president trump

WASHINGTON — Republicans are warning the White House that a critical surveillance authority is likely to lapse this week amid bipartisan backlash over President Trump’s pick to lead the nation’s intelligence community.

Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sounded the alarm over the weekend after a failed procedural vote to extend the program.

The senators in a letter urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to prepare “for a potential significant gap in foreign intelligence collection” if the authority expires. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set to lapse June 12, allows agencies including the CIA, National Security Agency and FBI to collect communications from foreign targets overseas without a warrant.

Efforts to secure a long-term extension of the program already faced hurdles because of bipartisan concerns that the program can incidentally collect Americans’ communications. Privacy advocates and some lawmakers have been pushing to create a new warrant requirement before those communications can be searched.

Senate leaders from both parties appeared to be nearing agreement on a long-term extension. But the effort collapsed after Trump selected federal housing finance regulator Bill Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence.

“I know how important this tool is. Why the president would throw this live hand grenade of Bill Pulte in 10 days before this is due to expire, I’m not sure,” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Pulte pick upends bipartisan deal

Early Friday morning, after senators spent the night debating separate immigration legislation, seven Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in blocking a long-term extension of the surveillance authority.

Democrats and several Republicans registered their opposition to Trump’s selection of Pulte, arguing the federal housing finance regulator lacks the experience needed to oversee the nation’s 18 intelligence agencies.

“The naming of Pulte to that position, although the timing arguably wasn’t the best, I still don’t think it ought to derail something that’s this important,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.

Thune has expressed concern over Pulte’s pick, saying the nation’s top intelligence post should not be “weaponized” and that the job should be filled by “professionals.” Cotton, who rarely strays from supporting Trump and a leading advocate for the surveillance authority, declined to endorse Pulte, saying only that he had “no observations on the matter.”

“He’s not qualified for the long-term position,” Republican Sen. James Lankford, another member of the Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.” “That’s been clear on this. He has no national security background.

Both Republican and Democratic senators skeptical of Pulte pointed to his record at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. In the role, he’s been linked with criminal referrals over allegations of mortgage fraud by public officials Trump sought to punish, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat; Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.; and Lisa Cook, a board member of the Federal Reserve.

Republicans will need to garner some Democratic support to pass any extension of the surveillance authority in the Senate. But a breakthrough appears difficult so long as Pulte remains in the position, which Trump said last week would only be temporary.

“I don’t see any path to convincing enough Democrats,” Warner said on CNN’s “State of the Union” when asked if renewal was possible with Pulte in the position.

The current reauthorization debate is hardly the first time that lawmakers have grappled with the fate of the surveillance program, particularly after a flurry of revelations about government misuse of the vast trove of intelligence it collects.

The topic in recent years has scrambled predictable partisan alliances, with Democratic critics of the Trump administration uniting with skeptics of government power on the right in voicing concerns about Section 702’s renewal.

In 2024, for instance, those divisions nearly caused the program to lapse. The Senate barely missed its midnight deadline that year before approving by a 60-34 margin legislation to reauthorize Section 702 that was subsequently signed by then-President Joe Biden.

A spokesperson at the Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment Monday about the national security concerns that would be created if the program lapses. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence referred inquiries to the White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“America faces real threats from foreign adversaries, terrorists, cyber actors, and hostile intelligence services,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media Sunday. “Section 702 remains one of our nation’s most effective tools for identifying and disrupting those threats before they reach our shores.”

Cotton and Grassley said they believed Democratic leaders would not support another short-term extension of the surveillance authority and urged Rubio to prepare contingency plans. They said Trump should consider an executive order to prevent a disruption in intelligence collection.

Cotton and Warner had said they were close on a bipartisan deal on a long-term extension and could still move quickly should a change occur before Friday. Still, the bill would likely need to go through the House — and the two chambers so far have disagreed on a separate issue regarding central banking digital currency.

“If we go dark next week, right before the World Cup FIFA games, and the 250th anniversary, that would be the most grossly irresponsible thing I’ve seen Congress do in my 22 years in office,” Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Cappelletti, Jalonick and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — The World Cup, a 48-team, 104-match behemoth kicking off this week in Los Angeles and across 15 other cities in the United States, Mexico and Canada, presents an unprecedented security challenge, with more countries, games and a larger footprint than ever before.

It also comes against the backdrop of the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, mounting political violence in President Trump’s orbit and growing fears of artificial intelligence-fueled disruptions, creating a complex threat environment for authorities.

Overseeing the sprawling security apparatus is a legion of federal agencies, state and local police departments and private entities. Their responsibilities range from securing stadiums and fan zones to escorting teams and protecting dignitaries.

Their tools include hunter drones that can shoot nets over objects in restricted airspace, bag-inspecting robot dogs, giant X-ray trucks and thousands of AI-powered cameras trained on public spaces soon to be thronged by fans.

In the U.S., it’s “78 Super Bowls over 39 days,” said Andrew Giuliani, executive director of Trump’s World Cup task force, which is overseeing the multiagency effort.

“There’s never been a summer like this in American history from a security angle,” said Giuliani, son of former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. “We’re as prepared as we can be.”

Collaborative effort

The tournament has the same high-level federal security designation as the Super Bowl, just below a presidential inauguration or a national political convention, ensuring federal, state and local coordination. It coincides with other major events linked to the 250th anniversary of America’s founding.

So far, Giuliani said, there are no credible threats.

The Department of Homeland Security, focused on Trump’s immigration enforcement crackdown and with a funding lapse only recently resolved, estimates that as many as 7 million people will visit the United States for the World Cup.

The U.S. Secret Service, under scrutiny after security breaches and attempts on Trump’s life, is in charge of protecting world leaders who show up to cheer on their countries. Trump has expressed interest in attending a match.

“I feel very comfortable where we’re at, and we feel like we have a zero-fail mission,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Congress last week, noting that the Secret Service was understaffed by about 860 agents. “But it’s going to be complicated.”

Officials have indicated they are confident they can keep Trump safe because they will be integrating his usual security into the robust World Cup plan on days he may watch a match.

The FBI has spent two years developing its security plan, incorporating lessons from other major events such as the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade and New Year’s Eve ball drop in New York and testing them at smaller ones, including last weekend’s Israel Day parade in the city.

“We prepare for the worst day,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Amit Kachhia-Patel in New York told the Associated Press. “And that’s how we go into any single event.”

To help cover security costs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has distributed $625 million to the 11 U.S. host cities. An additional $250 million is being directed toward tracking and neutralizing suspect drones.

The disbursement of those funds was held up by the department’s funding delay in Congress, which the Trump administration has argued hindered security planning.

Others involved in the planning effort said the federal government could have played a more hands-on role even before the partial shutdown.

John Cohen, a former senior Homeland Security official who has been briefing state leaders before the matches, said the government was largely absent from planning meetings last year and did not begin sharing threat intelligence with host regions until recently.

“With an event of this magnitude, one would expect the federal government would’ve played a more active role,” Cohen said. “It felt like a missed opportunity to showcase that collaboration.”

Evolving threats from drones and AI

In January, thousands of officials involved in World Cup security gathered for exercises simulating crowd surges, vehicle attacks and mass shootings.

A month later, the U.S. and Israel launched a war with Iran.

“The security picture fundamentally changed,” said Stefano Ritondale, chief intelligence officer at Artorias, a defense intelligence company not involved in the security preparations. “There’s a major difference in preparing for a lone-wolf radical who rams his car into a public place and a terrorist who is bankrolled by a foreign country we’re at war with.”

Among the greatest concerns are drones.

Since the last World Cup in Qatar in 2022, drones have become a prominent weapon in conflicts including Russia’s war in Ukraine and Hamas’ attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

“If there is one threat that keeps me up at night, it is from drones,” said New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, whose department is partnering with the FBI on drone mitigation.

Drones are prohibited over stadiums and fan zones, and Kachhia-Patel said the FBI has a “full suite of options” to thwart incursions. They include agents monitoring the sky and a “variety of means” to safely down the devices, he said without elaborating.

Before this year’s World Cup, the growing sophistication of AI videos was a particular concern, with officials warning that state actors can harness the technology to sow misinformation and panic.

On match days, the FBI will activate joint operations centers in each host city, bringing together local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to monitor and investigate threats.

“If there’s a video that shows an explosion going off at a site, and it’s AI-generated, we have people on the ground who can validate whether or not that’s true,” Kachhia-Patel said.

Opportunity for private tech

Some AI companies have pitched themselves to police departments in host cities, promising to comb through data and surveillance on game days to prevent threats, including unruly fan behavior.

“We know sports fanaticism around here in terms of the NFL and baseball to some extent, but nothing like international soccer,” said Jake Becchina, a police spokesperson in Kansas City, Mo., which is hosting six matches.

The department has contracted with Peregrine Technologies, which promises to sift through police data and publicly available information such as team practice locations and the country affiliation of popular bars, to get ahead of possible conflict.

In Dallas, a recent $120-million tech upgrade will give local police body cameras capable of real-time translations, helping law enforcement communicate with international visitors soon to descend on the region.

Several drone detection and mitigation companies are joining efforts to help federal agencies secure the skies.

One of those companies, Fortem, has claimed to have signed a multimillion-dollar contract with the Department of Homeland Security before the World Cup for an unusual drone mitigation strategy: quadcopters that can shoot nets at encroaching drones to trap them in midair. A Homeland Security spokesman declined to discuss the contract.

Just as the teams will aim to perform their best on the pitch, Giuliani said the security planning was a unique chance to “show off American exceptionalism.”

“If we do our job right,” Giuliani added, “nobody will be talking about security at the World Cup.”

Offenhartz, Sisak and Santana write for the Associated Press. Offenhartz and Sisak reported from New York, Santana from Washington. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli on Friday morning said his office “has multiple election fraud investigations underway,” in coordination with the FBI in Los Angeles.

Essayli’s remarks, posted to X, seemed to be in response to President Trump alleging in his own social media post late Wednesday that Democrats in California were “cheating” in the state’s primary election, and that there was an investigation underway in Essayli’s office.

Essayli’s office also confirmed that one of its prosecutors — Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Renner — was at a Los Angeles County ballot processing center Friday “to observe the vote counting process.”

A spokesperson for Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, described the visit as in line with other routine observations of the counting process, which is open to public observation by appointment.

Democratic officials firmly rejected Trump’s claims of cheating, which they had warned he would make in advance of the election given his long record of objecting to and claiming fraud in elections he and his party lose.

Trump provided no evidence for his claims, other than to complain about California taking a long time to count ballots and criticizing its mail ballot system, suggesting it was a source of fraud. California officials have acknowledged the process takes longer than they would like, but said that is a result of a careful, accurate count of millions of ballots, many of which were mailed on election day.

“Taking the time to do this work correctly protects voters’ rights and ensures the integrity of our elections,” California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said Thursday. “California has built a strong system that expands access, empowers voters, and ensures more Californians can fully participate in our democracy.”

According to Weber’s office, about 5.6 million ballots had been processed in the state as of Thursday evening, while an estimated 3.6 million additional cast ballots remained.

Steve Hilton, a Republican who was leading in the gubernatorial race, said Friday that he expected to make it to November’s head-to-head race between the top two primary finishers — despite Trump insinuating Democrats were rigging the vote to exclude him. But Hilton also lambasted the state for counting so slowly, and said Gov. Gavin Newsom should deploy state resources to help ensure results are verified by next Thursday.

“This shambles is absolutely shameful for our state,” Hilton said, of the slow results.

Newsom’s office dismissed Hilton’s comments as uninformed. “It’s concerning that a candidate for Governor doesn’t know the Governor has nothing to do with counting ballots,” said Brandon Richards, Newsom’s deputy director for rapid response.

Essayli — a Trump loyalist the administration has kept in charge of one of the country’s largest federal prosecutor’s offices through a legal loophole, and despite his failing to be confirmed by the Senate — said he would not comment “on any specific investigation.” But he added that protecting California’s elections is “a top priority” for his office, and that “California’s election system has serious structural vulnerabilities.”

He said California’s mail ballot system, which a vast majority of voters rely on in the state, and its voter ID requirements — he said there were none, but California does have measures to ensure voters are who they say they are, including signature verification — create “conditions where fraud can go undetected and unpunished, eroding public confidence.”

“We will follow the evidence wherever it leads and prosecute any violations of federal election law to the fullest extent,” Essayli said.

He also noted that his office is working with Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, to “conduct a comprehensive audit of California’s voter rolls.”

The Justice Department sued the state for its voter rolls, in a lawsuit that was thrown out by a federal judge who called the demand “unprecedented and illegal” and accused the federal government of trying to “abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots.”

The Justice Department appealed the ruling, and the case is now before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The state has stonewalled every effort to verify that only eligible U.S. citizens are registered to vote,” Essayli wrote. “My office will not look the other way. We will investigate and prosecute. Every legal vote deserves to be counted. Every illegal vote cancels one out.”

Essayli’s office did not provide any additional information about Renner’s presence at the county balloting center, or about its fraud investigations. Essayli also provided no evidence of widespread fraud or acts by Democrats in the state to rig or steal the election, as Trump continued to claim Thursday.

Essayli did, however, point to a case in which a woman recently pleaded guilty to paying homeless people on Skid Row to help get initiatives on the California ballot. “Yes. There is evidence of election fraud in California. Here’s a case we charged just last month. More investigations are underway,” Essayli wrote.

Election experts say there are certainly examples of fraud in voting, but they are isolated and rare, and there is no evidence that fraud is widespread or exists in volumes large enough to sway elections. They note Trump has tried to argue such fraud in the past — including in disputing his 2020 loss to Joe Biden — but has never been able to prove it.

Michael Sanchez, Logan’s spokesperson, said Logan’s office was notified by Essayli’s office late Thursday that an assistant U.S. attorney would be visiting the ballot processing center to observe.

“The individual arrived this morning, was provided an overview of the public observation program, and participated in a walkthrough of the ballot processing operations,” Sanchez said.

Sanchez said election officials “routinely host observers representing a wide range of interests, including members of the public, candidates, political parties, advocacy organizations, and government agencies.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office has also been involved in monitoring ballot processing in the state, including during last year’s vote on Proposition 50.

On Friday, Bonta acknowledged Renner’s presence at the L.A. County facility, and said his office also had a presence at the facility, was “monitoring the situation closely, and stands ready to protect voters and ensure California’s election laws are followed.”

Other Democrats in the state have also defended the state’s election process and blasted Trump for calling it into question.

“Let’s be honest about what this is: A blatant attempt to cast doubt in our election results, and a phony pretext for Trump to act illegally in the midterms,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X. “California has safe and secure elections. And it takes time for every vote to count. It’s called democracy, Donald.”

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — President Trump said Friday that he wants Bill Pulte, his new acting director of national intelligence, to cut the office, which has already been significantly scaled back during his second term.

Trump noted that the size of the office has been “way too high for way too long” and that “if he cut, I wouldn’t mind.”

“Bill Pulte is very good, he’s very talented,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One as he traveled to Wisconsin. The Republican president said in an earlier interview with the Wall Street Journal that he has asked Pulte to start the process of firing employees.

In the interview with the Journal, the president says he has already conveyed his view to Pulte, the incoming acting director of national intelligence, who has served as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency but apparently has no national security expertise.

“I’d like to see it smaller. I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn’t be there,” Trump said, which the Journal said was in reference to intelligence community officials who had served in the Democratic administrations of Presidents Biden and Obama.

Trump told the Journal that he wants Pulte to “start the process” of firing personnel and that the eventual permanent director of national intelligence should continue it. The president has indicated that he would not formally nominate Pulte for the position.

“Frankly, it might be good for him to shake it up before people come,” Trump said. “Because, if he [Pulte] reduced the size, in conjunction with me … and in conjunction with possibly the person coming in … he can do a lot of the hard work and we wouldn’t have to saddle somebody that goes in.”

Pulte was tapped by the president earlier this week in a surprising move that has been met with bipartisan resistance in the Senate, which confirms presidential nominations. The temporary appointment has now snarled the renewal of a critical national security surveillance program on Capitol Hill, with Democrats key to the vote pointing out that they did not trust Pulte — whose office oversees 18 intelligence agencies — to help administer the surveillance program.

Under Pulte’s successor, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence’s office had already taken steps to scale back its size. In August, the Trump administration said that the office’s budget would be cut by more than $700 million per year, while slashing the size of its workforce.

At the time, Gabbard said the office had become “bloated and inefficient” while she announced the roughly 40% workforce reduction.

Gabbard resigned last month after revealing her husband’s cancer diagnosis.

Price and Kim write for the Associated Press. Kim reported from Washington.

WASHINGTON — The House passed legislation Thursday that would aid Ukraine and sanction key segments of the Russian economy, overriding objections from Republican leaders who warned the bill would undermine negotiations designed to achieve a comparable but stronger result.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., seeks to cement U.S. assistance for Ukraine by providing more than $1 billion in security and reconstruction aid. It would make another $8 billion available for Ukraine’s defense through loans.

The 226-195 vote is a sign of impatience with President Trump’s approach to the war and represents the House’s second major foreign policy break with Trump this week. The day before, the House, for the first time, approved a war powers resolution aimed at halting U.S. military action against Iran.

Supporters were able to force action on the Ukraine bill by gathering 218 signatures on a discharge petition, a legislative tool that allows a majority of the House to effectively bypass leadership.

Once rarely successful, House members have used the petition tool this Congress to pass bills on releasing the government’s files on Jeffrey Epstein and to extend health care subsidies to many of those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, though the latter measure faltered in the Senate.

Meeks said the question before the House was simple. Would it help Ukraine negotiate from a position of strength or help Russia outlast American resolve?

“We all want this war to end,” Meeks said. “The question is how. Will we abandon Ukraine and force it into a terrible deal? That is what Vladimir Putin is counting on. Or will this body live up to the commitments we’ve made since the start of this war?”

The vast majority of Republicans opposed the measure. Rep. French Hill, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he is a steadfast supporter of Ukraine. However, the Arkansas Republican said the House was confronted with a flawed, outdated measure that actually calls for less funding for Ukraine security assistance compared to what Congress had agreed to as part of this year’s defense policy. Another section could lead to a decrease in defense spending by some NATO members, he warned.

Rep. Brian Mast, the chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he believed the bill was “a cudgel to fight against President Trump.”

“This bill, in my opinion, is an unserious bill that was crafted basically a year-and-a-half ago,” Mast, R-Fla., said.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., broke with most of his Republican colleagues in voicing support for the measure.

“Are we going to stand with good or are we going to stand with evil? That’s what this is about tonight,” he said.

In the end, 18 Republicans, 207 Democrats and one independent voted for the bill. Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar joined with 194 Republicans in voting against it.

Lawmakers want to send a message

Supporters are hopeful that the House’s passage of the Ukraine bill would put pressure on the Senate to do the same. But they also know the Senate likely won’t go along unless Trump endorses the bill.

“It’s probably not going to get 60 votes in the Senate, but it’s going to hopefully force the Senate to address the issue,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., who signed the discharge petition and voted for the bill. “It’s going to send a great message to the soldiers of Ukraine.”

He said the vote would also send a message to Putin that “we do have a pulse here, that we do care about Ukraine and that we are going to utilize our authority to help them.”

As the war has dragged on, it’s gotten more difficult for supporters of Ukraine in Congress to provide additional financial support to help Ukraine defend itself.

The U.S. has approved some $195 billion for the Ukraine response, according to the latest quarterly inspector general report for Operation Atlantic Resolve, with roughly a quarter of that going to replenish weapons stockpiles for the U.S. military. The last major legislation designed to bolster the Ukraine response occurred in April 2024, though modest amounts have since been included in annual appropriations bills.

Republican leaders tried to stop the bill

Republican leaders urged their members to oppose the legislation. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said there are good-faith negotiations between members of Congress and the White House to boost Ukraine. He described the negotiations as complicated.

“I think they are going to yield positive results, but you set that back if you pass legislation that doesn’t go as far as the negotiations are going,” Scalise said.

The war that followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor is more than four years old, with no end in sight. In recent days, both sides have sought an edge by launching long-range missile strikes.

U.S.-led peace efforts have fizzled out as the sides made no progress on key differences and after the war in Iran grabbed Washington’s attention. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accepted an unconditional ceasefire demanded by Trump, but Putin refused.

Action in the Senate on Ukraine has revolved around a bill that would impose sweeping tariffs and secondary sanctions on countries that purchase Russia’s oil, gas, uranium and other exports, which are crucial to financing Russia’s military. But the bill has languished.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump announced Wednesday night at a White House dinner that he wanted to make acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche’s leadership of the Department of Justice permanent.

The president said he thought the confirmation of his onetime personal defense attorney would go “very quickly,” according to a video posted from the dinner.

But early indications suggest that the process could be anything but.

Blanche, who assumed his current role after Trump fired former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April, has been the face of some of the administration’s most unpopular actions, including the $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization fund,” the Justice Department’s release of the so-called Epstein files and a spate of prosecutions that critics have seen as politically motivated.

“He was nominated because he’ll do whatever the President demands. Todd Blanche should be under investigation — not under consideration for a promotion,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who sits on the committee, said in a statement.

Blanche was confirmed as deputy attorney general last year in a vote along party lines but now faces a changed political climate, in which Senate Republicans have felt more emboldened to question the administration’s actions.

Already, two Republicans who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will decide Blanche’s fate, have expressed reservations about his nomination.

Republicans hold a 12-to-10 majority in the committee, so losing two votes probably would torpedo Blanche’s confirmation.

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told CNN reporter Manu Raju Thursday that he was concerned about the independence of Blanche, who served as Trump’s personal attorney in a New York case about his alleged hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

“Being attorney general is probably one of the hardest jobs in the Cabinet, because you’re working for the president but you’re also supposed to be able to tell the president ‘no,’ ” Cornyn said. “So we need to talk about that.”

Cornyn recently lost his primary bid for reelection after Trump endorsed his opponent, Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton.

In recent weeks, Blanche has faced withering criticism for the anti-weaponization fund, which was created last month to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump, two of his sons and their business against the Internal Revenue Service.

Blanche publicly walked back the fund at a congressional hearing this week, after critics had described it as a slush fund for allies of the president who believed they had been prosecuted for political purposes, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told reporters that the fund, and any support for participants in the Jan. 6 insurrection, would be a sticking point for him in Blanche’s nomination.

“The key for Todd or anyone going through the Judiciary Committee is being pretty tight on January the 6th,” Tillis said.

Tillis, who is not seeking reelection, previously held up the confirmation of another Trump appointee — Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh — over the senator’s concern about the prosecution of outgoing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell in connection with statements Powell had made about a renovation of the Federal Reserve headquarters.

After the Powell investigation was dropped, Tillis supported Warsh’s nomination.

And Blanche will probably face questions during the confirmation process about the department’s prosecution of other perceived political enemies of the president, including former FBI Director James Comey, who is facing charges in North Carolina over a picture he posted on social media of seashells spelling out the numbers “86 47,” a reference to removing the president that prosecutors described as a death threat.

During Blanche’s first nomination hearing to be deputy attorney general, Tillis specifically asked Blanche to promise not to pursue any politically motivated prosecutions.

“I’ve got your commitment there will not even be a whiff of an investigation that appears to have a political motivation to it?” Tillis asked.

“I commit to that,” Blanche responded.

Even if he were to advance out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Blanche could face a tough confirmation vote in the full Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats. Two Republican senators facing tough reelection matchups, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, along with lame duck Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, could prove to be hard votes to win.

Blanche has also been criticized for his handling of the release of millions of pages of records from the Justice Department’s investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as well as his interview with Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Last week, Blanche’s predecessor, former Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, placed the blame for the delayed release of files and improper redactions on Blanche’s shoulders.

He has also faced criticism for his decision to interview Maxwell in her Florida prison in July 2025, and for her transfer to a more comfortable prison in Texas soon after the interview was conducted. The former British socialite’s attorneys have made clear that she is seeking a pardon for her 2021 conviction and 20-year prison sentence.

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has denied a prosecutor’s appeal of an order that the state’s fake elector case against President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others over the 2020 presidential election be sent back to a grand jury.

The decision marks another setback for Democratic Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes as she struggles to push the sprawling case through the courts. Mayes’ office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution.

The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.

A lower-court judge in Phoenix concluded in May that the case’s first grand jury hadn’t been shown the text of the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.

Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed, though it was amended in 2022 to specify that a state could put forward only one slate of electors and that it was the governor who would sign off.

There has been no movement in the Arizona case at the trial court level since mid-May.

Former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Senate is beginning a long series of votes Thursday on legislation to fund President Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies, moving toward passage of a three-year fix as Democrats have blocked the money for months in protest.

The roughly $70 billion bill to fund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. The bill would fund the agencies for three years, through the end of Trump’s term.

First, though, Republicans must beat back a potential gauntlet of amendments that Democrats plan to offer, including to try and permanently ban Trump’s $1.776 billion settlement fund for allies who he believes have been politically persecuted. Democrats have said their first amendment Thursday morning will be to eliminate the fund and send the immigration spending bill back to committee.

Senate Republicans are using a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democratic votes. But it has taken weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House — including a $1 billion proposal for White House security that they eventually scrapped and fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund.

“The thing we’re trying to do here is to keep the focus on funding for ICE and CBP,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday evening, after the Senate voted to start debating the legislation. “This was narrow and targeted from the very beginning and clean, and we’re trying to maintain it that way.”

But it’s unclear if Republicans will have enough votes to fend off the Democratic amendments. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said this week that the fund would not move forward, and many GOP senators said Wednesday that they were satisfied with his remarks.

Yet Trump, who has been at odds with Senate Republicans in recent weeks, raised new doubts about the settlement’s future on Wednesday afternoon when he told reporters that the settlement is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold.

“I’d have to ask the lawyers,” he said.

Democrats, Republicans plan to force votes on settlement

To pass legislation through the budget process called reconciliation, the Senate must first hold a long series of votes. Democrats are using that process to try and ban the settlement by law — and also kill the immigration spending bill.

After Trump’s comments about the fund, Schumer posted on X that “this is EXACTLY why” Democrats would be forcing votes to ban it.

Some Republicans also planned to try and put Blanche’s promise in writing. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has said he will offer an amendment to block any attempt at resurrecting the fund.

“We’ve got a sufficient number of Republicans who have been very clear they’ve got concerns there,” said Tillis.

ICE and Border Patrol money has been long fight

Democrats say any funding bill for the Homeland Security Department should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks.

After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the DHS funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

Congress eventually funded the rest of the Homeland Security Department at the end of April with Democratic support. But ICE and Border Patrol remained without regular funding, and Republicans launched a new effort to pass three years of funding for those agencies with no Democratic votes.

Security money for Trump’s ballroom dropped

Work on the legislation was also delayed by Republican opposition to $1 billion in security funding for the White House, including for Trump’s new ballroom, that was added to the original bill.

Democrats and some Republicans questioned using taxpayer money for the massive project, and Republicans did not include it in the final bill when it was released on Wednesday.

Thune said he was working with his GOP conference to try and fight off any amendments and ensure he has enough votes for a simple majority to pass the bill in the 53-47 Senate.

“Keep in mind, we’ve got to keep them all together, make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it,” he said.

Republican House leaders said Wednesday they would like to clear the legislation before the end of the week, if the Senate can finish it. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said that House leaders were having internal conversations about the schedule.

“We just need to make sure everybody’s there,” Scalise said.

Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The House approved a war powers resolution Wednesday that would halt the U.S. military action against Iran, defying President Trump as a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to end the three-month-long war that has reordered politics at home and abroad.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to prevent an outcome that would show the mounting opposition to the war, abruptly shutting down floor action two weeks ago when the war powers resolution was on the verge of approval. But displeasure has only grown as the conflict drags on and as Trump struggles to negotiate a quick resolution.

The roll call Wednesday was 215-208, and cheers erupted in the House chamber.

“This reckless and costly war of choice needs to end today,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said earlier in the week.

“All we need are a handful of Republicans to join us and we can end this reckless and costly war of choice — a war that has cost the American taxpayer over $100 billion — that’s extraordinary — and left our country in a weaker position relative to Iran.”

Opposition to war grows

It’s the fourth time the House has tried to curb the U.S. war against Iran, and the first time the House was able to pass the measure. The Senate advanced its own war powers resolution last month when a handful of GOP senators broke ranks with the Republican president in a rare show of political pushback from his party.

Each time Democrats have pushed forward the war powers resolution, the vote tallies have inched higher as political unease with the U.S. war swells. Trump had campaigned for the White House on a promise to end U.S. entanglements abroad and focus more on domestic issues, but the war has shifted attention back to the Middle East.

Johnson insisted Trump is “laser focused” on the domestic front, particularly ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The speaker said he spent three hours at the White House with the president this week as Trump is calling on allies to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commerce, especially the flow of oil.

Since the U.S. joined Israel in launching the Feb. 28 strikes on Iran, Americans have seen gas prices spike at the pumps, adding to inflationary pressure on consumer spending.

Iran has been able to interrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for a large segment of the world’s oil, natural gas and related products such as fertilizer.

“We’re working on that final piece,” said Johnson, R-La. “The entire world has an interest in the Strait of Hormuz being reopen for commerce. That what he’s working on.”

While a ceasefire in the conflict was declared in April, it remains uneasy and uncertain. Talks for a more durable end to the fighting have dragged, increasingly complicated by Israel’s broadening war with Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. Meanwhile, military strikes between the U.S and Iran continue to flare.

Congress exerts its war powers authority

The war powers resolution from the House would not immediately stop the war, but it would provide a symbolic if not legal step against further military action.

If approved, it would then go to the Senate, where four Republican senators last month joined Democrats in advancing a similar measure to curtail the U.S. campaign against Iran. The Senate has yet to take a final vote to approve or reject its own war powers resolution.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned Wednesday testifying at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the Iranians would think that the administration’s “hands are going to be tied” if Congress approved a war powers resolution. He said they would think ”we won’t be able to do anything to them, so why make a deal?”

It’s not the only action Congress is taking in the national security arena as Democrats, in the minority, work to peel off Republican support for measures beyond the war against Iran.

The House is also voting Wednesday on another Democratic-led effort that would authorize U.S. support for Ukraine’s military operations as it battles Russia and to help reconstruct the war-torn country. The House this week is also expected to consider a war powers resolution to block U.S. action in Lebanon.

While Congress has the authority under the Constitution to declare war, the president also has power as the commander in chief to engage in military action, creating a legal dispute over which branch of government has ultimate say in matters of war and peace.

Under the war powers act, the White House has a 60-day window to seek approval from Congress for military action. The administration, however, has indicated that because a ceasefire has been declared in the current conflict in Iran, the hostilities have ceased.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A prediction market reported former U.S. Rep. George Santos to federal prosecutors after he boasted he’d be going to President Trump’s State of the Union address, then bet against his own attendance, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

Kalshi, the online prediction marketplace, referred Santos to the Department of Justice after detecting suspicious trades made by him ahead of Trump’s Feb. 24 speech, the person said. The person spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

Kalshi also reported the trades to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a federal regulatory body that has vowed to crack down on insider trading in prediction marketplaces.

The Justice Department and the CFTC didn’t immediately respond Tuesday to inquiries from the AP.

Santos also did not respond to text messages or phone calls.

The referral was first reported by NPR. Santos told NPR that he wasn’t aware of the investigation. He declined to say whether he had a Kalshi account.

“I’m not saying yes, I’m not saying no,” Santos told NPR.

The convicted ex-congressman had repeatedly discussed his intention to attend the State of the Union, which came just four months after he was granted clemency by Trump in a fraud case that led to his expulsion from the U.S. House.

On the eve of Trump’s speech, Kalshi put the odds of Santos attending at close to 75%.

Then, minutes into the speech, Santos posted on X that he had been waylaid at the airport. Immediately, several social media users accused him of running another scheme.

“Santos talking to his accountant and telling him to open his Kalshi account and bet all his money on No,” one user wrote, alongside a meme of Al Pacino counting money in the movie Scarface.

In March, Santos addressed the complaints on his podcast.

“I guess people lost money,” he said. “Some people made unexpected money. That’s to show you how fragile these markets are.”

Santos, who won office as a Republican after inventing a bogus persona as a Wall Street dealmaker, was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft in 2024.

After serving just 84 days, he was ordered released by Trump, who called Santos a “rogue” but said he didn’t deserve a harsh sentence and should get credit for voting Republican.

Prediction markets, including Kalshi and its chief rival Polymarket, have drawn scrutiny as their businesses have expanded — with some lawmakers urging the platforms to do more to guard against insider trading.

Both companies have said they are reporting suspicious trades to federal regulators. Some investigations have led to criminal charges. In April a soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was charged with using classified information to win more than $400,000 predicting the date of his capture on Polymarket.

In April, the Senate approved a bipartisan resolution to prevent its own members from using prediction markets.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When nearly all the scheduled musical performers pulled out of a concert series marking America’s 250th anniversary — fearing the event had become too closely tied to President Trump — he responded by making it official.

Trump announced he’d now be the headlining act of the Great American State Fair.

That put to rest any possible scenario where a president who has built his personal and political persona on seizing the spotlight might cede the stage to avoid overshadowing a national celebration bigger than himself. It also offered a peek into how the president is likely to approach hosting the upcoming World Cup.

From his reality shows before becoming a politician, to hours spent entertaining at events in ways planned and impromptu, to proudly showing off his various properties and efforts to overhaul the White House, the president relishes hosting. Last year he even jokingly mused about leaving the presidency to do it again full time on TV.

Trump can be a gracious, personable and highly watchable master of ceremonies — but he’s also one who tends to make every event about himself.

“The president has an outsized personality,” said Timothy Naftali, former director of Richard Nixon’s presidential library and professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “There’s a predictability to the way in which the president frames his actions — or any actions around any event associated with him — and that’s just part of who he is, and his makeup and his professional background.”

Exhibit A is the fair, which begins June 25 and was supposed to feature concerts but now will be kicked off by a Trump rally. That will follow a UFC bout at the White House on June 14. Trump is a longtime cage match fan and the event marks his 80th birthday, but the president has sought to bill it as part of the anniversary festivities.

Many presidents relished hosting — but not like this

Andrew Jackson threw open the White House for an 1829 Inauguration Day bash so unruly that staff eventually dispersed the crowd by moving tubs of whiskey and ice cream to the lawn. Franklin D. Roosevelt mixed pre-dinner cocktails for friends and aides at White House gatherings he playfully dubbed “The Children’s Hour.” Audrey Hepburn was among the luminaries Ronald Reagan hosted at the White House.

Trump frequently had first-term dinners with business leaders but has more fully embraced the role since returning to the White House. He built a patio area similar to one at his Mar-a-Lago estate and frequently travels to Florida and his properties in Bedminster, New Jersey, and Sterling, Virginia, to headline fundraisers and other swanky gatherings.

Asked if Trump might overshadow events meant to bring the country and the world together, White House spokesman Davis Ingle pointed to the president’s efforts to lead extensive renovations at the White House and around Washington. He said in a statement that the “historic beautification” gives the city “the glory it deserves during our nation’s historic semiquincentennial celebration — something everyone should celebrate.”

Still, Trump has found unprecedented ways to inject himself into the anniversary.

The State Department is issuing passports with the president’s picture and officials have designed a new $250 bill with his likeness. The Trump Organization, being run by Trump’s children while he’s president, applied to trademark “Trump 250” logos and other merchandise.

The U.S. Mint is also producing a 24-karat gold commemorative coin with Trump’s face, though that recalls a half-dollar silver coin bearing the likeness of President Calvin Coolidge to help mark America’s 150th anniversary in 1926.

Past presidents had starring anniversary roles

Ulysses S. Grant opened a Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia to mark the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1876. Richard Nixon, in 1971, inaugurated a five-year “Bicentennial Era” ahead of the 200-year mark, though he resigned before the big day arrived.

Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, then in the midst of an ultimately unsuccessful reelection campaign, began the week of July 4, 1976, by inaugurating the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum and attending a Kennedy Center event featuring Bob Hope, OJ Simpson and others reading patriotic texts.

On Independence Day, Ford spoke at historic Valley Forge, then traveled to Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, declaring, “Liberty is a living flame to be fed, not dead ashes to be revered.“ He also went to New York Harbor for a tall ship parade, presided over naturalization ceremonies at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello estate and hosted a state dinner for Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II.

Still, “while Ford certainly hoped to use the bicentennial to promote his reelection campaign, he didn’t do it in such a self-aggrandizing, self-centered, narcissistic way,” said Marc Stein, a history professor at San Francisco State University and author of “Bicentennial: A Revolutionary History of the 1970s.”

Ford, added Naftali, “knew when to step out of the limelight and make sure the focus was on what mattered, which was the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence.”

Trump, by contrast, “generally has contempt for norms” and rarely mentions “the great sweep of history,” Naftali said.

Dueling anniversary planners as Trump pushes to revise history

Congress charged a national organization, America250, with planning commemorative events. Ahead of the 2024 election, the group drafted a memo asking whomever the incoming president was to mobilize federal agencies and welcoming presidential involvement in events and initiatives.

Asked about Trump, America250 Chair Rosie Rios said the group “has had a very supportive and collaborative relationship with the organizations planning initiatives on behalf of the president.”

But Rios’ organization is separate from Freedom 250, a mix of public and private partnerships which the Trump administration established to fund and prepare anniversary events — which has caused confusion.

America250 aims to “inspire our fellow Americans to reflect on our past, strengthen our love of country, and renew our commitment to the ideals of democracy through programs that educate, engage, and unite us as a nation.”

That might seem a departure from the “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” executive order Trump signed last year. It sought to beat back a “revisionist movement” responsible for “replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.”

Stein, now serving a one-year term as president of the Organization of American Historians, is helping organize “We Want More History,” a push to coordinate local events celebrating the public’s love for the subject in fact-based ways.

He said Trump’s version of history is “closer to propaganda, and it’s closer to cheerleading.”

World Cup gives Trump another platform to play host

The president has similarly taken his exceeding-normal-limits approach to the soccer tournament the U.S. is co-hosting with Mexico and Canada.

He created a federal World Cup task force, and leads it. He collected a peace prize from soccer’s governing body, FIFA, and said he’d be on stage to present the tournament’s golden trophy to the winning team.

Trump even oversaw the tournament’s draw at the Kennedy Center, which he’s sought to rename for himself, sparking legal challenges.

He returned to the same building to headline December’s Kennedy Center Honors, noting, “We never had a president hosting the awards before.” He later posted on social media, “Would you like me to leave the Presidency in order to make ‘hosting’ a full time job?”

Naftali noted, “Whatever filters there were in the first term — and there weren’t many — are gone.”

“It’s undiluted Donald Trump.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

The outcome of the hotly contested race for California governor remained uncertain Tuesday night, but Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra held leads in the large field running to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Hilton, a former conservative commentator, and Becerra, a longtime elected official who served in the Biden administration, were roughly tied in early returns, with Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer in a distant third. Only two of the candidates will advance to the November general election.

In Tuesday night remarks, Becerra cited his upbringing as the child of hardworking immigrant parents. When it came to his run for governor, he said, he was counted out, was outspent by competitors and faced calls to drop out to clear a path for a Democrat to rise to the top of a crowded field.

In the end, Becerra appears to have been that Democrat.

“Like my parents, I never gave up … and thankfully neither did you,” he told supporters Tuesday evening at the Plaza de Cultura y Artes in downtown Los Angeles. “While I take nothing for granted [and] there are lots of ballots left to be counted, it appears that we are on track to advance to November.”

Hilton, a former Fox News commentator who was endorsed by President Trump, took the stage at his party in Huntington Beach just after 10 p.m. as results showed him leading the race. “This is the first stage, but the fight really starts tomorrow,” he told supporters.

Hilton spoke of himself and Spencer Pratt, who had a strong showing in the Los Angeles mayoral race, as “a couple of outsiders who’ve never run for office before” who had taken on a broken system.

Steyer remained hopeful Tuesday night, urging supporters to be patient as the statewide vote is counted. He called out corporations, including Chevron, PG&E and the insurance industry, for rigging the system and making the state unaffordable for working people.

“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate,” he said.

Other candidates in the race included Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Democrats including former Rep. Katie Porter, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

Villaraigosa, Mahan and Porter conceded the race Tuesday night.

Sonia Molina of Hancock Park said she came to Becerra’s election night party to support the Democrat, whom she has known since college. The local dentist described him as an honest, hardworking person who understands the importance of healthcare policy. Still, she was initially surprised at his rise in the polls.

“He’s very low-key and not very pompous — a lot of people [didn’t] really know him,” Molina said. “But I’m glad people are actually paying attention.”

Supporters of Hilton were gathered at the Waterfront Beach Resort in Huntington Beach, where cheers erupted in the ballroom with each wave of incoming results.

“He’s a true conservative,” said Hilton supporter John Merguerian, 52, of Glendale, who works as a security guard. “This is a chance for real change. We have the highest gas prices in the nation. We have the highest sales tax. One-party rule has done all this.”

California’s 2026 race for governor started slow but entered its next phase with a flourish, including the demise of a scandal-plagued Democratic favorite, the anointing of a Republican by Trump and Becerra’s unexpected rise from the depths of the crowded field of candidates.

Unlike gubernatorial elections in the last quarter century, this year’s race lacked a clear crowd-pleasing front-runner able to win over voters like Hollywood movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger or Jerry Brown, a sage of the California electorate and scion of a storied political family. But it unfolded at a crucial time as the state’s residents are overwhelmed by high housing costs, steep gas prices and overall unaffordability that threatens the “California dream” that once drew millions of people to the state.

Many voters appeared exhausted by Trump’s policies that disproportionately affected California, such as immigration raids, and the costly special election in the fall to redraw the state’s congressional districts. They did not tune in to the gubernatorial contest until weeks before Tuesday’s primary.

A fundamental question in recent days was whether the state’s 23.2 million registered voters, who all received mail-in ballots, were waiting to vote or if they would skip the election because of malaise. Low early Democratic voter turnout alarmed party leaders, but it increased in the lead-up to the primary.

Tuesday’s initial results are the culmination of one of the most unpredictable and expensive gubernatorial primaries in decades and a race that was shaped just as much by who opted not to run as by the candidates who did.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris signaled interest in the seat shortly after her bruising 2024 loss to Trump. The race was in effect in limbo as Harris, one of the state’s most high-profile politicians, weighed whether to enter.

She ultimately decided against it, as did Sen. Alex Padilla. If they had run, political strategists said, either would have been favorites to win, with high name recognition and previous experience running for statewide offices.

Others bowed out too, including Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and billionaire developer Rick Caruso. Candidates who had initially declared for the seat — former state Senate leader Toni Atkins, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and billionaire Stephen Cloobeck among them — dropped out or pivoted to other races.

“I don’t ever recall a playing field that looks like this one. Usually there’s a clear front-runner,” said veteran Democratic strategist Darry Sragow. “It’s easy to say that it reflects a lack of talent [but] that’s absolutely not true. Almost any of the candidates running could make a good governor.”

Still, candidates struggled for months to break through to voters.

In February, polls showed the crowded field of Democrats splitting liberal voters and opening a statistical possibility that the party would be boxed out of November under California’s open, top-two primary, which places all candidates on the same ballot. Only the first- and second-place finishers in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

Republicans Hilton and Bianco led many polls, prompting Democratic officials and allies to urge their party’s low-polling candidates to drop out of the race.

“Normal people are not living and breathing politics on a daily basis,” said Tim Rosales, a strategist who ran Republican John Cox’s 2018 gubernatorial campaign. In today’s information-saturated environment, Rosales said, the race and its roster of “extremely milquetoast candidates” didn’t break through to voters until scandal erupted.

Just when former Rep. Eric Swalwell appeared on the cusp of becoming the Democratic front-runner — rising in polls and gaining support from influential labor unions — the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN published allegations that he sexually assaulted a former staffer and acted inappropriately with other women.

Swalwell, a top Trump critic in Congress, vehemently denied the allegations as “flat false” and vowed to fight them, but the damage was done. His campaign staff and supporters abandoned him and some donors sought refunds. Two days after the allegations were published, Swalwell suspended his campaign.

In the vacuum created by Swalwell’s collapse, his Democratic rivals frenetically cast about for momentum. Porter saw a new bump in fundraising. Silicon Valley executives poured new millions behind Mahan. Former state Controller Betty Yee — who languished at the bottom of the polls — held on for a few more weeks before calling it quits.

It was Becerra who benefited most, though his critics and supporters alike have a hard time explaining exactly how or why. In less than two months, he vaulted from polling in the low single digits to the top of the field of candidates, according to surveys conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that were co-sponsored by the Los Angeles Times.

“Becerra caught lightning in a bottle,” Rosales said. “It could have easily gone to any of the other candidates,” but many had baggage. Videos of Porter losing her temper hurt her image, the source of Steyer’s wealth and his unbridled campaign spending weighed on voters’ minds, and Villaraigosa and Mahan were “more centrist than what most Democrats wanted, and so Xavier Becerra was really the safe choice,” Rosales said.

Before Democratic voters began to narrow down their choices, Trump endorsed Hilton in early April. It helped the former Fox News host break away from Bianco but diminished the chances of a Republican primary sweep.

In the days before the primary election, the race solidified into a three-way contest involving Becerra, Steyer and Hilton. Now fearing a scenario with two Democrats on the November ballot, Hilton called on Republicans to unite behind him and ramped up pressure on Bianco to drop out of the race, warning that having Becerra and Steyer on the November ballot would “be a disaster for California.”

“There’s one person who can stop this doomsday scenario, and that is my friend Chad Bianco,” Hilton said in an Instagram video Friday. “Chad, the best time to have dropped out would have been a couple of weeks ago, but the second best time is right now.”

Steyer stepped up his fight in the remaining days, seeking to squeeze into one of the top two spots by relentlessly battering Becerra in ads and at campaign rallies as a politician propped up by corporate special interests.

“We cannot afford to have a governor who’s been bought off by Big Oil. Period,” he said at a Sunday rally in Los Angeles.

Corporations, along with labor unions and interest groups including the California Assn. of Realtors, had spent more than $18.7 million to boost Becerra, according to the election spending tracker California Target Book. Many of the same groups also gave money to a committee intended to attack Steyer.

As the election neared, Becerra sharpened his own attacks against Steyer, calling the billionaire a “liar” and accusing him of trying to buy the election.

“We are not going to let a billionaire or Trump’s handpicked candidate take over this state,” he said during a Sunday rally in Long Beach.

Steyer’s wealth has been a central theme of the race. He has so far dropped more than $216 million into his campaign, shattering records set by other wealthy self-funded candidates before him and prompting attacks from critics who accuse him of trying to buy an election.

“Everybody assumes money is the most important thing, that you can quote-unquote ‘buy an election’ with all that money,” said Jason McDaniel, an associate professor of political science at San Francisco State University. “You still have to have a candidate who is able to be well-liked, and policy stances that are aligned with where voters are in general.”

Times staff writers Susanne Rust, Andrew Khouri and Christopher Goffard contributes to this report.

Buoyed by a new Congressional map favoring their party, California Democrats were eyeing Tuesday’s primary elections as a critical first step toward flipping a handful of House seats and taking back power in Washington.

Results from California’s massive and slow-moving election process were not immediately clear late Tuesday, as polls closed and mail ballots continued to be processed and counted. Still, Democrats were bullish about their chances of advancing candidates to November’s general election in all five districts that were redrawn in their favor as a result of last year’s Proposition 50 ballot measure.

“The path to winning back the House starts with voting in the June 2nd primary,” the California Democratic Party posted online Monday.

Meanwhile, California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin urged Republican voters to make their own voices heard too.

“Like President Trump said, we need to make it too big to rig,” Rankin said on “The Benny Show.” “We need to swamp the vote.”

One of the most closely watched races was in the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Another closely watched race was in the redrawn 48th Congressional District in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection, and where Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond — who is endorsed by Trump — is running against a pack of Democrats.

Prop. 50 — which Californians passed with nearly 65% of the vote a year ago — was California Democrats’ response to Texas Republicans redrawing their state’s Congressional maps in the GOP’s favor, at President Trump’s behest. It was also the only major Democratic counterpunch in the wider mid-decade redistricting brawl that has spread across the country in the last year.

Experts expect the redistricting battle to deliver a net gain of a handful or more House seats to Republicans. But Democrats could gain even more ground given Trump’s lousy approval ratings and the long history of midterm election losses for the president’s party.

Combined, those factors make the battle for control of the House incredibly close, which in turn makes the five seats up for grabs in California pivotal — and potentially decisive.

Tuesday’s primaries won’t determine if any of those five seats will indeed flip parties in November. However, the primaries will define those head-to-head races to come and better inform the odds of Democrats toppling Republican incumbents, experts said.

In addition to flipping the seats currently held by Valadao and Issa, Democrats are hoping to pick up three additional seats.

In the 1st Congressional District — which after Prop. 50 lost rural reaches of northeast California and picked up liberal North Bay communities — various candidates were vying for the seat long held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), who died in January. They include Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire and Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher, who is endorsed by Trump.

Voters from the existing district are also voting in a special election Tuesday to fill the remainder of LaMalfa’s term.

In the 3rd Congressional District, which lost an eastern rural stretch along Nevada and now holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove) — who currently represents a different district — is running to remain in Congress in a new seat.

Meanwhile, the 3rd Congressional District’s incumbent, Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin), is seeking to do the opposite. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and is now running for Bera’s current seat in Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and Placer County suburbs.

In the 41st Congressional District, which became more liberal after Prop. 50 by losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, a slate of candidates — including Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Whittier), who currently represents a different district — are running to replace Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona). Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, decided to run in the neighboring 40th Congressional District instead.

In the 40th Congressional District, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, incumbent Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) is now going head-to-head with Calvert, while also facing several Democratic challengers.

Other districts that were not part of the Prop. 50 shuffle are also attracting attention.

In the 11th Congressional District in San Francisco, several Democratic candidates are vying to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the retiring former House Speaker, including state Sen. Scott Wiener; tech millionaire and Democratic political operative Saikat Chakrabarti; and Connie Chan, a member of the San Francisco board of supervisors who Pelosi endorsed.

Democrats are also closely watching several races where younger Democrats and progressives are challenging older incumbent Democrats, and where newer Democratic incumbents are seeking to hold onto their seats in relatively competitive districts.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, under intense grilling at a Senate hearing Tuesday, refused to commit to abiding by federal court orders.

Mullin also conceded that his predecessor as secretary, Kristi Noem, had inaccurately described two shootings involving immigration officers in Minneapolis.

His refusal to commit to complying with court orders came during a testy exchange with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Murphy quoted Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota — a Republican appointee — who said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had violated nearly 100 court orders and had “likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”

When Murphy asked Mullin to commit to complying with court orders in the future, Mullin replied that his agency would not break the law.

“But that doesn’t sound like the same thing as committing that you will obey a court order,” Murphy said.

“If we didn’t think the courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that. But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for political opinion and not just the rule of law,” Mullin said.

“So you’ll pick and choose which court orders you’ll obey?” Murphy asked,

Mullin told Murphy not to put words in his mouth.

Addressing his fellow senators, Murphy said, “If you’re a Democrat or a Republican on this committee, you should be really, really freaked out.”

Murphy later returned to the court orders question, saying that ignoring judges erodes democracy.

“I agree that there is politics involved in judicial decisions,” he said. “I do not think that gives an excuse to either Democratic or Republican administrations to ignore those court orders. I think that’s actually the end of our republic, if the administration willfully ignores a court order because they disagree with it or its motivation.”

Mullin faced the Senate Appropriations Committee amid scrutiny over the agency’s budget and immigration enforcement ahead of the World Cup. President Trump tapped Mullin to take over leadership of the embattled Department of Homeland Security after Noem was fired in March.

Mullin’s appearance came as the Senate is considering legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies through the end of Trump’s term. Republicans intend to use a legislative maneuver that would bypass the need for support from Democrats, who have pushed for reforms since two U.S. citizens were killed by immigration agents in Minneapolis.

During his previous appearance before senators, Mullin projected himself as diplomatic, saying he would work to bring confidence to the agency and keep it out of the news. But recently, he has set the travel industry on edge by threatening to remove Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities, which limit collaboration with immigration enforcement agents.

Millions of people are preparing to visit the United States for the World Cup, which starts June 11 and includes host cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Mullin said he will attend his first soccer game June 12 in Los Angeles.

Murphy, the committee’s top Democrat, made note of Mullin’s promise to keep Homeland Security out of the news. He said the agency has repeatedly broken the law, wasted billions in taxpayer dollars and lined the pockets of private prison corporations.

“Nothing has really gotten better,” he said. “In fact, you spent the first two months of your tenure threatening to suspend international arrivals in states represented by Democrats. Not only would that throw our entire air travel system into chaos, it’s completely illegal.”

Mullin took issue with Murphy’s characterization of the agency’s behavior, calling it political theater. Murphy sat with his head propped up on his hand, looking directly back at his former Senate colleague.

Mullin said threats against immigration agents are up significantly and that Murphy’s “reckless tone is getting people hurt.”

Protests erupted last month outside an immigrant detention facility in New Jersey after detainees launched a hunger and labor strike over what they called inhumane conditions such as rotten food and medical neglect. Tensions have escalated over several days as protesters clashed with law enforcement and counterprotesters.

On Monday in Dallas, Mullin said he would pull Customs officers from airports around the country to help with the security in Newark, if it became necessary.

Addressing the issue of officer training, Mullin said Tuesday that the agency will return next month to 72 days of training for new recruits, including training on crowd control. Last year, then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told Congress the agency had reduced the number of training days to 42.

He also said the agency is not “actively patrolling” sensitive locations, such as schools, and said that the agency has stopped relying on administrative warrants to enter a residence by force and is now seeking judicial warrants before doing so in most cases.

Asked by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) about body-worn cameras, Mullin said the agency doesn’t have the money to supply enough body cameras for every immigration officer. Homeland Security received an unprecedented windfall last year of $170 billion under Trump’s sweeping tax bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Mullin said the agency suffered a blow to morale because of the historic 76-day shutdown of ICE and CBP after a congressional stalemate over funding.

“Some people couldn’t sustain it,” he said. “We lost a tremendous amount of workforce, about 8%.”

During an exchange with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mullin acknowledged that Noem had unfairly and inaccurately described two shootings involving immigration officers in Minneapolis.

An ICE agent was recently arrested over the nonfatal shooting of a Venezuelan man, whom Noem had called an attempted murderer.

“That’s an untrue statement, isn’t it?” Van Hollen said.

“From what we have been briefed on, yes,” Mullin replied.

Next, Van Hollen brought up Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by CBP agents. Noem called him a domestic terrorist.

“You agree the facts don’t support that statement?” Van Hollen said.

“The investigation would say that’s probably not accurate,” Mullin replied.

Mullin was scheduled to appear before the House on Wednesday.

As primary voters head to the polls Tuesday to determine which candidates will face off in November to become California’s governor and Los Angeles’ mayor, both races are wide open, with a new crop of candidates challenging the Democratic status quo.

For Democrats, little clear consensus has emerged so far on who should lead the city and state into the future.

In California’s crowded gubernatorial race, Democrats have struggled in recent months to settle on a candidate to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom.

After former Rep. Eric Swalwell suspended his campaign in April amid allegations of sexual misconduct, Xavier Becerra, a former Biden cabinet member, inched ahead by positioning himself as the safe, experienced Democratic candidate. Another Democrat, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer, and Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, trail close behind.

In L.A., experience seems to be as much a liability as an advantage.

Mayor Karen Bass finds herself in the extraordinary position, as an incumbent, of fighting to make the runoff as she is assailed from the left and the right. The latest UC Berkeley-L.A. Times poll shows Bass leading with just 26% of the vote, one point ahead of City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a wonkish Democratic socialist, and four points ahead of Republican Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV star.

“There’s a clear sense of frustration with the Democratic Party,” said Sara Sadhwani, a professor of politics at Pomona College. The reason a wave of conservative outsiders like Pratt and Hilton are doing so well in such a solidly liberal city and state, Sadhwani said, is that they’re more willing to spell out the challenges that L.A. and California face.

“Democrats tend to be very concerned about not upsetting one coalition or another, so it’s politics as usual with many of the Democratic candidates,” Sadhwani said. “Spencer Pratt has blown a hole in that by just naming the problems that everyday residents and voters are seeing and feeling on the ground.”

On homelessness, many Angelenos are frustrated Bass hasn’t significantly moved the needle.

“We can point to facts and figures that might suggest that things have changed,” Sadhwani said. “But when you walk down the streets of Los Angeles, it doesn’t feel like it, so she hasn’t passed the field test. That’s the problem.”

A growing segment of Angelenos also chafe at the city’s high cost of living. And many are angry about the Bass administration’s lack of preparation and response to the 2025 Palisades fire.

“The Democrats have to account for those challenges,” Sadhwani said. “They have been in power for all of this time.”

California, of course, remains a Democratic stronghold, and polls show state voters are overwhelmingly opposed to President Trump. His second-term agenda — including a sweeping immigration crackdown, tariffs and the war in Iran — only seems to have cemented California’s status as a resistance state.

But after so many years of Democratic dominance, in Sacramento and at Los Angeles City Hall, leaders have to answer for voter frustrations.

The top two vote-getters in California’s nonpartisan primaries will advance to theNovember runoff, unless one candidate manages to pick up more than 50% of the vote.

Republicans have turned out at higher rates than Democrats in early voting. Paul Mitchell, vice president of the Sacramento-based bipartisan firm Political Data Inc., said that older Democrats who reliably turn in their ballots were slower to vote this year, likely because two Republicans were on the gubernatorial ballot and the Democratic field was fractured.

“That has caused them to dive into a lot more strategic voting,” Mitchell said, noting many seemed to be waiting to cast their ballots for the Democrat who looks to have the best chance of moving on to November.

For the GOP, getting a candidate on the November ballot for governor means more than just demonstrating Republicans are players in California. A GOP candidate would bring out more Republicans to vote in the general election, raising the party’s prospects of winning down-ballot races and passing a GOP-led ballot initiative on voter ID.

For Democrats, the midterm races offer the party its first major chance to chart a new path for the future.

As polls show Trump cratering in popularity, Democrats in California and beyond are struggling a year and a half after Kamala Harris’ bruising 2024 defeat to agree on what went wrong.

The Democratic National Committee’s long-awaited autopsy of that election — which said Harris “wrote off rural America,” wrongly assumed identity politics would win over voters of color and failed to develop “defined or consistent” strategy against Trump — has only generated more hand-wringing.

“There is not a clear vision, there is not a clear policy agenda, and the Donald Trump presidency upended the policy world as we knew it,” Sadhwani said. “It’s unclear how any Democrat, including any of the individuals in these two races, is going to navigate the waters into the future. One thing is for certain: We aren’t going back. So, which of these candidates is going to lead us into an uncertain future?”

Referendum on Bass

In L.A., the election is a referendum on Bass, who pledged in 2022 to solve homelessness, cut crime and make the city more affordable.

“How has L.A. changed in four years?” said Christian Grose, a professor of political science and public policy at USC. “The Bass campaign is saying it has changed for the better and she still needs more time. All the other candidates, from very different perspectives, are saying that it’s much worse than it was four years ago, and it’s time for new leadership.”

Bass told The Times she plans to win in November by demonstrating her administration’s progress in clearing homeless encampments and accelerating the building of affordable housing. She has also noted that data shows homicides in the city are at their lowest since 1966.

Challenging Bass from the left is Raman, who was elected in 2020 as the first DSA-backed L.A. City Council member. Pitching herself as the viable progressive in the race, Raman has accused Bass of not doing enough to make the city affordable and critiqued Bass’ spending on Inside Safe, her program to move unhoused people into stable housing. Although Raman presents herself as an outsider, she is a former Bass ally who has chaired the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee for more than three years.

“She’s absolutely a part of the establishment,” Sadhwani said. “She’s been in City Hall longer than Karen Bass.”

As Raman tacked to the center during the campaign to appeal to more moderates and distanced herself from past calls to defund the police, she alienated some DSA members who complained they didn’t know what she stood for. Her three fellow DSA City Council members endorsed Bass.

Pratt is challenging Bass and the entire Democratic status quo.

A former star of “The Hills” who lost his home in the Palisades fire, he has surprised many political observers with his success assailing the city’s handling of the 2025 firestorms. He has called unhoused people drug-addled “zombies” and argued that L.A.’s housing crisis requires heavy-handed policing.

Pratt has raised vastly more campaign contributions than Bass and Raman. He has also generated national online buzz by waging an aggressive social media campaign and inspiring supporters to post a stream of viral AI election campaign ads.

Still, most political experts agree that Bass has the most viable path to victory, starting with a solid base of Black voters and a large share of Latino voters, plus support from powerful unions.

“Under normal circumstances, or at least under historic circumstances, that would be plenty to get her over the finish line,“ said Jim Newton, executive director of UCLA Blueprint magazine and a former political journalist for The Times. “What’s problematic for her is that there are people who are angry with her.”

A reset in California

Newsom has emerged in recent years as the national face of Democratic resistance to Trump, bolstering California’s status through a barrage of lawsuits and all-caps trolling against Trump.

Whatever candidate replaces Newsom, things are going to be different.

The emerging front-runner, Becerra, is a safe-bet career politician who has served as California attorney general and U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Asked recently why he had climbed in the polls, Bercerra said he thought voters wanted experience, not “glitz and sizzle.”

He has pledged to issue executive orders declaring California’s housing shortage a state of emergency and directing state agencies to maintain coverage for every Californian affected by federal or Medi-Cal cuts. He also touts his record, as the state’s attorney general, of suing Trump 122 times.

Steyer, a hedge-fund billionaire, calls himself “the most progressive candidate on the ballot.” He has pledged to build one million affordable homes, make the wealthy pay more taxes, and defend the environment — stances that are certain to unsettle Sacramento lobbyists and test the limits of California’s progressivism. But his past investments in coal plants and ICE prisons raise questions for some voters.

“His wealth is in one way his Achilles heel in the election,” Grose said. “Voters think of him as a billionaire more than progressive.”

Republicans seem to have rallied around Hilton — a British immigrant and former top strategist forconservative prime minister David Cameron — who has secured Trump’s backing and is campaigning on the message that California is a failed state in need of radical reform.

Hilton has pledged to cut government spending, make housing more affordable and bring gas prices down. But to achieve some of his goals he would scale back public services and environmental regulations and ramp up domestic production of oil and natural gas — strategies that many Californians might hesitate to get behind.

Whichever candidates make it to the runoff, the California Democratic Party will face questions about its strategy and vision. Less than two months ago, the party chair had urged Becerra to drop out of the race to make way for Swalwell.

“Clearly, the party itself has lost its way in California,” Sadhwani said. “I would not be surprised if the California Democratic Party looks for new leadership after this election.”

Can a Republican win?

Because the top two spots in each contest are up for grabs, elections experts warn that the vote results may not be known for days.

If Republicans make it to the runoff, they face steep odds of being elected in November in a state where Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by more than 20 percentage points.

Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist, said neither Hilton nor Pratt was likely to win. But if they made the runoff they could have a huge impact on the political environment by advancing “grievance issues that really put up a spotlight on what I call the blue state incompetence.”

Of all the candidates, Mitchell said, Pratt as an outsider adept at Instagram and TikTok has the greatest opportunity to create a new surge electorate. But he’s also going after the hardest voters to get to turn out: disaffected voters who are upset at the system.

Pratt had more retweets and viral videos than any other candidate, Mitchell said. “But that doesn’t buy him the vote of the disaffected DoorDash driver who believes that the system is broken, and who hasn’t voted in the last five elections.”

If Republicans don’t make it past the primary, Mitchell said, Democrats would likely hit the reset button.

“Pratt running has kind of obfuscated the differences between Raman and Bass,” Mitchell said. “It’s like a WWE match versus a chess match. I think Raman versus Bass would be more of a strategic and nuanced election than Spencer Pratt trying to hit Karen Bass over the head with a chair.”

President Trump signed an executive order on artificial intelligence Tuesday, less than two weeks after postponing a White House ceremony over his concerns that a similar policy could dull America’s edge on AI technology.

The order establishes a framework for the federal government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release. The government will be able to work with trusted partners “that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure,” the order says.

It was not immediately clear to what extent the order differed from the one he declined to sign on May 21.

Trump canceled an Oval Office event with tech industry executives last month because he did not like what he saw in the earlier version of the order’s text. “We’re leading China, we’re leading everybody, and I don’t want to do anything that’s going to get in the way of that lead,” Trump told reporters at the time.

That directive was characterized as a voluntary collaboration with participating U.S.-based tech companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google.

O’Brien writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday.

The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.

The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join.

The ruling won’t immediately go into effect, allowing the administration time to ask the full appeals court to hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to go into effect last year, as litigation continues to play out. Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case.

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Obama.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” wrote Walker, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican.

Judge Judith Rogers, who was nominated by Democratic President Clinton, joined Wilkins’ opinion but also partially dissented.

Kunzelman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

DENVER — Tina Peters, the former clerk convicted of participating in a scheme to chase election conspiracy theories promulgated by President Trump, was released from prison Monday after the president successfully pressured Colorado’s Democratic governor into commuting her sentence.

Peters’ release was confirmed by the Colorado Department of Corrections. The state agency said it would have no more information about the 70-year-old inmate. Her sentence was shortened by Gov. Jared Polis last month after Trump waged a lengthy pressure campaign against the governor and his state.

Peters served less than a quarter of her nine-year sentence.

Peters was the first local election official to be charged with breaching security after the 2020 election. She snuck in an outside computer expert affiliated with My Pillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell — who himself denied that Trump lost the White House in 2020 — and the person copied the county’s Dominion Voting Systems computer server as it was updated in 2021.

Peters then joined Lindell onstage at a “cybersymposium” that promised to reveal proof that the election was rigged. Video and photos of the computer system upgrade, including passwords, were posted online. The move stoked false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the election from Trump.

Peters was convicted in 2024 of attempting to influence a public servant, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, violation of duty and other crimes by jurors in Mesa County, a Republican stronghold that supported Trump. An appeals court upheld her conviction in April, but ordered Peters to be resentenced because it said the judge who sent her to prison wrongly punished her for speaking out about election fraud.

Trump had championed Peters’ case, but because she was convicted under state law, he did not have the power to pardon her. Instead, the president pressured Polis to do so, lambasting him on social media and disinviting him to a White House meeting with other governors. The Trump administration also announced plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and relocated the U.S. Space Command to Alabama.

Polis commuted Peters’ sentence on May 15. In a letter, he wrote that although Peters was convicted of serious crimes and deserved to spend time in prison, the sentence was “extremely unusual and lengthy” for a first-time non-violent offender.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, called the move a “dark day for democracy” and said it amounted to ”selling out our state’s justice system for Trump.”

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has been circling the globe, meeting government regulators who will ultimately decide the fate of his controversial $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Last week, Ellison spent two hours answering questions from U.S. Justice Department antitrust lawyers in a bid to secure a key government approval — one that few people believe is in doubt because of President Trump’s strong support of tech billionaire Larry Ellison and his son’s ambitions to amass more power.

Throughout his travels, David Ellison has been accompanied by a savvy wingman: Makan Delrahim.

Delrahim, Paramount’s chief legal officer, served as the nation’s top antitrust regulator in the Justice Department during Trump’s first term. The 56-year-old Iranian American, who grew up in Los Angeles, is the architect of shrewd moves that have brought Paramount within reach of its blockbuster merger that would redefine Hollywood.

Politics have permeated the process — even before Trump announced he would get involved. Opponents have been suspicious of the Ellisons, given the family’s ties to Trump and programming changes to redefine Paramount’s CBS, including last month’s departure of late-night comedian Stephen Colbert and a shakeup at “60 Minutes,” CBS’ newsmagazine.

Buying Warner Bros. Discovery would give the Ellisons control of both CBS News and CNN.

Paramount’s bid for Warner Bros. has sparked dread in Hollywood for another reason, too: Thousands of jobs already have vanished through a string of media mergers.

More than 5,000 artists and entertainment industry workers have signed an open letter, calling on California Atty. General Rob Bonta to try to block the deal on antitrust grounds.

In an interview with The Times, Delrahim responded to concerns and criticisms. This interview has been edited for length and clarity:

Where does the regulatory process stand?

We are still going through the regulatory approval process. We actually started planning for the regulatory approval filings last summer. We knew we were going to be pursuing this transaction but it took a few months longer to sign the transaction than we thought. There were some interveners [Netflix, Comcast], but we planned ahead.

Do you have a commitment from Trump or his administration that you’ll get a thumbs up?

There are no deals with the president. We have a deal with the Warner Bros. shareholders. We’ve submitted [applications] to the governments of Europe, Canada, U.K. and the U.S., and that’s where it is.

You got a head-start because you filed a regulatory approval in December — months before Paramount had a deal with Warner. Why so soon?

We were always very skeptical [the Netflix deal] would ever go through. The only way to really show the [Warner] board that our deal would get through — because it doesn’t have antitrust problems — was to move as fast as we could.

One of the benefits being a former [DOJ] enforcer and having a team of outside lawyers who are also former colleagues and enforcers was that we anticipated what the government would ask for. Those were questions that we would have asked, and so we provided those answers.

Your timeline is aggressive. Some suggest Paramount wants this deal done before the mid-term elections.

I don’t think it’s aggressive. It has nothing to do with the midterms. The midterms do not change the officials at the Justice Department or the FCC — we have that minor application there. The midterms have no effect on the European Commission or anybody else. We’ve been very transparent and proactive with members of Congress and with the state attorneys general and the federal authorities.

Are you preparing to defend a potential antitrust challenge from Atty. General Bonta?

Well, no matter what field you’re in, whether it’s antitrust or whether you’re preparing for a football game, you always prepare the best you can for the worst, and you hope it never gets there. So, we’re preparing for challenges from anybody and everybody. But I don’t think any serious antitrust enforcer who looks at the facts, the law, the economics of this transaction will see an antitrust violation.

Why are you so confident?

There’s no element of this merger that is anti-competitive. Once you look at it, it’s incredibly pro-competitive. It increases output, it increases jobs, and it lowers the cost to the consumers. If you actually try to block this deal, you’re going to harm consumers, you’re going to harm creative talent, because you’re going to harm the creative ecosystem — the vision that David [Ellison] is trying to deploy here. It’s transformative from the efficiencies that it creates.

David Ellison has promised to release 30 films a year. Was that commitment to show that this merger will not be a repeat of Walt Disney Co.’s 2019 purchase of Fox?

I’m quite familiar with that one because I was at the Justice Department and reviewed it. Disney-Fox was a transaction with a different thesis. Disney wanted to get into streaming and they wanted to get scripted series. It wasn’t about studios trying to increase output.

Our transaction, as David has described, is motivated to create more content to feed the theaters, then streaming. We have a natural economic incentive to create more content. We’ll still be in fourth place after this transaction on the streaming side — almost half the size of Netflix.

David Ellison hasn’t made any commitments on the television side or pledged pledge to keep the various TV studios intact. Why?

I don’t think there’s much of an overlap on the television studios. Look, you have incredible studios in HBO, Warner Bros. Television, certainly our own studio. We’re not paying money to limit supply. It’s the exact opposite.

There is overlap between CBS News and CNN. How are regulators looking at that issue?

We’re very proud of CBS News and hopefully CNN, post-transaction. There is very limited overlap. Why? Because CBS News only airs a few hours a week of programming whereas CNN is 24/7, and it has international reach.

Antitrust regulators are going to see that it’s going to create synergistic effects. You might be able to cross-program and more people will be exposed to the incredible programming of CBS News. They’ll benefit from each other’s independent strengths.

During the first Trump administration, you said merger conditions were problematic because it’s difficult for the government to enforce behavioral remedies. Has your thinking changed?

No, I’ve been quite consistent. If there’s an antitrust problem, you need a divestiture [selling assets]. I don’t think there’s a remedy needed in this transaction. But having said that, we’re happy to engage with regulators to discuss where they see a problem and a possible solution. We’re always wanting to engage in constructive dialogue.

Would Paramount spin off CNN?

I don’t see that. I can’t see any antitrust reason to do so. That would be a weaponization of the antitrust law, and that would not be appropriate.

Many people in Hollywood view the merger with trepidation because of the prospect of more job losses. Others see it through a political lens. How do you evaluate the politics?

Politics is part of life. It’s part of the beautiful process of democracy. Generally, we are very empathetic to the folks in Hollywood, but this transaction will actually create more and better and exciting jobs. David is an absolute lover of films; he’s a filmmaker himself. For the first time, you are getting an owner who comes from the creative side.

Let’s be honest. There’s a lot of fear-mongering, particularly from people in Washington, D.C. They are running a political campaign. Some of these people are trying to inflict harm on this transaction really because of their own antisemitic views. Regulators and law enforcement officials will see right through that.

Do regulators share others’ concerns about the merger debt — $79 billion — for the combined company?

Some regulators appropriately have asked about it. They say: ‘This is what we have heard, that you guys are not going to be around because of this debt,’ which is just silliness. David and his family are owner-operators. They’re not rented CEOs. They have over 50% ownership. They put their money at stake and my money is on them.

WASHINGTON — The congressman returned home last Fourth of July to startling stories in Southern California as immigration patrols swept through communities, and one constituent told him about starting to carry a passport as proof of the right to be in the country.

Rep. Mark Takano, whose American-born parents were both incarcerated as young children with their families during the forced relocation of Japanese Americans during World War II, could not help but see the parallels between that chapter of American history and this one.

“I do feel like there’s a similarity of circumstance of my own 2-year-old father and my 1-year-old mother being labeled as enemy aliens and they’re considered a danger to national security,” the Riverside Democrat told the Associated Press in a recent interview.

“They’re put into these incarceration camps,” he said. “Similar arguments have been made by this administration — that immigrants pose a grave danger to our country and it’s for the security of our country that we’re doing this.”

Echoes of history

President Trump’s campaign to achieve the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history is at an inflection point. Americans are seeing what it looks like to round up, detain and deport thousands of people, particularly in the aftermath of the deaths this year of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, U.S. citizens protesting the federal crackdown in Minneapolis.

The White House changed the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security as it reframes its approach. New Secretary Markwayne Mullin promised to keep the department off the front pages.

But Trump is also under mounting pressure from conservative groups not to let up on the goal of deporting 1 million people a year. The president’s Republican allies in Congress are fueling the immigration and deportation actions with billions of dollars in special funds.

Takano, the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, has drawn from his own family history — and the country’s eventual redress to Japanese Americans who were detained — to challenge Trump’s approach.

“We look back on that era of history as a shameful one, as a time when our political leaders failed the Constitution, failed the American people,” he said.

One family’s story among many

A high school history teacher before being elected to Congress in 2012, Takano grew up in Southern California and came to understand the family stories.

His grandfather Isao Takano arrived in the U.S. from Hiroshima and married Kazue Takahashi, a U.S.-born citizen. Together they settled in Bellevue, Wash., and started a business growing tomatoes, strawberries and chrysanthemums for the marketplace in Seattle.

When the U.S. entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, they were among some 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, immigrants and those born in the U.S., forcibly relocated.

His father, William, was 2 years old when his family was sent in 1942 to the incarceration camp at Tule Lake in Central California. His mother, Nancy Tsugiye Sakamoto, born in California to American-born parents, was a year old when she was relocated to the detention facility in Heart Mountain, Wyo.

Then, as now, he said, people are being swept up in the anti-immigrant detentions.

“Will Americans generations from now visit ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ and think to themselves, how could our government do this?” Takano said during a House floor speech, referring to the Trump administration’s immigration detention facility in Florida.

“These future generations of Americans will look to us, the Congress, to see what we did to try to stop it.”

A Reagan-era law seen as model

Takano remembers his father taking him to see the land the family once owned. He learned about his great-uncles who served in the Army’s 442nd Regimental Combat Team of Japanese American soldiers; one was killed in action in Italy. He recalls his own father later collected donations for the national redress campaign.

In 1988 Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act, which sought to apologize for the “grave injustice” that had been done and provide $20,000 to each person detained. President Reagan signed it into law.

Takano’s parents were among those who received a letter of apology from the federal government, he said, and a payment.

Talks are underway among some in Congress, he said, for a similar redress to the people who have had their car windows smashed in, their homes raided and livelihoods upended as part of Trump’s immigration enforcement operations.

“Remarkably the country did come to realize the mistake,” he said. “I believe we’re living through one of those eras of mistakes, and I believe we can come out of this moment stronger.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Walt Disney Co.’s ABC has filed renewal applications with the Federal Communications Commission “under protest” after an order mandating a years-early review of the network’s eight television station licenses.

The criticism was part of the network’s applications for the FCC review, which were filed ahead of a deadline Thursday. In an objection to the early renewal, Disney’s New York station WABC called the FCC order “unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional” and said it was “legally indefensible.”

“The Commission had not demanded early renewal in over five decades,” the station wrote in its filing. “And it has never before demanded simultaneous license renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a network as it has here. The order has no legitimate purpose.”

The licenses for the eight ABC-owned TV stations, including KABC in Los Angeles, were originally scheduled for renewal between 2028 and 2031.

The FCC order came shortly after ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about First Lady Melania Trump looking like an “expectant widow” days before a gunman tried to breach the White House Correspondents’ Assn. gala last month that President Trump attended.

Trump has frequently threatened to have TV station licenses pulled when he is unhappy with their coverage, but the order is the first time the government has acted on his wishes, sparking anger from free speech advocates. The FCC has said the order is part of an investigation into whether Disney’s diversity and inclusion policies violate federal law and the agency’s rules against “unlawful discrimination.”

In its response, WABC said the “only plausible reason” to issue the order was to “punish the station for speech the government does not like.”

“The ultimate injury here is not to the station or its parent company. It is to the public,” WABC wrote. “When a broadcaster must weigh regulatory retaliation before making editorial decisions, the public loses access to journalism that is free from government influence.”

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said in a statement Thursday that Disney filed its applications to renew its broadcast licenses only after the company was told its previous answers were “disingenuous, deficient and improper.”

“Contrary to Disney’s claim that the FCC called in their broadcast licenses for early renewal for no reason, the record shows something very different,” Carr said. “Broadcast licensees have a unique obligation to operate in the public interest. The FCC will follow the facts and law wherever they may lead.”

FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the panel’s only Democrat who has backed Disney in its fight, cheered the Burbank media and entertainment company’s filing, saying in a post on X that she was “glad to see them expose the FCC’s actions as nothing more than naked political retribution and an unlawful assault on free speech and a free press.”

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its yearly term facing decisions on birthright citizenship, gun rights, transgender athletes and President Trump’s power over independent agencies.

Unlike in years past, the term’s most significant rulings were not left for the last week in June.

The court dealt Trump a major defeat in February by striking down his sweeping worldwide tariffs. The president is likely to suffer a second defeat when the justices reject his plan to revise the citizenship laws via an executive order.

Republicans won when the court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that favored a Black Democrat.

That decision has already shifted several congressional districts toward the GOP, but its greatest impact will be seen in 2028 and 2030.

Republicans are likely to prevail in two other pending cases.

One would free party committees to raise and spend more money to support their candidates. A second would change state laws to bar counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day.

The justices have 26 cases waiting to be decided before they go on a summer recess. Here are the major cases due for decision:

Trump and birthright citizenship

Does the 14th Amendment of 1868 mean what it says about who is a citizen?

It declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court upheld that understanding in 1898, ruling that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen at birth. Congress adopted birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952.

But on his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the newborns of parents who in the country unlawfully or temporarily on a student, work or tourist visa.

Judges blocked the order from taking effect, and in April, the justices gave a skeptical hearing to Trump’s lawyers as the president sat in the gallery.

The best outcome for Trump would be a ruling that rejects his executive order based on U.S. immigration law alone. Although a defeat, that could in theory permit Congress to revise the law and deny citizenship to the newborns of so-called “birth tourists.” (Trump vs. Barbara)

Guns and drugs

Can the government make it a crime for “habitual users of unlawful drugs” to have a gun, or does that violate 2nd Amendment rights?

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Texas case struck down this provision as unconstitutional, except for someone who is “under an impairing influence” of drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Trump administration appealed and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law against “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” including regular users of marijuana. (U.S. vs. Hemani)

In a second gun rights case, the court will decide whether Hawaii, California and three other states led by Democrats may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses open to the public unless they have the “express authorization” of the owners. (Wolford vs. Lopez)

Transgender athletes and school sports

Can states maintain separate sports teams for boys and girls “based on biological sex determined at birth” or does excluding transgender girls violate the Title IX law or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

The justices heard appeals from West Virginia and Idaho after lower courts ruled they had discriminated against transgender girls, and most of them sounded ready to rule for the states.

The only question was whether the court will rule narrowly to uphold laws in the red states or go further to decide how Title IX applies nationwide. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. and Little vs. Hecox)

Trump and independent agencies

Can the president fire the leaders of special agencies who were given a fixed term by Congress?

For most of American history, Congress created new boards or commissions with a specific mission, such as regulating railroad rates in the 1880s or nuclear power in the 1970s. By law, these agencies are led by a bipartisan board of experts who had a fixed term and could be fired only for cause.

But Trump and the court’s conservatives believe the president has the executive authority to control the government and to fire agency officials — but with one exception. The majority wants to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. (Trump vs. Slaughter)

Separately, the court will rule on whether Trump had the power to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause. He alleged she engaged in mortgage fraud and dismissed her in a social media post. The justices blocked her removal and sounded ready to rule she deserved due process of law and a full hearing to contest the allegations. (Trump vs. Cook)

Temporary Protected Status

Can the Trump administration cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitians and Syrians who are living and working in this country?

In 1990, Congress created this protected status for foreign nationals who could not return home safely because of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The Obama administration extended protection to Haitians and Syrians. Last year, Trump’s then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate it, but judges blocked her orders because it was still dangerous and unsafe in those countries.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued the law forbids “judicial review” of these executive decisions. (Mullin vs. Doe)

Campaign funds and political parties

Do the 50-year-old limits on how much political party committees can raise and spend to directly support their candidates violate the 1st Amendment?

During the Watergate era, Congress adopted limits on money in political campaigns, but the court has struck down the spending limits on free speech grounds. Left standing were the limits on direct contributions to candidates, including from political parties.

Republicans led by then-Sen. JD Vance sued, arguing the party limits were outdated and unwise in an era when super PACs are free to spend huge sums on campaigns. (National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC)

The court also will rule on the GOP’s bid to strike down laws in California and most states that allow for counting mail ballots that were postmarked by election day but arrive a few days later. (Watson vs. Republican National Committee)