Congress

WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.

Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.

Even after Trump announced late Monday that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump’s action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.

Here’s a closer look at what the act does and doesn’t do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:

Dividing war powers between Congress and the president

Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn’t already issued a declaration of war.

It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its “collective judgement” to send troops into “hostilities.” The War Powers Resolution calls for the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

But when Congress enacted the law, “it didn’t install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,” said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,” Anderson said. And “the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it’s hard to say it’s in clear contradiction” to the War Powers Resolution.

Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.

If Congress doesn’t authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president “terminate any use” of the armed forces. “That’s the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” Anderson said.

How past presidents have used it

Congress hasn’t declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto.

Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn’t require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn’t an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities” set forth in the War Powers Resolution.

What Congress is doing now

Trump’s actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn’t broken cleanly along party lines.

Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.

Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come “as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.” He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.

“There will be Republicans who will support it,” Kaine said. “Exactly how many, I don’t know.”

He added that, “this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.”

Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump’s actions on Monday and said he’s operating within his authority.

“There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.”

A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.

Khanna was undeterred.

“In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,” Khanna said. “We still need a vote.”

Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

Rep. Judy Chu first went inside the immigrant detention center in Adelanto in 2014, and conditions were bad.

When she made it back inside the privately run facility in the Mojave desert last week, things weren’t much better.

“It is just scandalous as to how it has not improved,” she told me.

Truth be told, conditions are likely to get worse, if only because of sheer numbers and chaos. Which makes it all the more important to have elected leaders like Chu willing to put themselves on the front lines to give a voice to the truly, really voiceless.

As tens of thousands of immigrants are chased down and incarcerated across the United States, oversight of their detention has become both increasingly difficult and important.

Shortly after the unannounced visit to Adelanto by Chu and four other members of Congress a few days ago, ICE announced new rules attempting to further limit access by lawmakers to its facilities — despite clear federal law allowing them unannounced entrance to such lockups. While Chu and others have called these new curbs on access illegal, they are still likely to be enforced until and unless courts rule otherwise.

The narrow, fragile line of the judicial branch is holding, for now.

But families and even lawyers are struggling to keep track of those who vanish into these facilities, many of which — including Adelanto — are operated by private, for-profit companies raking in millions of dollars from the government.

GEO Group, the publicly traded company that runs Adelanto, has reported more than $600 million in revenue so far this year and projects $31 million in additional annualized revenue from Adelanto at full capacity. Maybe DOGE wants to look into the fact that GEO often gets paid a “guaranteed minimum,” according to a report by the California Department of Justice — regardless of how many detainees are in a facility. Sounds like waste.

When the Trump administration started its attack on Los Angeles a few weeks ago, Chu started receiving calls from her constituents asking for help. She represents Altadena, Pasadena and other areas where there are large populations of immigrants, and as the daughter of an immigrant, she relates.

Her mom came here from China as a 19-year-old bride. Chu’s dad was born in the United States.

“I feel such a heavy responsibility to change things for them, to change things for the better,” she said. “I am surrounded by immigrants every day. This is a district of immigrants. My relatives are immigrants. My friends are immigrants. Yes, my life is immigrants.”

A few days ago, she tried to visit the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles, where many of the recent protests have been focused, and where many of the people detained in Los Angeles have reportedly been held at first. She’d heard that even though it’s not meant to be more than a stopover, folks have been staying there longer.

“The fact that these raids are so severe, so massive, it just seems very obvious to me that they would not be treating the detainees in a humane way. And that’s what I wanted to find out,” she told me.

But no luck. Authorities turned her away at the door.

So a few days later she decided to show up unannounced — which is her right as a federal lawmaker — at Adelanto.

Guess what: No luck.

Officers there chained the gate shut, she said, and wouldn’t even talk to her.

“To actually just be locked out like that was unbelievable,” she said. “We shouted that we were members of Congress. We held signs up saying that we were members of Congress, and in fact, there was a car parked only a few feet away inside the facility. The job of that person was just to watch us. Wow.”

Wow indeed.

Undeterred, she came back a few days later when the gate was unlocked. This time, she drove straight inside, not asking permission.

Her staff “deliberately dropped me off inside the lobby before they knew that we were there,” she said.

She got out at the front door and was granted entry.

“The ICE agent said, ‘Oh, well, we thought you were protesters the time before,’” she said. “And that cannot be true, you know, considering all of our yelling and signs. But anyway.”

She was armed with the names of people from her district who had been detained, and she asked to see them. She got to speak to some of them, but everyone wanted her help. At the start of the year, Adelanto held only a handful of people, having been nearly closed by a court order during COVID-19. Now it holds about 1,100, and can take up to about 1,900.

“These detainees were jumping up and down trying to get our attention,” she said. What they told her was disturbing, and casually cruel. No ability to change clothes for 10 days. Filthy showers. No access to telephones because they need a PIN number and no matter how many times they request one, it never seems to materialize. No idea how long they would be held, or what would happen next.

“It could be weeks,” she said. “It could be years.”

Vanished.

“It is horrendous,” she said. “And it is ripping our communities apart,”

Indeed it is, especially in Southern California, where immigrants — documented and not — are entwined in the fabric of our lives and our communities.

Which is why people like Chu are so vital to what happens next. Not enough of our lawmakers have spoken up, much less taken action, against the erosion of civil rights and legal norms currently underway. Chu has spent a decade trying to bring accountability to immigration detention and knows this sordid industry better than any. It’s work that many never notice but that matters to the families whose loved ones are scooped up and disappeared into a system that, even in its best days, is convoluted.

“These are not the criminals and rapists that Trump promised he would get rid of,” Chu said. “These are hard-working people who are trying to make a living and doing their best to support their families. These are your friends and neighbors, and as we’ve seen, U.S. citizens have also been arrested. So next it could be you.”

Or her. Other lawmakers have been arrested and charged for attempting to enter detention centers on the East Coast, and Sen. Alex Padilla was knocked over and handcuffed recently for interrupting a news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

We are in the era when questions are often met with mockery or silence — or even violence — from authorities, and everyday champions are vital. Propaganda and lies have become the norms, and few have the ability to bear witness to truth inside places of state power such as detention centers.

So it’s also an era when having people who will stand up in the face of increasing fear and chaos is the difference between being vanished for who-knows-how-long and being found.

Even if it’s inside Adelanto.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval.

“Well done, President Trump,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X. Another Republican, Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama, called the bombings “strong and surgical.” The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), said Trump “has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.”

The divisions in Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president’s ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. Though Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to carry out acts of war without congressional approval, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority.

“This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,” said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a “perfunctory notification” without any details, according to a spokesperson.

“No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,” Schumer said in a statement. “Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said that Trump “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party’s schism over Iran could complicate the GOP’s efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350-billion national security package in Trump’s massive tax and spending bill, which he planned to push toward speedy votes this week.

“We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,” Wicker posted on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) both were briefed ahead of the strikes Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that “as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

Johnson said in a statement that the military operations “should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said he had also been in touch with the White House and that “I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.”

Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a staunch supporter of Israel’s military actions in the Middle East, also praised the U.S. attacks on Iran. “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,” he posted. “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including among some of Trump’s most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America’s “forever wars.” Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that “while President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional.”

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X: “This is not Constitutional.”

“This is not our fight,” said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, one of Trump’s most loyal congressional allies.

Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch’s constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action.

Kaine said the bombings were an act of “horrible judgment.”

“I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,” Kaine said.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that “new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.”

“Then they sent other people’s children to fight and die endlessly,” Casar said. “Enough.”

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats remain at odds over policy toward Iran after the U.S. strikes early Sunday.

Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran’s nuclear program, but party leaders were treading more cautiously.

U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump’s announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party’s latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump’s isolationist “Make America Great Again” base from more hawkish conservatives.

Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could “measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

“Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,” Martin said in a statement. “Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.”

Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran “does not make America more secure.”

“This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,” Welch said in a statement.

While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump’s potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force.

Martin’s statement took a similar tack, saying, “Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.”

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump’s actions “horrible judgment” and said he’d “push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump’s announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party.

“They are sort of hedging their bets,” said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State who served under President Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. “The beasts of the Democratic Party’s constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel’s war in Gaza that it’s really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.”

Progressives

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) had called Trump’s consideration of an attack “a defining moment for our party.” Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that called on the Republican president to “terminate” the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless “explicitly authorized” by a declaration of war from Congress.

Khanna used Trump’s campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular among Trump supporters, particularly young men.

“That’s going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,” said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2028.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump’s stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as “a peacemaker and a unifier.”

“Supporting Netanyahu’s war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,” Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time.

Some believed the party should stake out a clear antiwar stance.

“The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,” said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X.

Mainstream Democrats

The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel’s war against Hamas loomed over the party’s White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel’s handling of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House.

Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year’s midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc.

In a statement after Israel’s first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and “the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran’s response.”

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that “the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.”

Other Democrats have condemned Israel’s strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a multinational nuclear agreement that limited Tehran’s enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration.

“Trump created the problem,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X.

What voters think

A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being “too supportive” of Israel and about 4 in 10 said its level of support was “about right.” Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had “a lot” of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas.

About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans said they felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict.

Gomez Licon and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report

WASHINGTON — Republicans have suffered a sizable setback on one key aspect of President Trump’s big bill after their plans to gut the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and other provisions from the Senate Banking Committee ran into procedural violations with the Senate parliamentarian.

Republicans in the Senate proposed zeroing out funding for the CFPB, the landmark agency set up in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, to save $6.4 billion. The bureau had been designed as a way to better protect Americans from financial fraud, but has been opposed by many GOP lawmakers since its inception. The Trump administration has targeted the CFPB as an example of government overregulation and overreach.

The findings by the Senate parliamentarian’s office, which is working overtime scrubbing Trump’s overall bill to ensure it aligns with the chamber’s strict “Byrd Rule” processes, signal a tough road ahead. The most daunting questions are still to come, as GOP leadership rushes to muscle Trump’s signature package to the floor for votes by his Fourth of July deadline.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Banking Committee that drafted the provisions in question, said in a statement, “My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.”

For Democrats, who have been fighting Trump’s 1,000-page package at every step, the parliamentarian’s advisory amounted to a significant win.

“Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, who engineered the creation of the CFPB before she was elected to Congress.

Warren said that GOP proposals “are a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk — all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.”

The parliamentarian’s rulings, while advisory, are rarely, if ever ignored.

With the majority in Congress, Republicans have been drafting a sweeping package that extends some $4.5-trillion tax cuts Trump approved during his first term, in 2017, that otherwise expire at the end of the year. It adds $350 billion to national security, including billions for Trump’s mass deportation agenda. And it slashes some $1 trillion from Medicaid, food stamps and other government programs.

All told, the package is estimated to add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation’s deficits over the decade, and leave 10.9 million more people without healthcare coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s review of the House-passed package, which is now undergoing revisions in the Senate.

The parliamentarian’s office is responsible for determining if the package adheres to the Byrd Rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who was considered one of the masters of Senate procedure. The rule essentially bars policy matters from being addressed in the budget reconciliation process.

Senate GOP leaders are using the budget reconciliation process, which is increasingly how big bills move through Congress, because it allows passage on a simple majority vote, rather than face a filibuster with the higher 60-vote threshold.

But if any of the bill’s provisions violate the Byrd Rule, that means they can be challenged at the tougher 60-vote threshold, which is a tall order in the 53-47 Senate. Leaders are often forced to strip those proposals from the package, even though doing so risks losing support from lawmakers who championed those provisions.

One of the biggest questions ahead for the parliamentarian will be over the Senate GOP’s proposal to use “current policy” as opposed to “current law” to determine the baseline budget and whether the overall package adds significantly to deficits.

Already the Senate parliamentarian’s office has waded through several titles of Trump’s big bill, including those from the Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Energy & Public Works Committee.

The Banking panel offered a modest bill, just eight pages, and much of it was deemed out of compliance.

The parliamentarian found that in addition to gutting the CFPB, other provisions aimed at rolling back entities put in place after the 2008 financial crisis would violate the Byrd Rule. Those include a GOP provision to limit the Financial Research Fund, which was set up to conduct analysis, saving nearly $300 million; and another to shift the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which conducts oversight of accounting firms, to the Securities and Exchange Commission and terminate positions, saving $773 million.

The GOP plan to change the pay schedule for employees at the Federal Reserve, saving $1.4 billion, was also determined to be in violation of the Byrd Rule.

The parliamentarian’s office also raised Byrd Rule violations over GOP proposals to repeal certain aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act, including on emission standards for some model year 2027 light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.

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

WASHINGTON — The day after immigration raids began in Los Angeles, Rep. Norma Torres (D-Pomona) and three other members of Congress were denied entry to the immigrant detention facility inside the Roybal Federal Building.

The lawmakers were attempting an unannounced inspection, a common and long-standing practice under congressional oversight powers.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said too many protesters were present on June 7 and officers deployed chemical agents multiple times. In a letter later to acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Torres said she ended up in the emergency room for respiratory treatment. She also said the protest had been small and peaceful.

Torres is one of many Democratic members of Congress, from states including California, New York and Illinois, who have been denied entry to immigrant detention facilities in recent weeks.

Jim Townsend, director of the Carl Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy at Wayne State University in Michigan, said the denials mark a profound — and illegal — shift from past practice.

“Denying members of Congress access to facilities is a direct assault on our system of checks and balances,” he said. “What members of Congress are trying to do now is to be part of a proud bipartisan tradition of what we like to call oversight by showing up.”

Subsequent attempts by lawmakers to inspect the facility inside the Roybal Building have also been unsuccessful.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), who was with Torres the day she was hospitalized, went back twice more — on June 9 and on Tuesday — and was rebuffed. Torres and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) tried at separate times Wednesday and were both denied.

Gomez and other Democrats have pointed to a federal statute, detailed in yearly appropriations packages since 2020, which states that funds may not be used to prevent a member of Congress “from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens …”

The statute also states that nothing in that section “may be construed to require a Member of Congress to provide prior notice of the intent to enter a facility” for the purpose of conducting oversight. Under the statute, federal officials may require at least 24 hours notice for a visit by congressional staff — but not members themselves.

Under ICE guidelines published this month for members of Congress and their staff, the agency requests at least 72 hours notice from lawmakers and requires at least 24 hours notice from staff.

The agency says it has discretion to deny or reschedule a visit if an emergency arises or the safety of the facility is jeopardized, though such contingencies are not mentioned in the law.

Gomez said an ICE official called him Tuesday to say that oversight law doesn’t apply to the downtown L.A. facility because it is a field office, not a detention facility.

“Well it does say Metropolitan Detention Center right here in big, bold letters,” he says in a video posted afterward on social media, gesturing toward a sign outside the building. “But they say this is a processing center. So I smell bull—.”

Department of Homeland Security police patrol the street after detaining a protester at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in downtown L.A. on June 12.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

If no one is technically being detained, Gomez said he rhetorically asked the official during their call, are they free to leave?

Torres visited the facility in February by setting up an appointment, her staff said. She got another appointment for last Saturday, but ICE canceled it because of the protests. When members emailed ICE to set up a new appointment, they got no response.

Gomez said he believes ICE doesn’t want lawmakers to see field offices because of poor conditions and lack of attorney access because of ramped-up arrests that have reportedly left some detainees there overnight without beds and limited food.

In some cases, lawmakers have had success showing up unannounced. On Friday, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands) toured the Adelanto ICE Processing Facility, north of San Bernardino. After being denied entry to the Adelanto Facility on June 8, Chu and four other California Democrats were allowed in on Tuesday.

“Just because ICE has opened their doors to a few members of Congress does not excuse their inflammatory tactics to meet deportation quotas,” said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside), who visited Adelanto with Chu. “Accountability means showing a consistent pattern of accessibility, not just a one-off event.”

The representatives learned the facility is now at full capacity with 1,100 detainees, up from 300 a month ago. Chu said they spoke to detainees from the L.A. raids, who she said were not criminals and who are now living in inhumane conditions — without enough food, unable to change their underwear for 10 days or to call their families and lawyers.

Chu said the group arrived early and stood in the lobby to avoid a repeat of their previous attempt, when facility guards kept them off the property by locking a fence.

Tom Homan, President Trump’s border policy advisor, departs a meeting with Republican senators who are working to cancel $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress at the Capitol in Washington on June 11.

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

In an interview with The Times this month, Trump’s chief border policy advisor Tom Homan said members of Congress are welcome to conduct oversight, but that they must contact the facility first to make arrangements. The agency has to look after the safety and security of the facility, officers and detainees, he said.

“Please go in and look at them,” he said. “They’re the best facilities that money can buy, the highest detention standards in the industry. But there’s a right way and wrong way to do it.”

Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for Homeland Security, said in a statement to The Times that requests for visits are needed because “ICE law enforcement have seen a surge in assaults, disruptions and obstructions to enforcement, including by politicians themselves.”

She added that requests for visits should be made with enough time — “a week is sufficient” — to not interfere with the president’s authority under Article II of the Constitution to oversee executive branch functions.

DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by Deputy Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Madison Sheahan, left, and acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference in Washington on May 21.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, slammed the guidance Wednesday on X.

“This unlawful policy is a smokescreen to deny Member visits to ICE offices across the country, which are holding migrants — and sometimes even U.S. citizens — for days at a time,” he wrote. “They are therefore facilities and are subject to oversight and inspection at any time. DHS pretending otherwise is simply their latest lie.”

Townsend, the congressional oversight expert, said the practice goes back to when President Truman was a senator and established a committee to investigate problems among contractors who were supplying the World War II effort.

“That committee conducted hundreds of field visits, and they would show up unannounced in many instances,” Townsend said.

More recently, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) drove to the Pentagon in 1983 and demanded access to ask questions about overspending after being stonewalled, he said, by Department of Defense officials.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to mean that Congress has wide authority to conduct oversight to show up unannounced in order to secure accurate information, Townsend said.

National Guard members stand at post at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 10.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said the Trump administration is trying to hide the truth from the public. Last week, Padilla was shoved out of a news conference, forced to the ground and handcuffed after attempting to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

“The Trump administration has done everything in their power but to provide transparency to the American people about their mission in Los Angeles,” he said during an impassioned floor speech Wednesday in which he cried recounting the ordeal.

In an interview Wednesday with Newsmax, McLaughlin accused Democratic lawmakers of using oversight as an excuse to stage publicity stunts.

“The Democrats are reeling,” she said. “They have no actual message and so they’re doing this to get more attention and to manufacture viral moments.”

On Tuesday, Gomez wore a suit jacket with his congressional lapel pin and carried his congressional ID card and business card in his hand — “so there would be no mistake” as to who he was. He said he was concerned that what happened to Padilla could also happen to him. He was denied access anyway.

Gomez said federal officials should be fined each time they deny oversight access to members of Congress. He said he and other members are also discussing whether to file a lawsuit to compel access.

“When you have an administration that is operating outside the bounds of the law, they’re basically saying, ‘What recourse do you have? Can you force us? You don’t have an army. We don’t need to listen to you,’” Gomez said. “Then you have to put some real teeth into it.”

Times staff writer Nathan Solis in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition.

Strickland, who’s unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people.

“What sense does that make?” she asked. “What about the people who can’t work but can’t afford a doctor?”

The measure is part of the version of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4.

The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation’s social safety net.

For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn’t for those who can work but aren’t. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul.

Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them.

Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates.

Benefits can be difficult to navigate even without a work requirement

Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn’t able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said.

“It’s already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,” said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. “If they make it harder to get on, they’re not going to be helping.”

Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage.

The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify.

A disability exception would likely apply to Furman’s son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere.

Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help.

It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona’s Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don’t have the means to support his son fully.

“Should I expect the government to take care of him?” he asked. “I don’t know, but I do expect them to have humanity.”

There’s broad reliance on Medicaid for health coverage

About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage.

A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats.

The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care.

Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment.

Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility.

“Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,” she said.

One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she’s seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage.

She said she doesn’t mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. “It’s kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn’t need it,” she said.

Some people don’t if they might lose coverage with a work requirement

Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with “serious or complex” medical conditions could be granted exceptions.

She now works about 15 hours a week in “gig” jobs but isn’t sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer.

Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon’s office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability.

“I can’t even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,” she said.

Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago.

The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it’s hard to land one.

Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days.

“There’s no way I could have afforded that,” he said. “I would have lost my foot and probably died.”

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Former President Bill Clinton, Gov. Kathy Hochul and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries remembered former U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel’s sharp wit, relentless advocacy for Harlem and extraordinary life of public service during a funeral mass for the late congressman in Manhattan on Friday.

Rangel, a pioneering congressman and veteran of the Korean War, died on May 26 the age of 94.

The mass, held at the historic St. Patrick’s Cathedral, came a day after Rangel’s body lay in state at New York City Hall, an honor bestowed to only a handful of political figures, including U.S. presidents Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

Clinton, who called Rangel one of the most effective members to ever serve in Congress, recalled the congressman’s insistence on steering a critical economic program to his Harlem district when Clinton was president, helping to lower unemployment there.

“I don’t think I ever knew a happier warrior than Charlie Rangel,” Clinton said.

Rangel served in Congress for nearly five decades, becoming a dean of the New York congressional delegation and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as being the first African American to chair the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Before his time on Capitol Hill, he earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his military service in the Korean War.

Jeffries told the crowd at the mass that “America is better off today because of his service” and said, as a young congressman, that the legendary Rangel would simply call him Jeff.

“Now, Charlie Rangel would often call me Jeff. I believe it was short for Jeffries. But I never confirmed that. ’Cause this was Charlie Rangel, and so you go with the flow,” Jeffries said, smiling.

Hochul called Rangel “a giant in American life” and said she would move to rename a street in Harlem after the late congressman, who was sometimes called “Lion of Lenox Avenue.” She thanked the attendees who came to the mass “not to mourn Charlie, but to celebrate an extraordinary life.”

WASHINGTON — The House narrowly voted Thursday to cut about $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress as President Trump’s administration looks to follow through on work done by the Department of Government Efficiency when it was overseen by Elon Musk.

The package targets foreign aid programs and the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which provides money for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service as well as thousands of public radio and television stations around the country. The vote was 214-212.

Republicans are characterizing the spending as wasteful and unnecessary, but Democrats say the rescissions are hurting the United States’ standing in the world and will lead to needless deaths.

“Cruelty is the point,” Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said of the proposed spending cuts.

The Trump administration is employing a tool rarely used in recent years that allows the president to transmit a request to Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds. That triggers a 45-day clock in which the funds are frozen pending congressional action. If Congress fails to act within that period, then the spending stands.

“This rescissions package sends $9.4 billion back to the U.S. Treasury,” said Rep. Lisa McClain, House Republican Conference chair. “That’s $9.4 billion of savings that taxpayers won’t see wasted. It’s their money.”

The benefit for the administration of a formal rescissions request is that passage requires only a simple majority in the 100-member Senate instead of the 60 votes usually required to get spending bills through that chamber. So if they stay united, Republicans will be able to pass the measure without any Democratic votes.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said the Senate would likely not take the bill up until July and after it has dealt with Trump’s big tax and immigration bill. He also said it’s possible the Senate could tweak the bill.

The administration is likening the first rescissions package to a test case and says more could be on the way if Congress goes along.

Republicans, sensitive to concerns that Trump’s sweeping tax and immigration bill would increase future federal deficits, are anxious to demonstrate spending discipline, though the cuts in the package amount to just a sliver of the spending approved by Congress each year. They are betting the cuts prove popular with constituents who align with Trump’s “America first” ideology as well as those who view NPR and PBS as having a liberal bias.

In all, the package contains 21 proposed rescissions. Approval would claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic.

The Trump administration is also looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country.

About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries.

Democratic leadership, in urging their caucus to vote no, said that package would eliminate access to clean water for more than 3.6 million people and lead to millions more not having access to a school.

“Those Democrats saying that these rescissions will harm people in other countries are missing the point,” McClain said. “It’s about people in our country being put first.”

The Republican president has also asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it’s slated to receive during the next two budget years. About two-thirds of the money gets distributed to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country.

The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the Republican measure passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage, and highlight hometown heroes.

Advocacy groups that serve the world’s poorest people are also sounding the alarm and urging lawmakers to vote no.

“We are already seeing women, children and families left without food, clean water and critical services after earlier aid cuts, and aid organizations can barely keep up with rising needs,” said Abby Maxman, president and chief executive of Oxfam America, a poverty-fighting organization.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said the foreign aid is a tool that prevents conflict and promotes stability, but the measure before the House takes that tool away.

“These cuts will lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, devastating the most vulnerable in the world,” McGovern said.

“This bill is good for Russia and China and undertakers,” added Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.).

Republicans disparaged the foreign aid spending and sought to link it to programs they said DOGE had uncovered.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said taxpayer dollars had gone to such things as targeting climate change, promoting pottery classes and strengthening diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Other Republicans cited similar examples they said DOGE had revealed.

“Yet, my friends on the other side of the aisle would like you to believe, seriously, that if you don’t use your taxpayer dollars to fund this absurd list of projects and thousands of others I didn’t even list, that somehow people will die and our global standing in the world will crumble,” Roy said. “Well, let’s just reject this now.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

California Democrats plan to question Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday about the immigration raids that have roiled Los Angeles, the federal commandeering of the state’s National Guard and the deployment of Marines in the region when he testifies before the House Armed Services Committee.

Several committee members said they received no advance notice about the federal immigration sweeps at workplaces and other locations that started Friday and that prompted large and at times fiery protests in downtown Los Angeles.

“That’s going to change,” said Rep. Derek Tran (D-Orange), when the committee questions Hegseth on Thursday morning.

“We need to de-escalate the situation,” Tran said in an interview. President Trump and his administration’s moves, most recently deploying hundreds of Marines in Southern California, “escalates the situation, sending in troops that shouldn’t be there, that are trained to shoot and kill.”

Though largely peaceful, protests about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s actions have been punctuated by incidents of violence and lawlessness. As of Tuesday evening, several hundred people had been detained on suspicion of crimes or because of their immigration status.

After dissenters blocked the 101 Freeway, vandalized buildings in downtown Los Angeles and stole from businesses, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Tuesday imposed a curfew in the city’s civic core from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Thursday’s testimony before the House Armed Services Committee will be Hegseth’s third appearance on Capitol Hill this week. He was questioned Tuesday by the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense and the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.

Both appearances were testy. On Wednesday, Hegseth insisted the deployment of Marines in Los Angeles was lawful but couldn’t name the law under which it is allowed. On Tuesday, he was buffeted with questions about the “chaos” in his tenure, his discussion of national secrets on a Signal group chat and the lack of information provided to elected leaders about Defense Department operations and budgets, including the cost of the federal deployment in Los Angeles.

“I want your plan!” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) demanded. “What is your plan for the future? Can we get that in writing and on paper so that we know where you’re going? Because we don’t have anything today. We have zip! Nada!”

Hegseth responded that the agency has the details and would provide them to members of Congress. The Pentagon posted a video clip of the back-and-forth on X that tagged the congresswoman and was titled “WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING!”

Thursday’s hearing is especially notable because the committee oversees the Pentagon budget. None of the Republican members of the committee are from California. More than a dozen who were asked to weigh in on the hearing didn’t respond.

Republicans are expected to reflect the sentiments expressed by Trump, most recently on Wednesday when he took questions from reporters on the red carpet at the Kennedy Center shortly before attending a performance of “Les Miserables” with First Lady Melania Trump.

“We are going to have law and order in our country,” he said. “If I didn’t act quickly on that, Los Angeles would be burning to the ground right now.”

“These are radical left lunatics that you’re dealing with, and they’re tough, they’re smart, they’re probably paid, many of them, as you know, they’re professionals,” he added. “When you see them chopping up concrete because the bricks got captured, they’re chopping up concrete and they’re using that as a weapon. That’s pretty bad.”

Seven of the committee’s members are Democrats from California, and they are expected to press Hegseth on the legal underpinnings of the deployment of federal forces in the state, the lack of notification or coordination with state and local officials and the conditions and future of residents swept up in the raids.

“The president’s decision to deploy the National Guard and the U.S. Marines over the objections of California officials has escalated the situation, creating unnecessary chaos and putting public safety at risk,” said Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce). “As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I’m deeply concerned with the precedent this sets, and the apparent lack of protocol followed, and I will be seeking answers.”

Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Santa Barbara), a Mexican immigrant who served in the Marine Corps Reserve and is also a member of the committee, said Trump is doing what he does best.

“He likes to play arsonist and firefighter,” Carbajal said in an interview.

He argued Trump is using the raids to deflect attention from legislation that will harm the most vulnerable Americans while enriching the wealthy.

“There’s a question of whether what he’s doing is legal, regarding him and Hegseth sending in Marines. The governor and the mayor did not request the National Guard, let alone the Marines,” Carbajal said. “This is likely a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of U.S. forces in the U.S.”

Carbajal also said he expects what has unfolded in Los Angeles in recent days to be replicated in communities nationwide, a concern raised by Bass and other Democrats on Wednesday.

As a former Marine, Carbajal added that he and his fellow veterans had no role to play domestically, barring crisis.

“We’re not trained for this. There is no role for Marines on American soil unless rebellion is happening,” he said. “This is so ridiculous. It says a lot about the administration and what it’s willing to do to distract and create a more stressful, volatile environment.”

“Let’s make it clear,” he added. “We Democrats don’t support any violent protests. But as a Marine, there is no place for the U.S. military on domestic soil under the guise and reasoning he’s provided.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is looking to cancel $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress. That’s just a sliver of the $1.7 trillion that lawmakers OK’d for the budget year ending Sept. 30.

The package of 21 budget rescissions will have to be approved by both chambers of Congress for the cuts to take place, beginning with a House vote expected Thursday. Otherwise, the spending remains in place.

The White House is betting that cutting federal investments in public media and some foreign aid programs will prove politically popular. Republicans say if this first effort is successful, they hope more rescission packages will follow as they look to continue work by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency once run by billionaire Elon Musk.

Democrats describe the cuts as inhumane and say they would rip life-saving support from hungry and sick people across the globe. Republicans are describing the cuts as “modest” and say the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in helping the world’s most vulnerable people.

Here’s a look at some of the spending the White House is trying to claw back:

The Republican president has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it’s slated to receive during the next two budget years. Congress has traditionally provided public media with advanced funds to reduce political pressures.

The corporation distributes the money mostly to public television and radio stations around the country, with some assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming.

The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense.

Much of the conservatives’ ire is focused on NPR and PBS. “We believe that you all can hate us on your own dime,” said Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, during a hearing in March.

But about two-thirds of the money goes to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country.

“They want to punish the national guys, that’s fine,” said Rep. Mark Amodei, a Republican who said he was undecided going into this week’s vote. “But I’m trying to get a handle on what it means for my stations in Nevada, because the ability to fundraise at the national level ain’t the same as the ability to fundraise in Reno.”

The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the GOP bill passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes.

Meanwhile, local radio stations say their share of the allocation provides funding for 386 stations employing nearly 10,000 people. Dozens of stations rely on the public grants for more than half of their budget. Many others for nearly half.

Some Republicans say they worry about what the cuts would mean for local public stations but tough decisions are necessary.

Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said South Dakota Public Broadcasting does a “really good job of covering the state Legislature” and other public affairs.

“So these rescissions are not going to be comfortable for South Dakota to deal with,” Johnson said. “That being said, we’re $37 trillion in debt.”

Funding to combat diseases

Trump’s administration is looking to claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs.

That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic.

The administration says the $500 million rescission for infectious diseases would not reduce treatment but would “eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and equity programs.” It makes a similar assurance on the HIV funding, saying it would eliminate “only those programs that neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests.”

Scores of humanitarian aid groups have asked lawmakers to oppose the proposed cuts. Catholic Relief Services called on donors to contact their members of Congress to urge them to vote against the bill. Without the U.S. assistance, “countless lives are at risk, and the needs will continue to rise,” said the plea to supporters.

The importance of the United States’ contribution to the global HIV response cannot be overstated, according to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS. It says the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, has saved more than 26 million lives and averted almost 5 million new HIV infections since it was launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

“Instead of facing a death sentence, people supported by PEPFAR are raising families, building their communities, and helping their communities grow and develop,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.

Refugee assistance

The Trump administration is looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. The program also helps vetted refugees who come to the U.S. get started in their new country.

The White House says “these funds support activities that could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors, providing savings to the U.S. taxpayer.”

Refugees International urged Congress to reject what it described as a reckless proposal.

About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries.

The administration wants to claw back $2.5 billion of the $3.9 billion approved for the Development Assistance program at the U.S. Agency for International Development and about $1.7 billion, or nearly half of the funds, dedicated to the State Department’s Economic Support Fund.

The administration says in its request to Congress that the Development Assistance account is supposed to fund programs that work to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies, but in practice many of the programs “conflict with American values” and bankroll corrupt leaders’ evasion of responsibilities to their citizens while providing “no clear benefit to Americans.”

U.S. leaders have often argued over the years that helping to eradicate conditions that lead to political upheaval abroad is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing.

“By helping stem pandemics and war and helping countries become healthy, free-market democracies, we are actually helping our own country,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Republicans are rejecting the dire warnings. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said “ waste, fraud and abuse is what this is all about.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was met with sharp questions and criticism Tuesday by lawmakers who demanded details on his move to deploy troops to Los Angeles, and they expressed bipartisan frustration that Congress has not yet received a full defense budget from the Trump administration.

“Your tenure as secretary has been marked by endless chaos,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) told Hegseth. Others, including Republican leaders, warned that massive spending projects such as President Trump’s desire for a $175-billion space-based “Golden Dome” missile defense system will get broad congressional scrutiny.

The troop deployment triggered several fiery exchanges that at times devolved into shouting matches as committee members and Hegseth yelled over one another.

After persistent questioning about the cost of sending National Guard members and Marines to Los Angeles, Hegseth turned to his acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said it would cost $134 million. Hegseth defended Trump’s decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents as they do their jobs.

And he suggested that the use of troops in the United States will continue to expand.

“I think we’re entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,” he said.

The House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing was the first time lawmakers have been able to challenge Trump’s defense chief since he was confirmed. It is the first of three congressional hearings he will face this week.

Lawmakers take aim at Pentagon’s planned spending

Lawmakers complained widely that Congress hasn’t yet received details of the administration’s first proposed defense budget, which Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. And they said they are unhappy with the administration’s efforts to go around Congress to push through changes.

Key spending issues that have raised questions in recent weeks include plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army’s 250th birthday bash, which coincides with Trump’s birthday Saturday.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) quizzed Hegseth on deploying about 700 Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel during immigration raid protests in Los Angeles.

She engaged in a testy back-and-forth with him over the costs of the operation. He evaded the questions but later turned to MacDonnell, who provided the estimate and said it covers the costs of travel, housing and food.

Hegseth said the 60-day deployment of troops is needed “because we want to ensure that those rioters, looters and thugs on the other side assaulting our police officers know that we’re not going anywhere.”

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it’s not clear if Trump plans to do it.

The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, told lawmakers at a separate budget hearing Tuesday that the Marines who have arrived in Los Angeles have not yet been called on to respond. He said they have no arrest authority and are there only to protect federal property and federal personnel.

When asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, whether a possible use of lethal force by the Marines could result in injuries and deaths, Smith said, “I have great faith in my Marines and their junior leaders and their more senior leaders to execute the lawful tasks that they are given.”

Pentagon learns from Ukraine but will cut funding

Committee members pressed Hegseth on Ukraine’s surprise drone attack in early June that destroyed a large number of Russian bomber aircraft. And they questioned the administration’s future funding for Kyiv.

Hegseth said the strikes caught the U.S. off guard and represented significant advances in drone warfare. The attack has the Pentagon rethinking drone defenses “so we are not vulnerable to a threat and an attack like that,” he said, adding that the department is learning from Ukraine and is focused on how to better defend its own military airfields.

He acknowledged, however, that funding for Ukraine military assistance, which has been robust for the past two years, will be reduced in the upcoming defense budget. That cut means that Kyiv will receive fewer of the weapons systems that have been key to countering Russia’s onslaught.

“This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,” he said. “We believe that a negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation’s interests.”

The U.S. to date has provided Ukraine more than $66 billion in military aid since Russia invaded in February 2022.

What Hegseth has focused on so far

The panel zeroed in on funding issues, with only a few mentions of other entanglements that have marked Hegseth’s early months. They touched only briefly on his moves to fire key military leaders and purge diversity programs. And there was no discussion of his use of the Signal messaging app to discuss operational details of strikes in Yemen.

Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he’s making at the Pentagon. He’s been far less visible in the administration’s more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran.

Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women.

He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed support for Ukraine.

Baldor and Copp write for the Associated Press. Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., contributed reporting.

WASHINGTON — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

It’s a process known as “rescission,” which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump’s aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies.

The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a “disgusting abomination” for increasing the federal deficit.

White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds.

“

Here’s what to know about the rescissions request:

Will the rescissions make a dent in the national debt?

The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing that Vought would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds.

“He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,” Leavitt said.

Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September “and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.”

“It’s one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,” he added.

What programs are targeted by the rescissions?

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR.

The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia.

Is the rescissions package likely to get passed?

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them.

“This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”

Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber’s most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration.

“We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,” the group said in a press release.

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting.

“Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,” the Maine lawmaker said in a statement.

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. “is never going to default” as the deadline for increasing the federal debt ceiling gets closer.

“That is never going to happen,” Bessent said in an interview for CBS’ “Face the Nation” scheduled to air Sunday. “We are on the warning track and we will never hit the wall.”

Republican congressional leaders have attached an increase in the debt limit to President Trump’s tax and spending bill, which potentially puts avoiding a default at the mercy of complex negotiations over the legislation. The U.S. Senate returns this week to take up the bill.

Bessent declined to specify an “X date” — the point at which the Treasury runs out of cash and special accounting measures that allow it to stay within the debt ceiling and still make good on federal obligations on time.

“We don’t give out the ‘X date’ because we use that to move the bill forward,” Bessent said. Last month, Bessent told lawmakers that the U.S. was likely to exhaust its borrowing authority by August if the debt ceiling isn’t raised or suspended by then.

Wall Street analysts and private forecasters see the deadline falling sometime between late August and mid-October.

Bessent also pushed back against a warning by JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Jamie Dimon that a crack in the bond market “is going to happen.”

“I’ve known Jamie for a long time, and for his entire career he’s made predictions like this,” he said. “Fortunately none of them have come true.”

“We are going to bring the deficit down slowly,” Bessent said. “This has been a long process, so the goal is to bring it down over the next four years.”

Czuczka writes for Bloomberg News.

Reporting from Washington — Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday defended his broad view of gun rights and skepticism of federal regulatory agencies, but left uncertain his position on abortion and refused to detail his views on executive power, including whether a president can be ordered to answer questions in a criminal investigation.

Facing senators during a second day of his confirmation hearing that began in the morning and stretched well into the night, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee proved adept at giving lengthy answers without fully revealing his views on matters of controversy.

“You’re learning to filibuster,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told him when he steered around her question on whether the president is shielded from being investigated or questioned while in office.

As the evening wore on, none of the exchanges seemed to have changed the vote count in favor of Kavanaugh’s narrow confirmation. At only one point during the hearing — faced with questions about his knowledge of emails allegedly stolen from Democratic senators during the George W. Bush administration — did the otherwise well-prepared nominee appear flustered.

On presidential power, in particular, Kavanaugh seemed to come armed with a well-honed set of responses to questions about his previous writings.

In law review articles in 1998 and 2009, Kavanaugh said the president “should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office” and should not be subject to investigations or questioning. The “Constitution seems to dictate” that Congress, not a special prosecutor, should investigate a president for lawbreaking, he wrote.

But when pressed repeatedly by Democrats on Wednesday, Kavanaugh contended that he has never taken a position on whether the Constitution allows for indicting or investigating a sitting president for criminal wrongdoing. He did say a president could be tried and convicted after leaving office, whether at the end of a term or because of impeachment.

“I don’t think anyone thinks of immunity” for a president, he said.

The issue has taken on new significance because Trump is caught up in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and could be called to answer questions from a grand jury.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), joining other Republicans in trying to help the nominee articulate his views, asked Kavanaugh “whether you have any trouble ruling against a president who appointed you.”

“You’re correct. No one is above the law in our constitutional system,” Kavanaugh said. “The executive branch is subject to the law, subject to the court system.”

Kavanaugh passed up a chance to show his independence from Trump when Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) asked him whether he thought it was appropriate for the president to attack Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions for his prosecutors’ indictments of two GOP congressmen — Reps. Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of Alpine — ahead of the November election. Trump said it might endanger their reelection, ignoring the serious criminal charges against the men. Kavanaugh declined to offer his opinion. He also rebuffed a request from one Democratic senator that he recuse himself from any future cases involving the Mueller investigation of Trump and his campaign.

When Feinstein asked, “Can a sitting a president be required to respond to a subpoena?” Kavanaugh would not answer. “That’s a hypothetical question,” he said. “I can’t give you an answer to a hypothetical question.”

Kavanaugh did endorse as correct the Supreme Court’s 1974 ruling in United States vs. Nixon, which required President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. It was “one of the greatest moments in American judicial history,” he said.

But he refused to give a similar endorsement for the 1973 ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which established a woman’s right to abortion. Feinstein tried to get him to say whether the ruling was correct; Kavanaugh said only that it was entitled to respect as a precedent.

Most legal experts predict that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will provide the fifth conservative vote on the court to at least restrict abortion rights, if not overturn Roe. During his campaign, Trump promised to appoint only judges who would vote to overturn the abortion ruling.

But Kavanaugh seemed eager to raise some doubts about those predictions.

“I understand the significance on the issue,” he said Wednesday. “I don’t live in a bubble. I live in the real world.”

Kavanaugh noted several times that the 1973 abortion decision had been repeatedly affirmed, and that a 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which affirmed much of Roe, in effect created a “precedent on precedent.”

And he made an analogy to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s decision not to overturn the so-called Miranda rights disclosure requirement for criminal suspects. Rehnquist had long opposed the Miranda ruling, but then decided it was too late to overturn it, he noted. It’s also true, however, that Rehnquist found ways to narrow the ruling’s impact.

Kavanaugh’s remarks about Roe may have been largely directed at two female Republican senators, who support abortion rights and whose votes will be key to his confirmation. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska have not announced how they will vote.

But Kavanaugh gave no assurances about how he might vote, and nothing he said committed him to any particular outcome. In the past, some Supreme Court nominees have spoken about the importance of respecting precedents, and then once on the court voted to overturn them.

Feinstein, for one, seem unsatisfied. “We can’t accept vague promises from Brett Kavanaugh when women’s reproductive freedom is at stake,” she said on Twitter.

Live chat: Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings in the Senate »

Last fall, Kavanaugh was involved in a dispute over whether a migrant teenager in Texas could be released from immigration custody to obtain an abortion. A federal judge cleared the way, but Kavanaugh wrote a 2-1 decision siding with Trump administration lawyers and blocking the abortion for up to 10 more days. The full appeals court intervened and overturned his ruling.

In dissent, Kavanaugh faulted his more liberal colleagues for wrongly creating a “new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain abortion on demand.”

He defended that ruling Wednesday, stressing that the girl was 17 and not yet an adult. “If she had been an adult, she would have had a right to obtain an abortion immediately,” he told Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.).

Durbin rejected the distinction, noting that the teenager had appeared before a state judge in Texas who decided she was sufficiently mature to make the decision on her own.

On guns, Kavanaugh stuck fast to his support of a broad 2nd Amendment right to possess many types of weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle with a large magazine of ammunition.

He dissented alone in 2011 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a D.C. ordinance that prohibited semiautomatic “assault weapons.”

Three years before, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia vs. Heller struck down a law prohibiting possession of a handgun at home and established a 2nd Amendment individual right for gun ownership.

Feinstein asked why Kavanaugh believed semiautomatic weapons could not be banned, when appellate judges across the country had upheld such restrictions.

“I had to follow precedent,” Kavanaugh replied. He said the late Justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment did not protect weapons that are “dangerous and unusual,” and semiautomatic rifles are not unusual, he said. They are “widely possessed” by millions of gun owners, he said.

Kavanaugh did not back off, even when Feinstein spoke about the wave of mass shootings at schools using assault weapons. He stuck to the same position later when pressed by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

On the question of presidential power, Kavanaugh said that “no one is above the law,” a standard response by nominees.

But he declined to answer questions about whether Trump could pardon himself or pardon someone in exchange for an agreement not to testify against him, saying those were “hypothetical” questions that he couldn’t answer without potentially prejudging issues that might come before the courts.

The one issue that seemed to throw the nominee came from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who confronted him with what the senator said was evidence that a Republican staff member during George W. Bush’s administration had supplied Kavanaugh — who was then helping to confirm judges — with information that had been stolen from Democratic files. Leahy said the information detailed what the senator planned to ask nominees during confirmation hearings.

Leahy, whose emails were stolen, quizzed Kavanaugh on whether he knowingly used the stolen documents, noting that Kavanaugh was included in an email chain discussing the information. Kavanaugh said he did not recall. “I don’t really have a specific recollection of any of this,” he told lawmakers.

Leahy said later Wednesday that Grassley agreed to release documents related to the materials he said were stolen, which are now confined only to lawmakers on the committee.

Grassley’s office didn’t make the same pledge. Spokesman Taylor Foy said Grassley would “do his best to accommodate this last-minute request,” adding that waiving the classification would require input from the White House and former President Bush.

Some of the most robust exchanges came near the end from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who has developed a reputation for her tough questioning of Trump nominees during confirmation hearings.

Harris referred back to Kavanaugh’s remark about a “precedent on precedent” concerning Roe vs. Wade, and asked if it were not true that any five justices could overturn a precedent if they wanted.

“There’s a reason why the Supreme Court doesn’t do that,” Kavanaugh responded. “There are times” when the justices do, he said, but it’s “rare.”

She also pressed Kavanaugh on whether he had any conversations about the Mueller investigation with anyone at a law firm founded by one of the president’s lawyers. Kavanaugh avoided answering the question several times, finally saying he remembered no such conversation. A Democratic aide said that Harris’ staff was continuing to investigate the matter.

Kavanaugh was pressed repeatedly to explain his relationship with Judge Alex Kozinski, the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who retired last December after he was accused of sexually harassing female law clerks.

In 1991, Kavanaugh moved to Pasadena to work for one year as a law clerk for Kozinski. And he continued to consult with Kozinski over the years.

Kavanaugh said he had never heard of Kozinski harassing laws clerks or engaging in improper behavior until it was revealed last year in news stories. “It was a gut punch for me,” he said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said she was skeptical of his response. “It was an open secret, and it went on for 30 years,” she said.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) had a combative exchange with Kavanaugh while trying to pin the nominee down about his views on affirmative action. Booker asked if Kavanaugh believed that having a diverse student body is a compelling government interest that would justify considering race in admissions. Kavanaugh would not comment on his views, instead focusing on the Supreme Court’s precedent on affirmative action.

“I know what the law is now,” Booker said. “I’m worried about what the law is going to be when you get on the court.”

»

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

UPDATES:

7:05 p.m.: This article was updated after Harris spoke.

5:30 p.m.: This article was updated with Booker’s comments and other new details.

4:55 p.m.: This article was updated with more details from the hearing.

3:30 p.m.: This article was updated with more comments from Feinstein, Kavanaugh and others.

9:50 a.m.: This article was updated with details about Miranda, presidential power and Leahy’s questions.

8:15 a.m.: This article was updated with Kavanaugh’s comments about gun rights.

This article was originally published at 8 a.m.

A growing coalition of HIV prevention organizations, health experts and Democrats in Congress are sounding the alarm over sweeping Trump administration cuts to HIV/AIDS prevention and surveillance programs nationally, warning they will reverse years of progress combating the disease and cause spikes in new cases — especially in California and among the LGBTQ+ community.

In a letter addressed Friday to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) and 22 of her House colleagues demanded the release of HIV funding allocated by Congress but withheld by the Trump administration. They cited estimates from the Foundation for AIDS Research, known as amfAR, that the cuts could lead to 143,000 additional HIV infections nationwide and 127,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes within five years.

Friedman said the effects would be felt in communities small and large across the country but that California would be hit the hardest. She said L.A. County — which stands to lose nearly $20 million in annual federal HIV prevention funding — is being forced to terminate contracts with 39 providers and could see as many as 650 new cases per year as a result.

According to amfAR, that would mark a huge increase, pushing the total number of new infections per year in the county to roughly 2,000.

“South L.A. and communities across California are already feeling the devastating impacts of these withheld HIV prevention funds. These cuts aren’t just numbers — they’re shuttered clinics, canceled programs, and lives lost,” Friedman said in a statement to The Times.

As one example, she said, the Los Angeles LGBT Center — which is headquartered in her district — would likely have to eliminate a range of services including HIV testing, STD screening, community education and assistance for patients using pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medicine taken by pill or shot that can greatly reduce a person’s risk of becoming infected from sex or injection drug use.

A list reviewed by The Times of L.A. County providers facing funding cuts included large and small organizations and medical institutions in a diverse set of communities, from major hospitals and nonprofits to small clinics. The list was provided by a source on the condition of anonymity in order to be candid about the funding of organizations that have not all publicly announced the cuts.

The affected organizations serve a host of communities that already struggle with relatively high rates of HIV infection, including low-income, Spanish speaking, Black and brown and LGBTQ+ communities.

According to L.A. County, the Trump administration’s budget blueprint eliminates or reduces a number of congressionally authorized public health programs, including funding cuts to the domestic HIV prevention program and the Ryan White program, which supports critical care and treatment services for uninsured and underinsured people living with HIV.

The county said the cuts would have “an immediate and long-lasting impact” on community health.

Dozens of organizations and hospitals, such as Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, are bracing for the disruption and potential vacuum of preventative services they’ve been providing to the community since the 1980s, according to Claudia Borzutzky, the hospital’s Chief of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine.

Borzutzky said without the funding, programs that provide screening, education, patient navigation and community outreach — especially for at-risk adolescents and young adults — will evaporate. So, too, will free services that help patients enroll in insurance and access HIV prevention medications.

Patients who “face a variety of health barriers” and are often stigmatized will bear the brunt, she said, losing the “role models [and] peer educators that they can relate to and help [them] build confidence to come into a doctor’s office and seek testing and treatment.”

“We are having to sunset these programs really, really quickly, which impacts our patients and staff in really dramatic ways,” she said.

Answers to queries sent to other southern California health departments suggested they are trying to figure out how to cope with budget shortfalls, too. Health officials from Kern, San Bernardino and Riverside counties all said the situation is uncertain, and that they don’t yet know how they will respond.

Friedman and her colleagues — including fellow California representatives Nancy Pelosi, Judy Chu, Gilbert Cisneros Jr., Robert Garcia, Sam Liccardo, Kevin Mullin, Mark Takano, Derek Tran and George Whitesides — said they were concerned not only about funding for programs nationwide being cut, but also about the wholesale dismantling or defunding of important divisions working on HIV prevention within the federal government.

They questioned in their letter staffing cuts to the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as “the reported elimination” of the Division of HIV Prevention within that center.

In addition to demanding the release of funds already allocated by Congress, the representatives called on Kennedy — and Dr. Debra Houry, deputy director of the CDC — to better communicate the status of ongoing grant funding, and to release “a list of personnel within CDC who can provide timely responses” when those groups to whom Congress had already allocated funding have questions moving forward.

“Although Congress has appropriated funding for HIV prevention in Fiscal Year 2025, several grant recipients have failed to receive adequate communication from CDC regarding the status of their awards,” Friedman and her colleagues wrote. “This ambiguity has caused health departments across the country to pre-emptively terminate HIV and STD prevention contracts with local organizations due to an anticipated lack of funding.”

The letter is just the latest challenge to the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to federal agencies and to federal funding allocated by Congress to organizations around the country.

Through a series of executive orders and with the help of his billionaire adviser Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” and other agency heads, Trump in the first months of his second term has radically altered the federal government’s footprint, laying off thousands of federal workers and attempting to claw back trillions of dollars in federal spending — to be reallocated to projects more aligned with his political agenda, or used to pay for tax cuts that Democrats and independent reviewers have said will disproportionately help wealthy Americans.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office has repeatedly sued the Trump administration over such moves, including cuts and layoffs within Health and Human Services broadly and cuts to grants intended to make states more resistant to infectious disease specifically — calling them unwise, legally unjustifiable and a threat to the health of average Americans.

LGBTQ+ organizations also have sued the Trump administration over orders to preclude health and other organizations from spending federal funding on diversity, equity and inclusion programs geared toward LGBTQ+ populations, including programs designed to decrease new HIV infections and increase healthy management of the disease among transgender people and other vulnerable groups.

“The orders seek to erase transgender people from public life; dismantle diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives; and strip funding from nonprofits providing life-saving health care, housing, and support services,” said Jose Abrigo, the HIV Project Director of Lambda Legal, in a statement. The legal group has filed a number of lawsuits challenging the Trump administration cuts, including one on behalf of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and other nonprofits.

Trump has defended his cuts to the federal government as necessary to implement his agenda. He and his agency leaders have consistently said that the cuts target waste, fraud and abuse in the government, and that average Americans will be better served following the reshuffling.

Kennedy has consistently defended the changes within Health and Human Services, as well. Agency spokespeople have said the substantial cuts would help it focus on Kennedy’s priorities of “ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins.”

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy has said. “This Department will do more — a lot more — at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”

Kennedy has repeatedly spread misinformation about HIV and AIDS in the past, including by giving credence to the false claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.

As recently as June 2023, Kennedy told a reporter for New York Magazine that there “are much better candidates than H.I.V. for what causes AIDS,” and he has previously suggested that environmental toxins and “poppers” — an inhalant drug popular in the gay community — could be causes of AIDS instead.

None of that is supported by science or medicine. Studies from around the world have proven the link between HIV and AIDS, and found it — not drug use or sexual behavior — to be the only common factor in AIDS cases.

Officials in L.A. County said they remained hopeful that the Trump administration would reverse course after considering the effects of the cuts — and the “detrimental impacts on the health and well-being of residents and workers across” the county if they are allowed to stand.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld, for now, President Trump’s decision to fire two agency officials who had fixed terms that were set by Congress.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices set aside rulings that would have reinstated Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both were appointees of President Biden.

The decision is the latest in which the court’s conservative majority sided with the president’s power to fire agency officials in violation of long-standing laws.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said in an unsigned order.

But the justices were quick to add the Federal Reserve Board is not affected by this decision.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the court said.

President Trump has threatened to fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell, whose term extends to next year.

At issue is a fundamental dispute over whether the Constitution gave the president or Congress the power to set the structure of the federal government.

In 1935, the court ruled unanimously that Congress can create independent and “nonpartisan” boards and commissions whose members are appointed by the president for a fixed term. The court then drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and members of boards whose duties were more judicial or legislative.

But in recent years, conservatives have questioned that precedent and argued that the president has the executive power to hire and fire all officials of the government.

Shortly after taking office, Trump fired Wilcox and Harris even though their terms had not expired. They sued contending the firings were illegal and violated the law.

They won before a federal judge and the U.S. court of appeals.

Those judges cited the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision that upheld Congress’ authority to create independent boards whose members are appointed by the president to serve a fixed-term.

Trump’s lawyers say the Constitution gives the president full executive power, including control of agencies. And that in turns gives him the authority to fire officials who were appointed to a fixed term by another president, they said in Trump vs. Wilcox.

Justice Elena Kagan filed an eight-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Today’s order favors the President over our precedent; and it does so unrestrained by the rules of briefing and argument—and the passage of time— needed to discipline our decision-making,” Kagan wrote. “I would deny the President’s application. I would do so based on the will of Congress, this Court’s seminal decision approving independent agencies’ for-cause protections, and the ensuing 90 years of this Nation’s history.”

The court said its decision was not final.

The NLRB was created by Congress in 1935 as a semi-independent agency tasked with enforcing the labor laws. Its general counsel serves as a prosecutor while the board‘s five members act as judges who review administrative decisions arising from unfair-labor claims brought by unions.

Under the law, the president appoints the general counsel who can be fired but board members have five-year terms. They may be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” but not simply because of political disagreements.

Trump could have controlled the board by appointing members to fill two vacancies. He chose instead to fire Wilcox, leaving the board without a quorum of three members.

Wilcox argued there was no reason to rush to change the law.

“Over the past two centuries, Congress has embedded modest for-cause removal restrictions in the structure of numerous multi-member agencies,” she said in response to the administration’s appeal. She noted that all past presidents — Republicans and Democrats — did not challenge those limits.

The Merit System Protections Board was created by Congress in 1978 as a part of a civil service reform law. Its three board members have seven-year terms, and they review complaints from federal civil servants who allege they were fired for partisan or other inappropriate reasons.

Trump’s decision to fire Harris also left the board without a quorum.

The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate defied congressional norms and voted Wednesday to revoke California’s progressive vehicle emission standards that would’ve effectively banned the sale of new gasoline-only cars by 2035.

In a 51-44 vote, the Senate overturned a Biden-era waiver that enabled California and a contingent of Democratic-led states to enforce zero-emission requirements for the sale of new passenger vehicles. After several hours of debate and testimony, legislators struck down a landmark regulation that aimed to drastically accelerate electric vehicle sales in California and nearly a dozen other states that chose to follow its lead, substantially reducing air pollution and planet-warming carbon emissions from tailpipes.

The Advanced Clean Cars II rule, enacted in 2022 by the California Air Resources Board and granted a federal waiver by the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency in December 2024, required car manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission or plug-in hybrid vehicles to California dealerships over the next decade. Starting next year, the rule would have mandated that 35% of all new vehicles supplied to California dealerships be zero-emission vehicles or plug-in hybrids. By 2035, it would’ve prohibited the sale of new, gas-only cars statewide.

By invalidating the rule, Republican senators stamped out one of California’s most ambitious environmental policies and, more broadly, challenged the state’s authority to enact vehicle standards to combat its notoriously unhealthy air quality. If the measure is signed into law by President Trump and survives impending legal challenges, the vote would serve as a coup de grace to the state’s decades-long efforts to comply with federal smog standards in Southern California and meet California’s own ambitious climate goals.

The zero-emission requirements were expected to eliminate nearly 70,000 tons of smog-forming emissions and 4,500 tons of soot statewide by 2040, preventing more than 1,200 premature deaths and providing $13 billion in public health benefits, according to the California Air Resources Board. It also was expected to prevent the release of 395 million metric tons of carbon emissions — roughly the amount released by 100 coal plants in a year.

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned that nullifying this rule and stripping California’s regulatory power would have serious health effects across the state.

“We are sowing poison seeds for the future,” Schiff said. “Seeds that will grow to be more asthma and more sickness and more hospitalization and more death. That is the bleak but blatant reality of what we are debating here today.”

Republicans, however, argued that California’s zero-emission requirements threatened to cripple the American auto industry and significantly limit the options for car buyers. In the coming days, Republicans plan to undo additional California clean-air rules that require the state’s heavy-duty truck fleet to adopt cleaner engines and a growing percentage of zero-emission vehicles.

“Democrats have this delusional dream of eliminating gas-powered vehicles in America,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday from a lectern on the floor of the U.S. Capitol. “They want to force-feed electric vehicles to every man and woman who drives in this country. Well, Republicans are ready to use the Congressional Review Act to end this Democrat electric vehicle fantasy.”

Republicans moved ahead with the vote despite the warnings from the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian that the waivers could not be overturned with the Congressional Review Act — a law that was meant to allow legislators to inspect and potentially block federal rules adopted in the waning days of a previous presidential administration.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, said the vote was a flagrant abuse of the Congressional Review Act. He threatened to block or delay the confirmation process for four Trump nominees to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if Senate Republicans voted to overturn California’s vehicle emission standards.

“It appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine California’s ability to protect the health of our residents by using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California’s waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emission standards,” Padilla said. “Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents.”

Environmental advocates, many of whom had spent years supporting California’s emissions standards, expressed their disappointment in the vote.

“This is a major blow to the decades-long public health protections delivered under the Clean Air Act,” said Will Barrett, senior director of nationwide clean air advocacy for the American Lung Assn. “It is more important than ever that California and all other states that rely on Clean Air Act waivers continue to cut tailpipe pollution through homegrown, health-protective policies.”

Because of its historically poor air quality, California has been an innovator in clean car policy, enacting the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards in 1966. California was later granted the special authority to adopt vehicle emission standards that are more strict than the federal government’s under the Clean Air Act. But the state must seek a federal waiver from the U.S. EPA for any specific rule to be enforceable.

In the five decades since then, the state has enacted dozens of rules to reduce air pollution and planet-warming greenhouse gases. Padilla stressed that these rules were largely meant to alleviate lung-aggravating smog, which was a persistent threat where he grew up in Los Angeles.

“On a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley,” Padilla said. “That’s the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it’s the reason why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California’s unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity, and granted California special authority to do something about it.”

Due to its enormous economy and population, automakers have conformed to California’s rules. In addition, many Democrat-led states have chosen to adhere to California’s auto emissions rules, applying more pressure on car companies first to make cleaner engines and later to manufacture more electric vehicles.

California leads the nation in zero-emission vehicle sales. In 2023 and 2024, about 25% of new cars sold in California were zero-emission or plug-in hybrids, according to the California Energy Commission. This year, the share of zero-emission vehicle sales has slightly slumped, making up only 23% of light-duty vehicle sales.

But the Advanced Clean Cars II rule would require a jump in zero-emission sales next year, with at least 35% of vehicles supplied to car dealer lots to be zero-emission or plug-in hybrids.

Mike Stanton, president of the National Automobile Dealers Assn., contended that consumer demand for electric vehicles falls far below California’s requirements, in part, because of unreliable charging infrastructure.

“Banning gas and hybrid cars is a national issue that should be decided by Congress, not an unelected state agency,” Stanton wrote in a letter to senators, referring to the California Air Resources Board.

In February, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin brought the Biden-era waivers to Congress, suggesting that they were federal rules that had not been reviewed. However, none of California’s waivers for the state’s vehicle emission standards had been brought before Congress for review, because they were largely regarded as administrative orders.

The House of Representatives voted this month to advance the resolution to the Senate. Thirty-five Democratic lawmakers, including California Reps. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) and Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), joined with the Republican majority.

In the Senate, the 51-44 vote was split along party lines.

Experts say the Senate vote could have lasting implications for congressional procedures.

To topple California auto emission standards, Senate Republicans controversially invoked the Congressional Review Act, a 1996 law that allows an incoming Congress to rescind major federal rules approved near the end of a previous presidential administration. This process notably allows federal legislators to bypass a filibuster and requires only a simple majority to repeal federal rules rather than the typical 60 votes.

However, the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said federal waivers for California emission standards were not subject to the Congressional Review Act, because the federal waiver is technically not a rule; it’s an order. The Senate Parliamentarian, a non-partisan advisor to the congressional body, upheld that interpretation, ruling that the Senate couldn’t use the Congressional Review Act to repeal California’s waivers.

The Senate vote proceeded in defiance of the parliamentarian’s ruling, marking a stunning rebuke of congressional norms.

The decision by Republican senators amounted to a “nuclear option” that would set a dangerous precedent, Padilla said.

“The old adage says, ‘What goes around comes around,’” he said. “It won’t be long before Democrats are once again in the driver’s seat, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off.”

RICHMOND, Va. — U.S. Rep. Gerald “Gerry” Connolly, an outspoken Democrat who sought key reforms in the federal government while bringing transformational development to his populous Virginia district, died Wednesday. He was 75.

Connolly, who most recently held a prominent position as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, served in Congress for more than 16 years.

He died at home in the company of family members, his family said in a statement. Connolly announced in 2024 that he had esophageal cancer and said a few months later that he planned to retire from Congress. His death leaves House Republicans with a 220-212 majority.

The spirited and at times bullheaded Fairfax Democrat became known for his voluble nature and willingness to engage in spirited debates. In one hearing, he accused Republicans of engaging in a witch hunt against the IRS, asking a witness if they ever read Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.”

“I am heartbroken over the loss of my dear friend,” said Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. “To me, he exemplified the very best of public service.” He said Connolly “met every challenge with tenacity and purpose, including his final battle with cancer, which he faced with courage, grace, and quiet dignity.”

A fixture of Virginia politics for three decades, Connolly was first elected to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in 1995. On the county board, he steered the transition of northern Virginia’s Tysons Corner from a traffic-heavy mall area to a downtown business hub.

In 2003, Connolly was elected board chairman, and he continued pushing for transportation investment that had been debated among officials for decades. Connolly sought billions in state and federal dollars to develop the regional rail system’s Silver Line connecting the national capital region to Tysons Corner.

Connolly’s dream was realized with the Silver Line’s opening in 2014, and eight years later, the rail line was extended an extra 11 miles to reach Dulles International Airport.

As the extension opened in 2022, Connolly said: “Doing big things is difficult — the world is filled with naysayers.”

Connolly’s local government experience launched his congressional career. He was elected in 2008 after flipping an open Republican-held seat by nearly 42,000 votes. In his victory speech, Connolly said he would use his position to ensure the federal bureaucracy is “a responsive, accountable instrument for the people we serve.”

“If we insist the government must work for all of our citizens again, we cannot fail,” Connolly said.

Connolly got his first taste of Congress while working as a staffer for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the 1980s. Decades later, Connolly became a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He also served as a member of the House Oversight Committee and led Democrats on subcommittees on government innovation and information technology.

Connolly cosponsored the 2010 Telework Enhancement Act, which requires federal agencies to allow a portion of their employees to telework at least one day a week. In 2014, he cosponsored another bill that reformed federal IT management and has since saved the government billions of dollars, according to the Government Accountability Office.

He also closely followed the financial burden of the slowing U.S. Postal Service, becoming a prominent voice accusing President Trump and former Postmaster General Louis DeJoy of seeking to winnow the postal service to suppress mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election.

Connolly reached a new milestone late last year as he was chosen ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. He defeated Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for the position. The victory came shortly after Connolly announced that he had been diagnosed with esophageal cancer and would undergo chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

As ranking member, Connolly called on inspectors general to investigate the Department of Government Efficiency. He and other Democrats also introduced a pair of resolutions demanding the Trump administration turn over documents and information about billionaire advisor Elon Musk’s potential conflicts of interest and the firings of federal workers.

He said in late April that after “grueling treatments,” he learned that the cancer had returned and that he decided to step down from his post on the committee and would not seek reelection.

“With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter full of pride in what we’ve accomplished together over 30 years,” he said.

Diaz writes for the Associated Press.

A bipartisan group of Congressional representatives are calling on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to streamline the government’s visa processing system to ensure visitors from abroad will be able to attend next year’s FIFA World Cup as well as the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.

The World Cup, which kicks off in less than 400 days, is expected to generate $3.75 billion in economic activity in the U.S. With SoFi Stadium in Inglewood hosting eight games, the economic impact on Southern California is estimated at nearly $600 million.

But cost-cutting measures proposed by Rubio could threaten that by reducing staff and closing some embassies and consulates, increasing visa wait times and making an already cumbersome system more complicated and costly. That could keep tens of thousands of fans at home.

Even without the changes, six countries have at least one U.S. diplomatic post with visa wait times that extend beyond the start of the World Cup.

Rubio is scheduled to appear Wednesday before the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he will be asked about the visa process, said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles). Kamlager-Dove, a member of that committee and a proponent of sports diplomacy, laid out her concerns and those of her colleagues in two-page letter addressed to Rubio and signed by 52 representatives, including Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills), the first Republican to sign on; Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee; and Ted Lieu (D-Manhattan Beach), a member of Democratic House leadership.

“I’m hoping to get some answers and some solutions,” said Kamlager-Dove, whose sprawling districts ranges from the border with Beverly Hills to South Los Angeles. “This is a real problem because it impacts attendance and it impacts economic activity.”

The 2026 World Cup will be the largest in history, with a record 48 countries participating. It will also be the first World Cup played in three countries, with Mexico and Canada sharing host duties with the U.S. However the vast majority of the games — 78 of 104 — will be played in 11 U.S. cities between June 11 and July 19, 2026.

“The economic stakes of these games and significant for red and blue districts nationwide, as is the diplomatic and soft-power opportunity of being at the center of the international sports universe,” Kamlager-Dove wrote in her letter. “However the success of these games hinges on the State Department’s ability to efficiently process the visa applications of spectators, athletes and media.”

Kamlager-Dove believes the opportunity is too important to be sacrificed to politics.

“The United States has an obligation to put its best foot forward as the host of these games,” she said. “Sports diplomacy is an important tool for us as we continue to talk about peace and cooperation. It’s also so important as we recognize all of the different ethnic communities that help make up the United States and want to root for their home team.

“And so you want restaurants to be full, clubs and bars to be full, hotels to be full.”

Earlier this month President Trump held the first meeting of a White House task force charged with overseeing what the president called “the biggest, safest and most extraordinary soccer tournament in history.” But the administration has sent mixed signals over exactly how welcoming it intends to be.

At that meeting attended by FIFA president Gianni Infantino, Vice President JD Vance — co-chair of the task force — said the U.S. wants foreign visitors “to come, we want them to celebrate, we want them to watch the games. But when the time is up we want them to go home, otherwise they will have to talk to Secretary Noem.” He referred to Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, whose agency has detained and interrogated visa holders at U.S. points of entry.

“It is up to [Rubio] to square that circle for us when he comes to our committee,” Kamlager-Dove said. “The good news is you have Republicans and Democrats asking these questions. These games are non-partisan. And I believe that these are practical, logistical, solvable log jams that deserve a solution.

“Staff the State Department to focus on them. Accelerate and streamline these processes and prioritize diplomacy. Because the games are diplomatic.”