congress

Ethics experts sounded the alarm Wednesday after new financial disclosure reports revealed that President Trump’s income ballooned to $2.2 billion in 2025, with $1.4 billion coming from various new cryptocurrency-related businesses.

“It’s bribery. It’s graft. It’s exploitation of public power for private financial gain,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University and an expert in government ethics. “Trump has — with the acquiescence of a somnolent, GOP-controlled Congress and the active assistance of John Roberts’ Supreme Court — transformed the presidency into a massive corruption racket.”

Trump reported income of over $600 million in 2024. But after he entered the White House in 2025, he reported that his income had soared to more than $2.2 billion.

The 2025 annual disclosure report filed with the Office of Government Ethics shows that Trump ramped up his real estate business in countries across the globe, particularly in the Middle East, at a time when his government was negotiating over vital issues of military aid and economic tariffs. The president also expanded his dealings in the relatively new realm of cryptocurrency.

According to the 927-page report, Trump made $635 million in royalties from Celebration Coins and more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial crypto firm. He drew in millions from a raft of Trump-branded merchandise including God Bless the USA Bibles and sneakers depicting him with his hand raised in a fist. He also brought in $10.4 million from a property in the United Arab Emirates and $9 million from a property in Saudi Arabia.

Noah Bookbinder, an ethics expert and former president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a nonprofit watchdog group in Washington, described Trump’s business dealings while in the White House as “entirely unprecedented, certainly in modern history, but I think by most ways of measuring, in all of American history.”

“This is corruption,” Bookbinder said. “You have a president who has been quite transparently using the presidency in ways that benefit his business interests and intertwining the presidency and business interests.”

But the president and the White House brushed aside ethics concerns about the money Trump is making.

Trump told reporters Wednesday that he made a lot of money before he came to the White House, he had “big institutions” run his money, and that he had benefited, like every other American, as the stock market went up.

“We’re all profiting,” he said. “I’m profiting because I have a lot of money and a lot of cash.”

In a statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said: “Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest. … All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people.”

Although the report does not show exactly how much Trump is earning — it provides details of revenue, rather than profit — the scale of the president’s cryptocurrency dealings elevated ethics watchdogs’ long-standing concerns.

Jordan Libowitz, a vice president at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, said the most concerning detail of the new report is the hundreds of millions of dollars coming in from various crypto ventures partnered with companies that the American public knows little about.

“At a time when his own administration itself is setting regulation for these types of companies,” Libowitz said, “there’s just this massive opportunity for corruption when foreign governments and foreign nationals can pour tens of millions of dollars into the president’s pocket.”

As a real estate mogul, Trump has long invested in hotels, condominiums and golf courses. But cryptocurrency, Libowitz said, offers vastly more potential for corruption.

“There’s only so many hotel rooms you can book, so many rounds of golf, but there’s no limit with crypto,” Libowitz said. “You can just buy his meme coin and he gets a cut, so you kind of take out the middleman, but also the cap or the amount of money you can funnel to the president.”

Libowitz said it was also problematic for Trump to expand his real estate empire in foreign countries, particularly the Middle East.

“Now it seems that almost all his new developments are in foreign countries, and that opens up, if you’re building this giant resort, you’re going to need help from the local government, whether it’s tax breaks or utility issues, or building a road, or speeding up permits,” Libowitz said. “These are ways that foreign governments can do favors for the American president.”

In the half a century before Trump was elected, ethics experts say, presidents from Nixon to Obama publicly released their tax returns, sold properties or put the proceeds in a blind trust managed by someone they did not know.

“They weren’t doing it because they legally had to, but because they thought it was the right thing to do,” Libowitz said.

Ever since Trump was first elected in 2016 and opted to not sell his businesses or put them in blind trusts, ethics experts have urged Congress to impose more aggressive financial oversight over money in politics.

“Congress needs to update the law, and basically, mandate blind trusts and sale of assets and disclosure of tax returns,” Libowitz said.

Noting that the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause explicitly states that the president cannot accept things of value from foreign or domestic governments, ethics experts say Trump is flouting the law and Congress has chosen to not enforce it.

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said Congress needed to close loopholes that exempt presidents from federal conflict of interest laws as well as enforce the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

“Nobody holding a position of trust with the United States government can accept emoluments, profits and benefits from foreign governments, and that is flatly prohibited under the United States Constitution,” Painter said. “Now, if the United Arab Emirates put money into Liberty Financial, as I understand they did … and then Trump makes money off Liberty Financial, that’s a Foreign Emoluments Clause problem.”

Congress, he said, should empower an independent prosecutor to investigate such conflicts.

“The problem with the Foreign Emoluments Clause is how do we enforce it?” Painter said. “The founders and head of the Congress enforced it by impeaching anybody who took a bunch of foreign government money, but I guess that system’s not working. That’s a serious problem.”

WASHINGTON — New Jersey Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. revealed Tuesday that he spent months away from Congress being treated for depression.

“It is physical, it is emotional, and until you experience it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be,” he said on the House floor.

Kean’s reappearance comes after he won an uncontested primary on June 2 and months since he last voted in the House.

“Today I stand before you healthier, stronger and excited to return to the work that I love,” Kean said.

A second-term lawmaker and scion of a New Jersey political family, Kean represents a battleground district that includes President Trump’s Bedminster golf club. He’s missed more than 100 votes in Congress this year and hadn’t been seen publicly in Washington or his district despite winning the Republican nomination to serve another term.

The mystery over Kean’s absence carries potential political implications, given the competitive district he represents and the Republican Party’s narrow control of the House. His office has said he is still running for reelection and is set to face Democratic nominee Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, in New Jersey’s most high-profile contest in November.

Democrats have targeted the district as a prime pick-up opportunity, given that the seat has changed hands in the last two midterm elections. Kean won in 2022 by defeating Democrat Tom Malinowski, who had defeated Republican Leonard Lance in 2018.

Kean’s last vote was months ago

Kean last voted in the House on March 5, but his absence wasn’t explained.

In April, his social media account said he had been dealing with a personal medical issue and his doctors expected him to recover.

Kean’s absence has also complicated matters for House Republican leaders, who are struggling every day to pass bills with their razor-thin majority, 218-212. Speaker Mike Johnson and other GOP leaders repeatedly told reporters they were in touch with Kean, but said he would have to address the circumstances himself.

Trump has endorsed Kean’s reelection, without mentioning his absence.

Kean comes from a long line of public servants, stretching 250 years to the country’s founding when one of his ancestors became New Jersey’s first leader since independence.

His great-grandfather was a senator, his grandfather was a congressman and his father is the former two-term governor, Tom Kean Sr.

Catalini and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — President Trump has tried many ways to tighten his grip on U.S. elections, from signing executive orders to pushing restrictive legislation in Congress. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling siding with states that accept late-arriving mail ballots was the latest example showing the limits of his reach.

It followed back-to-back rulings last week that barred his two sweeping executive orders seeking to change national election rules, more court rulings preventing his Department of Justice from obtaining detailed state voter data and his stalled attempts to get the Senate to pass the SAVE Act. That measure would eliminate nearly all absentee voting, require citizenship documents to register to vote and impose photo identification requirements nationwide right before the midterm elections.

“It’s been a mixed bag for Republicans,” said University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. But the president, he added, “has come up mostly empty-handed.”

Trump’s efforts have not been entirely fruitless. Republican-run states have satisfied his demands to redraw congressional district lines, efforts buoyed by the Supreme Court striking down a key section of the Voting Rights Act, and he has been directing his Department of Justice to investigate voting and election operations, which Democrats see as a possible prelude to their involvement in November.

All the activity around how the nation votes and runs its elections is a reflection of the Republican president’s long fixation on his false claim that his 2020 election defeat was rigged. He has been so frustrated by the inability of the Senate to pass the SAVE Act that he has refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill.

He weighed in again Monday after the Supreme Court’s decision in the mail ballot deadline case, saying on his social media account that he is trying to “save America from crooked elections.” Voting rights groups and Democrats see him abusing power and attempting to suppress legal voters to gain an advantage in the midterms, when control of Congress is at stake.

Regardless, Muller said Trump faces legal and political realities: The Constitution gives the states and Congress authority over elections while providing no such role for the president.

“That’s how federalism works,” Muller said.

Here’s a look at Trump’s efforts to reshape election rules and what options he might have left for the November midterms.

Focus on noncitizens and voter data has met roadblocks

The president has repeatedly said U.S. elections are riddled with fraud in part because of noncitizen voting. Research shows the problem to be rare, accounting for a minuscule percentage of fraud cases. Convictions are measured in the hundreds over periods in which tens of millions of ballots are cast.

Trump’s view resulted in a multiagency push to nationalize voter data and use federal resources to help states remove voters from the rolls. The Department of Justice has sought detailed voter files from multiple states, data that would include dates of birth and partial Social Security numbers. Democratic and some Republican secretaries of state balked, and federal lawsuits followed. The administration has lost every case so far.

Homeland Security citizenship check rejected in court

Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, with help from the DOGE effort led by Elon Musk, revamped a government tool called SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements). The program has been a key pillar of his efforts to cull potentially ineligible voters from state rolls.

Last week, a federal judge blocked its use as a mass citizenship check.

The administration, according to its own news releases, had allowed local election administrators to search users by the thousands, using a wider range of metrics rather than DHS-issued identification numbers. At least 67 million registrations, primarily in Republican-controlled states, were analyzed. Tens of thousands were flagged as potential noncitizens or people who have died, but some voters were wrongly identified as ineligible.

U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled that Trump’s changes aggregated Americans’ sensitive personal data in a way that could result in voters being wrongly purged from the rolls.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan said in her order.

Executive orders used in place of legislation

As presidents before him, Trump signed executive orders when Congress would not enact his policy preferences.

Trump’s first order reflected his emphasis on noncitizens. Like the SAVE Act pending on Capitol Hill, it sought to require would-be voters to document their citizenship to be able to register to vote.

U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper put a temporary block on the order last year as she considered the case and last week made her decision permanent. The Constitution, Casper wrote, “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

Trump issued a second order in March, as the SAVE Act’s rough path in Congress became obvious. He called for a national voter list using data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration. Further, the order would have empowered the U.S. Postal Service to determine who gets an absentee ballot and threatened local elections officials with prosecution.

Absentee voting is a staple of U.S. elections, but Trump describes the practice, incorrectly, as allowing fraud — even as he has used it himself. A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found that mail voting fraud occurred in only 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast.

Democratic secretaries of state sued, and U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani made the same legal assessment as Casper. The provisions, she wrote last week, “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

The White House has indicated it will appeal.

Even Trump says the SAVE Act has long odds

Trump on Monday called the Senate logjam “crazy” and one of the holdouts, Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, “Trump-deranged.”

It’s the latest legislative tussle that prompted Trump to demand Republicans scrap the filibuster, which requires most major legislation to get support from 60 of the 100 senators. But that likely wouldn’t matter in this case, with four of the Senate’s 53 Republicans declaring their opposition to the bill itself: Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

The president acknowledged Monday that the SAVE Act is “probably not going to happen.”

Trump still has options for the November elections

Both major parties have national operations to monitor elections, including legal teams ready to file challenges.

Despite the Republican National Committee losing the mail ballot case, Chairman Joe Gruters on Monday alluded to those efforts: “We are not going to be deterred by this decision, and the RNC will keep fighting to have elections end on Election Day,” he said.

Meanwhile, Trump has been developing a possible roadmap for more aggressive actions.

His U.S. attorney in Los Angeles said in June that he had opened multiple election fraud investigations, and he sent a prosecutor to the county’s vote-tabulation center after California’s June primary. Six months earlier, FBI agents executed a warrant and seized ballots and other records from the 2020 election in Georgia’s Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.

Muller, the law professor, said local elections officials “already are having conversations about chain of custody disputes” for ballots as they are cast, collected, counted and stored.

He and UCLA law professor Rick Hasen noted that judicial warrants are required for the kinds of actions that happened in Fulton County. Muller predicted “the bar would be even higher” for any warrant the administration requests during a live election.

Hasen added that he’s working to educate judges around the country on the importance of chain of custody for ballots.

“Republicans believe him when he says the election is rigged. And then when Republicans try to change voting rules to tighten things up, that causes Democrats to also think that the election system is being rigged,” Hasen said. “So, if what he’s trying to achieve is undermine voters’ confidence in the election process, he seems to have succeeded spectacularly.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the Constitution’s promise that all those born here are citizens of the United States, regardless of the status of their parents.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices rejected President Trump’s plan to revise the Constitution by executive order and to end citizenship at birth for newborns whose parents were here illegally or temporarily.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court to reject Trump’s proposed limits on birthright citizenship.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” he said. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in full. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurred in the outcome based on the federal law that incorporates birthright citizenship.

But the outcome was closer than most had predicted.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented in agreement with Trump.

The decision is the second major defeat for Trump from a conservative court that usually supports broad presidential power.

In February, the court struck down Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs, his signature economic policy. Roberts said Congress, not the president, has the power to raise revenue and impose taxes, including duties on imports.

In April, Trump came to the court to hear the arguments over birthright citizenship. He sat in the gallery while the justices posed steadily skeptical questions to his solicitor general.

He left after an hour having heard enough to know he was likely to lose.

It was the rare Supreme Court case which was decided based simply on the words of the Constitution.

The justices, both conservative and liberal, say they look to what the Constitution says and how its words were originally understood.

The 14th Amendment adopted in 1868 says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside.”

The amendment overturned the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which declared that Black persons could not become U.S. citizens.

In its place, the Reconstruction Congress adopted the broad view of citizenship based on the place of birth, not parentage, that had been part of English law for centuries.

In the 19th Century, it was understood that the only exceptions to this rule of birthright citizenship were for the children of foreign diplomats, foreign troops on American soil or, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

In 1924, Congress extended full citizenship to all Native Americans who were born in this country.

The Supreme Court had also confirmed the broad understanding of birthright citizenship in 1898. The justices upheld the U.S. citizenship of Wong Kim Ark who born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said then. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

Congress added birthright citizenship to the immigration laws in 1952.

But in his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order to revise the citizenship laws.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” he wrote, and in the future, it will not extend to newborns whose parents are in this country unlawfully or temporarily, such as on tourist, student or work visa, he said.

His proposal was quickly blocked by judges as unconstitutional, and it never went into effect.

In his appeal, Trump’s attorney argued that judges have been “misreading” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.”
He said this refers to “political allegiance.”

By that standard, the children of temporary visitors and unlawful immigrants are not citizens because they and their parents “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction,” according to the administration.

Trump could have proposed legislation on tariffs and birthright citizenship and urged the Republican-led Congress to adopt new laws. Instead, he chose to try to change the law and revise the Constitution by executive order.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorney pointed to the surge of illegal immigration in recent decades.

“We’re in a new world now,” he said, one that calls for new restrictions on citizenship.

“It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” responded Roberts.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump new power to fire the heads of most independent agencies created by Congress — but not the Federal Reserve.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. announced two opinions, one of which bolstered the president’s power as the chief executive and a second which said this authority did not extend to the Federal Reserve board.

The first was a 6-3 decision that had the support of five conservatives, while the second had a 5-4 majority that included the three liberals.

Roberts, a former White House lawyer, has long been skeptical of independent agencies whose officials may wield regulatory power in conflict with the views of the president.

Since the 1880s, however, Congress has at times created independent agencies led by a bipartisan board of experts. In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court had upheld these multi-member boards and commissions.

But Roberts and the court overturned that precedent and declared it conflicts with the executive power of the president.

“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” he wrote. “To discharg[e] the duties of his trust, the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. … Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The decision upholds Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission.

(Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty Images)

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the ruling “distorts the structure of government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him.”

Under what has been dubbed the “unitary executive” theory, the court’s conservatives believe the president’s executive power in Article II of the Constitution overrides Congress’power in Article I to write the laws and structure the government.

The departments and agencies of the federal government exist only because Congress created them by law.

But in the second opinion, the court blocked Trump’s bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, an appointee of President Biden.

Roberts said the central bank dates back to the nation’s founding, and Congress created the Federal Reserve Board in line with “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”

Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook in a social media post, he said.

But “the Federal Reserve’s Governors do not serve at the President’s pleasure — they instead serve staggered 14-year terms, and may be removed only ‘for cause’,” he wrote.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast a crucial vote to support the Fed’s independence. He said he joined the majority because it “confirms the longstanding historical practice and understanding that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency whose Governors enjoy for-cause removal protection consistent with Article II of the Constitution.”

The court did not finally decide on Cook’s case, except to say she deserved due process of law. She could not be fired without a hearing and evidence, the court said.

The setback for independent agencies came as no surprise, however.

Even prior to Trump’s election, Roberts has insisted agency officials must be accountable and under the control of the president.

Last year, the justices blocked lower court rulings that would have reinstated agency officials who were fired by Trump.

For most of American history, however, it had been understood that Congress had the power to structure the government and to create semi-independent agencies to carry out specific tasks like regulating railroad rates or the money supply.

These agencies and commissions were led by a bipartisan board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term. They could be fired only for cause, not because of a political disagreement with the president.

The Supreme Court upheld these multi-member commissions in 1935 on the grounds their work was more legislative and judicial than simply enforcing the law.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards wield executive authority and are therefore, subject to direct control by the president.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies.

The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later.

The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the three liberals to form the majority.

The decision is a mild surprise and should bolster Democrats in the fall election.

While California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has contributed to slow tabulations, it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts.

Election law experts blame slow tallies on the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court said federal law since 1845 has set election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and voters were required to cast their ballots that day.

Citing that fact, the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration joined a challenge to a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late.

Trump’s lawyers said federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

“From the dawn of America, election day has meant the day the ballot box closes — and when election officials must be in receipt of all ballots,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

Democrats said the Constitution says the “time, place and manner of holding elections” for Congress “shall be prescribed in each state” by its legislature. However, Congress was given the power to override those state rules and set its own regulations for federal elections.

Barrett said the federal election day requires only that the voter must decide by then.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi,” she wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

While Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots, it had not done so. That may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late.

Last year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down Mississippi’s law that allowed for counting ballots that were cast by election day but arrived up to five days later.

The opinion by three judges, all Trump appointees, concluded that the election day set by Congress “is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

In its appeal, Mississippi stuck with a states’ rights view and argued that the federal election-day statutes mean that ballots must be cast — not received — by election day.

“This is a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves,” said Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón. “Eligible Americans shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”

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.