Congress

WASHINGTON — The killing of a Minnesota woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer is reverberating across Capitol Hill where Democrats, and certain Republicans, are vowing an assertive response as President Trump’s aggressive deportation operations spark protests nationwide.

Lawmakers are demanding a range of actions, including a full investigation into Renee Nicole Good’s shooting death, policy changes over law enforcement raids, the defunding of ICE operations and the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, in what is fast becoming an inflection point.

“The situation that took place in Minnesota is a complete and total disgrace,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said as details emerged. “And in the next few days, we will be having conversations about a strong and forceful and appropriate response by House Democrats.”

Yet there is almost no consensus among the political parties in the aftermath of the death of Good, who was behind the wheel of an SUV after dropping off her 6-year-old at school when she was shot and killed by an ICE officer.

The killing immediately drew dueling narratives. Trump and Noem said the ICE officer acted in self-defense, while Democratic officials said the Trump administration was lying and they urged the public to view the viral videos of the shooting for themselves. The videos appear to contradict at least some aspects of the Trump administration’s assertions.

Vice President JD Vance blamed Good, calling it “a tragedy of her own making,” and said the ICE officer may have been “sensitive” from having been injured during an unrelated altercation last year.

But Good’s killing, at least the fifth known death since the administration launched its mass deportation campaign, could change the political dynamic.

“The videos I’ve seen from Minneapolis yesterday are deeply disturbing,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a statement last week.

“As we mourn this loss of life, we need a thorough and objective investigation into how and why this happened,” she said. As part of the investigation, Murkowski said she is calling for policy changes, saying the situation “was devastating, and cannot happen again.”

Homeland Security funding up for debate

The push in Congress for more oversight and accountability of the administration’s immigration operations comes as lawmakers are in the midst of the annual appropriations process to fund agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, to prevent another federal government shutdown when money expires at the end of January.

As anti-ICE demonstrations erupt in the aftermath of Good’s death, as seen in many U.S. cities this weekend, Democrats have pledged to use any available legislative lever to apply pressure on the administration to change the conduct of ICE officers.

“We’ve been warning about this for an entire year,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.).

The ICE officer “needs to be held accountable,” Frost said, “but not just them, but ICE as a whole, the president and this entire administration.”

Congressional Democrats saw Good’s killing as a sign of the need for aggressive action to restrain the administration’s tactics.

Several Democrats joined calls to impeach Noem, who has been under fire from both parties for her lack of transparency at the department, though that step is highly unlikely with Republicans in control of Congress.

Other Democrats want to restrict the funding for her department, whose budget was vastly increased as part of Republicans’ sweeping tax and spending bill passed last summer.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the subcommittee that handles Homeland Security funding, plans to introduce legislation to rein in the agency with constraints on federal agents’ authority, including a requirement that the Border Patrol stick to the border and that Homeland Security enforcement officers be unmasked.

“More Democrats are saying today the thing that a number of us have been saying since April and May: Kristi Noem is dangerous. She should not be in office, and she should be impeached,” said Democratic Rep. Delia C. Ramirez, who represents parts of Chicago where ICE launched an enhanced immigration enforcement action last year that resulted in two deaths.

Immigration debates have long divided Congress and the parties. Democrats splinter between more liberal and stricter attitudes toward newcomers to the United States. Republicans have embraced Trump’s hard-line approach in trying to portray Democrats as radicals.

The Republican administration had launched the enforcement operation in Minnesota in response to an investigation of the nonprofit Feeding Our Future. Prosecutors said the organization was at the center of the country’s largest COVID-19-related fraud scams, when defendants exploited a state-run, federally funded program intended to provide food for children.

Heading into the November midterm election, which Democrats believe will hinge on issues such as affordability and healthcare, national outcry over ICE’s conduct has pressured lawmakers to speak out.

“I’m not completely against deportations, but the way they’re handling it is a real disgrace,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Right now, you’re seeing humans treated like animals,” he said.

Other ICE shootings have rattled lawmakers

In September, a federal immigration enforcement agent in Chicago fatally shot Silverio Villegas Gonzalez during a brief altercation after Gonzalez had dropped off his children at school.

In October, a Customs and Border Protection agent also in Chicago shot Marimar Martinez, a teacher and U.S. citizen, five times during a dispute with officers. The charges the administration had brought against Martinez were dismissed by a federal judge.

To Rep. Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), Good’s death “brought back heart-wrenching memories of those two shootings in my district.”

“It looks like the fact that a U.S. citizen, who is a white woman, may be opening the eyes of the American public, certainly of members of Congress, that what’s going on is out of control,” he said, “that this isn’t about apprehending or pursuing the most dangerous immigrants.”

Republicans expressed some concern at the shooting but most stood by the administration’s policy, defended the officer’s actions and largely blamed Good for the altercation.

“Nobody wants to see people get shot,” said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.).

“Let’s do the right thing and just be reasonable. And the reasonable thing is not to obstruct ICE officers and then accelerate while they’re standing in front of your car,” he said. “She made a mistake. I’m sure she didn’t mean for that to happen, nor did he mean for that to happen.”

Brown and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Five Senate Republicans broke with party leaders on Thursday to advance legislation that would rein in President Trump’s use of the U.S. military in Venezuela, a move that comes as a growing number of GOP lawmakers have expressed unease about the White House’s threats to use force to acquire Greenland.

The procedural vote, which came over the objections of Republican leaders, now sets the stage for a full Senate vote next week on a measure that would block Trump from using military force “within or against Venezuela” without approval from Congress. Even with the Senate’s approval, the legislation is unlikely to become law as it is unlikely to pass the House, and President Trump — who has veto power over legislation — has publicly condemned the measure and the Republicans who supported it.

“This vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote in a social media post shortly after the 52-47 vote in the Senate.

The Republican defection on the issue underscores the growing concern among GOP lawmakers over the Trump administration’s foreign policy ambitions and highlights the bipartisan concern that the president is testing the limits of executive war powers — not only in Venezuela but also in Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, a U.S. ally.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), one of the Republicans who voted for the resolution, said that while she supported the operation that led to the capture and extradition of Nicolás Maduro, she did not “support committing additional U.S. forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization.”

The resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Republicans who supported it were Sens. Collins, Paul, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

“Finally, the Senate is exercising its constitutional power over the authorization of the use of force to prevent America from being dragged into a new war over oil,” Schiff said in a social media post after the vote.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters at the White House on Thursday that he was not concerned about Trump losing support among Republican lawmakers in Washington, adding that passage of the resolution in the Senate would not “change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks or the next couple of months.”

But Republican support for the resolution reflects a deepening concern within the GOP over Trump’s foreign policy plans, particularly his threats to acquire Greenland — a move that prompted European leaders earlier this week to call on the United States to respect the Arctic territory’s sovereignty

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters on Wednesday that he does not believe “anybody’s seriously considering” using the military to take control of Greenland.

“In Congress, we’re certainly not,” Johnson said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) struck a similar tone the same day, telling reporters that he does not “see military action being an option” in Greenland.

Other Republican lawmakers have been more openly critical, warning that even floating the idea of using force against a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a defense alliance that includes the United States, risks weakening America’s position on the world stage.

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

In a statement Tuesday, the White House said acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority” and that using the military to achieve that goal was “always an option.” A day earlier, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, told CNN that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”

“Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Miller said.

Miller’s remarks angered Republican senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) who in an interview with CNN on Wednesday called the idea of invading Greenland “weapons-grade stupid.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who has served as the top Republicans on the Senate NATO Observer Group since 2018, criticized the idea as well in a searing Senate floor speech.

“I’m sick of stupid,” Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”

Tillis, who is not seeking reelection this year, later told CNN that Miller needs to “get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job.”

Rep. Julia Brownley, a Democrat who has represented swaths of Ventura and Los Angeles counties for more than a decade, announced Thursday that she would not seek reelection.

“Serving our community and our country has been the honor of my lifetime. Every step of this journey has been shaped by the people I represent, by their resilience, their determination, and their belief that government can and should work for the common good,” Brownley said, touting her efforts to expand access to healthcare, support veterans, fight climate change and other policy priorities, as well as constituent services. “We … never lost sight of the simple truth that public service is about showing up for people when they need help the most.”

Brownley, 73, did not say why she was choosing not to seek reelection, but she joins more than 40 other members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have announced they are not to running for their seats again in November. Other Californians not seeking reelection are Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), who is running for governor.

Brownley served on the Malibu-Santa Monica Unified School District board of education and in the state Assembly before successfully running for Congress in 2012. At the time, the district was nearly evenly divided between Democratic and Republican voters. But in years since, the district has grown more liberal.

In 2024, when the 26th Congressional District included Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Oxnard, Westlake Village and a portion of San Buenaventura, the congresswoman won reelection with 56.6% of the vote over GOP businessman Michael Koslow, who received 43.4% of the ballots cast. At the time, the voter registration in the district was 42.5% Democratic, 29.6% Republican and 20.4% independent.

The district grew more Democratic after the passage of Proposition 50, the redrawing of congressional maps California voters approved in November to counter President Trump’s efforts to boost the number of Republicans elected to Congress from GOP-led states. Simi Valley was excised from the district, while Hidden Hills, parts of Palmdale, Lancaster and nearby high-desert areas were added to the district.

For Republican candidates had already announced plans to challenge Brownley this year, including Koslow. On Thursday, Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to run for Brownley’s seat hours after the congresswoman announced she would not seek reelection.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday defended his actions during the Capitol riot five years ago, joked about being liberal-minded to win the votes of transgender people and mocked a predecessor’s use of a wheelchair while delivering a meandering speech to House Republicans as the party enters a critical election year facing a razor-thin majority in the House.

The remarks were intended to ensure both the GOP’s executive and legislative wings are aligned on their agenda heading into the November midterms that will determine party control of Congress. But Trump spent more time rehashing past grievances during the lengthy appearance than he did talking about the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro or specific steps he’s taking to bring down prices as polls say inflation is the public’s top concern.

He also did not discuss new policy initiatives or legislation on his agenda for the year.

“We won every swing state. We won the popular vote by millions. We won everything,” Trump said, recounting his performance in the 2024 presidential election while seeming to acknowledge that history will side with the Democratic Party in November.

“But they say that when you win the presidency, you lose the midterm,” he said.

Political trends show that the party that wins the White House usually loses seats in Congress during the midterm elections two years later.

But Trump did try to rally the caucus at times, asserting that his first year back in office was so successful that Republicans should win in November on that basis alone. He briefly touched on Venezuela and talked about money coming into the U.S. through tariffs and direct investment and negotiations to bring down drug prices.

“You have so many good nuggets. You have to use them. If you can sell them, we’re going to win,” Trump said. He claimed that “we’ve had the most successful first year of any president in history and it should be a positive.”

The House GOP is facing a sudden narrowing of their already thin majority with the death of California Rep. Doug LaMalfa, announced Tuesday, and the resignation of former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, which took effect at midnight.

“You can’t be tough when you have a majority of three, and now, sadly, a little bit less than that,” Trump said after paying tribute to LaMalfa, noting the challenges House Speaker Mike Johnson faces in keeping their ranks unified.

The president also noted that Rep. Jim Baird (R-Wis.) was recovering after a “bad” car accident, further slimming Johnson’s vote margins.

House Republicans convened as they launch their new year agenda, with healthcare issues in particular dogging the GOP heading into the midterm elections. Votes on extending expired health insurance subsidies are expected as soon as this week, and it’s unclear whether the president and the party will try to block its passage.

Trump said he would be meeting soon with 14 companies to discuss health insurance.

In remarks that approached 90 minutes, Trump also mused about unconstitutionally seeking a third term as president. He claimed it was never reported that he urged his supporters to walk “peacefully and patriotically” on Jan. 6, 2021, to the Capitol, where they rioted to try to overturn his election loss. He used his wife, First Lady Melania Trump, to poke at President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat who used a wheelchair.

According to the president, she thinks the dancing he does at his rallies is not presidential.

“She actually said, ‘Could you imagine FDR dancing?’ She actually said that to me,” Trump said. “And I said there’s a long history that perhaps she doesn’t know.”

GOP lawmakers were hosting a daylong policy forum at the Kennedy Center, where the board, stocked by Trump with loyalists, recently voted to rename it the Trump Kennedy Center. The move is being challenged in court.

Trump and Johnson are trying to corral Republicans at a time when rank-and-file lawmakers have felt increasingly emboldened to buck Trump and the leadership’s wishes, on issues such as the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

The meeting also comes days after the Trump administration’s dramatic capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, which occurred after a months-long U.S. campaign to pressure the now-deposed leader by building up American forces in the waters off South America and bombing boats alleged to have been carrying drugs.

The Maduro capture is reigniting the debate about Trump’s powers over Congress to authorize the campaign against Venezuela, though House Republican lawmakers have largely been supportive of the administration’s efforts there.

Kim and Superville write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Will Weissert contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — George Conway, who was once married to a former advisor to the president before becoming a prominent anti-Trump voice, announced on Tuesday that he is running for a U.S. House seat in New York City, testing whether he can turn his strong social media following into votes in a crowded Democratic primary.

Conway — who worked for years in New York City as an attorney but has more recently been living in Bethesda, Md. — said he was spurred to run for Congress after a conversation with a friend about her frustration with some Democrats’ decision to vote to end last year’s government shutdown.

Conway didn’t want to challenge his congressman in Maryland, Rep. Jamie Raskin, who he said he loves, so the friend suggested he instead look at a seat in Manhattan that was soon to be vacant following the retirement of Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Conway said he looked it up on Wikipedia, and realized it was his old stomping grounds.

“It was like, huh, it’s an open seat. This isn’t crazy. I should think about this,” he said in an interview.

He relocated back to Manhattan a few weeks ago, he said.

Conway joins a flood of Democrats looking to take over Nadler’s seat. Among the candidates are Nadler protégé and state lawmaker Micah Lasher, school shooting survivor and advocate Cameron Kasky and Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of John F. Kennedy.

In a campaign launch video, Conway, 62, positioned himself as a seasoned Trump foe whose extensive experience as an attorney would allow him to continue his years-long fight against the president from Congress.

“This is no ordinary time. And I will not be an ordinary member of Congress,” he said.

Conway, a former Republican who helped found the anti-Trump Lincoln Project, said that he doesn’t want to be a career politician but felt that “this is a moment where we need people who can fight Trump the way he needs to be battled.”

He supported Trump’s 2016 presidential run and had been married to Kellyanne Conway, a pollster and strategist who became a senior presidential advisor in the first Trump White House and was one of Trump’s fiercest defenders.

As Trump’s first term went on, George Conway began to criticize Trump with an aggressiveness that rivaled his then-wife’s ardent support of the president, drawing extraordinary attention to their relationship’s diverging political positions.

At one point, Trump fired back, calling George Conway “a stone cold LOSER & husband from hell!”

The Conways announced their divorce in 2023, writing in a statement that their marriage had included “many happy years.”

The district Conway is hoping to represent is considered solidly Democratic, consisting of Midtown Manhattan and the tony Upper East and Upper West sides.

Nadler, 78, last year said he would not run for reelection, with the longtime fixture of New York’s congressional delegation calling for generational change in Congress. His planned exit has led to a flood of Democratic candidates emerging to take over his seat.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

Several congressional leaders got notice of Osama bin Laden’s death before President Obama’s formal announcement and quickly released statements praising the president and the military on the successful mission. Some, largely Republicans, took care also to give some credit to former President George W. Bush.

Lawmakers from both parties signaled that the killing does not bring an end to the fight against Al Qaeda. A few excerpts from reaction on Capitol Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.): “This is the most significant victory in our fight against al Qaeda and terrorism, but that fight is not over. We will continue to support our troops and the American civilians who are fighting every day to protect our homeland.”

Photos: Osama bin Laden dead

House Speaker John Boehner, (R-Ohio) “We continue to face a complex and evolving terrorist threat, and it is important that we remain vigilant in our efforts to confront and defeat the terrorist enemy and protect the American people. I want to congratulate — and thank — the hard-working men and women of our Armed Forces and intelligence community for their tireless efforts and perseverance that led to this success. I also want to commend President Obama and his team, as well as President Bush, for all of their efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): “The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaeda. I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. It is a testament to the professionalism of our dedicated national security professionals that no American lives were lost in this operation. … Though the death of Osama bin Laden is historic, it does not diminish our relentless pursuit of terrorists who threaten our country.”

Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): “I was advised by Vice President Biden this Sunday evening that Osama bin Laden has been killed. Though this is not the end of the threat of terrorism, it is a clear warning to our enemies that when they threaten and kill Americans, they will be pursued and held accountable. … Those who believed bin Laden and his network were invincible will now awaken to a new reality.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.): “Families who lost loved ones at the hands of Bin Laden and his terrorist organization have grieved for far too long and this sends a signal that America will not tolerate terrorism in any form. … I commend President Obama who has followed the vigilance of President Bush in bringing Bin Laden to justice. While this is no doubt a major event in our battle against terrorism, we will not relent in our fight against terror and our efforts to keep America safe and secure.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.): “This is a thunderous strike for justice for the thousands of my fellow New Yorkers — and citizens from all over the world — who were murdered on 9/11. It took close to ten years, but the world’s most wanted terrorist has finally met his deserved fate. New York’s heart is still broken from the tragedy of 9/11, but this at least brings some measure of closure and consolation to the victims and their families.”

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee: “Today, the American people have seen justice. The leader of the United States’ top enemy has gotten what he deserves for orchestrating the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11, 2001. …In 2001, President Bush said ‘we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.’ President Bush deserves great credit for putting action behind those words. President Obama deserves equal credit for his resolve in this long war against al-Qaeda.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee:”Bin Laden is responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and has been the head of al-Qa’ida and inspirational leader of extremism for more than a decade. His death presents an opportunity for a new and better day if the will is there. I truly hope this will be a turning point in our efforts to defeat global terrorism. … I was notified on Sunday of the strike and have been briefed in the past about intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts. It has been a very impressive CIA operation and they deserve praise.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a possible GOP presidential candidate: “I want to express my deepest gratitude to the men and women of the U.S. military and intelligence community. Their persistence and dedicated service has yielded success in a mission that has gripped our nation since the terrible events of 9/11. Tonight’s news does not bring back the lives of the thousands of innocent people who were killed that day by Osama bin Laden’s horrific plan, and it does not end the threat posed by terrorists, but it is my hope that this is the beginning of the end of Sharia-compliant terrorism.”

Photos: Osama bin Laden dead

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com

james.oliphant@latimes.com

“We are here fulfilling our duties until you return.” The son of abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro delivered a message to his father from the floor of the country’s congress, where he also serves as a lawmaker. He also mentioned his mother, Cilia, who is also in US custody.

WASHINGTON — Approaching the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, the official plaque honoring the police who defended democracy that day is nowhere to be found.

It’s not on display at the Capitol, as is required by law. Its whereabouts aren’t publicly known, though it’s believed to be in storage.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has yet to formally unveil the plaque. And the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking to dismiss a police officers’ lawsuit asking that it be displayed as intended. The Architect of the Capitol, which was responsible for obtaining and displaying the plaque, said in light of the federal litigation, it cannot comment.

Determined to preserve the nation’s history, some 100 members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have taken it upon themselves to memorialize the moment. For months, they’ve mounted poster board-style replicas of the Jan. 6 plaque outside their office doors, resulting in a Capitol complex awash with makeshift remembrances.

“On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on Jan. 6, 2021,” reads the faux bronze stand-in for the real thing. “Their heroism will never be forgotten.”

Jan. 6 void in the Capitol

In Washington, a capital city lined with monuments to the nation’s history, the plaque was intended to become a simple but permanent marker, situated near the Capitol’s west front, where some of the most violent fighting took place as rioters breached the building.

But in its absence, the missing plaque makes way for something else entirely — a culture of forgetting.

Visitors can pass through the Capitol without any formal reminder of what happened that day, when a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the building trying to overturn the Republican’s 2020 reelection defeat to Democrat Joe Biden. With memory left unchecked, it allows new narratives to swirl and revised histories to take hold.

Five years ago, the jarring scene watched the world over was declared an “insurrection” by the then-GOP leader of the Senate, while the House GOP leader at the time called it his “saddest day” in Congress. But those condemnations have faded.

Trump calls it a “day of love.” And Johnson, who was among those lawmakers challenging the 2020 election results, is now the House speaker.

“The question of January 6 remains – democracy was on the guillotine — how important is that event in the overall sweep of 21st century U.S. history,” said Douglas Brinkley, a professor of history at Rice University and noted scholar.

“Will January 6 be seen as the seminal moment when democracy was in peril?” he asked. Or will it be remembered as “kind of a weird one-off?”

“There’s not as much consensus on that as one would have thought on the fifth anniversary,” he said.

Memories shift, but violent legacy lingers

At least five people died in the riot and its aftermath, including Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, who was fatally shot by police while trying to climb through a window toward the House chamber. More than 140 law enforcement officers were wounded, some gravely, and several died later, some by suicide.

All told, some 1,500 people were charged in the Capitol attack, among the largest federal prosecutions in the nation’s history. When Trump returned to power in January 2025, he pardoned all of them within hours of taking office.

Unlike the twin light beams that commemorated the Sept. 11, 2001, attack or the stand-alone chairs at the Oklahoma City bombing site memorial, the failure to recognize Jan. 6 has left a gap not only in memory but in helping to stitch the country back together.

“That’s why you put up a plaque,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa. “You respect the memory and the service of the people involved.”

Police sue over Jan. 6 plaque, DOJ seeks to dismiss

The speaker’s office over the years has suggested it was working on installing the plaque, but it declined to respond to a request for further comment.

Lawmakers approved the plaque in March 2022 as part of a broader government funding package. The resolution said the U.S. “owes its deepest gratitude to those officers,” and it set out instructions for an honorific plaque listing the names of officers “who responded to the violence that occurred.” It gave a one-year deadline for installation at the Capitol.

This summer, two officers who fought the mob that day sued over the delay.

“By refusing to follow the law and honor officers as it is required to do, Congress encourages this rewriting of history,” said the claim by officers Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges. “It suggests that the officers are not worthy of being recognized, because Congress refuses to recognize them.”

The Justice Department is seeking to have the case dismissed. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro and others argued Congress “already has publicly recognized the service of law enforcement personnel” by approving the plaque and displaying it wouldn’t alleviate the problems they claim to face from their work.

“It is implausible,” the Justice Department attorneys wrote, to suggest installation of the plaque “would stop the alleged death threats they claim to have been receiving.”

The department also said the plaque is required to include the names of “all law enforcement officers” involved in the response that day — some 3,600 people.

Makeshift memorials emerge

Lawmakers who’ve installed replicas of the plaque outside their offices said it’s important for the public to know what happened.

“There are new generations of people who are just growing up now who don’t understand how close we came to losing our democracy on Jan 6, 2021,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, which was opposed by GOP leadership but nevertheless issued a nearly 1,000-page report investigating the run-up to the attack and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Raskin envisions the Capitol one day holding tours around what happened. “People need to study that as an essential part of American history,” he said.

“Think about the dates in American history that we know only by the dates: There’s the 4th of July. There’s December 7th. There’s 9/11. And there’s January 6th,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., who also served on the committee and has a plaque outside her office.

“They really saved my life, and they saved the democracy and they deserve to be thanked for it,” she said.

But as time passes, there are no longer bipartisan memorial services for Jan. 6. On Tuesday, the Democrats will reconvene members from the Jan. 6 committee for a hearing to “examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York announced. It’s unlikely Republicans will participate.

The Republicans under Johnson have tapped Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia to stand up their own special committee to uncover what the speaker calls the “full truth” of what happened. They’re planning a hearing this month.

“We should stop this silliness of trying to whitewash history — it’s not going to happen,” said Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., who helped lead the effort to display the replica plaques.

“I was here that day so I’ll never forget,” he said. “I think that Americans will not forget what happened.”

The number of makeshift plaques that fill the halls is a testimony to that remembrance, he said.

Instead of one plaque, he said, they’ve “now got 100.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers are returning to Washington this week confronting the fallout from the stunning capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — and familiar complaints about the Trump administration deciding to bypass Congress on military operations that have led to this moment.

Democratic leaders are demanding the administration immediately brief Congress. Republican leaders indicated over the weekend those plans are being scheduled, but some lawmakers expressed frustration Sunday that the details have been slow to arrive.

President Trump told the nation Saturday that the United States intends to “run” Venezuela and take control over the country’s oil operations now that Maduro has been captured and brought to New York to stand trial in a criminal case centered on narco-terrorism charges.

The administration did not brief Congress ahead of the actions, leaving Democrats and some Republicans expressing public frustration with the decision to sideline Congress.

“Congress should have been informed about the operation earlier and needs to be involved as this situation evolves,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a social media post Saturday.

Appearing on the Sunday news shows, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, ticked through a growing list of unknowns — and laid out plans for their party to try and reassert Congress’ authority over acts of war.

“The problem here is that there are so many unanswered questions,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “How long do they intend to be there? How many troops do we need after one day? After one week? After one year? How much is it going to cost and what are the boundaries?”

Jeffries told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he was worried about Trump running Venezuela, saying he has “done a terrible job running the United States of America” and should be focused on the job at home.

In the coming days, Jeffries said Democrats will prioritize legislative action to try and put a check on the administration, “to ensure that no further military steps occur absent explicit congressional approval.”

As discussions over Venezuela loom, lawmakers also face major decisions on how to address rising costs of healthcare, prevent another government shutdown and deal with the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.

Much of the unfinished business reflects a Congress that opted to punt some of its toughest and most politically divisive decisions into the new year, a move that could slow negotiations as lawmakers may be reluctant to give the other side high-profile policy wins in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections.

First and foremost, Congress faces the monumental task of averting yet another government shutdown — just two months after the longest shutdown in U.S. history ended. Lawmakers have until Jan. 30 to pass spending bills needed to keep the federal government open. Both chambers are scheduled to be in session for three weeks before the shutdown deadline — with the House slated to be out of session the week immediately before.

Lawmakers were able to resolve key funding disputes late last year, including funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, also known as food stamps, and other government programs. But disagreements over healthcare spending remain a major sticking point in budget negotiations, intensified now that millions of Americans are facing higher healthcare costs after lawmakers allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire on Thursday.

“We can still find a solution to this,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who has proposed legislation to extend the tax credits for two years. “We need to come up with ways to make people whole. That needs to be a top priority as soon as we get back.”

Despite that urgency, Republican efforts to be the author of broad healthcare reforms have gotten little traction.

Underscoring the political pressure over the issue, four moderate House Republicans late last year defied party leadership and joined House Democrats to force a floor vote on a three-year extension of the subsidies. That vote is expected to take place in the coming weeks. Even if the House effort succeeds, its prospects remain dim in the Senate, where Republicans last month blocked a three-year extension.

Meanwhile, President Trump is proposing giving more money directly to people for their healthcare, rather than to insurance companies. A White House official said the administration is also pursuing reforms to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

Trump said last month that he plans to summon a group of healthcare executives to Washington early in the year to pressure them to lower costs.

“I’m going to call in the insurance companies that are making so much money, and they have to make less, a lot less,” Trump said during an Oval Office announcement. “I’m going to see if they get their price down, to put it very bluntly. And I think that is a very big statement.”

There is an expectation that Trump’s increasing hostility to insurance companies will play a role in any Republican healthcare reform proposal. If Congress does not act, the president is expected to leverage the “bully pulpit” to pressure drug and insurance companies to lower healthcare prices for consumers through executive action, said Nick Iarossi, a Trump fundraiser.

“The president is locked in on the affordability message and I believe anything he can accomplish unilaterally without Congress he will do to provide relief to consumers,” Iarossi said.

While lawmakers negotiate government funding and healthcare policy, the continuing Epstein saga is expected to take up significant bandwidth.

Democrats and a few Republicans have been unhappy with the Department of Justice’s decision to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Some are weighing options for holding Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi accountable.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who co-sponsored the law that mandated the release with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), said he and Massie will bring contempt charges against Bondi in an attempt to force her to comply with the law.

“The survivors and the public demand transparency and justice,” Khanna said in a statement.

Under a law passed by Congress and signed by Trump, the Justice Department was required to release all Epstein files by Dec. 19, and released about 100,000 pages on that day. In the days that followed, the Justice Department said more than 5.2 million documents have been discovered and need to be reviewed.

“We have lawyers working around the clock to review and make the legally required redactions to protect victims, and we will release the documents as soon as possible,” the Justice Department said in a social media post on Dec. 24. “Due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told MS NOW last week that pressure to address the matter will come to a head in the new year when lawmakers are back at work.

“When we get back to Congress here in this next week, we’re going to find out really quick if Republicans are serious about actually putting away and taking on pedophiles and some of the worst people and traffickers in modern history, or if they’re going to bend the knee to Donald Trump,” said Garcia, of Long Beach.

President Trump’s decision to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and return them to the U.S. to face drug charges elicited condemnation from legal experts and other critics who argued that the operation — conducted without congressional or United Nations approval — clearly violated U.S. and international law.

Such criticism came from Democratic leaders, international allies and adversaries including Mexico, France, China and Russia, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and experts on international law and wartime powers.

“Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long and forcing many to leave the country. But starting a war to remove Maduro doesn’t just continue Donald Trump’s trampling of the Constitution, it further erodes America’s standing on the world stage and risks our adversaries mirroring this brazen illegal escalation,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X.

A U.N. spokesman said Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the U.S. operation and “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

China’s foreign ministry said “such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty,” while France’s foreign minister said the U.S. operation “contravenes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law.”

Republicans largely backed the president, with both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defending the operation as “decisive” and legally justified. However, other Republicans questioned Trump’s authority to act unilaterally, and raised similar concerns as Schiff about other world leaders citing Trump’s actions to justify their own aggression into neighboring nations.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) defended Trump’s actions as “great for the future of Venezuelans and the region,” but said he was concerned that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.”

Trump defended the operation as a legitimate law enforcement action necessary to combat threats to the U.S. from Maduro, whom he accused of sending violent gang members and deadly drugs across the U.S. border on a regular basis.

“The illegitimate dictator Maduro was the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” Trump said at a news conference. “As alleged in the indictment, he personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.”

However, Trump also made no secret of his interest in Venezuela’s oil. He said U.S. officials would be running Venezuela for the foreseeable future and ensuring that the nation’s oil infrastructure is rebuilt — to return wealth to the Venezuelan people, but also to repay U.S. businesses that lost money when Maduro took over the industry.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced that Maduro, who had previously been indicted in the U.S. in 2020, is now the subject of a superseding indictment charging him, his wife and several others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess such weapons and devices.

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” Bondi wrote on X.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also framed the operation as a law enforcement effort, and defended the lack of advance notice to Congress.

“At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Rubio said. “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify, because it endangers the mission.”

Trump said Congress could not be notified in advance because “Congress will leak, and we don’t want leakers.”

Michael Schmitt, an international law professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom and a professor emeritus of international law at the U.S. Naval War College, said Trump’s actions were a “clear violation” of international law.

He said the U.S. had no authority from the U.N. Security Council to conduct military operations in Venezuela, nor any legitimate justification to act in self-defense against an armed attack — which drug trafficking does not amount to.

Schmitt said the operation in Venezuela went far beyond a normal law enforcement action. But even if it were just a law enforcement action, he said, the U.S. would still lack legal authority under international law to engage in such activity on Venezuelan soil without the express permission of Venezuelan authorities — which it did not have.

“International law is clear. Without consent, you cannot engage in investigations or arrest or seizure of criminal property on another state’s territory,” he said. “That’s a violation of that state’s sovereignty.”

Because the operation was illegitimate from the start, the resulting occupation and interference in Venezuela’s oil industry are also unlawful, Schmitt said — regardless of whether the country’s nationalizing of U.S.-tied oil infrastructure was also unlawful, as some experts believe it was.

“That unlawfulness — of seizing U.S. business interests, nationalizing them, in a way that was not in accordance with the required procedures — is not a basis for using force,” Schmitt said.

Matthew Waxman, chair of the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School, said that in the days ahead, he expects the Trump administration to try to justify its actions not just as a law enforcement operation, but “as part of a larger campaign to defend the United States against what it has characterized as an attack or invasion by Maduro-linked drug cartels.”

“All modern presidents have claimed broad constitutional power to use military force without congressional authorization, but that is always hotly contested. We’ll see if there’s much pushback in Congress in this case, which will probably depend a lot on how things now play out in Venezuela,” Waxman said. “Look at what happened last year in Iran: The president claimed the power to bomb nuclear program infrastructure, and when the operation didn’t escalate, congressional opponents backed off.”

Already on Saturday, some members of Congress were softening their initial skepticism.

Within hours of posting on X that he was looking forward “to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) had posted again, saying Rubio told him that the military action was “to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” for Maduro.

Such action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” Lee added.

Others remained more skeptical.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Trump’s remarks about taking over the country and controlling its oil reserves did not seem “the least bit consistent” with Bondi’s characterization of the operation as a law enforcement effort.

CARACAS, Venezuela — The United States hit Venezuela with a “large-scale strike” early Saturday and said its president, Nicolás Maduro, had been captured and flown out of the country after months of stepped-up pressure by Washington — an extraordinary nighttime operation announced by President Trump on social media hours after the attack.

Multiple explosions rang out and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas, the capital, as Maduro’s government immediately accused the United States of attacking civilian and military installations. The Venezuelan government called it an “imperialist attack” and urged citizens to take to the streets.

It was not immediately clear who was running the country, and Maduro’s whereabouts were not immediately known. Trump announced the developments on Truth Social shortly after 4:30 a.m. ET. Under Venezuelan law the vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, would take power. There was no confirmation that had happened, though she did issue a statement after the strike.

“We do not know the whereabouts of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez said. “We demand proof of life.”

Maduro, Trump said, “has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow.” He set a news conference for later Saturday morning.

The legal implications of the strike under U.S. law were not immediately clear. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) posted on X that he had spoken with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who briefed him on the strike. Rubio told Lee that Maduro “has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States.”

The White House did not immediately respond to queries on where Maduro and his wife were being flown to. Maduro was indicted in March 2020 on “narco-terrorism” conspiracy charges in the Southern District of New York.

Maduro last appeared on state television Friday while meeting with a delegation of Chinese officials in Caracas.

The explosions in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, early on the third day of 2026 — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report hearing and seeing the explosions. It was not immediately clear if there were casualties on either side. The attack itself lasted less than 30 minutes and it was unclear if more actions lay ahead, though Trump said in his post that the strikes were carried out “successfully.”

The Federal Aviation Administration issued a ban on U.S. commercial flights in Venezuelan airspace because of “ongoing military activity” ahead of the explosions.

The strike came after the Trump administration spent months escalating pressure on Maduro. The CIA was behind a drone strike last week at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. began strikes in September.

For months, Trump had threatened that he could soon order strikes on targets on Venezuelan land following months of attacks on boats accused of carrying drugs. Maduro has decried the U.S. military operations as a thinly veiled effort to oust him from power.

Some streets in Caracas fill up

Armed individuals and uniformed members of a civilian militia took to the streets of a Caracas neighborhood long considered a stronghold of the ruling party. But in other areas of the city, the streets remained empty hours after the attack. Parts of the city remained without power, but vehicles moved freely.

Video obtained from Caracas and an unidentified coastal city showed tracers and smoke clouding the landscape sky as repeated muted explosions illuminated the night sky. Other footage showed an urban landscape with cars passing on a highway as blasts illuminated the hills behind them. Unintelligible conversation could be heard in the background. The videos were verified by The Associated Press.

Smoke could be seen rising from the hangar of a military base in Caracas, while another military installation in the capital was without power.

“The whole ground shook. This is horrible. We heard explosions and planes,” said Carmen Hidalgo, a 21-year-old office worker, her voice trembling. She was walking briskly with two relatives, returning from a birthday party. “We felt like the air was hitting us.”

Venezuela’s government responded to the attack with a call to action. “People to the streets!” it said in a statement. “The Bolivarian Government calls on all social and political forces in the country to activate mobilization plans and repudiate this imperialist attack.”

The statement added that Maduro had “ordered all national defense plans to be implemented” and declared “a state of external disturbance.” That state of emergency gives him the power to suspend people’s rights and expand the role of the armed forces.

The website of the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela, a post that has been closed since 2019, issued a warning to American citizens in the country, saying it was “aware of reports of explosions in and around Caracas.”

“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should shelter in place,” the warning said.

Reaction emerges slowly

Inquiries to the Pentagon and U.S. Southern Command since Trump’s social media post went unanswered. The FAA warned all commercial and private U.S. pilots that the airspace over Venezuela and the small island nation of Curacao, just off the coast of the country to the north, was off limits “due to safety-of-flight risks associated with ongoing military activity.”

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted his potential concerns, reflecting a view from the right flank in the Congress. “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee said on X.

It was not clear if the U.S. Congress had been officially notified of the strikes.

The Armed Services committees in both houses of Congress, which have jurisdiction over military matters, have not been notified by the administration of any actions, according to a person familiar with the matter and granted anonymity to discuss it.

Lawmakers from both political parties in Congress have raised deep reservations and flat out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling on boats near the Venezuelan coast and the Congress has not specifically approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.

Regional reaction was not immediately forthcoming in the early hours of Saturday. Cuba, however, a supporter of the Maduro government and a longtime adversary of the United States, called for the international community to respond to what president Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez called “the criminal attack.” “Our zone of peace is being brutally assaulted,” he said on X. Iran’s Foreign Ministry also condemned the strikes.

President Javier Milei of Argentina praised the claim by his close ally, Trump, that Maduro had been captured with a political slogan he often deploys to celebrate right-wing advances: “Long live freedom, dammit!”

The U.S. military has been attacking boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean since early September. As of Friday, the number of known boat strikes is 35 and the number of people killed is at least 115, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration.

They followed a major buildup of American forces in the waters off South America, including the arrival in November of the nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier, which added thousands more troops to what was already the largest military presence in the region in generations.

Trump has justified the boat strikes as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the U.S. and asserted that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Cano and Toropin write for the Associated Press. Toropin and AP journalist Lisa Mascaro reported from Washington.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has expanded its review of documents related to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to 5.2 million as it also increases the number of attorneys trying to comply with a law mandating release of the files, according to a person briefed on a letter sent to U.S. attorneys.

The figure is the latest estimate in the expanding review of case files on Epstein and his longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell that has run more than a week past a deadline set in law by Congress.

The Justice Department has more than 400 attorneys working on the review, but does not expect to release more documents until Jan. 20 or 21, according to the person briefed on the letter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

The White House did not dispute the figures laid out in the email, and pointed to a statement from Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who said the administration’s review was an “all-hands-on-deck approach.”

Blanche said Wednesday that lawyers from the Justice Department in Washington, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida and the Southern District of New York are working “around the clock” to review the files. The additional documents and lawyers related to the case were first reported by the New York Times.

“We’re asking as many lawyers as possible to commit their time to review the documents that remain,” Blanche said. “Required redactions to protect victims take time but they will not stop these materials from being released.”

Still, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi is facing pressure from Congress after the Justice Department’s rollout of information has lagged behind the Dec. 19 deadline to release the information.

“Should Attorney General Pam Bondi be impeached?” Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who helped lead the effort to pass the law mandating the document release, asked on social media this week.

Democrats also are reviewing their legal options as they continue to seize on an issue that has caused cracks in the Republican Party and at times flummoxed President Trump’s administration.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said on social media that the latest figures from the Department of Justice “shows Bondi, Blanche, and others at the DOJ have been lying to the American people about the Epstein files since day one” and pointed out that the documents released so far represent a fraction of the total.

Groves and Kim write for the Associated Press.

PHOENIX — Republican former U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona on Tuesday announced his withdrawal from public life after a dementia diagnosis.

Kyl, 83, represented Arizona in both chambers of Congress for nearly three decades. Most of those years were in the Senate, including a term as minority whip.

“My family and I now head down a path filled with moments of joy and increasing difficulties,” Kyl said in a statement. “I am grateful beyond expression for their love and support, in these coming days as in all the days of my life. Despite this diagnosis, I remain a very fortunate man.”

Kyl left the Senate in 2013 and joined the lobbying firm Covington and Burling. In 2018 he was appointed by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a fellow Republican, to fill the vacancy after the death of Sen. John McCain. Kyl served several months before rejoining the lobbying firm.

Kyl leveraged his expertise on water policy in Congress to gain approval of tribal water rights settlements, said Sarah Porter of Arizona State University. He was an “important participant” in negotiations that created the state’s water rules, said Porter, director of the university’s Kyl Center for Water Policy that is named after the former senator.

As a lobbyist, Kyl helped guide the confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Govindarao writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump issued the first vetoes of his second term on Tuesday, rejecting two low-profile bipartisan bills, a move that had the effect of punishing backers who had opposed the president’s positions on other issues.

Trump vetoed drinking water pipeline legislation from Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a longtime ally who broke with the president in November to release files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He also vetoed legislation that would have given the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida more control of some of its tribal lands. The tribe was among groups suing the administration over an immigration detention center in the Everglades known as “ Alligator Alcatraz.”

Both bills had bipartisan support and had been noncontroversial until the White House announced Trump’s vetoes Tuesday night.

Trump appeared to acknowledge the tribe’s opposition to the detention facility in a letter to Congress explaining his veto. “The Miccosukee Tribe has actively sought to obstruct reasonable immigration policies that the American people decisively voted for when I was elected,” Trump wrote.

Trump did not allude to Boebert in his veto of her legislation, but raised concerns about the cost of the water pipeline at the heart of that bill.

Boebert, one of four House Republicans who sided with House Democrats early on to force the release of the Epstein files, shared a statement on social media suggesting that the veto may have been “political retaliation.”

“I sincerely hope this veto has nothing to do with political retaliation for calling out corruption and demanding accountability. Americans deserve leadership that puts people over politics,” her statement said. Boebert added in another post: “This isn’t over.”

The Florida legislation had been sponsored by Republican Rep. Carlos Gimenez, whom Trump has endorsed. Gimenez and the Miccosukee Tribe were not immediately available for comment on Wednesday.

When asked whether the vetoes were punishment, the White House did not answer and instead referred to Trump’s statements explaining the vetoes.

Congress can override the vetoes by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the House and the Senate, but it’s unclear if there’s enough support in the Republican-controlled chambers to do so, especially heading into a midterm election year where many of them will be on the ballot and many GOP members will count on Trump’s backing.

Boebert’s legislation, the “Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act,” aimed to improve access to clean drinking water in eastern Colorado.

While the congresswoman has long been a staunch supporter of Trump, she found herself at odds with the president with her support this year for legislation that required the Justice Department to release files related to Epstein.

Trump fought the proposal before reversing in the face of growing Republican support for releasing the files. Members of his administration even met with Boebert in the White House Situation Room to discuss the matter, though she didn’t change her mind.

Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd of Colorado, who co-sponsored the legislation, said he was “deeply disappointed” by Trump’s veto.

“This was a bipartisan, unanimous bill passed by Congress to uphold a long-standing federal commitment to southeastern Colorado,” Hurd said in a statement.

He said the legislation did not authorize any new construction spending or expand the federal government’s original commitment to the pipeline project, but adjusted the terms of repaying its costs.

Price and Kinnard write for the Associated Press. Kinnard reported from Chapin, S.C.

Reporting from Washington — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) will not run for a 10th term in Congress, he announced Wednesday morning, becoming the second California Republican to retire this week as Democrats strive to retake control of the U.S. House.

On Monday, Republican Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton also announced he would not seek reelection.

Beyond shaking up the California political landscape, the two retirements are a signal that the GOP fears a Democratic wave election that could sweep them from power this fall.

Royce and Issa represent districts that are changing, with more Latino and Asian voters, and where Hillary Clinton defeated Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

Democrats have made clear their path to reclaiming the U.S. House majority must pass through Southern California, and open-seat races could make that task a bit easier. On the other hand, Republicans could recruit strong and experienced candidates who might fare better against a crowded field of Democratic hopefuls, many of whom are seeking office for the first time.

With Issa’s announcement, more than 30 House Republicans have announced plans to leave Washington, and Democrats need to secure just 24 more seats to retake control.

Without incumbents in those races, it also will be more difficult for the Democrats to deploy their national strategy of tying the Republican candidate to Trump, who is widely unpopular in California.

In contrast to most of his California GOP colleagues, Issa showed a willingness to moderate his stances to placate invigorated Democrats, but perhaps found it wasn’t enough to offset his reputation as a conservative bulldog in an increasingly liberal district.

Issa, former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, won reelection in 2016 by just over half a percent — about 1,600 votes — and was widely considered the most vulnerable Republican in the House going into this year’s election. In Issa’s northern San Diego and southern Orange County district, nearly 38% of registered voters are Republicans, with 31% registered as Democrats and 26% not registered with any political party, who often lean Democratic at the polls in California.

Still, the announcement was a surprise. A source close to Issa said he was talking about his reelection campaign with friends as recently as Tuesday night. Issa’s statement on Wednesday did not say why he decided to retire, just that he had the support of family in making the decision.

“I am forever grateful to the people of San Diego, Orange and Riverside counties for their support and affording me the honor of serving them all these years,” Issa said. “Representing you has been the privilege of a lifetime.”

The richest man in Congress, Issa, 64, already had drawn a handful of well-funded Democratic opponents, including his 2016 challenger, Doug Applegate, Orange County environmental lawyer Mike Levin, San Diego real estate investor Paul Kerr and Sara Jacobs, who has drawn the endorsement of Emily’s List. Issa had $852,028 in cash on hand as of September. Levin has led in fundraising with $530,326 in the bank. Applegate and Kerr each had a bit more than $200,000.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Issa’s retirement “means we are in a strong position to elect a Democrat to the 49th District this fall.”

But the National Republican Congressional Committee said Democrats are setting themselves up for an internal fight in Issa’s 49th District, adding, “We look forward to facing whoever limps out of the Democrats’ battle royale: black and blue, and broke.”

Hours after Issa’s announcement, GOP Assemblyman Rocky Chavez of Oceanside announced he would run for the seat. Other Republicans who could run in Issa’s place include Diane Harkey, chair of the state Board of Equalization and a former assemblywoman, and GOP Senate leader Pat Bates. All three represent significant portions of Issa’s district.

Analysts for Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics quickly changed their appraisal of the race from a toss-up to the “leans Democratic” category, saying Issa’s close 2016 win showed voters may be more willing to consider a Democrat. The 39th District remains a toss-up because Royce won by 15 percentage points in 2016, Crystal Ball managing editor Kyle Kondik said. At least one other prognosticator moved Royce’s district to “leans Democratic” as soon as he announced his retirement on Monday.

As chairman of the committee charged with overseeing the executive branch, Issa was known as President Obama’s toughest critic because of his aggressive pursuit of alleged fraud and abuse by the administration. It made him a hero in conservative circles, and before his narrow 2016 win, Issa had gotten at least 58% of the vote in his eight previous campaigns.

But Issa walked a shakier line with the new administration. He appeared to moderate some of his rhetoric last year. Though he insisted he had not changed, he was more willing to buck his party on important votes. He voted against the tax bill in December, saying it would harm his constituents.

For a year, hundreds of activists have appeared weekly outside Issa’s Vista office to protest. At first, Issa regularly engaged with them on the street and in town halls, but his frustrations with the ongoing protests grew and he stopped talking with them.

On Tuesday, activists with a local Indivisible group huddled under umbrellas outside Issa’s office for a premature “retirement party” for the congressman, complete with festive signs and a cake shaped like a Hawaiian shirt. The song they sang seem ominous in retrospect: “Issa, you’ll retire, your situation’s dire, we will soon replace you, never fear. Now we must report, now your time is short, Issa you’ll retire this year.”

Born in Cleveland as the second of six children in a Lebanese American family, Issa dropped out of high school at 17 to join the Army. While there, he got his GED and went on to earn degrees from Kent State University and Siena Heights College before returning to the Army as an officer.

Issa bought a struggling Cleveland electronics business in 1980 and within a decade transformed it to produce the popular Viper automobile anti-theft device, with Issa’s famous voice as the warning to would-be thieves to “stand back.” In 1986, he and his wife, Kathy, moved the business to Vista, where it continued to grow. His net worth was estimated at more than quarter of a billion in 2015, according to financial disclosures.

After years participating behind the scenes in local politics, Issa’s first foray as a candidate came in 1998 when he spent $9.8 million in the Republican primary for the chance to challenge Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat, but lost to Matt Fong. He was elected to the House in 2000 with 61% of the vote, and three years later, he spent $1.7 million to get signatures for the recall election of then-Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. He had hoped to replace Davis himself, but abruptly quit during a tearful news conference when Arnold Schwarzenegger entered the race, saying he had been assured a quality candidate was running.

Assistant managing editor Christina Bellantoni contributed to this report.

sarah.wire@latimes.com

Follow @sarahdwire on Twitter

Read more about the 55 members of California’s delegation at latimes.com/politics

ALSO:

California could flip the House, and these 13 races will make the difference

Updates on California politics

UPDATES:

2:50 p.m.: This article was updated with Assemblyman Rocky Chavez’s announcement that he will run for Issa’s seat.

1:30 p.m.: This article was updated with additional biographical details.

11:15 a.m.: This article was updated with more information about Issa’s district.

9:40 a.m.: This article was updated with additional information about Issa and the battle for control of the House.

This article was originally published at 8:20 a.m.

This week, the Senate Finance Committee took up hearings on mergers, takeovers, leveraged buyouts, corporate debt and other assorted sins often blamed on Wall Street.

Next week, the powerful House Ways and Means Committee follows suit, and at least seven other committees seem to be gearing up.

While it brings back memories of past inquisitions of investment bankers, by comparison this show is headed for an unspectacular run.

Only two previous congressional investigations stand out in American history for their far-ranging impact on the behavior of Wall Street and on public opinion. In 1912, Sen. Arsene P. Pujo of Louisiana turned a prolonged spotlight on alleged conspiracies among New York-based financiers to create and control big “money trusts” like U.S. Steel.

Despite its effective muckraking antics, the Pujo committee’s work did not in itself lead to new laws. But sweeping new banking legislation, including the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, followed soon after.

In 1933 the Senate Banking and Currency Committee launched the Pecora hearings–named not for a senator but for Ferdinand Pecora, the legal counsel–which put investment bankers on trial for fraud and other abuses during the booming 1920s. Pecora’s efforts led to milestone legislation that separated commercial lending from investment banking, created new rules for the securities business and set up the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There are, however, great differences between Congress’ past efforts and what will happen now.

Unlike today’s situation, the hearings of 1912 and 1933 were heavily driven by nonelected, firebrand prosecutors with independent political agendas. Pujo had Samuel Untermeyer, one of the country’s top trial lawyers who became wealthy creating mergers and then sought political fortune by tearing them apart. Pecora, a New Deal Democrat, had been a prominent Bull Moose Progressive in New York.

In the Pujo and Pecora eras, the balance of power between Washington and Wall Street was moving toward Pennsylvania Avenue. While in the early 1900s the House of Morgan and a few others single-handedly controlled American finance, by the second decade the government was wising up. Again in the 1920s private markets were running wild, but the Great Crash of ’29 ended all that.

In the late 1980s, however, the markets rule again. A deregulated, global financial casino that sees $200 billion of foreign currency speculation each day has the upper hand over governments. Congress recognizes this and is paranoid about setting off Wall Street’s hair trigger.

In the past, Congress could push for broad policy changes because financial regulations were so primitive. Pujo, for example, had no real authority to compel officials of Kidder, Peabody and other firms to disclose their business records. Before Pecora there were hardly any federal constraints on investment banking.

But today Washington maintains the world’s most elaborate regulatory regime, and hardly anyone advocates wholesale reform. Some measures, such as tax changes, may be required to reduce the attractiveness of financing deals with so much debt. But this will have to be done with great delicacy and, in any event, it is not technically a securities issue.

A common refrain for Pujo and Pecora was the evil of concentration and monopoly on Wall Street. It has always been good populist politics to wail about lack of competition among the investment banks and about the dominance of financiers over the industrial corporations that make goods and create jobs.

But these days the Merrill Lynches, the Shearsons and the Salomons compete ferociously. And few would challenge the need for size and concentration to compete with the Nomuras or the Deutschebanks.

As for whether Wall Street has the nation’s corporate titans on a leash, who can really say, when the management of so many companies and their investment bankers team up to take over someone else–or, as in the case of R.J.R. Nabisco, when they collaborate to buy management’s very own company from its public shareholders?

During past congressional hearings, the executive branch has not been a wallflower. Pujo could ride on the waves of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting and Woodrow Wilson’s crusading idealism. Pecora had Franklin D. Roosevelt and New Deal government activism. While President Bush has been making kinder and gentler noises about reexamining the LBO scene, its hard to envision dramatic departures. Its not just that Bush & Co. are moderates. But in today’s greed-glorifying culture, there is little push from outside the Washington Beltway to clobber the money men.

Finally, Pujo and especially Pecora were reacting to financial debacles, in one case the recurrent turn-of-the-century financial panics and, in the other, the Crash of ’29. With October of ’87 but a footnote in history, and with the Justice Department moving enthusiastically to lock up insider traders, there is today no real lightning rod for outrage.

Merger and LBO mania may be leading to severe problems, to be sure, especially if a recession hits and topples all those debt-laden firms. But Congress has never distinguished itself by locking the barn door early. That didn’t happen in Pujo’s or Pecora’s time, and who would bet that it will do so in ours?

NEW YORK — A planned Christmas Eve jazz concert at the Kennedy Center, a holiday tradition dating back more than 20 years, has been canceled. The show’s host, musician Chuck Redd, says that he called off the performance in the wake of the White House announcing last week that President Trump’s name would be added to the facility.

As of Friday, the building’s facade reads The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. According to the White House, the president’s handpicked board approved the decision, which scholars have said violates the law. Trump had been suggesting for months he was open to changing the center’s name.

“When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,” Redd told the Associated Press in an email Wednesday. Redd, a drummer and vibraphone player who has toured with everyone from Dizzy Gillespie to Ray Brown, has been presiding over holiday “Jazz Jams” at the Kennedy Center since 2006, succeeding bassist William “Keter” Betts.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to email seeking comment. The center’s website lists the show as canceled.

President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and Congress passed a law the following year naming the center as a living memorial to him. Kennedy niece Kerry Kennedy has vowed to remove Trump’s name from the building once he leaves office and former House historian Ray Smock is among those who say any changes would have to be approved by Congress.

The law explicitly prohibits the board of trustees from making the center into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior.

Trump, a Republican, has been deeply involved with the center named for an iconic Democrat after mostly ignoring it during his first term. He has forced out its leadership, overhauled the board while arranging for himself to head it and hosted this year’s Kennedy Center honors, breaking a long tradition of presidents mostly serving as spectators. The changes at the Kennedy Center are part of the president’s larger mission to fight “woke” culture at federal cultural institutions.

Numerous artists have called off Kennedy Center performances since Trump returned to office, including Issa Rae and Peter Wolf. Lin-Manuel Miranda canceled a planned production of “Hamilton.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — As the increasingly troubled economy emerges as the trump issue of the 2008 political season, senior congressional Republicans said Wednesday they would put aside demands to make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent if that was what it took to get quick action on a stimulus package.

Democrats, meantime, signaled they too would consider compromises in the interest of fast action, such as reining in some social spending they might otherwise push for and accepting inclusion of business tax incentives in the bill.

“I think there is a way to come to an agreement,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in an interview. “Not having an agreement is a lose-lose.”

The White House has not addressed the issue in detail, but Bush, who has been traveling in the Middle East, is scheduled to hold a conference call today with congressional leaders. To avoid a veto, they hope to get his nod in advance on the outlines of a plan that would probably include a $500 rebate check for taxpayers, extended unemployment benefits for the jobless, and incentives for businesses to expand and create jobs.

The president also has invited congressional leaders to the White House for a meeting Tuesday. And Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is expected to add his voice to the support for stimulus when he testifies on the Hill today.

The sudden unanimity on the need for action, standing in sharp contrast with the ideological deadlock and partisan jockeying that have characterized Washington for more than a year, reflects a confluence of developments that threaten trouble for both parties.

On the political front, exit polls in Michigan’s GOP presidential primary Tuesday showed that economic anxiety outstripped all other issues on voters’ minds. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won in Michigan after setting aside conservative orthodoxy and vowing to play a highly active role as president to set the nation on the road to prosperity.

With presidential tests looming in Nevada, South Carolina, Florida and other states where economic distress is evident, candidates in both parties have ratcheted up their expressions of concern and rushed out their own stimulus proposals.

A stream of unwelcome economic data has added to politicians’ sense of urgency. The Labor Department announced Wednesday that consumer prices rose 4.1% last year — the fastest in 17 years — led by soaring gasoline costs and higher prices at the supermarket. Average wages, meantime, recorded a slight drop when adjusted for inflation. Earlier this month, the department reported unemployment had hit 5%, the highest rate in two years.

Economists consider the dual ills of rising inflation and rising unemployment to be the worst situation policymakers can face, because the cure for one — increasing fiscal spending or the money supply to spur job growth — can stimulate further price increases.

A member of the GOP rank-and-file, Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, expressed the feelings of both parties when he said: “People expect us to act.” If Democrats and Republicans can get together, he said, it will “let people know we can do something here.”

Perhaps the most striking illustration of how much these developments were changing the atmosphere on Capitol Hill was the readiness of Republicans to step back from their long insistence that Congress make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Such tax cuts have been central to GOP economic policy for more than two decades.

Now Republican leaders say they are ready to put off action.

“It’s impossible for me to believe that [permanent tax cuts] would be part of the agreement, as much as I would like to see that happen,” Boehner said.

Republican leaders met privately with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) on Wednesday to discuss stimulus ideas — a meeting Boehner described as his first policy get-together with her since Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006.

While yielding on the Bush cuts, Republicans said they would insist that Democrats not include new taxes as part of the package and that they try to hold the reins on some social welfare spending.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who attended the meeting with Pelosi, revealed no details of the talks but said he and Boehner had “made clear that Republicans are interested in working toward an agreement on a short-term stimulus package.”

“But we were equally clear that hard-working middle-class families must not be burdened with new taxes or wasteful spending if any such plan has a chance of becoming law,” he said.

Democrats say they are mindful that the president wields a veto pen and that their Senate majority is thin. If they want to avoid the kind of extended tug-of-war they had with Bush over Iraq war funding last year, Democrats will have to get him and his Republican allies on board in advance.

“This will need an unusual level of bipartisanism,” said Jim Manley, staff director for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Some Republicans acknowledged that the emerging shape of the stimulus legislation made it more likely that the president — who mentions the issue at every opportunity — would not get his tax cuts extended before he left office.

“If they don’t get it in the stimulus package, they are not likely to get the Bush tax extension this year,” said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman from Minnesota and longtime member of the House Budget Committee who is now a guest scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

For their part, Democrats indicated that they were likely to set aside “pay-go” standards under which they have pledged to offset any new spending with revenue increases or cuts elsewhere. Keeping the economy growing and stemming job losses are higher priorities in the short term than worsening the federal budget deficit, they indicated.

There is “a growing consensus that this is not the time for pay-go, because you want to inject money into the economy,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of Congress’ joint economic committee.

Despite the new urgency, both parties see opportunities to score partisan points on the economy.

Democrats, including Schumer, say that to stimulate the economy, it makes the most sense to give money to people who need it the most and will spend it right away. For example, they favor extending unemployment benefits in hard-hit areas.

But Republicans, wary of expanding government entitlements even temporarily, favor tax incentives to businesses to help them create more jobs.

Conservatives angered over Democrats’ opposition to previous tax-cut proposals noted that new spending enlarges the federal deficit just the same as new tax cuts, which Democrats long have opposed.

“The Democrats have been preaching, ‘We can’t do anything to increase the deficit.’ Now it appears they’ve kind of thrown that by the wayside,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), leader of a group of House conservatives.

To get the Republican support they need to pass a bill, Democrats may need to give greater weight to tax incentives and less weight to social welfare spending than they might otherwise want.

Schumer said such compromises would be better than delay, in large part because economists say a stimulus package has to be enacted fast or it will have little effect.

“If this isn’t done in the first quarter — finished, signed, sealed and delivered and already going into effect — it may be too late,” he said.

Neither party looks forward to running for election in the fall with the economy in the dumps, but the prospect may be especially unwelcome for congressional Republicans.

“Bad economic times almost certainly work against the party of the president,” said Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, who studies the relationship between Congress and the White House. “For Bush to block it would make a drubbing only more likely for the Republican candidate for president.”

Fed Chairman Bernanke visited Pelosi in her office Monday to discuss a need for economic stimulus; he signaled last week that the central bank was increasingly worried about an economic downturn. Some analysts said his remarks suggest the Fed is going to make a bold, three-quarters-of-a-point interest rate cut at its next meeting on Jan. 30.

—

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

richard.simon@latimes.com

Times staff writer Noam N. Levey contributed to this report.

California joined 21 other states and the District of Columbia Monday in a lawsuit that seeks to prevent the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from being defunded and closed by the Trump administration.

The legal action filed in U.S. District Court in Eugene, Ore. accuses Acting Director Russell Vought of trying to illegally withhold funds from the agency by unlawfully interpreting its funding statute. Also named as defendants are the agency itself and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.

“For California, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner, working hand-in-hand with our office to protect pocketbooks and stop unfair business practices. But once again, the Trump administration is trying to weaken and ultimately dismantle the CFPB,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, in a press conference to announce the 41-page legal action.

The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Established by Congress in 2010 after the subprime mortgage abuses that gave rise to the financial crisis, the agency is funded by the Federal Reserve as a method of insulating it from political pressure.

The Dodd-Frank Act statute requires the agency’s director to petition for a reasonable amount of funding to carry out the CFPB’s duties from the “combined earnings” of the Federal Reserve System.

Prior to this year that was interpreted to mean the Federal Reserve’s gross revenue. But an opinion from the Department of Justice claims that should be interpreted to mean the Federal Reserve’s profits, of which it has none since it has been operating at a loss since 2022. The lawsuit alleges the interpretation is bogus.

“Defendant Russell T. Vought has worked tirelessly to terminate the CFPB’s operations by any means necessary — denying Plaintiffs access to CFPB resources to which they are statutorily entitled. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant Vought’s most recent effort to do so,” the federal lawsuit states.

The complaint alleges the agency will run out of cash by next month if the policy is not reversed. Bonta said he and other attorney generals have not decided whether they will seek a restraining order or temporary injunction to change the new funding policy.

Prior to the second Trump administraition, the CPFB boasted of returning nearly $21 billion to consumers nationwide through enforcement actions, including against Wells Fargo in San Francisco over a scandal involving the creation of accounts never sought by customers.

Other big cases have been brought against student loan servicer Navient for mishandling payments and other issues, as well as Toyota Motor Credit for charging higher interest rates to Black and Asian customers.

However, this year the agency has dropped notable cases. It terminated early a consent order reached with Citibank over allegations it discriminated against customers with Armenian surnames in Los Angeles County.

It also dropped a lawsuit against Zelle that accused Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other banks of rushing the payments app into service, leading to $870 million in fraud-related losses by users. The app denied the allegations.

Monday’s lawsuit also notes that the agency is critical for states to carry out their own consumer protection mission and its closure would deprive them of their statutorily guaranteed access to a database run by the CFPB that tracks millions of consumer complaints, as well as to other data.

Vought was a chief architect of Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation blueprint to reduce the size and power of the federal bureaucracy during a second Trump admistration. In February, he ordered the agency to stop nearly all its work and has been seeking to drastically downsize it since.

The lawsuit filed Monday is the latest legal effort to keep the agency in business.

A lawsuit filed in February by National Treasury Employees Union and consumer groups accuses the Trump administration and Vought of attempting to unconstitutionally abolish the agency, created by an act of Congress.

“It is deflating, and it is unfortunate that Congress is not defending the power of the purse,” said Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, during Monday’s press conference.

“At other times, Congress vigilantly safeguarded its authority, but because of political polarization and fear of criticizing this President, the Congress is not doing it,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for President Trump urged a federal judge on Friday to rule that Trump is entitled to presidential immunity from civil claims that he instigated a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta didn’t rule from the bench after hearing arguments from Trump attorneys and lawyers for Democratic members of Congress who sued the Republican president and allies over the Jan. 6. 2021, attack.

Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democratic President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Trump’s attorneys argue that his conduct leading up to Jan. 6 and on the day of the riot is protected by presidential immunity because he was acting in his official capacity.

“The entire point of immunity is to give the president clarity to speak in the moment as the commander-in-chief,” Trump attorney Joshua Halpern told the judge.

The lawmakers’ lawyers argue Trump can’t prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. And the U.S. Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity, they contend.

“President Trump has the burden of proof here,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers. “We submit that he hasn’t come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.”

At the end of Friday’s hearing, Mehta said the arguments gave him “a lot to think about” and he would rule “as soon as we can.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, his personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation.

The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. Over 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.

Halpern said immunity enables the president to act “boldly and fearlessly.”

“Immunity exists to protect the president’s prerogatives,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the context and circumstances of the president’s remarks on Jan. 6 — not just the content of his words — are key to establishing whether he is immune from liability.

“You have to look at what happened leading up to January 6th,” Sellers said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — Chairman Brendan Carr said the Federal Communications Commission isn’t independent from the Trump administration in testimony Wednesday before Congress, during which the word “independent” was removed from the agency’s mission statement online.

Carr’s comment came as members on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee questioned him on who the FCC answers to in the wake of a controversy that led to the brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel‘s late-night talk show on ABC.

The Walt Disney Co. suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! from Sept. 17 through Sept. 22 in response to comments he made about the assassination of right-wing activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.

The controversy stemmed from Kimmel suggesting the alleged gunman who killed Kirk was a pro-Trump Republican.

The Make America Great Again “gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” he said in his monologue.

There was some discussion in the early days after the shooting as to the alleged shooter’s political leanings — he came from a largely right-wing family but had made some more left-leaning comments in recent months.

Just before the suspension, Carr described Kimmel’s comments as “truly sick” and threatened action against the network. At the time, Nester Media Group, which owns multiple ABC affiliates, was awaiting approval from the FCC for its planned merger with Tegna, prompting some to view Kimmel’s suspension as political.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said at the time. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Carr denied that Kimmel’s suspension had anything to do with government censorship and instead blamed it on ratings.

Democrats on the committee questioned Wednesday if Carr was truly acting independently or if he was beholden to Trump’s politics, The Hill reported.

Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., asked, “Yes or no, is the FCC an independent agency?

“On your website, it just simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This isn’t a trick question.”

“Congress did not include for-cause removal in the Communications Act,” Carr said. “So, formally speaking, the FCC is not independent.”

During testimony, the FCC’s website was updated to change the wording of its mission statement, eliminating the word “independent.” When asked about the removal, an FCC spokesperson cited the change in the administration 11 months ago.

“With the change in administration earlier this year, the FCC’s website and materials required updating. That work continues to ensure that they reflect the positions of the agency’s new leadership,” the spokesperson said in a statement to CNBC.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., accused Carr of being the chairman of the “Federal Censorship Committee,” saying he made “mafia threats” toward station owners in the wake of Kimmel’s comments about Kirk.

“And these broadcasters, they feel that censorship,” Markey said.

Carr said the broadcasters involved issued statements saying they made their decisions to suspend Kimmel independently of what he said about Kimmel.

“If broadcasters understand, perhaps for the first time in years, that they’re going to be held accountable to the public interest, to the broadcast hoax rule, to the news distortion policy, I think that’s a good thing,” Carr said, according to ABC News.

WASHINGTON — The Senate gave final passage Wednesday to an annual military policy bill that will authorize $901 billion in defense programs while pressuring Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide lawmakers with video of strikes on alleged drug boats in international waters near Venezuela.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act, which raises troop pay by 3.8%, gained bipartisan backing as it moved through Congress. It passed the Senate on a 77-20 vote before lawmakers planned to leave Washington for a holiday break. Two Republicans — Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee — and 18 Democrats voted against the bill.

The White House has indicated that it is in line with President Trump’s national security priorities. However, the legislation, which ran more than 3,000 pages, revealed some points of friction between Congress and the Pentagon as the Trump administration reorients its focus away from security in Europe and toward Central and South America.

The bill pushes back on recent moves by the Pentagon. It demands more information on boat strikes in the Caribbean, requires that the U.S. maintain its troop levels in Europe and sends some military aid to Ukraine.

But overall, the bill represents a compromise between the parties. It implements many of Trump’s executive orders and proposals on eliminating diversity and inclusion efforts in the military and grants emergency military powers at the U.S. border with Mexico. It also enhances congressional oversight of the Department of Defense, repeals several years-old war authorizations and seeks to overhaul how the Pentagon purchases weapons as the U.S. tries to outpace China in developing the next generation of military technology.

“We’re about to pass, and the president will enthusiastically sign, the most sweeping upgrades to DOD’s business practices in 60 years,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Still, the sprawling bill faced objections from both Democratic and Republican leadership on the Senate Commerce Committee. That’s because the legislation allows military aircraft to obtain a waiver to operate without broadcasting their precise location, as an Army helicopter had done before a midair collision with an airliner in Washington, D.C., in January that killed 67 people.

“The special carve-out was exactly what caused the January 29 crash that claimed 67 lives,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, said at a news conference this week.

Cruz said he was seeking a vote on bipartisan legislation in the next month that would require military aircraft to use a precise location sharing tool and improve coordination between commercial and military aircraft in busy areas.

Boat strike videos

Republicans and Democrats agreed to language in the defense bill that threatened to withhold a quarter of Hegseth’s travel budget until he provided unedited video of the strikes, as well as the orders authorizing them, to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services.

Hegseth was on Capitol Hill on Tuesday ahead of the bill’s passage to brief lawmakers on the U.S. military campaign in international waters near Venezuela. The briefing elicited contrasting responses from many lawmakers, with Republicans largely backing the campaign and Democrats expressing concern about it and saying they had not received enough information.

The committees are investigating a Sept. 2 strike — the first of the campaign — that killed two people who had survived an initial attack on their boat. The Navy admiral who ordered the “double-tap” strike, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, also appeared before the committees shortly before the vote Wednesday in a classified briefing that also included video of the strike in question.

Several Republican senators emerged from the meeting backing Hegseth and his decision not to release the video publicly, but other GOP lawmakers stayed silent on their opinion of the strike.

Democrats are calling for part of the video to be released publicly and for every member of Congress to have access to the full footage.

“The American people absolutely need to see this video,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). “I think they would be shocked.”

Congressional oversight

Lawmakers have been caught by surprise by the Trump administration several times in the last year, including by a move to pause intelligence sharing with Ukraine and a decision to reduce U.S. troop presence in NATO countries in eastern Europe. The defense legislation requires that Congress be kept in the loop on decisions like those going forward, as well as when top military brass are removed.

The Pentagon is also required, under the legislation, to keep at least 76,000 troops and major equipment stationed in Europe unless NATO allies are consulted and there is a determination that such a withdrawal is in U.S. interests. Roughly 80,000 to 100,000 U.S. troops are usually present on European soil. A similar requirement keeps the number of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea at 28,500.

Lawmakers are also pushing back on some Pentagon decisions by authorizing $400 million for each of the next two years to manufacture weapons to be sent to Ukraine.

Cuts to diversity and climate initiatives

Trump and Hegseth have made it a priority to purge the military of material and programs that address diversity, anti-racism or gender issues, and the defense bill codifies many of those changes. It would repeal diversity, equity and inclusion offices and trainings, including the position of chief diversity officer. Those cuts would save the Pentagon about $40 million, according to the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee.

The U.S. military has long found that climate change is a threat to how it provides national security because weather-related disasters can destroy military bases and equipment. But the bill makes $1.6 billion in cuts by eliminating climate change-related programs at the Pentagon.

Repeal of war authorizations and Syria sanctions

Congress is writing a closing chapter to the war in Iraq by repealing the authorization for the 2003 invasion. Now that Iraq is a strategic partner of the U.S., lawmakers in support of the provision say the repeal is crucial to prevent future abuses. The bill also repeals the 1991 authorization that sanctioned the U.S.-led Gulf War.

The rare, bipartisan moves to repeal the legal justifications for the conflicts signal a potential appetite among lawmakers to reclaim some of Congress’ war powers.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.