Congress

WASHINGTON — President Trump, alongside his wife, Melania, on Monday signed the Take It Down Act, a measure the first lady helped usher through Congress to set stricter penalties for the distribution of non-consensual intimate imagery online, or “revenge porn.”

In March, Melania Trump used her first public appearance since resuming the role of first lady to travel to Capitol Hill to lobby House members to pass the bill following its approval by the Senate.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier Monday that the first lady was “instrumental in getting this important legislation passed.”

The bill makes it a federal crime to “knowingly publish” or threaten to publish intimate images without a person’s consent, including AI-created “deepfakes.” Websites and social media companies will be required to remove such material within 48 hours after a victim requests it. The platforms must also take steps to delete duplicate content.

Many states have already banned the dissemination of sexually explicit deepfakes or revenge porn, but the Take It Down Act is a rare example of federal regulators imposing on internet companies.

The bill, sponsored by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress, passing the House in April by a 409-2 vote and clearing the Senate by unanimous consent.

But the measure isn’t without critics. Free speech advocates and digital rights groups say the bill is too broad and could lead to censorship of legitimate images, including legal pornography and LGBTQ+ content. Others say it could allow the government to monitor private communications and undermine due process.

The first lady appeared at a Capitol Hill roundtable with lawmakers and young women who had explicit images of them put online, saying it was “heartbreaking” to see what teenagers and especially girls go through after this happens to them. She also included a victim among her guests for the president’s address to a joint session of Congress the day after that meeting.

After the House passed the bill, Melania Trump called the bipartisan vote a “powerful statement that we stand united in protecting the dignity, privacy and safety of our children.”

Her advocacy for the bill is a continuation of the Be Best campaign she started in the president’s first term, focusing on children’s well-being, social media use and opioid abuse.

In his speech to Congress in March, the president said the publication of such imagery online is “just terrible” and that he looked forward to signing the bill into law.

“And I’m going to use that bill for myself, too, if you don’t mind,” he said. There’s nobody who “gets treated worse than I do online. Nobody.”

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton on Saturday, tarnishing his legacy by making him only the second president in the nation’s history ordered to stand trial in the Senate.

In approving two articles of impeachment largely along party lines, the Republican-controlled House alleged that Clinton perjured himself before a federal grand jury and obstructed justice as he sought to conceal his extramarital affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

But two other articles–charging Clinton with lying in a legal deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case and abusing his presidential power–were voted down. In addition, a Democratic attempt to censure rather than impeach Clinton failed on a strict party-line vote.

And in a stunning symbol of the personal politics that has savaged a growing number of public officials at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.) shocked the packed House chamber by announcing that he will resign over the disclosure of his own adulterous affairs.

At the White House, the president urged Livingston to reconsider and, while impeachment votes were being cast, huddled in the Oval Office with one of the ministers he asked to provide spiritual guidance in his self-imposed penance for breaking his marriage vows.

With the outcome of a likely Senate trial uncertain, Livingston and other Republicans called on Clinton to resign, saying that it was the honorable thing for him to do.

Yet within hours of the votes for impeachment, the president appeared in a White House garden and–in a brace of solidarity with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and scores of congressional Democrats–declared that he was determined to continue the work of his presidency “until the last hour of the last day of my term.”

Saying that he had accepted responsibility for his actions, he again invited lawmakers to censure him as punishment.

“I hope it will be embraced by the Senate,” he said. “I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.”

The historic votes and successive episodes of high drama made for a political day like no other as the close of the American Century nears. It also came at the end of a year of unprecedented bitter political enmity, which gave way to only one moment of unity on the House floor when both sides rose to applaud a call for an end to “slash-and-burn-and-smear politics.”

It was from that chaotic environment that the case against Clinton was formally carried by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), along with the other dozen GOP managers of the impeachment case, to Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco.

A Solemn, Rule-Bound Senate Trial Looms

There, unless a plea bargain or some other compromise is reached, the case that has consumed Washington for 11 months will be tried in a solemn, rule-bound procedure that was last used against a president 130 years ago. If two-thirds of the Senate finds Clinton guilty on even one of the articles, he will immediately be removed from office as 42nd president of the United States.

On other fronts Saturday:

* With Livingston announcing that he will not accept the speakership when the 106th Congress convenes in January, the scramble for the position, second in the line of succession to the presidency, began anew only six weeks after House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) decided to step down in the face of Republican losses in the midterm elections. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), a conservative, emerged quickly as the new GOP favorite.

* Before the debate resumed Saturday morning, the first lady arrived on Capitol Hill and met behind closed doors with House Democrats to thank them for their support and ask for fairness in their votes on impeachment.

* After the debate had quieted and the votes impeaching Clinton had been cast, many Democrats left the Capitol for the White House, some riding in a blue-and-white bus that rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then crowding around the president, first lady and Vice President Al Gore outside the Oval Office, they readily accepted the administration’s gratitude for fighting to keep Clinton in the White House.

* Immediately after adopting the articles, the House appointed 13 Republican lawmakers as managers to present the case before the Senate.

Led by Hyde, they include Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who began calling for Clinton’s ouster long before the public ever heard the name Lewinsky, and Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), a junior member of the Judiciary Committee who once served as a municipal judge. Also selected was Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who holds the Arkansas congressional seat that Clinton himself once sought.

* In California’s 52-member delegation, lawmakers heeded the party line on the first article against Clinton, with all 23 Republicans supporting impeachment and 28 Democrats opposed.

But there was some splitting among GOP lawmakers on subsequent articles as Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose voted against Articles 2 and 4; Rep. Jay C. Kim of Diamond Bar opposed Articles 2, 3 and 4; and Reps. Frank Riggs of Windsor and Brian Bilbray of San Diego voted against Article 4. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), recovering from hip surgery, did not vote.

* The 16 hours of debate over two days and Saturday’s votes came against the backdrop of U.S. and British strikes against Iraq. Saturday evening, Clinton announced an end to the four-night assault. But Saturday morning, the war still cast a shadow over the House chamber as lawmakers debated the future of the man who had ordered those attacks.

“Every single man and woman in Operation Desert Fox at this very moment is held to a higher standard than their commander in chief,” said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). “Let us raise the standard of our American leader to the level of his troops. Let us once again respect the institution of the presidency.”

Although most observers expect Clinton to win acquittal in the Senate, the specter of a potentially long and lurid trial is so ominous that the White House, its Democratic allies and lawyers already have begun efforts to broker a bipartisan compromise to end the ouster process before Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist gavels a trial to order.

Hyde Urges Colleagues to Send Stern Message

Hyde, who led the Clinton impeachment inquiry, urged his colleagues to send a stern message to all elected officials that they must support such basic constitutional precepts as telling the truth under oath.

“Equal justice under the law, that’s what we’re fighting for,” he said in a closing statement.

“And when the chief law enforcement officer trivializes, ignores, shreds, minimizes the sanctity of the oath and justice is wounded and you’re wounded and your children are wounded, follow your conscience and you will serve the country.”

On the opposite side of the aisle, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) argued that censure of the president is the proper course.

“America is held hostage to tactics of smear and fear,” he warned. “Let all of us here today say no to resignation, no to impeachment, no to intolerance of each other and no to vicious self-righteousness.”

But the politics of rancor are likely to carry over into the Senate, where the Republicans hold a 55-45 majority. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has said that he expects a flurry of pretrial motions early next month by the Clinton team. He said that it will be difficult to determine when the trial will begin.

“That time,” he said, “will depend greatly on the president and his lawyers.”

Meanwhile, he added, the Senate legal counsel will be presenting an explanation of historical background and current rules governing impeachment proceedings.

“The process,” Lott said, “is governed both by the Constitution and by our rules and precedents.”

In 1868, President Andrew Johnson escaped ouster on the thinness of a single Senate vote. In 1974, President Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on the three articles of impeachment voted against him by the Judiciary Committee.

The two articles approved by the House accuse Clinton of lying under oath during his appearance before a grand jury and obstructing justice in attempting to conceal his relationship with Lewinsky.

Article 1 says that Clinton “willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” about his relationship with Lewinsky, his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and gifts the couple exchanged. It passed on a 228-206 vote, with five members from each side breaking party ranks.

While Clinton’s lawyers have admitted that the president may have been misleading in his testimony, they have bluntly denied that he intentionally lied.

Article 3 says that Clinton “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony.”

The White House has argued that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr twisted the facts against the president to make his actions appear incriminating, but the vote was 221 to 212, with 12 Republicans voting no and five Democrats voting yes.

Articles 2 and 4, which failed, accused Clinton of committing perjury in a deposition in the Jones case and abusing his power by submitting false statements in written responses to the Judiciary Committee. Article 2 was defeated, 229 to 205, and Article 4, 285 to 148.

Impeachment Grew All but Certain

Although impeachment appeared a long shot a month ago, it was all but certain when the bell rang for the first vote.

The corps of undecideds who held the president’s fate in its hands turned on the president in the end. Only five Republicans bucked their party’s leadership to oppose all four articles of impeachment. Just as many Democrats favored Clinton’s ouster.

Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi was the only Democrat to vote for all four articles. Four other Democrats joined him in voting for the first three articles: Reps. Virgil H. Goode Jr. of Virginia, Ralph M. Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania and Charles W. Stenholm of Texas.

Saturday’s debate began after the obligatory Pledge of Allegiance, followed immediately by a loud and sustained “aawwwww” sound from Democrats who appeared to be making the sound of gagging.

It was clear that there would be no love lost on either side.

In stark contrast to the scene of Friday’s debate, almost every seat on the House floor was taken and the visitors’ and press galleries were filled to capacity. Lines of tourists and spectators snaked along the third-floor hallways.

Print reporters jammed the Speaker’s Lobby, just off the House floor, and on the sweeping East Lawn of the Capitol television correspondents jostled shoulder to shoulder for position in front of their camera crews.

Inside the House chamber, the first to rise in debate was Rogan. “The evidence is overwhelming; the question is elementary,” he said.

‘He Repeatedly Perjured Himself’

What this impeachment would be all about, he said, was Clinton’s initial intent to do anything he could to get out from under the Jones lawsuit.

“The president was obliged under his sacred oath faithfully to execute our nation’s laws,” Rogan said. “Yet he repeatedly perjured himself and obstructed justice, not for any noble purpose, but to crush a humble, lone woman’s right to be afforded access to the courts.”

Next to speak was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland). “The Republican process is cynical and it’s dangerous. It will be recorded that they stood on the wrong side of history.”

Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Judiciary Committee member, evoked the name of Nixon and noted that the same panel had voted articles of impeachment against him during the Watergate scandal.

While President Nixon cheated the political system by trying to hide a political break-in, he said, Clinton subverted the country’s legal system.

“Let it be said that any president who cheats our institutions shall be impeached,” he said.

But it was Livingston’s remarks that set the House on fire.

Addressing the president, the speaker-nominee said that Clinton had “done great damage to the nation over this past year.”

“You have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created,” he thundered. “You, sir, may resign your post.”

Democrats Roar With Disapproval

To Livingston’s right, Democrats roared with disapproval. With Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) presiding in the speaker’s chair and pounding his gavel, Democrats screamed: “No, you resign! You resign!”

And then Livingston did just that, announcing that he would not run for speaker next month and would resign in six months from his seat of 11 years.

The room gasped. The Democrats were suddenly silent (although some would later rise to ask him to reconsider) and when Livingston offered one final “God bless America” in closing, politicians on both sides stood and applauded.

Other speakers followed. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who in his angst called a town meeting last week to help him decide how to vote, announced that he was for the president.

“We’ve all tried to do our best,” he said. “And we will all have to live with our votes the rest of our lives.”

Some spoke with fury.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), a former football star and rising voice in the GOP, spoke with emotion about how a vote to uphold the law was a vote for “our children.” In a pointed reference to the perjury allegations against Clinton, Watts said: “Ask your children. The kid who lies doesn’t last.”

Equally passionate was Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s who asked for the two sides to come together.

He recalled a violent storm when he was a youngster in Alabama, huddled with his family inside their home.

“We never left the house,” he said. “The wind may blow, the thunder may roll, the lightning may flash, but we must never leave the American house. We must stay together as a family, one house, one family, the American house, the American family.”

When lawmakers had debated impeachment for a final two hours, they spent another hour discussing the Democrats’ censure alternative.

Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who in January will join the Senate, said: “The rule of law requires that the punishment fit the crime. Allow us to vote for censure, the appropriate punishment under the rule of law.”

But Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), who like Schumer sits on the Judiciary panel, rejected the proposal as unsuitable.

“The constitutional method is impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate,” he said. “Other methods may seem to us more convenient or more comfortable, but our standard cannot be comfort or convenience.”

The House voted, 230 to 204, on a procedural motion that defeated Democrats’ effort to censure.

Then came the votes on impeachment.

And with that, the lame-duck session of the 105th Congress adjourned.

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, Melissa Healy, Robert L. Jackson, Art Pine and Alissa J. Rubin contributed to this story.

Times on the Web: Video clips from Saturday’s impeachment proceedings, Times political writer Ronald Brownstein’s audio analysis and a complete list of House members’ votes are on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/scandal

IMPEACHMENT

* Looking Ahead: The stage is set for a partisan struggle focused on the question of whether the president lied under oath. A48

* Legacy Stained: Clinton can claim other achievements, but history will remember him as the second president to be impeached. A48

* Reaction From Right: Conservatives avoid celebrating even though they see vindication of effort to cut short Clinton’s career. A45

* View from home: Weary Arkansans describe feeling a mixture of melancholy and disengagement over the historic vote. A47

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Next Step: The Senate

On Saturday, just after the historic vote to impeach President Clinton, the House appointed 13 managers who will act as prosecutors in the Senate trial.

The appointment is one of several traditions inherited from the British legal system under which the U.S. Senate has conducted impeachment trials since 1868. Here are some of the others:

The Proceedins:

* The Senators each take an oath as a juror.

* The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as judge and has the power to make and enforce rulings.

* The Senate has subpoena power. Witnesses are sworn in.

* The accused is advised of the charges against him, but the trial will proceed with or without his presence.

* One person on each side–the prosecution and the defense–makes an opening argument.

* Any witness called by one side must be cross-examined by the other side.

* Senators are not to talk during the trial. If a Senator wants to ask a question of a witness, the Senator must submit that question in writing to the chief justice.

* The Senate doors must remain open unless the Senators are deliberating.

* The vote for each article of impeachment is taken separately and without debate. During the deliberations, Senators may speak to each other within limited rules set down by the chief justice.

* Two-thirds vote (67) needed to remove president

*

The Senate

The political party makeup of the 106th Senate did not change from the previous Senate.

Republicans: 55

Democrats: 45

*

Newly elected senators

Republicans

Jim Bunning (Ky.)

Michael D. Crapo (Idaho)

Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.)

George Voinovich (Ohio)

*

Democrats

Evan Bayh (Ind.)

John Edwards (N.C.)

Blanche Lamber Lincoln (Ark.)

Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.)

*

Senators not returning in January

Republicans

Dan Coats (Ind.)

Alfonse M. D’Amato (N.Y.)

Lauch Faircloth (N.C.)

Dirk Kempthorne (Idaho)

*

Democrats

Dale Bumpers (Ark.)

Wendall H. Ford (Ky.)

John Glenn (Ohio)

Carol Moseley-Braun (Ill.)

Researched by TRICIA FORD / Los Angeles Times

SACRAMENTO — One of the many traits that set California apart from other states is the way undocumented immigrants are woven into our communities.

Their economic impact is obvious, and the Golden State would be hard-pressed to keep our status as a world-competing financial power without their labor.

But most Californians know, and are OK with the reality, that at least some of our neighbors, our kids’ classmates, our co-workers, are without legal documents, or in blended-status families.

Gov. Gavin Newsom took a stand Wednesday for those undocumented Californians that seems to have gone largely unnoticed, but which probably will be a big fight in Congress and courts. In his bad news-filled budget presentation, Newsom committed to keeping state-funded health insurance for undocumented residents (with cuts, deep ones, which I’ll get to). Although some are disappointed by his rollbacks, many of which will hit citizens and noncitizens alike, standing by California’s expansion to cover all low income people is a statement of values.

“We’ve provided more support than any state in American history, and we’ll continue to provide more support than any state in American history,” he said.

Sticking with that promise is going to be tough, and likely costly.

This decision comes as Congress considers a Trump-led budget bill that would severely penalize states (there are 14 of them) that continue to provide health insurance to undocumented immigrants. California, of course, has the largest number of such folks on its Medi-Cal plan and would be the hardest hit if that penalty does indeed become the new law — to the tune of $27 billion over six years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

To put that in perspective, the governor is now estimating a nearly $12-billion budget shortfall this year. That federal cut would add at least $3 billion a year to our costs once it hits.

That federal cut, Newsom said, was “not anticipated in this budget,” which means we are ignoring it for the time being.

Federal programs aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people.

But Congress is threatening an approximately 10% cut in reimbursements to states that insure undocumented people via the Medicaid expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act. That expansion allows millions of Americans to have access to healthcare.

Those expansion funds are working in ways that many don’t know about. For example, as Newsom pointed out, behavioral health teams doing outreach to homeless people are funded by Medicaid dollars.

In all, about one-third of Californians rely on Medi-Cal, including millions of children, so this threat to cut federal funds is not an empty one, especially in a lean year.

Katherine Hempstead, a senior policy advisor for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which advocates for universal healthcare, said that the bill being debated by Congress is so full of cuts to healthcare that arguing against the provision penalizing coverage for undocumented people may not be a priority for most Democrats — making it more likely that the cut will get through.

“I don’t know if this is going to be a do-or-die issue,” she said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his revised 2025-26 state budget during a news conference Wednesday in Sacramento.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

And indeed, the pressure by Republicans to kill off coverage entirely for undocumented folks was quick.

“Gov. Newsom has only partially repealed his disastrous policy,” Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) said in a statement. “ It needs to be reversed entirely, or Californians will continue to spend billions on coverage for illegal immigrants and our state will lose an even larger amount in federal Medicaid funding.”

Newsom has given economic reasons for sticking with the state’s coverage for all low-income residents, regardless of status. When people don’t have access to routine care, they end up in emergency rooms and that is extremely expensive. And also, Medicaid has to cover that emergency care, so taxpayers often end up spending more in the long run by skimping on upfront care.

“It’s definitely important to the people that get the coverage because they don’t really have an alternative,” Hempstead said.

But that care has been vastly more expensive than California expected, also to the tune of billions of dollars in unexpected costs, in part because so many people have signed up.

To the dismay of many, Newsom’s budget reflects both recent economic woes — a $16-billion revenue hit caused by what he’s dubbing the “Trump slump” — as well as the state vastly understimating the cost of covering those undocumented folks.

That shortfall may force cuts in the coverage that undocumented people qualify for if the Legislature goes along with Newsom’s plan, or even parts of it.

Most notably, it would cap enrollment for undocumented adults age 19 and over in 2026, effectively closing the program to new participants. That’s a huge hurt. His plan also calls for adding a $100 per month premium, and other cuts such as ending coverage for the extremely popular and expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs for all participants.

“I don’t want to be in this position, but we are in this position,” Newsom said.

Amanda McAllister-Wallner, executive director of Health Access California, called those cuts “reckless and unconscionable” in a statement.

“This is a betrayal of the governor’s commitment to California immigrants, and an abandonment of his legacy, which brought California so close to universal healthcare,” she said.

I strongly believe in universal single-payer healthcare (basically opening up Medicare to everyone), so I don’t disagree with McAllister-Wallner’s point. In better days, I would hope to see enrollment reopen and benefits restored.

But also, we’re broke. This is going to be a year of painful choices for all involved.

Which makes Newsom’s, and California’s, commitment to keep insurance for undocumented people notable. The state could back down under this real federal pressure, could try to find a way to claw back the benefits we have already given.

But there’s a moral component to providing healthcare to our undocumented residents, who are such a valuable and vital part of our state.

Although the fiscal realities are ugly, it’s worth remembering that in providing the coverage, California is sticking with some of its most vulnerable residents, at a time when it would be easier to cut and run.

WASHINGTON — A Democratic lawmaker is launching a renegade effort to impeach President Trump, pushing past party leaders on Wednesday with an attempt to force a procedural vote in the U.S. House that is expected to fail.

Rep. Shri Thanedar of Michigan announced his intention to charge ahead, saying that as an immigrant to America he wants to do all he can to protect its Constitution and institutions from Trump’s lawlessness. His resolution contains seven articles of impeachment against the Republican president.

“Donald J. Trump has been committing crimes since day one — bribery, corruption, taking power from Congress, creating an unlawful office in DOGE, violating 1st Amendment rights, ignoring due process,” the congressman said earlier from the House floor.

It would be the historic third time Trump has faced impeachment efforts after being twice impeached during his first term as president — first in 2019 on charges related to withholding military aid to Ukraine as it confronted Russia and later on a charge of inciting insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters. Trump was acquitted both times by the Senate.

Thanedar is not the only Democrat who has signaled impeachment efforts against Trump. But his decision to go it almost alone, without backing from party leadership, comes as he faces his own political challenges at home, with several primary opponents looking to unseat him in his Detroit-area congressional district.

Timing is also key. His resolution claiming Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes as Trump is traveling in the Middle East in his first major trip abroad of his second term, violating a norm in American politics of not criticizing the president once he leaves the U.S.

But Thanedar said he was pressing ahead in part because of Trump’s trip abroad and the potential conflicts of interest as the president appears to be mixing his personal business dealings with his presidential duties and is considering accepting a lavish gift of an airplane from the Qatari government.

“My constituents want me to act,” Thanedar told the Associated Press late Tuesday.

“It’s time for us to stand up and speak. We can’t worry about, ‘Is this the right time?’ We can’t worry about, ‘Are we going to win this battle?’ It’s more about doing the right thing,” he said. “I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. So did Mr. Trump. He has violated his oath, and he’s doing unconstitutional activities. It’s time for someone to stand up and say that, and if that’s just me, then so be it.”

Thanedar is using a procedural tool to force a vote Wednesday on whether to proceed to the issue or shelve the matter.

One top Trump ally, Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, criticized Thanedar and dismissed the impeachment effort.

“It’s DOA,” she posted on social media.

Impeachment of a president or other U.S. officials, once rare, has become an increasingly common in Congress.

Republicans in the House opened an impeachment inquiry into then-President Biden, a Democrat, but stopped short of action. The Republicans in Congress did, however, impeach Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The Senate dismissed two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas, ending his trial.

Thanedar, who’s from India, has said he came to the United States without many resources. He said he loves the U.S. and wants to defend its Constitution and institutions.

When he took over the Detroit congressional district, it was the first time in decades the city was left without a Black lawmaker in Congress.

Mascaro, Brown and Askarinam write for the Associated Press.

President Trump has spent the first major overseas trip of his second administration — next stop Wednesday in Qatar — beating back allegations that he was personally profiting from foreign leaders by accepting a $400-million luxury airliner from the Gulf state’s royal family.

Trump has bristled at the notion that he should turn down such a gift, saying he would be “stupid” to do so and that Democrats were “World Class Losers” for suggesting it was not only wrong but also unconstitutional.

But Democrats were hardly alone in criticizing the arrangement as Trump prepared for broad trade discussions in Doha, the Qatari capital.

Several top Republicans in Congress have expressed concerns about the deal, including that the plane would be a security risk. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Tuesday said there were “lots of issues associated with that offer which I think need to be further talked about,” and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), another member of the Republican leadership team, said that Trump and the White House “need to look at the constitutionality” of the deal and that she would be “checking for bugs” on the plane, a clear reference to fears that Qatar may see the jetliner as an intelligence asset.

Criticism of the deal has even arisen among the deep-red MAGA ranks. In an online post echoed by other right-wing influencers in Trump’s orbit, loyalist Laura Loomer wrote that while she would “take a bullet for Trump,” the Qatar deal would be “a stain” on his administration.

The broad outrage in some ways reflected the stark optics of the deal, which would provide Trump with the superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet — known as the “palace in the sky” — for free, to be transferred to his personal presidential library upon his departure from office.

Accepting a lavish gift from the Persian Gulf nation makes even some stolid Trump allies queasy because of Qatar’s record of abuses against its Shiite Muslim minority and its funding of Hamas, the militant group whose attack on Israel touched off a prolonged war in the region.

Critics have called the deal an out-and-out bribe for future influence by the Qatari royal family, and one that would clearly come due at some point — raising serious questions around the U.S.’ ability to act with its own geopolitical interests in mind in the future, rather than Qatar’s.

Trump and Qatar have rejected that framing but have also deflected questions about what Qatar expects to receive in return for the jet.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in response to detailed questions from The Times, said in a statement that Trump “is compliant with all conflict-of-interest rules, and only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Leavitt has previously said it was “ridiculous” for the media to “suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” because he “left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice.”

Ali Al-Ansari, media attache at the Qatari Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the specific concern about Qatar potentially holding influence over Trump, the jet deal also escalated deeper concerns among critics that Trump, his family and his administration are using their political influence to improperly enrich themselves more broadly — including through the creation of a $Trump cryptocurrency meme coin and a promised Washington dinner for its top investors.

Experts and other critics have for years accused Trump of violating constitutional constraints on the president and other federal officials accepting gifts, or “emoluments,” from foreign states without the express approval of Congress.

During Trump’s first term, allegations that he was flouting the law and using his office to enrich himself — including by maintaining an active stake in his golf courses and former Washington hotel while foreign dignitaries seeking to curry favor with him racked up massive bills there — went all the way to the Supreme Court before being dismissed as moot after he’d been voted out of office.

Since Trump’s return to office, however, concerns over his monetizing the nation’s highest office and the power and influence that come with it have exploded once more — and from disparate corners of the political landscape.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), left, speaks with Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security oversight hearing on May 8, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington.

(Julia Demaree Nikhinson / Associated Press)

In a speech last month on the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) alleged dozens of examples of Trump and others in his family and administration misusing their positions for personal gain — what Murphy called “mind-blowing corruption” in Trump’s first 100 days.

Murphy mentioned, among other examples, the meme coin and dinner; corporations under federal investigation donating millions to Trump’s inaugural fund and those investigations being halted soon after he took office; reports that Trump has sold meetings with him at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for millions of dollars; and Donald Trump Jr.’s creation of a private Washington club with million-dollar dues and promises of interactions with administration officials.

Murphy also noted Trump’s orders to fire inspectors general and other watchdogs meant to keep an eye out for corruption and pay-to-play tactics in the federal government, and his scaling back of laws meant to discourage it, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Corporate Transparency Act.

“Donald Trump wants to numb this country into believing that this is just how government works. That he’s owed this. That every president is owed this. That government has always been corrupt, and he’s just doing it out in the open,” Murphy said. “But this is not how government works.”

When news of the Qatar jet deal broke, Murphy joined other Democratic colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a statement denouncing it.

“Any president who accepts this kind of gift, valued at $400 million, from a foreign government creates a clear conflict of interest, raises serious national security questions, invites foreign influence, and undermines public trust in our government,” the senators wrote. “No one — not even the president — is above the law.”

Other lawmakers — from both parties — have also weighed in.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Trump’s acceptance of the plane as his “lastest con” and a clear attempt by the Qatari government to “curry favor” with him.

“This is why the emoluments clause is in the Constitution to begin with. It was put in there for a reason,” Schiff said. “And the reason was that the founding fathers wanted to make sure that any action taken by the president of the United States, or frankly any other person holding federal public office, wasn’t going to be influenced by getting some big gift.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that he did not think it was a “good idea” for Trump to accept the jet — which he said wouldn’t “pass the smell test” for many Americans.

Experts and those further out on the American political spectrum agreed.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law and an expert in constitutional law, said the gift of the jet, “if it is to Trump personally,” clearly violates a provision that precludes the president from receiving any benefit from a foreign country, which America’s founders barred because they were concerned about “foreign governments holding influence over the president.”

Richard Painter, the top White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, said that Trump accepting the jet would be unconstitutional. And he scoffed at the ethics of doing business with a nation that has been criticized as having a bleak human rights record.

“After spending millions helping Hamas build tunnels and rockets, Qatar has enough to buy this emolumental gift for” Trump, Painter wrote on X. “But the Constitution says Congress must consent first.”

Painter criticized the White House justifying the deal by saying that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had “signed off” on it, given Bondi’s past work for the Qatari government, and said he knew of no precedent for a president receiving a lavish gift without the approval of Congress. He noted that Ambassador Benjamin Franklin received a diamond-encrusted snuff box from France’s King Louis XVI, but only with the OK from Congress.

Robert Weissman, co-president of the progressive nonprofit Public Citizen, said that it was unclear whether Trump would heed the cautionary notes coming from within his own party, but that the Republican-controlled Congress should nonetheless vote on whether the jet was a proper gift for him to receive.

“If the members of Congress think this is fine, then they can say so,” Weissman said, “and the voters can hold them accountable.”

Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro, a prominent backer of Trump, criticized the deal on his podcast Monday, saying that Trump supporters would “all be freaking out” if Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had accepted it.

“President Trump promised to drain the swamp,” Shapiro said. “This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”