congress

June 24 (UPI) — Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration Wednesday of seeking to push through a multimillion-dollar arms deal with Turkey by bypassing congressional review, the latest executive action critics say usurps the lawmakers’ authority.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was informed by the Trump administration late Tuesday that it would bypass congressional review of an arms sale to Turkey worth more than $700 million.

“The State Department did not even attempt to justify its decision,” Meeks said in a statement.

“It did not invoke any emergency authority, did not present a written rationale and for months refused to make a good-faith effort to brief me on implications of the sale for the U.S.-Turkey relationship, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system and other regional security concerns,” he continued.

“It simply informed my office that it would immediately proceed with a formal notification of the sale.”

Turkey is a U.S. ally and NATO member with a robust defense industry. However, it’s led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an increasingly authoritarian leader who has maintained ties with Russia and whose government uses the Kremlin’s S-400 Triumph missile defense system.

The United States and NATO opposed Turkey’s adoption of the S-200 system, and Washington removed Turkey from the F-35 fighter program in 2019 during Trump’s first administration.

Meeks called the decision to bypass congressional review “yet another deeply troubling example of this administration’s open contempt for Congress’ oversight authority.

“There can be no pretense that this was urgent or unavoidable,” he said, stating the items will not be delivered to Turkey for years.

“This was a deliberate choice to shut Congress out and to treat legitimate oversight as an inconvenience to be brushed aside.”

Trump is scheduled to visit Turkey early next month. During a White House press conference alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday, he praised Erdogan as “a great friend.”

Erdogan is known to be seeking to acquire U.S.-made fighter jets, including the F-35. Asked if he was planning to announce a potential deal when he visits Ankara, Trump replied: “I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.”

It was unclear if jets were part of the arms deal.

UPI has contacted the State Department for comment and to detail the contents of the sale.

Democrats and other critics of President Donald Trump have repeatedly accused his administration of bypassing Congress through executive orders and unilateral decisions, particularly in its use of the military.

The Trump administration has faced staunch criticism from opponents for launching a war against Iran in late February without congressional authorization. Democrats have frequently argued that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.

Democrats have also criticized the administration’s use of the military to attack suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Pacific and Caribbean without congressional authorization.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Trump’s administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections, part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston in effect converts a preliminary injunction she issued a year ago, in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump’s efforts to overhaul elections, into a permanent ban.

Casper rejected the administration’s argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic state attorneys general was premature because the rules had yet to be implemented. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, and that Trump’s requirements violated the separation of powers.

The Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she wrote.

Among other proposed changes, Trump’s order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after election day, even if they were postmarked by then, and punished states that failed to comply by withholding certain federal money.

In a statement, New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James said she was grateful the court had blocked Trump’s “unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections” and would continue to defend voting rights in this year’s midterm elections.

“Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it,” she said.

Requests for comment sent to the White House and Department of Justice were not immediately returned.

It was the latest in a string of rulings against the elections executive order Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. He has since signed another executive order on elections, seeking to create a national voter list and limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges.

In the fall, a federal judge in Washington overseeing a separate challenge to the first election executive order by civil rights and Democratic Party-aligned groups blocked the government from taking steps to include the proof-of-citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form. That judge later barred the secretary of Defense from requiring documentary proof of citizenship when military personnel register to vote or request ballots.

In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof-of-citizen requirement by executive order, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate, leading Trump to advocate for eliminating the filibuster that is blocking the legislation.

On Wednesday, he abruptly canceled the expected signing of a bipartisan housing bill, saying he won’t do so until Congress passes his proof of citizenship requirement for voting.

The president and many of his Republican allies have been promoting the narrative that voting by noncitizens is a major problem, when in fact it’s quite rare. The federal voter registration form already requires people to attest that they are U.S. citizens, and violating that is punishable as a felony that can lead to prison or deportation.

In another major voting case, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion soon on whether mail ballots must arrive by election day. That could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by election day.

Smyth and Casey write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he would not sign the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week as scheduled, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

It escalated tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which had already neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act. GOP leaders have told Trump the bill does not have the votes to pass.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote online.

The president’s willingness to threaten a bill that he could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections is a remarkable gamble as Republicans fight to keep House control.

The reversal also underscored Trump’s fixation on asserting some federal control over elections processes and his apparent indifference to the cost-of-living issues that voters are most focused on. He has repeatedly dismissed affordability as a “fake” concept, and inaccurately claimed on Sunday that the U.S. has the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.”

Last week, polls from NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll showed record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. Trump also lashed out about that on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “As you know, he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Bill Owens, chairman of the National Assn. of Home Builders, telegraphed hope that the legislation would be signed at some point.

“Although there was no bill signing today, we are confident the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will eventually become law,” said Owens, a home builder and remodeler from Worthington, Ohio.

Democrats were shocked, angry and confused when they found out about the cancellation Wednesday morning, according to a source within the House Committee on Financial Services, which led the legislation.

Lawmakers believed the bill was a done deal and are now scrambling, the person said. A stage for the bill signing had already been set up in the Capitol when Trump posted online. The night before, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had posted on X: “Tomorrow’s historic bill signing is another promise made, promise kept.”

Frustration with the president has been steadily mounting among Senate Republicans for more than a month, triggered by a host of issues including Trump’s endorsement of Republican primary challengers to sitting lawmakers. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told Trump the SAVE America Act doesn’t have enough support to pass, the Associated Press reported this week.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security. Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens.

The effort is rooted in Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and cheating by Democrats. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Trump has previously called for the federal government to “nationalize” elections and “take over” voting in some states. He renewed accusations against Democrats of cheating in California this month.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Less than an hour before Trump posted online that he had canceled the bill signing, he labeled the legislation “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” in a Truth Social post, and railed about the SAVE America Act.

“That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about. Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was one of the four bipartisan lawmakers leading the deal across the two chambers, said Wednesday morning on CNBC that Trump’s reversal “doesn’t make any sense.”

“It’s a complete indifference to the cost squeeze on American families and to genuine efforts to do something about it,” Warren said. “He could be over here claiming a victory lap and instead he’s saying no, no, he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”

WASHINGTON — The House passed Congress’ most significant housing legislation in decades on Tuesday, sending the bill to President Trump’s desk — a bid by both parties to show midterm voters that they’re paying attention to affordability concerns ahead of November’s election.

The legislation, which the Senate passed Monday, aims to boost the housing supply through dozens of targeted provisions whose effects are expected to be seen over the next several years. In California, measures to unlock some federal block grant dollars for new housing in big cities could be particularly significant.

The bipartisan agreement over the legislation, after weeks of negotiation, marks a highly unusual collaboration in the divided Congress. It reflects growing public pressure on Washington to address economic issues at a time when Americans’ economic woes are deepening amid inflation, elevated gas prices and the ongoing effects of Trump’s tariffs.

The bill passed in the House with a 358-32 vote after it was approved by the Senate on Monday in an 85-5 vote. Those opposed in both chambers were Republicans. The Trump administration has signaled support for the bill, meaning it will probably become law.

“This legislation must serve as a foundation for continued action, not the final step in addressing our nation’s housing crisis,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), one of the lawmakers who put together the deal, said on the House floor before the vote.

The bill aims to help housing supply by removing regulatory barriers to building affordable housing units, preventing large investors from buying up single-family homes and incentivizing new housing in cities with federal funding, among other measures.

The package focuses on addressing housing supply constraints and making federal programs easier to use, said David Gonzalez Rice, senior vice president of public policy at the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Though the legislation does not create major new funding streams, advocates see the bipartisan acknowledgment of the need for housing reforms as significant.

“It’s a big step in the right direction,” Gonzalez Rice said, “and there’s still a lot of work to do.”

Addressing cost-of-living issues has become high stakes for lawmakers engaged in midterm reelection campaigns, as Americans increasingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy. Democrats are hoping to leverage affordability issues to gain control of at least one chamber of Congress, while Republicans are fighting to maintain their majorities.

It was politically crucial for members of both parties to be able to tell voters they had worked in good faith to address housing affordability, said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

“It would’ve been hard to justify to voters during their campaigns that their party did not do everything they could to advance the first meaningful legislation on housing policy in decades,” Garcia said.

The legislation was a product of intense bipartisan negotiations led by Waters and Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), after months of discussions in both parties about how to address housing.

“The work has been extraordinary between the majority and minority in this House, answering the call [for] solutions from the American people,” Hill said on the House floor.

Trump — who has largely dismissed the affordability issue, last week calling it “a fake word” — had indicated support for housing reforms.

In a March statement of policy, the administration indicated it “strongly supports” passage of the bill, saying it represented “significant advances in federal housing policy.” Trump also signed an executive order suggesting that regulatory barriers to home building should be removed, a concept reflected in the bill.

The nationwide affordability crisis has been driven for years by rising costs, a shortage of affordable housing, higher mortgage rates and other factors. Recent rising construction costs and labor shortages have exacerbated the issue, according to the National Assn. of Home Builders.

The number of new housing starts in May dropped by more than 15%, according to a report last week from the U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

California has added housing supply in recent years, but its shortage remains significant and prices high. The state has among the highest rates of households spending disproportionate amounts of their income on housing, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

The momentum in Washington to respond to those pressures — which came as something of a surprise to advocates — can be viewed as a reflection of current public sentiment, Gonzalez Rice said.

“It speaks to the broader understanding of the public that housing is a policy problem, that government can do something about it and the expectation that government will do something about it,” he said. “It’s clear elected officials are hearing from their constituents.”

The bill includes nearly 50 provisions, including the prohibition on investor purchase of single-family homes, which is intended to help increase the housing supply for individual buyers. It also seeks to help cities convert abandoned buildings into new housing and help landlords and homeowners make home repairs.

Two measures are expected to be particularly significant for cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, Garcia said: One ties some federal funding under the Community Development Block Grant program to housing production to motivate cities with low housing supply and high costs to build more housing. The other allows block grant money to be used for affordable housing construction, opening a new revenue source for cities.

California’s big cities may be spurred to increase new housing in future years, Garcia said, and they also could benefit from the ability to direct the block grant funding to housing.

“Costs to build are so high,” he said, “that any new funding could be critical.”

Among other steps that could have swift results is a plan to preserve a rental assistance program for nearly 400,000 rural homeowners and a measure to streamline the leasing process for families using vouchers, Gonzalez Rice said.

The bill also exempts certain projects from a set of environmental regulations, a step aimed at speeding up the review and construction process. And it seeks to make it easier to build manufactured homes by removing a requirement that they be built on a chassis, which the Senate committee estimated would reduce the cost of each new unit by up to $10,000.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told senators it needs roughly $80 billion, mostly to cover the cost of the U.S. war against Iran, adding to what is already a sizable military spending boost being sought by President Trump.

Meanwhile, the Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50-48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. Although the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate over the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has yet to make a formal request to Congress for more money for the war. But Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been making the rounds on Capitol Hill, including Monday evening. A top deputy Defense secretary told senators about the Iran funding request last week, according to two people familiar with the situation but not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The Wall Street Journal first reported on the developments.

The push for billions of dollars in Iran war funding comes at a fraught political moment. Lawmakers are not only skeptical of the deal Trump struck with Iran to bring an end to the war, but also wary of next steps. The White House has requested a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon — a nearly 50% increase over the current fiscal year’s funding levels.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he’s expecting a supplemental spending request from the administration for the war, and when it arrives, “we’ll work through it and see where the votes are.”

“We need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to replenish, resupply a lot our munitions that have been depleted — not only just with what’s happening with Iran, but prior to that,” said Thune (R-S.D.).

Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg spoke to several senators about the proposal in calls last week and he notified congressional committees that the $80-billion request had been sent to the Office of Management and Budget. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

However, the funding package will almost certainly run into trouble from lawmakers who refuse to support Trump’s decision to go to war and are reluctant to give the Pentagon more money at a time of high costs of living for Americans at home.

“You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington told Hegseth in a hearing last month.

In addition to the Iran funding, Republicans hope to secure about $1.1 trillion through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval. Then, they hope to secure an additional $350 billion through a mostly party-line vote later this summer.

The amount being sought by the Pentagon is far higher than the $29-billion estimate of war costs that Hegseth gave Congress during his testimony last month. The bulk of that amount was related to replacing munitions and repairing equipment but also included operational costs to keep forces deployed. That estimate did not include the cost to repair or rebuild U.S. military sites damaged in the region.

It’s also far lower than the initial $200 billion the Pentagon floated as the costs at the start of the war. An early estimate put the cost of the first week of the war at $11.3 billion.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a member of Democratic party leadership, said he expects the actual price tag could be much higher than the $80 billion being proposed.

Schatz said he hasn’t done any counting of Democrats about whether there is support for an Iran-focused bill, “but I haven’t found anyone who wants to do this.”

But Republican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana said, “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles.”

Banks said, “I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.”

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said funding for an Iran supplemental can’t be done in isolation. It has to be done after lawmakers from both parties have agreed to a total spending amount for both defense and non-defense programs, “then the rest of this would follow pretty quickly,” Reed said.

And Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, a member of the Appropriations subcommittee on Defense, said he has been working with the administration to broaden the package to include funds for disaster aid for California, Hawaii and other states hard hit by fires and weather problems, as well as agricultural aid for farmers.

“I think that’s the kind of combination that could pass,” Hoeven said.

Hegseth declined to answer questions from reporters late Monday as he strode around the Capitol.

But on the issue of the cost of the war, Hegseth responded rhetorically during a Senate hearing last month, asking, “What is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon?”

He acknowledged the president’s decision to confront the threat of a nuclear Iran “comes with cost — and we recognize that.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Konstantin Toropin and Ben Finley contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50 to 48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. While the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate over both the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer said Americans have paid the price for “Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

In the past, as many as four GOP senators have voted for the war powers resolutions, and they did so Tuesday — Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the resolution.

On this vote, the absence of two Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was admitted to the hospital recently for an undisclosed matter, left the GOP without a full majority to halt the effort. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) also missed the vote.

The vote also comes as the Pentagon is seeking $80 billion from Congress, mostly for the Iran war as it backfills munitions and stockpiles.

Trump to meet senators as Republicans balk at Iran deal

Trump himself is headed to the Capitol this week to meet with GOP senators as Vice President JD Vance has been overseas working to negotiate with Iran to end its nuclear ambitions — which had been among the stated rationales for the war.

The president is not pleased with the Republicans who have been critical of the deal he struck with Iran, according to one GOP senator granted anonymity to discuss the private dynamics.

The terms of the Iran deal are spelled out in a memorandum of understanding that Trump signed last week, starting a 60-day clock for the sides to reach a broader agreement over ending Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republicans have particularly objected to the $300-billion fund to help Iran rebuild, which is far greater than the $1.7 billion then-President Obama refunded the country under his administration’s 2015 Iran deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said last week on his podcast after the deal was made public.

Democrats have repeatedly forced Iran votes

Over and again, Democrats have been forcing votes on the Iran war, almost since the U.S. and Israel launched missile strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Nearly each week they’re in session, the Senate Democrats have put forward war powers resolutions, but they have failed to amass the majority needed for passage in the narrowly split chamber, where Trump’s Republican Party holds the majority.

The House pushed its own version to passage earlier this month, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in approving the war powers resolution, over the objections of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the GOP leadership.

While such resolutions do not go to the president for his signature, passage stands as a powerful, if symbolic, statement from Congress and a rebuke of the administration’s military actions.

Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia who has led his party’s efforts, said the pause in warfighting, as Trump’s team works to shore up a fragile ceasefire, provides the perfect time for Congress to step back and assess “what should the next chapter be.”

Hegseth seeks $80 billion from Congress for the Iran war

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, seeking roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to shore up defense supplies in the aftermath of the Iran war, which is drawing scrutiny when many Americans are reeling from high gas prices and costs of living.

The Pentagon early on had estimated the war cost $11.3 billion during its first week, and experts have put the overall price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a broader beef-up of military money the White House wants as part of its budget request this year.

The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding this year — a 50% increase — including $350 billion that it wants in a so-called budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package on their own, over the objections of Democrats, much the way they approved Trump’s big tax cuts bill last year.

The 2025 tax cuts package also included a sizable increase of about $175 billion for the military.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Prison inmates whose religious rights are clearly violated by guards and wardens may not sue them for damages, a divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said federal law protecting religious liberty allows for suits against state prison systems, but not employees of the prison.

The decision came in the case of a devout Rastafarian in Louisiana. Damon Landor had grown dreadlocks for nearly two decades. He had three weeks left in a five-month prison term when he was transferred to another prison in Louisiana.

He had with him a copy of a federal appeals court opinion that said Rastafarian inmates had a protected religious right to wear dreadlocks.

Congress in 2000 adopted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to protect religious liberty.

But the guards threw the appeals court decision in the trash, and the warden ordered the guards to handcuff Landor to a chair and shave his head.

Shortly after he was released, Landor sued the warden and the guards for violating the 2000 law, known as RLUIPA, which promised “appropriate relief” to those whose rights were violated.

But a federal judge, the 5th Circuit Court and now the Supreme Court have tossed out Landor’s suit.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the six conservatives.

He explained that when the federal government gives states money for prisons, education, healthcare and other matters, it can require them to follow the law but it does not authorize private lawsuits against their employees

“To know that is enough to know the Court of Appeals was correct. Mr. Landor does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers,” Gorsuch wrote. “Congress lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly.”

The three liberals dissented.

“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons — no matter how blatant — will often be left remediless.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

Civil liberties advocates denounced the decision.

“Our justice system is built on the promise of accountability when rights are violated,” said Rachel Rossi, president of the Alliance for Justice. “If there is no remedy for such a transgression, then there is no justice. This ruling will further erode critical civil rights protections of the far too many incarcerated people in this country.”

Rachel Laser, chief executive of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said today’s decision “endangers the religious freedom of incarcerated people, like Damon Landor, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse and having unnecessary burdens placed on their religious exercise. Once again, we see a court that will bend over backward for the religious freedom of Christians, but allows the government to trample the religious freedom of non-Christians.”

WASHINGTON — The question hangs in the halls at the Capitol: Was it worth it?

Congress, which never authorized the war against Iran yet never fully objected to it, now must grapple with the consequences of President Trump’s nearly four-month conflict: the lives lost, the billions spent and the national security fallout that has reordered the political dynamics in the Middle East.

Ask senators what they think about the deal Trump struck to end the war, and they do not search too far for words.

“Pathetic. Failure. Inevitable conclusion of a combination of never making the case to the American people, flawed strategic vision, lack of grasp of the regional dynamics,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“How many ways, can I say, bad, bad, bad?”

Many Republicans too have been critical. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said it’s hard to see what leverage the U.S. gained to force Iran to a better negotiation.

“You want to be able to give the benefit of the doubt,” she said. But, she said, “I think we’re in a place where there is a deal that has been signed, but it doesn’t appear to me that it puts us in that much of a different position than prior to the beginning of the war.”

Others in the GOP remain supportive of Trump’s efforts. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a past chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said that because of the president’s actions, “We are safer today.”

“You can criticize — oh, he didn’t totally win,” Johnson said. “Well, that was always going to be very difficult.”

As Trump moves on to the next phase, it is left to the Congress to pick up the pieces: explaining the war to voters back home, restocking the military arsenal that has run low from bombing runs and trying to ensure the fragile ceasefire holds as the United States seeks to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and work toward an uneasy peace.

More money for the Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the rounds on Capitol Hill last week as lawmakers consider Pentagon funding as part of the Republican majority’s next big budget package.

The White House has asked for a remarkable $1.5 trillion for the Defense Department this year, on top of the extra money the GOP delivered as part of the Trump’s tax cuts package last year.

Republicans are considering a sizable, $350-billion-plus increase in Defense spending on par with the White House’s budget request that the GOP could pass on its own, through the reconciliation process that allows Senate majority rule over potential objections from Democrats.

Senators, meanwhile, are seeking to set some guardrails on Hegseth with a provision to block a portion of his travel fund until the Pentagon delivers various reports. One such report is on an investigation into the strike on an elementary school in Iran that killed more than 165 people on the first day of the war, most of them children.

Officials have acknowledged that they believe the U.S. was responsible for the strike and say it was based on faulty intelligence.

What’s next in Iran?

Lawmakers are still processing what just happened after Trump swiftly signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran and opened a window of 60-day talks toward ending Tehran’s nuclear program, which got underway Sunday in Switzerland.

“I understand the president’s trying to find a peaceful solution to this,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who serves on the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees. “I commend him for that. But we’ve got a lot of questions.”

Senators are particularly concerned about the tentative deal’s provision for a potential $300-billion fund for the “reconstruction and economic development” of Iran.

To many skeptical Republicans, that money sounds similar to the “planeloads of cash” narrative they used against the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which offered a slim fraction of that amount, some $1.7 billion overall. To this day, Trump tells an exaggerated story of how that payment to Iran, for U.S. military equipment it never received, was made.

“The only concerns I have are the money and the conditions,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).

“If we send a trainload, a shipload, it’s gonna age as well as that,” he said, referring to the Obama-era issue.

What was gained and lost

Over and again Congress tried and failed to exert its authority under the war powers act to halt the U.S. military action in Iran.

The House ultimately passed a war powers resolution that sought to force an end to the war after a small number of Republicans joined the Democratic measure last month. The Senate has voted nine times, including last week, but failed to reach the majority needed.

At the same time, Congress did not affirmatively authorize the war with a use-of-force resolution, as has been done in certain other conflicts, including the Iraq war.

“I’m glad that the conflict has finally ended and hope the ceasefire holds,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

But she said the country must be clear-eyed about what has come about. Not one of the president’s objectives has been achieved, she said, and Iran won significant concessions.

“The American people are paying the price with higher costs in every aspect of life and tens of billions in tax dollars spent,” she said.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — More than $350 million from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has been quietly directed to White House security, an allotment that Democrats warn appears to be helping fund his new ballroom project — despite the president’s insistence that no taxpayer dollars would be used.

The apportionment of funds, which the White House’s Office of Management and Budget made late Friday, comes from two accounts that were intended to provide the U.S. Secret Service with extra money for hiring and training in the aftermath of last year’s assassination attempts on the president, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The shift was made days after Congress rejected a $1-billion request for the White House in a Homeland Security bill that Trump signed into law and as the ballroom project is tangled in legal challenges.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel initially drafted the security funding, said Thursday he was unaware of the allocations.

“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley (R-Iowa). “And that’s what the country expects.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, charged that Trump’s actions are potentially illegal.

“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.

“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley said. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”

Ballroom project hits setbacks

Trump has faced setbacks in his attempts to build the ballroom on the White House grounds, where he ordered the demolition of the storied East Wing to make way for it.

Touring the construction site last month, Trump called the development a “gift” to the American people. He has repeatedly said that it is being paid for by donations — which has also run into ethics questions from watchdogs concerned about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

Congress refused the Trump administration’s request for $1 billion for the ballroom last month. The administration wanted the money as part of a Homeland Security bill, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers rejected efforts to tack it on. It became politically toxic at a time when Americans are reeling from inflationary high costs of living.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the price tag for the project has ballooned to $600 million, according to a project summary prepared by the contractor, with more than half of that funding coming from taxpayers. Roll Call first reported on the apportionment of new funds for White House security.

At its core, arguments are swirling over how much of the White House project is to bolster security underground, with bomb shelters and a medical facility, and how much of the costs are related to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom on top.

White House says Trump and donors are paying for the ballroom

A spokesman for the White House said that Trump and donors are funding some $400 million for the ballroom development, and that the coordination with the Secret Service had been noted in the initial announcement of the project.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” said White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle in a statement.

He said the events over the past weekend, including an alleged attack plan targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, proves why the project is needed.

“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.

Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones and missiles.

The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the White House’s $1-billion request would go to harden the ballroom addition, with bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other systems.

The rest of the money would go for other security improvements, according to a document provided to Senate Republicans, including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” White House visitors screening facility.

Congress holds power of the purse

The shifting funds are certain to ignite growing concerns in Congress over the separation of powers, and the president’s use of federal funds allocated by lawmakers.

The money comes from Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that the president signed into law last summer. It provided more than $1 billion for Secret Service resources, including “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”

The provision was uncontested at the time, even as Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats said they did not challenge this section or try to strip it out from the package.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the specific authority to allocate funds across the federal government, including the executive and judicial branch operations.

While the president holds the power to sign — or veto — those appropriation bills, once the funding becomes law, it largely must stand.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Lawmakers and pro-Israel groups have issued calls for United States President Donald Trump to ask Congress to review a recent memorandum of understanding (MoU) designed to end the US-Israeli war with Iran.

They cite the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) as a precedent. Passed in 2015, the law says any agreements with Iran related to its nuclear programme must be submitted to Congress for review and a possible vote of disapproval.

The act came into effect when former US President Barack Obama was negotiating the now-defunct Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, and it remains on the books today.

US Senator Lindsey Graham was among the first lawmakers to invoke the act after this week’s memo was announced.

“Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote. I look forward to reviewing the final product,” Graham, a longtime Iran hawk, wrote in a social media post on Sunday.

Critics, including some Democrats and pro-peace groups, have questioned the newfound interest in Congress asserting its powers, after Republicans repeatedly flouted the legislature’s authority during the war itself.

Some see the push as an effort to give the memorandum greater legitimacy, as Trump comes under fire for its terms. Others question whether Iran hawks are invoking INARA to push for a return to war.

Here’s what to know about the debate:

What does the law say?

INARA creates requirements for any agreement between the US and Iran “related to the nuclear program of Iran”, no matter “the form it takes” or whether the agreement is legally binding.

Ahead of its passage in 2015, it was championed by bipartisan opponents of the JCPOA. That deal, which saw Tehran curtail its nuclear programme and submit to regular inspections in exchange for sanctions relief, was subsequently subject to provisions of the law.

The law requires the president to submit the text of any agreement he strikes with Iran to Congress within five days, along with any related materials. That triggers a 30-day approval period.

During that period, members of Congress can choose to pass a joint resolution of disapproval to scuttle the deal.

Still, such a resolution would be subject to the presidential veto. A successful disapproval resolution would therefore require a two-third majority from both chambers to override any vetoes, an extremely high bar.

During the congressional review period, the president “may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to [the] agreement”, the law states.

Those terms could limit this week’s memorandum, as it includes sanctions relief for Iran.

Does INARA apply to the memorandum of understanding?

Trump has suggested he was open to sending the US-Iran memorandum to Congress, telling reporters earlier this week: “I like the idea. I mean, who wouldn’t approve it?”

But his administration has not yet done so. Administration officials have also not articulated a stance on whether or not they believes the memo is subject to the law. Trump, after all, has frequently denied needing congressional approval for his actions against Iran.

This week’s memorandum opens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts the US blockade on Iran’s ports, and halts fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

It also immediately lifts US sanctions on Iran’s fossil fuel industry, while launching negotiations on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, among other issues.

As part of the deal, both countries agree to maintain their nuclear “status quo” during ongoing negotiations, and Iran commits to diluting its highly enriched uranium “on site”, with details to be determined during the negotiations.

While Trump has yet to acknowledge INARA’s authority, legal experts from across the ideological spectrum have argued that his memorandum is subject to the law.

Tess Bridgeman, a legal adviser for the Obama White House, wrote that the law applies to “this new MoU, and any future final agreement that might be negotiated in the coming months”.

But in an article published in the policy forum Just Security, she argues that INARA should be repealed, so as to not impede the ongoing diplomacy.

“INARA was never an appropriate way for Congress to engage on Iran’s nuclear program, and that is even more true today,” Bridgeman wrote.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, also believes that the memorandum should trigger an INARA review.

He also notes that Trump’s commitment to “immediately” lift sanctions on Iran’s oil industry appears to run afoul of INARA.

“I don’t think the president has the authority under domestic law to issue these waivers,” Goldsmith wrote on the Executive Functions website.

Still, he anticipates that neither Congress nor the judicial branch will confront Trump over the issue.

Will Trump comply with the law?

Trump’s second term has been defined by a broad interpretation of presidential power.

His administration has previously flouted the US Constitution’s provision that Congress alone has the power to declare war.

Trump has maintained that Iran represented an “imminent threat” to the US, which allowed him to launch defensive strikes without congressional approval.

Administration officials have also argued that the president is not beholden to the legal requirement that he gain congressional approval within 60 days of launching an attack. The war, which started on February 28, has lasted nearly three and a half months.

In an interview with the news outlet Axios on Thursday, Trump mused that the war taught him there are “no limits” to his power as president.

It remains unclear if Trump will change course and embrace the congressional collaboration required for diplomacy under INARA.

In her article, Bridgeman argued that Trump could flout the law in whole or in part, particularly when it comes to the immediate sanctions relief, because his party controls Congress.

Goldsmith, meanwhile, pointed out that the administration could also try to argue that the memorandum only sets out terms to reach an eventual agreement and is not an agreement itself.

While Goldsmith believes that argument is faulty, he noted that “it’s doubtful that any institution will make the president comply with INARA”.

A newfound interest in congressional oversight?

Several pro-Israel groups, including The Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), have been among the loudest voices calling for congressional involvement in the deal.

Since the outset of the war, JINSA defended Trump’s claims that Iran represented an “imminent threat” to the US, thereby granting him authority to attack without congressional approval.

However, the group also called on Congress to pass an Authorisation for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to bolster his actions.

Congress, however, has repeatedly sought and failed to re-assert over its authority to send the US to war.

Since February, several war powers resolutions have been introduced to halt US action against Iran and force Trump to engage with Congress.

Initially, several Democrats backed by AIPAC, including Senator John Fetterman, Representative Jared Moskowitz and Representative Josh Gottheimer, broke from the party to oppose those efforts.

Moskowitz and Gottheimer eventually shifted their stances in March to vote in favour of one of the resolutions. But Congress has yet to pass a bill with enough votes to overcome an eventual Trump veto.

Meanwhile, Republicans in both the House and Senate chose to ignore a 60-day deadline in May that legally required Trump to get congressional approval for continued military operations — or stop fighting.

In a statement on Friday, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen characterised the Republican embrace of INARA as evidence of hypocrisy.

“Republican senators who were AWOL [absent without leave] regarding their constitutional duties around STARTING the war against Iran all of a sudden demand that Congress play a role in STOPPING the war,” he wrote.

“A whole lot of warmongering going on.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee believes that the U.S. Air Force is currently unable to support combat search and rescue (CSAR) operations “in a major contingency.” Legislators say they are concerned about the CSAR force structure after the Air Force trimmed its buy of HH-60W Jolly Green II helicopters and also elected to transfer some of these aircraft to the so-called Air Force District of Washington (AFDW) mission set, as you can read about here. This comes on top of concerns that the HH-60W fleet isn’t well suited for the realities of a war in the Pacific while no better solution is being sought.

The Senate Armed Services Committee released a full copy of the proposed legislation earlier this week. In this, it states that it is “concerned about CSAR force structure” in the Air Force.

Up close with the HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopter at Nellis AFB for The War Zone.

The importance of the Air Force CSAR mission, and the role of the HH-60W specifically, was underscored earlier this year when the type took part in efforts to rescue the crew of an F-15E Strike Eagle shot down in Iran.

Now, the committee points to the Air Force’s decision to truncate its buy of heavily modified HH-60Ws, followed by the transfer of 26 of these from CSAR units to the AFDW to replace UH-1N Twin Huey helicopters. AFDW uses these helicopters to support continuity of government plans, contingency response, homeland operations, and ceremonial honors in the National Capital Region. Under normal circumstances, the vast majority of AFDW missions involve VIP movements.

“The committee believes that these actions have left CSAR forces unnecessarily short of the forces needed to support CSAR operations in a major contingency,” the legislators say. The committee has now called upon the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a study of CSAR requirements and capabilities, including HH-60Ws and HC-130J Combat King IIs, and provide a report briefing to Congress before the end of March 2027.

Until that study is completed, the committee has called upon the Secretary of the Air Force to avoid making any more changes in CSAR force structure.

The Air Force had once planned to replace its AFDW UH-1Ns with new MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters, but revealed last year it was considering using HH-60Ws for this role instead. The Air Force’s proposed budget for the 2027 Fiscal Year confirmed that it was moving ahead with these plans.

As we have discussed in the past, the HH-60W will bring a substantial increase in speed, range, and payload capacity compared with the aging UH-1Ns now flying AFDW missions, while also outperforming the smaller, lighter MH-139 in each of those key metrics.

The Air Force’s current plan calls for development of the HH-60W AFDW variant to begin in Fiscal Year 2027, starting October 1, with the first aircraft entering modification the following fiscal year. Those reconfigured Jolly Green IIs would then begin replacing the increasingly outdated UH-1Ns assigned to the AFDW mission at Andrews Air Force Base (now part of Joint Base Andrews).

TWZ had previously raised the question of how the transfer of 26 HH-60Ws for the AFDW role might affect the operational capacity of the rest of the CSAR-focused fleet.

In particular, the Air Force has no plans to procure additional Jolly Green IIs despite the upcoming transfer.

As the Senate Armed Services Committee points out, the Air Force already decided to scale back HH-60W purchases, from an original program of record for 113 of the helicopters. The total planned fleet now stands at 91. This amounts to the CSAR fleet losing roughly 30 percent of its entire Jolly Green II fleet, the first of which began entering Air Force service in 2022.

The legislators point to the ongoing demand for CSAR capabilities, not just in lower-end conflicts such as the war with Iran, but especially in potential future high-end fights, such as one between the United States and China in the Pacific, where aircrew losses would be greater by an order of magnitude.

For years, TWZ has warned that the growing reach and sophistication of modern air defenses are calling into question the viability of traditional fixed-wing and helicopter CSAR missions. In a high-end conflict, especially against China in the Pacific, even stealth aircraft are expected to face significant risks inside contested airspace. The idea that a Black Hawk helicopter, no matter what is bolted onto it, is going to survive in that same environment is highly questionable, and that’s if it can even reach the rescue point at all. The distances involved in the Pacific are far greater than those in Europe or the Middle East, which the legacy CSAR fleet was largely optimized around.

Back in 2023, one of the Air Force’s senior procurement officers asserted that the HH-60W fleet would not be “particularly helpful in the Chinese area of operations” due to these reasons. The Air Force’s cuts to planned purchases of HH-60Ws reflected this reality, while other senior officials have acknowledged that the service will need to rethink how it carries out this critical mission in future wars. The issue is that the cuts didn’t result in other capabilities taking the HH-60W’s place, like uncrewed systems and tiltrotors. So now there is an emerging gap in CSAR capabilities, both in terms of new ones more aligned with the challenges of the Pacific and just any kind of CSAR capability at all. Turning a large portion of the HH-60W fleet into VIP transports certainly doesn’t help with problem.

For the time being, at least, the Air Force is heavily reliant upon its HH-60Ws, regardless of potential vulnerabilities. With orders for the Jolly Green II slashed, and more than two dozen examples slated to switch to another mission, it is perhaps not surprising that legislators want to know how the Air Force will be able to conduct CSAR in the future.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

WASHINGTON — The 101st Congress convened its second session today, facing an agenda suddenly expanded by the emergence of democracy in Eastern Europe and a plan to cut Social Security taxes at home.

Lingering issues also abound, including child care, capital-gains taxes and deficit reduction.

Not waiting for President Bush to send up his own budget and legislative proposals, the Senate almost immediately began debating a far-reaching plan for cleaning up the air–a bill that is more costly and more sweeping than the President wants. Opposition is based more on geography and competing regional interests than on party lines.

The first day of the session was marked by friendly reunions. Rep. Jack Brooks (D-Tex.) told colleagues he’d nearly died of a pancreas ailment during the long break, and he accepted hugs and applause on the House floor.

Outside, a half dozen House members arrived on bicycles after a two-block trip from a congressional office building to call attention to plans for Earth Day in the spring.

On a more substantive matter, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) formally introduced a bill to reduce Social Security taxes–an idea that prompted a full-scale White House attack when he proposed it last month. Moynihan says workers are being deceived because their Social Security taxes are being used to make the federal deficit appear far smaller than it is.

“These are insurance contributions, they are premiums paid,” Moynihan told a news conference. “They do not belong to the government. If we are not going to save them, we should return them.”

His bill, which has drawn widespread interest but few sponsors, would roll back the tax increase that took effect Jan. 1 and reduce another scheduled for next year. That would save a worker with income over $51,300 about $600 and leave the Social Security system with just enough money to pay retirees’ checks, Moynihan said.

The Bush Administration says such cuts would lead to reductions in benefits or to efforts to raise other taxes.

Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), a member of the Budget Committee, did what is seldom done in Congress these days: He introduced a bill proposing a tax increase. He recommended a 5% national sales tax that would exempt food, health care and housing.

Concerned with Ukraine’s ability to protect itself from the onslaught of Russian missile and drone attacks, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) is demanding to know if the Pentagon can increase deliveries of Patriot air defense system interceptors to that war-torn nation. This comes against the backdrop of extreme U.S. and allied demand on dwindling supplies of these weapons. 

As we have previously noted, between U.S. usage in recent Middle East conflicts and commitments to Ukraine and nearly 20 other nations, there have long been concerns about the supply of Patriot interceptors. Still, the Pentagon has maintained that it has sufficient supplies.

It is hard to say precisely how many Patriot interceptors remain in Ukraine’s stockpile, The New York Times recently noted. 

“The number is classified. At the end of June last year, there were as few as 16 in Ukraine’s arsenal,” the publication stated. Given the low supplies and constant Russian bombardment, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has frequently requested additional interceptors from the U.S. and allies.

SASC said it “recognizes the importance of Patriot air defense systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors in supporting Ukraine’s self-defense and notes continued concerns regarding interceptor availability, production capacity, and the impact of transfers on United States military readiness.”

“Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to submit a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than October 1, 2026, assessing the feasibility of increasing deliveries of PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine,” its directive states.

We have reached out to the committee to find out which variant of the PAC-3 they are referring to. Lockheed Martin is boosting production of the more advanced current-generation Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors and it is unclear how many of the other variants are still being made or are in U.S. stockpiles.

SASC wants the following information from the Pentagon:

• “An assessment of current and projected Ukrainian requirements for PAC-3 interceptors over the next 12 months;”

• “An assessment of the availability of PAC-3 interceptors from existing Department of Defense inventories for transfer to Ukraine and the impact of such transfers on United States military readiness and operational plans;”

• “An evaluation of options to accelerate production of PAC-3 interceptors, including through multiyear procurement authorities, advance procurement, expanded supplier capacity, and other industrial-base investments;”

• “An assessment of the feasibility of increasing annual PAC-3 interceptor production and the anticipated timeline for achieving such increases;”

• “An identification of any statutory, regulatory, contractual, or supply-chain barriers to increasing interceptor deliveries to Ukraine;”

• “An assessment of opportunities for allied and partner nations operating Patriot systems to contribute additional PAC-3 interceptors to Ukraine, including options for United States backfill arrangements;” and

• “Recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that would enable increased interceptor deliveries to Ukraine while maintaining acceptable levels of U.S. military readiness.”

In addition, the committee said the secretary should “brief the congressional defense committees on the findings of the report, not later than 15 days after its submission.”

The Pentagon on Wednesday declined comment on the committee’s report, how many interceptors it has provided to Ukraine or whether it has the ability to increase that supply. We have reached out to Lockheed Martin as well and are awaiting a response.

TWZ recently addressed the supply of these munitions in a story about a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The report, on the severity of the depletion of U.S. advanced weapons stockpiles, found that current production PAC-3 MSE “is around the baseline rate of 650 interceptors per year, with half the deliveries going to the United States and the rest to allies and partners.” 

Under a contract with the Pentagon inked in January, Lockheed is committed to boosting Patriot annual production to 2,000.

“Because U.S. procurement in the last decade has averaged 225 missiles per year, deliveries from prior years will not be enough to fully replace expenditures,” CSIS cautioned. “For that, the United States will need to wait for the 3,203 Patriot missiles requested in the Army’s FY 2027 budget. These are projected to start delivery in May 2029.”

As we noted earlier in this story, in addition to the Patriot interceptors already provided to Ukraine, the U.S. used a large amount during the conflict with Iran defending its assets, as well as those of allies.

The CSIS report found that at the start of the war with Iran, “there were about 2,500 Patriot interceptors in the U.S. inventory,” though its accompanying chart does not specify which variant. “During the course of the conflict, between 1,060 and 1,430 Patriots were fired.” We don’t know what that tally includes, but we do know that PAC-2 and PAC-3 series interceptors have been employed in the latest conflict with Iran.

Adding to questions about the ability to supply Ukraine with more Patriots, a top official from Lockheed Martin recently warned that the company cannot give U.S. allies any certainty over when they will receive interceptors despite plans to triple capacity, according to Financial Times.

Brian Dunn, vice president for strategy and business development of missiles and fire control, recently said that the company was working hard to scale up production of critical PAC-3 interceptor missiles amid a supply crunch exacerbated by the war in Iran. 

But in remarks to journalists at the ILA Berlin Air Show, “he sent a sobering message to American allies including Germany, Japan, Poland, the UAE and Saudi Arabia that operate the Patriot air defense system,” the publication reported.

Dunn said the extra capacity “is obviously going to be able to satisfy multiple user requirements in a faster timeline.” However, he added that Lockheed Martin does not “control what the allocation of those missiles is going to be. We can’t tell anybody where you’re going to be on that [priority list].

“Obviously there’s a lot of rhetoric coming right now from the Department of War . . . about how they’re going to reorder, reorganize, who’s going to get missiles first,” he continued. “We don’t control any of that.”

Dunn’s statements highlight concerns we raised long before and during Operation Epic Fury about the rapid expenditure of critical munitions and how that could affect a potential future fight against China. It also goes along with our reporting about the overall inadequacy of the U.S. Patriot force, an issue we have been highlighting for years.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the influx of new Patriot interceptors cannot come soon enough. Two nights ago, for instance, Russian forces launched 70 missiles and over 600 drones in a mass assault, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“Of the 34 ballistic missiles fired, 19 were aimed at the capital,” the publication noted.

You can see a video of one of those strikes below.

“Kyiv’s beleaguered Patriot batteries did a valiant job, intercepting 15 of them, along with five of the six 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles launched in the attack,” the news outlet added. “Still, even layered defenses were stretched beyond the limit.”

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France — President Trump said Wednesday that he was delaying federal prosecutor Jay Clayton’s nomination to lead the U.S. intelligence community in a bid to force Congress to act on a voter ID bill that currently lacks enough support for passage.

The Republican president said in a social media post just hours before Clayton’s scheduled confirmation hearing that he will keep Bill Pulte, a top U.S. housing official, as acting director of national intelligence. Democratic and Republican lawmakers had opposed Trump’s selection of Pulte, citing his lack of known experience in intelligence and his use of his current administration perch to target perceived adversaries of the president — resistance that last week forced Trump to turn to Clayton.

The abrupt announcement creates instant uncertainty over the long-term leadership of the 18-agency intelligence community and dashes hopes for a swift renewal of a crucial surveillance program that expired in Congress last week due to bipartisan anger over Trump’s pick of Pulte.

That tool, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, permits spy agencies to collect without a warrant the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the United States. National security officials across both major political parties have for years described Section 702 as vital for gathering intelligence that can disrupt terror attacks and espionage operations, though some lawmakers and civil liberties advocates have raised concerns over the government’s use of information about Americans that is incidentally collected through the program.

Clayton had been set to appear on Wednesday for a Senate confirmation hearing that was fast-tracked because of the program’s lapse. Democrats had said they would not renew the expired surveillance programs until Trump withdrew the selection of Pulte.

Trump’s post suggests that debate to revive Section 702 could be indefinitely postponed. Lawmakers have sounded the alarm about the government operating without congressional authorization of the powerful spy tool.

A court order from last March certified that the program could continue for another 12 months, though it’s possible that communications companies could challenge the government’s authority to force them to cooperate and share data.

In his social media post, Trump accused Democrats of breaking a deal to renew the program after he nominated Clayton. Trump also said he does not want to remove Clayton from his current position as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York before his replacement, James McDonald, is approved. McDonald was named to the Justice Department post on Saturday.

And Trump added another condition: linking his approval of the surveillance program to the passage of a bill requiring people to show ID to vote.

“Therefore, to add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said, using the acronym for the surveillance program and his name for the voter ID bill.

The Republican-controlled Congress has not acted on the voting bill because it does not have enough support in either chamber, particularly from Democrats.

Trump made the announcement in Evian-les-Bains, France, where he was participating in the final day of the Group of Seven summit of leading industrial economies.

The intelligence director position became available after Tulsi Gabbard, who had held the job, announced last month that she was resigning to spend time with her husband as he fights cancer.

Clayton, a chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, has spent the last 14 months as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, one of the Justice Department’s premier posts.

His office during that time facilitated the unsealing of thousands of pages of court records from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, documents that were made public as part of the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late sex offender and his longtime confidant.

Clayton has also overseen the prosecution of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, on drug trafficking charges.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Maxwell was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein but insists she’s innocent. Maduro and his wife have protested their capture and said they’re not guilty.

Madhani, Superville, Tucker and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Superville reported from Geneva. Tucker and Jalonick reported from Washington.

Today, we discuss political jockeying, litigation and Hail Mary passes.

There’s so much going on these days …

Indeed.

Between the war with Iran, the World Cup and President Trump slapping his filigreed (emphasis greed) name on everything in sight, I’ve completely lost track of the fight for control of Congress.

Well, now that the California gubernatorial primary is in the rear view, let’s catch up. The midterm election is not until November, of course. But a fierce political competition, aimed at skewing the result, has been underway since last summer.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It started in Texas, where Trump strong-armed Republican lawmakers into redrawing their congressional map in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House. That led California voters to pass an eye-for-an-eye measure aimed at boosting Democratic prospects.

Other states joined the skirmishing, capped by Virginia, where voters in April approved new political lines aimed at netting Democrats as many as four additional seats.

For a short time, it looked as though Trump’s move had backfired and Democrats might actually come out ahead, at least on paper, by a seat or two.

And then?

And then the courts stepped in.

In a 4-3 decision in May, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s new congressional map, ruling that the Democratic-run legislature had violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional measure on the ballot.

But the more significant legal decision came a week prior, when the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act, freeing several Southern states to hastily redraw a number of congressional districts to Republicans’ advantage.

What’s the bottom line?

It looks as though the GOP has come out ahead, but not by more than a handful of seats, give or take. It’s important to note that all that cartographic competition offers no guarantee of success.

“Cartographic competition?”

Those gerrymandered maps were drawn for the express purpose of helping out one party or the other, but the partisan manipulation doesn’t make all those redrawn districts a lock come November.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation calling for a special election to redraw the state’s congressional map

(Godofredo A. Vasquez / Associated Press)

In California, for instance, the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao — a perennial Democratic target — remains highly competitive. In Texas, GOP lawmakers redrew their map assuming the substantial Latino support that Trump enjoyed in 2024 would carry over to Republican candidates in this year’s midterm election. That seems increasingly less likely, given shifting Latino attitudes, which means at least two of those redrawn Texas seats are more competitive than Republicans would like.

Bottom line, where does that leave things in the fight for control of the House?

There are no certainties …

… Beyond death and taxes. Understood.

It still seems more likely than not that Democrats will win the House in November.

They just need to gain three seats. Going back more than half a century, the out party (which is to say the one not in the White House) has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in the midterm election. So Democrats have that going for them.

President Trump kicked off a redistricting battle by strong-arming Texas into redrawing its congressional map.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Also, more significantly, Trump’s approval ratings — in a word — stink. There’s a very strong correlation between a president’s standing in polls and his party’s performance, given midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the party in the White House. Since disgruntled voters are more likely to turn out, that means the out party typically gains seats.

“It would be one thing if Republicans were trying to buck a historical trend and they were doing so strengthened by a popular Republican president,” said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with the authoritative nonpartisan political guide Inside Elections. “But that’s simply not the case. … [Trump] is less popular than any president heading into a midterm election in a very long time.”

What about control of the Senate?

Advantage Republicans.

How so?

Part of it is straight-up math. Democrats need to flip four seats. There are 35 Senate races being decided this fall, but only 10 or so are even remotely competitive. Nearly all are in states that Trump carried.

That said, things are looking up considerably for Democrats from where they were a few months ago.

Oh?

There’s much less correlation between presidential approval and the outcome of Senate races. Still, Trump is putting up some pretty strong headwinds that Republicans will have to overcome this fall, including in battleground states such as Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. (His gaseous effusions — “I love the inflation,” “Affordability is a con job” — are not helpful, to put it mildly, when gasoline and hamburger are costing hard-pressed voters an arm and a leg, respectively.)

And Democrats have done about as well as they could have hoped in landing their preferred candidates in the Republican-leaning states of Alaska, Ohio and Iowa, making those contests far more competitive than they would have been.

What about Maine?

That started out as Democrats’ top target this election cycle. Five-term incumbent Susan Collins has the distinction of being the only Republican senator running in a state that Kamala Harris won. The race is still considered a toss-up.

But the nomination of Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran with a history that is, um, problematic — a tattoo resembling a Nazi SS symbol he did or did not apprehend; extramarital sexting; coarse online commentary — could turn the race into more of a referendum on the Democrat than either Trump or Collins.

And Texas?

You mean the boneyard of Democratic dreams?

It’s been decades since the party won a statewide race in Texas, despite all manner of attempts. (The “dream team” of a white/Black/Latino slate; the streaking-comet candidacies of Beto O’Rourke and Wendy Davis, who both flamed out short of victory.)

Democrats are giddy again, this time over 37-year-old state Sen. James Talarico, who’s built a national following with his telegenic, Christian-infused progressive platform. More pertinent, he’s running against a singularly flawed Republican nominee, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose dubious resume is muddied with a felony indictment, impeachment by the GOP-run Texas House and allegations of repeated adultery.

Still, it’s Texas. Electing Talarico would be like connecting on one of those last-second, desperation, alley-oop passes in the end zone. Not impossible.

But don’t bet the ranch.

WASHINGTON — As Spencer Pratt fell behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, an unexpected group began claiming election fraud: people tracking the Republican’s success on prediction markets, the increasingly popular online exchanges on which people can make bets on almost anything.

“Crazy how much voter fraud can be done with mail in ballots,” one user following bets on the mayoral race wrote last week on Kalshi, one of the top trading platforms.

“Same old California fraud,” said another who had bet that Pratt would win.

Election fraud claims extended to social media, where a handful of influencers who post content for prediction market platforms questioned the ballot count. “It’s a dead heat on Kalshi,” one user wrote on social media. “Is CA cheating to get Spencer Pratt out?”

Kalshi told the influencers to delete the posts, which violated company guidelines. Polymarket, the other leading platform, directed them to remove the paid partnership label from those posts.

The amplification of election misinformation by users who had money staked on the mayoral race adds a new twist to evolving scrutiny of prediction markets, and scholars say the ability to bet on elections broadly raises questions about whether the exchanges could alter how Americans engage in democracy.

“Elections are not a game,” said Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “[If market] probabilities begin influencing donor decisions, media attention, the energy around [campaign] volunteers — at that point, markets aren’t just observing the election. They’re a part of it.”

Fans of the exchanges say they are powerful tools that can help decision makers, and company leaders have touted them as highly accurate predictors that can act as an antidote to misinformation and provide election insights.

“By shifting focus from ‘what people say’ to ‘where they put their money,’ and filtering out social media noise and pundit bias, we are providing a level of clarity and predictive power that cannot be matched,” said Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever .

But these markets’ rapid rise has also raised a host of questions among members of Congress, state lawmakers and others — about betting on elections, wars and other political events, about potential insider trading, and about whether the platforms should be left to self-regulate. Some states are also in legal battles with the federal government over whether the activity amounts to gambling, which they seek to regulate.

“It’s like we’re in the 1930s with financial markets — we have some things that we want to regulate and restrict [as a country], and we’re sort of in the early stages of trying to lay out what the rules are,” said Koleman Strumpf, an economist at Wake Forest University.

Concerns about insider trading

The discourse around the Los Angeles mayoral race was the latest to raise questions at the intersection of prediction markets and politics. Earlier this year, an Army soldier was indicted after allegedly using his knowledge of the planned U.S. operation to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to make bets on it, winning more than $400,000. He has pleaded not guilty.

Around the same time, several anonymous users reportedly earned $2.4 million combined by making remarkably prescient bets on the Iran war, prompting concern in Congress about insider trading. And during the primary elections, Kalshi fined a few politicians for betting on themselves, while the Justice Department began investigating a former congressman on similar charges.

Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara speaks at a conference in Santa Monica, Calif., in April.

(Anna Webber / Inc.)

The episodes set off a debate in Washington. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee opened an investigation into potential insider trading, and a bipartisan group in Congress has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to put up guardrails. It remains unclear whether any will pass this session.

The chatter in Congress appeared to lead the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which regulates prediction markets, to propose a new framework last week to govern issues raised by lawmakers, such as potential betting on wars. Commission Chair Mike Selig said the proposal would allow for scrutiny of suspicious activity “while letting legitimate markets move forward pursuant to the public interest.”

The markets commission under former President Biden was viewed as somewhat skeptical of prediction markets; the agency under President Trump — whose eldest son holds advisory positions at both Polymarket and Kalshi — has been seen as more favorable to the industry. The federal government has sued several states over their attempts to regulate the markets under state laws banning sports gambling and other measures.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has introduced legislation on the topic, said the agency’s framework would benefit the industry at the expense of the public interest.

The agency lacks “the leadership, will and investigative staff needed to confront the dangers of election misinformation, insider trading, and more,” Schiff said, “and seems content to allow the industry to police itself.”

Making bets

As California’s primary neared, people staked their dollars on the state’s races in droves. On Kalshi, trading volume on one contract about who will win the L.A. mayoral race in November had reached more than $117 million as of Tuesday.

Prediction market users trade on the outcome of future events, making money if they’re correct and losing money if they’re wrong. Someone can purchase a contract on the prediction that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass will win in November, a yes contract, or on the prediction that she will lose, a no contract.

On Tuesday, Bass contracts on Kalshi were selling at 63 cents each for yes and 38 cents for no, meaning the market was forecasting a 63% chance of her winning. Users receive $1 per contract if their prediction is correct, creating a profit on their initial investment.

Prediction markets generally create more accurate forecasts than political polls, according to Strumpf, whose research has examined 30 years of prediction markets in various forms.

Many of the issues critics raise are theoretical and have not been seen in practice, Strumpf said. By his analysis, there is no evidence that the markets have ever influenced an election outcome. He said serious traders tend to do extensive research in order to make money, meaning their bets are educated.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano), who has introduced legislation to prohibit event contracts involving terrorism, war, assassination and deaths, said the platforms may be useful in some cases but shouldn’t be left to police themselves. He said he’s concerned that the markets create “all the wrong incentives” for people, including political candidates and officials, to abuse inside knowledge.

“I don’t trust them to self-regulate at all,” Levin said of the companies. “The federal role should be guardrails that are reasonable and pragmatic.”

‘The sanctity of our elections’

Skeptics’ concerns regarding elections largely center around the markets’ introduction of a new way for money to potentially influence politics.

They say the desire to elevate a candidate’s market odds could create an incentive for market manipulation, and they worry that the votes of Americans using the market could be influenced by their desire to profit.

“This has real impacts for the sanctity of our elections,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who raised concerns about how prediction markets could impact the democratic process in a March letter to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. (California lawmakers are looking at the issue, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said, though none of the bills introduced this year have yet moved forward.)

The platforms create a potential new channel “for dark money to flow into our elections,” Krell said. “Specifically, someone who’s opposing or supporting a candidate could potentially use sites like Kalshi to elevate that candidate and impact the entire pool.”

The industry has endeavored to “get out in front” of concerns by creating their own policies aimed at preventing insider trading, market manipulation and other issues, said attorney Ronak D. Desai, partner and head of the congressional practice at the Washington law firm Paul Hastings.

Kalshi has a ban on those practices and has banned markets tied directly to death and war, Lever said. It also screens all new users and, in the first quarter of this year, blocked more than 100 potential insider trades and referred more than 20 cases to law enforcement.

In the case of the military member who bet on the United States’ operation in Venezuela, for instance, Polymarket caught the activity and referred the case to the Justice Department, a spokesperson said. The company has referred nearly 100 cases of suspicious activity to law enforcement, he said.

Election markets are not offered on Polymarket’s U.S. exchange — though users in the U.S. and other countries that ban the company’s international exchange are widely reported to access it using online tools.

“Polymarket prohibits trading based on stolen information, illegal tips, or information obtained in breach of a duty of trust, confidentiality, or other legal obligation,” the Polymarket spokesperson said in a statement.

Aaron Klein, senior fellow in the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution, predicted that pressure for further regulation would continue to mount.

“The top goal of a society is to have free and fair elections,” Klein said. “At a time in our nation’s history where people are doubting the integrity of elections and foreign governments are stoking those flames, we ought to be pretty careful.”

WASHINGTON — Dozens of House Democrats are asking the new director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to roll back a policy that they say hinders their ability to speak with detainees during oversight visits.

The new policy requires that lawmakers identify detainees by name at least two business days before a visit and provide a signed consent form from each detainee. It’s the latest point of conflict in an ongoing battle over when and how lawmakers can inspect immigration facilities.

In a letter Thursday to acting ICE Director David Venturella, Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano) and 77 other members of Congress, including two dozen from California, argued that they need to conduct constant oversight of immigration facilities because of historic levels of reports regarding the mistreatment of detainees, deaths in custody and substandard facility conditions.

“This Administration has enabled a revolving door of arbitrary policies, directives, and guidance on member access to facilities or on communication with detainees designed to hinder any productive oversight,” they wrote.

The letter was written in response to the new policy, which was outlined in a memo last month.

In the letter, Levin and the other members wrote that detainees have a hard time accessing the visitation form because it is at times unavailable at a detention center’s law library. They said it limits their ability to speak broadly with detainees, particularly those from vulnerable populations, such as the elderly.

Detainees previously used a sign-up sheet to meet with members of Congress or just started talking to detainees they encountered during facility tours.

In the memo outlining ICE’s new policy, then-acting director Todd Lyons said the increased visits by members of Congress have become a burden and a time suck. Homeland Security didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment, but previously said that the policy doesn’t prevent lawmakers from speaking with detainees.

Levin said the increase in visits was necessary because the agency slashed staffing of its oversight offices. The letter notes that for next fiscal year, the president requested additional cuts to the Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

“These actions, coupled with the constant changes to policies surrounding member access to facilities, reveal a clear attack on the levers that ensure government transparency at every level,” the members wrote.

Democratic House members sued the Trump administration last July after they were repeatedly denied access to immigrant detention facilities in California and across the country.

Homeland Security officials previously implemented a policy requiring lawmakers to give seven days’ notice before a visit, but that policy was temporarily blocked in federal court.

This week, lawyers said a Belizean man who helped organize hunger strikes at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center was moved to facilities out of state and scheduled to be deported after he spoke to three members of Congress about conditions at the detention center in San Bernardino County.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that he plans to nominate Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, as director of national intelligence.

Trump announced the nomination on social media amid pressure from Congress to name a permanent replacement for Tulsi Gabbard, who resigned last month. Trump faced intense pushback over his decision to name Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as acting director.

The situation has led to a standoff in Congress as Democrats said they would refuse to renew foreign intelligence powers unless Trump pulled Pulte’s nomination and named a permanent nominee.

“Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay,” Trump wrote. “I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible.”

June 9 (UPI) — An assistant of Jeffrey Epstein told members of the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday that she was unaware of his crimes but that he was a master manipulator.

Lesley Groff, Epstein’s then-executive assistant, told the committee that she believed the massage appointments she made for Epstein with young women and girls were with massage therapists, two sources told CNN. She said Epstein had every reason to keep his crimes secret from her.

Groff helped manage Epstein’s life, including making appointments with women, setting meetings with powerful people and arranging Epstein’s flights with the young women. She worked for Epstein for nearly 20 years, and her name was listed in the Epstein files more than 150,000 times.

Epstein, a billionaire financier and registered sex offender, died by suicide in prison in 2019.

Groff told the lawmakers that she wants to help and that since Epstein was arrested, she’s lost friends and her family has faced harassment.

Groff said Epstein didn’t sexually abuse her, one of the sources told CNN, and that she didn’t need the job. She said that Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell told her not to associate with their friends, and they insisted that their business was none of hers.

Survivors told a different story.

Sharlene Rochard was skeptical that Groff didn’t know about the crimes.

“One of the hardest parts for survivors is hearing the people who were closest to Epstein claim they saw nothing,” Rochard told CNN. “That doesn’t match my experience. Survivors deserve answers, not claims of ignorance.”

In a previous statement, Groff’s lawyer told CNN that she worked for Epstein as “part of a professional staff that included in-house attorneys, accountants and other office staff” and that her job included making appointments for Epstein, “taking his messages and setting up high-level meetings with CEOs, business executives, scientists, politicians, celebrities, charitable organizations and universities.”

Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., told MSNow that the panel has referred two names to the Department of Justice, though he didn’t identify them.

“I think the interviews that we’ve done have been very productive,” Comer told reporters on Tuesday morning.

“We’re bringing in the most important people in the whole Epstein criminal enterprise that are still alive, and hopefully we’ll get the proof to the American people that there’s an opportunity for accountability,” Comer said.

The committee is scheduled to interview Microsoft founder Bill Gates on Wednesday.

Republican Stephen Buyer was convicted and sentenced to 22 months in prison, though he has maintained his innocence.

United States President Donald Trump has issued a pardon to Stephen Buyer, a former Republican congressman from Indiana who served nearly two years in prison for making illegal stock trades based on inside information after he left office.

The pardon was dated Thursday and released by the White House late Friday night.

Buyer was sentenced to 22 months in prison in 2023 for trades made while working as a consultant and lobbyist. He was ordered to forfeit more than $350,000, representing the amount of the illegal gains, as well as pay a $10,000 fine. He was released in 2025.

The Supreme Court in May rejected Buyer’s appeal without comment or noted dissent.

In granting “a full, complete, and unconditional pardon” to Buyer, Trump cited the Republican’s work, both as a judge advocate general in the US Army and as a politician in the US House. Trump described his career as “distinguished and highly productive”.

Buyer said the pardon “corrects a politically motivated prosecution” and that it was “horrific to be imprisoned for a crime that I did not commit”. He maintains that he is innocent.

Trump used his Truth Social media platform on May 31 to share a pair of letters requesting a presidential pardon for Buyer, a lawyer and Gulf War veteran who left office in 2011.

He was a House prosecutor at Democratic President Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial, and in 2016, he served on Trump’s transition team, focusing on veterans’ issues.

A letter signed by more than 40 former Republicans in Congress said Buyer was “targeted by the deep state” because of his involvement in Clinton’s trial.

“Like you, Mr President, Steve has been the victim of lawfare conducted by the Biden Administration,” they wrote in the April 2025 letter.

A second letter, from five current House Republicans, said pardoning Buyer would bring justice to his case. The June 2025 letter was signed by Tom Cole of Oklahoma, Ken Calvert of California, Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, Jack Bergman of Michigan and Pete Sessions of Texas.

Buyer, 67, was convicted in connection with insider trading involving the $26.5bn merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, announced in April 2018, and illegal trades in the management consulting company Navigant when his client Guidehouse was set to acquire it in a deal publicly disclosed weeks later.

The US Constitution gives the president broad power to grant pardons for federal crimes.

A pardon does not erase a recipient’s criminal record but can be seen as an act of mercy or justice.

WASHINGTON — With virtually no strings attached, Congress is on the verge of providing a sizable infusion of cash to the Department of Homeland Security, powering President Trump’s mass deportation agenda for the remainder of his term in the White House.

The nearly $70-billion package, which cleared the Republican-held Senate in a middle of the night vote and now heads to the House, was declared a “rotten bill” by the Democratic leader and an “ATM for ICE” by pro-immigrant advocates.

But for those aligned with Trump’s campaign promise for the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, it all but guarantees an uninterrupted flow of money to carry out the administration’s immigration enforcement operations — and comes on top of some $170 billion Congress already approved for the department last summer, as part of Trump’s big tax breaks bill.

“We’re going to continue to arrest people, we’re going to continue to detain people and we’re going to keep deporting people,” Trump border advisor Tom Homan told CBS News on Friday.

He hinted at summer sweeps of enforcement actions coming next to New York City.

The work of Congress comes at a pivotal time for the Republican president and his party as they face restless voters before the midterm elections. About 1 in 3 U.S. adults know someone who has been affected by Trump’s immigration operations, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in April. And as America celebrates its 250th anniversary, most say it’s no longer a great place for immigrants.

The funding package from Congress is just a slim dozen-page bill that carries none of the usual guardrails or directives typically demanded in legislation. It turns loose $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, and billions for the Border Patrol, and others, prepaying the department’s operations into 2029.

“Their options are limitless in terms of what they can do with this money,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director at America’s Voice, a longtime advocacy organization for immigrants.

“That is such a hard thing to accept as a taxpaying citizen that our dollars are going to this massive, mass deportation machine, while Americans are struggling to meet healthcare costs, and have access to food and they’re paying so much in gas.”

The administration has sought to shift the debate over its immigration operations, installing new leadership at Homeland Security in the aftermath of violent scenes of immigration enforcement earlier this year and the shooting deaths of Americans Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Rather than the dramatic street sweeps, the administration is working behind the scenes on actions that are stripping immigrant groups of their ability to remain in the U.S., by doing away with Temporary Protected Status or making it more difficult to secure green cards.

The so-called Dreamers, young immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children, have reported delays in renewing their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, exposing them to potential deportation.

But protests on American streets continue, including over detention conditions at the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey.

At the same time, Homeland Security continues to hire more ICE agents — it’s hosting an employment fair next month in Florida — build more detention facilities and partner with countries around the world to take people who are being deported from the U.S.

In a statement, the department said Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are “laser focused on ensuring the hardworking men and women” of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol are fully funded. It said the package from Congress “will ensure our critical national security operations continue despite any Democrat attempts to hold our great patriotic employees hostage in the future.”

Typically a funding package from Congress would run hundreds pages or more, with a range of specific instructions about how the money can be spent and on what timelines.

Congress, after all, holds the power of the purse, and often uses that constitutional role to put checks on the administration.

But after Democrats refused to fund Homeland Security earlier this year following the violence in Minnesota, Republicans retaliated by using the congressional budget resolution process to muscle the package through on their own, outside the traditional appropriations channels.

It’s the same process both parties have used in the past, most recently on Trump’s 2025 tax cuts bill.

“All this important oversight doesn’t happen,” said Bobby Kogan, a former staff member of the Senate Budget Committee and now at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.

Overnight, Democrats in the Senate worked to exert that authority, offering amendments to ensure Congress had some say in the process. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, for example, sought to protect “Dreamers” from deportation as their DACA renewals are being delayed. But those efforts all failed.

Meanwhile the administration is under enormous pressure to deliver on its promise to boost deportations to some 1 million a year, after the Republican president’s first year numbers fell short.

Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, is a leader of the Mass Deportation Coalition that is pushing the Trump administration to stick to its promises.

“Everyone’s talking about it like ICE is about to get another massive cash injection, and that’s not how I see it at all,” he said. “They’re getting like life-support money.”

“We’re not asking them to keep going,” Howell said. “We’re asking them to start.”

Howell said there’s little chance the Trump administration will be able to reach the president’s deportation goals unless it drops its priority to go after what they call the “worst of the worst.”

His group put out a framework earlier this year that proposes more comprehensive sweeps to arrest immigrants, particularly in the workplace. He also wants to see the Trump administration make it more difficult for immigrants who are in the U.S. to use the banking system, get social services and obtain driver’s licenses. Republicans in Congress have offered bills tackling some of those issues.

The administration has been amping up its own rhetoric and recently posted a new website that characterizes immigrants as “aliens” — with outer-space themes — and suggests ways the White House is working to prevent people from staying in the U.S.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.