 2 p.m. PDT on Tuesday to either sign the document or relinquish their credentials.

It is unclear whether it will be viable for the Pentagon to maintain the policy, leaving the secretary without a traveling press corps to highlight his official duties or public events. And it is also uncertain whether President Trump approves of the extreme measure.

At a White House event Tuesday, Hegseth said that the policy was “common sense” and that he was “proud” of it. He said credentials should not be given to reporters who will try to get officials “to break the law by giving them classified information.”

Asked last month whether the Pentagon should control what reporters gather and write, Trump said “no.”

“I don’t think so,” Trump said, adding: “Nothing stops reporters.”

But Trump said Tuesday that he understands why Hegseth is pushing for the new policy.

“I think he finds the press to be very destructive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”

The widespread revolt has generated a show of solidarity from the White House and State Department correspondents associations, which characterized the Pentagon policy in a joint statement Monday as an attack on freedom of the press.

“Access inside the Pentagon has never been about convenience to reporters,” the statement reads. “The public has a right to know how the government is conducting the people’s business. Unfettered reporting on the U.S. military and its civilian leadership provides a service to those in uniform, veterans, their families and all Americans.”

Beyond the restrictions on media outlets, the Pentagon has taken a series of steps this year to try and identify officials who are deemed disloyal or who provide information to reporters.

In April, the Pentagon dismissed three top officials after an investigation into potential leaks related to military operational plans. That same month, Hegseth’s team began subjecting officials to random polygraph tests, a practice that was temporarily halted after the White House intervened, according to the Washington Post.

Then, in October, the Pentagon drafted plans to renew the use of polygraphs and to require thousands of personnel to sign strict nondisclosure agreements that would “prohibit the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process.” The nondisclosure agreements include language that is similar to what reporters are being asked to sign by Tuesday.

Notably, many of Hegseth’s plans to target leaks have been leaked to news outlets, probably contributing to the Defense secretary’s suspicion about whom he can trust.

The timing of his efforts are also noteworthy, as they gained traction after he personally shared sensitive details about forthcoming strikes in Yemen in a private Signal group chat that mistakenly included a reporter from the Atlantic. Hegseth also shared information about the attacks in a separate Signal chat that included his wife, a former Fox News producer who is not a Defense Department employee.

Hegseth denied that any classified information was shared in the chat. Yet the situation led to an internal review of whether the disclosures were in violation of Defense Department policies.

The Pentagon has taken an even more aggressive approach to restricting reporters’ access than the White House, which months ago took control over press operations from the White House Correspondents Assn. — an independent group that had organized the White House press corps for decades.

Still, the White House has refrained from implementing changes to the briefing room seating chart, evicting outlets from workspaces within the White House complex or revoking press passes, after facing a legal challenge over an attempt to bar one major outlet — the Associated Press — from covering some presidential events at the beginning of Trump’s second term.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to single out individual outlets he dislikes. On Tuesday, for example, the president refused to take questions from ABC News because he said he did not like how a news anchor had treated Vice President JD Vance.

“You’re ABC Fake News,” Trump said at a public appearance in the White House. “I don’t take questions from ABC Fake News!”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday posthumously awarded America’s highest civilian honor to Charlie Kirk, the slain activist who inspired a generation of young conservatives and helped push the nation’s politics further to the right.

The ceremony coincided with what would have been Kirk’s 32nd birthday. It came just over a month after the Turning Point USA founder was fatally shot while speaking to a crowd at Utah Valley University.

In a sign of Kirk’s close ties to the administration, he was the first recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Trump’s second term. The president also spoke at at Kirk’s funeral in September, calling him a “great American hero” and “martyr” for freedom, while Vice President JD Vance accompanied his body home to Arizona on Air Force Two along with Kirk’s widow, Erika.

“We’re here to honor and remember a fearless warrior for liberty, beloved leader who galvanized the next generation like nobody I’ve ever seen before, and an American patriot of the deepest conviction, the finest quality and the highest caliber,” Trump said Tuesday afternoon.

Of Kirk’s killing, Trump said: “He was assassinated in the prime of his life for boldly speaking the truth, for living his faith and relentless fighting for a better and stronger America.”

The Presidential Medal of Freedom was established by President Kennedy in 1963 for individuals making exceptional contributions to the country’s security or national interests or to world peace, or being responsible for significant cultural endeavors or public and private initiatives.

Tuesday’s event followed Trump returning to the U.S. in the predawn hours after a whirlwind trip to Israel and Egypt to celebrate a ceasefire agreement in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza that his administration was instrumental in brokering.

Trump joked that he almost requested to move the ceremony because of the trip.

“I raced back halfway around the globe,” Trump said. “I was going to call Erika and say, ‘Erika, could you maybe move it to Friday? And I didn’t have the courage to call. But you know why I didn’t call? Because I heard today was Charlie’s birthday.”

Argentine President Javier Milei, who had been visiting with the president at the White House earlier, stayed to attend the ceremony.

Trump has awarded a string of presidential medals going back to his first term, including to golf legend Tiger Woods, ex-football coach Lou Holtz and conservative economist Arthur Laffer, as well as to New York Yankees Hall of Fame pitcher Mariano Rivera and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, the latter of which came during the 2020 State of the Union. He awarded posthumous medals to Babe Ruth and Elvis.

This term, Trump has also announced his intentions to award the medals to Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a close former advisor, and to Ben Carson, who served as Trump’s first-term secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012. Trump has praised Kirk as one of the key reasons he was reelected.

But Kirk’s politics were also often divisive. He sharply criticized gay and transgender rights while inflaming racial tensions. Kirk also repeated Trump’s false claims that former Vice President Kamala Harris was responsible for policies that encouraged immigrants to come to the U.S. illegally and called George Floyd, a Black man whose killing by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national debate over racial injustice, a “scumbag.”

Trump wrote in a social media post hours before the event that he was moving the ceremony from the White House’s East Room to the Rose Garden to accommodate a crowd he said would be “so big and enthusiastic.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee requested Tuesday that Jack Smith, the former Justice Department special counsel, appear for an interview, part of an escalating effort among the GOP to pursue the perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the committee chair, charged in a letter to Smith that his prosecutions of Trump were “partisan and politically motivated.” Smith has come under particular scrutiny on Capitol Hill, especially after the Senate Judiciary Committee said last week that his investigation had included an FBI analysis of phone records for more than half a dozen Republican lawmakers from the week of Jan. 6, 2021

Smith brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law. Former Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland, who named Smith as special counsel in November 2022, has repeatedly said politics played no part in the handling of the cases.

Smith abandoned the criminal cases against Trump after he won the presidential election last year. Trump’s return to the White House precluded the federal prosecutions, as well as paved the way for Republicans to go after Trump’s political and legal opponents.

Jordan wrote to Smith: “Your testimony is necessary to understand the full extent to which the Biden-Harris Justice Department weaponized federal law enforcement.”

In just the last weeks, the Trump administration has pursued criminal charges against both James Comey, the former FBI director, and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who for years investigated and sued Trump.

The House Judiciary Committee has been looking into Smith’s actions as special counsel since the start of the year. Jordan said that it had interviewed two other members of Smith’s prosecutorial team, but they had declined to answer many questions, citing the Fifth Amendment.

An attorney for Smith did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the House Judiciary Committee’s interview request.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. — Some airports around the country are refusing to play a video with a message from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in which she blames Democrats for the federal government shutdown and its impacts on TSA operations because of its political content.

Airports in Las Vegas, Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle and more say the video goes against their airport policy or regulations that prohibit political messaging in their facilities.

Various government agencies, in emails to workers and on websites, have adopted language that blames Democrats for the shutdown, with some experts arguing it could be in violation of the 1939 Hatch Act, which restricts certain political activities by federal employees.

The shutdown has halted routine operations and left airports scrambling with flight disruptions. Democrats say any deal to reopen the government has to address their healthcare demands, and Republicans say they won’t negotiate until they agree to fund the government. Insurance premiums would double if Congress fails to renew the subsidy payments that expire Dec. 31.

In the video, Noem says that TSA’s “top priority” is to help make travel pleasant and efficient while keeping passengers safe.

“However, Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government, and because of this, many of our operations are impacted, and most of our TSA employees are working without pay,” she continues.

The Transportation Security Administration falls under the Department of Homeland Security. Roughly 61,000 of the agency’s 64,130 employees are required to continue working during the shutdown. The Department said Friday that the video is being rolled out to airports across the country.

A DHS spokeswoman responded to a request for comment restating some of the message from Noem’s video.

“It’s unfortunate our workforce has been put in this position due to political gamesmanship. Our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government,” spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.

The Harry Reid International Airport, in Las Vegas, said it had to “remain mindful of the Hatch Act’s restrictions.”

“Per airport regulations, the terminals and surrounding areas are not designated public forums, and the airport’s intent is to avoid the use of the facility for political or religious advocacy,” the statement said.

Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins said the county north of New York City won’t play the video at its local airport. In a statement, he called the video “inappropriate, unacceptable, and inconsistent with the values we expect from our nation’s top public officials,” and said its tone is “unnecessarily alarmist” as it relates to operations at Westchester County Airport.

“At a time when we should be focused on ensuring stability, collaboration and preparedness, this type of messaging only distracts from the real issues, and undermines public trust,” he said.

Even in red states, airports weren’t showing the video for various reasons. Salt Lake City International Airport wasn’t playing the video because state law prohibits using city-owned property for political purposes, said airport spokesperson Nancy Volmer.

The airport in Billings, Mont., “politely declined” even though it has screens that could show the video with audio, assistant aviation director Paul Khera said Tuesday.

“We don’t want to get in the middle of partisan politics,” Khera said. “We like to stay middle of the road, we didn’t want to play that video.”

Gomez Licon writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Rio Yamat in Las Vegas and Mead Gruver in Fort Collins, Colo. contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The United States struck another small boat accused of carrying drugs in the waters off Venezuela, killing six people, President Trump said on Tuesday.

Those who died in the strike were aboard the vessel, and no U.S. forces were harmed, Trump said in a social media post. It’s the fifth deadly strike in the Caribbean as Trump’s administration has asserted it’s treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the strike Tuesday morning, said Trump, who released a video of it, as he had in the past. Hegseth later shared the video in a post on X.

Trump said the strike was conducted in international waters and “Intelligence” confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics, was associated with “narcoterrorist networks” and was on a known drug trafficking route.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press seeking more information on the latest boat strike.

Frustration with the Trump administration has been growing on Capitol Hill among members of both major political parties. Some Republicans are seeking more information from the White House on the legal justification and details of the strikes. Democrats contend the strikes violate U.S. and international law.

The Senate last week voted on a war powers resolution that would have barred the Trump administration from conducting the strikes unless Congress specifically authorized them, but it failed to pass.

In a memo to Congress that was obtained by The Associated Press, the Trump administration said it had “determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations” and that Trump directed the Pentagon to “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict.”

The Trump administration has yet to provide underlying evidence to lawmakers proving that the boats targeted by the U.S. military in a series of fatal strikes were in fact carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The strikes followed a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean unlike any seen in recent times.

Last week, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino told military leaders that the U.S. government knows the drug-trafficking accusations used to support the recent actions in the Caribbean are false, with its true intent being to “force a regime change” in the South American country.

He added that the Venezuelan government does not see the deployment of the U.S. warships as a mere “propaganda-like action” and warned of a possible escalation.

“I want to warn the population: We have to prepare ourselves because the irrationality with which the U.S. empire operates is not normal,” Padrino said during the televised gathering. “It’s anti-political, anti-human, warmongering, rude, and vulgar.”

Price and Toropin write for the Associated Press. AP writer Ben Finley contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump is making this government shutdown unlike any the country has ever seen, enabling his budget office a rare authority to pick winners and losers — who gets paid or fired — in an unprecedented restructuring across the federal workforce.

As the shutdown enters its third week, the Office and Management and Budget said Tuesday it’s preparing to “batten down the hatches” with more reductions in force to come. The president calls budget chief Russ Vought the “grim reaper” who’s seized on the opportunity to fund Trump’s priorities, paying the military while slashing employees in health, education, the sciences and other areas with actions that have been criticized as illegal and are facing court challenges.

“Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the RIFs, and wait,” OMB said in a social media post.

With Congress at a standstill — the Republican-led House refusing to return to session and the Senate stuck in a loop of failed votes to reopen government as Democrats demand health care funds — the White House’s budget office quickly filled the void.

From Project 2025 to the White House

Vought, a chief architect of the conservative Project 2025 policy book, is reshaping the size and scope of federal government in ways similar to those envisioned in the blueprint. It is exactly what certain lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feared if Congress failed to fund the government.

Trump’s priorities — supporting the military and pursuing his mass deportation agenda — have been kept largely uninterrupted, despite the closures. But employees in health, education, the sciences and other federal departments are among those being laid off. As many as 750,000 workers are being furloughed.

“Donald Trump and Russ Vought and all of their cronies are using this moment to terrorize these patriots,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., standing with federal workers Tuesday outside the White House budget office.

Van Hollen said it’s “a big fat lie” when Trump and his budget director say that the shutdown is making them fire federal workers. “It is also illegal and we will see them in court,” Van Hollen said.

Shutdown grinds into a third week

Now on its 14th day, the federal closure is quickly becoming among the longest government shutdowns. Congress failed to meet the Oct. 1 deadline to pass the annual appropriations bills needed to fund the government as the Democrats demanded a deal to preserve expiring health care funds that provide subsidies for people to purchase insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday said he has nothing to negotiate with the Democrats until they vote to reopen the government.

The Republican speaker welcomed OMB’s latest actions to pay some workers and fire others.

“They have every right to move the funds around,” Johnson said at a press conference at the Capitol. If the Democrats want to challenge the Trump administration in court, Johnson said, “bring it.”

Typically, federal workers are furloughed during a lapse in funding, traditionally with back pay once government funding is restored. But Vought’s budget office announced late last week the reductions in forces had begun. More than 4,000 workers received layoff notices over the weekend.

Military pay, deportations on track

At the same time, Trump instructed the military to find money to ensure service personnel wouldn’t miss paychecks this week. The Pentagon said over the weekend it was able to tap $8 billion in unused research and development funds to make payroll.

On Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said her agency was relying on Trump’s big tax cuts law for funding to make sure members of the Coast Guard, which falls under the department, are also paid.

“We at DHS worked out an innovative solution to make sure that didn’t happen,” Noem said in a statement. Thanks to “the One Big Beautiful Bill,” she said, “the brave men and women of the US Coast Guard will not miss a paycheck this week.”

In past shutdowns, the Office of Management and Budget has overseen agency plans during the lapse in federal fundings, ensuring which workers are essential and remain on the job. Vought, however, has taken his role further by speaking openly about his plans to go after the federal workforce.

As agencies started making their shutdown plans, Vought’s OMB encouraged department heads to consider reductions in force, an unheard of action. The budget office’s general counsel, Mark Paoletta suggested in a draft memo that the workforce may not be automatically eligible for back pay once government reopens.

‘Grim reaper’ replaces Elon Musk’s chainsaw

Trump posted an AI-generated video last week that portrayed Vought dressed with cloak and dagger, against the backdrop of the classic rock staple “(Don’t Fear) The Reaper.”

“Every authoritarian leader has had his grim reaper. Russell Vought is Donald Trump’s,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, the senior Democrat from Maryland.

Hoyer compared the budget chief to billionaire Elon Musk wielding a chainsaw earlier this year as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s slashing of the workforce “Vought swings his scythe through the federal government as thoughtlessly,” he said.

In many ways, the “Big, Beautiful Bill, Act” as the law is commonly called, gives the White House a vast new allotment of federal funding for its priority projects, separate from the regular appropriations process in Congress.

The package unleashed some $175 billion for the Pentagon, including for the Golden Dome missile shield and other priority projects, and another $175 million to Homeland Security largely for Trump’s mass deportation agenda. It also included extra funds for Vought’s work at OMB.

Trump’s big bill provides billions

Certain funds from the “big bill” are available to be used during the shutdown, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

“The Administration also could decide to use mandatory funding provided in the 2025 reconciliation act or other sources of mandatory funding to continue activities financed by those direct appropriations at various agencies,” according to CBO.

The CBO cited the Department of Defense, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget as among those that received eligible funds under the law..

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

PHILADELPHIA — President Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected its latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said that the campaign’s error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together,” and he denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents, including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s sister, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

Friday’s ruling comes four days after Pennsylvania officials certified their vote count for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000, when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday’s ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote in his Nov. 21 ruling. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s Legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the electoral college formalizes Biden’s win, which appears certain.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since election day.

Yet on Friday, he continued his baseless attacks on Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations, calling them sources of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the electoral college meets Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the electoral college and popular vote by wide margins.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Argentina’s libertarian leader is lavishing praise on President Trump ahead of his first White House visit on Tuesday. It’s a tactic that has helped transform President Javier Milei ’s cash-strapped country into one of the Trump administration’s closest allies.

The effusive declarations are nothing new for Milei — whose dramatic cuts to state spending and attacks on “woke leftists” have won him a following among U.S. conservatives.

“Your commitment to life, freedom and peace has restored hope to the world,” Milei wrote on social media Monday, congratulating the U.S. president on securing a ceasefire deal in Gaza, where a truce is holding after a devastating, two-year Israel-Hamas war.

“It is an honor to consider you not only an ally in the defense of those values, but also a dear friend and an example of leadership that inspires all those who believe in freedom,” he said.

The Trump-Milei bromance has already paid off for Argentina — most recently, to the tune of a $20 billion bailout.

Experts say Milei comes to the White House with two clear objectives. One is to negotiate U.S. tariff exemptions or reductions for Argentine products.

The other is to see how the United States will implement a $20 billion currency swap line to prop up Argentina’s peso and replenish its depleted foreign currency reserves ahead of crucial midterm elections later this month.

In a crisis, turning to Trump

The Trump administration made a highly unusual decision to intervene in Argentina’s currency market after Milei’s party suffered a landslide loss in a local election last month.

Along with setbacks in the opposition-dominated Congress, the party’s crushing defeat created a crisis of confidence as voters in Buenos Aires Province registered their frustration with rising unemployment, contracting economic activity and brewing corruption scandals.

Alarmed that this could herald the end of popular support for Milei’s free-market program, investors dumped Argentine bonds and sold off the peso.

Argentina’s Treasury began hemorrhaging precious dollar reserves at a feverish pace, trying shore up the currency and keep its exchange rate within the trading band set as part of the country’s recent $20 billion deal with the International Monetary Fund.

But as the peso continued to slide, Milei grew desperate.

He met with Trump on Sept. 23 while in New York City for the United Nations General Assembly. A flurry of back-slapping, hand-shaking and mutual flattery between the two quickly gave way to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly promising Argentina a lifeline of $20 billion.

Markets cheered, and investors breathed a sigh of relief.

Timing is everything

In the days that followed, Argentine Economy Minister Luis Caputo spent hours in meetings in Washington trying to seal the deal.

Reassurance came last Thursday, when Bessent announced that the U.S. would allow Argentina to exchange up to $20 billion worth of pesos for an equal sum in dollars. Saying that the success of Milei’s program was “of systemic importance,” Bessent added that the U.S. Treasury directly purchased an unspecified amount of pesos.

For the Trump administration, the timing was awkward as it struggles to manage the optics of bailing out a nine-time serial defaulter in the middle of a U.S. government shutdown that has led to mass layoffs.

But for Argentina, it came in the nick of time.

Aware of how a weak currency could threaten his flagship achievement of taming inflation and hurt his popularity, Milei hopes to stave off what many economists see as an inescapable currency devaluation until after the the Oct. 26 midterm elections.

A devaluation of the peso would likely fuel a resurgence in inflation.

“Milei is going to the U.S. in a moment of desperation now,” said Marcelo J. García, political analyst and Director for the Americas at the Horizon Engage political risk consultancy firm.

“He needs to recreate market expectations and show that his program can be sustainable,” García added. “The government is trying to win some time to make it to the midterms without major course corrections, like devaluing or floating the peso.”

No strings attached

Milei was vague when pressed for details on his talks with Trump, expected later on Tuesday. Officials say he would have a two-hour meeting with the U.S. president, followed by a working lunch with other top officials.

He was also expected to participate in a ceremony at the White House honoring Charlie Kirk, the prominent right-wing political activist who was fatally shot last month. Milei often crossed paths with Kirk on the speaking circuit of the ascendant global right.

“We don’t have a single-issue agenda, but rather a multi-issue agenda,” Milei told El Observador radio in Buenos Aires Monday. “Things that are already finalized will be announced, and things that still need to be finalized will remain pending.”

It’s not clear what strings, if any, the Trump administration has attached to the currency swap deal, which Democratic lawmakers and other critics have slammed as an example of Trump rewarding loyalists at the expense of American taxpayers.

There has been no word on how Argentina, the IMF’s largest debtor, will end up paying the U.S. back for this $20 billion, which comes on top of IMF’s own loan for the same amount in April. And that one came on top of an earlier IMF loan for $40 billion.

Despite all the help, Milei’s government already missed the IMF’s early targets for rebuilding currency reserves.

“The U.S. should be concerned that Argentina has had to return for $20 billion so quickly after getting $14 billion upfront from the IMF,” said Brad Setser, a former Treasury official now at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I worry that this may prove to just be a short-term bridge and won’t leave Argentina better equipped” to tackle its problems, he added.

But in the radio interview before his flight, Milei was upbeat. He gushed about U.S. support saving Argentina from “the local franchise of 21st-century socialism” and waxed poetic about Argentina’s economic potential.

“There will be an avalanche of dollars,” Milei said. “We’ll have dollars pouring out of our ears.”

Debre writes for the Associated Press.