congress

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.

Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.

At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.

California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.

For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.

They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.

The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.

They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.

So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.

But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.

If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.

WASHINGTON — Late September in the Oval Office, President Trump declared, “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. We’re gonna win that war very soon.”

It wasn’t the first time he’s described the hostilities as “war.”

On Feb. 28, the day U.S. and Israeli began bombarding Iran, he warned that “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war, but we’re doing this not for now. We’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”

But throughout seven months of back-and-forth strikes with Iran, Trump administration officials, and sometimes Trump himself, have performed verbal acrobatics to avoid the “W” word.

President Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 22, used the word “war” one time when referring to hostilities with Iran.

(Pool / Getty Images)

Senior administration officials loosely tossed around “war” during the first stages of conflict, but with polls showing the war in unpopular and congressional support waning, “war” and even “Operation Epic Fury” have become taboo among members of the Trump administration.

Trump has called attacks on Iran a “military operation,” “military decimation,” “excursion” and “skirmish.”

At a White House press briefing last month, Vice President JD Vance attempted to clear the air when a reporter asked about a potential end to what she called a “war in Iran.”

“I wouldn’t call it a war right now,” Vance said. “Major combat operations lasted for about six weeks.”

Vice President JD Vance, addressing reporters at the White House on Sept. 3, said, “I wouldn’t call it a war right now” when asked about the conflict with Iran.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tread carefully in front of the Senate Appropriations Committee in July, repeatedly referring to a “conflict” in Iran that needed additional funding to continue.

On May 5, during the first of two delicate ceasefires with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an end to the objectives laid out in Operation Epic Fury and the beginning of “Project Freedom” — an effort to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

In April, Trump announced the blockade of Iranian ports. When asked about whether the blockade constituted an act of war, Rubio replied, “That’s not an act of war, that’s a defensive measure. It’s a counter to what they have decided to do.”

Senior Trump officials have maintained that the conflict can no longer be viewed as war because the intensity of strikes between the two countries has been reduced.

The “end” of Operation Epic Fury, the name Trump used when he announced hostilities on Feb. 28, was declared on May 5 — 60 days after the fighting began.

The timing was no coincidence. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a president must cease all hostilities abroad after 60 days if there is no congressional declaration of war.

Legal and political considerations

Under the Constitution, only Congress declares war, but past presidents have routinely circumvented this rule by exercising their authority to direct the military and initiate strikes on targeted nations.

Nearly every modern president, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Trump, has used this justification to undertake military action without the declaratory approval of Congress.

Congress can also choose to approve an Authorization for Use of Military Force, which grants the president legal authority to conduct military operations overseas.

Unless Congress sets a time limit on the authorization, authority to use the legal justification to launch military strikes can theoretically span multiple administrations.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former constitutional law professor at American University, said that presidents of both parties have avoided the term “war” when attempting to evade congressional approval of hostile action abroad.

“Trump has followed some of his predecessors in playing word games with the war power,” Raskin said. “What makes his case so extreme is that he proudly described it as a war and depicted it in glorified military terms.”

In March, seven days into the fighting, Trump said, “The war itself is going unbelievably. It’s as good as it can be.”

Congress has not officially declared war since World War II. The Vietnam War, the invasion of Afghanistan and both wars in Iraq were all approved by Congress under the umbrella of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

This year Congress has not approved such an authorization for the action with Iran. Fourteen Senate votes for a War Powers Resolution to curb Trump’s war efforts have failed in the chamber so far.

According to a CNN/SSRS poll last month, only 26% of Americans approve of the Trump administration’s handling of the Iran war.

Raskin said that he believes Trump’s terminology has shifted with the public mood, adding that he hasn’t heard any of his Republican colleagues “play along with the semantic games.”

“When things have turned south in the fortunes of this war, he has tried to pretend it’s something else,” Raskin said. “I think that has just further enraged the population.”

Past handling of congressional war power

The administration’s declaration that Operation Epic Fury had concluded echoed May 2003, when then-President George W. Bush stood in front of a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, approximately six weeks after Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended,” Bush said. “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

President George W. Bush speaks aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast on May 1, 2003.

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Despite the victory lap, combat operations in Iraq and across the Middle East continued through the aughts. The Iraq war wouldn’t officially end until 2011, with President Obama’s signature.

Obama himself relied heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force — passed by Congress under Bush — in his military campaign against Islamic State during his presidency.

According to Council on Foreign Relations data, Obama launched 542 drone strikes and killed 3,797 people in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia without renewed approval from Congress.

A case more analogous to Trump’s comes in former President Truman’s unilateral decision to deploy U.S. troops to Korea in 1950. The Truman administration forwent congressional approval altogether and used United Nations Security Council resolutions to justify the intervention against Communist forces in the north, according to a White House news release from the time.

There were many critics of this exercise of executive war powers, most notably, Ohio Republican Sen. Robert A. Taft, who argued that Truman had usurped congressional war powers.

However, that Congress still provided monetary support, granting Truman military funds and extensions to the draft to raise additional troops for the Korean War effort. According to historical Gallup polls, 78% of Americans in 1950 approved of U.S. intervention in Korea.

Trump sticking with ‘war’

While Vance and other administration officials continue to avoid “war,” it does slip out now and then. Trump has been, perhaps, the most discordant messenger of the administration when discussing Iran.

After referring to the “war” on social media and public interviews more than a dozen times, Trump backed Vance’s comments about the Iran war no longer being active as he spoke to reporters in the Oval Office in September. He refuses to call the conflict a “war,” Trump said, because “you are supposed to get approval.”

“I call it a military conflict, because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump said.

President Trump is promising more payments to voters just ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections — this time, to more than 20 million seniors, who each would get $90 to help pay for Medicare premiums.

The announcement, made late Friday night by Trump on social media, comes after he said last month about 1 million people would get rebate checks of $500 for Affordable Care Act premiums. It also comes after his One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year slashed funding for Medicare, disqualifying thousands from eligibility and raising fees for the rest, and for the ACA, raising premiums for millions by eliminating tax credits.

Trump has also promised on the campaign trail to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections.

His latest promise — which, like the others, would require approval from Congress — would probably cost more than $1 trillion, adding to the ballooning deficit and worsening inflation.

Polls show Americans increasingly blame Trump for the high cost of gasoline and groceries, with just 17% approving of his handling of inflation. Rising healthcare costs are also a key component of the affordability struggles many face across the country.

The president has sought to shrug off concerns about affordability, claiming the economy is booming.

The White House said the $90 payments for seniors would come from the Medicare Improvement Fund, established by Congress in 2008 as flexible funding to improve program operations and payments to healthcare providers.

As proposed, Medicare Part B enrollees would receive a one-time payment in October, either through direct deposit or by check, the White House said. Total monthly costs for the program — which covers costs like doctor’s visits, ambulance services and lab tests — start around $200 and vary with income.

To be eligible, seniors must be living in the U.S. and not be already receiving premium assistance from Medicaid or paying adjusted monthly premiums based on income, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage, a private plan alternative to traditional Medicare coverage, would not be eligible for the payment. More than half of eligible Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare Advantage, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Previous administrations have not used the Medicare Improvement Fund in this way, although Congress has periodically taken out money from the fund to pay for other priorities, said Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy. For example, $20.74 billion was used for the creation of the Affordable Care Act in 2010.

“The Medicare Improvement Fund language is quite broad and gives substantial discretion to the administration,” Levitt said.

Goldin writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 30, 2026 1:27 PM PT

QUANTICO, Va. — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed Wednesday that the U.S. military will cut 20% of its generals and admirals as he delivered what he is calling his “State of the Force” address.

Hegseth was speaking to junior officers and enlisted leaders at the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, the second year in a row that he has given such an address. This time, the U.S. military is seven months into a war with Iran with no clear end in sight, has captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and killed more than 200 people in strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America, among other actions worldwide.

The speech is not a usual fixture among Pentagon leaders. While Hegseth’s predecessors regularly addressed troops and top officers, they traditionally have done so in small or private settings.

The Pentagon chief, however, again focused on how he has drastically retooled the U.S. military by targeting what he calls “woke” culture — through a rollback of diversity programs, a review of ground combat units with female troops and a new screening program for “testosterone deficiency” among male personnel.

Pentagon officials had previewed that Hegseth would announce more cuts to the number of generals and admirals. He directed all military services to double the 10% reduction he ordered last spring for roughly 800 flag and general officer positions, making it a total 20% decrease to be completed by Jan. 1.

“I call it accountability and long overdue,” he said.

Several senators viewed Hegseth’s move as nothing short of a “purge” of the military’s top ranks that will take years to rebuild.

“He’s got some kind of like deep-seated grievance about leadership in the military,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., the former Navy combat pilot and NASA astronaut, who has been critical of Hegseth. “He’s purging a generation of great leaders of the military, and it’s going to take a generation to recover from it.”

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he wanted to understand Hegseth’s reasoning behind the decision.

“If it’s simply a matter of eliminating a very heavy top, there may be some validity to it, but I want to see it first,” Rounds said.

Hegseth and President Trump already have fired or pushed to retire more than two dozen military leaders since taking office, including the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, a move that angered both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The purge also has included a number of senior officers who are women or people of color.

Previous leaders who were ousted include Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. CQ Brown; Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti; and Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. military representative to the NATO Military Committee.

Although Hegseth never gave specific reasons for those firings, most were tied to the belief that they endorsed or spoke openly in support of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which have been targets of Hegseth and Trump.

As part of last year’s cuts, Hegseth also ordered the active duty military to shed 20% of its four-star general officers — the highest-level leaders — and the National Guard to shed 20% of its top positions, but it is unclear if all those cuts have been made. The new cuts could include any one-star general or above, or an officer of equivalent Navy rank.

When Hegseth first announced the effort to trim the highest levels of the military ranks, he argued it was intended to remove “redundant force structure to optimize and streamline leadership.” In a memo released in May 2025, he said the aim was to free the military from “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”

The number of general officer positions in the military is set by law, but it is possible to let positions remain unfilled by not submitting replacements to Congress.

Hegseth’s efforts have extended well beyond personnel changes among the top ranks. He oversaw Trump’s ban on transgender troops while announcing new directives for “gender-neutral” or “male-level” standards for physical fitness.

Toropin and Finley write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Meg Kinnard contributed to this report.

After being securely held for nearly four decades by one of the most preeminent politicians in California history, the House seat to represent bright blue San Francisco in Congress is up for grabs in November — and dividing the Democratic Party.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), 86, the powerful former House Speaker who’s held the seat since 1987, announced last year that she would not run again. In May, she passed over state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) — a prolific California legislator long considered a potential successor — to endorse San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, a local progressive with less legislative experience but strong support from labor.

Pelosi’s endorsement sent Chan, who had been languishing in polls, surging past Democratic tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti in the June primary. Chan finished with nearly 30% of the vote and Chakrabarti took 18%. Wiener won, with nearly 41% of the vote.

Both Wiener, a gay man and staunch advocate for the city’s large LGBTQ+ community, and Chan, who immigrated to the city from Hong Kong at age 13 and has deep ties to its large Chinese and immigrant communities, would make history by winning. Wiener would be the first out LGBTQ+ person to represent the city in Congress, and Chan the first Asian American immigrant woman.

The race has sharply divided the state’s Democratic establishment as a rare intraparty showdown between a deft legislator who has driven liberal California policy for years and a rising progressive with the powerful imprimatur of the icon they seek to replace.

Both acknowledge they would take the same or similar positions on many issues, and fiercely oppose President Trump’s agenda. But they also say San Franciscans face a real choice between them that will help define the city for years.

“There is a clear cut between the two of us,” Chan said. “He has long enjoyed establishment support and industry support, and we’ve been grassroots, on the ground, [Asian American and Pacific Islander] community, working people and labor unions — in collaboration and coalition building.”

“We need Democrats who are willing to fight — to fight in a smart way, and to fight in an aggressive way, to defeat Donald Trump and to lower the cost of living,” Wiener said. “We are past the time where we need Democrats in office who were just going along to get along, or who, like Connie Chan, are just part of the status quo.”

Wiener is a MAGA target

Wiener, 56, has lived in the Castro neighborhood since 1997 and was a deputy city attorney and local Democratic Party chair before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2010. He was elected in 2016 to the state Senate, where he’s had a massive influence, authoring more than 100 bills that have been signed into law. Allies and critics say he is a workhorse, and at times both effective and divisive.

Wiener has been endorsed by the state and local Democratic parties; a slew of state leaders including California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister); various queer and labor groups including AFSCME; more than half the city’s supervisors; and various members of Congress.

Wiener has passed some of the state’s most progressive laws on LGBTQ+ rights, including protections for gender-affirming care, and challenged federal immigration agents in California. He has also pushed progressive laws — backing safe injection sites, extending bar hours until 4 a.m., decriminalizing psychedelic drugs — that have put some of his fellow Democrats in uncomfortable spots when forced to vote on the controversial issues.

Some in San Francisco label him a moderate, though that designation would draw laughs elsewhere in the country and even in Sacramento. Wiener is one of the most reviled state politicians on the conservative right nationally, and has received scores of death threats for his work, particularly on transgender issues. His website touts a laundry list of profane and homophobic attacks from MAGA loyalists — Elon Musk called him a “scumbag,” former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene called him a “communist groomer” — that he wears as a badge of honor.

On housing, Wiener has pushed for deregulation and development near transit hubs statewide to solve the housing and affordability crises, riling some homeowners averse to increased density and some progressives who say his plan favors developers and threatens existing rent-controlled housing. On tech, Wiener has pushed for artificial intelligence regulation but also been criticized for taking a technocratic approach with buy-in from wealthy tech leaders.

Wiener has passed laws protecting net neutrality, capping prescription costs and mandating mental health parity, ending mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, and requiring corporations disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. He has received substantial financial support from tech leaders and opposes Proposition 40, the ballot measure that seeks to impose a one-time tax on the state’s billionaires.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), also gay and a former Long Beach mayor, said he considers Wiener a friend but also a generational legislator who has “led the country” on LGBTQ+ rights and housing policy. “I don’t think there’s a better legislator in the United States on housing,” Garcia said.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who worked with Wiener for years in the state Legislature, said he has been a champion for many issues important to Californians — including the environment — while holding big industry accountable and backing labor. She said while many politicians decide to either rack up easy wins with legislation that barely moves the needle or focus on “progressive value signaling” without accomplishing much of anything, Wiener “takes on some of the most difficult and controversial progressive issues and really gets them done.”

Nancy Tung, the local Democratic Party chair, said many San Francisco politicians “recede” from the city’s raucous local policy debate once they reach higher office, but Wiener is “still is in the knife fight,” especially on housing and affordability issues — showing he cares about the city and making him “such a good fit” for Congress.

Tung said she understands the appeal of sending a fellow Asian American woman to Congress in this political moment, but that Chan “just does not have the legislative record that Scott has.”

Chan for ‘working people’

Chan, 47, who lived in a rent-controlled Chinatown apartment after immigrating with her mother and younger brother, now lives with her firefighter husband and son in the Richmond neighborhood. She was a community and legislative aide for years — including for then-Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris — before being elected to the Board of Supervisors in 2020. She has served as budget chair since 2023 and has centered her campaign, largely funded by Pelosi’s network, around what she calls her “career fighting for working people.”

Chan has been endorsed by a host of Congress members, including Pelosi and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); major labor groups including the California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Teachers Assn.; various progressive organizations and fellow and former supervisors; former mayor and S.F. power broker Willie Brown; and Chakrabarti, who since the primary has shared his campaign staff and funding with her.

Chan, who supports Proposition 40, has helped create a $400-million reserve fund in San Francisco to make up for federal cuts to Medicaid and housing subsidies. She also passed a supplemental budget to fund immigration defense services for people targeted by the Trump administration and passed various labor-friendly measures, including a minimum wage increase for in-home workers and cost-of-living adjustments for city service workers.

Pelosi said Chan “understands that budgets are statements of our values,” has “championed justice and progress for working families” and “brings an important lived experience to this moment” as an immigrant woman. Schiff said Chan has impressed him as “a very powerful voice for those who are disenfranchised” and someone with “the potential of growing into” a leader like Pelosi.

Kim Tavaglione, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, said she encouraged Pelosi to endorse Chan because Chan “supports San Francisco values,” listens to labor and is a great strategist.

Cleve Jones, the San Francisco activist who has fought for gay political representation since Harvey Milk’s historic 1977 election to the Board of Supervisors, said Wiener “has done some very good things, particularly around LGBTQ issues and HIV/AIDS,” but also angered some in the LGBTQ+ community by repeatedly showing up to an annual Trans March that organizers ask politicians not to attend.

Wiener, who is Jewish, was aggressively heckled at this year’s march, namely for his stance on the Israeli war in Gaza, which he was slower than other progressives to label a genocide. Conservatives mocked him for being targeted by his base, and Wiener ended up fundraising off the incident — which Jones said was “so cynical.”

He said Wiener’s “loyalty is to big developers, big tech and big real estate,” and that he “doesn’t really see the urgency of yet another white man elected to Congress” when San Francisco can send a stronger message by electing Chan, an immigrant woman of color.

Affordability and Trump

Chan said she is a “pragmatic” progressive who has balanced the city’s budget while protecting “healthcare, education, immigration resources” and other working-class priorities. She said Wiener is focused on deregulation for market-rate housing development, whereas she has prioritized tenants’ rights and protecting existing rent-controlled housing in her push for affordable units.

Chan said she will “walk and chew gum at the same time” in Washington by working for affordability while battling Trump, including by reversing his healthcare cuts, expanding Medicaid, providing affordable childcare, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and finally figuring out meaningful immigration reform.

“I’m not sugarcoating it as if it’s easy. But we gotta be able to find ways to work together to push those things forward,” she said.

Wiener said he and Chan share the goal “of getting Trump and MAGA out of office, and then making sure that people never feel tempted to flirt with authoritarianism again.”

But he said the way to do that is to advance policies that will “lower people’s cost of living and make people’s lives more sustainable” — including by passing universal healthcare, building millions of new homes, creating low-cost child care and leading a clean energy transition — and that he is the only candidate in the race with a proven ability to do that.

“This is a race to succeed the most effective and operational member of Congress in modern American history,” Wiener said. “San Francisco should send someone who actually has a track record, a proven track record, of being able to deliver.”

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday is expected to approve a bipartisan bill that would give the NCAA and its member conferences the authority to enforce uniform national rules on college athletics.

If the bill is passed by the Senate, it would move to the House and, if approved, on to President Trump for his signature to become law.

What the Protect College Sports Act would do

Under the Protect College Sports Act — co-authored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — the NCAA would be granted a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the organization to create standardized rules around athlete eligibility, limit conference realignment and prevent the creation of a super league — a private-equity model for college sports that would replace NCAA subdivisions.

The bill is also an attempt to codify the $2.8-billion antitrust settlement reached last year in House vs. NCAA, which allowed Division 1 schools to share revenue with their current players and compensate past players. The new bill would increase the revenue sharing cap to around $50 million per school from $21.5 million, albeit with a more strict and enforceable model.

Under Name, Image and Likeness deals, wealthier schools were able to circumvent the “soft” $21.5-million cap by lining up lucrative corporate sponsorships and endorsements for prospective athletes. The bill would allow the NCAA to crack down on attempts to bypass the limit by incorporating booster or affiliated-entity money into total revenue sharing calculations, while also giving schools an additional $27 million in the funding cap to retain current athletes.

Potential boost for smaller schools

A potential consequence of the bill could be that big-name programs lose their ability to draw the best college athletes with promises of massive compensation, allowing smaller programs to compete under NCAA regulations.

The NCAA and its affiliates have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for congressional intervention on its rule-making power over the last seven years. Supporters of the bill, including Cruz, have said the bill would bring order and consistent regulation to college sports.

“If we’re going to be having a national competition … it is only Congress that can establish a clear and enforceable legal rule book,” Cruz said on the Senate floor last week.

Influential figures in college sports, including former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban and ESPN analyst Pat McAfee, have publicly called on Congress to pass the measure. It has also drawn support from 24 of the NCAA’s athletic conferences.

“Congress does need to fix the mess in the courts and create a national framework so the people inside college sports can enforce fair rules,” Saban said during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee hearing in June. “Without that legal certainty, every rule becomes another lawsuit, every standard becomes another risk, and the system keeps drifting toward a professional model.”

What the opponents say

The legislation is not without its opponents. Some players, labor organizations and members of Congress argue that the bill would prevent highly sought-after college athletes from participating in their own negotiation process.

“What this bill does, at its core, is protect a system of exploitation,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an AFL-CIO trade union press release. “This bill protects the billions of dollars that coaches and executives are making by suppressing compensation for some of the most highly valued athletes in the world.”

The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have also brought forward concerns that the bill does not allow Black athletes — who make up a majority of players in the football and basketball programs — into the collective bargaining process.

The NCAA plans to enforce a five-year eligibility rule, cap agent fees at 5%, put penalties on second transfers and codify student-athlete protections, such as 10-year degree completion assistance and post-eligibility healthcare. If the bill passes, all challenges to these rules would have to be handled in federal court.

Some senior Republican officials in the House, including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), have expressed some hesitance in passing the legislation without clarity as to whether student-athletes will be considered employees and if further limits should be placed on international student-athletes. If changes are made in the House, the bill would be returned to the Senate for another vote.

Support from Trump

Trump, on the other hand, has expressed strong support for the bill.

“THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT is a great Bill, and the Senate will hopefully stay in D.C. until it passes,” he wrote on Truth Social last month. “Without this Bill, millions of young Athletes will be hurt, programs will be canceled … the fans will be robbed, and Universities will go broke”

Sept. 25, 2026 7:17 PM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump is canceling nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress, the White House announced Friday, using a rare and contested power to axe funding for immigrant services and diversity-focused initiatives.

Trump’s Office of Management and Budget described the funding cut as focused on “the most harmful government spending.”

Most of the cuts are focused on Health and Human Services programs that serve refugees and unaccompanied minors accused of being in the country illegally. The administration says the funds are no longer necessary because illegal border crossings have diminished considerably.

Also targeted for cuts were a Department of Education program for migrant students, a Department of Justice office focused on reducing racial tensions, a business development initiative for minority entrepreneurs, housing counseling services from the Housing and Urban Development Department and a series of grants from the Health and Human Services Department that the administration called “outright harmful and blatantly ideological.”

A White House news release announcing the funding rescission notes that some of the organizations are led by people who worked in the Obama administration.

Trump’s move was condemned by Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican in a tough reelection campaign and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Collins said in a statement that the action came without warning or consultation. She also said she would work to address with colleagues “these illegal actions.”

“Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers,” Collins said. “OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.”

Under federal law, Congress has 45 days to review the president’s proposed spending cuts before they take effect. But Trump made that all but impossible by announcing them with just five days left in the federal fiscal year and the House out of session through the November election. The Government Accountability Office, which is an arm of Congress, says the maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” is illegal.

Collins called it the latest attempt by OMB to “undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”

A year ago, Trump issued a pocket rescission for the first time in nearly 50 years by blocking $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block that rescission, saying that Trump’s authority over foreign affairs weighed heavily in its decision. This year, Trump is targeting domestic spending.

The use of a pocket rescission fits into a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exert greater control over the U.S. government, eroding Congress’ power.

What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 when President Carter rescinded it, and the Trump administration argues it’s a legally permissible tool, despite some murkiness, since Carter had initially proposed the claw-back well ahead of the 45-day deadline.

The administration has also fired federal workers, imposed a historic increase in tariffs, and started the war in Iran without going through Congress, putting the burden on the judicial branch to determine the limits of presidential power.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, described the White House action as “theft from the American people, plain and simple.”

“These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people — not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families,” Murray said.

Murray said that in recent spending negotiations, Democrats fought to include language to prevent the administration from usurping Congress’ power on spending decisions, but Republicans have declined to go along.

“While Trump spends tax dollars on ads promoting himself” — a reference to a taxpayer-paid TV spot that has drawn bipartisan rebuke — “Congress needs to reassert its powers to help people, and it’s past time Republicans join us in that fight,” she said.

In addition to immigrant services, the White House said it was rescinding $70 million for what it called “woke” international education programs, $28 million in grant funding for Health and Human Services research programs, and $9 million in debt relief for foreign countries that fund climate change policies. An additional $10 million was being withheld from a minority business development program.

Freking and Cooper write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Despite rising political anxiety over the Iran war, senators on Thursday narrowly rejected a war powers resolution seeking to halt President Trump’s military action, which has been largely blamed for the spike in gas prices and become a flashpoint in the midterm election.

The Senate tally, 49-50, coming days after Trump’s bombastic address to the United Nations in which he threatened to “annihilate” Iran, was likely the last chance for lawmakers to go on record about the war ahead of November. More Republicans are peeling way from the president as the war drags on, a rare slap back to Trump, as they campaign for control of Congress. The Senate outcome fell short, with four GOP senators joining most Democrats in favor of the resolution.

“They have been carrying water for this ridiculous and illegal war for months and months and months and not listening to their constituents,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who pushed the war powers resolution forward.

About half of rural American voters believe the economy is worse off now than when Trump returned to office, according to a new survey from the Associated Press in partnership with KFF. The costs of groceries, gas and healthcare rank as top pain points for the rural voters.

“We’ve got to break the cycle,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who joined in voting yes.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky also voted for the resolution to end the war, as they have in many previous tallies, and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman voted against.

This was the 14th time the Senate has considered a war powers resolution since Trump launched the conflict Feb. 28.

War powers resolutions are largely political statements, without the full force of law, but stand among the sharper tools the House and Senate have to express disapproval of the White House, short of halting funds for Trump’s military actions. As resolutions, they do not go to the president’s desk for his signature.

As gas prices climb, Republicans start to question the war

Republicans in control of Congress have shied away from directly confronting Trump over the war, now stretching past the seven-month mark. But their unrest is surfacing as stubbornly high gas prices leave voters in a cash crunch back home.

Diesel costs, in particular, have almost doubled, topping $6 a gallon, according to AAA.

Just returning from a swing through Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska stumping for GOP candidates who are suddenly at risk in their elections, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana called on Trump to hold a prime-time address to the nation to explain the Iran war strategy and the end game.

“People are confused about the war and upset about the cost of living,” he said.

But he and others were not yet ready to vote against the war.

“My own view is that the focus right now needs to be on attacking the cost of living issues,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who opposes the war powers resolution and believes the president is acting within his authority to conduct the military action.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries scoffed at the handful of Republicans now trying to distance themselves from what he called Trump’s failed economy. “Now all of a sudden they’re waking up,” he said.

Democrats keep pushing war powers votes in Congress

Earlier this month, the House for a third time approved a war powers resolution, this time with seven Republicans joining the Democrats, including two from battleground Iowa, Rep. Zach Nunn and Rep. Mariannette Miller Meeks, where affordability issues among rural voters are dominating the campaigns.

Senators, though, have rarely been able to confront Trump by passing a war powers resolution.

In June, the Senate approved a war powers resolution after four GOP senators joined Democrats, but Republicans abruptly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a private lunch over the outcome.

At the time, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana stood up to defend his vote only to end up in a shouting match with Trump. He later switched to oppose the war powers resolution after receiving a personal briefing from the White House.

Thursday’s vote was on a resolution that had passed the House in July with GOP support. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) who authored the House resolution, said the Senate outcome was “a slap in the face to the millions of American people who want this war to end.”

Other options to halt the Iran war

As the war drags on, costing $43.5 billion so far, Congress is also seeking other ways to force Trump to rethink his military strategy in Iran.

Rep. Thomas Massie, the renegade Republican from Kentucky, pushed forward articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth before the GOP leadership abruptly adjourned the House and sent lawmakers home to campaign for the election, avoiding any potential vote on the matter.

Lawmakers also have the power of the purse to curtail military spending, something Republicans have been reluctant to do but Democrats are sure to tackle if they win power in the midterm election. The White House’s request for an additional $87.6-billion funding package for the war and other needs has idled in Congress.

First created in the aftermath of the Vietnam War as a way to hold a president accountable for military actions, the war powers act has long posed a test of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government.

While the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, the president as commander-in-chief is also able to engage the military. The war powers act seeks to provide clarity by requiring the president, within 60 days of any such action, to seek approval — or risk disapproval — from Congress.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Joey Cappelletti and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Sept. 22, 2026 6:56 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to limit the number of refugees admitted to the country to 17,500 mostly white South Africans, the administration told Congress on Tuesday, as it continues to transform a program that at one point served as a pathway to safety for people fleeing war and strife from countries around the world.

In a notice to Congress obtained by the Associated Press, the administration said the white South Africans faced seizures of their land and other forms of persecution and would be likely to assimilate when they come to America. The South African government has repeatedly rejected the idea that the white South Africans, who are Afrikaners, are a persecuted minority in the home country.

The Trump administration has dramatically altered a refugee program that historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support as it welcomed tens of thousands of refugees from countries around the world to new lives in America, and instead the administration has transformed it into a vehicle to resettle white South Africans in America.

The administration told Congress in the announcement that it intended to spend about $500 million to resettle the new arrivals to the U.S.

Presidents set the cap on how many refugees the U.S. will approve through the program each year, and historically, they’ve allocated those numbers across various geographic regions while factoring in wars or conflicts that spark humanitarian needs around the globe.

Santana and Kim write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Sunday that the massive arch he wants to build between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery would become a “top grade military complex” able to host drones and snipers while storing ammunition.

It is one more example of how Trump is insisting that his initiatives to remake the White House and its environs are also serving a defensive purpose. Trump has been calling the new White House ballroom a “military complex” and arguing it is necessary for national security purposes, at least in part to help it pass legal muster.

The Pentagon said it had no information beyond the president’s statement.

Trump’s announcement comes as the arch, like his other projects, faces legal challenges. Though the arch has received early approval from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all appointed by Trump, a group of three veterans and an architectural historian sued, saying the project needs to be approved by Congress.

“The president’s belated efforts to manufacture a national security justification for this project do nothing to cure its fundamental illegality,” Nicolas Sansone, one of the attorneys representing the litigants, said Sunday. “Congress has not authorized the arch, and unless and until Congress does so, the project should not be permitted to move forward.”

The president said in a social media post that he had agreed, at the “strong request” of the military, to convert the planned 250-foot-tall memorial arch “into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”

The arch is proposed for a circle adjacent to the Memorial Bridge, which is a heavy traffic area as one of several connecting bridges between the nation’s capital and northern Virginia.

Among the other projects Trump is pursuing to refashion Washington’s cityscape are renaming and renovating the Kennedy Center, refurbishing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and rebuilding a golf course in East Potomac Park that could significantly reduce the public’s access to running and biking paths. Some of the projects have run into trouble: The Kennedy Center now faces closure and perhaps demolition, and the botched Reflecting Pool renovation, originally set for completion by July 4, remains incomplete.

The groundbreaking for the arch was to have happened sometime this month. The project has not yet received final approval from the National Capital Area Planning Commission, which greenlighted the site and preliminary plans at its July meeting. The commission is expected to take up the matter again this fall.

Kim writes for the Associated Press.

HENRICO, Va. — In-person voting for this year’s midterm elections began Friday, ushering in the final six weeks for Americans to decide which party they trust to lead Congress through a cost-of-living crisis, a prolonged war in Iran and other pressing issues.

Election administrators say they are prepared and confident the vote will be accurate and secure. Nevertheless, President Trump has continued with efforts to denigrate certain voting methods and reshape how elections are run, through court challenges, an expansive federal hunt for noncitizen voters and a pressure campaign to force election officials to share sensitive voter data.

Friday marked the start of early voting in Virginia. Voters in a handful of other states, including Idaho, Minnesota and South Dakota, can cast absentee ballots in person, typically at a local election office or voting center. More expansive early voting is scheduled to begin in those and other states in the coming weeks.

At a voting location in Fairfax, Virginia, 18-year-old college student Sanya Singhal was among the first to vote early in person Friday morning, arriving well before the site opened to get in line.

“Why not just have a little fun in life, you know, try to be the first early voter?” she said. “I really want to participate in my democracy.”

At a voting location in suburban Richmond, a poll worker rang a bell as the building opened and about a dozen voters in line began to file in. Stephen Gura was excited to be the first.

“This election is critical. We need to stop the Trump agenda. We need to start electing people who will stand up for people in this district,” said Gura, who added that he voted for U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, and Shannon Taylor, the Democratic nominee against Republican incumbent Rob Wittman in the 1st Congressional District.

The Nov. 3 election includes votes for governor and state legislature in most states and will determine whether Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House and Senate. If Democrats retake Congress, it will alter the trajectory of the final two years of Trump’s term, most likely leading to investigations and other oversight efforts.

Voting underway after unusual redistricting and Trump’s bid to control how elections are run

At the suburban Richmond voting center, a steady stream of voters flowed in and out for the first hour of early voting. William Curry, a 74-year-old retiree who described himself as a libertarian-leaning independent conservative, voted for Warner’s Republican challenger, Bert Mizusawa, and Wittman. Curry said he generally approves of the job Trump has done, apart from the war with Iran.

“He’s in a mess he can’t get rid of,” Curry said of the conflict.

On a rainy day in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Bill Goehring, 67, said he voted early at the county office because he will be traveling later. He voted for a mix of Democrats and independents, and said Trump’s “dictatorial tendencies are bad for America.”

The start of early voting comes at a time of deep angst among many Americans about issues including rising gas and grocery prices, the war in Iran, the looming risks of artificial intelligence and Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign.

It also follows an unprecedented spate of mid-decade redistricting for the U.S. House that began when Trump urged the Republican-controlled legislature in Texas to redraw its congressional map to help the party. California and other states followed.

The changes affect millions of people: Research shows 1 in 10 Americans this fall is a resident of a different congressional district than in 2024.

Those partisan efforts are expected to continue before the 2028 elections after a landmark ruling this year from the U.S. Supreme Court weakened the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racially discriminatory redistricting.

As the start of early voting approached, Trump was focused on efforts to assert federal control over election administration, even as the Constitution bestows the power to run elections on the states and, in some cases, Congress. The nation’s highest court rejected Trump’s bid to restrict mail ballots this week, but several of his administration’s other efforts to influence the voting process and mine state voter lists for illegitimate voters continue.

Virginia’s attorney general said Thursday that Trump’s administration may have violated several of the state’s laws after a whistleblower accused federal employees of misrepresenting themselves on voter lookup tools to hunt for noncitizen voters. In a letter, Attorney General Jay Jones demanded that the Department of Homeland Security confirm in writing whether it had directed anyone to access Virginia voters’ information without first obtaining permission from those voters.

Trump for years has raised the specter of widespread noncitizen voting in U.S. elections, and this year is no exception. But despite his administration’s insistence that hundreds of thousands of people are illegally on voting rolls across the country, research continues to show noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare.

David Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said he wouldn’t be surprised if the Republican president continues “his disinformation campaign and his attack on election officials.” But he said he thinks despite that and other challenges, “ultimately the process will hold as it has in past years.”

Advocates suggest voters cast their ballots early

Voting rights advocates have encouraged voters this year to cast mail ballots early, in part because of concerns about recent changes in U.S. Postal Service operations that could delay the application of postmarks to ballots.

“Voting early, whether in person or by mail, is good for all of our communities because it gives voters options, eases lines on Election Day and can even mean faster results,” said Hannah Fried, co-founder and CEO of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local.

The top official at the U.S. Postal Service also encouraged voters who cast ballots by mail to get them in early.

“We say seven days,” postmaster general David Steiner said in an interview. “Everything is solved if people vote early.”

In a news briefing Thursday, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon urged people not to be swayed by stories they might have seen or read that cast doubt on election operations. They would be able to vote “just like they always have,” he said.

“I just want to reaffirm that Minnesota’s elections are fundamentally free, fair, accurate, honest and secure,” he said.

Swenson, Rankin and Raza write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York and Raza from Sioux Falls, S.D. AP writer Mike Catalini in Philadelphia and AP video journalist Nathan Ellgren in Fairfax, Va., contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — Former U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, a longtime Republican lawmaker from Arizona who shaped landmark water policies in the U.S. West and guided the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, has died. He was 84.

Kyl died Wednesday night from a neurological disorder, said Gordon James, a communications professional who is a longtime friend of the Kyl family. Kyl had withdrawn from public life in December 2025 after announcing he had been diagnosed with dementia.

Kyl spent almost three decades in Congress, serving in both chambers, and watched his party undergo a drastic transformation, with his career spanning Ronald Reagan’s presidency to President Trump’s first term.

Former Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who considered Kyl a mentor, described the former senator in a February 2025 interview with the Associated Press as a true statesman and a “workhorse” among Washington, D.C.’s “showhorses.”

“If you saw him on the plane, he was sitting in the aisle, in coach, and he was reading,” Ducey said. “And he was reading potential bills or Senate business.”

Kyl returns briefly to Senate to fill McCain seat

Kyl rose to a leadership position during his last full term in the Senate, when his Republican colleagues selected him as minority whip. After retiring from politics in 2013 and becoming a lobbyist, Kyl returned to Congress briefly in 2018, when Ducey appointed him to fill the vacancy left by the late U.S. Sen. John McCain.

His appointment drew high praise from Trump, who said he was looking forward to working with “the extraordinary senator.” Kyl stayed for less than four months before rejoining lobbying firm Covington and Burling.

“At the federal level, and I regret to say that this is the case, but probably a lot of my better achievements were in preventing bad things from happening (rather) than forcing good things to happen,” Kyl said in a 2012 conversation with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Lawyer with expertise in water gets elected

Kyl was born in Oakland, Nebraska, on April 25, 1942, and grew up in a rural farming district in Iowa that his father represented in the U.S. House. At 18, he headed southwest to attend the University of Arizona, where he met his wife, Caryll, and earned a law degree.

Before being elected for the first of his four terms in the House in 1987, Kyl was a key participant in shaping Arizona’s 1980 groundwater code as a lawyer representing a large water utility. The first-of-its-kind code created a regulatory framework for managing groundwater in the drought-stricken state, largely centering on the state’s population centers, including Phoenix and Tucson.

In 2004, Kyl authored legislation that provided one of the largest tribal water rights settlements, which, after a decades-long battle, gave the Gila River Indian Community enough water to fill nearly 313,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools annually. Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who later served as majority leader, called Kyl’s work ethic “legendary” in a 2012 floor speech and said Kyl had labored mostly behind the scenes for 15 years to advance the settlement.

“It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, but I was in a position to be the catalyst,” Kyl told the Phoenix New Times in a 2006 interview. “There wasn’t anybody else who could do that water deal. And it had to be done.”

Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy takes its name from him. Its director, Sarah Porter, said Kyl was generous with his time and an effective member of the state’s congressional delegation who took a practical approach to water policy. “He’s always sort of cared about the public good and been able to think about, ‘What will this mean for the generations to come?’” Porter said, adding that Kyl remained “quite a dynamo” until recent years, as his wife battled health problems.

‘Giant’ in the Senate kept Republican caucus together

Ducey said Kyl was a “giant” in the Senate, further describing him as serious, engaging, forthright and thoughtful. His biggest impacts, Ducey said, came from the way he kept the Republican caucus together in opposition to Obamacare and his staunch support of Israel.

Kyl also backed legislation to authorize construction of a fence stretching hundreds of miles along the U.S.-Mexico border. He later joined with Democrats to support a bill that would provide a path to citizenship and temporary guest-worker status for those in the U.S. without authorization. The proposal ultimately failed.

As a lobbyist, Kyl helped guide the confirmation of Trump-picked U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. When Kyl returned to the halls of Congress in 2018, he was known as Kavanaugh’s chief Sherpa — an informal but widely known term for a nominee’s guide to the political tundra in the Senate.

In a statement disclosing his dementia diagnosis, Kyl harkened back to the words of Reagan, when the former president revealed his own Alzheimer’s diagnosis and said he was starting a journey that would lead him to the end of his life.

Kyl said he shared Reagan’s confidence for Arizona and the nation’s future, and that despite his diagnosis, he was a “very fortunate man.”

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press. Former Associated Press writer Sejal Govindarao contributed to this report.

Donald Trump Jr. has a lot more in common with his dad than just a name, sharing the president’s penchant for shady dealings and for kleptocratic Russians. Sometimes the two proclivities go together. That was the case in May, we learned this week from ProPublica, when Don Jr. married his second wife during a three-day Bahamian bacchanal bankrolled partly with hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Putin-allied oligarch the Trump scion met only recently.

I had to wonder — recalling Don Jr.’s response in 2016 on learning Russia helpfully wanted to dump dirt on Hillary Clinton — whether he replied in kind when his new Russian friend, Umar Kremlev, offered the wedding grift, er, gift: “If it’s what you say I love it.”

My second thought was that Don Jr. is just like his dad in wanting to spend other people’s money, even as the Trump family has accrued billions since President Trump has been back in office. (Cue the continued silence from the sleuths of Hunter Biden’s laptop.)

Just days before ProPublica’s exposé, at last week’s midterm Republican convention in Dallas, the elder Trump proffered a gift of $5,000 to every one of the roughly 270 million adult Americans. But the eponymous “Trump dividend” would come only if Republicans keep their House and Senate majorities after the November midterm elections.

The tab? More than $1 trillion, roughly $1.3 trillion. How generous Trump is with the U.S. Treasury, despite the news just last month that rattled bond markets and raised interest rates: The United States’ gross debt has exceeded $40 trillion. As Trump told CNBC in 2016: “I love debt. I love playing with it.” We can’t say he didn’t warn us. Even before his proposed 5K giveaway, Trump was on track to break his first-term record for adding to the unsustainable U.S. debt ($8.4 trillion).

Trump’s unprecedented offer of a post-election payout provoked predictable cries of “bribery” from Democrats and other critics. But legality aside, even the appearance of a bribe isn’t what bothers me most about the proposal.

For one thing, it won’t happen. No one will be receiving a $5,000 Trump dividend, just like no one received the DOGE dividend or $2,000 tariff refund he previously promised. Even if Republicans pull off a miracle and retain control of Congress, those in power show no zeal for his budget-buster, not after their complicity in adding trillions to the debt since last year with tax cuts, war costs and this, that and the other Trump pet project. And Congress indeed would have to act, under the Constitution, despite suggestions from the obsequious Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, that Trump could act alone. (But “I’m not ready to discuss it at present,” Bessent told a House committee on Tuesday.)

No, what bothers me most about Trump’s idea — what outrages me — is the damnable fiscal irresponsibility of it.

Trump has turned much of historical Republican orthodoxy on its head, including on immigration, trade and policy toward Russia. But his utter disregard for annual deficits — a record $2 trillion for this fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — and his shameful profligacy with taxpayers’ money is something Americans haven’t seen in their lifetimes, in either party. Worse, Trump implies otherwise, that he is fiscally responsible, and he does it with lies that are so easily refuted, so often contradicted by his own words, that it’s a marvel that even such a chronic prevaricator as himself can utter them.

This week Trump is still claiming that the $5,000 dividend will be paid for because “we’re taking in trillions and trillions of dollars” in revenue from his inflationary tariffs on more than half of the goods imported into the country. The actual number isn’t even close to that, and he should know it: The data that nonpartisan analysts are crunching are from the government he supposedly runs.

In 2026, tariff revenue through August was just under $200 billion, but more than half of that already has been spent on refunds to big corporations including Amazon, Walmart and Home Depot, in keeping with a Supreme Court ruling against some of Trump’s tariffs. And as if Trump’s dividend proposal weren’t mendacious enough, in making it he seems to have forgotten his claim in his State of the Union address in February that he would use the tsunami of tariff revenue to abolish the federal income tax.

And one last thing: Even if each adult American got $5,000, subtract from that the nearly $2,000 that each household has paid, on average, because of higher tariffs since Trump took office, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

In this one dumb idea, in sum, the giveaway manifests just about all that is wrong with Trump as president: The lying, of course. Fiscal recklessness. The trashing of commendable Republican doctrines. The Trump bubble of sycophantic yay-sayers. And, in turn, the seat-of-his-pants policy idiocy, from war-making to White House demolishing.

The lack of any actual policy deliberation behind Trump’s $5,000 shocker was clear in his lackeys’ flailing and contradictory reactions — not just Bessent’s specious claim of presidential authority, but also Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s inane insistence the administration could somehow “earn the money that Donald Trump wants to pay out” and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett’s comment, contrary to Bessent’s, that the White House is indeed looking to Congress for funds.

The good news? Americans get it. Recent polls have the percentage approving of Trump’s handling of the economy as low as 28%. Significant majorities say they are worse off since he became president again.

Such numbers portend an election result that isn’t likely to be changed by a promise of $5,000. Especially from a serial promise-breaker.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Sept. 16, 2026 3:10 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The House approved a resolution Wednesday holding billionaire Leon Black in contempt of Congress, referring the matter to the Department of Justice after he defied the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas in its investigation into disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The action was swift and without a formal vote, and now leaves it to the Justice Department to decide whether to seek criminal prosecution. Black has refused to respond to the subpoenas’ requests to appear and to turn over any potential nondisclosure agreements involving the investigation into Epstein.

Republicans and Democrats from the Oversight Committee joined in a bipartisan effort to advance the resolution forward.

“No one is above the law,” Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the Oversight Committee chairman, said in a statement. “We will continue to seek transparency for the American people and justice for survivors in our investigation of the federal government’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases.”

California Rep. Robert Garcia, the panel’s top Democrat, called the vote “an important step toward justice and accountability.”

Black’s lawyers have denounced the Oversight Committee’s pursuit of the former head of a private equity firm as an abuse of congressional power. They said he “had no knowledge of any of Epstein’s heinous conduct.”

“The Committee has continued to insist on looking for information that does not exist,” attorneys Susan Estrich and Aaron Cutler said in a statement. They called the action “politically motivated” and have sued the committee and asked the Office of Congressional Conduct to open a probe into Comer’s tactics.

“This an outrageous action that ignores the facts and the truth about Mr. Black,” they said.

Epstein investigation churns in Congress

Black is the latest among several prominent figures, including former President Clinton and Bill Gates, who have been asked to appear as part of the Oversight Committee’s long-running probe of Epstein. Survivors of Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse have told personal stories of being young women in a trafficking enterprise organized by Epstein and his colleague Maxwell.

In June, Black did appear for a voluntary interview at the committee. Lawmakers said later that he refused to answer their questions about the nondisclosure agreements.

The committee issued two subpoenas seeking to compel Black to produce the NDAs and to appear for a deposition July 16. The committee said it had accommodated Black’s request to delay the deposition to Sept. 3, but he refused to appear.

On Tuesday the Oversight Committee voted unanimously to approve the contempt recommendation, sending it to the full House.

Black co-founded the private equity firm Apollo Global Management and stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein. Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their years-long relationship.

A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning and other related services.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 16, 2026 9:35 AM PT

DES MOINES, Iowa — Two House Republicans in battleground Iowa districts, including one who recently campaigned alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, changed their position on an Iran war powers resolution, joining with Democrats and a few other dissident members of their party in an attempt to halt President Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The shift reflects the political pressure on Republicans before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress. The war remains unpopular and has led to soaring fuel prices.

Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks voted for the resolution with five other Republicans on Tuesday after previously voting against it.

“With the negotiating window closed, sustained combat operations now require congressional authorization,” Nunn, an Air Force veteran, posted on social media. “I will not support another open-ended war.”

Nunn campaigned with Hegseth last month in Iowa, and the Pentagon chief had lauded Nunn as an ally who didn’t need any last-minute, late-night phone calls from Trump to persuade him to support the president’s agenda.

“Zach Nunn is not a 3 a.m. congressman,” Hegseth said at a fundraiser for Nunn during the Iowa State Fair. “He’s willing to take the tough votes to do the right thing on behalf of our war fighters.”

Nunn is up against Sarah Trone Garriott in November’s election.

Miller-Meeks, an Army veteran, said in a statement the president needs to present a plan to Congress and the public showing how the war ends so “we can focus on bringing our soldiers home and lowering prices.”

“Americans do not want another forever war,” she said. “I will not vote to keep our soldiers in an open-ended war, with Iowans paying too much at the pump.”

She faces a reelection rematch against Christina Bohannan, whom she has defeated twice before.

Eighteen U.S. service members have died in the war with Iran. Two are from Iowa, and one used to live in Iowa.

National polling indicates that the Iran war remains unpopular with Americans overall. Only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults approved of Trump’s handling of Iran in a July AP-NORC poll, and a September New York Times/Siena poll found that most likely voters, about 6 in 10, think Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran was the wrong one.

Tuesday’s House vote was the third time lawmakers voted to end the war in Iran. The margin was similar to earlier efforts, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats in voting to bring an end to the conflict.

In addition to Nunn and Miller-Meeks, retiring Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky in voting for the resolution.

Rep. Ashley Hinson, who represents northeast Iowa but is running to replace retiring Sen. Joni Ernst, voted against the resolution.

Republicans have been optimistic that Iowa will remain a red state, but the competitive races have gotten attention even from the White House. Trump visited suburbs of Des Moines in January and dispatched Vice President JD Vance in May to campaign for Nunn.

After Hegseth campaigned with Nunn, a group of over 400 former national security officials filed a complaint asking for an investigation into whether the secretary violated the Hatch Act, which restricts political activities by federal officials.

Hegseth’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Catalini and Fingerhut write for the Associated Press. Catalini reported from Morrisville, Pa.

WASHINGTON — For a third time, the U.S. House has voted to end the war in Iran, approving a war powers resolution that would halt President Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The roll call late Tuesday, 220-204, was similar to earlier efforts this summer, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats voting to bring an end to the conflict. None of the resolutions have made it to the president’s desk, where Trump would almost certainly veto the measure.

“Remember when Donald Trump said that this war would last just a few weeks?” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who served as a Marine during the Iraq War and pushed the resolution forward.

He said it’s time for Congress to “actually ask tough questions, as the Constitution directs us to do, rather than be subservient to another warmongering administration.”

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned which military resources Democrats would want to remove from the region where he said Iran remains a threat.

Mast said Trump is against “forever wars, and that is what he is ending” — the decades of hostilities from Iran.

“They are a continuous ongoing threat to the United States,” Mast said. “Enough is enough.”

Last war powers vote before the midterms

The action is likely the last House vote on the Iran war ahead of the midterm elections, where the conflict overseas is playing a substantial role in the political campaigns. The war that Trump launched Feb. 28 has dragged, with on-again, off-again deadly missile strikes being exchanged and causing havoc in the region for nearly seven months.

Lawmakers are heading home at the end of the week to campaign nearly full-time, with less than 50 days to go before the elections that will determine control of Congress as Democrats try to wrest power from Republicans.

Voters are confronting high prices, particularly for gas at the pumps, as the conflict disrupts the flow of oil resources through the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the war has cost more than $38 billion, as of Aug. 1, and is projected to be costing between $2 billion and $3 billion monthly, depending on the intensity of the fighting. The budget office projected inflation will be 0.5 percentage points higher than expected heading into 2027 due to the war.

Trump himself had promised not to involve the U.S. in foreign wars when he won a second term in the White House, and his actions against Iran are weighing on the Republican Party that controls the House and Senate. Most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting, according to an AP-NORC poll in July.

In the previous House actions, four Republicans voted to halt the war in Iran, but that number rose to seven in Tuesday’s war powers vote, including GOP lawmakers from battleground Iowa, Rep. Zachary Nunn and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and retiring Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

They joined GOP Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky voting in favor of the war powers resolution, with all Democrats.

War powers being put to the test

Congress has tried repeatedly to alter the trajectory of the war against Iran, but efforts to limit the Trump administration’s military action remain a longshot so long as the president is able to fend off or veto the measures.

The House first approved a war powers resolution in June, and followed up with another one in July, all seeking to halt U.S. action in Iran. The Senate on its 10th try also approved a war powers resolution to end the conflict, but GOP senators quickly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a closed-door lunch.

While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it also gives the president authority as the commander in chief to engage in some military actions. The War Powers Act, created in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, sought to put a more specific time limit on the president’s power, requiring congressional approval for sustained military actions after 60 or 90 days.

House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged at a press conference Tuesday the need to bring gas prices down.

But the Republican speaker said he believes the Iran conflict is entering a “new phase” as allies step up to help stabilize the region. When that happens, he said, “you’re going to see, as the president said, anytime gas prices will go down again, the cost of groceries will as well.”

Johnson said Trump expects the shift after the election, and the speaker added, “I’d love it to happen today.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON: For a third time, the US House has voted to end the war in Iran, approving a war powers resolution that would halt President Donald Trump’s ability to continue military action without congressional approval.

The roll call late Tuesday, 220-204, was similar to earlier efforts this summer, with a few more Republicans joining all Democrats voting to bring an end to the conflict. None of the resolutions have made it to the president’s desk, where Trump would almost certainly veto the measure.

“Remember when Donald Trump said that this war would last just a few weeks?” said Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who served as a Marine during the Iraq War and pushed the resolution forward.

He said it’s time for Congress to “actually ask tough questions, as the Constitution directs us to do, rather than be subservient to another warmongering administration.”

Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned which military resources Democrats would want to remove from the region where he said Iran remains a threat.

Mast said Trump is against “forever wars, and that is what he is ending” — the decades of hostilities from Iran.

“They are a continuous ongoing threat to the United States,” Mast said. “Enough is enough.”

Last war powers vote before the midterms

The action is likely the last House vote on the Iran war ahead of the midterm elections, where the conflict overseas is playing a substantial role in the political campaigns. The war that Trump launched Feb. 28 has dragged, with on-again, off-again deadly missile strikes being exchanged and causing havoc in the region for nearly seven months.

Lawmakers are heading home at the end of the week to campaign nearly full-time, with less than 50 days to go before the elections that will determine control of Congress as Democrats try to wrest power from Republicans.

Voters are confronting high prices, particularly for gas at the pumps, as the conflict disrupts the flow of oil resources through the vital Strait of Hormuz.

The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the war has cost more than $38 billion, as of Aug. 1, and is projected to be costing between $2 billion and $3 billion monthly, depending on the intensity of the fighting. The budget office projected inflation will be 0.5 percentage points higher than expected heading into 2027 due to the war.

Trump himself had promised not to involve the U.S. in foreign wars when he won a second term in the White House, and his actions against Iran are weighing on the Republican Party that controls the House and Senate. Most Americans say the war in Iran has not been worth fighting, according to an AP-NORC poll in July.

In the previous House actions, four Republicans voted to halt the war in Iran, but that number rose to seven in Tuesday’s war powers vote, including GOP lawmakers from battleground Iowa, Rep. Zachary Nunn and Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and retiring Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

They joined GOP Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky voting in favor of the war powers resolution, with all Democrats.

War powers being put to the test

Congress has tried repeatedly to alter the trajectory of the war against Iran, but efforts to limit the Trump administration’s military action remain a longshot so long as the president is able to fend off or veto the measures.

The House first approved a war powers resolution in June, and followed up with another one in July, all seeking to halt U.S. action in Iran. The Senate on its 10th try also approved a war powers resolution to end the conflict, but GOP senators quickly reversed course the next day after Trump berated them during a closed-door lunch.

While the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war, it also gives the president authority as the commander in chief to engage in some military actions. The War Powers Act, created in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, sought to put a more specific time limit on the president’s power, requiring congressional approval for sustained military actions after 60 or 90 days.

House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged at a press conference Tuesday the need to bring gas prices down.

But the Republican speaker said he believes the Iran conflict is entering a “new phase” as allies step up to help stabilize the region. When that happens, he said, “you’re going to see, as the president said, anytime gas prices will go down again, the cost of groceries will as well.”

Johnson said Trump expects the shift after the election, and the speaker added, “I’d love it to happen today.”

WASHINGTON — Philippine President Corazon Aquino, given a rousing reception, told a joint meeting of Congress today that if she fails to negotiate peace with communist guerrillas threatening her government she will not flinch from “taking up the sword of war.”

“I will not stand by and allow an insurgent leadership to spurn our offer of peace and kill our young soldiers and threaten our new freedom,” Aquino said.

Aquino was greeted in the House chamber by enthusiastic applause and cheers from the members of Congress, many of whom sported yellow flowers in their lapels. Aquino wore her trademark yellow suit, like the ones she wore so often during her campaign for the presidency earlier this year.

Many visitors in the gallery, and several members as well, chanted “Cory, Cory, Cory” for half a minute as she entered the chamber.

Several members later said her speech had been so well received that it could mean more U.S. aid for her nation. Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill said it was the best he had ever heard on Capitol Hill.

‘Hit a Home Run’

Senate Republican leader Bob Dole said he told Aquino she had “hit a home run” with Congress, and said she replied: “I hope the bases were loaded.” Impressed senators and House members called her speech “brilliant,” “eloquent,” “magnificent” and “moving.”

She opened her speech with a tribute to her husband, Benigno S. Aquino Jr., a human rights activist whose murder in Manila in 1983 after years of exile in the United States swelled the widespread disenchantment with the government of Ferdinand E. Marcos and eventually led to his downfall.

Her husband’s death “was my country’s resurrection in the courage and faith by which alone they could be free again,” she said. “And so began the revolution that has brought me to democracy’s most famous home, the United States.”

Aquino’s speech underscored her policy of negotiating with the communist New People’s Army guerrilla movement and, if the talks fail, waging a vigorous war against the insurgents.

“I must explore the path of peace to the utmost, for at its end, whatever disappointment I meet there, is the moral basis for laying down the olive branch of peace and taking up the sword of war,” she said.

“Still, should it come to that, I will not waver from the course laid down by your great liberator,” a reference to Abraham Lincoln and his determination to fight the Civil War.

‘Whatever It Takes’

“Like Lincoln, I understand that force may be necessary before mercy,” she said. “Like Lincoln, I don’t relish it, yet I will do whatever it takes to defend the integrity and freedom of my country.”

She said the aim of the negotiations is “to bring the insurgents down from the hills and, by economic progress and justice, show them that for which the best intentioned among them fight.” Persuading the guerrillas to stop fighting will be accomplished by “political initiatives and local reintegration programs.”

She said her predecessor, Marcos, set aside democratic rights to wage a war against “a communist insurgency that numbered less than 500.

“Unhampered by respect for human rights, he went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled, that insurgency had grown to more than 16,000.

“I think there is a lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with the means by which it grows.”

President Donald Trump pledged Wednesday to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, an extraordinary gambit to reverse his party’s sagging fortunes in November.

The dubious promise would likely cost more than $1 trillion and require congressional approval, and would further exacerbate the country’s nearly $1.8 trillion annual budget deficit and concerns about inflation.

“If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000,” Trump said during the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas. “It will be called the Trump Dividend.”

He likened the payments to a corporation’s distributions to shareholders, citing “our tremendous strength and success economically.”

Within an hour, Vice President JD Vance appeared to try to walk back Trump’s proposal — at least in part — by suggesting the dividend payments would not go to the wealthy. Vance suggested it could be paid for by U.S. tariff revenues, though the suggested payment dwarfs what the U.S. has taken in through the protectionist measures.

The White House did not respond to a message seeking details.

Congress would need to approve or otherwise acquiesce to the payment. The sum would far exceed U.S. tariff revenues even before the Supreme Court tossed much of the president’s tariff program last year.

The national debt last month topped $40 trillion for the first time.

Trump has frequently lamented that, during the modern era, the president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress during the midterms, and he has looked for unorthodox ways to defy the trend, including this week’s convention.

“We’re going to change that,” Trump said. “There’s no reason for it.”

Marc Goldwein, the senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a think tank in Washington, said Trump has no authority send money to Americans without approval from Congress.

Goldwein added that dividends are something that companies pay when there’s a surplus, but the U.S. is running $2 trillion annual deficits and has $40 trillion in debt.

“The idea that we’ve had fiscal success is backwards and bordering on laughable,” he said. “We don’t have surpluses to give away.”

The move was reminiscent of billionaire Elon Musk’s efforts to buy votes in last year’s Wisconsin state Supreme Court race, where he handed out million-dollar checks to voters to try to boost a candidate who ultimately lost.

Trump has discussed the possibility before but has never tied it to his party’s electoral fortunes. Earlier this year, he proposed a $2,000 dividend and said he didn’t think he needed approval from Congress.

Last year, Trump gave members of the military a $1,776 check that he called a “warrior dividend.”

“I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the November 3rd election,” Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio wrote on X late Wednesday. “Because Republicans (and America) will win!”

A $5,000 check would give each American more money than they received in direct government payments from COVID-19 relief measures during Trump’s first term.

Trump’s proposal would be legal because the payment would go to everyone regardless of how they voted, or whether they voted at all, said New Mexico-based attorney John Day.

“This is a campaign promise,” Day said. “It’s not a payment to individuals to try to get them to vote in a particular way.”

Republicans are on defense as they look to defend their narrow House majority against strong headwinds. Trump is unpopular, and Americans overwhelmingly oppose the war in Iran. Even the Senate, which Republicans once were well-positioned to keep, is up for grabs.

Cooper writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and River Zhang contributed.