congress

WASHINGTON — The last time Washington, D.C., residents chose a new delegate to Congress and a new mayor in the same election, gas was $1.33 a gallon and George H.W. Bush was president.

This fall they will do it again — under starkly different circumstances.

As the city heads toward pivotal primaries this month to pick candidates for those roles, President Trump’s influence on the nation’s capital is shaping up as a major campaign issue. The fresh slate of candidates is weighing how best to approach Trump’s Republican administration and congressional control over the heavily Democratic city’s affairs.

“It’s going to be a big sea change in city politics, no matter how the elections shake out,” said Amanda Huron, a professor at the University of the District of Columbia who teaches courses on D.C. history and politics. But Washington’s lack of full autonomy brings “all sorts of peculiarities around the city’s governance.”

Since Trump returned to office last year, the National Guard is on an open-ended deployment as part of what he calls a crime-fighting mission. He is putting his personal imprint on the city’s storied landmarks. And major cuts to the federal workforce have compounded economic pressures on the capital, which has one of the country’s highest unemployment rates.

The city has long had a unique, if fraught, relationship with the federal government: While residents can vote for their local leaders, they are limited by Washington’s status as a federal district in how much influence they can actually have on the city’s affairs. That limited autonomy has been further squeezed under Trump and his federal law enforcement takeover, launched last year.

This fall, current council members Janeese Lewis George and Kenyan McDuffie are the frontrunners vying to replace Mayor Muriel Bowser, elected in 2014. The leading candidates in the race to succeed long-serving congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton are Robert White Jr. and Brooke Pinto, also D.C. council members.

On June 16, primaries will be held for those roles, which in an overwhelmingly Democratic city usually dictate who will take the top spot come November.

Washington, and its elected officials, have limited autonomy

Washington, unlike other cities, does not control its fate.

What choices voters have is through a limited home rule agreement passed by Congress in 1973 that allowed residents to elect their local government leaders.

But Congress retains control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by the city council. Congressional members elected by voters from thousands of miles away routinely introduce measures to impact city affairs.

That has meant local leaders must balance pressures from their constituents with the demands of Congress and the administration — an act Bowser was forced to perform repeatedly.

During Trump’s first term, she ordered the painting and naming of Black Lives Matter Plaza, just north of the White House, in 2020. Just months after Trump’s inauguration to his second term, she agreed to remove it in response to pressure from congressional Republicans.

That act, the decimation of the federal workforce by the Department of Government Efficiency and the surge by federal law enforcement and the National Guard into the city have emerged as central themes in the election season. Right now, about 3,500 troops are in the city — a number authorities say will climb to 5,000 as the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations approach.

Trump has routinely said his intervention has made Washington “one of the safest” and most beautiful cities in the country, enjoying a historic drop in crime.

Candidates campaign on promise of resistance to Trump

George told The Associated Press that her top priority is addressing “the affordability crisis here in D.C., which the Trump administration has only made worse by unjustly firing federal employees en masse and militarizing our streets.”

McDuffie said his top priority is public safety as crime continues to be an issue. He has said he would add 1,000 police officers over four years, fully staff the 911 call center after years of chronic staffing shortages and take a public health approach to violence reduction.

“We cannot have an affordable city,” he said, “without public safety as its foundation.”

Both said they would bolster the city’s legal defenses against federal overreach and said Bowser should have been less cooperative with federal authorities as they targeted members of the city’s immigrant communities.

Alex Dodd, co-founder of Free DC, an activist group supporting city independence, said the organization endorsed George because of her willingness to be more aggressive in opposing Trump and congressional Republicans.

“When our leaders comply with this administration before being forced, they are giving this regime an enormous advantage,” he said.

Pat Wheeler, a native Washingtonian and communications consultant who served as a department head at Morgan State University, applauded Bowser for cooperating with the Trump administration on some aspects. She noted failure to do so could have sparked retribution and a loss of what little control city officials have.

“Trump can snap his finger and the whole Republican Congress will say, ‘Let’s put a federal control board over the mayor,’” she said.

Affordability and social issues also concerns

The D.C. delegate position is a nonvoting one, but it grants the nearly 700,000 people of the district, who have no other representation in Congress, a voice through speechmaking on the House floor and bill introduction.

But critics said the 88-year-old Norton was diminished during the second Trump administration and not visible enough in the fight against administration and congressional overreach on the city’s autonomy. She filed paperwork to end her campaign for reelection in January.

Norton, who has served 18 terms, has had a storied career. She and her predecessor, Walter Fauntroy Jr., both had national standing coming out of the civil rights era.

“Eleanor Holmes Norton is maybe one of the last major political figures who comes out of the civil rights movement,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University. “It’s a real passing of the torch.”

The campaigns of candidates running to replace her have centered on local control, Trump and affordability. Frontrunners and council members Pinto and White have also engaged in personal skirmishes questioning the origins of campaign contributions and connections to Republicans.

Pinto told the AP her top priority for the city is self-governance, something that has “never been a true reality for the people of D.C.”

She said affordability for the middle-class and working families is another concern.

White’s campaign has said he’s “not willing to continue to see our tax dollars used to allow DC police to cooperate and conspire with federal agents to trample our constitutional rights and to terrorize our communities.”

Brenda Manley, a longtime resident of Ward 7, an area with a storied Black history across the Anacostia River, said the city was well managed despite the tensions with Trump. But she said she hoped all the candidates would spend more time on the campaign focusing on programs that are beneficial to all residents, like a tuition grant program championed by Norton or major strides made in education during Bowser’s tenure.

“Those type of programs matter,” Manley said.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation Thursday that would aid Ukraine and sanction key segments of the Russian economy, overriding objections from Republican leaders who warned the bill would undermine negotiations designed to achieve a comparable but stronger result.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., seeks to cement U.S. assistance for Ukraine by providing more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction aid. It would make another $8 billion available for Ukraine’s defense through loans.

The 226-195 vote is a sign of impatience with President Trump’s approach to the war and represents the House’s second major foreign policy break with Trump this week. The day before, the House, for the first time, approved a war powers resolution aimed at halting U.S. military action against Iran.

Supporters were able to force action on the Ukraine bill by gathering 218 signatures on a discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows a majority of the House to effectively bypass leadership.

Once rarely successful, House members have used the petition tool this Congress to pass bills on releasing the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein and to extend health care subsidies to many of those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, though the latter measure faltered in the Senate.

Meeks said the question before the House was simple. Would it help Ukraine negotiate from a position of strength or help Russia outlast American resolve?

“We all want this war to end,” Meeks said. “The question is how. Will we abandon Ukraine and force it into a terrible deal? That is what Vladimir Putin is counting on. Or will this body live up to the commitments we’ve made since the start of this war?”

The vast majority of Republicans opposed the measure. Rep. French Hill, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he is a steadfast supporter of Ukraine. However, the Arkansas Republican said the House was confronted with a flawed, outdated measure that actually calls for less funding for Ukraine security assistance compared to what Congress had agreed to as part of this year’s defense policy. Another section could lead to a decrease in defense spending by some NATO members, he warned.

Rep. Brian Mast, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he believed the bill was “a cudgel to fight against President Trump.”

“This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill that was crafted basically a year-and-a-half ago,” Mast, R-Fla., said.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., broke with most of his Republican colleagues in voicing support for the measure.

“Are we going to stand with good or are we going to stand with evil? That’s what this is about tonight,” he said.

In the end, 18 Republicans, 207 Democrats and one independent voted for the bill. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar joined with 194 Republicans in voting against it.

Lawmakers want to send a message

Supporters are hopeful that the House’s passage of the Ukraine bill would put pressure on the Senate to do the same. But they also know the Senate likely won’t go along unless Trump endorses the bill.

“It’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who signed the discharge petition and voted for the bill. “It’s going to send a great message to the soldiers of Ukraine.”

He said the vote would also send a message to Putin that “we do have a pulse here, that we do care about Ukraine and that we are going to utilize our authority to help them.”

As the war has dragged on, it’s gotten more difficult for supporters of Ukraine in Congress to provide additional financial support to help Ukraine defend itself.

The U.S. has approved some $195 billion for the Ukraine response, according to the latest quarterly inspector general report for Operation Atlantic Resolve, with roughly a quarter of that going to replenish weapons stockpiles for the U.S. military. The last major legislation designed to bolster the Ukraine response occurred in April 2024, though modest amounts have since been included in annual appropriations bills.

Republican leaders tried to stop the bill

Republican leaders urged their members to oppose the legislation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said there are good-faith negotiations between members of Congress and the White House to boost Ukraine. He described the negotiations as complicated.

“I think they are going to yield positive results, but you set that back if you pass legislation that doesn’t go as far as the negotiations are going,” Scalise said.

The war that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor is more than four years old, with no end in sight. In recent days, both sides have sought an edge by launching long-range missile strikes.

U.S.-led peace efforts have fizzled out as the sides made no progress on key differences and after the war in Iran grabbed Washington’s attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accepted an unconditional ceasefire demanded by Trump, but Putin refused.

Action in the Senate on Ukraine has revolved around a bill that would impose sweeping tariffs and secondary sanctions on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports, which are crucial to financing Russia’s military. But the bill has languished.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The House approved a war powers resolution Wednesday that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran, defying President Trump as a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to end the three-month-long war that has reordered politics at home and abroad.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent an outcome that would show the mounting opposition to the war, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the war powers resolution was on the verge of approval. But displeasure has only grown as the conflict drags on and as Trump struggles to negotiate a quick resolution.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said earlier in the week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

Opposition to war grows

It’s the fourth time the House has tried to curb the U.S. war against Iran, and the first time the House was able to pass the measure. The Senate advanced its own war powers resolution last month when a handful of GOP senators broke ranks with the Republican president in a rare show of political pushback from his party.

Each time Democrats have pushed forward the war powers resolution, the vote tallies have inched higher as political unease with the U.S. war swells. Trump had campaigned for the White House on a promise to end U.S. entanglements abroad and focus more on domestic issues, but the war has shifted attention back to the Middle East.

Johnson insisted Trump is “laser focused” on the domestic front, particularly ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The speaker said he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump is calling on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commerce, especially the flow of oil.

Since the U.S. joined Israel in launching the Feb. 28 strikes on Iran, Americans have seen gas prices spike at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressure on consumer spending.

Iran has been able to interrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for a large segment of the world’s oil, natural gas and related products such as fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

While a ceasefire in the conflict was declared in April, it remains uneasy and uncertain. Talks for a more durable end to the fighting have dragged, increasingly complicated by Israel’s broadening war with Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Meanwhile, military strikes between the U.S and Iran continue to flare.

Congress exerts its war powers authority

The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic if not legal step against further military action.

If approved, it would then go to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Wednesday testifying at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Iranians would think that the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress approved a war powers resolution. He said they would think ”we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

It’s not the only action Congress is taking in the national security arena as Democrats, in the minority, work to peel off Republican support for measures beyond the war against Iran.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-led effort that would authorize U.S. support for Ukraine’s military operations as it battles Russia and to help reconstruct the war-torn country. The House this week is also expected to consider a war powers resolution to block U.S. action in Lebanon.

While Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, the president also has power as the commander in chief to engage in military action, creating a legal dispute over which branch of government has ultimate say in matters of war and peace.

Under the war powers act, the White House has a 60-day window to seek approval from Congress for military action. The administration, however, has indicated that because a ceasefire has been declared in the current conflict in Iran, the hostilities have ceased.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez of Los Angeles is reportedly under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over sexual misconduct allegations.

The investigation came after the New York Post reported in April that the 51-year-old, five-term congressman had been spotted kissing a much younger congressional staffer from a different office in 2023.

According to CNN, which on Tuesday first reported news of the investigation, the congressional committee learned of other allegations of sexual misconduct as it investigated the report of Gomez’s 2023 conduct with the staffer.

Gomez was friends with former California Rep. Eric Swalwell, who earlier this year resigned from Congress and suspended his California gubernatorial campaign after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. Gomez had been a co-chair of Swalwell’s campaign.

The 2023 incident with Gomez and a younger staffer reportedly occurred at a party hosted by Swalwell, according to the New York Post. Gomez’s office denied the report at the time.

Another lawmaker, Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales, also resigned from Congress in April in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct with a former staffer who later committed suicide.

Both Swalwell and Gonzales were under investigation by the ethics committee before they resigned, but those investigations ended when they left office as the committee only has jurisdiction to investigate sitting members.

Gomez’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment, but, in a statement to CNN, Gomez said he would cooperate with the ethics investigation. While he acknowledged making “personal mistakes” outside his marriage and apologized to his family, he said his actions didn’t violate House ethics rules.

“Years ago, I made personal mistakes outside my marriage that have caused real pain to my wife and family. Although my actions were consensual in nature and haven’t violated the law or House ethics rules, that doesn’t diminish the impact that these mistakes have made on those I care about the most,” Gomez said.

The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on the reported investigation.

Gomez is married to Mary Hodge, a past top aide to former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. The couple have a son whom Gomez wore in a baby carrier during the lengthy House speaker election in 2023. That same year, Gomez founded the Congressional Dads Caucus, which has advocated for expanded child tax credits and other parent-friendly legislation.

The disclosure of the congressional investigation comes as Gomez faces a campaign challenge from Angela Gonzales-Torres, a Pasadena City College counselor with the backing of the progressive Justice Democrats.

Gonzales-Torres has criticized Gomez for receiving the backing of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, though Gomez has at times taken political stances at odds with the group.

After news of the ethics investigation broke, Gonzales-Torres wrote on the social media platform X, “I take political corruption seriously … I also take very seriously what appears to be a culture in Congress in which men abuse women.

“If @RepJimmyGomez has nothing to hide, he should have no concern. But if there was any criminal behavior that he witnessed, participated in, or helped conceal, we will find out and we will help ensure accountability and justice.”

Gomez was first elected to Congress in a 2017 special election to succeed Xavier Becerra, who is now running for governor and has seen the biggest boost in support following Swalwell’s departure from the race in April.

Gomez previously served in the state assembly from 2012 to 2017 and was political director for the United Nurses Assn. of California before that.

BOSTON — Former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell used one of his first major public appearances since leaving office to defend independent institutions while accepting an award Sunday honoring his efforts to preserve the central bank’s independence.

Speaking at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library overlooking Boston Harbor, Powell called universities, courts, Congress and the central bank “the foundation and the embodiment of our democracy” and argued that the Fed’s independence was a “priceless asset” that must be protected.

It was one of his most direct defenses of Fed independence, warning that a single administration’s decision to remove bank officials over policy differences would open the way for future elected officials to follow suit, ultimately undermining the credibility that the Fed has spent decades building.

Powell, who frequently clashed with President Trump during his eight years as chair, stepped down as his term expired in May. He was succeeded by Kevin Warsh, whom Trump selected to lead the central bank.

After stepping down as chair, Powell took the unusual step of keeping his seat on the Fed’s governing board, which he has until January 2028. By doing so, he has deprived the Trump administration of an opportunity to appoint another member of the board.

The Trump administration has also sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, which would open an additional seat on the rate-setting committee the president could fill. Yet Cook sued and the courts have so far let her keep her seat.

While Powell never mentioned Trump by name Sunday, he repeatedly returned to the importance of protecting institutions from political pressure and preserving public trust in their independence.

“Like many other institutions, the Fed has been undergoing a stress test,” he said. “Congress wisely chose to insulate monetary policy decisions from political pressure. All other advanced economy nations have done the same.”

Since 1989, the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award has recognized public servants who make what the foundation describes as courageous decisions of conscience despite personal or professional consequences.

Previous recipients include former Presidents Barack Obama and George H. W. Bush, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former Vice President Mike Pence.

In March, the foundation said it was awarding Powell for protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve “despite years of personal attacks and threats from the highest levels of government.”

Trump harshly criticized Powell throughout his tenure as chair, frequently attacking the Fed’s interest-rate decisions and urging the central bank to cut borrowing costs more aggressively.

Beyond the Federal Reserve, Powell defended U.S. universities and research institutions, the Constitution, Congress and the court system.

“The United States has long been the leader of the world’s freedom-seeking people — the indispensable nation. Other countries know us as a nation built on integrity, and that integrity must be maintained,” he said.

In his remarks, Powell indirectly acknowledged mistakes as chair. The Fed is legally required to seek stable prices, but inflation surged amid the pandemic’s supply chain crunch. Many economists believe the central bank should have raised interest rates more quickly in response.

“At the Fed, we are, of course, human and thus imperfect,” Powell said. “When we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and change course.”

Powell was honored alongside residents of Minnesota’s Twin Cities, who received the award for what the Kennedy Foundation described as acts of courage during a federal immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests and the deaths of Minneapolis mother Renée Good and nurse Alex Pretti, both of whom were killed while observing or documenting enforcement activity.

“It’s wonderful just to be invited, honoring Renée,” Good’s father, Tim Granger, said as he entered the library with family members.

Kennedy’s only surviving child, Caroline Kennedy, and her son, Jack Schlossberg, said in a statement that without people like Powell and those in Minnesota “willing to put their lives on the line to hold America to its promises, our democracy can’t survive.”

Attendee U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is running for governor of Minnesota next year, reflected that the award was unusual because it recognized ordinary residents rather than elected officials.

“This didn’t go to an elected leader for a reason,” Klobuchar said. “It’s because the people stood up. They stood up by marching 50,000 strong. They stood by bringing kids they didn’t even know — strangers’ kids — to school, by bringing them groceries and they didn’t blink. And that’s what this award is about. It’s about courage.”

Willingham writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report from Washington.

California’s decision to redraw its congressional map to flip as many as five House seats to Democrats in November is poised to play a big and potentially decisive role in the nation’s broader, bare-knuckle fight for control of Congress.

Tuesday’s primary races — where the top two candidates will advance to November runoffs — won’t determine which Republicans are ousted in most cases, but they will provide an important first look at voter sentiment and bring the fall’s most crucial head-to-head contests into focus.

“There will be some real cues and signals about what to expect,” said Christian Grose, a redistricting scholar and political science professor at USC. “We’re going to know how strong the Democrats’ chances are going to be based on who advances.”

As one example, Grose pointed to the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Grose said Bains is probably a stronger challenger than Villegas in a district that’s still a reach for Democrats — even if “either one could probably beat Valadao if 2026 is a big Democratic wave.”

Grose will also be closely watching the race between incumbent Reps. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) and Ken Calvert (R-Corona) in the redrawn Congressional District 40, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, including parts of Kim’s and Calvert’s current districts.

The district race wasn’t designed to deliver Democrats a seat, but will produce “one of the first casualties for Republicans from the new map” — months before other expected ousters — if Kim and Calvert don’t both advance.

The national picture

The redistricting war was prompted by President Trump’s unprecedented pressuring of Republican-controlled states to redraw their maps mid-decade for partisan advantage in order to retain control of Congress, given his sinking approval ratings and a history of midterm voters punishing the president’s party.

After Texas Republicans heeded Trump’s call to redraw five districts in their party’s favor, California Democrats responded with Proposition 50, a ballot measure passed by voters in November to sideline the state’s independent redistricting committee and allow Democrats to redraw five congressional districts in their favor.

The war ratcheted up — with more Republican states suddenly considering map changes — after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that weakened the 1965 Voting Rights Act and its long-standing protections for majority-Black districts in the South.

Republicans have now acted to redraw congressional maps in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee, with varying degrees of success, while a battle in Utah could add a single additional Democratic seat there. Attempts in other states have failed, including by the GOP in South Carolina and Democrats in Virginia.

Experts say the net result from the flurry of redistricting will probably be a gain of a handful or more seats for Republicans — but in a year when Democrats are expected to make gains more broadly, leaving control of the House up for grabs. California’s new map is “a huge deal” precisely because that math is so close, said David Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for the independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

“Democrats are modest favorites for House control based on the political environment, but also because of California,” Wasserman said in an interview with The Times. “Picking up these four or five seats is a prerequisite to Democrats getting the majority.”

California seats in play

California has 52 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, by far the most of any state. With their new map, California Democrats are hoping to increase their 43 House seats to 48. That would leave just four seats represented by members of the GOP despite Republicans accounting for a quarter of the state electorate.

But that outcome isn’t guaranteed.

Paul Mitchell, a Democratic redistricting expert who devised California’s new map, said the reconfigured congressional districts had to create a pathway for new Democrats to win additional seats without undermining incumbent Democrats’ reelection. And the result is a map with three pretty safe pickups for Democrats, and two districts that are “100% on the table, ready for Democrats to win,” but will nonetheless “require shoe-leather and grit.”

The redrawn congressional district boundaries enacted by Proposition 50 promise to shake up at least three seats, experts said.

Congressional District 1: Held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) for 13 years until his death in January, the district is currently rural and conservative, stretching from the Sacramento outskirts through Redding to the Oregon border and California’s northeastern corner. Under the state’s new congressional district map, it loses some of its rural reaches and picks up liberal coastal communities, and favors a Democrat such as state Sen. Mike McGuire, who is one of the leading candidates.

Congressional District 3: The seat is currently held by Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin) and stretches from the Sacramento suburbs through Lake Tahoe and south along the Nevada border. Under the new map, it holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, favoring a Democrat.

The changes were enough to convince an incumbent Democrat, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), to leave his current district — Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and the suburbs of Roseville and Rocklin in Placer County — and run in District 3 instead.

Meanwhile, Kiley did the reverse. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and announced he would be leaving District 3 and running instead in District 6 — the one Bera is leaving — against a slate of new Democratic challengers.

Congressional District 41. The seat is now held by Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, and currently stretches from Corona to the Coachella Valley. The new map made the district more liberal, losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, and Calvert decided to run instead in Kim’s redrawn but still Republican-leaning Congressional District 40 that is just to the west.

The two toughest flips for Democrats, experts said, are Congressional District 22, Valadao’s heavily Latino district in the Central Valley, followed by Congressional District 48 in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection.

Valadao is viewed as especially vulnerable because of his recent support for Medicaid cuts, but he has proved resilient in the past. Meanwhile, his two leading Democratic challengers, Bains and Villegas, are in a bitter fight, with Bains receiving Democratic establishment support and Villegas winning endorsements from prominent progressives.

In Issa’s district, moderate Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond is running against several infighting Democrats, including San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert and former Obama labor official Ammar Campa-Najjar.

Not new, or over

Jeff Wice, a New York Law School professor who was involved in California redistricting efforts in 2010, said the state “has long played hardball politics on redistricting,” including when then-Rep. Phil Burton, a powerful San Francisco Democrat, bragged more than 40 years ago that the complex congressional boundaries he’d crafted for Democrats were his “contribution to modern art.”

But in five decades studying redistricting, Wice said he has never seen such “politically driven, partisan politics” as are occurring now across the nation, which he said have “no root in law, reason or fairness” — and are only likely to continue.

“This state-by-state war is far from over, and may continue all the way through 2030,” he said. “A lot of it depends on the outcome of this November’s election.”

Wasserman said the country has “entered an era of no-holds-barred redistricting,” and he also sees redistricting efforts continuing — including in California, where they would present a distinct threat to the state’s few remaining Republicans.

Michael Li, senior counsel in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, said California is a “big part of the story” this election cycle, thanks to Proposition 50. “Democrats in California proved to be very determined and resourceful and managed to get that done, and right now California is the big offset to Republican gerrymandering around the country,” he said.

But what will come of it all — in California and across the country — is still to be determined.

“When you’re gerrymandering, you’re making a bet that you know what the politics of the future will look like, and it’s hard to predict,” he said. “It’s a high-risk, high-reward venture.”

WASHINGTON — The congressman returned home last Fourth of July to startling stories in Southern California as immigration patrols swept through communities, and one constituent told him about starting to carry a passport as proof of the right to be in the country.

Rep. Mark Takano, whose American-born parents were both incarcerated as young children with their families during the forced relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II, could not help but see the parallels between that chapter of American history and this one.

“I do feel like there’s a similarity of circumstance of my own 2-year-old father and my 1-year-old mother being labeled as enemy aliens and they’re considered a danger to national security,” the Riverside Democrat told the Associated Press in a recent interview.

“They’re put into these incarceration camps,” he said. “Similar arguments have been made by this administration — that immigrants pose a grave danger to our country and it’s for the security of our country that we’re doing this.”

Echoes of history

President Trump’s campaign to achieve the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history is at an inflection point. Americans are seeing what it looks like to round up, detain and deport thousands of people, particularly in the aftermath of the deaths this year of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, U.S. citizens protesting the federal crackdown in Minneapolis.

The White House changed the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security as it reframes its approach. New Secretary Markwayne Mullin promised to keep the department off the front pages.

But Trump is also under mounting pressure from conservative groups not to let up on the goal of deporting 1 million people a year. The president’s Republican allies in Congress are fueling the immigration and deportation actions with billions of dollars in special funds.

Takano, the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, has drawn from his own family history — and the country’s eventual redress to Japanese Americans who were detained — to challenge Trump’s approach.

“We look back on that era of history as a shameful one, as a time when our political leaders failed the Constitution, failed the American people,” he said.

One family’s story among many

A high school history teacher before being elected to Congress in 2012, Takano grew up in Southern California and came to understand the family stories.

His grandfather Isao Takano arrived in the U.S. from Hiroshima and married Kazue Takahashi, a U.S.-born citizen. Together they settled in Bellevue, Wash., and started a business growing tomatoes, strawberries and chrysanthemums for the marketplace in Seattle.

When the U.S. entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they were among some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, immigrants and those born in the U.S., forcibly relocated.

His father, William, was 2 years old when his family was sent in 1942 to the incarceration camp at Tule Lake in Central California. His mother, Nancy Tsugiye Sakamoto, born in California to American-born parents, was a year old when she was relocated to the detention facility in Heart Mountain, Wyo.

Then, as now, he said, people are being swept up in the anti-immigrant detentions.

“Will Americans generations from now visit ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ and think to themselves, how could our government do this?” Takano said during a House floor speech, referring to the Trump administration’s immigration detention facility in Florida.

“These future generations of Americans will look to us, the Congress, to see what we did to try to stop it.”

A Reagan-era law seen as model

Takano remembers his father taking him to see the land the family once owned. He learned about his great-uncles who served in the Army’s 442nd Regimental Combat Team of Japanese American soldiers; one was killed in action in Italy. He recalls his own father later collected donations for the national redress campaign.

In 1988 Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, which sought to apologize for the “grave injustice” that had been done and provide $20,000 to each person detained. President Reagan signed it into law.

Takano’s parents were among those who received a letter of apology from the federal government, he said, and a payment.

Talks are underway among some in Congress, he said, for a similar redress to the people who have had their car windows smashed in, their homes raided and livelihoods upended as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

“Remarkably the country did come to realize the mistake,” he said. “I believe we’re living through one of those eras of mistakes, and I believe we can come out of this moment stronger.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Members of Congress are looking to block the U.S. Navy from starting construction of the first nuclear-powered Trump class battleship until the service provides assurances that key weapon systems are “sufficiently mature.” The battleships are to be armed with railguns, high-power laser directed energy weapons, and other advanced weapons that have yet to be fully proven out. Legislators are also looking to compel the Navy to devise a strategy for future subvariants of the FF(X) frigate, including the potential for a version with a built-in Vertical Launch System (VLS). TWZ was first to confirm that the initial FF(X) design would lack a VLS, a decision that has prompted questions and criticism.

The battleship and frigate provisions are included in an early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, which the House Armed Services Committee released late yesterday. The Trump class battleship and FF(X) are set to be some of the Navy’s top shipbuilding priorities in the coming years.

Tying the battleship construction timeline to weapon system progress

The section in the proposed legislation regarding the Trump class battleship is brief, reading as follows:

“The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a contract or other agreement that includes a scope of work for the construction of the lead ship of the Battleship program until the date on which the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees that the weapon systems planned for inclusion in such lead ship are at a sufficiently mature technology readiness level.”

The provision does not name any particular weapon systems or define what level of “technology readiness” would be accepted as “sufficiently mature.”

The Navy currently plans to arm the 35,000-ton-displacement Trump class battleships with a mixture of nuclear and conventional missiles, an electromagnetic railgun, a pair of traditional 5-inch naval guns, various laser directed energy weapons, and additional weapon systems for close-in defense. The missiles, which will include hypersonic types, are to be loaded inside very large VLS arrays.

In terms of technological maturity, the railgun presents particular questions. Between 2005 and 2021, the Navy had an active railgun program. Despite promising developments, plans for an at-sea test were repeatedly pushed back before the entire effort was shelved. Major technical hurdles were cited as a key factor in that decision. The railgun itself was effectively placed in storage at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico.

However, it emerged earlier this year that the Navy had conducted a new round of testing of the railgun at WSMR in February 2025. Whether the Navy has any plans to pick up where it left off with this prototype design, which was developed by BAE Systems, or pursue a new one remains unclear. General Atomics, which previously supported U.S. Army railgun efforts, has publicly expressed interest in being involved in arming the Trump class.

While the Navy has been very active in developing and fielding laser directed energy weapons, this is another area where the service has faced continued challenges in expanding their operational use. The plans for the Trump class specifically call for a 300-kilowatt-class laser, which is far more powerful than any of the designs the Navy has integrated on its warships to date. The service currently has eight Arleigh Burke class destroyers with the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), as well as another one of those warships with the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS). HELIOS is a 60-kilowatt-class design, though there has been talk about scaling up its power rating to 150 kilowatts. ODIN’s power rating does not appear to be officially confirmed, but it is understood to be significantly lower than that of HELIOS. You can read more about all of this here.

The Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) hypersonic missile, another key component of the future Trump class arsenal, is also still in development. The first test launch from a warship, the stealth destroyer USS Zumwalt, is expected to come next year. IRCPS is the Navy half of a joint program with the U.S. Army, which is working to field a land-based version of the same missile. The Army refers to its complete weapon system as the Dark Eagle. The Army had suffered significant setbacks in the past with the Dark Eagle, but the service had blamed those issues on the launcher rather than the missile.

More context about what planned weapons systems for the Trump class may have prompted the House Armed Services Committee to include this section in the draft NDAA are likely to emerge as the proposed bill is refined. Nuclear propulsion and other planned aspects of the ship could present their own challenges during development and production. The U.S. Navy has not procured a nuclear-powered surface combatant of any kind since the Cold War.

For its part, the Navy has said it will leverage significant prior work on weapons and other systems to help reduce risk and ensure the battleship program remains on schedule.

“We intend to, with all we can do, use pull-through technologies, [including] things from that we’ve worked on with DDG(X),” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle said at a hearing earlier this month. “It will have the SPY-6 radar. It will have the Baseline 10 Aegis combat system. It will pull through, of course, the A1B Ford class reactor plant and all the design that goes with that. The only thing inherently new to it will be the actual hull itself, and so most of the fixtures in it. And I would say the directed energy [weapons] and up gunning, that will also be new.”

One of the “mistakes that we’ve done before, quite frankly,” is “we’ve started to build before the design is mature enough,” the CNO also said at a roundtable on the sidelines of the Navy League’s Sea Air Space 2026 in April. “And we want to make sure that we’re at [sic] least a very, very high level – I won’t try to give a percentage, but you can think like 80% or more design – before the first weld is done.”

The Navy is understood to still be in the very early phases of laying out the Trump class design.

The provision in the draft NDAA could easily delay the start of work on the first of these battleships, which could set back the entire schedule for the program. As it stands now, the Navy is looking to order the lead ship, set to be named the USS Defiant, in Fiscal Year 2028. With an estimated price tag of $17 billion, this ship would cost more than each of the next three Ford class aircraft carriers, and is not expected to enter service in 2036. The Navy also currently plans to buy 14 more battleships between Fiscal Years 2029 and 2055. As TWZ has previously explored in detail, many significant questions remain about the future of the Trump class, including whether the program will ultimately come to fruition at all.

Plans for future FF(X) frigate subvariants

In its current form, the draft NDAA would also require the Secretary of the Navy to “submit to the congressional defense committees a strategy for the iterative development of the FF(X) class frigate” within 180 days of the bill becoming law. The Secretary would also be compelled to provide a briefing to update legislators on their progress in devising this strategy within 90 days.

The strategy would have to include the following:

• “Information on the estimated timeline for each planned variant (commonly known as a ‘‘Flight’’) of the FF(X) class frigate”
• “Details on the integration of additional capabilities for future Flights of the frigate, such as vertical launch systems or improved sensors, and implications for the space, weight, power, and cost of the hull form.”
• Any additional mission sets or combat functions that may be added to the concept of operation for FF(X) class frigates.”

The Navy has already confirmed that the FF(X) design will based on that of the Legend class cutter currently in service with the U.S. Coast Guard. As mentioned, the fact that the first of these frigates, at least, will lack a VLS array has raised significant questions about this program.

The FF(X) configuration that has been shown so far will have essentially the same integrated armament as the Navy’s much-maligned Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The limitations of both subclasses of LCS explicitly led the Navy to pursue the Constellation class frigate. Despite the Constellation class being based on the established Franco-Italian Fregate Europea Multi-Missione (FREMM; European Multi-Mission Frigate in English), repeated design changes turned the program into a boondoggle. It was finally cancelled last November.

The Constellation class would have featured a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS array. There had already been a debate about whether this was sufficient VLS capacity to meet operational requirements, something TWZ previously explored in detail.

The Navy’s current stated vision for the Flight I FF(X) configuration is to utilize containerized weapons and other systems to make up for gaps in integrated capabilities. The frigates are also expected to act as motherships for future fleets of uncrewed surface vessels, which could provide additional distributed weapons and sensor capabilities and capacity.

“While Flight I of the FF(X) Class (currently planned as at least the first 2 ships) does not incorporate a traditional fixed VLS battery, it retains the capability to deploy VLS-equivalent payloads through modular, mission-tailored configurations,” according to the Navy’s 2027 Fiscal Year budget request. “This approach provides an inherent growth path for VLS and other capabilities through containerized solutions in early flights, reinforcing the platform’s adaptability while mitigating cost, schedule, and integration risks associated with fixed VLS installation.”

A containerized VLS, in particular, would be far more limited in capacity than a traditional built-in Mk 41 and Mk 57 array.

At the same time, the Navy’s budget documents make clear that there are already plans for “studies for future flights [that] will consider expanded capabilities including Vertical Launch Systems, and Anti-Submarine Warfare systems.”

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), the shipbuilder behind the Legend class design on which the FF(X) will be based, has shown multiple concepts for derivatives with integrated VLS arrays and other additional capabilities in the past, as seen in the video below.

Patrol Frigate Variants – Information Video

When it comes to the battleship and FF(X) provisions in the draft NDAA, it is also important to remember that this legislation is not yet finalized and could easily change in the weeks and months ahead. The House’s version of the bill will also need to be reconciled with what the Senate puts forward, a process often marked by lengthy negotiations. The House and Senate will both need to pass the finalized version, and then the President has to sign it into law.

As the name makes clear, the battleship program is of particular significance to President Donald Trump, which will be an important factor in these processes. Even before his first term, Trump had expressed interest in returning battleships to the Navy’s combat fleets, but there had been no indications of any formal moves to pursue this ship before last year. With the schedule the Navy has laid out now, major decisions about how to proceed in the production of these ships, if at all, will fall to the next administration. There are already massive competing priorities, and some members of Congress have already questioned whether the battleship effort is the best use of available resources.

It’s also worth noting here that Trump has long been very outspoken when it comes to Navy shipbuilding design decisions, especially from an aesthetic perspective.

The House Armed Services Committee has at least taken steps now toward putting a hold on production of the first Trump class battleship until it is confident that key weapon systems are mature, as well as pushing the Navy to lay a formal plan for future versions of the FF(X) frigate.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Lawmakers in the United States are quietly advancing a proposal that could deepen military ties between the US and Israel in unprecedented ways, at a time when public support for Israel among Americans is increasingly fractured.

Among the provisions included in the 2027 National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) released this week is Section 224, the “United States-Israel Defence Technology Cooperation Initiative”.

The NDAA, which Congress passes annually to set military policy and authorise defence spending, will undergo further debate and amendments before becoming law. Some legislators have already signalled opposition, with Representative Thomas Massie saying he would seek to remove the provision if it reaches the House floor.

The measure remains at an early stage, but analysts say if passed, it would limit political oversight over the defence relationship.

Analysts added that it could mark a significant shift in the US-Israel relationship, moving beyond a model centred on American military aid towards deeper institutional integration between the two countries’ defence industries and militaries.

Critics argue that such a move would make support for Israel less a matter of political choice and more a structural feature of US national security policy, embedding the relationship within joint military and industrial programmes that would be difficult to unwind.

What does the proposal include?

Section 224 incorporates elements of the US-Israel Future of Warfare Act legislation introduced by Representative Ronny Jackson, according to Track AIPAC. While the legislation did not advance as a standalone bill, key elements of it were instead folded into the NDAA.

The provision would require the US defence secretary to designate an official responsible for coordinating military cooperation between the two countries. According to the text, that official would be tasked with “synchronising cooperative efforts between the United States and Israel”, including “bilateral defence technology research, development, testing, evaluation, integration and industrial cooperation”.

The legislation envisages cooperation across a wide range of military technologies. It specifically identifies as priority areas; “counter-unmanned systems including aerial, maritime and ground platforms”, “anti-tunnelling and subterranean threats”, and “missile and air defence technologies”.

The proposal also seeks to deepen collaboration on emerging technologies, including “artificial intelligence, quantum machine learning and autonomous systems”, as well as “directed energy and advanced sensing”, “cyber defence, electronic warfare and digital resilience”, and “biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and medical defence”.

The inclusion of “network integration” and “data fusion” has drawn particular attention because it suggests significantly closer integration of military information systems between the two countries.

The United States and Israel already cooperate on defence projects, including missile defence systems such as Iron Dome. However, analysts say that Section 224 would expand cooperation into nearly every major area of emerging military technology, and could create a “lock-in” between the two countries military infrastructure.

Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer, the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera the proposal goes well beyond the traditional foundations of the US-Israel defence relationship.

“While historically, the US-Israel defence relationship has included US military aid and weapons transfers, joint missile defence programmes such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, and intelligence and operational cooperation, the proposed agreement increases cooperation to include a wider set of emerging technologies,” he said.

“So this all suggests a much tighter integration – less about provision and perhaps sharing technologies and capabilities, and more about jointly developing these.

“It would point to a more institutionalised relationship, and perhaps one that might survive changing administrations in the US, as some of the development cycles could be very long and would become entrenched,” he said.

Why is it controversial?

The proposal comes amid growing debate in the US over military support for Israel, particularly as Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza continues, and concerns mount over the use of US-made weapons.

Human rights organisations and United Nations experts have repeatedly raised concerns about Israeli military actions in Gaza, where despite a so-called ceasefire in place since last October, at least 850 Palestinians have been killed. Israel is also advancing into southern Lebanon, where it has killed more than 3,000 people since the beginning of March.

These wars have led to increasing scepticism among Americans towards unconditional support for Israel, recent opinion polls suggest.

A New York Times poll in May found that only 30 percent of respondents believed Donald Trump made the right decision in ordering military strikes against Iran, while 64 percent said it was the wrong decision.

An Institute for Global Affairs poll released last week found that only 16 percent of Americans support continuing weapons transfers to Israel without additional restrictions. Thirty-eight percent said the US should stop supplying weapons entirely, while 24 percent said military aid should be conditioned on how the weapons are used.

Opposition has also emerged from parts of the Republican Party, which traditionally has always been aligned with Israel.

Former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene criticised the proposal on social media, writing: “This is what complete capture to a foreign government looks like, and there hasn’t been a single shot fired.”

Massie, who has opposed military aid to Israel, likewise pledged to introduce an amendment removing the provision from the NDAA. The Republican senator was defeated in the primary elections last month, highlighting the financial and political influence of pro-Israel lobby groups in the US.

Influential conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson, has increasingly criticised US support for Israel, reflecting divisions within the broader MAGA movement. Criticism has also intensified among left-wing Democrats, with many calling for restrictions on military aid to Israel.

What could it mean in practice?

Critics of the measures warn that the proposal could create a form of institutional “lock-in” that makes both countries simultaneously reliant on each other for military development and procurement.

Some analysts say such integration would move key aspects of the US-Israel relationship away from highly visible aid votes or commercial contracting, and into the less transparent world of defence procurement and industrial partnerships at a state-to-state level.

Hilborne from the King’s College said the initiative could also have direct implications for Palestinians. “If joint R&D produces more effective technology, then systems related to surveillance, autonomous vehicles, AI and targeting, and various counter-drone or counter-missile technology would be improved, providing a capability boost to Israeli forces operating in Gaza or the West Bank,” he said.

“This enhanced integration would further embed US technology into Israeli forces. These would all be concerns from a Palestinian perspective.”

Critics also point to the economic implications, where expanded co-production agreements could lead to new manufacturing facilities and defence jobs in the United States, creating a further reliance on Israel.

Hilborne also argued that deeper integration could reduce Washington’s leverage over Israel. “The deeper integration may also mean that the US loses some degree of leverage over Israel, as it would be less able to withhold certain capabilities from Israel,” he said.

“As a consequence, Israel might be emboldened in its policies.”

The proposal could also have implications beyond the US-Israel relationship, according to Imad Salamey, an international relations professor at the Lebanese American University. “The proposed US-Israeli defence integration can be seen as the next phase of the Abraham Accords: moving from normalisation toward a US-backed regional security regime centred on Israel as the dominant military and technological hub,” he told Al Jazeera.

Such a framework would strengthen efforts to contain Iran, limit Turkiye’s independent regional influence and deepen security cooperation with Arab partners, he said.

“For Lebanon and Gaza, it may translate into greater pressure to accommodate Israeli-led security arrangements as part of a broader emerging Middle Eastern order.”

Whether Section 224 survives the legislative process is uncertain.

But its inclusion in the NDAA shows how some politicians, many backed by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC, are attempting to bind the two countries’ militaries closer together, creating long-term industrial links that future administrations may find difficult to reverse.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its yearly term facing decisions on birthright citizenship, gun rights, transgender athletes and President Trump’s power over independent agencies.

Unlike in years past, the term’s most significant rulings were not left for the last week in June.

The court dealt Trump a major defeat in February by striking down his sweeping worldwide tariffs. The president is likely to suffer a second defeat when the justices reject his plan to revise the citizenship laws via an executive order.

Republicans won when the court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that favored a Black Democrat.

That decision has already shifted several congressional districts toward the GOP, but its greatest impact will be seen in 2028 and 2030.

Republicans are likely to prevail in two other pending cases.

One would free party committees to raise and spend more money to support their candidates. A second would change state laws to bar counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day.

The justices have 26 cases waiting to be decided before they go on a summer recess. Here are the major cases due for decision:

Trump and birthright citizenship

Does the 14th Amendment of 1868 mean what it says about who is a citizen?

It declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court upheld that understanding in 1898, ruling that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen at birth. Congress adopted birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952.

But on his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the newborns of parents who in the country unlawfully or temporarily on a student, work or tourist visa.

Judges blocked the order from taking effect, and in April, the justices gave a skeptical hearing to Trump’s lawyers as the president sat in the gallery.

The best outcome for Trump would be a ruling that rejects his executive order based on U.S. immigration law alone. Although a defeat, that could in theory permit Congress to revise the law and deny citizenship to the newborns of so-called “birth tourists.” (Trump vs. Barbara)

Guns and drugs

Can the government make it a crime for “habitual users of unlawful drugs” to have a gun, or does that violate 2nd Amendment rights?

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Texas case struck down this provision as unconstitutional, except for someone who is “under an impairing influence” of drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Trump administration appealed and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law against “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” including regular users of marijuana. (U.S. vs. Hemani)

In a second gun rights case, the court will decide whether Hawaii, California and three other states led by Democrats may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses open to the public unless they have the “express authorization” of the owners. (Wolford vs. Lopez)

Transgender athletes and school sports

Can states maintain separate sports teams for boys and girls “based on biological sex determined at birth” or does excluding transgender girls violate the Title IX law or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

The justices heard appeals from West Virginia and Idaho after lower courts ruled they had discriminated against transgender girls, and most of them sounded ready to rule for the states.

The only question was whether the court will rule narrowly to uphold laws in the red states or go further to decide how Title IX applies nationwide. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. and Little vs. Hecox)

Trump and independent agencies

Can the president fire the leaders of special agencies who were given a fixed term by Congress?

For most of American history, Congress created new boards or commissions with a specific mission, such as regulating railroad rates in the 1880s or nuclear power in the 1970s. By law, these agencies are led by a bipartisan board of experts who had a fixed term and could be fired only for cause.

But Trump and the court’s conservatives believe the president has the executive authority to control the government and to fire agency officials — but with one exception. The majority wants to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. (Trump vs. Slaughter)

Separately, the court will rule on whether Trump had the power to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause. He alleged she engaged in mortgage fraud and dismissed her in a social media post. The justices blocked her removal and sounded ready to rule she deserved due process of law and a full hearing to contest the allegations. (Trump vs. Cook)

Temporary Protected Status

Can the Trump administration cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitians and Syrians who are living and working in this country?

In 1990, Congress created this protected status for foreign nationals who could not return home safely because of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The Obama administration extended protection to Haitians and Syrians. Last year, Trump’s then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate it, but judges blocked her orders because it was still dangerous and unsafe in those countries.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued the law forbids “judicial review” of these executive decisions. (Mullin vs. Doe)

Campaign funds and political parties

Do the 50-year-old limits on how much political party committees can raise and spend to directly support their candidates violate the 1st Amendment?

During the Watergate era, Congress adopted limits on money in political campaigns, but the court has struck down the spending limits on free speech grounds. Left standing were the limits on direct contributions to candidates, including from political parties.

Republicans led by then-Sen. JD Vance sued, arguing the party limits were outdated and unwise in an era when super PACs are free to spend huge sums on campaigns. (National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC)

The court also will rule on the GOP’s bid to strike down laws in California and most states that allow for counting mail ballots that were postmarked by election day but arrive a few days later. (Watson vs. Republican National Committee)

Members of Congress are moving to push the U.S. Navy to develop a containerized version of its High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system. Containerized designs could help accelerate the service’s fielding of laser directed energy weapons on a wider array of ships, providing added layers of close-in defense. The Navy has already been experimenting with palletized designs as part of its larger laser development efforts, which have faced continued hurdles in recent years.

An early draft of the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2027 Fiscal Year, would authorize the addition of $5 million to the Navy’s budget for work on a containerized HELIOS. It would also add $2.5 million for a “Containerized Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System,” which does not otherwise appear to be mentioned, at least by that name, in the service’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year. The House Armed Services Committee released this draft NDAA earlier this week.

The Navy’s proposed budget for the next fiscal cycle does already include a request for $75.6 million for a separate Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) effort. The development of a containerized 150-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon, along with work toward 300 and 500-kilowatt-class designs, are part of the stated plans for JLWS. It’s unclear whether the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System mentioned in the draft NDAA is related to JLWS.

HELIOS, which the Navy has also designated Mk 5 Mod 0, is a 60-kilowatt-class laser directed energy weapon. At that power level, it is able to destroy or at least damage certain targets, such as drones or small boats, a capability that has now been demonstrated in multiple tests. There has been talk in the past about scaling HELIOS’s power rating up to 150 kilowatts.

Currently, the Navy only has one HELIOS laser, installed on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Preble. Despite integration on an operational warship, the service describes this system as a “Non-Program of Record (POR) Research & Development (R&D) asset” in its most recent budget request.

As an aside, another laser system, the Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN), is currently found on seven other Arleigh Burke class destroyers. An eighth example was integrated on the USS Kidd, but has been temporarily removed while that ship is completing a two-year maintenance availability. That ODIN system is currently being used for land-based training at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division, in California. Designed as a “dazzler,” ODIN is lower-powered than HELIOS, and is intended to blind or confuse electro-optical and/or imaging infrared systems, including seekers on incoming munitions, sending them off course rather than shooting them down.

As noted, HELIOS offers demonstrated capability now, and a containerized version is something the Navy might be able to field more widely in the near-term. This, in turn, could help provide a bridge to future developments under JLWS. Containerized systems, as well as palletized ones, inherently offer valuable flexibility, especially in a maritime context. Integration can be more readily achieved on a broad array of ships – including carriers, amphibious warfare ships, sea base-type vessels, and sealift ships, as well as certain surface combatants – as long as there is sufficient deck space and available power.

In April, the Navy disclosed a test of a palletized version of AeroVironment LOCUST laser counter-drone system on the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, underscoring exactly this kind of flexibility. For that test, AeroVironment leveraged a palletized configuration of LOCUST it had already developed for the U.S. Army. However, various changes were made to adapt it to shipboard use, including “hardened electronics for salt fog, humidity, vibration, and long deployments” and the addition of “stabilization hardware to manage ship motion,” according to a company press release.

Counter-drone defense has emerged as a critical priority for the Navy, both at sea and on land. This has only been underscored by experience gained during the latest conflict with Iran, as well as operations in and around the Red Sea in recent years. The service has already been adding counter-drone systems that use physical interceptors as their effectors to an ever larger number of ships, something TWZ has been closely tracking.

When it comes to a containerized version of HELIOS, which could also be used to bolster defenses ashore, would benefit from having been developed for maritime use from the start. It might still be less hardened against environmental conditions, as well as battle damage, than its more deeply integrated counterpart on the USS Preble. There are also questions about how the system might be integrated onto the host ship and its combat system, if it has one at all.

In general, as long as there is sufficient power and cooling capacity, laser directed energy weapons like HELIOS offer essentially unlimited magazine depth. This offers cost benefits, especially when compared to employing traditional surface-to-air interceptors. As one comparative example, the latest versions of the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), which many Navy ships are armed for point defense, have unit costs in the $1 million range. All of this could also help in addressing long-standing concerns about the sufficiency of stockpiles of critical anti-air interceptors (as well as other munitions), and the ability to readily replenish those inventories, which have only been reinforced by the latest conflict with Iran.

USS Porter Conducts SeaRAM Test Fire

Laser directed energy weapons do also have limitations, especially when employed in the maritime domain, as TWZ has highlighted in the past:

“A single laser can only engage one target at once. As the beam gets further away from the source, its power also drops, just as a result of it having to propagate through the atmosphere. This can be further compounded by the weather and other environmental factors like smoke and dust. More power is then needed to produce suitable effects at appreciable distances. Adaptive optics are used to help overcome atmospheric distortion to a degree. Altogether, laser directed energy weapons generally remain relatively short-range systems.”

“In addition, laser directed energy weapons, especially sensitive optics, present inherent reliability challenges for use in real-world military operations. Shipboard use adds rough sea states and saltwater exposure to the equation. There is also the matter of needing to keep everything properly cooled, which creates additional power generation and other demands.”

Overall, the Navy’s current top leadership is already very supportive of containerized systems and directed energy weapons, including both lasers and high-power microwave types. In March, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Daryl Caudle, the service’s top officer, unveiled a formal Containerized Capability Campaign.

“From towed-array-systems, to drone swarms, to electronic attack systems, to high-powered lasers … I want to containerize everything,” Caudle said at the annual McAleese Defense Programs Conference in March. “Tailored capabilities give our combatant commanders something they value above all else: options.”

Containerized systems are particularly central to the Navy’s current vision for future fleets of USVs, as well as its new FF(X) frigates.

Laser directed energy weapons are also central to the current plan for the Navy’s future Trump class battleships, but they are expected to be deeply integrated into that design rather than containerized. Adm. Caudle has been outspoken more broadly in his view that laser-directed energy weapons are key to bolstering close-in defenses on his service’s warships going forward, including against the growing threat posed by drones.

“My thesis research at [the] Naval Post Graduate School was on directed energy and nuclear weapons,” the CNO told TWZ and other outlets at a roundtable at the Surface Navy Association’s (SNA) annual symposium in January. “This is my goal, if it’s in line of sight of a ship, that the first solution that we’re using is directed energy.”

In particular, “point defense needs to shift to directed energy,” Caudle added at that time. “It has an infinite magazine.”

Even before assuming his current role as CNO, Caudle has been a vocal supporter of Navy directed energy weapon developments. At the same time, as mentioned, the service has faced continued stumbling blocks to more widespread fielding of these capabilities. This is, in many ways, reflected just in HELIOS, which remains a largely experimental effort despite years of testing and previous talk about expanding it into a broader operational capability. The Navy has integrated other one-off lasers onto other ships in the past. This includes the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator Mk 2 Mod 0 installed for a time on the San Antonio class amphibous warfare ship USS Portland, which is seen being tested in this video below.

USS Portland (LPD 27) tests LWSD laser system

Several U.S. Air Force and Army laser directed energy programs have also been realigned, curtailed, or outright cancelled in recent years due to technical hurdles and other factors.

Despite it adding funding for containerized system development, the draft NDAA that the House Armed Services Committee also proposes to cut $5 million from the Navy’s Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems line item due to what it simply describes as “unjustified growth.” The bill is also very likely to change in substantial ways in the coming weeks and months before it is ever put to a full vote, let alone sent to President Trump’s desk.

Whether or not the extra funding for a containerized version of HELIOS, or the Maritime High Energy Laser Weapon System, comes across in the end, the Navy is already heavily committed to new developments in this arena despite the continued challenges.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

A provision in a bill before the United States Congress could tie the American and Israeli militaries far more closely together, deepening their cooperation on weapons research, production and technology.

The proposal, titled the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative,” appears as Section 224 of the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the annual US defence policy bill.

The measure is still at an early stage. The NDAA is passed by Congress each year to set US military policy and authorise defence programmes and spending levels.

If enacted, the provision could mark a major change in one of the world’s closest military relationships, shifting the two countries from a partnership centred largely on American military aid towards one in which their defence industries are more deeply intertwined.

Section 224 would require the US defence secretary to appoint an “executive agent”: a single official to coordinate military cooperation between the US and Israel.

That work would cover joint research and development, the shared production of weapons, and the linking of military systems and data.

“What Congress is trying to do now is find different ways of entrenching the relationship so deep in America’s own defence industrial base that it’s impossible to root it out,” Josh Paul, a former US State Department official and founder of the advocacy group A New Policy, said about the controversial provision.

“A new section of law in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would give Israel unprecedented access to American technology and would force the United States military to integrate Israeli defence technologies into our own critical military supply chain, giving Israel incredible leverage over America’s own defence priorities,” he added in a video posted on social media on Friday.

The two countries already build missile defence systems together, such as the Iron Dome.

The bill would extend their joint work into many more areas of modern warfare, from artificial intelligence (AI) to drones and cyber operations.

The provision comes amid turmoil in the Middle East following the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran earlier this year.

In February, US and Israeli forces attacked Iran together, triggering five weeks of war; Iran struck back at Israel and at US bases in the Gulf before a ceasefire took hold in April.

Israel is also facing genocide allegations in a case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice, the UN’s top court, over its war on Gaza.

Decades of support

The bill must first clear the House Armed Services Committee, which is due to take it up in early June, and then pass the full House and the Senate.

It was proposed by the committee’s Republican chairman, Mike Rogers, and its most senior Democrat, Adam Smith, giving it support from both main parties, even as opinion polls suggest growing opposition among American Democrats and some Republicans to further military support for Israel.

The US has supported Israel’s military for decades.

Since 2008, US law has required Washington to protect Israel’s “qualitative military edge”, keeping its forces stronger and more advanced than those of any rival in the region, on the grounds that a small country must rely on better weapons rather than greater numbers.

Under the current aid deal signed during the administration of former President Barack Obama, Washington provides Israel with about $3.8bn a year in military assistance. The 10-year agreement runs through 2028.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1948, almost all of it now military and worth well over $300bn when adjusted for inflation. 

The nature of that support may now be changing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently that he wants to end Israel’s reliance on US military aid within 10 years, saying his country had “come of age”.

Closer cooperation between the two defence industries, rather than cash, would likely fit that goal.

WASHINGTON — Democrats on Friday called former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi’s interview with the House Oversight Committee about her handling of the Epstein files a “sham” and a “coverup,” and said she refused to answer numerous questions about President Trump in the closed-door session with lawmakers.

“It’s a sham in there. They’re not answering any questions,” Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) told reporters during a break from the interview.

Bondi was joined in her interview by attorneys from the Department of Justice, including Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who intervened to prevent answers to some questions about Trump, Democrats said.

“The DOJ is in there right now stopping questions about President Trump and about what happened in the release of these files,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

He said Bondi, who was not under oath, declined to answer five questions he posed about the president.

The committee said it will release a transcript of the interview, which was not recorded on video.

The committee subpoenaed Bondi in March to appear for a deposition when she was still in office, but she didn’t initially comply, agreeing to the voluntary interview only after Democrats filed a resolution last month seeking to hold her in contempt.

Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney and longtime Republican activist who has been floated as a potential future attorney general, wouldn’t say whether she expressly prevented Bondi from answering questions about Bondi’s interactions with the president.

“There were ground rules laid with the committee before we walked in there and we simply wanted to stick to those,” Dhillon said.

Garcia said that Bondi blamed Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, then her deputy, for problems with the release of the files.

Bondi, who didn’t meet with reporters after her interview, disputed Garcia’s characterization.

“NOT TRUE. I praised Acting AG Blanche’s management of this Herculean task. I said his ethics are beyond reproach and that he is an incredible Attorney General,” Bondi wrote on X.

The department was criticized for not releasing the files as quickly as required under a law passed last year mandating release of all records from the department’s investigations into sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in federal custody in 2019.

The department also came under fire for failing to redact the names of some of Epstein’s victims, while redacting the names of some of Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, as well as for its removal of some of the files it initially posted.

A group of Epstein victims who spoke with reporters in front of the closed doors of the Bondi interview criticized the department’s rollout of the files and the department’s lack of communication with victims.

“Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche have derailed the lives of so many survivors,” said Dani Bensky, who said she was abused by Epstein when she was a 17-year-old high school student in New York City.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M) said that in the interview, Bondi acknowledged she had never met with any of Epstein’s victims.

In Bondi’s opening statement, reviewed by The Times, she acknowledged issues with the rollout of the files, but defended the administration’s handling of the release.

“There were redaction errors,” Bondi’s opening statement said. “But since day one of this process, this Department has been committed to accountability and transparency.”

Bondi was fired by Trump on April 2 and faced questions throughout her tenure about the department’s investigations into Epstein.

In February 2025, she claimed on Fox News that she had a copy of Epstein’s supposed client list, showing the names of the financier’s high-powered friends that he had directed girls to have sex with.

But in July 2025, as Trump faced questions about his relationship with Epstein, whom he knew socially, the Justice Department closed its investigation into Epstein’s alleged crimes and said no such client list existed.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act soon after, requiring the Justice Department to release all of the records from its investigation into Epstein. Despite initially opposing it, Trump signed it into law on Nov. 19, 2025.

When asked about what Trump might have known about Epstein’s crimes, Bondi said she did not know, according to Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.)

“I’m not certain of the extent of his knowledge,” Bondi said, according to Walkinshaw.

Bondi responded to Walkinshaw’s claims, writing on X: “MISREPRESENTATION by Walkinshaw. What the world knows to be true is President Trump banned Epstein from Mar a Lago decades ago bc Epstein was a despicable creep!!”

Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Democrats would seek to speak with Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel next about the handling of the Epstein files and the department’s investigations into Epstein and his alleged co-conspirators.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) was the only Republican member of Congress to attend the interview and Democrats called out their Republican colleagues for not joining.

“I have an election in four days, a very important one,” said Min, the Democrat from Irvine. “But I’m here, rather than in my district, because this is important.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Friday that President Trump’s name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center and blocked the administration from closing the cultural and arts venue for major renovations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Kennedy Center board’s March 16 vote to close the facility was “ill-informed and seemingly preordained” with no regard for its legal obligations.

“The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

Cooper also concluded that the board “overstepped its statutory bounds” by unilaterally adding Trump’s name to the center. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it, he said.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, said Friday the institution is “confident that on appeal the court will uphold the Board’s will to recognize President Trump’s historic contributions to our nation’s cultural center.” She said the decision would be reviewed “carefully.”

“Though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”

Cooper held hearings in late April for parallel lawsuits challenging the project. One was filed by a group of cultural and historic preservation organizations. The other was brought Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves as an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. He ruled in favor of Beatty’s request but rejected the other challenge.

Justice Department attorneys said renovation plans for the building are limited in scope and well within the board’s authority to make without needing outside approvals.

The plaintiffs worry the president and his board allies will flout preservation rules designed to maintain the building’s historic fabric. In earlier statements in court hearings, attorneys for Beatty and the preservation groups raised doubts about the limited scope of the project, pointing to Trump’s statements that he would “fully expose” the building’s steel skeleton. Beatty has said she was “very fearful that we’ll see what happened with the East Wing and what happened with the Rose Garden” if the center is closed and the renovations allowed unsupervised, referring to major changes the president has made at the White House.

Trump, a Republican, has taken a keen interest in the Kennedy Center’s operations since he returned to White House last year. He installed a handpicked board that named him chairman. His name was added to the facade of a building that is considered a living monument to President John F. Kennedy.

The Kennedy Center has kept up performances ahead of the closure, though at a much slower pace than in previous years. Trump attended the premiere of the musical “Chicago” in March and other shows, including “Moulin Rouge” are slated for June.

Bill Maher, the comedian who has had an up and down relationship with Trump, is expected to be awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, an event that was anticipated to be one of the final big moments at the Kennedy Center before the closure.

Cooper was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Obama.

Kunzelman and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

A federal judge has declined to halt President Trump’s executive order creating a federal voter list and limiting mail voting, clearing the way for potential sweeping changes in how American elections are run shortly before this year’s midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, late Wednesday rejected the request by Democrats and civil rights groups that had argued Trump’s order would likely be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. Nichols agreed with the Republican Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

Nichols’ ruling leaves the door open for further challenges when the Trump administration moves to implement the president’s directive. A separate lawsuit seeking to block the executive order is underway in Boston. No matter how rapidly the administration acts, no voting changes are expected during primary elections, which continue into next month.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

The Trump administration has yet to formally issue lists of eligible voters, and those who filed the initial request for a temporary halt said they’d be back if the administration moves in that direction.

“We are ready to resume the fight if and when the administration takes those next steps,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the organizations that sought the stay from Nichols.

Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Democrats and civil rights groups argued it was urgent that Nichols issue a restraining order in the midst of primary season and with states already gearing up for the fall midterm elections.

This was Trump’s second executive order seeking to overhaul elections and voting. His initial election executive order, issued just months after he took office in his second term, has been blocked by multiplefederal judges. That order sought to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other changes.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Washington — California is confronting the limits of its power to save federal environmental protections as Congress and the Trump administration take aim at a landmark law the state has relied on for decades to clean the air of noxious smog.

A push by Republicans to roll back parts of the Clean Air Act would affect California more than any other state, rattling its lawmakers and regulators. And their legal authority to pick up the fight against California’s smog on their own is constrained.

The House last month passed a bill fiercely opposed by doctors and public health groups, including the American Lung Assn. and the American Academy of Pediatrics, that would delay for years new anti-pollution standards aimed at ultimately preventing 160,000 childhood asthma attacks and as many as 220 premature deaths in California each year.

The Trump administration had already tried using regulatory authority to put the standards on hold for a year, but walked back that action Wednesday after California and 14 other states filed suit against the delay.

The bill advancing in Congress would go much further, permanently upending the way restrictions are imposed on the ozone and small particulate matter that make up smog. No longer would regulators base decisions solely on scientific findings about what level of smog is safe to breathe. The potential cost to business would for the first time loom large in setting limits, and ultimately guide such things as when people with breathing problems are warned to stay indoors.

“It would be disastrous to do this,” said Jared Blumenfeld, former regional director of the federal Environmental Protection Agency for California and other Western states.

“The Clean Air Act has been one of the most successful and revered public health measures taken anywhere on the planet. Everyone from China to India to European nations came to my office and said, ‘How do we achieve these kinds of gains?’ This all originated in Los Angeles at a time the air was so bad it led to the creation of the EPA.”

Many state lawmakers agree, and they are vowing to keep California in compliance with the Clean Air Act as it exists now — regardless of what happens in Washington. But that turns out to be a promise not easily kept.

“This is not an easy switch whereby Congress gets rid of the standard, and California just puts it back in place,” Blumenfeld said.

Some of the most damaging pollution released inside California’s borders can only be controlled by federal regulators. Among California’s biggest concerns is what is spewed from the exhaust pipes of trucks traveling through the state that are not subject to its strict emissions rules. Such fumes account for 60% of such heavy truck pollution.

The EPA has been under pressure to toughen federal rules for trucks to enable California to meet its obligations under the act. The state and EPA have also been working on research into new technologies to clean truck emissions.

Even if the industry-friendly Trump administration slows down those efforts, the act empowers states and activists to impose pressure on the EPA in court.

But that would change under the measure passed by the House, HR 806, which would weaken the air quality standards now motivating federal action.

“We need EPA to continue to move ahead aggressively,” said Kurt Karperos, deputy executive officer at the California Air Resources Board. “It has a responsibility under the Clean Air Act to take action.… We are concerned this would be used as a justification to slow down.”

The pushback against the Clean Air Act in Congress is rooted in complaints, often driven by industry, that the EPA under the Obama administration set standards for air quality that are impossible to reach without harming economies in places that are already struggling, like California’s Central Valley, home to some of the worst air in the nation.

Among the most effective allies for Republicans pushing to weaken standards is the head of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which regulates 25,000 square miles. It is home to 4 million Californians, who struggle with smoggy air and soaring asthma rates.

Seyed Sadredin, the district’s executive director, said there is only so much his agency is empowered to do, and now it faces severe federal sanctions for emissions from cars and trucks it has no authority to regulate.

Sadredin recently told Congress that local businesses will soon be prevented from expanding and big highway projects forfeited under Clean Air Act sanctions the valley faces — even after the region has done everything in its power to control pollution with some of the toughest restrictions in the nation.

“It all sounds nice and noble when you look down to the valley from the outside,” he said of the tough federal standards. “If you are with the elite crowd, you might say, ‘Let’s punish the valley for something they have no control over.’ We are talking real-life impact in a place suffering from double-digit unemployment, poverty, malnutrition. This has a real impact on our people. It is not just an academic argument.”

The San Joaquin board limited its support of the House measure to the part that would exempt air districts from sanctions in certain circumstances. A public outcry moved it to back away from its push to force the EPA to consider economic impacts in determining what air is safe to breathe.

But the economic impact language is still part of the House bill that the San Joaquin board helped get passed, creating no small measure of tension between Sadredin and other air quality experts who say his dire warnings served to benefit agriculture and drilling interests averse to stricter rules.

The valley is not going to lose big highway projects and businesses if it can’t control truck and car pollution it has no authority to regulate, according to state air regulators. But it will be pushed in the areas where it does have control, they say, including cutting pollution from oil and gas wells, and residential and agricultural burning.

“It is absolutely not in the cards,” Karperos said of the punishment Sadredin warns will befall the valley in coming years under current clean air rules. A good faith plan by the valley to further reduce emissions in the places it can would protect it from such sanctions, he said. But that plan will require more action by a region resistant to it.

“There are feasible strategies,” Karperos said. “The threat of sanctions is a red herring.”

Times staff writer Tony Barboza contributed to this report.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

High-speed rail backers lose another round in court

Oil companies outspent environmentalists during California’s climate change negotiations

Trump’s Cabinet seeks spiritual guidance from minister with a dim view of female politicians

WASHINGTON — Joe Biden sued the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts of the former president’s interview with a ghostwriter that were obtained by the special counsel who investigated his handling of classified documents.

Biden’s lawyers said in a lawsuit filed in Washington’s federal court that the Justice Department plans to release the files to Congress and a conservative group, the Heritage Foundation, after the department had previously argued that they were exempt from disclosure under the public records law.

Biden’s lawyers argued that the disclosure would “constitute an unwarranted invasion of President Biden’s privacy.”

“Every American, including a sitting or former Vice President, has a right to privacy in the personal conversations he has within his own home,” his attorneys wrote. “And when the U.S. Department of Justice obtains that private information through a criminal investigation, the Department bears a particular responsibility to protect it from disclosure.”

At issue in the case are audio recordings and transcripts of Biden’s interviews at his home in 2016 and 2017 with Mark Zwonitzer, who worked with Biden on his two memoirs. The files were scrutinized by special counsel Robert Hur as part of his investigation into the president’s improper retention of classified documents, from his time as a senator and as vice president.

Hur’s yearlong investigation led to a 345-page report that questioned Biden’s age and mental competence but recommended no criminal charges against the then-81-year-old. Hur said he found insufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a case in court.

Biden has separately fought the release of the audio of his interview with Hur. The House in 2024 voted to hold Biden Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over that audio after the White House exerted executive privilege, shielding it from Congress.

The transcripts of five hours of Biden interviews with federal prosecutors was released that same year. While Biden was adamant that he treated classified information seriously, the transcript shows that he was at times fuzzy about dates and details and he said he was unfamiliar with the paper trail for some of the sensitive documents he handled.

Republicans have argued Biden was being given a pass by his own Justice Department and that Trump had been unfairly victimized by prosecutors. Democrats, for their part, stressed Biden’s cooperation in the investigation and strongly contrasted that with the separate criminal case against Trump, who was accused of refusing to return classified documents requested by the National Archives that he had at his Florida estate.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

With little more than a week left until primary voters winnow the candidates for Los Angeles mayor, California governor and Congress, there remains a palpable sense of political uncertainty among the electorate — attributable to a lack of clear front-runners, redrawn political maps, messy party infighting and competing voter frustration with both President Trump and the state’s Democratic establishment.

In a state where Democrats hold a substantial advantage among registered voters and Trump lost in 2024 by more than 20 percentage points, MAGA-aligned Republicans are nonetheless competing on a message of ineptitude from longtime liberal leaders to address the state’s most intractable problems. Even some Democrats have railed against the status quo.

With Trump’s grip on the Republican base intact despite abysmal overall approval ratings, many Republican candidates have courted his approval — and been hammered for it by their Democratic opponents.

But those same Democrats have found it harder to explain why their own party should continue to lead the state despite allowing its affordability, housing and homelessness crises to take root and persist — taking little responsibility while swiping at each other for having failed to find solutions sooner.

All that party infighting — present before every primary, but at a fever pitch now — comes against a backdrop of broader voter unease about the war in Iran, volatile oil and gas prices, and the burgeoning threat of AI to the American workforce.

Republican voters are being warned of a blue wave in November giving Democrats control of Congress and grinding Trump’s agenda to a halt. Democratic voters are being warned of Trump administration efforts to undermine local and state elections, and of control of Congress unfairly slipping from reach thanks to further Republican redistricting following a U.S. Supreme Court decision undermining the Voting Rights Act and its protections for majority-Black districts across the South.

Many California voters — some already shaken or burned by former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropping from the gubernatorial race amid sexual assault and rape allegations last month — appear hesitant to cast ballots early, despite warnings that the Trump administration may try to discount those mailed at the last minute.

“Voters don’t want to make a mistake. They’re not absolutely certain,” said Rob Stutzman, a Republican consultant in California. “It’s just not real clear where to land.”

James Adams, a political science professor at UC Davis who studies elections and public opinion, said California Democrats this cycle “have a candidate problem and they have a message problem,” in that they are trying to convince voters to back them “not because they offer exciting ideas or inspiring leadership, but because their Republican opponents are even worse.”

And that message — offered as they gerrymander California in a race to the bottom with Republicans nationally — isn’t cutting it, Adams said.

“People are alienated from our current politics not because Americans are cynical, but because people recognize that they deserve better.”

Outsider shakes up L.A. mayor’s race

Amid entrenched homelessness, affordability concerns and lingering anger over the bungled response to last year’s wildfires, the L.A. mayor’s race was “supposed to be a referendum” on embattled Mayor Karen Bass, Stutzman said.

And yet, Bass remains in the lead, and many voters remain confused about which way to turn away from her — if at all.

Bass has won the endorsement of three council members who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, despite City Councilmember Nithya Raman, an ally who’d previously endorsed Bass and is a member of the DSA herself, entering the race to her left.

Unable to consolidate support from the city’s progressive flank, Raman is now running neck and neck for a second-place finish and a chance to face Bass in the November runoff with former reality TV personality Spencer Pratt, who has remained in contention in ultra-liberal L.A. despite pushing a MAGA-aligned message to Bass’ right.

Pratt, who did not respond to a request for comment, lost his Pacific Palisades home in the fires and has won over many frustrated city residents with his anti-establishment message and cheeky AI videos — including one casting him as Batman, taking on a corrupt Democratic bourgeoisie.

Pratt, a registered Republican, has tried to dance around politics in the race, calling his campaign a “nonpartisan” one and comparing himself to President Obama politically. But he is backed by many Republicans, has echoed Trump’s rhetoric around restoring “common sense” and a “Golden Age” to L.A., and recently responded to Trump saying that he’d heard Pratt “is a big MAGA person” — and Raman posting the quote to X — with a meme of himself shrugging.

Fernando Guerra, founding director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University, said he’s glad city voters have choices this race, because they clearly aren’t happy. He said Angelenos are less optimistic today than ever before and are deeply frustrated with “this same liberal Democratic regime from Bradley to Bass over 50 years” — a reference to former Mayor Tom Bradley, who first took office in 1973.

Voters are clearly tired of that regime, which has succumbed to “policy paralysis” in the name of “inclusion” and trying to please everyone, Guerra said — but not so much that they will consider going MAGA for Pratt.

“People say, ‘Yeah, Democrats have really f—d it up, but there’s no way we’re going to [back] Republicans. Look what they’ve done to the nation.’”

Others aren’t so sure. In its voter guide, the progressive group LA Forward wrote that the “most important thing” in the June 2 primary is to block Pratt — whom it called a “right-wing reality TV buffoon” — from advancing, and the best way to do so is to vote for Raman.

“We would much rather see a Bass/Raman runoff, with no chance of Pratt becoming mayor, than a Pratt/Bass runoff where a Pratt win would be a real possibility — plunging LA into a Trumpian mayoral nightmare,” the group wrote.

An unsettled gubernatorial contest

In the gubernatorial race, none of the many Democratic candidates has been able to consolidate a sizable lead, creating a lingering apprehension that Republicans could somehow eke out a stunning upset in the biggest of blue states.

That’s in part thanks to leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, the former California attorney general and U.S. Health secretary under President Biden, being dogged by insinuations, including from fellow Democrats, that he was somehow complicit in a scheme by underlings to steal from his campaign coffers, despite prosecutors in the case — which resulted in his former chief of staff pleading guilty — never alleging wrongdoing on his part.

It’s also thanks in part to the fact that the leading progressive, Tom Steyer, is a billionaire who has bought his way into contention with nearly $200 million of his own money — in an election cycle in which progressive voters nationwide are decrying billionaires as the clearest symbol of all that is wrong with the nation’s lopsided economy.

“This kind of weird self-loathing rationale of why he’s the right guy to take on billionaires because he is one? You can’t build a Mamdani movement around that,” said Stutzman, referring to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who shot to power on a democratic socialist platform last year.

The Democrats have also struggled to combat the criticism — leveraged time and again by their Republican competitors — that their party has failed for years to solve California’s most substantial problems, and deserves to be ousted from power.

Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra speak during a break in the April 28 gubernatorial debate.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton has hammered that message in ads and on the debate stage, lambasting the Democratic establishment for pushing so much unnecessary regulation that it has chased out business and investment and made everything from gas to housing to groceries more expensive for average residents.

He has blamed Democrats for California’s high rates of poverty and unemployment, its high cost of living and high taxes, its record homelessness and its poor public school results.

In an interview, Hilton said he understands that California voters may not like Trump — who endorsed him — and may have conflicting beliefs about federal and international policy, but that California’s biggest problems have “nothing to do with President Trump.”

“Voters need to decide on what direction they want to take in terms of the policies that affect their daily lives in California,” he said, and those are “devised and enacted within California by our politicians here in Sacramento.”

He also said it’s no surprise that some of his Democratic rivals have also acknowledged that the Democratic establishment has been a failure, because “if you pretend otherwise, you show that you’re just completely out of touch with public opinion.”

Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, said “every campaign is entitled to run the race that they believe matches their story,” even if that means questioning the party’s past performance. But he also said polling hasn’t shown that message to be an effective one, and he’s confident that voters will show their ongoing trust in the party at the polls.

Redistricting, sniping and name-calling

The decision by California voters last November to pass Proposition 50 and allow the state’s Democratic leaders to redraw the state’s congressional maps to favor Democratic candidates in a handful of additional districts — part of a wider redistricting war sparked by Trump — has intensified the primary races in those areas.

As an example, longtime incumbent Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) are now competing to represent the same redrawn swath of Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and have bitterly attacked one another. Kim has called Calvert a “swampy,” “sleazy” and “corrupt” politician guilty of “sabotaging President Trump’s agenda.” Calvert has called Kim a “RINO,” or Republican In Name Only, and a “Trump-hating liberal.”

Democrats have also sniped at each other, including in the race to replace retiring Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) in his redrawn district in San Diego and Riverside counties — where Trump also holds an outsize presence.

Rep. Young Kim and Rep. Ken Calvert are opponents in a heated race in a newly redrawn congressional district.

(Associated Press)

Stutzman said it will be interesting to see how those primaries play out, but also how Democrats there and in other races perform in November — when Democrats are expected to perform well nationally given Trump’s lousy ratings, but Democrats in California could underperform thanks to statewide frustration with affordability, housing and homelessness here.

“People are like, ‘Eh, you know, yeah, Trump — but there’s some problems here,’” Stutzman said.

Hicks said he expects California voters to not only elect another Democratic governor, but to “push back on a Trump administration and congressional Republicans and Republicans around the country that have sought to rig the game in their favor,” including by “ensuring that we fulfill the promise of Proposition 50 by winning congressional seats and retaking the House of Representatives.”

He said the current political moment “can feel like a pressure cooker,” but Californians will “continue to adapt and overcome and be resilient, just as they always have been.”

Americans always say they want politicians with backbone — men and women of principle who will stand up for what they believe in, even when it’s unpopular.

And every so often, the American people prove their commitment to this noble aspiration by firing anybody who actually tries it.

Take Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who just lost a reelection bid by double digits after President Trump’s affiliated committees dumped enough money into Kentucky to purchase, well, Kentucky.

Massie committed the cardinal sin of modern Republican politics: He behaved as though Congress were a coequal branch of government instead of the warm-up act before a Trump rally.

He bucked Trump on spending, Iran and — in what apparently qualified as political suicide — whether or not to release the Epstein files. For this display of independent thought, Massie was summarily retired by what can only be described as the Trump cult (formerly known as the Republican primary electorate).

Before anybody accuses me of hyperbole, consider the remarkably revealing example presented recently on the New York Times podcast, “The Daily.”

At a town hall in Burlington, Ky., one voter explained to Massie that Trump is basically omniscient.

“As I see it,” the voter said, “the one person in the whole United States, maybe the world, that understands everything and has input to everything is Donald Trump.”

Not content with mere earthly wisdom, Trump also possesses universal awareness, superior intelligence and perhaps even low-level clairvoyance. The voter continued that Trump “gets more information, more meetings, more everything” than anybody else in government.

When Massie noted that Trump opposed releasing the Epstein files, the man calmly explained that if Trump changed positions, “there was a reason” — one too profound for ordinary mortals to comprehend.

Massie’s reply deserves to be bronzed and mounted over the entrance to the U.S. Capitol: “I don’t give anybody but God that kind of trust.”

Unfortunately, for a large portion of the Republican electorate (about 55%, based on the Kentucky primary results), those words constitute sacrilege against their earthly savior.

As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham cheerfully boasted on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “This is the party of Donald Trump.” Which is true in much the same way North Korea is the party of Kim Jong Un.

The one ironic twist in all of this is that Americans finally managed to punish somebody over the Epstein files — only it turned out to be the guy who wanted them released.

There’s American justice for you.

Massie isn’t the only Republican currently being fitted for concrete shoes. Trump also helped finish off Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, whose unforgivable crime was voting to convict Trump during the impeachment trial following Jan. 6. And Trump has endorsed controversial Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, which in today’s GOP primary environment is roughly the equivalent of finding a horse head in your bed.

Now, to be fair, Cassidy and Cornyn are no Massie, who openly opposed Trump and paid the price standing upright. Cassidy and Cornyn demonstrated brief moments of independence, only to spend years vainly performing political interpretive dance routines in hopes of regaining Trump’s favor.

Still, there may be a silver lining here for students of political irony.

Trump’s endorsement of Paxton will force Republicans to spend enormous sums defending a deep red state that would ordinarily require little more than a campaign sign and a pickup truck.

Meanwhile, Trump is creating resentful lame-duck Republicans in Congress who now possess the most dangerous attribute in politics: nothing left to lose.

But the broader message is unmistakable. Trump wants Republicans to understand that disagreement will not be tolerated. No criticism. No distancing. No independent branding.

The party line is whatever Trump said five minutes ago, amended by whatever he says five minutes from now. By now, everyone knows this to be true.

Which would be excellent news for Trump, if not for one small complication: The rest of the country appears to be tiring of his act. Recent polling shows Trump’s approval slipping to 37%, while Democrats gain major ground, surging to a +11 on the generic congressional ballot.

Trump, it seems, has created a situation in which Republicans can either oppose him and be destroyed in a primary, or they can embrace him and risk losing the House and the Senate in November’s general election. It’s the old “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum.

The point is this: With the midterms approaching, Trump is making sure Republicans are ensnared in the gravitational pull of his unpopularity.

That may satisfy the president’s desire for complete loyalty. It may also hand Democrats control of both chambers of Congress.

Trump is settling all family business this week, by purging those pesky disloyal Republicans. Only time will tell whether he’s also purging America’s non-Republican “swing” voters, as well.

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

WASHINGTON — Barney Frank, the longtime Democratic congressman and leading liberal who brought new visibility to gay rights and crafted the most significant reforms to the financial system in a generation, has died. He was 86.

Frank died late Tuesday, according to Jim Segel, Frank’s former campaign manager and close friend.

After representing broad swaths of Boston’s suburbs in Congress for 32 years, Frank and his husband moved to Ogunquit, Maine. He entered hospice there in April with congestive heart failure and is survived by his husband, Jim Ready, and sisters, the longtime Democratic strategist Ann Lewis and Doris Breay, along with brother David Frank.

A self-described “left-handed gay Jew,” Frank was known for his acerbic wit, combative style and focus on marginalized communities. He represented the party’s left wing while keeping close with Democratic leaders who sometimes frustrated progressives.

He is best known as a pioneer for LGBT rights. After decades of grappling with his sexuality, he publicly came out as gay in 1987, the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. With his 2012 marriage to Ready, he became the first incumbent lawmaker on Capitol Hill to marry someone of the same sex.

But in an April interview as he entered hospice, Frank said he hoped he would be remembered for advocating a brand of politics that embraced progressive ideals without forcing them on voters prematurely. It is an approach he feared was being rejected as Democrats prepare for what could be a rollicking primary as they hope to retake the White House in 2028 and move past the Trump era.

“I hope I made the point that the best way to accomplish the improvements in our society that we need, particularly in making it less unfair economically and socially, is by conventional political methods,” Frank said. “The main obstacle to our defeating populism and going further in the right direction is that mainstream Democrats have to make it clear that we oppose that part of the agenda of our friends on the left that is politically unacceptable. They’re right about a lot of things but you have to have some discretion.”

“You should not take the most unpopular parts of your agenda and make them litmus tests,” he added. “And that’s what my friends on the left have been doing.”

Frank’s path to public life

Born in 1940 in Bayonne, N.J., Frank wrote in his 2015 memoir that he was drawn to public life after Emmett Till, a Black 14-year-old from Chicago, was lynched by white men in Mississippi. Frank would volunteer in Mississippi during the Freedom Summer of 1964, though he acknowledged the fast-talking style was a challenge in the Deep South.

“My direct organizing of Mississippi voters was limited by the fact that my accent [to this day more New Jersey than New England], my poor diction, and my rapid speech, especially when I got excited, rendered me largely incomprehensible to rural Mississippians of both races,” he wrote.

He entered politics in 1968 as an aide to Boston Mayor Kevin White before winning a seat in the Massachusetts House in 1972. Frank was elected to Congress in 1980, an otherwise dismal year for Democrats as the party lost dozens of seats in the U.S. House and Republican Ronald Reagan won the White House.

Frank’s pragmatic style surfaced early in his congressional career. He joined the liberal Democratic Study Group to help push then-Speaker Tip O’Neill (D-Mass.) to respond more aggressively to the Reagan administration. But Frank said he found himself more often agreeing with O’Neill’s less confrontational approach.

Years later, as Congress prepared to pass a massive tax overhaul package, Frank intended to vote “no,” opposed to the bill’s lowering of top tax rates. He changed his mind, however, when he worked out a deal boosting affordable housing tax credits.

“I was happy to sacrifice my ideological purity to improve legislation that was going to become law with or without me,” he wrote.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat and former House speaker, called Frank an “idealist to the nth degree.”

“The goals, the vision, the promise of it all,” she recalled in an interview. “Nobody could ever surpass what he brought to the table in that regard.”

Making history in Congress

Through his early years in Washington, Frank led something of a double life.

Privately, he socialized in the city’s gay circles and had relationships but did not publicly acknowledge his sexuality. The media at the time rarely reported that someone was gay unless that person was involved in a scandal. When Frank in 1987 invited a reporter to his office to formally ask whether the congressman was gay, Frank responded, “yeah, so what?”

Other elected leaders, perhaps most notably San Francisco’s Harvey Milk, had come out years before. Members of Congress, including Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), were previously outed through scandal.

Frank’s approach made him the most prominent gay leader in national politics for much of the 1980s and 1990s. He helped secure AIDS funding and pressed the Democratic Clinton administration, unsuccessfully, to lift a ban on gays serving in the military.

But there were low points, too, most notably an overwhelming 1987 House vote to reprimand him for poor judgment involving a male prostitute he hired in 1985. Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, the Republican whip at the time, pressed for the more severe punishment of censure, which was rejected by a large margin.

Frank became something of a punch line among conservative Republicans, with House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) calling him “Barney Fag” in 1995. Armey said he misspoke and later apologized from the House floor.

Along the way, Frank became known as one of the most quotable lawmakers in Congress.

Regarding abortion, he said Republicans believed “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” criticizing the party’s push to curb social programs. After Ken Starr released a report describing President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky in sometimes intimate detail, Frank said it required “too much reading about heterosexual sex.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) entered Congress the same year as Frank and he recalled his former colleague: “You may get a blow, but it was softened by the humor that came with it.”

Presiding over a financial overhaul

By 2007, Frank was the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, where he would leave his lasting policy mark as the U.S. economy careened toward collapse. He worked with the Republican Bush administration to pass a rescue package, providing vital support to financial institutions but spurring a populist revolt that still courses through American politics.

Once the initial crisis eased, Frank helped develop the most significant reform legislation since the New Deal. Working with then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Dodd-Frank Act would enhance consumer protections, impose new capital requirements for banks and boost the ability of regulators to monitor risk.

“Barney and I shared a fantastic relationship,” Dodd said. “I had many good moments in those 36 years in Congress, but none more significant, joyful, or productive than those almost two years working with Barney on our banking bill.”

During President Trump’s second term, his Republican administration has worked to roll back many of the legislation’s provisions, arguing they were too onerous.

Frank faced his toughest reelection campaign in years in 2010 as the tea party wave swept over American politics. He opted against running again in 2012, though remained engaged in politics long after leaving Congress and was a fierce critic of Trump.

Asked for his prediction on who might succeed Trump, Frank said “unfortunately I won’t get to vote for it.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Two police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from an attack by a mob of President Trump’s supporters sued on Wednesday to block anyone — including Jan. 6, 2021, rioters — from receiving payouts from a new $1.776-billion settlement fund for people who claim to be victims of politically motivated prosecutions.

The officers’ attorneys filed the federal lawsuit a day after acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche defended the fund’s creation during a congressional hearing. Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Justice Department, wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.

The lawsuit claims the government’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is an illegal slush fund that Trump will use to “finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name.” It describes the fund’s creation as “the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century” and calls for dissolving it.

“No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law,” the suit says.

The fund stems from a settlement of Trump’s $10-billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. It’s designed to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Decisions on payouts will be made by a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

More than 100 police officers were injured during the Capitol riot. Nearly 1,600 people were charged with Jan. 6-related crimes, but Trump used his pardon powers to erase all of those cases in a sweeping act of clemency last year.

The plaintiffs suing Trump over the fund are Metropolitan Police Department officer Daniel Hodges and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who is running in Maryland for a seat in Congress. Hodges and Dunn both testified before Congress about their harrowing experiences on Jan. 6. Videos captured a rioter ripping a mask off Hodges as he was pinned against a door during a fight for control of a tunnel entrance.

The officers claim the fund “encourages those who enacted violence in the President’s name to continue to do so.”

“Dunn and Hodges already face credible threats of death and violence on regular basis; the Fund substantially increases the danger,” the suit alleges.

On Tuesday, members of Congress peppered Blanche with questions about the fund. He described it as “unusual” but not unprecedented. Blanche failed to acknowledge that Trump’s Justice Department has investigated and prosecuted some of the Republican president’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also are named as defendants in the officers’ lawsuit. Spokespeople for the Justice and Treasury departments didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.

One of the attorneys for the officers is Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department prosecutor who handled Jan. 6 cases.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Shouting over the banging and clanging sounds from heavy construction equipment, President Trump on Tuesday gave a group of reporters a closer look at the construction for the White House ballroom he’s building on the site of the former East Wing to mount a defense for the project that has hit a speed bump in Congress.

The administration has asked for $1 billion from taxpayers for security additions on the White House campus, including for the ballroom. But the Senate parliamentarian ruled the proposal could not be included in a bill to fund immigrant enforcement agencies for three years, and several Republican lawmakers have balked at the price tag in an election year where voters are grappling with gasoline, grocery and other prices spurred to new heights by the Iran war and the disruption in oil supplies.

So Trump, ever the pitchman, surprised White House reporters by bringing them to a platform overlooking the construction site on a hot and breezy morning as workers in hard hats and fluorescent yellow vests milled about below.

Easels were set up to display renderings of the ballroom building and at least one of them blew off in the wind. “Give that to me, I’ll hold it,” Trump told an assistant.

“There will never be another building like this built, that I can tell you,” Trump told reporters.

He highlighted the security aspects of the building, notably its “dead flat” roof made of “very strong steel” and said it is “drone-proof” because “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact — but it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington, the roof of the building.”

He said the military will “stay on it” to keep watch over the city.

There’s no air conditioning or other equipment on the roof for safety reasons, Trump said, explaining that all duct work and equipment like it was hidden within the walls of the complex, which will serve as a “shield” for a military hospital, research facilities, offices for the first lady and her staff, and a full-service kitchen — in addition to a ballroom big enough for 1,000 people.

He said the ballroom building goes down six stories underground and is really “complex” because “everything is intertwined.”

“The roof goes with the ground floor, the ground floor goes with the roof. The roof also goes down into the basement,” the president said. “This is one well-knit building. One thing doesn’t work without the other.”

Trump says the ballroom is a ‘gift’ to the country

He reiterated that the $400-million ballroom cost will be covered by donors, including him, and that the work is being done “in strict coordination” with the military and U.S. Secret Service.

“This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer,” Trump said. “This is a gift to the United States of America.”

But it’s somewhat of an unwanted present as polling shows most Americans oppose the ballroom, which is embroiled in litigation in federal court. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that a majority, 56%, of U.S. adults oppose Trump’s decision to tear down the East Wing to make way for the ballroom, while only 28% are in support.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to halt construction until Congress approves plans for the building.

Trump insisted he will have “very little” time to use the ballroom. He recently announced that it will be ready in September 2028, less than six months before his term ends.

“This is really for other presidents,” he said.

Trump sidestepped a question about whether he’ll kick in any more of his own money if Congress rejects the $1-billion funding request.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said Trump’s tour was not in response to the difficulties brewing in Congress. “President Trump is the most transparent president of all time and was excited to showcase to the press and American people the amazing gift he is giving to the White House and generations of future presidents to come,” Ingle said.

Trump also touched on some of the other beautification projects he’s undertaking across the city, such as restarting dormant park fountains. He claimed to be spending much less to clean up the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool than did his immediate predecessors — both Democrats.

“I’m doing a job on the Reflecting Lake for a fraction of what they paid,” Trump said. He’s having the surface coated in a shade of blue and wants to reopen it by July 4. A separate nonprofit group, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, has sued to halt this project.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.