fund

WASHINGTON — Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Tuesday wouldn’t rule out the possibility that people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol will be considered for payouts from a new $1.776 billion fund to pay individuals who believe they were targeted politically.

Pressed during a Congressional hearing over whether those who assaulted police officers would be eligible for compensation from the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” Blanche responded that all people can apply if “they believe they were a victim of weaponization.” The acting attorney general also refused to say whether he would direct those responsible for deciding who receives payments — a commission whose members he is tasked with appointing — to restrict funds to those convicted of violence.

“What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their jobs, and that includes setting guidelines as you’re describing,” Blanche told Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat. The decisions on payouts will be made a five-member commission appointed by the attorney general.

Appearing before Congress for the first time since taking the reins of the Justice Department last month, Blanche was peppered with questions about the fund announced on Monday to compensate those who believe they were mistreated by prior administrations’ Justice Department. Blanche said the fund was “unusual” but not unprecedented, adding that those who benefit will not be limited to Republicans or to people who were investigated or prosecuted by the Biden administration. At one point, Blanche said President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter — who faced gun and tax prosecutions under his father’s administration — could also apply.

Blanche defends $1.8 billion fund

Tuesday’s hearing was meant to address the Trump administration’s budget request for the Justice Department but quickly delved into other controversies that have escalated concerns about the erosion of the law enforcement agency’s tradition of independence from the White House. Blanche defended the creation of the fund without any acknowledgment that the Trump administration has pursued investigations of Trump’s political opponents, sparking criticism that the department is being weaponized in precisely the same way they allege it was under Biden’s administration to prosecute Trump.

In the weeks since assuming control of the Justice Department after Pam Bondi’s firing, Blanche has moved aggressively to advance the president’s priorities — pushing forward cases against Trump’s political foes, cracking down on leaks to media outlets and establishing the new fund to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.

Democrats described it as an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump supporters with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations subcommittee holding the hearing, blasted the move as a “pure theft of public funds.”

“Rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene,” the Maryland Democrat said. “Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme.”

The fund is in keeping with Trump’s long-running claims that the Justice Department during the Biden administration was weaponized against him, even though then-President Biden himself was investigated during that time and his son was prosecuted. Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law.

Trump administration has been rewriting the history of Jan. 6

The mere possibility that violent rioters at the Capitol could be considered for payouts is consistent with a Trump administration pattern of rewriting the dark history of Jan. 6, a trend that began when the president pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of the participants in the melee and that continued with the Justice Department firing some prosecutors who put them behind bars.

Under questioning from Merkley, Blanche said that he “will definitely encourage the commission” responsible for deciding on the payouts to “take everything into account.” But when asked whether he believes those convicted of violence should be entitled to compensation, Blanche said: “My feelings don’t matter.”

When Merkley suggested that Trump was using the Justice Department to target his political enemies, Blanche replied that this was precisely the sort of “disgusting” behavior of the Biden administration that the fund was meant to address.

“That is completely inappropriate and wrong,’ Merkley said. “There is no comparison to the absolute fair minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration, and this administration’s pursuit of an enemies list.”

Questions over the meaning of ‘weaponization’

In announcing the fund Monday, the Trump administration did not name specific individuals who might stand to benefit from it. The money itself would come from the federal judgment fund, which pays out court judgments and compromise settlements of lawsuits against the government.

Blanche told lawmakers that the Justice Department is committed to “full transparency” in providing public information about beneficiaries of the new fund.

“It’s not limited to Republicans. It’s not limited to Democrats. It’s not limited to January 6th defendants. It’s limited only by the term weaponization,” Blanche said, though the administration has not said how it will define “weaponization.”

Meanwhile, there were signs of discomfort about the fund even among some Republican members of Congress. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that he’s “not a big fan,” adding that he isn’t sure how the administration intends to use it, but doesn’t “see a purpose for that.”

Thune’s comments come after Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in a GOP primary on Saturday, called it a “slush fund.”

“We are a nation of laws,” Cassidy said. “You can’t just make up things.”

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press. AP reporter Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump has withdrawn his $10bn lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) stemming from a leak of his tax returns and said his administration will create a $1.77bn anti-weaponisation fund that would compensate some of Trump’s political allies.

The court filing, released on Monday in Florida, did not disclose the terms of the deal, including whether either party settled.

However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced the establishment of a $1.77bn fund called the Anti-Weaponisation Fund that would “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponisation and lawfare”.

The DOJ said in its press release that it was part of the settlement agreement.

ABC News first reported last week that the president was prepared to drop the lawsuit as part of a deal that would create the fund to pay Trump allies who were perceived as wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

Trump, his adult sons Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization sued the IRS in January, arguing the agency should have done more to prevent a former contractor from disclosing their tax returns to media outlets during the president’s first term.

The case arose from former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn’s leak of Trump’s tax returns to media outlets, including the New York Times and ProPublica, in 2019 and 2020.

Those returns showed that Trump paid little or no income taxes in many years, the Times reported in 2020.

Prosecutors charged Littlejohn in 2023 with leaking tax records of Trump and thousands of other wealthy Americans to the media, saying he was motivated by a political agenda. Littlejohn later pleaded guilty to improper disclosures, and a judge sentenced him to five years in prison.

Trump filed the lawsuit personally, not in his official capacity as president.

Political pushback

While the court filing did not mention the terms of any potential deal, news that the president would create a fund to protect his political allies sparked backlash.

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat from Maryland, called the idea “unconstitutional”.

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on Sunday with the ABC News programme This Week.

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and prove things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence. Go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he said.

California Governor Gavin Newsom also criticised the president amid reports of the deal.

“Donald Trump wants to settle his joke lawsuit against his own IRS department to hand out $1.7 BILLION of OUR TAX DOLLARS to Jan. 6th insurrectionists and his cronies,” Newsom said in a post on X.

“It is an outrage that the American taxpayers are having to pay for this and that we have a president who is exercising such open corruption in front of everyone and expecting us to go along with it,” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat from Washington state, told the progressive MeidasTouch network.

Despite the criticisms, it is not clear who would specifically benefit from the funds.

Trump has long claimed that the DOJ under his predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat, was weaponised against him, pointing to the criminal charges where he faced allegations that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost by more than seven million votes, and that he retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden administration, denied allegations of politicisation. The Justice Department also investigated prominent Democrats, including Biden’s son Hunter Biden and former US Senator Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponised against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a release.

However, the Trump administration has actively pursued cases against perceived political enemies, including former FBI director James Comey and former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, Fed Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, and California Senator Adam Schiff. 

The DOJ said that there is legal precedent for the fund, pointing to a programme called “Keepseagle” under the administration of former US President Barack Obama, a Democrat. That created a fund to address allegations of racism against the federal government.

The White House referred Al Jazeera to the DOJ for a request for comment. The DOJ did not respond.

The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) announced on X that it would be investigating how the funds would be used.

“While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8bn in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies—including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th,” CREW’s president, Donald K Sherman, said in a statement provided to Al Jazeera.

“By settling his absurd $10bn lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process, while quite likely violating the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause in the process. This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.”

A long time coming

Lawyers for the president asked a federal judge in April to pause the case for 90 days while the two sides worked to reach a settlement or resolution.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing in April said. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

When asked in February how he would handle any potential damages from the case, Trump said, “I think what we’ll do is do something for charity.”

“We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

The litigation against the IRS raised novel legal questions, including conflicts of interest, about whether a president can sue his own government. It is not clear if the judge will accept Trump’s withdrawal of the case.

Under the US Constitution, federal courts may only hear genuine disputes between litigants with opposing stakes in the outcome.

US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami, who oversees Trump’s lawsuit, wrote last month that it was unclear whether the parties to the lawsuit were “truly antagonistic to each other”.

Williams had set a court hearing for May 27 to hear arguments on whether she should dismiss the case on those grounds.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Liccia Romero is a prominent biologist and professor at the University of the Andes (ULA) in Mérida. Her academic and organizational work has been centered on the scientist-campesino alliance, in defense of food sovereignty and biodiversity in the páramo region, and in opposition to the logic of agribusiness.

In this interview, Romero discusses the challenges and achievements of the Mano a Mano (“Hand in Hand”) Agroecological Market, a grassroots initiative founded in 2010 that connects producers and consumers in Venezuela’s Andean region. She also talks about projects to expand agroecology, coordination with state institutions, and the importance of Venezuela’s Seed Law.

How have the producers at the Mano a Mano market experienced the revival of this space given the pandemic and the economic blockade, and what strategies have they employed to adapt to Venezuela’s current reality?

The combination of the blockade and the pandemic beginning in 2020 brought about a shift in Mano a Mano’s dynamics. We had a biweekly delivery system organized around prepaid orders, with a production rhythm established after 10 years of uninterrupted work.

We never even stopped during the guarimbas [insurrectionary opposition protests]. We always organized ourselves to hold the market every other Saturday and make our deliveries. And then, suddenly, the pandemic interrupted our activity with the lockdown. Later, although mobility restrictions were gradually eased, there were fuel shortages. This forced producers to employ various strategies, such as starting to sell directly from their farms.

For a time, Mano a Mano had a four-wheel-drive vehicle, thanks to support from the Ministry of Science and Technology, which helped with our distribution. Producers from remote areas would bring their harvests to a common location. This made it possible to organize a more feasible distribution route.

Another important development was that producers began transforming farm products into processed foods, with a longer shelf life. In this way, they reduced their reliance on delivering fresh produce and began processing a portion of it using various techniques. This slightly altered the profile of the production units.

Several Mano a Mano producer families have ventured into this field with great success, even creating lines of processed products. What’s interesting is that they not only process what they produce but can also source from nearby production units.

These are the strategies that have allowed people to sustain themselves. In other cases, smaller producers began selling at markets near their plots. There were also some who retired, or left production to their children, who no longer followed the agroecological methodology. 

When we resumed the distribution events last June, the producers were able to organize quickly and establish a monthly delivery system with a different model, no longer based on prepayment. We have not been able to reorganize that way because that prepayment model relies on a level of income that has disappeared in Venezuela and for which there are still no signs of recovery.

Nevertheless, we continue with these monthly deliveries, which are tailored to the preferences of a number of families who have always supported us and who returned when we relaunched the agroecological markets.

What is the profile of the producers who make up the Mano a Mano network, and how does this initiative bridge the gap between rural and urban areas?

Since Mano a Mano defines itself as a local production and consumption network with the city of Mérida as its hub, most of the producers who bring their products to the market are located in the state’s coffee-growing and livestock-raising regions.

This is an area located between 1,000 and 1,800 meters above sea level, where agroforestry crops and some short-cycle crops typical of this environment predominate. For example, in the drier areas, bell peppers, onions, and tomatoes are grown. In wetter areas, we have agroforestry systems with coffee and bananas. There are also unconventional crops that are native to this region such as sacha inchi, yacon, and chachafruto. We are trying to introduce them in our distributions.

Some people have had great success producing yacon honey, primarily for consumers with medical conditions like diabetes. Flours, such as chachafruto flour, are also processed for those seeking gluten-free foods. Additionally, we have sacha inchi, an innovative food that can be used to create novel recipes by combining it with coffee and cacao.

We also have production units at greater altitudes dedicated to growing root vegetables, such as potatoes and carrots, as well as vegetables.

Producers who are part of agroecological circuits contact us, and we establish connections so that some of them can coordinate with various local producers, bring the products, and be present at the market. In this way, we minimize travel as much as possible. The idea is not to exceed a radius of 90 km [from Mérida city]. That is the distance we believe is most reasonable for everything to work well.

Previously, Mano a Mano was organized through in-person assemblies, but currently, these interactions take place mainly in digital spaces. We have a group with the producers registered in the organization, where we plan delivery dates, conditions, and prices. Not all producers can join this group. Rather, each member has undergone a verification process on their farms and agrees to regular visits to monitor their production process.

Our goal is to hold in-person meetings two or three times a year to make decisions, such as undertaking new projects. On the administrative side, we have a board of directors that is institutionally responsible for the agreements we enter into. For example, the one we currently have with the Ministry of Agriculture.

What agroecological and traditional campesino techniques do Mano a Mano producers use for planting, soil management, and pest control, and how do they maintain productivity and quality?

There are several basic principles. The main strategy is diversification. We must move as far away from monocultures as possible. The more diverse the system, the better. It will offer many advantages in the face of technical, production, and market challenges.

What is the basis of that diversification? Seed diversity –open-pollinated seeds. That is why, at Mano a Mano, we promote and are part of all movements in favor of open-pollinated seeds and against privatization. Free seeds, in the hands of campesino families, stand in opposition to all processes of seed control. These two strategies –open-source seeds and crop diversification –form the foundation.

Then there are specific techniques. For example, depending on the circumstances, intensive soil revitalization and recovery processes can be carried out using mountain microorganisms, or as some call them, efficient microorganisms. 

There is also the use of organic fertilizers and the entire process of planning planting, management, and harvesting with a preventive approach to diseases and pests. The other strategy is consumer education,that is, teaching consumer families that their consumption should align with production cycles. Certain harvest times are more favorable for specific products.

On the other hand, depending on the circumstances, we have worked on implementing water-saving techniques in semi-arid areas and techniques to prevent erosion. We have also worked on the use of mulch and crop rotation as mechanisms to regenerate and protect soils. Depending on the area, we have used contour farming, minimum tillage, recycling, the use of crop residues, and on-site fertilizer production.

How does the recent support from the Ministry of Agriculture align with the autonomy and self-management nature of the Mano a Mano market, and what mechanisms have its members created to preserve their grassroots organization?

The question is interesting because we were the ones who sought that alliance, as we believe that the work we do should have an impact and win over those responsible for public policies.

One way to achieve this was to reach an agreement to occupy an office space and a garden at the Ministry, as well as to carry out joint activities: product exchange events, workshops, festivals, fairs, etc. Additionally, this is where the research projects supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology are carried out.

The most important thing right now is an initiative of participatory agroecological certification. We are developing a methodology to rigorously comply with this certification, so that we can issue seals endorsed by both government agencies and private entities.

Our collaboration with the Agriculture Ministry is based on mutual respect and collaboration. We focus on what we have in common, not on our differences.

We know that Mano a Mano is more than just a market. What other projects are currently underway?

Participatory agroecological certification is one of those projects that extends beyond Mano a Mano. Our idea is for this certification to serve as a tool for other agroecological hubs and campesino communities that want to establish sovereign certification processes.

In other words, we’re not interested in traditional corporate certification,which involves payments to companies or private certifiers,but rather in certifications that foster self-organization and self-management.

That is the methodology we are interested in, and we are now trying to establish links with other national organizations so that, once we have completed and submitted the respective reports to FONACIT [national science fund] and the Ministry of Science and Technology, we can democratize and share this proposal to begin transferring it to other spaces.

These are some of the things we promote: training programs in partnership with universities, the Institute of Environmental and Ecological Sciences, the graduate program in Agroecology at Simón Rodríguez University, etc.

Another initiative we carry out in partnership with other organizations is the Native Potato Ecofestival, an annual event now in its 14th year. This event takes place at the end of the year, in December, and not only celebrates the potato harvest but also showcases all the work done throughout the year, sharing it and promoting it on a national level. 

We invite students, cooks, and farmers to create a space for community, but also for presentations, knowledge transfer, and seed distribution. It has the support of partner networks such as PROINPA, the universities I mentioned, and other local seed producers and agroecological organizations.

Given the challenges small-scale campesinos face in a market dominated by agribusiness, does agroecology represent a real alternative? What policies would be needed to make it viable in the current context?

I think we need a funding policy for agroecological initiatives, and there hasn’t been one for a long time. So it’s often said that agroecology only works on a small scale. It only works on a small scale because there is no large-scale support in agroecology. 

If the available land isn’t the best, if people lack financing and have barely any access to basic resources like water and seeds, you can’t expect high yields. What we also need are policies that recognize the self-managed processes of agroecology as opposed to subjecting them to the savage capitalist market. 

If a producer, after all the effort, rigor, and sacrifice, obtains a product but lacks a properly identified marketing and distribution channel, that product is lost. We must create conditions for these agroecological products, including health permits, because it makes no sense for contaminated products to have an easier ride.

We need these regulations and laws to be updated and adapted to our circumstances so that they become tools for progress rather than obstacles. The same applies to participatory agroecological certification: it is not a mechanism for control, but rather for promoting and facilitating the agroecological transition.

Furthermore, Venezuelan food policy and jurisprudence should begin to protect non-polluting agriculture that promotes resource conservation. Because it often happens that an agroecological area, or even an organic or biodynamic one, is surrounded by production units that use methods threatening that agroecological production, and Venezuelan jurisprudence and laws favor those who pollute over those trying to produce in a healthy way. 

In fact, we are aware of cases where landowners who use agrochemicals intensively have sued families who have attempted to demand controls on the use of these chemicals. These lawsuits have been upheld by agricultural courts. In short, we need legislation that is consistent with the claim that Venezuela wants to conserve its resources by penalizing those who do not.

What is your current assessment of the issue of genetically modified foods in Venezuela, from seeds to imported foods? 

In Venezuela, we are currently engaged in a battle in which we had made tremendous progress with the approval of the Seed Law in 2015. The law was very important because, first, it declares seeds to be a common good. In other words, it prevents their privatization. And second, it declares the promotion and reproduction of genetically modified seeds to be contrary to the national interest and the biodiverse functioning of our ecosystems.

Therefore, this is a landmark law for the ecosystemic logic of our country. Right now, there is a battle taking place amid all the contradictions we are facing as a country invaded by a nuclear power. So, we are at risk of losing that progress in this complex political moment, and we have done very poorly in the battle to educate about food.

There is great confusion among the population regarding the issue of genetically modified foods and their risks. This is a highly dangerous weapon for controlling a nation, jeopardizing its food security and food sovereignty. This technology represents a form of domination disguised as a production technique. 

That is why the Venezuelan agroecological movement must ramp up an educational, advocacy, and training offensive so that our grassroots collectives, at least at the level of communes, producer organizations in rural areas, and consumer groups in cities, can be better informed about the risks. We still have time to capitalize on these comparative advantages of popular organization in the present and the future. 

The law has succeeded in curbing the entry of GMOs. If it did not exist, we would face a clear invasion of genetically modified seeds. What we have failed to achieve above all is the grassroots organization needed to defend this achievement and advance it further. We need popular movements to take ownership of the Seed Law as valuable and sovereign tool at their disposal.

May 16 (UPI) — The Trump administration is considering the creation of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate people allied with President Donald Trump who were investigated during the Biden administration.

The fund would be part of a settlement with Trump that would result in him dropping his lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service over the leaking of his tax returns six years ago, ABC News and The New York Times reported.

The deal emerged after months of negotiations between the White House and Department of Justice, which had originally been aiming to directly pay Trump, but conflict of interest concerns steered toward the compensation fund.

Although Trump has the right to sue as a private citizen, his position as president means that he also can instruct agencies within the executive branch, which would make him both the plaintiff and defendant in a trial.

The concept is partially modeled on an Obama administration compensation fund for Native American farmers and ranchers that distributed $760 million from the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund.

In addition to Trump allies’ legal fees linked to investigations during his first term, the fund also likely would be open to people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol building that saw the building get ransacked by Trump supporters.

Critics of the plan have called it a “slush fund” for Trump and his allies.

“An insane level of corruption — even for Trump,” U.S. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said of the plan earlier this week.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom will propose a new $100-million fund to help wildfire victims afford loans to rebuild their homes under a revised budget plan set to be released Thursday.

The Newsom administration estimates that thousands of victims of the Los Angeles wildfires cannot afford to rebuild, blaming a lack of access to affordable loans and a gap between insurance payouts and the cost to build again.

“We have been on the ground in L.A. since Day One of recovery from these fires, and we aren’t turning our backs now,” Newsom said in a statement. “This community deserves continued support to help them get back on their feet, and rebuild their homes and their lives. “

The new fund would be designed to cover loan-loss guarantee to lenders, in which the state would commit to paying back a percentage of a loan amount if a borrower defaults, in order to lower the risk for lenders and encourage them to award construction loans to borrowers who might not otherwise qualify or only be eligible for loans at high interest rates. The money would also be available for homeowners to buy down their interest rates during the construction period, according to Newsom’s office.

The Eaton and Palisades fires killed 31 people and destroyed over 16,000 structures in January 2025.

A recent survey of the wildfire victims found that homeowners estimate they need more than $600,000 on average above their insurance payouts to rebuild their homes, according to a report from a wildfire recovery nonprofit called the Department of Angels. The gap in Altadena was about $550,000, and between $1.19 million and $1.73 million in Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

Under Newsom, California has also provided mortgage relief to more than a thousand wildfire survivors under CalAssist, a program that provides grants to eligible homeowners to cover mortgage payments for 12 months up to $100,000.

The governor’s new proposal will be included in his funding plan for the upcoming 2026-27 budget year that begins July 1.

State revenue from income tax collection is higher than initially forecast, a boon that is expected to wipe out a projected deficit in the year ahead. Analysts attribute the revenue increase to an artificial intelligence boom in the stock market.

Though likely temporary, the extra funding is expected to give Newsom enough cushion to balance the state budget without major cuts and lower a projected shortfall in 2027-28.

The proposal to create the rebuilding fund requires support from both houses of the California Legislature and would move forward as a trailer bill accompanying the state budget. The funding would be available to disaster survivors, though details on eligibility will be determined during the legislative process.

The National Science Foundation suspended at least 18 research grants to UC Berkeley last month despite a court injunction restricting such suspensions, according to an attorney representing university scientists in a class-action lawsuit.

The NSF declined to comment on the suspensions.

The grants include at least one that the NSF had previously canceled and was compelled by a federal court order to restore, for a series of mixed-reality exhibits at the Lawrence Hall of Science showcasing Indigenous Ohlone knowledge about the natural world, said one of the project’s leaders, Jedda Foreman.

Foreman, an associate director at the Lawrence Hall of Science, said another researcher on her team received an email from UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor of research, Katherine Yelick, notifying them that the National Science Foundation had suspended the $1.4-million grant. Foreman said she viewed the email, which said the university had received a letter from the NSF raising concerns about “foreign funding.” The email did not provide a copy of the letter or explain further, she said.

Foreman said the Lawrence Hall of Science had not received any foreign funding for the project.

“The grantees were given near-zero information about what was problematic in the execution of their grant,” said Claudia Polsky, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law who is representing Foreman and other researchers in a suit they filed last year contesting a previous round of grant cancellations by the Trump administration.

Polsky said her legal team was seeking more information about the 18 suspensions, but was concerned that the freezing of Foreman’s grant may violate a court order a federal judge issued in that case restoring the defunded projects.

UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof said in a statement that the university “is engaged with the government on matters pertaining to research grants, and remains committed to compliance with all federal laws, rules and regulations.”

He declined to comment on the types of grants affected, the amount of funds at stake, or the potential effect on the campus.

One of the Lawrence Hall of Science exhibits, which were co-designed with Ohlone youth, is scheduled to open Sunday, with another set for the fall of 2028. Researchers also are studying whether participating in creating exhibits sparks more interest in science among Indigenous young people and makes them more likely to pursue STEM careers.

“We’re doing a lot of hoping and finger-crossing that something works out,” Foreman said. “It was such a powerful project and we really want to be able to share what we’ve learned.”

National Science Foundation turmoil

The University of California received $525 million in National Science Foundation grants in the 2024-25 budget year. But that funding source has become increasingly volatile under the Trump administration as the federal agency has terminated nearly 2,000 grants nationwide that it said did not align with its priorities — including those focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion — and has been slower to approve and disburse new awards.

In late April, President Trump fired all 22 members of the independent board of scientists that oversaw the NSF. He is also proposing to cut the agency’s budget by more than half in 2027, though Congress rejected a similar plan last year.

Other federal agencies also terminated research grants en masse last year. Some of the cancellations have been reversed by the courts.

UC researchers are contesting grant reversals by the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency and National Endowment for the Humanities in the class-action lawsuit, filed last year. The University of California is not a party to the suit.

Last June, the researchers won a key legal victory when U.S. District Judge Rita Lin issued a preliminary injunction restoring grants canceled by the NSF, EPA and NEH — including for the Ohlone-focused exhibits co-led by Foreman, one of six named plaintiffs in the case. The judge barred the agencies from revoking funds using form letters that didn’t include an explanation specific to the grant at stake, or because of Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

Judge Lin stepped in again after the NSF froze hundreds of grants to UCLA in August, amid attempts by the Trump administration to secure a $1-billion settlement from the university over allegations of campus antisemitism. Indefinitely suspending a grant was the same as terminating it, Lin said in a ruling requiring the agency to reinstate the funds.

Polsky said last month’s suspension of Foreman’s grant raised concerns that the Trump administration was seeking a way around those orders. “It seems to us like something that should not have been canceled on the merits and raises suspicion that this was just a different way to cancel the grant,” she said.

UC looks to state for alternative funding

The University of California is ramping up efforts to find alternative funding for its multibillion-dollar research enterprise as federal support becomes less reliable. On Monday, UC President James Milliken spoke alongside state Sen. Scott Wiener and United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain at a Sacramento rally in support of state legislation to create a $23-billion fund for scientific research.

If successful, the bill will place a bond measure on the November ballot. Money from the bond would go toward research in wildfire and pandemic preparedness, new medical treatments and other areas, with revenue from inventions shared with the state. The state Assembly’s appropriations committee is set to consider the bill Thursday.

“If the federal government is going to continue to attempt to reduce funding for the research that has been so important to UC — that saves lives, that drives the economy — then the state of California, I hope, will be able to step up,” Milliken said at a meeting of the university’s Board of Regents on Wednesday.

UC Provost Katherine Newman told the regents she has been meeting with leaders of the Russell Group, a consortium of the United Kingdom’s top universities, to discuss collaborating on research in climate change, clean energy and public health — all areas that have seen federal funding threatened under the current administration.

Mello writes for Berkeleyside, which originally published this story. It was distributed through a partnership with the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have added $1 billion in White House security upgrades to legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies, a proposed boost for President Trump’s ballroom project after a man was charged with trying to assassinate him at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last week.

The GOP bill released late Monday would designate the money for the U.S. Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the ballroom project, which Trump and Republicans have been pushing since Cole Tomas Allen allegedly stormed the April 25 media dinner at the Washington Hilton with guns and knives. The legislation says the money would support enhancements to the ballroom project, “including above-ground and below-ground security features,” but also specifies that the money may not be used for non-security elements.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle praised Republicans for including the money for the “long overdue” project, saying it would “provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS.”

The money is part of a larger bill to pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, as Democrats have been blocking funds for both agencies since mid-February. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to fund the rest of the Homeland Security Department on April 30 after a record-long shutdown, but Republicans are using a partisan budget maneuver to push through the ICE and Border Patrol dollars on their own. The House has not released its bill yet, but the Senate is expected to start voting on its version of the legislation next week.

It is unclear exactly how the $1 billion would be used, and the amount far exceeds the proposed $400 million for construction of the ballroom. The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. Trump has said it should include bulletproof glass and be able to repel drone attacks.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to block construction of the project, but a federal appeals court said last month that it can continue in the meantime.

The White House has said that private money would pay for the construction but public money would be used for security measures. Some Republicans have suggested that public money pay for all of it, arguing the security breach at the dinner shows the president needs a secure place to host events.

“It would be insane” to hold the dinner at a hotel again, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who introduced a bill to pay for the ballroom’s construction with Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.

Democrats have said they will oppose any efforts to pay for the ballroom.

“While Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result of President Trump’s failed policies, Republicans are focused on providing tens of billions of dollars for the President’s vanity ballroom project and cruel mass deportation campaign,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — After weeks of delay, the House voted Thursday to fund much of the Department of Homeland Security, but not its immigration enforcement operations, and send the bipartisan package to President Trump to sign, ending the longest agency shutdown in history.

The White House had warned that temporary funding Trump had tapped to pay Transportation Security Administration and other agency personnel would “soon run out,” and that sparked new threats of airport disruptions.

DHS has been without routine funds since Feb. 14, causing hardship for workers, though much of Trump’s immigration agenda that is central to the dispute is being funded separately.

“It is about damn time,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who proposed the bill more than 70 days ago.

The House swiftly voted by voice, without a formal roll call, to pass the measure.

The House’s narrow Republican majority has repeatedly stalled out under House Speaker Mike Johnson, with his own party tangled in internal disputes on a range of pending issues, including the homeland security funding. While the Senate unanimously approved the bipartisan package a month ago, the bill languished in the House.

Democrats refused to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol without changes to those operations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal agents during protests against an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Republicans would no go along with a plan pushed by Democrats to fund TSA and the other parts of DHS without the money for ICE and Border Patrol.

To break the impasse, Republicans in both the House and Senate decided to tackle the immigration enforcement funding on their own through what is called budget reconciliation, a cumbersome weekslong process ahead.

By beginning that budget process Johnson, R-La., was able to unlock a broader bipartisan bill for TSA agents and the rest of DHS. House Republicans late Wednesday adopted budget resolution on a largely party-line vote, 215-211, that is focused on eventually providing $70 billion for immigration enforcement and deportations for the remainder of Trump’s time in office and ensure Democrats can no longer block funding. Trump’s term ends in January 2029.

One key Republican, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, said isolating the immigration-related money on a separate track is “offensive to the men and women who serve in ICE and Border Patrol, and are serving this country every single day.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The White House is warning Congress that funding to pay Department of Homeland Security personnel will “soon run out,” sparking new threats of airport disruptions and national security concerns as the House slow-walks legislation to end what has been the longest-ever lapse in agency funding.

In a memo late Tuesday to lawmakers, the Office of Management and Budget said money that President Trump tapped to pay Transportation Security Administration and other workers through executive actions will be exhausted by May. It called on the House to quickly approve the budget resolution senators approved in an all-night session last week that would pave the way for full funding for the department.

“DHS will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk,” the memo said.

The pressure from the Trump administration could help House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose narrow Republican majority has been stalled out, tangled in internal party disputes on a range of pending issues, including the Homeland Security funding. They have left the chamber at a virtual standstill.

The House was expected to vote as soon as Wednesday on the Senate budget resolution that is designed to unlock a multistep process to eventually fund the department. But by midday, House action again screeched to a halt. The administration has warned GOP lawmakers off making changes that could prolong passage.

“Restoring funding for the Department of Homeland Security has never been more urgent, as demonstrated by recent events,” the memo said, a nod to the situation over the weekend when a man armed with guns and knives tried to storm the annual White House correspondents’ dinner that Trump, the vice president and top Cabinet officials were attending.

Homeland Security shutdown is longest ever

Homeland Security has been operating without regular funds for more than two months after Democrats refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without changes to those operations after the deaths of Americans protesting Trump’s deportation agenda.

While immigration enforcement workers have largely been paid through the flush of new cash — some $170 billion — that Congress approved as part of Trump’s tax cuts bill last year, others, including TSA, have had to rely on Trump’s intervention through executive action to ensure their paychecks.

But with salaries topping $1.6 billion every two weeks, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said recently, those funds are drying up.

More than 1,000 TSA officers have quit since the shutdown began, according to Airlines for America, the U.S. airlines trade group that called Wednesday on Congress to fully fund the agency.

“The urgency to provide predictable and stable funding for TSA is growing stronger by the day,” the group said in a statement. “Time and time again, our nation’s aviation workers and customers have been the victim of Congress’ failure to do their jobs.”

Complicated budget strategy ahead

House and Senate Republicans have embarked on a go-it-alone strategy, attempting to approve funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol without Democrats. They want to provide $70 billion for those immigration operations for the remainder of Trump’s term to ensure no further interruptions.

It’s a cumbersome process, the same that was used last year to approve Trump’s tax cuts bill, that will play out over several weeks.

The Senate launched the process last week, and is now waiting on the House to act. Once that budget resolution is approved, both the House and Senate are expected to draft the actual funding bill, a process that can take weeks.

In the meantime, Johnson is next expected to quickly turn this week to legislation that would fund the other parts of Homeland Security, including TSA, the Coast Guard and other agencies.

That bipartisan bill has support from Democrats and already passed the Senate a month ago, when Republicans reluctantly agreed to carve out the immigration-related funds that Democrats had opposed. But it has been stalled out in the House, as Republicans in that chamber disagreed with the Senate’s approach.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

The AIG Women’s Open has increased its prize fund for a sixth successive year despite not being a profitable tournament to stage.

This year’s championship, which is being held from 30 July – 2 August at Royal Lytham & St Annes on the Lancashire coast, will have a record purse of $10m (£7.4m).

It is not the only one of the five annual women’s majors taking advantage of sponsorship deals to offer increasing prize money. The US Women’s Open – which last year had the largest prize fund in the women’s game at $12m – has the backing of Ally Financial.

“At the moment it’s not profitable,” said R&A chief executive Mark Darbon.

“We treat it as an investment into the game, but an absolutely critical investment.

“Our focus actually is around audience growth. We think if we’re going to be true to that notion of inspiring millions of people around the world, we need to grow the audience for this championship and the women’s game more broadly.”

Around 50,000 spectators are expected to attend across the week of what will be the 50th Women’s Open, while Darbon pointed to increased television coverage as a way of boosting the game’s profile.

The $10m prize fund lags behind the $17m shared out between the players at last year’s Open Championship and while Darbon would like to see that levelled in the future, he said the R&A had to “think sustainably”.

“There is a commercial reality. We’re investing collectively, AIG and the R&A, significant sums into the championship, and we want to do that in a responsible way.

“So we’re not in a position to have equal prize funds at the moment, but we will look to continue to elevate our prize fund over time.

“We want to reward the stars of our sport. We have to do that in a sustainable fashion.”

Darbon said it would be possible to make the championship profitable by cutting back on the spend but that was not on his agenda.

“If profitability was our number one ambition for this event, there are a number of things we could do to put us on a path to achieving that result.

“At the moment, profitability is not a principal target for us. We want to deliver brilliant venues and a wonderful experience for the players.

“We want to have a meaningful and growing prize pot, and we want to deliver a spectator experience both live and through broadcast and digital channels that inspires and excites people.”

Darbon also announced that the 2028 Women’s Open would be held at Sunningdale’s Old Course in Surrey.

Unlike the men’s Open Championship, the women’s visits inland courses as well as links courses on the coast.

“The Open and Women’s Open have their own discrete identities,” he said.

“We don’t treat them as one, and therefore we don’t treat the venue selection process as one either.

“We are very focused on taking this event to what we regard as some of the world’s very best courses.”

April 27 (UPI) — An industry group that represents budget airlines has reached out to the Department of Transportation about creating a $2.5 billion pool to help keep them in business as the price of jet fuel remains high.

The Association of Value Airlines — which represents Allegiant Air, Avelo Air, Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines and Sun Country — said Monday that it has approached the Trump administration about the pool because an 88% increase in the cost of jet fuel is endangering their ability to do business, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported.

Spirit Airlines itself has been negotiating a possible $500 million bailout from the federal government after warning that it is running out of cash that is separate from the AVA request.

Airlines worldwide started raising fees in March after the United States and Israel started the war in Iran, which led the country to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response and has caused the price of gas and oil to increase significantly.

Fuel expenses account for about 30% of airline operating costs and even a sustained $1 increase in per barrel of oil can increase those costs by millions of dollars.

“Since February, jet fuel prices have increased by nearly 100% and are placing significant financial pressure on value airlines,” the industry group said in a statement.

It also said that the “liquidity pool” would be used “exclusively” to offset fuel costs that are expected to stay above $4 per gallon in North America for the rest of the year.

The AVA also has approached Congress about waiting a 7.5% excise tax and $5.30 per-segment fee that airlines pay the government for each passenger they transport for the same reason it asked the administration for the emergency pool.

President Donald Trump acknowledged last week that Spirit has been in conversation with his administration for a bailout as it has struggled to exit its second bankruptcy filing in a year.

Trump said that the discussions are ongoing, but that he would like to help keep Spirit in business because competition is good for consumers and he is concerned about job losses should it go out of business.

Kobe Bryant rookie trading cards aren’t particularly rare. And because rarity equates to value, standard issue 1997 cards featuring the late Lakers great retail for a pedestrian $100 to $300.

Then there are 1997 Kobe Bryant Metal Universe Precious Metal Gems Green cards, which just by typing that highfalutin name can give even the most savvy collector goose bumps.

The key word is green. Most Bryant rookie Metal Universe Precious Metal Gems cards have a red background and fetch around $300,000. Only 10 were made with a metallic green background and only three have been graded by respected grading firm Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA).

So green translates to greenbacks. Alt, a company that enables users to sell, buy and securely store collectible cards, announced Thursday it purchased one of those — take a breath first — 1997 Kobe Bryant Metal Universe Precious Metal Gems Green cards in a private transaction for $3.15 million.

The company said on Instagram that the purchase makes it the most expensive Bryant card ever sold, eclipsing the previous record of $2.4 million set in September. Another copy of the same card sold for $2 million in 2022.

“It was on every collector’s wall, in every price guide, at the top of every wish list,” Alt CEO Leore Avidar Avidar said on Alt’s Instagram page. “Acquiring it for our fund is personal, but it’s also a reflection of where this market has gone.”

The image of Bryant in midair passing — not shooting! — highlights the card, which earned a PSA 5 grade.

The card adds to Alt’s impressive collection. The fund set price records at time of purchase for LeBron James, Stephen Curry and Giannis Antetokounmpo cards in addition to the one of Bryant.

The most paid for a sports trading card was $12.932 million for a 2007-08 Upper Deck Exquisite Collection Dual Logoman Autographs signed card featuring Bryant and Michael Jordan last fall. The purchase was made by investor and “Shark Tank” personality Kevin O’Leary along with veteran collectors Matt Allen and Paul Warshaw and surpassed the previous record of $12.6 million held by a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card.

The Bryant/Jordan card is the second-most expensive sports collectible of all time behind Babe Ruth’s 1932 World Series “called shot” jersey, which sold for $24.12 million in 2024.

High-end Bryant cards remain coveted by collectors. Allen, well known in the industry as Shyne150, privately spent $4 million on two Bryant 1-of-1 signed Panini Flawless Logoman cards.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania’s treasurer refused Thursday to approve payments for more than $1 million in security systems and other upgrades to the private home of Gov. Josh Shapiro, changes that were made after an intruder set fire to the state-owned governor’s residence last year in an attempt to kill the Democrat.

The treasurer, Republican Stacy Garrity, said there is no legal authorization to use taxpayer dollars to reimburse contractors for the security upgrades on private property, even the private home of a governor.

The Pennsylvania State Police submitted the reimbursement requests to the Treasury Department but “appear to have simply ignored the statutory limits and restrictions on spending and procurement,” Garrity said during a news conference in her offices.

The state police agency has other options to get taxpayer dollars to underwrite the work, which has already been done. The agency could ask lawmakers to explicitly authorize the payments or enter the state’s settlement process for disputes between contractors and state agencies, Garrity said.

Shapiro, who is considered a potential top-tier contender for the White House in the 2028 presidential election, is running for reelection this year for a second term as governor. After last year’s attack, he emerged as a prominent voice in condemning political violence.

Garrity is expected to be Shapiro’s main opponent in the fall election. She is both endorsed by the state GOP and uncontested for the GOP nomination in Pennsylvania’s May 19 primary election.

The treasurer said the decision wasn’t political and that “I don’t play these kind of political games.”

But Shapiro’s office blasted Garrity’s decision as a “shameful political action without legal basis” and said the state police was exploring options to ensure it protects its authority and that the contractors get paid.

“The Treasurer should put partisanship aside, follow the law, and show some humanity for a family that has experienced real trauma, the state troopers who protect them every day, and the vendors and workers who the treasurer has now refused to pay,” the governor’s office said in a written statement.

Garrity said the security and well-being of public officials and their families is of the “utmost importance” to her and that “an attack on the governor is an attack on all of us.”

Still, she said, her department does not have the legal authority to issue the payments.

The security upgrades at Shapiro’s home were something of a secret until his administration informed lawmakers about them in a letter last fall. In it, the Cabinet official in charge of state property told lawmakers that “the threat to a high-profile elected official like Governor Shapiro does not end when he leaves the Governor’s Residence.”

State officials haven’t detailed those upgrades, citing safety reasons. Shapiro, his wife and two of his four children still live in the private residence, in Abington, a Philadelphia suburb.

However, plans for a security fence there spawned dueling lawsuits between the Shapiros and a neighbor over who rightfully owns a sliver of land abutting the two properties.

So far, the Treasury Department said Thursday it has paid more than $26 million in security upgrades and remediations at the governor’s state-owned residence in Harrisburg, where the Shapiros often stay. Those renovations included an “anti-climb” iron fence that is much higher than the one scaled by the intruder, Cody Balmer.

Balmer last year pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Shapiro. Under a plea deal, Balmer was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison, far less than he could have faced if the case had gone to trial.

He climbed over a 7-foot iron security fence in the middle of the night, eluded two state troopers stationed at the residence and used beer bottles filled with gasoline to set fire to the residence, just hours after Shapiro had hosted a Passover Seder to celebrate the first night of the Jewish holiday.

The fire forced Shapiro, his wife, children and members of his extended family to flee, as firefighters battled the blaze. The residence, built in the 1960s along the Susquehanna River about 2 miles north of the state Capitol, was badly damaged but has since been renovated.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

April 23 (UPI) — Senate Republicans were up all night voting, eventually adopting a budget reconciliation package Thursday morning to prepare to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The Senate plans to fund the department without Democrats’ help. The resolution was adopted at around 3:30 a.m. EDT Thursday by a vote of 50-48 after about six hours.

The only Republicans to vote against the resolution were Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rand Paul, R-Ky. The bill now goes to the House. If the House adopts the resolution, the final funding bill can be written and voted on by Congress.

They are following a deadline of June 1 set by President Donald Trump.

“We have a multistep process ahead of us, but at the end Republicans will have helped ensure that America’s borders are secure and prevented Democrats from defunding these important agencies,” said Senate Republican Leader John Thune, R-N.D.

Thune told fellow senators to keep the package narrow to ensure speedy passage.

Since the January deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, both shot and killed by DHS officers, Democrats have refused to support funding the department without reforms. The department has been shut down since Feb, 14, though Trump told the department to use emergency funds to pay essential workers.

Just before the Easter recess, the Senate passed a bill that would fund most of DHS but not ICE and Border Patrol. But the House rejected it.

Republicans are hoping to fund the department through 2029 at a cost of between $70 and $80 billion.

The late-night vote-a-rama included votes about amendments that could be added to the resolution. Two Republican Senators who are vulnerable in the November elections — Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska — broke ranks on some amendments.

Collins and Sullivan voted for amendments to lower health care costs, to reverse last year’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts and to tackle insurance companies that delay or deny medical care. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., joined with Collins and Sullivan on the latter.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also sponsored an amendment that would tell the budget committee chair to help cut prescription drug prices by half. Hawley, Collins and Sullivan supported Sanders on it. Sanders said his amendment would codify ensuring that Americans wouldn’t pay more for prescriptions than Canadians or Europeans.

The amendments wouldn’t have the power to force Republicans’ hands, but they would make Republicans go on record about their views of these items.

“This reconciliation, or this budget act, will show who’s on whose side, and clearly if Republicans vote against our amendments, they’re not on the side of the American people,” Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox and Friends on Tuesday that the department will run out of money for salaries next month.

“I’ve got one payroll left, and there is no more emergency funds so the president can’t do another executive order because there’s no more money there,” The Hill reported he said.

The resolution does not include the SAVE America Act, the voter security bill that Trump and other Republicans have pushed for. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., sponsored an amendment to add similar restrictions, but it failed 48-50. Collins, Murkowski, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-S.C., and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voted against it.

Norway is preparing to lift restrictions preventing its $2.2 trillion sovereign wealth fund from investing in government bonds issued by Syria.

The move follows the political transition after the ousting of Bashar al-Assad and the rise of Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose government has been seeking economic recovery and international reintegration after more than a decade of war and sanctions.

At the same time, Norway plans to newly restrict investments in bonds issued by Iran, aligning with ongoing international sanctions.

Policy Shift and Financial Context

The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world, plays a major role in global financial markets. Its investment decisions often influence broader investor behaviour.

The updated policy removes Syria from the exclusion list for government bonds while adding Iran, reflecting changing geopolitical and sanctions dynamics.

Although the fund does not currently hold investments in Middle Eastern government bonds, the policy shift opens the door for future allocations and signals a reassessment of risk and legitimacy.

Geopolitical Significance

Norway’s decision represents a notable step toward Syria’s re-entry into the global financial system. It comes alongside other developments, including the restoration of Syria’s financial links with international institutions after years of isolation.

The move also highlights a divergence in how states are being treated: while Syria is gradually being reintegrated, Iran remains economically isolated due to continued tensions and sanctions.

As one of the world’s most influential sovereign investors, Norway’s stance could encourage other countries and institutions to reconsider their own restrictions on Syria.

Analysis

The decision reflects a broader recalibration of international economic engagement based on political change and shifting strategic priorities. By opening the possibility of investment in Syrian bonds, Norway is signalling cautious confidence in the new government’s direction and stability.

At the same time, the move remains largely symbolic in the short term. The wealth fund has no immediate exposure to Syrian debt, and actual investment will depend on risk assessments, market conditions, and institutional safeguards.

More importantly, the policy underscores how financial tools are increasingly used as instruments of foreign policy. Inclusion or exclusion from global capital markets can legitimise governments, incentivise reforms, or reinforce isolation.

In Syria’s case, gradual financial reintegration could support reconstruction and economic recovery, but it also raises questions about governance, transparency, and long-term stability after years of conflict.

With information from Reuters.