house

May 27 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said his cabinet meeting on Wednesday afternoon will be at the White House instead of Camp David, as was planned, due to weather.

“Based on the possible bad weather conditions tomorrow, we will be having our Cabinet Meeting in the White House, and will be postponing the Cabinet trip to Camp David,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday afternoon.

Thunderstorms are expected in the region.

The meeting will “highlight recent successes of the administration, including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates,” a White House official told ABC News.

Trump hasn’t been to the Presidential Retreat at Camp David in Frederick County, Md., in nearly a year.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is expected to attend. She will depart her position at the end of June after announcing her resignation last week.

The 21-year-old man shot and killed after opening fire on U.S. Secret Service agents near the White House was a Maryland resident, according to online records.

Following Saturday’s shootout, the Associated Press identified the suspect as Nasire Best. According to virtual records, Best lived in the Prince George’s County suburb of Glenarden with his family.

The shooting occurred near a White House security checkpoint shortly after 6 p.m., according to a social media post from the Secret Service, which alleged that Best “pulled a weapon from his bag and began firing.”

Secret Service Uniformed Division officers returned fire, striking Best, who was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead a short time later, the post said. The Secret Service said no officers were injured, but a bystander was struck by gunfire and remained in serious but stable condition Sunday, according to the Associated Press.

The Secret Service said the bystander, who has not been identified, suffered a gunshot wound described as not life-threatening, the AP reported. It was not clear how the person was shot.

The Secret Service post also noted that President Trump was in the White House during the incident and was not harmed.

A person listed as having the same name as Best has three failure-to-pay rent cases for a dwelling in the Foundry by the Park Apartments in Dundalk, Md., from as recent as November. The Baltimore Sun could not confirm whether the cases are linked to the person killed Saturday.

The AP reported that Best was identified as the suspect by a law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity due to not being authorized to discuss the investigation.

The AP noted that court documents indicated that Best was arrested in July 2025 after he attempted to enter a White House checkpoint without authorization. It wrote that the court records said Best did not heed officers’ commands to stop, “claimed he was Jesus Christ” and told officers he wanted to be arrested.

The court issued Best a “pretrial stay away order,” which typically requires defendants not to go near a person or area before a trail, the AP reported. In August, a bench warrant was issued against Best after a notice of “noncompliance.” He did not appear for a subsequent hearing, the AP reported.

The shooting remains under investigation, and additional information will be release as it becomes available, according to the Secret Service.

Saturday’s shooting was the third time in the last month that shots were fired near the president, including at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner in late April and near the Washington Monument earlier this month.

Hubbard writes for the Baltimore Sun. This story was distributed by the Associated Press via Tribune News Service.

May 24 (UPI) — The gunman who opened fire at the White House this weekend before being fatally shot by Secret Service officers has been identified as Nasire Best, unnamed sources confirmed to multiple media outlets.

The 21-year-old had previous encounters with the Secret Service and had previously posted threatening statements online, the sources told CBS News, NBC News and CNN. The sources said Best had never acted violently or brandished a weapon prior to Saturday evening, when police said he approached a checkpoint at the White House, pulled a firearm from his bag and opened fire.

Officers returned fire, striking Best, who was transported to a hospital where he was declared dead, Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the Secret Service, said in the statement.

A bystander was also injured in the shooting and was in critical condition.

“It remains unclear whether the bystander was struck by the suspect’s initial gunfire or during the subsequent exchange of gunfire,” a Secret Service representative told CNN.

President Donald Trump, who was inside the residence at at the White House at the time of the shooting, was unharmed. In a post on Truth Social just after midnight Sunday, Trump thanked the Secret Service for their actions during the shooting.

“Thank you to our great Secret Service and Law Enforcement for the swift and professional action taken this evening against a gunman near the White House, who had a violent history and possible obsession with our Country’s most cherished structure,” Trump wrote.

Sources told CNN that Best had been detained in June 2025 and committed to the Psychiatric Institute of Washington for evaluation after he blocked an entry lane at the White House and proclaimed he was God. A month later, the Secret Service arrested him after he allegedly tried to enter a White House driveway. A judge told him to keep away from the White House.

Investigators at the time said they found that he had made statements online saying he wanted to hurt Trump and that he was the real Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the Sept. 1, 2001, terror attacks.

Trump also took the opportunity in his Truth Social post to renew his stance that the new ballroom he’s constructing would serve as added security at the White House.

“This event is one month removed from the White House Correspondent’Dinner shooting, and goes to show how important it is, for all future Presidents, to get, what will be, the most safe and secure space of its kind ever built in Washington, D.C. The National Security of our Country demands it!”

May 23 (UPI) — The White House was locked down on Saturday evening after a man approached one of its checkpoints and opened fire at the executive mansion before being shot by the Secret Service.

Around 6 p.m. a man near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue approached a White House entrance, pulled a firearm from his bag and started firing at the entrance, the Secret Service said in a statement.

Members of several media organizations, some who were reporting live, reported hearing what they thought were gunshots before the Secret Service told them to seek shelter inside the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

“Secret Service Police returned fire, striking the suspect, who was transported to an area hospital where he was pronounced deceased,” Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the Secret Service, said in the statement.

“During the shooting, one bystander was also struck by gunfire,” Guglielmi said. “No injuries were sustained by officers.”

The bystander is in serious condition, CBS News reported.

The Secret Service said that President Donald Trump, who has been working at the White House all day amid negotiations to end the Iran war, was in the White House during the shooting, “however no protectees or operations were impacted.”

Reporters on the North Lawn reported that they heard what they thought was gunfire and ducked before Secret Service agents told them to “sprint to the press briefing room” to take cover.

Both the Secret Service and FBI quickly confirmed that both agencies were investigating reports of gunfire near the White House.

The White House was briefly locked down, and The Washington Post reported that its security gates remained locked hours after the incident.

The White House checkpoint the man fired at is located at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, which is near the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Although the suspect approached the White House, Fox News reported that he never actually got inside the general perimeter of the executive mansion.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Secret Service shot a person near the White House on Saturday, and a bystander also was shot, a law enforcement official said.

Both individuals were said to be in critical condition, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation.

Journalists working at the White House on Saturday reported hearing a series of gunshots and were told to seek shelter inside the press briefing room.

On X, the Secret Service said it was “aware of reports of shots fired near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW” — one block from the White House — and was “working to corroborate the information with personnel on the ground.”

In a social media post, FBI Director Kash Patel said officers were responding to shots fired and said he would “update the public as we’re able.”

President Trump was inside the White House at the time.

Evidence of the shooting was visible on a sidewalk just outside the White House complex, where yellow crime scene tape snaked across the pavement and Secret Service officers placed dozens of orange evidence markers on the ground. Medical material, including what appeared to be purple surgical gloves and kits typically used by emergency medical personnel, were also seen.

In a post shared on X, Selina Wang, the senior White House correspondent for ABC News, shared video of the moment she said she heard what “sounded like dozens of gunshots” and ducked for cover. Writing that she had been performing an ordinary task that reporters at the White House do every day — filming themselves on a cellphone, for a social media post — Wang’s video shows her speaking for a few seconds about Trump’s statements earlier Saturday about a potential Iran deal.

As the sounds of gunfire are heard in the background, Wang’s eyes grow wider, and she ducks down in the media tent, which is among those situated in a line along the White House driveway where broadcasters film their reports. On X, Wang’s video had been shared thousands of times as of Saturday evening, and viewed at least 3 million times.

The Metropolitan Police Department said on its X account that the Secret Service was working the scene and cautioned people to avoid the area. The scene is near where a gunman ambushed two members of the West Virginia National Guard in November.

U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from her wounds. Andrew Wolfe, then 24, was critically wounded. Rahmanullah Lakanwal has been charged in that incident.

The gunfire Saturday comes nearly a month after what law enforcement authorities said was an attempted assassination of the president on April 25 as he attended the annual White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner at a Washington hotel. Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance recently pleaded not guilty to charges that he attempted to kill Trump and remains in federal custody.

Following that scare, Secret Service officers shot a suspect they said had fired at officers near the Washington Monument, also near the White House. Michael Marx, 45, of Midland, Texas, was charged in a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in connection with the May 4 shooting. A teenage bystander was wounded in that incident.

Superville and Durkin Richer write for the Associated Press. AP photojournalists Jose Luis Magana and Alex Brandon and writers Gary Fields, Meg Kinnard and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

US law enforcement agencies are responding to reports of shots fired near the White House.

There were no immediate reports of any injuries.

In a social media post, FBI Director Kash Patel said officers are responding to shots fired and said he would “update the public as we’re able”.

President Donald Trump was inside the White House at the time. Police cordoned off access to the White House and National Guard troops blocked reporters from entering the area in downtown Washington.

Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington, DC, said there were more than 30 shots heard from the White House North Lawn.

“The White House is now surrounded by multiple emergency vehicles and agencies. We understand the president was in the Oval Office at the time. The shots were fired outside the White House, but the White House has not confirmed or let anyone know about the president’s condition at this time.”

Journalists who were on the White House North Lawn at the time said they were ordered to run and shelter in the press briefing room.

The Secret Service said it’s “aware of reports of shots fired near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW” – one block from the White House – and is “working to corroborate the information with personnel on the ground”.

May 21 (UPI) — House Republicans abruptly pulled legislation to curb President Donald Trump‘s ability to continue the war with Iran on Thursday amid Democratic accusations that GOP leaders shelved the measure over fears it would pass.

House Concurrent Resolution 86 was listed on House Majority Leader Steve Scalise‘s schedule for possible consideration on Thursday but no vote was held before the House left Washington.

The resolution was delayed until after the lower chamber returns from recess on June 2, leaving Democrats fuming.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars, gas prices are through the roof, people can’t afford their groceries? Is that why you’re pulling it?” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., asked on the House floor as cheers and boos erupted behind him.

“You guys don’t have the guts … to vote on this.”

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., directs Trump to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran unless authorized by Congress.

Democrats put the measure forward amid a larger congressional push aimed at reining in Trump’s ability to go to war in the Middle East. Democrats in the Senate on Tuesday advanced similar legislation in the eighth vote they have forced on the matter since the war began Feb. 28.

While Democrats have said the war is illegal without congressional authorization, Trump and his Republican Party argue the effort is moot, claiming the war ended with a fragile cease-fire announced last month.

The Senate measure advanced with support from a handful of Republicans who have split from their party on the issue as the war has continued. In the House, where the GOP also holds a narrow majority, defections were anticipated. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has supported previous similar measures.

“Let’s be clear: Republicans pulled this vote because they knew they were going to lose it,” Meeks, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement after the House recessed.

“They know this war is a political and strategic disaster. They know that as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend paying over [$]4.50 a gallon at the pump, they cannot go home and explain they voted to keep this war going. So, instead of casting that vote, they ran from it.”

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., accused House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Republicans of abdicating their responsibility by postponing the vote.

“This is a new low,” he said in a social media post.

“This is a disservice to the American people and the troops being put in harm’s way.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., lambasted Trump for starting the war without articulating its objectives and exit strategy and without garnering public support or congressional approval for it.

“Even as we prepare to recognize our nation’s fallen heroes on Memorial Day, House Republicans refuse to show up and be accountable to the brave service members that have been recklessly put in harm’s way,” he said in a statement.

“The American people will remember in November.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans appeared increasingly unlikely to meet their self-imposed deadline for passing a roughly $70-billion immigration enforcement bill this week as disputes over security funding for the White House and the Trump administration’s $1.8-trillion settlement fund effectively derailed progress.

Republicans were already expected to abandon $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom amid backlash from members of their own party. But then questions about the settlement fund added to some of the senator’s concerns. They are questioning who would get the money.

Republican senators met with acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche on Thursday as they worked to finalize the bill’s text and whether to put parameters on the settlement, which was designed to compensate Trump’s allies who believe they have been politically persecuted. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that senators had questions and wanted to know “how we might make sure that it’s fenced in appropriately.”

But senators who emerged from the meeting were tight-lipped and indicated that lawmakers would not hold a vote on the package before leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break, risking failure to meet Trump’s June 1 deadline.

Asked about a vote this week, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) responded, “I don’t even know.” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) was more blunt: “We’re going home,” he said.

The last-minute scramble comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several GOP senators have spoken out against the settlement, which was announced this week, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

Asked Thursday at the White House if he was losing control of the Senate, Trump replied: “I don’t know, I really don’t know. I can tell you — I only do what’s right.”

Possible parameters on Trump’s settlement fund

The “anti-weaponization” fund, part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns, unexpectedly became one of the main complications in the bill. Democrats said they would force votes to block it or place restrictions on it.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments, potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Presenting a united front, Democrats from both the House and Senate rallied on the Capitol steps Thursday to show their opposition. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the amendment process “will give Republicans countless chances to do the right thing.”

He added that if they declined to make changes, it would show voters that “Ballroom Republicans are not working for you, they are busy fighting for Trump.”

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans have voiced reservations about the fund. So Republicans are now discussing their own last-minute additions to head that off, potentially placing some parameters on the settlement and who could receive compensation, according to two people with knowledge of the private discussions who requested anonymity to discuss them.

It was unclear how any Senate changes would be received in the House. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Wednesday that the House will pass the bill “whatever form it takes.”

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged the settlement and parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post on Wednesday.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump also renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

Republicans need to “get smart and tough,” Trump said, or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

While they have been loyal to Trump on most issues, Senate Republicans have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Secret Service request falters

Under the Secret Service’s request, about $220 million would fund security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea.” The bill should not have included the other security improvements, he said, “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who lost reelection in his GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Left in the bill is the money for ICE and Border Patrol, which Democrats have blocked for months in protest of the administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.

Democrats demanded changes for the agencies, but negotiations with the White House yielded little progress. So Republicans are using the complicated budget maneuver called reconciliation — the same process that allowed them to pass Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill last year — to fund the agencies through the end of Trump’s term with a simple majority and no Democratic votes.

Still, passage requires sign-off from the parliamentarian and unity from Republicans.

Jalonick, Freking and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Collin Binkley, Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

Trump’s White House ballroom, the controversy that keeps on giving, will of course be much more than just a ballroom and offices. This was always a given. Taking down an entire wing of the White House would be seen as the biggest opportunity in generations to install modernized hardened infrastructure at the most famous, most threatened, and highest-security house in America. Now, thanks to a remarkably detailed monologue and question-and-answer session from President Trump, we are learning a lot more about exactly what the ballroom’s security and military features will include, and just how deep the facility will go. The big takeaway here is that while it may be branded a ballroom, it’s really a fortress too — one with some very specialized and even somewhat puzzling capabilities.

The fact that the ballroom is as much of a military and security services installation as it is its stated function comes as the administration seeks a billion dollars in new funding from Congress for the U.S. Secret Service. Of that money, $220 million would go toward the facility, while the rest would go to other efforts to enhance security around the complex. The total cost of the ballroom project has previously been estimated to be $400 million. Trump had said in the past that private donors would pay for the construction — another controversial aspect of the project.

The last time a major bunker complex was installed below the White House grounds was roughly a decade and a half ago, under President Barack Obama. During that period, a large but secretive project saw the installation of an expansive underground facility, supposedly five stories deep, beneath the North Lawn. This facility was far larger and more elaborate than the President’s Emergency Operations Center — the PEOC — that was built below the now destroyed East Wing and dates back, at least in part, to around World War II. This facility was made famous by the tragic events of 9/11.

Based on lessons learned from the rickety response to that crisis, the PEOC was also progressively upgraded throughout the Bush Administration and beyond. You can read all about the existing bunker facilities at the White House in our prior report linked here.

Now that the East Wing is gone, the historic PEOC is likely gone as well, and a much grander labyrinth of underground spaces is being installed in its place. It appears that these deep underground areas will take up a substantial part of the entire floor plate of the massive ballroom building, so we are talking about a huge amount of square footage here, not just a new emergency bunker. Think a multi-story underground office building more so than a bomb shelter.

Trump, standing in front of the foundation of the ballroom while the racket of work crews filled the air, went into detail to reporters yesterday as to what is being built beneath the ballroom. Some of the features he mentioned were already known about, but not elaborated on, and some were new. They included:

• A military hospital
• Research facilities — it is unclear what these are, whether these are Secret Service and/or military facilities, or something else entirely
• Meeting rooms and rooms that go “hand-in-hand” for the military

Trump goes on to proclaim the ballroom is actually a “shield” to protect all these sensitive areas. Overall, Trump says the facility is “already down about six stories deep.” He later restated that the complex does indeed go six stories down. Trump also said during his presser, “the underneath is far more complex than the upper” when discussing the overall structure.

Trump continued to detail some of the defensive features of the ballroom facility:

• Drone proofing, stating “if a drone hits it, it bounces off, it won’t have any impact”
• Missile proofing
• “Great sniper capacity” (USSS counter-sniper teams are an omnipresent fixture atop the White House)
• The roof is developed “for the military” with a 360-degree view of Washington, D.C., due to its height.

Trump calls construction of new White House ballroom ‘a gift’

Now we get into the really interesting and a bit peculiar part. Trump went on to say that the roof will have a “massive drone capacity.” He later adds that “it’s also meant as a drone port, so it protects all of Washington.” The president also stated that “we use it as a drone port. We can have unlimited drones up there, and drones are what’s happening right now.”

In another quote, Trump, talking about the roof again, said “on top of the roof, we’re going to have the greatest drone empire you’ve ever seen that’s going to protect Washington.” He also said systems from below the new ballroom facility will be put on the roof “for drone and missile capacity.”

So what is he actually talking about here?

First off, it is abundantly clear that this will be the most hardened overall structure on the White House grounds by a huge margin. It will feature passive defenses against many forms of attack. From the windows to the walls, the facility will be hardened to a level not seen on legacy structures on the property.

It will also have active defenses. Clearly, the drone issue is a massive one and has been for many years. This structure will serve as a secure place to do daily business if needed. Based on Trump’s comments, it will also act as a critical active defense node with its roof hosting air defenses, and apparently ones that are capable of at least a limited degree of area defense, not just highly-localized point defense. This is where drones could come into play. Drone interceptors (drones that intercept other drones) are well suited for the unique challenges of defending the White House and the Mall area as a whole, where collateral damage is a huge concern. Some of these systems use warheads, while others do not, physically smashing into their targets or blasting them with electrical pulses and other non-traditional effects instead. Drone interceptor capabilities are expanding rapidly now, equipping forward bases and warships. They proved critical in defending U.S. interests against Iranian attacks during the recent war. In Ukraine, they have proven indispensable in countering waves of Russian Shaheds.

Ukraine’s drone defense tech reshapes combat as warfare evolves

Raytheon Missiles & Defense proves counter-UAS effectiveness against enemy drones

So, it sounds like the roof of the ballroom is going to be a major air defense installation, at least for counter-drone applications, for the area, and interceptor drones will likely provide at least part of this capability, along with electronic warfare and possibly directed energy weapons. Surface-to-air missiles could find a home there, as well. There is a known rooftop FIM-92 Stinger-firing Avenger missile turret near the White House for this purpose today, which was installed not long after 9/11, but this capability could be expanded, at least in a crisis or during special occasions, to the rooftop of the new structure. It could even host longer-range systems. Currently, the capital area features the only permanent surface-to-air missile network in the United States, featuring the NASAMS system for medium-range defense, with launchers arrayed around the region.

Still, firing off a rocket packed with a high-explosive blast-fragmentation warhead low over the capital is a far more dangerous action than emerging alternatives, as mentioned above, at least for countering drones. Regardless, Trump alluded to systems being able to be stored in the bottom of the ballroom facility that can be moved up to the roof for protection. It’s unclear if some sort of lift system would allow this to occur more seamlessly on demand, if indeed his description was accurate, but being able to configure air defenses on the rooftop based on the threat at any given time would be highly advantageous.

Whether the president thinks drones will be used in the future to transport cargo and individuals to and from the White House grounds, using the roof of the new facility, isn’t clear, but it sounds like that’s at least part of the vision. Not long after the East Wing was torn down, we inquired with the White House if the ballroom’s roof would work as a helipad for Marine One. This inquiry was spurred by the chronic landing area issues with the new VH-92A Marine One helicopters. We never got a response, but the news hit this week that the White House is now looking to build a helicopter landing pad due to this issue. It isn’t perfectly clear if the ballroom could serve in this role or at least be used as an alternative landing site.

Finally, it’s clear that the underground portion of the ballroom will include a multitude of command and control, training, computers, and communications support areas, and much more for military operations and defense of the White House itself. Much of this also fits into the continuity of government realm, a key mission for the USSS and the White House Military Office. Considering the size of the new facility, it will likely also have a lot of room for future expansion.

That being said, it is worth noting that while a modern underground facility like this may be more secure, it cannot even come close to protecting against a direct nuclear attack. The requirements for such an installation far exceed anything we are seeing with the ballroom (or anywhere else really).

Trump added in his presser yesterday that with the ballroom will come “great military capacity, we are building it in conjunction with the United States military.” Exactly how the marriage of the military’s and the Secret Service’s wants and building a huge building for galas came together is unclear. The timeline of events that gave birth to the ballroom-fortress concept seems fascinating in its own right.

With that in mind, and considering this was all in the blueprints for the highly complex structure being built now, the military and the USSS were clearly deeply involved in its design from early on, which makes it puzzling as to why the White House is just asking for funding for those security features now.

Regardless, while this new addition to the White House grounds may be referred to as a ballroom, it is one built atop a sprawling military installation and cocooned within a hardened armor shell that has many other roles than its stated purpose.

Contact the author: Tyler@twz.com

WASHINGTON — Republican senators are considering dropping a proposal for $1 billion in security money for the White House complex and President Trump’s ballroom after it has failed to win enough party support on Capitol Hill.

Pressured by the White House, Republicans have tried to add the money to a roughly $70-billion bill to restore funding to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. But the security proposal has met with backlash from some GOP lawmakers who are questioning the cost and the lack of detail from the White House and U.S. Secret Service about how the taxpayer dollars would be used.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Wednesday that the bill was “back to square one” without the security money because “the votes are not there.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said the effort to add the security package to the bill was a “bad idea” and he does not think there is enough backing to pass it, even if it were reduced.

The text of the bill has not yet been released. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged “ongoing vote issues” as leaders try to measure Republican support, as well as “ongoing parliamentarian issues” as they try to figure out what will be allowed in the bill under the chamber’s rules.

The wrangling comes as Democrats have criticized Republicans for trying to fund Trump’s ballroom when voters are concerned about basic affordability issues — and as some GOP lawmakers have grown increasingly frustrated with Trump. Several have spoken out against the administration’s $1.8-billion settlement fund designed to compensate Trump’s allies, and many were upset by the president’s endorsement Tuesday of Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton in the party primary runoff next week against Sen. John Cornyn.

“There’s always a consequence with taking on United States senators,” Thune said. Trump “obviously has his favorites and people he wants to endorse and that’s his prerogative. But what we have to deal with up here is moving the agenda, and obviously that can become slightly more complicated.”

Republican opposition blocks Secret Service request

Under the Secret Service request, about $220 million would pay for security improvements related to the ballroom. The rest would go for a new screening center for visitors, training and other security measures.

Tillis said the bill should not have included the other security improvements “because it’s just giving everybody the ‘billion-dollar ballroom.’”

“They need to explain to me why we need this,” Tillis said, noting that Trump had originally said private money would cover the project.

Several other Republicans in the House and Senate have questioned the request, and senators left a briefing with the director of the Secret Service last week saying they needed a lot more information.

People “can’t afford groceries and gasoline and healthcare, and we’re going to do a billion dollars for a ballroom?” asked Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who lost reelection in the GOP primary on Saturday after Trump endorsed one of his opponents.

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) said he is supportive of the security money and thinks it is necessary to protect the president. But he acknowledged that the optics are not very good for Republicans, and that they have not communicated about it well.

“We’ve got people out there who are worried about how in the world they’re going to have enough gas to get home,” Justice said.

Tensions rise between Senate and White House

As Republicans challenged parts of his agenda, Trump unloaded on the Senate in a social media post.

He urged Republicans to fire the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who said over the weekend that parts of the $1-billion security proposal cannot remain in the ICE and Border Patrol bill. Trump renewed his long-standing calls for the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, a Republican bill that would require all voters to prove U.S. citizenship, and to end the Senate filibuster.

“Republicans play a very soft game compared to the Dumocrats,” he wrote. “It is their single biggest disadvantage in politics.”

Trump said Democrats would eliminate the filibuster “on the First Day” if they ever get full power in Washington again and that Republicans need to “get smart and tough” or “you’ll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!”

Republicans have been loyal to Trump on most issues, but they have resisted his repeated calls — even in his first term — to kill the filibuster, which triggers a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

Hanging over the growing GOP rift is Trump’s surprise endorsement of Paxton. That intervention has Republican senators privately fuming that it could cost them their majority in November as they view the incumbent, Cornyn, as the better candidate in the November general election.

Democrats test Republicans on settlement fund

As Republicans move forward on the immigration enforcement legislation, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Democrats plan to force a vote on Trump’s proposed settlement fund.

Democrats have an opening because Republicans are trying to pass the immigration enforcement bill through a complicated budget process that requires a long series of amendment votes. Democrats are considering multiple amendments potentially to block that new fund outright or to ban any payments to Trump supporters who harmed law enforcement officers in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Those amendments, along with others, could pass as a growing number of Republicans speak out against the fund and other parts of Trump’s agenda.

Thune said he was “not a big fan” of the new fund, which the administration announced as a part of a settlement that resolves the president’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Cassidy called it a “slush fund” and said “you can’t just make up things.”

Tillis said he thinks it is a “real risk” that some of the rioters charged — and later pardoned by Trump — in the Jan. 6 attack could get compensation through the fund. He said that would be “absurd.”

On Wednesday, two police officers who helped defend the Capitol in the 2021 assault sued to block the payouts. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, a personal attorney for Trump before joining the Department of Justice in Trump’s second term, would not rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for compensation when he testified in a Senate hearing this week.

Jalonick, Freking and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

The Rich House, Poor House mum had to turn down a job that would change her life

A single mum living on £98 a week was forced to turn down a life-changing opportunity.

Steph recently appeared on Rich House, Poor House and was offered a job but she had no choice but to refuse the offer due to a family issue and unable to take on the long commute.

Alongside her mother Gail and her daughters – 12-year-old Amelia and seven-year-old Darcey, they swapped lives with wealthy Mr Whippy owner Joe Sealey on the Channel 5 series and their worlds couldn’t be more different.

At the time, Joe traded his six-bedroom estate – complete with cinema room, gym and indoor pool – for seven days in Steph’s three bedroom council house with a damaged ground floor and mould spreading through Amelia’s room.

Despite working six days a week from home in telesales, Steph struggles to cover essential costs. Once fundamental household expenses are paid, they’re left with just £98 per week for all other needs.

At the end of the swap, she was given a life-changing opportunity as Joe offered her a position on his sales team with a starting salary of £60,000 a year.

However Steph has revealed that she’s had to make the heartbreaking decision and turn down the job offer after the office moved to a different location.

Giving viewers an update, she took to her TikTok and explained that the relocation means she would have had to do a four hour round commute, which she says wouldn’t work due to being a single mum and her mum’s health deteriorating.

She said: “In relation to the job, I agree with all of you that it’s an amazing opportunity. Sadly due to the main office relocation it would mean a four hour round trip commuting for me, to be able to go there and take that job offer up.”

During the swap, Steph had no choice but to send her mum home after she became too unwell to continue with the programme and it seems her health is still a concern for Steph.

Steph explained: “As you all know I’m a single mum, I’ve got two beautiful girls. My amazing mum, whose health is not great, it’s not massively improved since the show, so it’s not viable for me to be able to travel a four hour round trip.

“I need to be closer to my girls and my mum but again it was an amazing opportunity that was put forward. Sadly the location did change in between and it’s just not viable for me to do that

“But I just again wanted to say a huge thank you to Joe, my production team, Channel 5 and most importantly every single one of you. It’s not easy to put yourself out there.”

Following a successful business meeting on the show, Steth was promised £20,000 from the initial sales proceeds but unfortunately the sale still hasn’t gone thorough.

Steph added: “Since filming last year, Joe has been tirelessly working with Kaspas trying to get the deal across the line, that obviously you would have seen me go and do the sales pitch for. At the moment, that hasn’t been completed but I know Joe is still working in the background trying to get that over the line for us.”

You can stream Rich House, Poor Holiday on Channel 5

WASHINGTON — A proposal to fund $1 billion in security additions for the White House campus and President Trump’s new ballroom fails to meet procedural rules, according to the Senate parliamentarian, dealing a blow to Republican plans to include it as part of a bill to fund immigration enforcement agencies for the next three years.

The parliamentarian’s ruling, described late Saturday by Senate Democrats, said that funding for a project as large and complex as Trump’s massive East Wing renovation is too broad to be included in the narrow GOP budget bill, which cannot be filibustered and needs only a simple majority to pass.

It’s unclear whether Republicans will be able to immediately salvage any part of the billion-dollar Secret Service proposal, which would fund security for Trump’s ballroom along with other parts of the White House, including a new visitor screening center, additional training for agents and extra reinforcements for large events. Republicans said Saturday night that they are revising the legislation based on the parliamentarian’s advice.

Ryan Wrasse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), wrote in a post on X that “none of this is abnormal” during the complicated budget process that Republicans are using to try to pass the immigration enforcement and White House security money on a partisan basis.

“Redraft. Refine. Resubmit,” Wrasse said in the post.

Democrats say they’re ‘ready to stop them again’

Democrats have seized on the security request, accusing Republicans of dedicating federal resources to the ballroom project instead of focusing on helping Americans with rising costs. Republicans have insisted that private donations will be used to build the ballroom and that the federal dollars are focused just on much-needed security enhancements.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took credit for the ruling after Democrats argued to the parliamentarian that the security money doesn’t belong in the bill.

“Republicans tried to make taxpayers foot the bill for Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom,” Schumer said Saturday evening. “Senate Democrats fought back — and blew up their first attempt.”

Schumer added that Democrats “will be ready to stop them again” as Republicans say they will revise the bill.

The ruling from the Senate parliamentarian is advisory, but such rulings are rarely if ever ignored when lawmakers put together legislation that can pass with a simple majority. Most bills are subject to a filibuster and thus need 60 votes for passage — meaning Republicans must find some Democratic support in the 53-47 Senate.

Part of immigration bill

Republicans are looking to approve a roughly $72-billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection until the end of Trump’s term after Democrats have blocked the money for months.

As part of that package, Republicans included $1 billion for White House security enhancements, part of it connected to Trump’s ballroom. The Secret Service had requested the money after a man was charged with trying to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last month.

The overall budget package is providing another boost of funding for Trump’s immigration and deportation agenda, fueling operations through September 2029. It comes on top of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funds Congress provided last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed into law.

The parliamentarian kept most of the immigration portion of the legislation intact, though some minor provisions were blocked, including Customs and Border Patrol funds to hire, train and pay Border Patrol agents. Republicans said those were only technical fixes.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said Saturday evening that “Democrats are prepared to challenge any change to this bill.”

Americans shouldn’t spend “a single dime” on Trump’s “Louis XIV-style ballroom and throw tens of billions more at two lawless agencies,” Merkley said.

Jalonick and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

May 15 (UPI) — Representatives of both parties in the House on Friday demanded to know why the Department of Defense stopped deployment of troops to Poland, and top Army leaders didn’t have clear answers.

House Armed Services Committee members said the halting of troop deployment with no notice was a surprise to Congress, Politico reported. They had a hearing Friday with top Army leaders who gave them few answers.

“I just want to say this is a slap in the face to Poland; it’s a slap in the face to our Baltic friends,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said. “It’s a slap to the face of this committee.”

The deployment was a long-planned rotation of 4,000 troops based in Texas, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put a sudden stop to it.

Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., on Friday questioned Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who said the rotation was canceled “just a couple days ago,” though acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said the decision was made in the “last two weeks.”

Neither man gave an explanation for the decision.

“We don’t know what’s going on here, but I can just tell you we’re not happy with what’s being talked about, particularly since there’s been no statutory consultation with us,” committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told Driscoll and LaNeve.

On Thursday, acting Pentagon press secretary Joel Valdez said the decision was “not an unexpected, last-minute decision.”

“I don’t see how [the Pentagon] statement can be true,” Scott said.

LaNeve confirmed that some equipment was already in Europe or en route when Hegseth canceled the deployment.

Driscoll said the Army can adjust its plans based on the preferences of regional commanders or the secretary of defense.

“This is not meant to hide the ball; this is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year every single year,” he said.

On April 30, President Donald Trump decided to remove 5,000 troops from Germany after German Chancellor Friederich Merz said the United States was “humiliated” by Iran.

Trump has often complained about NATO, but he has called Poland a “model ally” for its move to spend more on defense. In September, Trump said he would support Poland and stand with Warsaw “all the way” after the candidate he backed, Karol Nawrocki, won the election for president.

Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said Army leaders should be able to give a straight answer to Congress.

“The only answer I’ve got is, ‘Well, that’s what they told us to do.’ OK, why?” Smith asked the Army leaders. “If there’s some strategy behind it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us.”

Bacon said that Polish officials were “blindsided” by the move, which he learned from a phone call from Poland.

“They called me yesterday, they did not know, they were blindsided,” The Hill reported Bacon told Driscoll and LaNeve. “These are some of our best allies, and they had no idea. They still don’t know what the plan is.”

Bacon said he knew the Army leaders didn’t make the decision, but he called it “reprehensible” and “an embarrassment to our country … what we just did to Poland.”

He added, “I know I may not represent 100% of people in this committee, but I think I represent the views of the vast majority. We disagree. … We’re sending a terrible message to Russia and to our allies.”

Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., said, “When we take that many troops away, it says that we are not a reliable ally.

NEW YORK — A federal immigration court in Lower Manhattan has come to represent the Trump administration’s deportation campaign in New York City, with agents carrying out chaotic and sometimes violent arrests in the hallway as migrants leave hearings.

Now the court is serving as a front in a different kind of battle: one of the city’s most closely watched congressional races.

In the Democratic primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and former city Comptroller Brad Lander — for a district so solidly blue that the June primary is considered its deciding election — both candidates have made the Trump administration’s treatment of migrants at 26 Federal Plaza a feature of their campaigns, but with decidedly different approaches.

Goldman — an heir to the Levi Strauss denim fortune and former prosecutor who was lead counsel for President Trump’s first impeachment — has approached the topic with a lawyerly bent that leverages the power of his office.

He sued the administration to open immigration detention centers to members of Congress, conducts oversight visits and turned his office across the street into what he’s called a triage center that connects immigrants with advocacy groups and legal services that has, his campaign said, helped more than 30 people get released from federal custody.

After a recent visit, Goldman credited his oversight work as a reason conditions at a holding facility inside the building have improved.

“What you see from our multipronged approach is the way that I push back, which is not performative, but it is substantive,” he told the Associated Press outside 26 Federal Plaza after he toured the detention center that is closed to the public.

Meanwhile, Lander — a progressive city government stalwart who is running with the support of Mayor Zohran Mamdani — has acted as protester and court observer, watching hearings and attempting to accompany immigrants out of the building past masked federal agents.

His efforts have gotten him arrested twice, with the most recent case headed to a trial scheduled to take place just before the primary.

“I would characterize his oversight function as strongly worded letters,” Lander told AP when asked about Goldman’s approach. “And my oversight function is: Show up with hundreds of your neighbors and bear witness and accompany people and demand access and stay until they give it to you or they arrest you.”

Lander’s first arrest happened last year when he linked arms with a person authorities were attempting to detain in the hallway outside the court. Lander was running for mayor at the time, and the arrest gave his campaign a jolt of excitement at a time when Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo were considered the front-runners in the race.

A few months later, after losing the mayoral primary but not long before launching his congressional campaign, Lander was arrested again during a large protest at the building and hit with a misdemeanor obstruction charge.

But instead of accepting a deal that would have made the case go away in six months, Lander instead opted to go to trial. He said the case would extract information about the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts at the building during a tense period that predates Goldman’s oversight visits.

Goldman dismissed Lander’s efforts as performative.

“I don’t understand why someone would reject a dismissal of a case so that he can have a public trial, ostensibly to ask for information that I could provide him whenever he wanted because I have the answers from doing my oversight,” he said.

This week, Lander returned to 26 Federal Plaza to sit in on hearings. But just before entering the building, his team got word that federal agents were lingering outside an immigration hearing at a different federal courtroom in a building across the street. He raced over and eventually found the agents, who were wearing masks and milling around in the court’s waiting room.

“The challenge is trying to figure out who they’re going to arrest,” Lander said, popping out of the hearing, where he sat in a back row and took notes. After a while, the agents walked away from the hearing room, down a hallway and exited the floor. It was not clear why they left.

“Maybe we have different styles,” Lander said of his opponent after the agents departed. He later went back across the street and filmed a campaign video in front of 26 Federal Plaza.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

May 15 (UPI) — The House Ethics Committee has launched an investigation into Rep. Chuck Edwards over allegations of creating a hostile work environment and engaging in sexual harassment.

Little information about the probe was made public.

In a brief statement issued Thursday, the committee said it was “reviewing allegations that Representative Chuck Edwards may have created or fostered a hostile work environment and engaged in sexual harassment in violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any other applicable standard of conduct.”

The committee said that its investigation and public disclosure do not indicate a violation has occurred.

Edwards told The Hill that he welcomes the investigation and plans “to comply fully with the committee.”

“I am confident the investigation will expose the facts, not politically motivated fiction,” he said.

The announcement follows recent reports that the committee was investigating Edwards, with Axios having been the first to report on the development.

Specifics of the allegations were not clear, but Politico earlier this week reported that he allegedly had an improper relationship with a subordinate as well as allegedly engaged in sexually harassment.

The investigation comes on the heels of two high-profile House resignations last month over sexual misconduct allegations.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., stepped down amid accusations of sexual misconduct and abuse, while Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, resigned after admitting he had an affair with a former aide who died by suicide.

Amid growing concern and anger about alleged abuses by members of the lower chamber, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Ky., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., announced Wednesday the creation of a bipartisan partnership between their parties’ women’s caucuses to combat workplace sexual misconduct in Congress.

Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez, D-N.M., and Kat Cammack, R-Fla., were designated to lead the effort as respective chairs of the Democratic and Republican Women’s Caucuses in the House.

“To state the obvious, all women should feel comfortable and safe working in the halls of Congress,” Johnson said in a statement, adding that he is happy Cammack and Leger Fernandez “will lead this bipartisan partnership to find ways we can continue to make Capitol Hill safer for women and all staff.”

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries had warned Republicans they would come to regret the congressional redistricting fight, and when Democrats counterpunched last month with a redrawn Virginia map, he had made his point.

The net tally of seats gained and lost was essentially a wash.

“F— around and find out,” said Jeffries after the election victory.

But in a matter of days, the race for control of the House — and the speaker’s gavel — was dramatically reset by back-to-back court rulings that wiped out the Democratic gains in Virginia and now threaten to erode Black representation by Democrats in the Deep South.

The shifting political prospects have been a wake-up call for Democrats, who have been favored to win back the House this November, riding the wave of President Trump’s dipping approval ratings, and a test for Jeffries as the party faces an enlarging map of Republican-friendly seats.

The leader’s aligned outside group has spent some $60 million, much of it on Virginia alone, a hit to the Democrats’ resources as they confront Trump’s Republicans.

“It sort of crystallizes the election is now a contest between one side that has the money and the maps, and the other that has the voters and the candidates,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist and former deputy director of the House Democrats’ campaign arm.

Jeffries would make history as the first Black speaker of the House

Jeffries, who is in line to make history as America’s first Black speaker of the House, acknowledged the Democrats may need to flip twice as many Republican seats — a total gain of six rather than just three — to win the majority in the aftermath of the redistricting fights.

But he insisted that Democrats were on track to pick up seats, as they did in 2018 during Trump’s first term, because Republicans are relying on redistricting — rather than policy solutions — to win elections.

Trump Republicans “don’t give a damn” about Americans’ financial struggles, Jeffries said, paraphrasing the president’s own remarks.

During a closed-door meeting on Wednesday with House Democrats, Jeffries described the work ahead in almost existential terms for the country.

He said the court rulings against the Voting Rights Act and the Virginia measure were “disgusting.” And he warned his colleagues that Republicans would proceed with “diabolical intensity” in their campaigns to regain control of the House, which Democrats will not only have to match but “we have to exceed it with righteous intensity at all times.”

“Failure is not an option,” he told the Democrats, according to a person in the room granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks. “We have to win, and we are going to win.”

Path to power depends on a handful of House seats

Never easy, the race to the House majority was also not expected to be this complicated. Republicans hold a slim majority, among the most narrow in modern House history, and midterm elections tend to favor the party out of power, as a check on the White House.

But when Trump said last summer that Republicans were “entitled” to five more GOP seats from Texas, it sparked a redistricting crusade that led Jeffries to respond in kind.

Rather than take what they call the high road, Democrats said they decided to fight back, believing they could not fully count on the nation’s institutions — in this case, the courts — to provide a check on the GOP power play.

Jeffries flew to Austin to join the Texas Democrats fighting the redistricting plan in their state and stood with those same lawmakers in Chicago where they fled to deny statehouse Republicans a quorum. He joined the private meetings of California Democrats as they launched their counter attack, a voter initiative that put five more seats in the Democratic column. The Democrats picked up a seat in Utah.

And on it went.

“We had to very quickly make a decision, set a course and take a risk,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., recalling the closed-door talks last summer. “There was no guarantee this was going to work out.”

The Virginia measure became a turning point, Jeffries’ biggest swing yet, putting Democrats essentially at parity, if not a potential upper hand in the number of seats gained, and shifting Old Dominion more securely into the party’s column.

He rallied some 1,000 churchgoers in Richmond ahead of Election Day as voters headed to the polls.

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday called the Democratic play for Virginia a “crazy overreach” that was rightly rejected by the state’s high court.

“Fortunately, the plan failed spectacularly,” Johnson said.

Redistricting battles push into 2028

While Democrats said they expected the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act, the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision to toss last month’s election results blindsided many of them.

Jeffries joined a call with furious Virginia Democrats over the weekend who said they were more determined than ever to win the Republican seats outright, regardless of their loss over the map changes.

The overall tally after nearly a year of redistricting battles is still shifting as Republican legislatures in the South rush to redraw their maps in the aftermath of the ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, many of them preparing to eliminate districts held by some of the most senior Black lawmakers in Congress.

Rep. James Clyburn, the veteran Democratic legislator from South Carolina whose own seat is at risk, blamed the justices, not Jeffries, for the outcome in Virginia and elsewhere.

“What the hell, he can’t control the courts,” Clyburn said, vowing to run for reelection regardless of where his district is drawn. “Don’t put that on Jeffries. We won the vote.”

Jeffries acknowledged that this year’s maps are almost set, and pivoted to 2028 when he said Democrats will redouble their efforts to confront the GOP redistricting battle ahead of the next election.

“We know this unprecedented assault on Black political representation, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jim Crow era, the ghost of the Confederacy” will continue, he said. “The challenge that is in front of us is ensuring that there is a decisive and overwhelming response in advance of 2028.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) The House on Thursday passed the Cashless Bail Reporting Act, which is intended to deter states and communities from releasing people charged with crimes before trial without paying bail. Ninety-six Democrats joined most Republicans to approve the measure, 308 to 116.

If the Senate were to write a companion bill and pass it, the act could have significant repercussions for the Black, Latino and low-income communities, according to researchers and activists. Advocacy groups also had raised concerns that the bill would lessen states’ rights.

“We have seen state and local governments making reforms to their bail systems in response to the growing body of research which has highlighted the inequities in bail systems, which disproportionately burden racial minorities, women and overwhelmingly the poor,” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said in an earlier hearing on the bill

The bill expanded on a 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump, “Taking Steps to End Cashless Bail to Protect Americans,” which required the U.S. Attorney General to send a list of states and local jurisdictions that have eliminated cash bail for some crimes that “pose a clear threat to public safety and order.”

These crimes include violent, sexual and indecent acts, and burglary, looting and vandalism. To encourage elimination of cashless bail, the executive order also directed agencies to identify funding to these communities that could be “suspended or terminated.”

The bill would require annual lists of states and communities that allow cashless bail.

“It would be creating a bit of a hit list for different policymakers to attack and to try to pressure those states, counties, localities to change their policies and practices, to avoid … a lot of public safety funding that they get every year from the federal government getting completely gutted,” Nicole Zayas Manzano, deputy director of policy for the Bail Project, a non-profit group that advocates for bail reform and provides bail assistance, said about the lists.

In a Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday, Republicans said the act would lower crime rates.

“We know violent criminals released on cashless or artificially low bail have reoffended,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. voted for the bill, but said it would do little more than track bail practices in states and localities.

“It’s hard to see how issuing a report advances community safety or justice, given the strangely hostile rhetoric we are hearing from our colleagues about cashless bail,” Raskin said in the debate before the vote.

In a 2024 study, the Brennan Center for Justice found that there was “no statistically significant relationship” between cashless bail policies and increases in violent crime.

In the Rules Committee meeting, Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn., referenced the Bail Project, a non-profit organization that pays bail for low-income people who cannot afford it. She claimed that the group put violent offenders back on the street.

“In Indiana, from 2019 to 2021, 24% of the roughly 1,000 defendants cut loose by the Bail Project … had been charged with a crime of violence, so we’re putting violent offenders back on the road. And 35% were facing felony charges and had a previous charge of at least one crime of violence,” Fischbach said.

The group rejected the congresswoman’s description.

“The cutting loose reference mischaracterizes our work. We only step in after a judge has deemed somebody eligible for release, and it is only the affordability of cash bail that is preventing them from getting out, which is also unconstitutional,” Zayas Manzano said. “Then we really connect them with social services in their own communities.”

Moreover, studies found that cash bail disproportionately harms minorities, notably those in Black, Latino and low-income communities. In 2024, the Criminology & Public Policy Journal reported that Black defendants were 34% more likely to be recommended to be held behind bars until their cases were resolved when compared to white defendants.

Zayas Mazano said people jailed before trial were more likely to pre-emptively plead guilty, receive harsher punishments and end up with worse criminal records.

“Your life also just falls apart once you’re trapped inside, right? You could lose your housing if you can’t go and pay rent. You can lose your job if you’re not able to show up after a certain number of days. You could lose custody of your children. I mean, all kinds of things can really happen, but then just really snowball onto communities of color, in particular, and low-income people in general,” she said.

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, 69% of pretrial detainees were people of color, with Black (43%) and Hispanic (19.6%) defendants especially overrepresented compared to their share of the total U.S. population.

“Study after study shows that judges tend to assign people of color higher cash bail amounts and that they are less likely to be able to afford those cash bail amounts. And so they are very often forced into whether or not they must stay behind bars, which we certainly see huge racial disparities in jail, pretrial, and otherwise,” Zayas Manzano said.

During the Rules Committee meeting, Democrats mirrored concerns about the bill passing. Notably, Raskin discussed how the federal court system has functioned on a cashless bail system for about 60 years, instead of making bail decisions based on the danger of flight or violence to others.

“In America, whether you’re a president or a pope or a pauper, you’re innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the charged offense,” Raskin said. “And no one should be detained pretrial simply because they don’t have the financial resources to post bail.”

WASHINGTON — Senators unanimously approved a resolution Thursday to withhold their pay during government shutdowns, an attempt to make federal closures financially painful for lawmakers after a string of record-breaking impasses in the past year.

The bipartisan support for the measure comes at a time when federal closures have become longer and more frequent, frustrating lawmakers who say there should be punishment when Congress fails at its most basic legislative duty.

Under the resolution, senators’ pay would be withheld by the secretary of the Senate whenever a government shutdown affects one or more agencies, then released once funding is restored. It will take effect the day after the Nov. 3 general election.

“Shutting down government should not be our default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences,” said Sen. John Kennedy, the bill’s sponsor, in a floor speech Wednesday.

“This is about putting our money where our mouth is,” said Kennedy, R-La.

Two shutdowns in the past year created significant financial hardship for tens of thousands of federal workers, particularly at the Department of Homeland Security. The department reopened last month after a 76-day partial shutdown, the longest agency funding lapse in history.

The Homeland Security shutdown came just a few months after a 43-day lapse of the entire federal government, which was the longest such closure on record.

The Constitution stipulates that lawmakers must be paid so they have received salaries during shutdowns even as federal workers went without paychecks. When the full government shutdown began in October amid a dispute over health care subsidies, Sen. Lindsey Graham proposed a constitutional amendment to require members to forfeit their paychecks when the government is closed.

“If members of Congress had to forfeit their pay during government shutdowns, there would be fewer shutdowns and they would end quicker,” Graham, R-S.C., said at the time.

Graham said his legislation was the most “constitutionally sound” way to deal with the problem, but the process would have been much more laborious as three-fourths of states must ratify an amendment.

Lawmakers in previous shutdowns have often pledged to forgo their paychecks while federal workers went unpaid.

Kennedy told reporters Wednesday that he pushed his measure to ensure there is “shared sacrifice” during shutdowns. He added that it does not go as far as he would like, but that it’s a start.

Asked why it does not extend to the other chamber of Congress, Kennedy said “the House’s business is the House’s business” while also touching on the tensions between the Senate and House.

“There’s a very strong undercurrent of animosity among some of my friends in the House,” Kennedy said.

“It’s quickly becoming like two kids fighting in the back of a minivan,” he said.

Cappelletti and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Wednesday again blocked Democratic legislation that would halt President Trump’s war with Iran, but the number of GOP senators voting against the war grew.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against the war for the first time since it began at the end of February. Two other Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky, also voted against the war, as they had done previously.

The war powers legislation ultimately failed to advance 49-50, with Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania the only Democrat to oppose it, yet the close tally reflected growing unease with Trump’s war. Several other Republican senators have signaled they want Congress to weigh in on the direction of the conflict.

“There will be a day — and it might be soon, I believe — where this Senate will say to the president, ‘Stop this war,’” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who has spearheaded his party’s tactic of forcing repeated votes on the war, said before the vote.

Even if it passes the Senate, a war powers resolution would have a slim chance of passing the House and would also certainly be vetoed by Trump. But Democrats say the votes are about building political pressure on the president either to withdraw from the conflict or seek congressional authorization to wage the war.

Trump officials downplay role for Congress

The White House, meanwhile, has asserted that it does not need congressional authorization for the war and has circumvented legal requirements to gain approval from Congress to continue the military campaign. It claims that it has “terminated” hostilities with Iran because the U.S. has entered a ceasefire.

That posture has created tension between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House because presidents under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 are required to obtain authorization from Congress after 60 days of engaging in a conflict.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers this week that the U.S. could start attacking Iran again without the White House seeking congressional approval. He told Murkowski during a hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration believes it has “all the authorities necessary.”

Murkowski voiced skepticism about that argument. She pointed to the troops and war ships deployed to the region, saying, “It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended.”

GOP leaders back the war, but unease grows

Republican leadership has continued to back the war with Iran, arguing that the stalemate in the Strait of Hormuz that has blocked most commercial shipping puts more economic pressure on Iran than it does on the U.S.

“Iran’s economy is on life support. Its leadership is eliminated,” said Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2 Republican in leadership, during a floor speech Wednesday.

He also argued that the Democratic effort on the war is all about undermining Trump. Forcing the issue just as he arrived in China for a summit would “pull out the rug from under him,” Barrasso said.

Still, Republicans are also growing uneasy about the high gas prices, especially as the November elections draw near.

Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, said Wednesday he’d prefer that the two branches of government work out the constitutional issues instead of a congressional war powers vote or a potential challenge in court.

The two sides should sit down together and say “we have shared constitutional responsibilities,” Rounds said.

Democrats plan to keep forcing weekly votes on war powers resolutions and are looking ahead to put limitations on Trump during the debate over annual legislation that authorizes and funds the military.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat who sponsored Wednesday’s resolution, told reporters that he believes there is an “erosion of support, erosion of enthusiasm, an increase in skepticism” about the war from Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

The US state of Louisiana will hold several primary elections on Thursday, including for the United States Senate, the state’s Supreme Court, and a slate of local offices.

Notably absent will be the primary, in which members of the Democratic and Republican parties will select their candidates for the state’s six US House districts ahead of the general elections in November.

The primary vote has been paused by the state’s governor following a major Supreme Court ruling that opens the door to redrawing the state’s congressional district map, eliminating one of two majority-Black districts.

Rights groups have challenged the pause, saying it violates both the US and the state’s constitutions.

The situation comes amid a wider national redistricting battle, which has been shifting both parties’ electoral calculus ahead of consequential midterms that will determine control of the US House and Senate and, in turn, set the tone for the final two years of US President Donald Trump’s second term.

Here’s what to know.

What did the Supreme Court ruling do?

The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in late April undid a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 meant to protect Black voting power from being diluted.

That can be achieved by effectively carving up areas with large Black populations to diminish their electoral influence. Black voters in the US have historically heavily skewed Democratic.

The ruling said that congressional districts could only be challenged if there was evidence of racist motivation behind how they were drawn. Dissenting liberal justices and critics have said such motivations would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

Specifically related to Louisiana, the court ruled that a congressional map drawn in January of 2024, which created a second Black-majority district in the state, was unconstitutional.

That map was created following a legal challenge claiming that Louisiana was in violation of the Voting Rights Act because it had only one Black majority district out of six, despite Black residents making up one-third of the state’s voters.

Why did Louisiana pause its primary?

The Supreme Court ruling on April 29 came about two weeks before Louisiana’s US House primary elections were scheduled.

That left Republicans in the state scrambling to draw new maps ahead of the vote.

“Allowing elections to proceed under an unconstitutional map would undermine the integrity of our system and violate the rights of our voters,” the state’s Governor Jeff Landry said in a statement on April 30.

He said his order suspending the vote “ensures we uphold the rule of law while giving the [state] legislature the time it needs to pass a fair and lawful congressional map”.

On Wednesday, Republicans in the Louisiana State Senate advanced an initial redrawn map.

What have rights groups said?

A coalition of voting and civil rights groups has challenged the suspension of the election, charging that some segments of voters, including those in the military or casting “absentee” ballots, may have already voted.

They further said the abrupt change in date would confuse and subsequently disenfranchise voters while undermining voter education groups already distributing information about the election.

“This illegal executive order threatens the integrity of our democratic system and disregards the voices of voters who have already participated in the May primary election in good faith,” the groups, which included the Legal Defense Fund, the League of Women Voters of Louisiana, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Harvard Law School Race and Law Clinic, said in a joint statement in early May.

“By attempting to suspend an ongoing election, state officials are creating confusion, undermining public trust, and placing partisan interests above the constitutional rights of Louisiana voters,” the statement said.

What is the wider context?

The standoff in the southern state comes amid a wider, and unorthodox, flurry of congressional redistricting in the US.

While redistricting has historically taken place every decade following the US census population count, President Trump called on Republicans in Texas last year to redraw their maps to create more Republican-leaning districts.

That kicked off a flurry of tit-for-tat redistricting efforts by Democratic- and Republican-controlled state legislatures alike. To date, the US states of California, Missouri, Ohio, Virginia, Utah, Tennessee and Florida have redrawn their maps ahead of the midterms.

Republicans are expected to net more seats than Democrats in the push. While that is expected to cut into the margin, Democrats are still tentatively favoured to retake the US House in November.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Wednesday pursued new efforts in a sweeping initiative to root out fraud in federal health programs, including announcing a nationwide six-month freeze on some new Medicare enrollments and warning states to actively investigate Medicaid fraud or risk losing funding.

The moves are related to Vice President JD Vance’s anti-fraud task force, which has been accelerating its messaging before the November elections. The panel set up by Republican President Trump seeks to crack down on potential misuse of public money.

The most significant step Wednesday came from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with a nationwide six-month moratorium on all new Medicare enrollments by providers of hospice and home care.

“We’ve seen systemic and deeply troubling fraud in the hospice and home health space, with bad actors exploiting some of our most vulnerable Medicare patients and stealing money from the American taxpayer,” the agency’s administrator, Dr. Mehmet Oz, said in a statement. “Today we’re shutting the door on fraud — preventing new bad actors from entering Medicare while we aggressively identify, investigate, and remove those already exploiting them.”

The Department of Health and Human Services’ internal watchdog has sent letters to state attorneys general warning them to vigorously investigate possible fraud or risk losing federal money.

People across the United States have raised concerns about rising healthcare costs and barriers to access, sometimes from the federal government’s actions. New work requirements in Medicaid, for example, are expected to strain hospitals around the country and result in millions of enrollees losing their health coverage.

Several alleged fraud schemes have been prosecuted in the hospice and home health care categories, and states have acknowledged that it is a legitimate concern. But some have pushed back on the administration’s aggressive tactics and raised concerns that the catchall efforts could needlessly punish law-abiding providers that are trying to serve patients.

What the freeze does

The administration contends the enrollment freeze and other actions it is taking will help prevent potential fraud in Medicaid and Medicare and preserve funding and resources for people most in need. Under the six-month pause, existing hospice and home health care providers will continue to operate as usual. But the Medicare and Medicaid agency said it will “intensify targeted investigations, deploy advanced data analytics, and accelerate the removal” of providers in the category that are suspected of fraudulent activity.

Such a freeze is not unprecedented, said Tricia Neumann, a senior vice president and executive director for the program on Medicare policy at the healthcare research nonprofit KFF. She said President Clinton’s Democratic administration also imposed a temporary moratorium on home health agencies.

“A brief moratorium gives the administration time to crack down on true fraud and prevent new fraudulent entities from popping up,” she said.

Maine becomes a focus

Vance, a potential 2028 White House hopeful, has used the high-profile assignment from Trump to remind Americans struggling with high costs that he is trying to claw back taxpayer dollars. Vance has promoted the task force’s work during campaign stops for Republican candidates and is expected to focus on the effort Thursday in Maine, where there are closely watched primary races on June 9.

Oz said earlier in the year that he was calling for corrective action on alleged fraud in government health programs in Maine, a request characterized by the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, as a “political attack.”

Federal investigations and oversight

In recent months, the Medicare and Medicaid agency has suspended payments to hundreds of hospice and home care agencies in Los Angeles over alleged fraud and issued another six-month moratorium on suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and certain other supplies in Medicare.

The administration also has approached at least five states with investigations into potential healthcare fraud and halted about $243 million in Medicaid payments to one of them, Minnesota, over fraud concerns. Last month, Oz announced his agency would add to that oversight by requiring all 50 states to share how they planned to revalidate some of their Medicaid providers.

In at least one case, the administration has erred in its accusations against states. In April, the Medicare and Medicaid agency acknowledged to the Associated Press that it made a significant error in figures it used to help justify a fraud inquiry in New York. The acknowledgment deepened doubts about the administration’s methods and raised a common criticism about the second Trump administration — that it tends to attack first and confirm the facts later.

Swenson and Price write for the Associated Press. Swenson reported from New York. AP writer Geoff Mulvihill in Haddonfield, N.J., contributed to this report.