limit

A federal judge has declined to halt President Trump’s executive order creating a federal voter list and limiting mail voting, clearing the way for potential sweeping changes in how American elections are run shortly before this year’s midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, late Wednesday rejected the request by Democrats and civil rights groups that had argued Trump’s order would likely be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. Nichols agreed with the Republican Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

Nichols’ ruling leaves the door open for further challenges when the Trump administration moves to implement the president’s directive. A separate lawsuit seeking to block the executive order is underway in Boston. No matter how rapidly the administration acts, no voting changes are expected during primary elections, which continue into next month.

“The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws,” Nichols wrote. “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”

The Trump administration has yet to formally issue lists of eligible voters, and those who filed the initial request for a temporary halt said they’d be back if the administration moves in that direction.

“We are ready to resume the fight if and when the administration takes those next steps,” said Juan Proaño, chief executive officer of the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the organizations that sought the stay from Nichols.

Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Democrats and civil rights groups argued it was urgent that Nichols issue a restraining order in the midst of primary season and with states already gearing up for the fall midterm elections.

This was Trump’s second executive order seeking to overhaul elections and voting. His initial election executive order, issued just months after he took office in his second term, has been blocked by multiplefederal judges. That order sought to require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, among other changes.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump on Thursday announced that grocery stories and air conditioning companies will be allowed to keep using high-polluting refrigerants for longer than they would have under a law he signed during his first administration.

“This was a tremendous burden, a tremendous cost,” said Trump, surrounded in the Oval Office by executives from supermarket chains including Kroger, Fairway, Neimann Foods and Piggly Wiggly. “It was making the equipment unaffordable, and the actual benefit was nothing.”

The move loosens rules meant to restrict hydroflourocarbons, a class of climate-damaging chemicals used in cooling equipment. HFCs are known as “super pollutants” because their impact on climate change can be tens of thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide during their shorter lifespans.

In the move Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency extends the deadline for companies to comply with a 2023 rule transitioning refrigerators and air conditioners off HFCs and onto new cooling technologies. Reducing these chemicals and moving to cleaner refrigerants has long been a bipartisan issue.

Trump is also proposing exemptions from a rule requiring leak repairs on large-scale refrigeration systems.

The administration framed the changes as part of its effort to bring down high grocery costs. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the actions will save $2.4 billion for Americans and safeguard 350,000 jobs.

“Americans who wanted to be able to fix their equipment were instead being required to buy far more costly new equipment and that just doesn’t make any sense,” said Zeldin.

David Doniger, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the move will not only harm the climate, but U.S. competitiveness in global refrigerant markets as well.

“The EPA is catering to a small group of straggling companies by derailing the shift away from these climate super-pollutants,” he said. “The industry at large supports the HFC phasedown and has already invested in making new refrigerants and equipment, currently installed in thousands of stores.”

Danielle Wright, executive director of the North American Sustainable Refrigeration Council, an environmental nonprofit, said any perceived near-term savings from the rollbacks will be outweighed by the future costs.

“Business owners are far more worried about the escalating cost of keeping aging, high‑global-warming-potential equipment running than they are about the cost of installing new, compliant systems,” she said.

Trump dismissed the climate concerns, saying his changes “are not going to have any impact on the environment.”

He said he wants to get rid of the technology transition rule entirely in the future.

When it comes to the major UK airlines, the rules aren’t so strict. However, there are limits on how many batteries and gadgets of a certain kind you’re allowed to take on board

Jet2, BA and easyJet all have strict limits on how many gadgets passengers can bring with them on a flight.

The rise of tech powered by lithium-powered batteries, such as mobile phones, electric toothbrushes and vapes, as well as transport devices including ebikes, has caused some big issues.

Fire brigades across the UK are tackling lithium-ion battery fires at a rate of one every five hours, new figures show this week.

Concerns about fires have caused some airlines to ban certain devices. In recent years, numerous airlines have barred passengers from carrying power banks on flights amid fears they could ignite. Vietnam Airlines, Vietjet Air, and most recently Emirates have all prohibited power banks on flights, whilst Cathay Pacific introduced a similar ban last April. Other airlines have introduced prohibitions on AirPods.

When it comes to the major UK airlines, the rules aren’t so strict. However, there are limits on how many batteries and gadgets of a certain kind you’re allowed to take on board.

READ MORE: Jet2 loophole lets you bring an extra 10kg cabin bag for freeREAD MORE: Ryanair is cancelling flights to holiday hotspots affecting 6 countries

Jet2

Each customer is allowed to carry a maximum of 15 lithium battery-powered PEDs, such as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, watches and toothbrushes, providing the capacity of each battery doesn’t exceed:

• for lithium-ion batteries: 160Wh, or

• for lithium-metal batteries: 2g lithium content.

These devices should be carried in your hand luggage and in all cases, must be packaged in a way that protects against damage.

Customers are permitted to carry no more than 20 spare/loose lithium batteries, providing they are each individually protected against short circuit, the capacity of each battery doesn’t exceed 100Wh for lithium-ion batteries and for lithium-metal batteries, 2g lithium content.

Additionally, customers are also permitted to carry no more than two spare/loose lithium batteries with a watt-hour rating exceeding 100Wh, but not exceeding 160Wh, providing they are each individually protected against short circuit.

Customers may carry no more than two power banks per person, not exceeding 160Wh, providing they are individually protected against short circuit. In all cases these must not be charged whilst onboard the aircraft, and should not be used in-flight.

British Airways

British Airways limits lithium-ion batteries to 100Wh or less for general travel, with up to four spare batteries allowed per person in cabin baggage, provided they are protected from damage. Power banks are restricted to carry-on only, with a maximum of two, and batteries between 100-160Wh require airline approval.

• Capacity Limits: Under 100Wh: Allowed in carry-on (up to 4 spares) or installed in devices (checked or carry-on). 100Wh – 160Wh: Requires special approval. Usually limited to two spares. Over 160Wh: Forbidden on board.
• Carry-on Requirements: Spare batteries and power banks must be in hand luggage only. They must be in original packaging, or have terminals insulated with tape to prevent short circuits.

EasyJet

EasyJet requires all lithium-ion batteries, spare batteries, and power banks to be carried in cabin hand luggage only, with a general limit of 100Wh per battery (roughly 27,000mAh). Batteries above 160Wh are prohibited, while those between 100-160Wh require airline approval. Items must be protected from short circuits.

• Capacity Limit: Maximum 100Wh (or 160Wh with approval).
• Power Banks: Maximum 100Wh (~27,000mAh at 3.7V).
• Quantity: Generally up to 15-20 spare batteries/devices per person.
• Carry-on only: Absolutely no spare lithium batteries/power banks in checked luggage.

Ryanair

Ryanair strictly permits lithium batteries and power banks up to 100Wh (or ~27,000mAh) in carry-on luggage only; they are strictly prohibited in checked baggage. Passengers may carry up to 20 spare batteries/power banks (under 100Wh) that must be individually protected against short circuits.

• Capacity Limit: Batteries > 100Wh are generally not permitted.
• Carry-On Only: Spare batteries and power banks must be in your carry-on bag or on your person.

Wizz Air

Wizz Air restricts spare lithium batteries and power banks to carry-on baggage only, with a maximum capacity of 100 Wh (typically ~27,000 mAh) per unit without special approval. Batteries between 100 Wh and 160 Wh require prior approval, while those over 160 Wh are prohibited. A maximum of 2 spare batteries per person is allowed.

• Location: All spare batteries, power banks, and e-cigarettes must be in cabin baggage only. They are forbidden in checked bags.
• Standard Limit: Lithium-ion batteries up to 100 Wh are permitted for personal use without prior approval.
• Large Batteries (100–160 Wh): Batteries or power banks between 100 Wh and 160 Wh require prior approval from Wizz Air.
• Excessive Batteries (>160 Wh): Prohibited in both carry-on and checked luggage.
• Quantity Limit: Maximum of 2 spare batteries per person.

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday voted in favor of new restrictions on so-called “pretextual” traffic stops, signaling a growing impatience with the Police Commission’s failure to rein in a controversial LAPD tactic that critics say enables racial discrimination.

The vote requests that the department’s all-civilian watchdog adopt new guidelines similar to San Francisco, which bars police officers from pulling people over for broken taillights and other minor equipment violations unless there is a safety threat.

“Board of Police Commissioners: Get this done; we’re watching, no excuses,” said Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who shared stories of her late father being stopped by police with no explanation. “This is what this generation wants.”

If the new policy were adopted, LAPD officers would be prohibited from stopping motorists, bicyclists or pedestrians for minor violations “except in cases where the violation poses a significant and imminent safety risk.”

The unanimous vote followed sometimes emotional testimony at a City Council meeting from Angelenos about how their lives had been shaken by discriminatory traffic stops and searches.

Several speakers pointed to a growing body of research showing that minor stops disproportionately affect Black and brown motorists and do little to combat violent crime while eroding public trust. In recent years, there have been several high-profile traffic stops that resulted in officers or drivers being killed.

The current LAPD policy, in place since 2022, requires officers to record themselves on their body-worn cameras stating the reasons for suspecting a more serious crime had occurred when making a stop for a minor infraction.

The measure passed Wednesday stops short of a categorical ban that some have sought, but was still met with cautious optimism by traffic safety reformers.

“It helps place the city of Los Angeles on a path of ending racial profiling by LAPD,” said Chauncee Smith, of Catalyst California, a group that advocates for racial justice.

Smith’s group recently released a report that said such stops have continued to disproportionately affect Black and Latino drivers.

Smith said the new policy advanced by the City Council represents “a more formal, explicit prohibition,” adding that he hopes the Police Commission will ultimately give officers even less discretion in deciding when to make stops.

In a brief statement after the vote, Mayor Karen Bass thanked Harris-Dawson for his “leadership and dedication in moving this updated policy forward.”

“I will work closely with the Police Commission and Chief [Jim] McDonnell to implement it and to provide officers with appropriate training,” Bass said.

Any changes to the policy will probably draw strong challenges from within the LAPD and the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the powerful union that represents the city’s rank-and-file officers.

McDonnell has publicly defended the stops as an essential law enforcement tool in the department’s fight against guns, gangs and drugs. He and some transportation safety advocates have argued that persistent traffic deaths — road fatalities have in recent years outpaced the number of homicides — indicate the city needs to crack down harder on reckless driving.

The proposed change comes against the backdrop of a broader effort by city leaders to wrest greater oversight of the LAPD from the Police Commission. A spokesperson for the civilian body said it would evaluate how to proceed.

“The Board intends to place this item on a forthcoming agenda to enable a full and transparent discussion of the Department’s pretextual stop policy, which will include the recommendations from the City Council,” the statement said.

McDonnell did not respond to a request for comment.

The vote was the latest move in a broader push to remove police officers from traffic enforcement. Some advocates have argued that more punitive approaches that prioritize arrests and traffic citations do little to keep city streets safe; instead, they argue the city should invest in unarmed civilian workers and speed bumps, roundabouts and other street modifications that could help curb unsafe driving.

Adrienna Wong, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said Wednesday’s vote showed city leaders taking action on an issue that was personal to them.

“I think what you saw today in council was the council members have lived experiences and are hearing from their constituents and are voting to represent their constituents in a way that the Police Commission has not,” she said.

Some drivers could be risking fines and penalty points without realising

Drivers heading out across the UK in the weeks and months to come have been alerted to a lesser-known DVLA rule.

With numerous Britons choosing road trips and staycations, campervans and motorhomes have become the preferred option for many people’s summer travels. However, not all vehicles receive equal treatment and how your campervan is registered could impact how fast you are legally permitted to drive.

If a campervan remains classified as a commercial vehicle, it may be subject to reduced speed limits compared to a standard car. This can surprise drivers, particularly as limits differ depending on weight, road type and whether a trailer is being towed.

The Highway Code establishes clear regulations for different vehicle categories and failing to adhere to them could lead to fines or penalty points. Grasping the distinction before departing could help drivers sidestep unexpected penalties and keep journeys running smoothly.

Speed limit rules for campervans and motorhomes

Paul Gorry, vehicle expert at luxury motorhome manufacturer Auto-Trail, explained: “Many drivers assume their campervan follows the same speed limits as a car, but that is not always the case, especially if the vehicle is still registered as a commercial van. If a campervan is classed as a light goods vehicle up to 3.5 tonnes, the national speed limit is typically 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways, which is 10mph lower than a car. This difference often comes down to how the vehicle is registered rather than how it is being used, which can lead to confusion for owners who have converted a van into a camper.

“Vehicles still classified as vans must follow lower speed limits on certain roads, particularly single carriageways, which can catch drivers out if they assume they are treated the same as a motorhome. This misunderstanding can lead to speeding fines, especially for those new to campervan ownership.”

£1,000 fines and points

Paul added: “Exceeding the correct speed limit for your vehicle can lead to penalties including fines of up to £1,000 and points on your licence. With modern speed cameras using number plate recognition to identify vehicle type, drivers are far more likely to be caught if they are travelling at car speeds in a vehicle classed as a van.”

How weight changes the rules

He said: “Speed limits for campervans and motorhomes are largely based on weight, with 3.05 tonnes being a key threshold that determines whether car or van limits apply. For vehicles under 3.05 tonnes, drivers can follow standard car limits, including 60mph on single carriageways and 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways.

“Once a campervan exceeds that weight, the limits drop to 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways, even though motorway speeds can remain at 70mph.”

Towing and larger vehicles bring further restrictions

Paul said: “Drivers also need to be aware that towing a trailer reduces speed limits further, with motorway speeds dropping to 60mph and similar reductions across other road types.

“For larger motorhomes or caravans over 3.05 tonnes or longer than 12 metres, the lower limits of 50mph on single carriageways and 60mph on dual carriageways and motorways apply more consistently.

“Many people only realise these differences when they are already on the road, which can increase the risk of speeding without intending to.”

Why checking your vehicle classification matters

Paul concluded: “Before heading off on a trip, drivers should check both the weight of their campervan and how it is registered with the DVLA. A campervan that looks like a leisure vehicle may still be legally treated as a commercial van, which changes the speed limits that apply. Taking a few minutes to confirm this can help drivers avoid fines and keep their journey running smoothly.”

AMY Childs has signed up for the next series of Celeb SAS: Who Dares Wins.

The former TOWIE star, 35, will appear on the next series of the gruelling Channel 4 show which is expected to air next year.

A source said: “Amy is ready to be pushed to her limit on the show.

“She wants to prove to herself and her children that she has what it takes.

“Amy has also been working hard with her personal trainer to be physically ready to take on the challenge.”

Earlier this month Amy tied the knot with her long-term boyfriend Billy Delbosq at Marylebone Town Hall in London.

WEDDED BLISS

Inside Amy Childs’ £1k a night mini-moon after incredible wedding

FEARS FOR AMY

Amy Childs’ friends reveal devastating truth behind tiny bikini snaps

Meanwhile Amy has also faced cruel backlash from trolls online over her drastic weight loss.

She also faced further turmoil last year when her mum Julie was rushed to hospital following a heart attack last year.

Speaking to OK! Magazine, she said: “People don’t know what is going on behind closed doors.

“I’m going through so much at the minute that the weight has fallen off me. I worry about my mum constantly.

“She’s very emotional – she thinks she’s going to have another heart attack.”

The Sun has also revealed that Married At First Sight star Ella Morgan will compete on the military challenge show.

It will be the first time that a famous trans person has competed on Channel 4’s military challenge show, which films its ninth series this summer.

Meanwhile Freddy Brazier is also in talks to compete on the show – following in the footsteps of his dad Jeff Brazier, who starred on the show in 2019.

Former Special Forces big dogs Billy Billingham, Jason Fox, Rudy Reyes, and Chris Oliver will all be on hand to push the stars to their limit.

Series eight, which went out in January, was given a Team UK v Team Australia theme and produced in conjunction with Aussie broadcaster Channel 7.

Seven stars from each country were pitted against each other to find out which of them were capable of completing the course.

Former Love Islanders Dani Dyer and Gabby Allen as well as retired Australian swimmer Emily Seebohm were crowned the winners.

HOUSTON — A Houston city ordinance that limited police officers’ cooperation with federal immigration agents was amended on Wednesday after Texas’ governor threatened to take away millions of dollars in public safety grants.

Houston, Austin and Dallas — three of the state’s biggest cities and Democratic strongholds — are being confronted by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott with threats of losing public safety dollars over policies that dictate how law enforcement interacts with federal immigration authorities. The three cities are being threatened with the loss of about $200 million in public safety funding, including tens of millions expected to cover security at World Cup matches this summer in Dallas and Houston.

Two weeks ago, the Houston City Council passed the ordinance, which eliminated a requirement that Houston police officers wait 30 minutes for agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to pick up someone with a nonjudicial administrative warrant. If ICE agents didn’t show up in time, police officers took a detained person’s information and then released them.

But Abbott warned city officials that the new ordinance and its limitation on cooperating with ICE agents violated the terms of $110 million in state grants Houston had received for police and security during the World Cup games the city is hosting in June.

Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton had also filed a lawsuit against Mayor John Whitmire and members of the City Council over the ordinance, accusing them of violating a 2017 state law that prevents cities from adopting policies that limit the enforcement of immigration laws and that also banned “sanctuary city” policies in the state. There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with ICE.

After more than two hours of discussion during its weekly meeting, the Houston City Council voted 13 to 4 to make changes to the ordinance. Whitmire said he had consulted with Abbott’s office about making changes that would prevent Houston from losing its funding.

The amended ordinance deletes language that highlighted that administrative warrants — versus warrants signed by a judge — that ICE agents use to take individuals into custody are not enough for officers to arrest or detain an individual.

Houston Mayor John Whitmire speaks during a City Council meeting on Wednesday.

(Raquel Natalicchio/AP)

“We have no alternative for Houston to survive, prepare for [the World Cup], patrol these neighborhoods,” Whitmire said. “We’ve got to have today the restoration of the $114 million.”

Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, said the governor expects any policy Houston police adopt has to comply with the city’s certification that it will fully cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security.

“This vote is a step in the right direction after Houston leaders put public safety at risk with reckless policies that undermined law enforcement,” Mahaleris said in a statement.

Councilmember Abbie Kamin, one of three members who had pushed for the ordinance, voted against amending it, saying that doing so was giving in to bullying tactics from state leaders.

“If we roll over now to a bully, what will he come for next?” Kamin said.

Councilmembers Edward Pollard and Alejandra Salinas, who also pushed for the ordinance, said they remained hopeful the changes approved Wednesday would not violate individuals’ constitutional rights and wouldn’t result in people being held on nonjudicial warrants.

Nikki Luellen, an advocate for criminal justice reform for the ACLU of Texas, called the amended ordinance “a green light for deeper collaboration between ICE and the Houston Police Department.”

Martha Castex-Tatum was one of several council members who had supported the ordinance but voted in favor of amending it in order to protect the city’s finances.

“For some people, this may feel like surrender. It’s not. It’s real stewardship,” Castex-Tatum said.

Dallas officials have said they are committed to ensuring public safety.

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson, a moderate Democrat, said the local policy complies with state law. He said Abbott’s threat to cut nearly $3 million in Austin would cut trauma aid for police officers and sexual assault victims.

“We don’t have the time and will not play into this political theater,” Watson said.

Austin officials have since indicated they could try to negotiate with Abbott.

The debate in Houston and other Texas cities comes during fraught times. Whitmire and other local leaders in many of Texas’ left-leaning urban areas have tried not to draw the federal government’s attention amid the aggressive immigration crackdown by President Trump’s administration.

Lozano writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jim Vertuno in Austin contributed to this report.

When travelling, it’s important to know what won’t get you in trouble at customs

Travellers could face fines or worse if they overlook an airport ‘rule’ that puts a limit on certain items. It could catch Brits off guard if they end their latest getaway with a last-minute spending spree on various common products or high-end items.

When going to or from the European Union (EU), it is important to understand the regulations regarding the duty-free allowance passengers are permitted. Failing to comply with these restrictions could result in goods being seized, along with potential fines or legal proceedings.

The duty-free allowance applies to both EU and non-EU nationals, including holidaymakers and business travellers. Following Brexit, the UK has been adhering to the regulations for non-EU nationals.

Why is there a duty-free allowance?

Duty-free allowance is the authorised quantity of goods, such as alcohol, tobacco, and gifts, that travellers can bring into a country without incurring customs duty, value-added tax (VAT), or other levies. As a result, people face a strict limit on how much they can observe, or risk being perceived as exploiting the system, reports the Express.

What are the duty-free limits?

Duty-free allowances are split into two categories – restricted and unrestricted goods. Unrestricted goods are those without any special regulations or caps, such as clothing, electronics, or personal belongings, while restricted items are subject to specific limitations, including alcohol, tobacco, and perfume.

The restrictions in place also vary depending on how you’re returning to the UK. Shoppers are often caught out by the deals on offer in airports – but identical rules apply to those travelling by sea.

You’re also unable to pool your allowance with fellow passengers, which means people need to be mindful of their own spending habits. According to ETIAS Visa Europe, Brits returning to the UK via air or sea travel have the following allowances on ‘restricted’ items:

• 200 cigarettes (or 100 cigarillos or 50 cigars or 250g of tobacco)
• Four litres of still wine and 16 litres of beer and one litre of spirits or two litres of fortified or sparkling wine
• Other goods up to a value of €430 per person

The thresholds are reduced for non-EU citizens travelling by rail or road. The website explains that travellers should bring no more than:

• 40 cigarettes (or 20 cigarillos or 10 cigars or 50g of tobacco)
• One litre of spirits or two litres of fortified or sparkling wine and four litres of still wine and 16 litres of beer
• Other goods up to a value of €300 per person

ETIAS warned that, when goods go beyond the duty-free allowance, customs duty, value-added tax (VAT), and other taxes may be applied on the excess amount. The total of duties and taxes owed depends on various factors, such as the type of goods, their value, and the country of origin.

A spokesperson said: “To avoid overpaying taxes and duties, travellers should be aware of the duty-free allowances for the type of goods they are bringing into the EU. They should accurately declare all goods they are bringing in and their value.

“If unsure about the value of an item, travellers can check online or with customs officials. Additionally, travellers should keep all receipts and documentation to show the value of their goods.”

In other news, holidaymakers could face fines of up to £5,000 for bringing certain goods into England, even if those items were purchased at a duty-free price. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) released an update at the end of March, calling on travellers to take this “simple step” to protect against diseases.

April 23 (UPI) — Senate Republicans have again blocked the Democrats from curbing President Donald Trump‘s ability to wage war with Iran, as negotiators try to find a diplomatic end to the conflict during the fragile cease-fire.

The Senate voted 51-46 on Wednesday afternoon against Sen. Tammy Baldwin‘s War Powers Resolution, the fifth time since March 4 that the Senate has voted against directing the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran until authorized by Congress.

As with previous votes, Wednesday’s was mostly along party lines with Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky again voting with his Democratic colleagues, and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania again voting with the Republicans.

“This entire war has been unnecessary, illegal and unwise. And we need to put a check on this president before it gets even worse,” Baldwin said from the Senate floor on Wednesday.

“Unfortunately, the president has shown us that he did not have a plan after day one. The president said the war would be over in a matter of days; we are coming up on the two-month mark with no real end in sight. And over the course of 50-plus days we have seen nothing short of a disaster.”

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a veteran, vowed in a statement that the Democrats will continue to do all in their power to end the war.

“It’s infuriating that Senate Republicans keep shirking their oaths and giving Donald Trump the green light to plunge our nation even deeper into his war of choice, further endangering our troops abroad and surging prices at home,” she said.

“This wanna-be dictator keeps breaking every single promise he’s made to the American people who are sick and tired of watching Republicans duck their responsibility to stop this chaos.”

The war began Feb. 28 with the United States and Israel attacking Iran.

Since then, 13 Americans have been killed. At least 3,646 people have been killed in Iran, according to HRANA.

Gas prices have surged as Iran has restricted access to the important Strait of Hormuz energy transportation route, and the United States is enforcing a blockade of Iran’s ports, cutting it off from sea-based trade.

The vote was held as a two-week cease-fire was to end before President Donald Trump announced an indefinite extension amid negotiations. On Wednesday, Iran’s military claimed to have seized two cargo ships in the conflict over the waterway.

Since the war began, Democrats have been seeking to rein in Trump’s war powers, arguing the ongoing war with Iran violates the Constitution, which mandates that only Congress has the power to declare war.

Democrats in the Senate have pledged to use their powers to force weekly debates on the war as well as weekly votes, forcing Republicans to repeatedly and publicly state their position on the conflict.

The vote was held less than a week before the 60-day limit of the war passes. On April 28, the War Powers Act will compel Trump to seek congressional authorization for the war.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has said that Trump should have sought Congress’ authorization, and appears to be leading Republican efforts to draft legislation for the continuation of the use of military force as that deadline comes.

“My focus is on the safety of America’s armed forces and the American civilians who are on the ground in the Middle East,” she said in a statement in early March, just days after the war began.

“At this point, we have little choice but to continue the military operation to degrade and destroy Iran’s capability for nuclear weapons.”