congress

WASHINGTON — New whistleblower documents detail substantial cuts by the Trump administration to the training requirements for new immigration officers.

Among the cuts are the elimination of practical exams, use of force and legal training courses, and an overall reduction in training time, contrary to an official’s testimony to Congress earlier this month.

The documents, provided to Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) by whistleblowers from the Department of Homeland Security, were publicly revealed ahead of a forum Monday afternoon with congressional Democrats — the third in recent weeks probing what the members view as abusive and illegal tactics used by federal agents.

Lauren Bis, deputy assistant public affairs secretary at DHS, said no training hours have been cut.

“Our officers receive extensive firearm training, are taught de-escalation tactics, and receive 4th and 5th Amendment comprehensive instruction,” she said. “The training does not stop after graduation from the academy. Recruits are put on a rigorous on-the-job training program that is tracked and monitored.”

Blumenthal’s office also disclosed the identity of one whistleblower: Ryan Schwank, an attorney who most recently served as an instructor for new Immigration and Customs Enforcement recruits at the ICE Academy within the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. Schwank, who resigned Feb. 13, is scheduled to testify at the forum.

Schwank is one of two whistleblowers who made a confidential disclosure to Blumenthal’s office last month regarding an ICE policy allowing agents to enter people’s homes without a judicial warrant.

In excerpted quotes from Schwank’s prepared testimony shared with The Times, he calls the training program “deficient, defective and broken.”

“Deficient training can and will get people killed,” he wrote. “It can and will lead to unlawful arrests, violations of constitutional rights, and a fundamental loss of public trust in law enforcement. ICE is lying to Congress and the American people about the steps it is taking to ensure its 10,000 new officers faithfully uphold the Constitution and can perform their jobs.”

Blumenthal’s office did not confirm whether Schwank or the other, still anonymous whistleblower provided the documents released Monday in a 90-page memorandum from minority staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

The documents show ICE has eliminated more than a dozen practical exams that ICE officers previously needed to graduate. In July 2021, a cadet needed to pass 25 practical exams to graduate. Now, nine are required.

Eliminated exams include “Judgment pistol shooting,” “Criminal encounters,” and “Determine removability.”

“All of these are now instead evaluated, if at all, mainly by open-book, multiple-choice written exams and without any graded practical examinations,” the memo states.

Comparisons between the program’s syllabus table of contents and general information sections from July 2025 — before the surge in hiring — and this month show that ICE appears to have cut whole courses, such as use of force simulation training, U.S. government structure, criminal vs. removal proceedings, and use of force.

Earlier this month, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons testified to Congress that while the agency had reduced the number of training days to 42 from 75, “We went from five days a week to six days a week. Five days a week was five eight-hour days. We’ve gone to six 12-hour days.”

But the documents appear to contradict Lyons’ testimony.

“The schedules reflected on these documents indicate that current ICE recruits receive nearly 250 fewer hours of training than previous cohorts of recruits,” the memo states.

The training reductions come as ICE plans to bring up more than 4,000 new Enforcement and Removal Operations officers this fiscal year, which ends in September. One of the documents notes that ICE had graduated 803 new officers in 2026 as of Jan. 29 and projected 3,204 more graduates by the end of the fiscal year.

In a written statement, Blumenthal encouraged more whistleblowers to come forward.

“We know about the Trump Administration’s decimation of training for immigration officers and its secret policy to shred your Constitutional rights because of the brave Americans who are speaking out today,” he wrote. “They are coming to Congress because we have the responsibility to not only bear witness to these crimes, but to do something to make sure they don’t happen again.”

While Kim has remained at the top of North Korean leadership, the party congress’s presidium – its executive committee – has been reshuffled since the last meeting in 2021. More than half of its 39 members have been replaced, according to state media.

WASHINGTON — For a few hours on Friday, congressional Republicans seemed to get some relief from one of the largest points of friction they have had with the Trump administration. It didn’t last.

The Supreme Court struck down a significant portion of President Trump’s global tariff regime, ruling that the power to impose taxes lies with Congress. Many Republicans greeted the Friday morning decision with measured statements, some even praising it, and GOP leaders said they would work with Trump on tariffs going forward.

But by the afternoon, the president made clear he had no intention of working with Congress and would continue to go it alone by imposing a new global import tax. He set the new tax at 10% in an executive order, announcing Saturday he planned to hike it to 15%.

Trump is enacting the new tariff under a law that restricts the import taxes to 150 days and has never been invoked this way before. Though that decision is likely to have major implications for the global economy, it might also ensure that Republicans will have to keep answering for Trump’s tariffs for months to come, especially as the midterm elections near. Opinion polls have shown most Americans oppose Trump’s tariff policy.

“I have the right to do tariffs, and I’ve always had the right to do tariffs,” Trump said at a news conference Friday, contending that he doesn’t need Congress’ approval.

Tariffs have been one of the only areas where the Republican-controlled Congress has broken with Trump. Both the House and Senate at various points had passed resolutions intended to rein in the tariffs imposed on key trade partners such as Canada. It’s also one of the few issues about which Republican lawmakers, who came of age in a party that largely championed free trade, have voiced criticism of Trump’s economic policies.

“The empty merits of sweeping trade wars with America’s friends were evident long before today’s decision,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the former longtime Senate Republican leader, said in a statement Friday, noting that tariffs raise the prices of homes and disrupt other industries important to his home state.

Democrats’ approach

Democrats, looking to win back control of Congress, intend to make McConnell’s point their own. At a news conference Friday, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s new tariffs “will still raise people’s costs and they will hurt the American people as much as his old tariffs did.”

Schumer challenged Republicans to stop Trump from imposing the new global tariff. Democrats on Friday also called for refunds to be sent to U.S. consumers for the tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court.

“The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media.

The remarks underscored one of the Democrats’ central messages for the midterm campaign: that Trump has failed to make the cost of living more affordable and has inflamed prices with tariffs.

Small and midsize U.S. businesses have had to absorb the import taxes by passing them along to customers in the form of higher prices, employing fewer workers or accepting lower profits, according to an analysis by the JPMorganChase Institute.

Will Congress act?

The Supreme Court decision Friday made it clear that a majority of justices believe that Congress alone is granted authority under the Constitution to levy tariffs. Yet Trump quickly signed an executive order citing the Trade Act of 1974, which grants the president the power to impose temporary import taxes when there are “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or other international payment problems.

The law limits the tax to 150 days without congressional approval to extend it. The authority has never been used and therefore never tested in court.

Republicans at times have warned Trump about the potential economic fallout of his tariff plans. Yet before his “Liberation Day” of global tariffs last April, GOP congressional leaders declined to directly defy the president.

Some GOP lawmakers cheered on the new tariff policy, highlighting a generational divide among Republicans, with a mostly younger group fiercely backing Trump’s strategy. Rather than heed traditional free trade doctrine, they argue for “America First” protectionism, which they argue will revive U.S. manufacturing.

Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio freshman, slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday and called for GOP lawmakers to “codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on Earth!”

A few Republican opponents of the tariffs, meanwhile, openly cheered the Supreme Court’s decision. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a critic of the administration who is not seeking reelection, said on social media that “Congress must stand on its own two feet, take tough votes and defend its authorities.”

Bacon predicted there would be more Republican resistance coming. He and a few other GOP members were instrumental this month in forcing a House vote on Trump’s tariffs on Canada. As that measure passed, Trump vowed political retribution for any Republican who voted to oppose his tariff plans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Matt Brown, Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Saturday that he was raising the global tariff he wants to impose to 15%, up from 10% he had announced a day earlier after the Supreme Court declared most of his tariffs to be illegal.

Trump said in a social media post that he was making the decision “Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on Tariffs issued yesterday.”

After the court ruled he didn’t have the emergency power to impose many sweeping tariffs, Trump signed an executive order Friday night that would allow him to bypass Congress and impose a 10% tax on imports from around the world. The catch is that those tariffs would be limited to 150 days unless Congress agrees to extend them.

Trump’s post, significantly ratcheting up a global tax on imports to the U.S. yet again, was the latest sign that despite the court’s check, the Republican president was intent on continuing to wield in an unpredictable manner his favorite tool for the economy and to apply global pressure. Trump’s shifting announcements over the last year that he was raising and sometimes lowering import taxes with little notice jolted markets and rattled nations.

Saturday’s announcement seemed to be a sign that Trump intends to use the temporary global tariffs to continue that pattern.

“During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again,” Trump wrote in his post.

Under the order Trump signed Friday night, the 10% tariff was scheduled to take effect starting Feb. 24. The White House did not immediately respond to a message inquiring when the president would sign an updated order.

In addition to the temporary tariffs that Trump wants to set at 15%, the president said Friday that he was also pursuing tariffs through other sections of federal law that require investigation by the Commerce Department.

Trump leveled pointed personal attacks on the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him in a 6-3 vote, two of whom he appointed during his first term, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Trump, at a news conference Friday, said of the court majority: “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families.”

He was still seething Friday night, complaining on social media about Gorsuch, Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion.

On Saturday morning, Trump issued another post declaring that his “new hero” was Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, whom he also appointed and who wrote a 63-page dissent. He also praised Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., who joined Kavanaugh in the minority.

The president said of the three dissenting justices: “There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they want to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Price writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday lashed out at Supreme Court justices who struck down his tariffs agenda, calling them “fools” who made a “terrible, defective decision” that he plans to circumvent by imposing new levies in a different way.

In a defiant appearance at the White House, Trump told reporters that his administration will impose new tariffs by using alternative legal means. He cast the ruling as a technical, not permanent setback, for his trade policy, insisting that the “end result is going to get us more money.”

The president said he would instead impose an across-the-board 10% tariff on imports on global trade partners through an executive order.

The sharp response underscores how central tariffs have been to Trump’s economic and political identity. He portrayed the ruling as another example of institutional resistance to his “America First” agenda and pledged to continue fighting to hold on to his trade authority despite the ruling from the nation’s highest court.

Trump, however, said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and called the justices who voted against his policy — including Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he nominated to the court — “fools” and “lap dogs.”

“I am ashamed of certain members of the court,” Trump told reporters. “Absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”

For years, Trump has insisted his tariffs policy is making the United States wealthier and giving his administration leverage to force better trade deals, even though the economic burden has often fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. On the campaign trail, he has turned to them again and again, casting sweeping levies as the economic engine for his administration’s second-term agenda.

Now, in the heat of an election year, the court’s decision scrambles that message.

The ruling from the nation’s highest court is a rude awakening for Trump at a time when his trade policies have already caused fractures among some Republicans and public polling shows a majority of Americans are increasingly concerned with the state of the economy.

Ahead of the November elections, Republicans have urged Trump to stay focused on an economic message to help them keep control of Congress. The president tried to do that on Thursday, telling a crowd in northwest Georgia that “without tariffs, this country would be in so much trouble.”

As Trump attacked the court, Democrats across the country celebrated the ruling — with some arguing there should be a mechanism in place to allow Americans to recoup money lost by the president’s trade policy.

“No Supreme Court decision can undo the massive damage that Trump’s chaotic tariffs have caused,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a post on X. “The American people paid for these tariffs and the American people should get their money back.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called Trump’s tariffs an “illegal cash grab that drove up prices, hurt working families and wrecked longstanding global alliances.”

“Every dollar your administration unlawfully took needs to be immediately refunded — with interest,” Newsom, who is eyeing a 2028 presidential bid, wrote in a post on X addressed to Trump.

The president’s signature economic policy has long languished in the polls, and by a wide margin. Six in 10 Americans surveyed in a Pew Research poll this month said they do not support the tariff increases. Of that group, about 40% strongly disapproved. Just 37% surveyed said they supported the measures — 13% of whom expressed strong approval.

A majority of voters have opposed the policy since April, when Trump unveiled the far-reaching trade agenda, according to Pew.

The court decision lands as more than a policy setback to Trump’ s economic agenda.

It is also a rebuke of the governing style embraced by the president that has often treated Congress less as a partner and more as a body that can be bypassed by executive authority.

Trump has long tested the bounds of his executive authority, particularly on foreign policies, where he has heavily leaned on emergency and national security powers to impose tariffs and acts of war without congressional approval. In the court ruling, even some of his allies drew a bright line through that approach.

Gorsuch sided with the court’s liberals in striking down the tariffs policy. He wrote that while “it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problems arise,” the legislative branch should be taken into account with major policies, particularly those involving taxes and tariffs.

“In all, the legislative process helps ensure each of us has a stake in the laws that govern us and in the Nation’s future,” Gorsuch wrote. “For some today, the weight of those virtues is apparent. For others, it may not seem so obvious.”

He added: “But if history is any guide, the tables will turn and the day will come when those disappointed by today’s result will appreciate the legislative process for the bulwark of liberty it is.”

Trump said the court ruling prompted him to use his trade powers in different ways.

In December, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asserted has the administration can replicate the tariff structure, or a similar structure, through alternative legal methods in the 1974 Trade Act and 1962 Trade Expansion Act.

“Now the court has given me the unquestioned right to ban all sort of things from coming into our country, to destroy foreign countries,” Trump said, as he lamented the court constraining his ability to “charge a fee.”

“How crazy is that?” Trump said.

Kim focuses on improving economic activity in opening speech at Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

North Korea has kicked off a rare party congress of the ruling Workers’ Party, held once every five years, that will see the leadership in Pyongyang set major policy goals in defence, diplomacy and the economy, state media reports.

The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said on Friday that the Ninth Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea (WPK) was under way, marking the start of the country’s most consequential political event since 2021.

“The Ninth Congress of the WPK opened with splendour in Pyongyang, the capital city of the revolution,” KCNA said, reporting that the high-level meeting started on Thursday and observers say it is expected to run for several days.

South Korea’s official Yonhap News Agency said the gathering will be closely followed for any signs regarding North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons or overtures towards the administrations in Seoul and the United States, which the North considers its chief foes.

Yonhap reports that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, made no mention of relations with either South Korea or the US in his opening speech to the congress on Thursday and, instead, focused on boosting the country’s economy.

“Ahead of our party are heavy and urgent tasks of advancing economic development and improving people’s livelihoods, and transforming all aspects of social life in the country as quickly as possible,” Kim said, according to KCNA.

While the true state of North Korea’s often struggling economy is hard to gauge, The Associated Press news agency reports that outside experts suggest the country has seen a gradual recovery in economic activity, helped by a post-COVID boost in trade with China and the export of weapons to help Russia in its war against Ukraine.

Several thousand North Korean troops have fought on Moscow’s side against Ukraine, and Pyongyang is believed to have exported large amounts of ammunition to help the Russian invasion of its neighbour.

North Korea’s ‘biggest enemy’

South Korea’s spy agency said last week it was monitoring the congress for any sign that Kim will officially designate his teenage daughter, Kim Ju Ae, as his potential successor, formalising her position as heir apparent in a fourth-generation succession of the Kim family as North Korea’s leaders.

At the previous party congress five years ago, Kim declared that the US was his nation’s “biggest enemy”, the AFP news agency reports, and there is deep interest in whether the North Korean leader will soften his rhetoric – or double down – at this year’s congress, particularly amid the US presidency of Donald Trump.

Trump – who met Kim in 2019 when he briefly stepped foot into North Korea to shake Kim’s hand and pose for photos – said during a tour of Asia late last year that he was “100 percent” open to meeting Kim again.

So far, Kim has demurred on Trump’s overtures to meet again.

Observers of North Korean politics are reported to be scouring satellite imagery for any signs of the vast military parades that have accompanied previous congress meetings in Pyongyang.

Such parades will be closely watched for signs of a shift in North Korea’s weapons capabilities, as the country has used previous processions to show off its newest and most advanced weapons.

Kim held a ceremony on Thursday to unveil the deployment of 50 new launch vehicles for nuclear-capable short-range missiles as the congress kicked off.

According to Yonhap, the congress brings together some 5,000 party representatives from across the country, including 200 senior officials from the WPK’s headquarters. More than 4,700 officials from regional and industrial sectors are also in attendance.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) endorsed former Rep. Katie Porter, her protege and former Harvard Law School student, for California governor on Thursday.

“From the moment Katie set foot in my consumer law class, I knew that she would be a warrior for working families,” Warren said in a statement, citing Porter’s work on the foreclosure crisis as well as her questioning of corporate leaders and members of the Trump administration while wielding a white board in hearings when she represented an Orange County district in Congress.

“No one will stand up to Trump with more grit and determination than Katie,” Warren said. “But just as importantly, she will champion the kind of bold, progressive vision that California workers and families deserve.”

The endorsement comes on the cusp of the California Democratic Party’s convention in San Francisco this weekend, at a time that there is no true front-runner in the crowded race to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Porter was initially viewed as having a potential edge in the race, but her prospects dimmed after videos emerged in October of the UC Irvine law professor scolding a reporter and swearing at an aide. She expressed remorse for her behavior.

Warren and Porter, who met more than two decades ago, have a long-standing relationship, to the point that the senator is the namesake of one of Porter’s children.

Porter endorsed Warren during the 2020 presidential campaign, which caused consternation among some California Democrats since then-Sen. Kamala Harris, who as state attorney general appointed Porter in 2012 to oversee a $25-billion mortgage settlement with the nation’s top banks, was also running for the White House.

Porter pointed to their shared values, such as fighting to protect consumer protection in Congress, as she responded to Warren’s endorsement.

“Senator Warren and I fought together in Congress to hold Big Banks and giant corporations that cheat the American people accountable,” Porter said. “From the classroom to the Capitol, we have made … fighting for working families our lifework. I’ll be a governor who is unbought, undeterred, and unwilling to continue the special interest status quo that has left too many Californians behind.”

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Peru’s Congress convened Tuesday in an extraordinary session to debate seven censure motions against interim President Jose Jeri — a move that could remove him from office less than two months before general elections and deepen the country’s ongoing political instability.

Jeri, who also serves as head of Congress, would automatically lose the presidency if lawmakers vote to oust him from that parliamentary post. He has denounced what he calls a plot against him and an intention by enemies to destabilize the country.

Jeri assumed the presidency in October after the removal of Dina Boluarte. However, investigations into Jeri’s conduct and declining public support have weakened his political standing, according to local newspaper La Republica.

According to local media reports, the current crisis escalated after reports that the president held unregistered meetings, not listed on his official agenda, with two controversial Chinese businessmen.

One reportedly holds multimillion-dollar state contracts and has been linked to construction firms accused of securing public works through bribes. The other has faced legal proceedings for trafficking illegal timber from the Amazon region.

Prosecutors have also opened a preliminary investigation into alleged influence peddling involving the hiring of nine young women in public institutions after meetings with Jeri at the presidential palace.

Those allegations enabled opposition lawmakers to gather 78 signatures to present a censure motion against him as congressional president — a step that would automatically remove him from the presidency.

Under congressional rules, a simple majority is required to approve the censure motion, RPP Noticias reported.

Peru has experienced marked political volatility over the past decade. Six recent presidents have faced removal proceedings or imprisonment, reflecting a pattern of institutional instability.

Analysts often cite the repeated use of constitutional mechanisms such as presidential vacancy on grounds of “moral incapacity” and censure votes against congressional leadership, factors that have made the presidency unusually fragile.

Political calculations ahead of Tuesday’s vote suggest limited support for the 39-year-old president. Most political blocs have expressed opposition to him continuing in office, with the exception of Fuerza Popular, the party associated with right-wing presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori.

Peru’s fragmented Congress includes about a dozen political blocs whose members frequently split during votes, leading analysts to caution that the outcome remains uncertain.

Jeri’s party, Somos Peru, is expected to attempt a procedural delay by requesting a constitutional review on whether a censure motion applies to an interim president. According to El Comercio newspaper, the Constitutional Commission could take about two weeks to issue an opinion, which might give Jeri time to secure additional political backing.

If Jeri is removed, Congress would elect a successor from among its members. That person would become Peru’s eighth president in a decade and oversee the transition toward general elections scheduled for April.

Feb. 15 (UPI) — The Department of Justice said in a letter to Congress that it has released all the files related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The letter, sent to lawmakers on Saturday night, also included the names of more than 300 “politically exposed persons” who are mentioned in the overall Epstein files, which includes former presidents, politicians, business people and artists.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General sent the letter to inform the leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees — Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jamie Raskin, D-Md. — that it has completed its review and release of the appropriate records related to Epstein.

The six-page letter is meant to confirm that the department has “released all ‘records, documents, communications and investigative materials'” in its possession, and includes lists of categories of records that have been released and withheld, a summary and basis for redactions, and a list of all government officials and politically exposed people in the documents that DOJ has released.

Congress in December passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act to require the Justice Department to release all unclassified records in a searchable and downloadable format.

While its deadline was Dec. 19, the department did not release the records until January, and when it did so, it was in a single release of a database that, while searchable, was not well-organized and or carefully redacted — including with the publication of the names of Epstein’s victims.

Congress has also been permitted to review unredacted versions of the documents.

The letter comes days after Bondi was grilled by members of both parties in a Congressional hearing that included shouting matches between the attorney general and some members of the committee holding the hearing.

Among the several hundred names included in Saturday’s letter are “all persons” whose names appear at least once in the released Epstein documents, Bondi and Blanche wrote.

“Names appear in the files released under the Act in a wide variety of contexts,” they wrote. “For example, some individuals had extensive direct email contact with Epstein or [Ghislaine] Maxwell while other individuals are mentioned only in a portion of a document, including press reporting, that on its face is unrelated to the Epstein and Maxwell matters.”

Among the names are Beyonce, Bill Cosby, Fidel Castro, Bruce Springsteen, Alyssa Milano and Diana Ross, Ben Shapiro and a host of other politicians, artists and business people and their spouses.

Some of the biggest names behind the artificial intelligence boom are looking to stack Congress with allies who support lighter regulation of the emerging technology by drawing on the crypto industry’s 2024 election success.

Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman are among tech leaders who’ve poured $50 million into a new super political action committee to help AI-friendly candidates prevail in November’s congressional races. Known as Leading the Future, the super PAC has taken center stage as voters grow increasingly concerned that AI risks driving up energy costs and taking away jobs.

As it launches operations, Leading the Future is deploying a strategy that worked two years ago for crypto advocates: talk about what’s likely to resonate with voters, not the industry or its interests and controversies. For AI, that means its ads won’t tout the technology but instead discuss core issues including economic opportunity and immigration — even if that means not mentioning AI at all.

“They’re trying to be helpful in a campaign rather than talking about their own issue all the time,” said Craig Murphy, a Republican political consultant in Texas, where Leading the Future has backed Chris Gober, an ally of President Trump, in the state’s hotly contested 10th congressional district.

This year, the group plans to spend up to $125 million on candidates who favor a single, national approach to AI regulation, regardless of party affiliation. The election comes at a crucial moment for the industry as it invests hundreds of billions of dollars in AI infrastructure that will put fresh strains on resources, with new data centers already blamed for driving up utility bills.

Leading the Future faces a growing challenge from AI safety advocates, who’ve started their own super PAC called Public First with a goal of raising $50 million for candidates who favor stricter oversight. On Thursday, Public First landed a $20-million pledge from Anthropic PBC, a rival to OpenAI that has set itself apart from other AI companies by supporting tougher rules.

Polls show deepening public concern over AI’s impact on everything from jobs to education to the environment. Sixty-two percent of US adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week, and 58% are concerned the government will not go far enough in regulating it, according to the Pew Research Center.

Jesse Hunt, a Leading the Future spokesman, said the group is “committed to supporting policymakers who want a smart national regulatory framework for AI,” one that boosts US employment while winning the race against China. Hunt said the super PAC backs ways to protect consumers “without ceding America’s technological future to extreme ideological gatekeepers.”

The political and economic stakes are enormous for OpenAI and others behind Leading the Future, including venture capitalists Andreessen and Horowitz. Their firm, a16z, is the richest in Silicon Valley with billions of dollars invested in AI upstarts including coding startup Cursor and AI leaderboard platform LM Arena.

For now, their super PAC is doing most of the talking for the AI industry in the midterm races. Meta Platforms Inc. has announced plans for AI-related political spending on state-level contests, with $20 million for its California-based super PAC and $45 million for its American Technology Excellence Project, according to Politico.

Other companies with massive AI investment plans — Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. — have their own corporate PACs to dole out bipartisan federal campaign donations. Nvidia Corp., the chip giant driving AI policy in Washington, doesn’t have its own PAC.

Bipartisan push

To ensure consistent messaging across party lines, Leading the Future has created two affiliated super PACs — one spending on Republicans and another on Democrats. The aim is to build a bipartisan coalition that can be effective in Washington regardless of which party is in power.

Texas, home of OpenAI’s massive Stargate project, is one of the states where Leading the Future has already jumped in. Its Republican arm, American Mission, has spent nearly $750,000 on ads touting Gober, a political lawyer who’s previously worked for Elon Musk’s super PAC and is in a crowded GOP primary field for an open House seat.

The ads hail Gober as a “MAGA warrior” who “will fight for Texas families, lowering everyday costs.” Gober’s campaign website lists “ensuring America’s AI dominance” as one of his top campaign priorities. Gober’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.

In New York, Leading the Future’s Democratic arm, Think Big, has spent $1.1 million on television ads and messages attacking Alex Bores, a New York state assemblyman who has called for tougher AI safety protocols and is now running for an open congressional seat encompassing much of central Manhattan.

The ads seize on Democrats’ revulsion over Trump’s immigration crackdown and target Bores for his work at Palantir Technologies Inc., which contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Think Big has circulated mailings and text messages citing Bores’ work with Palantir, urging voters to “Reject Bores’ hypocrisy on ICE.”

In an interview, Bores called the claims in the ads false, explaining that he left Palantir because of its work with ICE. He pointed out the irony that Joe Lonsdale, a Palantir co-founder who’s backed the administration’s border crackdown, is a donor to Leading the Future.

“They’re not being ideologically consistent,” Bores said. “The fact that they have been so transparent and said, ‘Hey, we’re the AI industry and Alex Bores will regulate AI and that scares us,’ has been nothing but a benefit so far.”

Leading the Future’s Democratic arm also plans to spend seven figures to support Democrats in two Illinois congressional races: former Illinois Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Melissa Bean.

Following crypto’s path

Leading the Future is following the path carved by Fairshake, a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC that joined affiliates in putting $133 million into congressional races in 2024. Fairshake made an early mark by spending $10 million to attack progressive Katie Porter in the California Democratic Senate primary, helping knock her out of the race in favor of Adam Schiff, the eventual winner who’s seen as more friendly to digital currency.

The group also backed successful primary challengers against House incumbents, including Democrats Cori Bush in Missouri and Jamaal Bowman in New York. Both were rated among the harshest critics of digital assets by the Stand With Crypto Alliance, an industry group.

In its highest-profile 2024 win, Fairshake spent $40 million to help Republican Bernie Moreno defeat incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown, a crypto skeptic who led the Senate Banking Committee. Overall, it backed winners in 52 of the 61 races where it spent at least $100,000, including victories in three Senate and nine House battlegrounds.

Fairshake and Leading the Future share more than a strategy. Josh Vlasto, one of Leading the Future’s political strategists, does communications work for Fairshake. Andreessen and Horowitz are also among Fairshake’s biggest donors, combining to give $23.8 million last year.

But Leading the Future occasionally conflicts with Fairshake’s past spending. The AI group said Wednesday it plans to spend half a million dollars on an ad campaign for Laurie Buckhout, a former Pentagon official who’s seeking a congressional seat in North Carolina with calls to slash rules “strangling American innovation.” In 2024, during Buckhout’s unsuccessful run for the post, Fairshake spent $2.3 million supporting her opponent and eventual winner, Democratic Rep. Donald Davis.

Regulation proponents

“The fact that they tried to replay the crypto battle means that we have to engage,” said Brad Carson, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who helped launch Public First. “I’d say Leading the Future was the forcing function.”

Unlike crypto, proponents of stricter AI regulations have backers within the industry. Even before its contribution to Public First, Anthropic had pressed for “responsible AI” with sturdier regulations for the fast-moving technology and opposed efforts to preempt state laws.

Anthropic employees have also contributed to candidates targeted by Leading the Future, including a total of $168,500 for Bores, Federal Election Commission records show. A super PAC Dream NYC, whose only donor in 2025 was an Anthropic machine learning researcher who gave $50,000, is backing Bores as well.

Carson, who’s co-leading the super PAC with former Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, cites public polling that more than 80% of US adults believe the government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, and says voter sentiment is on Public First’s side.

Public First didn’t disclose receiving any donations last year, according to FEC filings. But one of the group’s affiliated super PACs, Defend our Values PAC, reported receiving $50,000 from Public First Action Inc., the group’s advocacy arm. The PAC hasn’t yet spent any of that money on candidates.

Crypto’s clout looms large in lawmakers’ memory, casting a shadow over any effort to regulate the big tech companies, said Doug Calidas, head of government affairs for AI safety group Americans for Responsible Innovation.

“Fairshake was just so effective,” said Calidas, whose group has called for tougher AI regulations. “Democrats and Republicans are scared they’re going to replicate that model.”

Allison and Birnbaum write for Bloomberg.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi repeatedly sparred with lawmakers on Wednesday as she was pressed over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and faced demands for greater transparency in the high-profile case.

Bondi accused Democrats and at least one Republican on the House Judiciary Committee of engaging in “theatrics” as she fielded questions about redaction errors made by the Justice Department when it released millions of files related to the Epstein case last month.

The attorney general at one point acknowledged that mistakes had been made as the Justice Department tried to comply with a federal law that required it to review, redact and publicize millions of files within a 30-day period. Given the tremendous task at hand, she said the “error rate was very low” and that fixes were made when issues were encountered.

Her testimony on the Epstein files, however, was mostly punctuated by dramatic clashes with lawmakers — exchanges that occurred as eight Epstein survivors attended the hearing.

In one instance, Bondi refused to apologize to Epstein victims in the room, saying she would not “get into the gutter” with partisan requests from Democrats.

In another exchange, Bondi declined to say how many perpetrators tied to the Epstein case are being investigated by the Justice Department. And at one point, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said the Trump administration was engaging in a “cover-up,” prompting Bondi to tell him that he was suffering from “Trump derangement syndrome.”

The episodes underscore the extent to which the Epstein saga has roiled members of Congress. It has long been a political cudgel for Democrats, but after millions of files were released last month, offering the most detail yet of Epstein’s crimes, Republicans once unwilling to criticize Trump administration officials are growing more testy, as was put on full display during Wednesday’s hearing.

Among the details uncovered in the files is information that showed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had closer ties to Epstein than he had initially led on.

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) asked Bondi if federal prosecutors have talked to Lutnick about Epstein. Bondi said only that he has “addressed those ties himself.”

Lutnick said at a congressional hearing Tuesday that he visited Epstein’s island, an admission that is at odds with previous statements in which he said he had cut off contact with the disgraced financier after initially meeting him in 2005.

“I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation,” Lutnick told a Senate panel about a trip he took to the island in 2012.

As Balint peppered Bondi about senior administration officials’ ties to Epstein, the back and forth between them got increasingly heated as Bondi declined to answer her questions.

“This is not a game, secretary,” Balint told Bondi.

“I’m attorney general,” Bondi responded.

“My apologies,” Balint said. “I couldn’t tell.”

In another testy exchange, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) pressed Bondi on whether the Justice Department has evidence tying Donald Trump to the sex-trafficking crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Bondi dismissed the line of questioning as politically motivated and said there was “no evidence” Trump committed a crime.

Lieu then accused her of misleading Congress, citing a witness statement to the FBI alleging that Trump attended Epstein gatherings with underage girls and describing secondhand claims from a limo driver who claimed that Trump sexually assaulted an underage girl who committed suicide shortly after.

He demanded Bondi’s resignation for failing to interview the witness or hold co-conspirators to account. Other Democrats have floated the possibility of impeaching Bondi over the handling of the Epstein files.

Beyond the Epstein files, Democrats raised broad concerns about the Justice Department increasingly investigating and prosecuting the president’s political foes.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Bondi has turned the agency into “Trump’s instrument of revenge.”

“Trump orders up prosecutions like pizza and you deliver every time,” Raskin said.

As an example, Raskin pointed to the Justice Department’s failed attempt to indict six Democratic lawmakers who urged service members to not comply with unlawful orders in a video posted in November.

“You tried to get a grand jury to indict six members of Congress who are veterans of our armed forces on charges of seditious conspiracy, simply for exercising their 1st Amendment rights,” he said.

During the hearing, Democrats criticized the Justice Department’s prosecution of journalist Don Lemon, who was arrested by federal agents last month after he covered an anti-immigration enforcement protest at a Minnesota church.

Bondi defended Lemon’s prosecution, and called him a “blogger.”

“They were gearing for a resistance,” Bondi testified. “They met in a parking lot and they caravanned to a church on a Sunday morning when people were worshipping.”

The protest took place after federal immigration agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis.

Six federal prosecutors resigned last month after Bondi directed them to investigate Good’s widow. Bondi later stated on Fox News that she “fired them all” for being part of the “resistance.” Lemon then hired one of those prosecutors, former U.S. Atty. Joe Thompson, to represent him in the case.

Bondi also faced questions about a Justice Department memo that directed the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaged in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism” by Jan. 30, and to establish a “cash reward system” that incentivizes individuals to report on their fellow Americans.

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, (D-Pa.) asked Bondi if the list of groups had been compiled yet.

“I’m not going to answer it yes or no, but I will say, I know that Antifa is part of that,” Bondi said.

Asked by Scanlon if she would share such a list with Congress, Bondi said she “not going to commit anything to you because you won’t let me answer questions.”

Scanlon said she worried that if such a list exists, there is no way for individuals or groups who are included in it to dispute any charge of being a domestic terrorists — and warned Bondi that this was a dangerous move by the federal government.

“Americans have never tolerated political demagogues who use the government to punish people on an enemy’s list,” Scanlon said. “It brought down McCarthy, Nixon and it will bring down this administration as well.”

Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted associate and former girlfriend, invoked her Fifth Amendment right and refused to testify before a US congressional committee, with her lawyers saying she would only answer questions if granted clemency.

Ghislaine Maxwell avoids answering questions on alleged co-conspirators in case of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The associate and former girlfriend of convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has declined to answer questions during a deposition before the United States Congress.

Lawmakers expressed frustration after Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in helping Epstein abuse teenage girls, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

“As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions,” Representative James Comer, Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters. “This is obviously very disappointing.”

“We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed as well as questions about potential co-conspirators,” he added.

Maxwell was subpoenaed to appear before the committee to discuss her relations with Epstein, but her lawyers stated that she would only testify if US President Donald Trump granted her clemency. Lawmakers had declined a previous request to grant Maxwell legal immunity before testifying.

“She [Maxwell] pleaded the Fifth, which under the US Constitution gives you the right not to answer questions on the grounds that you might incriminate yourself,” said Al Jazeera correspondent Alan Fisher.

“People were waiting to hear answers to important questions, but we got nothing from Ghislaine Maxwell,” he added. “What she did say, very briefly, was that she never saw any evidence of Donald Trump or [former US President] Bill Clinton involved in anything that was illegal. Many people suggest that was a deliberate ploy on her part to say, ‘Look, you buy my silence, but I want clemency.’ She’s appealing to both parties here to say, ‘I will clear the people that you care most about.’”

In a letter released on Sunday by Representative Ro Khanna expressing frustration with Maxwell’s refusal to testify, Khanna noted that Maxwell had spoken with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously worked as Trump’s personal lawyer, without invoking the Fifth Amendment.

“This position appears inconsistent with Ms Maxwell’s prior conduct, as she did not invoke the Fifth Amendment when she previously met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss substantially similar subject matter,” he said.

Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas after meeting twice with Blanche last year.

Lawmakers such as Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse have called the decision “highly unusual” and questioned whether Maxwell had “been given special treatment in exchange for political favours” as President Trump’s own relationship with Epstein comes under growing scrutiny. Trump has strongly denied any wrongdoing and called the Epstein scandal a “hoax”.

Blanche has said that Maxwell was moved due to “numerous threats against her life”, without providing details. Maxwell has asked Trump to commute her sentence, which she was given in 2022 after being convicted on charges of sex trafficking minors.

She is the only person convicted of crimes related to Epstein, whose connections to a wide array of individuals at the height of political and economic power in the US and around the world have been revealed in the Epstein files.

California lawmakers are expressing concern about how the future of Warner Bros. Discovery could affect Hollywood’s workforce.

In an open letter addressed to Netflix Chief Executives Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters and Paramount Skydance Corporation CEO David Ellison, U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) call for the industry giants to make “concrete commitments to Californian and American workers.”

Late last year, Netflix won the highly anticipated bidding war for Warner Bros, which would give the streamer control over Warner Bros.’ storied Burbank film and TV studios, HBO and HBO Max. The pending $72-billion deal would greatly reshape the Hollywood landscape. Separately, Paramount has continually thrown in counter-bids and has been consistently rejected.

With all of these moving pieces, there’s a bipartisan fear among the nation’s lawmakers about how the acquisition could affect jobs in the U.S. entertainment industry . As stated in the letter, the industry “supports more than 680,000 jobs and contributes over $115 billion annually to the regional economy.”

Given the slowdown the industry has seen post-COVID and the growing number of international productions, Los Angeles film activity was down 13.2% from July through September 2025 when compared with the same period last year. This downward trend continues to build on the loss of 42,000 jobs in L.A. between 2022 and 2024.

Ellison and Sarandos have made arguments for why they believe their respective companies are best positioned to take over Warner Bros.

But each deal comes with major cuts. Paramount is projected to slash $6 billion in expenses over three years, and Netflix is projecting to cut $2 billion to $3 billion. Some analysts believe these cuts will have a significant effect on the workforce.

Previously, Ellison said, “We believe that what we are offering is better for Hollywood. It’s better for the customers and it’s pro-competitive.”

Sarandos is also quoted in the letter saying: “We think it’s great for consumers. We think it’s a great way to create and protect jobs in the entertainment industry.”

Earlier this week during a Senate subcommittee hearing, Sarandos said Netflix plans to increase its film and television production spending to $26 billion this year, with a majority of that happening in the U.S.

The lawmakers’ letter raises a series of questions surrounding the livelihood of creators, the use of AI and “concrete steps” about preserving jobs in L.A. Schiff and Friedman also offer the CEOs an opportunity to meet with them to discuss their answers.

In an effort to ensure “America continues to lead the world in the creative economy,” the letter said that Congress is currently working on bipartisan legislation that would establish a federal film tax incentive. It will be modeled after state programs in California, Louisiana and Georgia.

“We view this as a tool to not just protect but encourage more domestic filming and sustainable job creation on American soil,” wrote the lawmakers.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are threatening to block funding for the Homeland Security Department when it expires in two weeks unless there are “dramatic changes” and “real accountability” for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other law enforcement agencies carrying out President Trump’s campaign of federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota and across the country.

Congress is discussing potential new rules for ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection after officers shot and killed two people in Minneapolis in January. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries reiterated their party’s demands on Wednesday, with Schumer telling reporters that Congress must “rein in ICE in very serious ways, and end the violence.”

Democrats are “drawing a line in the sand” as Republicans need their votes to continue the funding, Jeffries said.

The negotiations come amid some bipartisan sentiment that Congress should step in to de-escalate tensions over the enforcement operations that have rocked Minnesota and other states. But finding real agreement in such a short time will be difficult, if not “an impossibility,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tuesday.

Trump last week agreed to a Democratic request that funding for Homeland Security be separated from a larger spending bill and extended at current levels for two weeks while the two parties discuss possible requirements for the federal agents. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this weekend that he was at the White House when Trump spoke with Schumer and that they were “on the path to get agreement.”

But it’s unclear whether the president or enough congressional Republicans will agree to any of the Democrats’ larger demands that the officers unmask and identify themselves, obtain judicial warrants in certain cases and work with local authorities, among other asks. Republicans have already pushed back.

And House GOP lawmakers are demanding that some of their own priorities be added to the Homeland Security spending bill, including legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and other Republican senators are pushing for restrictions on sanctuary cities that they say don’t do enough to crack down on illegal immigration. There’s no clear definition of sanctuary jurisdictions, but the term is generally applied to state and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

It’s also uncertain whether Democrats who are furious over the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement operations would be willing to compromise.

“Republicans need to get serious,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said, adding that they will propose “tough, strong legislation” in the next day.

A look at Democrats’ demands and what Republicans are saying about them:

Agreement on body cameras

Republicans say they are open to officer-worn body cameras, a change that was already in the underlying Homeland Security spending bill. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem backed that up on Monday when she ordered body-worn cameras to be issued to every DHS officer on the ground in Minneapolis, including those from ICE. She said the policy would expand nationwide as funding becomes available.

The bill already directed $20 million to outfit immigration enforcement agents with body-worn cameras.

Gil Kerlikowske, who served as commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection from 2014 to 2017, said that most agents are “very supportive” of cameras because they could help exonerate officers. But he added that complex questions remain, including when footage should be released and when cameras must be activated.

“When do you turn it on? And if you got into a problem and didn’t have it on, are you going to be disciplined? It’s really pretty complex,” he said.

Schumer said Tuesday that the body cameras “need to stay on.”

Disagreement on masking

As videos and photos of aggressive immigration tactics and high-profile shootings circulate nationwide, agents covering their faces with masks has become a flash point. Democrats argue that removing the masks would increase accountability. Republicans warn it could expose agents to harassment and threats.

“State law enforcement, local folks don’t do it,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat on the Committee for Homeland Security. “I mean, what’s so special about an ICE law enforcement agency that they have to wear a mask?”

But Republicans appear unlikely to agree.

“Unlike your local law enforcement in your hometown, ICE agents are being doxed and targeted. We have evidence of that,” Johnson said on Tuesday. He added that if you “unmask them and you put all their identifying information on their uniform, they will obviously be targeted.”

Immigration officers are already required to identify themselves “as soon as it is practical and safe to do so,” according to federal regulations. ICE officials insist those rules are being followed.

Critics, however, question how closely officers adhere to the regulations.

“We just see routinely that that’s not happening,” said Nithya Nathan Pineau, a policy attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Judicial vs. administrative warrants

Democrats have also demanded stricter use of judicial warrants and an end to roving patrols of agents who are targeting people in the streets and in their homes. Schumer said Tuesday that they want “arrest warrants and an end to racial profiling.”

Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants, internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific person but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other nonpublic spaces without consent. Traditionally, only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.

But an internal ICE memo obtained by the Associated Press last month authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with 4th Amendment protections.

Democrats have not made clear how broadly they want judicial warrants used. Jeffries of New York said that Democrats want to see “an end to the targeting of sensitive locations like houses of worship, schools and hospitals.”

Johnson said Tuesday that Democrats are trying to “add an entirely new layer” by seeking warrants signed by a judge rather than the administrative warrants that are signed by the department. “We can’t do that,” he said.

The speaker has said that an end to roving patrols is a potential area of agreement, but he did not give details.

Code of conduct and more accountability

Democrats have also called for a uniform code of conduct for all ICE and federal agents similar to that for state and local law enforcement officers.

Federal officials blocked state investigators from accessing evidence after Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent on Jan. 7. Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, demanded that the state be allowed to take part, saying that it would be “very difficult for Minnesotans” to accept that an investigation excluding the state could be fair.

Hoping for a miracle

Any deal Democrats strike on the Department of Homeland Security is unlikely to satisfy everyone in the party. Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said she would never support an agreement that didn’t require unmasking.

“I ran for Congress in 2018 on abolish ICE,” Pressley said. “My position has not changed.”

Thune, of South Dakota, has repeatedly said it’s an “impossibility” to negotiate and pass something so complicated in two weeks. He said any talks should be between Democrats and Trump.

“I don’t think it’s very realistic,” Thune said Tuesday about finding quick agreement. “But there’s always miracles, right?”

Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Rebecca Santana contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s repeated calls to “nationalize” elections drew swift resistance from California officials this week, who said they are ready to fight should the federal government attempt to assert control over the state’s voting system.

“We would win that on Day One,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told The Times. “We would go into court and we would get a restraining order within hours, because the U.S. Constitution says that states predominantly determine the time, place and manner of elections, not the president.”

“We’re prepared to do whatever we have to do in California,” said California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, whose office recently fought off a Justice Department lawsuit demanding California’s voter rolls and other sensitive voter information.

Both Bonta and Weber said their offices are closely watching for any federal action that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia, or target the counting of mailed ballots, which Trump has baselessly alleged are a major source of fraud.

Weber said California plays an outsized role in the nation and is “the place that people want to beat,” including through illegitimate court challenges to undermine the state’s vote after elections, but California has fought off such challenges in the past and is ready to do it again.

“There’s a cadre of attorneys that are already, that are always prepared during our elections to hit the courts to defend anything that we’re doing,” she said. “Our election teams, they do cross the T’s, dot the I’s. They are on it.”

“We have attorneys ready to be deployed wherever there’s an issue,” Bonta said, noting that his office is in touch with local election officials to ensure a rapid response if necessary.

The standoff reflects an extraordinary deterioration of trust and cooperation in elections that has existed between state and federal officials for generations — and follows a remarkable doubling down by Trump after his initial remarks about taking over the elections raised alarm.

Trump has long alleged, without evidence and despite multiple independent reviews concluding the opposite, that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He has alleged, again without evidence, that millions of fraudulent votes were cast, including by non-citizen voters, and that blue states looked the other way to gain political advantage.

Last week, the Justice Department acted on those claims by raiding the Fulton County, Ga., elections hub and seizing 2020 ballots. The department also has sued states, including California, for their voter rolls, and is defending a Trump executive order purporting to end mail voting and add new proof of citizenship requirements for registering to vote, which California and other states have sued to block.

On Monday, Trump further escalated his pressure campaign by saying on former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino’s podcast that Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting his party. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

On Tuesday morning, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, appeared to try to walk back Trump’s comments, saying he had been referring to the Save Act, a measure being pushed by Republicans in Congress to codify Trump’s proof-of-citizenship requirements. However, Trump doubled down later that day, telling reporters that if states “can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.”

Bonta said Trump’s comments were a serious escalation, not just bluster: “We always knew they were going to come after us on something, so this is just an affirmation of that — and maybe they are getting a step closer.”

Bonta said he will especially be monitoring races in the state’s swing congressional districts, which could play a role in determining control of Congress and therefore be a target of legal challenges.

“The strategy of going after California isn’t rational unless you’re going after a couple of congressional seats that you think will make a difference in the balance of power in the House,” Bonta said.

California Democrats in Congress have stressed that the state’s elections are safe and reliable, but also started to express unease about upcoming election interference by the administration.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said on Meet the Press last week that he believes the administration will try to use “every tool in their toolbox to try and interfere,” but that the American people will “overcome it by having a battalion of lawyers at the polls.”

California Sen. Adam Schiff this week said recent actions by the Trump administration — including the Fulton County raid, where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard put Trump on the phone with agents — were “wrong” and set off “alarm bells about their willingness to interfere in the next election.”

Democrats have called on their Republican colleagues to help push back against such interference.

“When he says that we should nationalize the elections and Republicans should take over, and you don’t make a peep? What is going on here?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday. “This is the path that has ruined many a democracy, and our democracy is deep and strong, but it requires — and allows — resistance to these things. Verbal resistance, electoral resistance. Where are you?”

Some Republicans have voiced their disagreement with Trump. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tuesday that he is “supportive of only citizens voting and showing ID at polling places,” but is “not in favor of federalizing elections,” which he called “a constitutional issue.”

“I’m a big believer in decentralized and distributed power. And I think it’s harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one,” he said.

However, other Republican leaders have commiserated with Trump over his qualms with state-run elections. House Majority Leader Mike Johnson (R-La.), for example, took aim at California’s system for counting mail-in ballots in the days following elections, questioning why such counting led to Republican leads in House races being “magically whittled away until their leads were lost.”

“It looks on its face to be fraudulent. Can I prove that? No, because it happened so far upstream,” Johnson said. “But we need more confidence in the American people in the election system.”

Elections experts expressed dismay over Johnson’s comments, calling them baseless and illogical. The fact that candidates who are leading in votes can fall behind as more votes are counted is not magic but math, they said — with Democrats agreeing.

“Speaker Johnson seems to be confused, so let me break it down. California’s elections are safe and secure. The point of an election is to make sure *every* eligible vote cast is counted, not to count fast,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote on X. “We don’t just quit while we’re ahead. It’s called a democracy.”

Democrats have also expressed concern that the administration could use the U.S. Postal Service to interfere with counting mail-in ballots. They have specifically raised questions about a rule issued by the postal service last December that deems mail postmarked on the day it is processed by USPS, rather than the day it is received — which would impact mail-in ballots in places such as California, where ballots must be postmarked by Election Day to be counted.

“Election officials are already concerned and warning that this change could ultimately lead to higher mailed ballots being rejected,” Senate Democrats wrote to U.S. Postal Service Postmaster General David Steiner last month.

Some experts and state officials said voters should make a plan to vote early, and consider dropping their ballots in state ballot drop boxes or delivering them directly to voting centers.

SEOUL, Feb. 3 (UPI) — Hundreds of North Korean soldiers were seen practicing marching formations in preparation for a possible military parade ahead of the country’s long-anticipated Ninth Party Congress, according to a new report.

Recent commercial satellite imagery shows large formations of troops conducting drills at the Mirim Parade Training Ground in east Pyongyang, analysts at the Stimson Center-based 38 North said in an assessment published Monday.

The activity is “likely in preparation for a parade to mark the upcoming Ninth Party Congress,” the report said.

Imagery shows soldiers arranging themselves into shapes resembling the hammer, sickle and brush, the emblem of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea.

The party congress, held every five years, is where North Korea sets its domestic and foreign policy agenda. Leader Kim Jong Un is expected to unveil a new plan guiding political, economic and military priorities through 2031, the 38 North report noted.

While the official date for the Ninth Party Congress has not been announced, South Korean government officials and the National Intelligence Service have said they expect it to take place in early to mid-February.

Seoul’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday it has detected signs of parade preparations at the Mirim Airfield and Kim Il Sung Square, where similar events have been held in the past.

“It’s not yet clear whether a military parade will take place,” JCS spokesman Col. Lee Sung-jun said in a press briefing. “As I understand, preparations are currently being made as a civilian event.”

The apparent parade preparations come amid a string of public appearances by Kim Jong Un that underscore the regime’s push to demonstrate progress ahead of the congress.

Last week, Kim attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a regional development project in Unnyul County, part of a broader effort to modernize local industry and infrastructure. He has also intensified on-site inspections, recently dismissing a vice premier over construction delays at a major machinery plant.

A report by the state-funded Korea Institute for National Unification said the firing suggests the regime may be under mounting pressure to show tangible economic results, as sanctions and chronic shortages continue to constrain growth.

Military signaling has remained prominent as well. In late January, Kim oversaw the test-firing of an upgraded large-caliber multiple rocket launcher system and said plans to further bolster the country’s nuclear deterrent would be detailed at the congress.

Against that backdrop, 38 North said the timing of the congress could be influenced by whether Pyongyang plans additional public events ahead of the gathering.

“If there are more economic projects to showcase or weapons to test before the Party Congress commences, the event could take longer to open,” the report said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the federal government should “nationalize” elections, repeating — without evidence — his long-running claim that U.S. elections are beset by widespread fraud.

Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting the GOP.

“The Republican ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said.

The proposal would clash with the Constitution’s long-standing framework that grants states primary authority over election administration, and underscored Trump’s continued efforts to upend voting rules ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

Trump, for example, lamented that Republicans have not been “tougher” on the issue, again asserting without evidence that he lost the 2020 election because undocumented immigrants voted illegally for Democrats.

“If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

In his remarks, the president suggested that “some interesting things” may come out of Georgia in the near future. Trump did not divulge more details, but was probably teasing what may come after the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga.

Days after FBI agents descended on the election center, the New York Times reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was with agents at the scene when she called Trump on her cellphone. Trump thanked them for their work, according to the report, an unusual interaction between the president and investigators tied to a politically sensitive inquiry.

In the days leading up to the Georgia search, Trump suggested in a speech during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that criminal charges were imminent in connection to what he called a “rigged” 2020 election.

Georgia has been central to Trump’s 2020 claims. That’s where Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2021, asking him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results. Raffensperger refused, affirming that a series of reviews confirmed that Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.

Since returning to office a year ago, Trump has continued to aggressively pushed changes to election rules.

He signed an executive order in March to require proof of U.S. citizenship on election forms, but months later a federal judge barred the Trump administration from doing so, saying the order violated the separation of powers.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in October.

In Congress, several Republican lawmakers have backed legislation to require people provide proof of citizenship before they register to vote.

Some conservatives are using the elections bill as bargaining chip amid negotiations over a spending package that would end a partial government shutdown that began early Saturday.

“ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS. This is common sense not rocket science,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X on Monday as negotiations were continuing.

WASHINGTON — The Republican chair of a House Committee rejected an offer Monday from former President Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview for a House investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, pushing the threat to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress closer toward a vote.

The impasse comes as the full House is headed toward potential votes this week on criminal contempt of Congress charges against the Clintons. If passed, the charges threaten Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with substantial fines and even incarceration if they are convicted.

Rep. James Comer, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said on social media that he would insist on both Clintons sitting for a sworn deposition before the committee in order to fulfill the panel’s subpoenas. A letter from the committee to attorneys for the Clintons indicates that they had offered for Bill Clinton to conduct a transcribed interview on “matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein” and for Hillary Clinton to submit a sworn declaration.

“The Clintons do not get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said.

The Republican-controlled Oversight panel had advanced criminal contempt of Congress charges last month. Nine of the committee’s 21 Democrats joined Republicans in support of the charges against Bill Clinton as they argued for full transparency in the Epstein investigation. Three Democrats also supported the charges against Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton’s relationship with Epstein has re-emerged as a focal point for Republicans amid the push for a reckoning over Epstein, who killed himself in 2019 in a New York jail cell as he faced sex trafficking charges.

Clinton, like a bevy of other high-powered men, had a well-documented relationship with Epstein in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He has not been accused of wrongdoing in his interactions with the late financier.

After Bill and Hillary Clinton were both subpoenaed in August by the House Oversight Committee, their attorney had tried to argue against the validity of the subpoena. However, as Comer threatened to begin contempt of Congress proceedings, they started negotiating toward a compromise.

Still, the Clintons remained highly critical of Comer’s decision, saying that he was bringing politics into the investigation while failing to hold the Trump administration accountable for delays in producing the Department of Justice’s case files on Epstein.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

MINNEAPOLIS — The Justice Department has charged a man who squirted apple cider vinegar on Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar at an event in Minneapolis, according to court papers made public Thursday.

The man arrested for Tuesday’s attack, Anthony Kazmierczak, faces a charge of forcibly assaulting, opposing, impeding and intimidating Omar, according to a complaint filed in federal court.

Authorities determined that the substance was water and apple cider vinegar, according to an affidavit. After Kazmierczak sprayed Omar with the liquid, he appeared to say, “She’s not resigning. You’re splitting Minnesotans apart,” the affidavit says. Authorities also say that Kazmierczak told a close associate several years ago that “somebody should kill” Omar, court documents say.

It was unclear whether Kazmierczak had an attorney who could comment on the allegations. A message was left with the federal defender’s office in Minnesota.

The attack came during a perilous political moment in Minneapolis, where two people have been fatally shot by federal agents during the White House’s aggressive immigration crackdown.

Kazmierczak has a criminal history and has made online posts supportive of President Trump, a Republican.

Omar, a refugee from Somalia, has long been a target of Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. After she was elected seven years ago, Trump said she should “go back” to her country. He recently described her as “garbage” and said she should be investigated. During a speech in Iowa this week, shortly before Omar was attacked, he said immigrants need to be proud of the United States — “not like Ilhan Omar.”

Omar blamed Trump on Wednesday for threats to her safety.

“Every time the president of the United States has chosen to use hateful rhetoric to talk about me and the community that I represent, my death threats skyrocket,” Omar told reporters.

Trump accused Omar of staging the attack, telling ABC News, “She probably had herself sprayed, knowing her.”

Kazmierczak was convicted of felony auto theft in 1989, has been arrested multiple times for driving under the influence and has had numerous traffic citations, Minnesota court records show. There are also indications he has had significant financial problems, including two bankruptcy filings.

In social media posts, Kazmierczak criticized former President Biden and referred to Democrats as “angry and liars.” Trump “wants the US … stronger and more prosperous,” he wrote. “Stop other countries from stealing from us.”

In another post, Kazmierczak asked, “When will descendants of slaves pay restitution to Union soldiers’ families for freeing them/dying for them, and not sending them back to Africa?”

Threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years, peaking in 2021 after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters before dipping slightly, only to climb again, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Capitol Police.

Officials said they investigated nearly 15,000 “concerning statements, behaviors, and communications directed against Members of Congress, their families, staff, and the Capitol Complex” in 2025.

Richer and Karnowski write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.

DENVER — Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020. But for more than five years, he’s been trying to convince Americans the opposite is true by falsely saying the election was marred by widespread fraud.

Now that he’s president again, Trump is pushing the federal government to back up those bogus claims.

On Wednesday, the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, seeking ballots from the 2020 election. That follows Trump’s comments earlier this month when he suggested during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that charges related to the election were imminent.

“The man has obsessions, as do a fair number of people, but he’s the only one who has the full power of the United States behind him,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor.

Hasen and many others noted that Trump’s use of the FBI to pursue his obsession with the 2020 election is part of a pattern of the president transforming the federal government into his personal tool of vengeance.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, compared the search to the Minnesota immigration crackdown that has killed two U.S. citizen protesters, launched by Trump as his latest blow against the state’s governor, who ran against him as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024.

“From Minnesota to Georgia, on display to the whole world, is a President spiraling out of control, wielding federal law enforcement as an unaccountable instrument of personal power and revenge,” Ossoff said in a statement.

It also comes as election officials across the country are starting to rev up for the 2026 midterms, where Trump is struggling to help his party maintain its control of Congress. Noting that, in 2020, Trump contemplated using the military to seize voting machines after his loss, some worry he’s laying the groundwork for a similar maneuver in the fall.

“Georgia’s a blueprint,” said Kristin Nabers of the left-leaning group All Voting Is Local. “If they can get away with taking election materials here, what’s to stop them from taking election materials or machines from some other state after they lose?”

Georgia has been at the heart of Trump’s 2020 obsession. He infamously called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021, asking that Raffensperger “find” 11,780 more votes for Trump so he could be declared the winner of the state. Raffensperger refused, noting that repeated reviews confirmed Democrat Joe Biden had narrowly won Georgia.

Those were part of a series of reviews in battleground states, often led by Republicans, that affirmed Biden’s win, including in Michigan, Wisconsin and Nevada. Trump also lost dozens of court cases challenging the election results and his own attorney general at the time said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

His allies who repeated his lies have been successfully sued for defamation. That includes former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who settled with two Georgia election workers after a court ruled he owed them $148 million for defaming them after the 2020 election.

Voting machine companies also have brought defamation cases against some conservative-leaning news sites that aired unsubstantiated claims about their equipment being linked to fraud in 2020. Fox News settled one such case by agreeing to pay $787 million after the judge ruled it was “CRYSTAL clear” that none of the allegations were true.

Trump’s campaign to move Georgia into his column also sparked an ill-fated attempt to prosecute him and some of his allies by Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis, a Democrat. The case collapsed after Willis was removed over conflict-of-interest concerns, and Trump has since sought damages from the office.

On his first day in office, Trump rewarded some of those who helped him try to overturn the 2020 election results by pardoning, commuting or vowing to dismiss the cases of about 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later signed an executive order trying to set new rules for state election systems and voting procedures, although that has been repeatedly blocked by judges who have ruled that the Constitution gives states, and in some instances Congress, control of elections rather than the president.

As part of his campaign of retribution, Trump also has spoken about wanting to criminally charge lawmakers who sat on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, suggesting protective pardons of them from Biden are legally invalid. He’s targeted a former cybersecurity appointee who assured the public in 2020 that the election was secure.

During a year of presidential duties, from dealing with wars in Gaza and Ukraine to shepherding sweeping tax and spending legislation through Congress, Trump has reliably found time to turn the subject to 2020. He has falsely called the election rigged, said Democrats cheated and even installed a White House plaque claiming Biden took office after “the most corrupt election ever.”

David Becker, a former Department of Justice voting rights attorney and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said he was skeptical the FBI search in Georgia would lead to any successful prosecutions. Trump has demanded charges against several enemies such as former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Atty. Gen., Letitia James, that have stalled in court.

“So much this administration has done is to make claims in social media rather than go to court,” Becker said. “I suspect this is more about poisoning the well for 2026.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio left the door open Wednesday to future U.S. military action in Venezuela, telling lawmakers that while the Trump administration does not anticipate further escalation, the president retains the authority to use force if Venezuela’s interim leadership or other American adversaries defy U.S. demands.

Rubio’s remarks came hours after President Trump deployed what he called a “massive armada” to pressure Iran back to the negotiating table over its nuclear weapons program, amid broader questions about how recent U.S. tensions with Denmark over Greenland are affecting American relations with NATO allies.

“The president never rules out his options as commander in chief to protect the national interest of the United States,” Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I can tell you right now with full certainty, we are not postured to, nor do we intend or expect to take any military action in Venezuela at any time.”

The appearance marked Rubio’s first public testimony before a congressional panel since U.S. forces seized former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and brought him to New York to face narco-trafficking charges nearly a month ago. Rubio was pressed by Democratic lawmakers over congressional war powers and whether the operation had meaningfully advanced democracy in Venezuela.

“We’ve traded one dictator for another. All the same people are running the country,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Acting President Delcy Rodríguez “has taken no steps to diminish Iran, China or Russia’s considerable influence in Venezuela.”

Rodríguez, who formerly served as Maduro’s vice president, has committed to opening Venezuela’s energy sector to American companies, providing preferential access to production and using revenues to purchase American goods, according to Rubio’s testimony.

But questions remain about Rodríguez’s own alleged ties to trafficking networks. The Associated Press reported that she has been on the DEA’s radar for years for suspected involvement in drug and gold smuggling, though no public criminal charges have been filed.

And despite Trump’s warning that Rodríguez would “pay a very big price” if she does not cooperate, she has pushed back in public against U.S. pressure over trade policy.

“We have the right to have diplomatic relations with China, with Russia, with Iran, with Cuba, with all the peoples of the world. Also with the United States. We are a sovereign nation,” Rodríguez said earlier this month.

Venezuela is among the largest recipients of Chinese loans globally, with more than $100 billion committed over recent decades. Much of that debt has been repaid through discounted oil shipments under an oil-for-loans framework, financing Chinese-backed infrastructure projects and helping stabilize successive Venezuelan governments.

U.S. military leaders have warned Congress about Iran’s growing strategic presence in the hemisphere, including concerns over ballistic missile capabilities and the supply of attack and surveillance drones to Venezuela.

“If an Iranian drone factory pops up and threatens our forces in the region,” Rubio said, “the president retains the option to eliminate that.”

Democrats also argued that the administration’s broader foreign policy is undercutting U.S. economic strength and alliances, particularly in competition with China.

Despite Trump’s tariff campaign, China posted a record global trade surplus in 2025, lawmakers noted, while estimates show U.S. manufacturing employment has declined by tens of thousands of jobs since the tariffs took effect.

Senators pushed back on the State Department’s assertion that U.S. policy has unified allies against China, arguing instead that tariffs and recent military escalations involving Greenland, Iran and Venezuela have strained relations with key partners. They pointed to Canada as an example, noting that Ottawa recently reached a trade deal with China amid concerns about the reliability of the United States as a partner.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Republican dissenter on Venezuela, rejected the Trump administration’s framing of Maduro’s capture as a law enforcement operation rather than an act of war.

He pressed Rubio on congressional authorization.

“If we said that a foreign country invaded our capital, bombed all our air defense — which would be an extensive bombing campaign, and it was — removed our president, and then blockaded the country, we would think it was an act of war,” Paul said as he left the hearing.

Congressional Republicans voted to dismiss a war powers resolution earlier this month that would have limited Trump’s ability to conduct further attacks on Venezuela after two GOP senators reversed course on supporting the legislation.

They did so based on informal assurances from the administration that it would consult members of Congress before taking military action.

“I was a big fan of [congressional] consultation when I was sitting over there,” Rubio said, joking about his tenure as a senator on the committee. “Now, you know, it’s a different job, different time.”

The War Powers Act dictates how the executive must manage military operations, including that the administration must notify Congress within 48 hours of a military operation.

“And if it’s going to last longer than 60 days, we have to come to Congress with it. We don’t anticipate either of these things having to happen,” Rubio said.

He added that the administration’s end goal is “a friendly, stable, prosperous Venezuela,” and cautioned that free and fair elections would take time as the administration works with Rodríguez to stabilize the country.

“You can have elections all day, but if the opposition has no access to the media … those aren’t free and fair elections,” Rubio said. “There’s a percentage of the Venezuelan population … that may not have liked Maduro, but are still committed to Chavista ideology. They’ll be represented in that platform as well.”

Rubio fell short of providing concrete timelines, prompting skepticism from lawmakers who cited ongoing reports that political prisoners remain jailed and that opposition figures such as Edmundo González Urrutia and María Corina Machado would still be blocked from seeking office. He will meet with Machado this week to discuss her role in the ongoing regime change.

“I’ve known Maria Corina for probably 12 or 13 years,” Rubio said. “I’ve dealt with her probably more than anybody.”

But the reality on the ground remains difficult, he said, adding the administration has hedged its bets on the existing Venezuelan government to comply with U.S. efforts to stabilize the economy and weed out political violence before fair elections can be held.

“The people that control the guns and the institutions of government there are in the hands of this regime,” Rubio said.