president trump

WASHINGTON — As President Trump assembled his Cabinet last week, he asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance to give an update on the Iran war.

Rubio, known for his hawkish views, gave an impassioned defense of the war, calling it “a favor” to the United States and the world.

Vance, who has long pushed for restraint in U.S. military intervention overseas, was more sedate. He said that the U.S. now has “options” it didn’t have a year ago and that it is important Iran does not get a nuclear weapon — before redirecting his remarks toward wishing the troops a happy Easter.

The exchange was a distillation of their diverging postures toward the war that their boss has launched in Iran. And it comes as some would-be Republican presidential candidates begin quietly courting officials in key states like New Hampshire in the early stages of the GOP’s next nomination fight.

With Vance and Rubio seen as the party’s strongest potential candidates in a 2028 primary, the two have to balance their roles in the Trump administration with their future political plans.

“It’s very obvious from the way that Rubio talks about Iran and the way that Vance talks about Iran that they are of different casts of mind,” said Curt Mills, the executive director of “The American Conservative” magazine and a vocal critic of the war. The Cabinet meeting episode was telling, he said, because it seemed as though Vance, discussing Easter, was “literally trying to talk about anything else other than the war.”

The White House addressed the Rubio-Vance relationship on Wednesday in an unsolicited statement after the initial publication of this article.

“President Trump has full confidence in both Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio, who continue to be trusted voices within the administration,” said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly. “He values both the vice president and the secretary’s opinions and wealth of expertise.”

It’s too soon to forecast how Republican voters might feel about the war next spring, when the 2028 contest is expected to begin in earnest, but the risks for both Vance and Rubio are acute. Rubio’s full-throated support for the war could come back to haunt him depending on how the conflict develops. Vance, meanwhile, would risk accusations of disloyalty if he were to stray too far from Trump, but struggles to square an appearance of support for the war with his past comments.

Vance, who served in the Marines in the Iraq war, has said that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, but he’s long been skeptical of foreign military interventions.

Trump seemed to allude that Vance may have held onto that position in private discussions about Iran, telling reporters that Vance was “philosophically a little bit different than me” at the outset of the conflict.

“I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic,” Trump said.

Though Vance has been careful in how he speaks about the war, what he’s not saying has been conspicuous. On a March 13 trip to North Carolina, he was twice asked by reporters if he had concerns about the conflict. Each time, he said it was important that Trump could have conversations with advisers “without his team then running their mouths to the American media.”

A few days later at the White House, when Vance was again asked if he had concerns, he accused the reporter of “trying to drive a wedge between members of the administration, between me and the president.”

For Rubio, long before he became the country’s chief diplomat, he voiced support for muscular foreign policy and American intervention abroad.

Days into the war, he told reporters that it was “a wise decision” for Trump to launch the operation, that there “absolutely was an imminent threat” from Iran and that the operation “needed to happen.”

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott pointed to last week’s Cabinet meeting as evidence that “the entire administration is in lockstep behind President Trump.”

“Secretary Rubio is proud to be on the team implementing President Trump’s policies, and he has a great relationship, both professionally and personally, with the entire team,” Pigott said.

Fractures are emerging in the GOP

The apparent split between Rubio and Vance on the Iran war is emblematic of the divide starting to cleave within the Republican Party. A recent survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found some divisions within the GOP on Iran, with about half of Republicans saying the U.S. military action has been “about right.” Relatively few Republicans, about 2 in 10, say military action has not gone far enough, while about one-quarter say it’s gone too far.

While some conservatives have described the war as a betrayal, many other Republicans have cheered on the president’s actions.

Alice Swanson, a 62-year-old who attended Vance’s event in North Carolina, said she wants Vance and Rubio to run together in 2028 but favors the vice president.

“I think he fully believes and supports exactly what his convictions are,” Swanson said.

Swanson acknowledged, nonetheless, that Vance has been an outspoken opponent of interventionist policy but has been quieter on the subject since the war. “I can see both sides,” Swanson said after expressing full support for Trump’s decisions.

Tracy Brill, a 62-year-old from Rocky Mount, spoke highly of Rubio, but declared, “I love JD Vance.”

She made it clear she sides with the president, calling the course he’s taken “spot on.” But she defended the vice president if he seems at odds with his past statements, noting politicians do it frequently. “They’ve all changed their positions at one point or another,” she said.

However, Joe Ropar, attending the Conservative Political Action Conference last week, said Rubio’s unequivocal support for the Iran war helped crystallize his preference for the secretary of state for 2028.

“I’m not looking at JD Vance for president, and it’s for stuff like that,” said Ropar, a 72-year-old retired military contractor from McKinney, Texas. “I don’t 100% trust him.”

Benjamin Williams, of Austin, Texas, said at CPAC that both Trump and Vance are “tied to this war.” The 25-year-old marketing specialist for Young Americans for Liberty is looking elsewhere for a candidate.

The political risks might not be known until the field fills out

Whether the war becomes a political problem for Vance and Rubio depends on who ultimately enters the GOP’s next presidential primary.

While Vance and Rubio are currently considered the overwhelming front-runners, former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu expects a half dozen high-profile Republicans to enter the contest.

Sununu and former RNC Committeewoman Juliana Bergeron told The Associated Press that multiple Republican presidential prospects have reached out to them in recent weeks to discuss the political landscape in the state that traditionally hosts the opening presidential primary; they declined to name them.

Republican strategist Jim Merrill, a top New Hampshire adviser for Rubio’s 2016 presidential bid, predicted that Iran would become a flashpoint in 2028 — just as the Iraq war was for Democrats in 2004 and 2008.

“If for some reason things don’t go as anticipated, there will be contrasts drawn,” he said.

Still, Sununu is doubtful that Iran would become a meaningful dividing line in a prospective Vance-Rubio matchup given their status as prominent members of the Trump administration. Both will likely take credit if the conflict ends well, and both would look bad if it does not, he predicted.

“They’re tied together with the success or failure of Iran. It doesn’t really separate one versus the other, at least I don’t think that’s how the electorate will see it,” Sununu said.

Price and Peoples write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York. AP writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Bill Barrow in Rocky Mount, N.C., and Thomas Beaumont in Grapevine, Texas, contributed to this report.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s effort to dramatically change the criteria to get tens of millions of dollars in funding to aid homeless people was unlawful.

Several nonprofits filed a lawsuit last year accusing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of changing the rules for receiving $75 million to build housing for homeless families and individuals. The plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of issuing a new Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO, for the Continuum of Care program to better align with its social policies.

U.S District Judge Mary McElroy, nominated by President Trump, said the department’s “slapdash imposition of political whims” was unlawful and she ordered it to scrap the new policy.

“Once again, this Court is faced with a case in which an executive agency has made a last-minute decision to make major, disruptive changes to grants within its purview, all for the express purpose of accomplishing the current administration’s policy objectives,” McElroy said in her ruling that the NOFO violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

A spokesperson for HUD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Advocates for plaintiffs welcomed the ruling.

“For more than three decades, the federal government has supported housing providers and communities through HUD’s programs to help people experiencing homelessness move into stable housing,” Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “We are pleased that the court has stopped the Trump-Vance administration from holding life-saving funding hostage to a political agenda.”

Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, said the ruling was “a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs.”

“Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means,” Oliva said in a statement.

Plaintiffs argued the Trump administration was aiming to upend polices in place for decades to satisfy its political considerations, including whether jurisdictions “support sanctuary protections, harm reduction practices, or inclusive policies for transgender people.”

The Alliance and the Women’s Development Corporation argued that HUD lacked the authority to make the changes, adding that the new award process was “shockingly unlawful” and would “irreparably injure qualified applicants for these funds and the communities they serve.”

In its court filings, HUD argued the new criteria was an effort “to ensure the availability of funding to protect our Nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families from the trauma of homelessness while simultaneously promoting self-sufficiency.”

“Defendants acted reasonably and prudently because the NOFO conditions, focusing on public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and prohibitions on illegal drug use, are sufficiently related to the funding goals of self-sufficiency and reduction of trauma,” HUD wrote.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — TMZ built its brand tracking celebrities. Now it’s turning its attention to Congress, chasing down paparazzi-style shots of lawmakers on break from Washington during a record-long partial government shutdown.

Videos and photos posted by the tabloid website showing lawmakers in airports, Las Vegas and even Disney World have racked up millions of views and fueled a growing backlash. With travel disruptions persisting and some federal workers going without pay, pressure is mounting on Congress to cut short its regularly scheduled recess.

Beyond TMZ, President Trump also wants lawmakers to come back, even hinting he might invoke rarely used powers to call Congress into session.

Still, it’s not clear what a return would accomplish, with the 45-day partial government shutdown at a deeper impasse than ever. The Senate reached a bipartisan funding deal last week, but House Speaker Mike Johnson rejected it, and House Republicans passed their own version before heading for the exits.

“I’m not sure that we’d come,” Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said Monday when asked about members being called back. “And I’m not sure that there would be any difference from what’s happened so far.”

On recess — and on camera

As lawmakers headed out of Washington last week, the celebrity-gossip outlet TMZ put out a call.

“TMZ is on the hunt for photos of politicians on vacay as TSA officers suffer!” the outlet said in a social media post.

The focus from TMZ — an outlet known more for capturing unflattering footage of celebrities than digging into the nuances of federal policy — was the latest example of how politics is being fueled by viral images and populist sentiment.

Videos quickly followed, showing senators moving through airports — often attempting to shield themselves from cameras — with provocative headlines layered on top. The clips racked up millions of views.

The outlet didn’t stop there. Photos of lawmakers on vacation soon followed, including viral images of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham at Disney World with captions such as: “Lindsey Graham lives it up at Disney World during the partial government shutdown!”

Graham said that he had been in Florida for a meeting with Trump administration officials and had made a stop at Disney World with a friend. He also blamed Democrats for the shutdown.

Another widely shared post showed Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia in Las Vegas.

“Actually I don’t mind what TMZ is doing here,” Garcia posted in response, adding that he was visiting his father. “Like I said a few days ago, Speaker Mike Johnson should have never sent us all home.”

The effort grew out of frustration, said TMZ executive producer Harvey Levin, after the outlet interviewed a TSA worker struggling due to missed paychecks during the shutdown.

“It outraged us so much we wanted to use our platforms to show how Congress — Dems AND Republicans — have betrayed us,” Levin said in a statement.

He added that lawmakers shouldn’t expect the coverage to end anytime soon.

“Several months ago we decided to amp up our presence and our voice,” Levin said. “We now have a producer and a photog circulating in the Capitol, showing the intersection between politics and pop culture.”

Pressure mounts on Congress to return

The backlash playing out online is fueling other pressure as well. Trump has called on Congress to return. He spoke with Senate Majority Leader John Thune on Sunday and Monday, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said he has urged leadership to cancel recess “repeatedly.”

“He’ll host a big Easter dinner here at the White House if Congress will come back,” she added.

So far, Republican leadership has not blinked, raising questions about how much pressure Trump will ultimately apply — and whether he would be willing to concede ground to Democrats to end the shutdown.

Unions are adding to that pressure.

“To leave Washington while tens of thousands of workers are going without pay shows a clear lack of respect for the essential employees tasked with keeping our nation safe,” said Hydrick Thomas, president of the American Federation of Government Employees TSA Council 100.

Although vacation snapshots have stirred outrage, recess is also an opportunity for lawmakers to reconnect with constituents back home. Some hold town hall events. Others go on trips abroad, such as joining a delegation to Taiwan.

Why the funding impasse won’t be easy to solve

Even if lawmakers return to Washington, there isn’t an easy way out of the funding impasse.

Senators already labored for weeks to try to find agreement on Democrats’ demand that any funding for the Department of Homeland Security come with restrictions on how federal immigration agents conduct enforcement. In vote after failed vote, Democrats showed they wouldn’t budge.

As the partial government shutdown extended to the longest in U.S. history, the Senate settled on a last-ditch effort to fund most of DHS while leaving out money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol.

But that deal was rejected by Johnson in the House, who instead pushed through a bill to extend DHS funding on a party-line vote. The collapse of the bipartisan agreement has soured the mood for negotiations and left lawmakers pointing fingers.

“There’s no point in calling us back because that was the result of a conscious choice by the Republican majority,” said Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told Fox News on Tuesday that the House can come back “on a moment’s notice,” but “the Senate has to do their job and help us on this heavy lift.”

But Thune, a South Dakota Republican, has been clear that he sees no way to get a DHS funding bill through the Senate with its 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation, known as the filibuster.

Still, Thune is coming under renewed pressure to find a way past the funding impasse — with calls from Trump and some conservatives to get rid of the filibuster.

That’s unlikely to work either because of a handful of Republican senators who have made it clear they won’t vote to change the Senate’s rules. Still, Trump told reporters Sunday night that, “They should terminate the filibuster and they should vote.”

Sen. Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, agreed. He said on social media that he thinks one of the only options for the Senate is to “nuke the filibuster and pass everything.”

“Inaction is unacceptable,” he added.

Cappelletti and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Wednesday became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court, inserting himself directly into a high-stakes legal battle over one of the most consequential orders of his administration.

Trump arrived at the court Wednesday morning by limousine for arguments over whether the president has the authority to effectively rewrite the Constitution by ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are in the country unlawfully or temporarily.

In the run-up to Wednesday’s arguments, Trump suggested that Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans who have ruled against his agenda are “so stupid.”

“Some people would call it stupidity; some people will call it disloyal,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

“Dumb Judges and Justices will not a great Country make!” the president wrote on Truth Social on Monday.

The unprecedented appearance highlights how high Trump believes the stakes are, according to Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA.

“It’s not clear why Trump is attending,” Winkler said. “Maybe he is just interested in the unusual drama of a Supreme Court argument. Or perhaps he is trying to intimidate the justices, like the scene in ‘The Godfather Part II’ where the mob boss shows up at a hearing to scare the witness into recanting his testimony.”

Regardless, Trump’s presence probably won’t change any minds on the bench, Winkler said.

The justices prize their independence, including many who share Trump’s judicial philosophy. Still, it will likely change the mood, Winkler said — most hearings are quiet and academic.

The birthright citizenship order, which Trump signed on the first day of his second term, is a keystone of his administration’s broad immigration crackdown.

Trump has framed the policy as a necessary step to curb what he describes as abuse of the immigration system.

“Birthright Citizenship is not about rich people from China, and the rest of the World, who want their children, and hundreds of thousands more, FOR PAY, to ridiculously become citizens of the United States of America. It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”

Every lower court that has considered the issue has found the order illegal and prevented it from taking effect. A definitive ruling by the nation’s highest court is expected by early summer.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear President Trump’s claim that he has the power to revise the Constitution and to end birthright citizenship for babies born in this country to parents who were here unlawfully or temporarily.

Trump proposed this potentially far-reaching change in an executive order. It has been blocked by judges across the country and has never been in effect.

His lawyers contend they seek to correct a 160-year misunderstanding about the Constitution’s promise that “all persons born” in this country are deemed to be citizens.

The president’s executive order “restores the original meaning of the citizenship clause” and would deny “on a prospective basis only” citizenship to the “children of temporarily present aliens and illegal aliens,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal.

But the first hurdle for Trump and his lawyers may concern the powers of the president.

In February, the court blocked Trump’s sweeping worldwide tariffs on the grounds the Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to impose import taxes.

By comparison, the president has even less power to set the rules for U.S. citizenship. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

After the Civil War, Congress adopted a civil rights act in 1866 that said “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, including Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States … of every race and color.”

To make sure that rule stood over time, it was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. Its opening line says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In 1898, a conservative Supreme Court upheld that rule and affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark. He was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who later returned to China.

“The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory,” the court said. “In clear words and in manifest intent, [it] includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color.”

In 1952, when Congress revised the immigration laws, it added the same provision without controversy. Lawmakers set multiple rules for deciding disputes over American parents who live abroad, but the first rule was simple and undisputed.

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the law said.

Critics say Trump’s plan could replace a clear and simple rule with a confusing and complicated one. States would have to look into the history and legal status of a newborn’s parents to decide whether they met the new qualifications.

Until now, a valid birth certificate had been sufficient to establish a person’s U.S. citizenship.

Last week, Trump was urging Senate Republicans to pass a new election law that would require millions of Americans to present a birth certificate as proof of their citizenship if they register to vote or move to a new state.

“Proving citizenship to vote is a no brainer,” the White House said.

This week, however, Trump’s lawyers are urging the court to rule that their birth in this country is not proof of their citizenship.

There is a “logical inconsistency” here,” said Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center.

In the legal battle now before the court, the key disputed phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction.” That has been understood to mean that people within the United States are subject to the laws here, except for foreign diplomats and, for a time, Native Americans who lived on tribal reservations.

But Sauer contends it excludes newborns who are “not completely subject to the United States’ political jurisdiction” because their parents are in this country unlawfully.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union called this a “radical rewriting” of the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about the parents of a newborn child.

If upheld, this order could apply to “tens of thousands of children born every month, “ they said, “devastating families around the country.” But worse yet, they said, the outcome “would cast a shadow over the citizenship of millions upon millions of Americans, going back generations.”

Some legal experts predict the court may rule narrowly and reject Trump’s executive order because it conflicts with federal immigration laws. Such a ruling would be a defeat for Trump, but it could allow Congress in the future to adopt new provisions, including a limit for expectant mothers who enter this country to give birth.

WASHINGTON — Two-thirds of California voters disapprove of President Trump’s immigration policies and a majority believe those policies are discriminating against Latinos, according to a new poll.

Nearly half of the voters said they were concerned that they, a family member or a close friend could be detained because of Trump’s immigration policies.

The findings of the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll, released Wednesday, show that most Californians haven’t budged on their thoughts about the president’s approach to immigration since he returned to office. A poll last August similarly showed strong disapproval of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.

The poll, which was conducted for the Los Angeles Times, showed the usual division along party lines when voters were asked whether they trust the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whether agents should wear masks while on duty, and whether Latinos are being discriminated against.

“This suggests that a significant number of voters see ICE infringement on the individual rights of the undocumented as also potentially leading to broader infringements on citizens’ rights,” said G. Cristina Mora, co-director of the institute and a sociology professor at UC Berkeley who studies race and immigration.

“Latino voters also seem to particularly worry about the way that racism is motivating current immigration practices,” she said, which is likely tied to the Supreme Court’s approval of immigration agents detaining people on the basis of their perceived race, ethnicity, language or occupation.

The overall disapproval among voters of Trump’s immigration policies — 64% — was down a bit from the August poll, in which 69% of respondents said they disapproved of how immigration enforcement was being carried out in California.

Republicans appear to be more approving of immigration policies now, with 86% saying they approve of Trump’s immigration policies — up from 79% approval of enforcement in California last August.

Mora said the tilt among California Republicans toward the Trump administration could be due, in part, to the framing of the question, which asked about “President Trump’s immigration policies.”

Any time Trump’s name is included, Republicans are more likely to agree with him, she said. The same effect is seen when asking about other issues, such as the economy.

Another factor could be the timing, Mora said. Last summer, federal agents conducted widespread raids in Los Angeles before moving on to target other cities, such as Chicago and Minneapolis.

Now that the administration has shifted away from some tactics that resulted in escalations of violence, Republicans are “falling in line” again with the administration, she said.

“My hunch is it was shocking,” Mora said of the immigration raids last summer. “Things have normalized because the tension is somewhere else.”

Seeking to de-escalate after two protesters were shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis, the president tapped his border advisor Tom Homan to take control of the immigration enforcement operation there.

Republican strategist Ford O’Connell said that’s why voters are more supportive.

“Tom Homan being in charge and publicly taking a much lighter touch and appearing reasonable to the average voter is why you’re seeing this turnaround,” he said.

But Democratic strategist Maria Cardona said that that’s wishful thinking and that ICE’s approach hasn’t substantially changed.

“It only went down five points,” she said, referring to the disapproval of Trump’s policies. “That’s not the American people being on the side of the administration — it’s that they’re not seeing American citizens murdered on their screens every day.”

One question saw strong division among Republicans: Should immigration agents be allowed to enter the homes of suspected undocumented immigrants without a judge-approved search warrant?

Among California Republicans, 45% said no, 38% said yes, and 17% said they have no opinion.

O’Connell said that’s because Republicans strongly value civil liberties, especially around property.

Republicans were more strongly in favor of a different policy, allowing ICE agents to wear masks while on duty. While 91% of Democrats opposed the policy, 68% of Republicans favored it.

In the August poll, 45% of Republicans said federal agents should be required to show clear identification when carrying out their work. That desire for identification doesn’t appear to extend to being fully identifiable by face.

O’Connell said Republicans understand the concern over agents increasingly being doxxed.

“The administration wants to find a happy medium there, whether it’s a nameplate or a badge number,” he said. “There is wiggle room.”

Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said they want state and local authorities to intervene when they witness unlawful detentions or excessive use of force by federal immigration agents.

Voters were also asked about their level of concern that they, a family member or a close friend could be detained because of Trump’s immigration policies. While 85% of Republicans said they are not too concerned or not concerned at all, 63% of Democrats said they are somewhat or very concerned.

Overall, nearly half of the respondents, 45%, said they are somewhat or very concerned. Among racial and ethnic groups, 62% of Latino voters, 46% of Black voters and 43% of Asian or Pacific Islander voters said they are somewhat or very concerned.

“The Latino community has always wanted to think the best of this country and they still do,” Cardona said. “Our positivism, our optimism, our hope in a better future is second to none. I think that’s what you’re seeing in those numbers, even as our community feels totally attacked.”

Mora said the high concern among Black residents is notable because, while most Black Californians aren’t immigrants themselves, Los Angeles has one of the largest concentrations of Blaxicans — the children of one Black parent and one Latino parent.

Beyond intermarriages, Black residents in California are also likely to have immigrant friends or neighbors, she said.

O’Connell took a different view: “I don’t think we can glean anything from it other than how one party focuses more on identity politics than the other.”

The Institute of Governmental Studies poll was completed online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15 by 5,109 registered voters in California.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that he expects the United States to end its involvement in the war with Iran within three weeks, declaring there probably will be “no reason” for American forces to stay in the region even as top defense officials maintain Tehran’s military capabilities have not been fully eliminated.

Trump told reporters during an Oval Office event that he is confident the U.S. objectives in the conflict will be largely achieved by then, whether Iran makes a “deal” with the United States or not.

“If they come to the table that will be good, but it doesn’t matter whether they come or not,” Trump said. “We’ve set them back. It will take 15 to 20 years to rebuild what we have done to them.”

Trump added that he believes the threats to the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil route, will be “all cleared up” by the time the U.S. leaves the region. But if issues remain, he said, that will not be a problem for the United States.

“That’s not for us,” he said. “That will be for whoever is using the strait.”

Trump’s comments came hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that, a month into the war, Iran still has the ability to launch offensive missiles, despite ongoing U.S. and Israeli efforts to weaken Tehran’s military capabilities and weapons programs.

“Yes, they will shoot some missiles, but we will shoot them down,” Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, acknowledging the remaining threat.

The comment, made during the first public briefing on the conflict in nearly two weeks, underscored that despite weeks of intensive U.S. military operations and repeated assertions by Trump that Iran’s military has been “obliterated,” the threats posed by Iranian forces have not been fully eliminated.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the briefing that the U.S. military remains focused on “interdicting and destroying” Iran’s weapons warehouses and facilities.

“We’ve continued to do the work against Iran’s missile, drone and naval production facilities,” Caine said.

Although air and naval strikes have been the primary focus so far, U.S. officials have not ruled out the possibility of ground operations as thousands of American soldiers and Marines have begun arriving in the Middle East.

Hegseth said it is up to Trump to determine whether ground operations in Iran will become the next phase in the conflict, which the president has said he is open to ending through diplomatic talks.

Trump repeated over the weekend that Iran is “begging to make a deal” to end the war, but on Monday, the president threatened to target Iran’s power-generating plans and oil wells and even desalination plants if a “deal is not shortly reached.”

President Trump speaking Tuesday in the Oval Office.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday that the administration will “operate within the confines of the law,” when asked about Trump’s threat to target infrastructure that would potentially harm civilians.

Caine told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. would only “strike lawful targets” when asked about American military considerations for civilian targets.

“We are always thinking about those considerations and developing options to be able to mitigate those risks,” Caine said.

Since the start of the war, Iranian officials have condemned a series of U.S. military attacks that have hit schools, including a Feb. 28 strike at an elementary school that killed at least 175 people, many of them children.

As Trump issues a new wave of threats on key infrastructure, he has at the same time touted ongoing diplomatic talks with Iran and reportedly told aides he’s willing to end the war without resolving Iran’s de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz that has rattled global energy markets.

Americans have also felt the financial pinch because of the war when it comes to energy prices. Gasoline prices in the United States reached an average of $4 a gallon Tuesday, a price that Trump says Americans are willing to pay to endure because “they are also feeling a lot safer.”

“All I have to do is leave Iran, and I will be doing that very soon and, [prices] will come tumbling down,” Trump said.

Hegseth, for example, said those diplomatic talks are “very real,” but stressed that the military pressure will continue alongside those negotiations and that ground operations remain an option.

“Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we can come at them with boots on the ground. And guess what? There are,” Hegseth said. “If we needed to, we could execute those options on behalf of the president of the United States and this department, or maybe we don’t have to use them at all. Maybe negotiations will work.”

He said the goal was to remain “unpredictable.” Caine added that the presence of U.S. ground forces in the region can serve as a “pressure point” as diplomatic efforts continue.

As the hostilities continued in the region on Tuesday, the State Department warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia that U.S. officials were “tracking reports of threats against locations where American citizens gather.

“We advise U.S. citizens that hotels and other gathering points including U.S. businesses and U.S. educational institutions may be potential targets,” officials wrote in a new warning.

And in Rome, Pope Leo XIV told reporters that he hopes Trump is “looking for an offramp” to end the war in Iran and made an appeal to “decrease the amount of violence,” according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have faced challenges in securing support from some U.S. allies, an issue that Hegseth and the president have publicly pointed out.

On Tuesday, Trump complained that countries have “refused to get involved” in the war and efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. allies’ access to oil has been affected by Iran’s chokehold on the key waterway as a result of the joint operation launched by U.S. and Israel. But now, Trump wants those countries to deal with the strait.

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump wrote on his social media website.

Trump added that countries will have to “start learning how to fight” for themselves.

“The U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,” Trump wrote. “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

In a separate post, Trump singled out France for barring Israeli military planes from flying over its airspace.

“The USA will REMEMBER!!!” Trump posted on his social media website.

On Tuesday, the Italian and U.K. governments reportedly restricted U.S. warplanes from landing in their military bases.

At the Pentagon, Hegseth acknowledged that the U.S. military has faced “roadblocks or hesitations” from U.S. allies when asking for assistance or use of their bases — and said the president is simply noting that “we don’t have much of an alliance.”

“A lot has been shown to the world about what our allies would be willing to do for the United States of America when we undertake an effort of this scope on behalf of the free world,” Hegseth said.

WASHINGTON — Three fired FBI agents sued on Tuesday to try to get their jobs back, saying in a class-action lawsuit that they were illegally punished for their participation in an investigation into President Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

The federal lawsuit adds to the mounting list of court challenges to a personnel purge by FBI Director Kash Patel that over the last year has resulted in the ousters of dozens of agents, either because of their involvement in investigations related to Trump or because they were perceived as insufficiently loyal to the Republican president’s agenda.

The lawsuit in federal court in Washington was technically filed on behalf of just three agents but may have much broader implications given that its request for class-action status could open the door for agents fired since the start of the Trump administration to get their jobs back.

The three agents — Michelle Ball, Jamie Garman and Blaire Toleman — were fired last October and November in what they say was a “retribution campaign” targeting them for their work on the investigation into Trump. The agents had between eight and 14 years of “exemplary and unblemished” service in the FBI and expected to spend the remainder of their careers at the bureau but were abruptly fired without cause and without being given a chance to respond, the lawsuit says.

“Serving the American people as FBI agents was the highest honor of our lives,” they said in a statement. “We took an oath to uphold the Constitution, followed the facts wherever they led and never compromised our integrity. Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement.”

Trump’s indictment

The investigation the agents worked on culminated in a 2023 indictment from special counsel Jack Smith that accused Trump of illegally scheming to undo the results of the presidential election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020. Smith ultimately abandoned that case, along with a separate one accusing Trump of illegally retaining classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., after Trump won back the White House in 2024, citing Justice Department legal opinions that prohibit the federal indictments of sitting presidents.

The lawsuit notes that the firings followed the release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of documents about the election investigation — known as Arctic Frost — that he said had come from within the FBI. Those records included files showing that Smith’s team had subpoenaed several days of phone records of some Republican lawmakers, an investigative step that angered Trump allies inside Congress.

The complaint names as defendants Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, accusing them of having orchestrated the firings despite being “personally embroiled” either as witnesses or attorneys in some of the legal troubles Trump has faced.

Patel, for instance, was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury investigating Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago and had his phone records subpoenaed, while Bondi was part of the legal team that represented Trump at his first impeachment trial, which resulted in his acquittal.

“And now, by virtue of presidential appointment to the pinnacle of federal law enforcement, Defendants are abusing their positions to claim victories that eluded them on the merits,” the lawsuit states.

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. Patel and Bondi have said the fired agents and prosecutors who worked on Smith’s team were responsible for weaponizing federal law enforcement, a claim that was also asserted in their termination letters but that the plaintiffs call defamatory and baseless.

Fired agents call for ‘fundamental constitutional protections’

Dan Eisenberg, a lawyer for the agents, said in a statement that his clients were fired without any investigation, notice of charges or chance to be heard.

“This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm fundamental constitutional protections for FBI employees, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear or favor. We all benefit when law enforcement officers’ only loyalty is to facts and the truth,” said Eisenberg, who is with the firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel.

The lawsuit asks for the agents to be reinstated to their positions and for a court declaration affirming that their rights had been violated. It also seeks to represent a class of at least 50 agents who have been terminated since Jan. 20, 2025, or will be. Those agents also stand to recover their jobs in the event the case is successful and the requested class-action status is granted.

Others have been fired too

Other fired employees who have sued include agents who were photographed kneeling during a racial justice protest in 2020; an agent trainee who displayed an LGBTQ+ flag at his workspace; and a group of senior officials, including the former acting director of the FBI, who were terminated last summer.

The firings have continued, with Patel last month pushing out a group of agents in the Washington field office who had been involved in investigating Trump’s hoarding of classified documents. Trump has insisted he was entitled to keep the documents when he left the White House and has claimed without evidence that he had declassified them.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

NASHVILLE — The crews of two AH-64 Apache helicopters that hovered next to Kid Rock’s swimming pool while he clapped and saluted Saturday have been suspended from flying pending an investigation of their actions, a U.S. Army spokesperson said Tuesday.

The suspension is a discretionary, but not unusual, step when an investigation is underway, Maj. Montrell Russell said.

“The Army has confirmed that on March 28, two Apache helicopters from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell conducted a flight in the Nashville area that has attracted public and media attention,” according to a statement from the Army on Tuesday. The Army is reviewing “the circumstances surrounding the mission, including compliance with relevant FAA regulations, aviation safety protocol, and approval requirements.”

Kid Rock, an entertainer who is an outspoken supporter of President Trump, told WKRN-TV on Monday that it’s not uncommon for helicopters from nearby Ft. Campbell to fly near his home. He said he is a big supporter of the military and he’s performed for troops overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries.

“I think they know this is a pretty friendly spot,” he said. He noted that at Thanksgiving he was at Ft. Campbell, a sprawling Army base on the Tennessee-Kentucky border, with Vice President JD Vance. “I’ve talked to some of these pilots. I’ve told them, ‘You guys see me waving when you come by the house?’ I’m like, ‘You guys are always welcome to cruise by my house, any time,’” he said.

Kid Rock posted two short videos Saturday on social media. Each shows a helicopter hovering alongside his swimming pool while the entertainer claps, salutes and raises his fist in the air. One post included a caption by Kid Rock disparaging Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent Trump critic.

In the videos, Kid Rock stands next to a replica of the Statue of Liberty and a sign by the pool that reads, “The Southern White House.” His home on a hill overlooking Nashville was built to resemble the White House.

The helicopters were on a training mission when they stopped by Kid Rock’s house, said Maj. Jonathon Bless, public affairs officer for the 101st Airborne Division. The helicopters also flew over a “No Kings” protest against Trump in downtown Nashville, but Bless said their presence had nothing to do with the protest.

Kid Rock said he thought it was “really cool” that they stopped to hover at his house.

“If it makes their day a little brighter for their service to our country, protecting us, I think that’s a great thing,” he said.

Asked about possible repercussions for the crews, he said, “I think they’re going to be all right. My buddy’s the commander in chief.”

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Trump administration to suspend its construction of a $400 million ballroom where it demolished the East Wing of the White House, barring construction work from proceeding without congressional approval.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington granted a preservationist group’s request for a preliminary injunction that temporarily halts President Trump’s White House ballroom project.

Leon, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” the judge wrote.

Leon suspended enforcement of his order for 14 days, acknowledging that the case “raises novel and weighty issues, that halting an ongoing construction project “may raise logistical issues.” He also recognized that the administration is likely to appeal his decision.

The judge ruled that any construction work that’s necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House is exempt from the scope of the injunction. Leon said he reviewed material that the government privately submitted to him before concluding that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security.

Trump, in a social media post, criticized the trust for suing him over a project that he said is being built at no cost to taxpayers. “Doesn’t make much sense, does it?” he wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

The preservationists sued to obtain an order pausing the ballroom project until it undergoes multiple independent reviews and receives congressional approval.

The White House announced the ballroom project over the summer. By late October, Trump had demolished the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that he said would fit 999 people. The White House said private donations, including from Trump himself, would pay for the planned construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom.

Trump proceeded with the project before seeking input from a pair of federal review panels, the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts. Trump has stocked both commissions with allies.

On Feb. 26, Leon rejected the preservationist group’s initial bid to temporarily halt the ballroom’s construction. He said the privately funded group had based its challenge on a “ragtag group” of legal theories and would have a better chance of success if it amended the lawsuit, which it did.

The administration has said above-ground construction on the ballroom would begin in April.

“We are two weeks away,” plaintiffs’ attorney Thaddeus Heuer said during a March 17 hearing. “The imminence is now imminent.”

During the hearing, Leon sounded skeptical of what he referred to as the government’s “shifting theories and shifting dynamics” for its arguments in the case.

“I don’t think it’s a new theory,” Justice Department attorney Jacob Roth told the judge.

Leon expressed frustration at Roth’s attempts to equate the massive ballroom project with relatively modest construction work at the White House under previous administrations.

“This is an iconic symbol of this nation,” the judge said.

The administration argued that other presidents didn’t need congressional approval for previous White House renovation projects, large and small.

“Many of those projects were highly controversial in their time yet have since become accepted — even beloved — parts of the White House,” government attorneys wrote.

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

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed a wrongful termination suit filed by a Fox News producer who claimed he was fired in retaliation for calling out the network’s reporting on President Trump’s erroneous charges of 2020 election fraud and the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Jason Donner, who worked at the network’s Washington bureau as a reporter and producer was fired on Sept. 28, 2022, two days after calling in sick. He was told he had been terminated for his absence.

In 2023, Donner filed a lawsuit in a Washington, D.C., court that contended his dismissal was linked to several instances in which he challenged the veracity of the network’s coverage.

But U.S. District Judge Amir Ali determined in his ruling issued Monday that Donner failed to meet the company rules and that his conduct was not protected by the District of Columbia’s sick leave law.

Donner’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit noted that Fox News bosses criticized the network’s journalists for not considering the feelings of its pro-Trump audience following the election that sent Joe Biden to the White House.

Those comments are supported by the depositions and evidence collected for the Dominion Voting Systems defamation suit against Fox News, which was settled in April for $787.5 million.

But Ali also said Donner was an at-will employee and that his case failed to identify “a public policy that precluded Fox from firing him over his ardent objections to the network’s programming, no matter their validity.”

The same point was raised when U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed that portion of Donner’s claim in 2024.

“As we have maintained, this lawsuit was entirely without merit, and we are pleased with the court’s ruling on the matter,” a Fox News representative said in a statement.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco says he’d like to be our governor, but more and more, it’s looking to me like the real goal for the far-right provocateur is just to be MAGA-famous.

That’s cool. That’s fine. Honestly, who in Southern California hasn’t dreamed of their 15 minutes? And he certainly has the cop-stache to play the role of rogue Wild West lawman.

But Bianco’s bid for celebrity may help extremists take down American elections, and that is a problem — one California needs to deal with quickly, before the midterms suffer from his antics. There are two separate issues at play here, both of which state courts will be asked to weigh in on in coming days — Bianco apparently is putting his so-called investigation on hold until those cases bring some measure of clarity, and hopefully sanity.

First, are California sheriffs answerable to anyone, or are they a law unto themselves? Second, who in California can legally handle and count ballots according to law, if state law does in fact matter?

The fact that these two issues are coming up now — together— is no accident. President Trump’s election fraud claims have been moving toward this moment for years, largely out of the consciousness of mainstream voters, but very much intentionally pushed by those who would like to see MAGA officials remain in power, even at the cost of democracy.

The real question being answered right now in Riverside — the one we should all be clear on — is, if Republicans want to invalidate election results that don’t go their way this November, what’s the nitty-gritty of actually doing that?

Bianco is attempting an answer.

“This is about more than just what Sheriff Bianco is doing,” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “… It shouldn’t happen. And again, it doesn’t matter if Democrats are winning or Republicans are winning, no sheriff should come in and take over possession or counting of ballots.”

By now, you’ve probably heard that Bianco has obtained multiple secret, sealed search warrants from a buddy judge that allowed him to spirit away hundreds of thousands of ballots in his county from November’s Proposition 50 election.

Bianco claims he has the right to seize these ballots and investigate as he sees fit — and it’s not our business or anyone else’s, not even state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who ordered Bianco to stop what he was doing until Bonta could review it.

Bianco has largely ignored that order, instead scooping up even more ballots late last week — all but giving Bonta a certain finger reserved for simple communication. Fox News loved it. Bianco’s admission Monday that he is pausing his effort is the first hint that even he may see he’s gone too far.

But Bianco’s hubris is in line with the attitude of many so-called constitutional sheriffs, a national movement by some far-right elected lawmen that Bianco has been associated with, though he’s never claimed outright affinity.

These extremist sheriffs misguidedly believe that they are above both state and federal law, and get to decide for themselves what’s constitutional or not in their jurisdictions — and therefore what’s law and what’s not.

Since about 2020, empowered by successes in ignoring pandemic restrictions, these sheriffs have dived deeper and deeper into the election fraud movement that Trump loves so much, claiming increasing rights to investigate alleged fraud. Though their national organization doesn’t publish its membership list, media and other tracking show there are at minimum dozens of these like-minded lawmen across the country, likely closely watching Riverside County.

Some election experts now worry that if Bianco is successful in the courts in retaining the right to take ballots, it will give a dangerous legal precedent that empowers other constitutional sheriffs to do the same at the midterms. Only then it would be fresh, uncounted ballots — leaving these far-right sheriffs in charge of providing results instead of trained, trusted elections officials.

“What happens if the ballots have not been properly counted by the right people yet and a sheriff decides they want to go confiscate them?” said Chad Dunn, co-founder of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project and the trial lawyer who successfully halted Texas’ gerrymandering effort, for now anyway.

“Once the chain of custody … is broken, as they have been with these, you’ll never count them in a way that you’ll be able to get reasonable confidence from the public,” Dunn said. “It puts the entire election process in jeopardy.”

The constitutional sheriffs would become the boots on the ground for Trump’s election deniers to implement their will, seizing ballots as they see fit and creating such a crisis of confidence that it’s likely we the voters would never accept the results, Republican or Democrat.

It could even give Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson a plausible reason — an ongoing fraud investigation — not to seat elected Democrats, stalling as he did with Arizona’s Adelita Grijalva last year after she won a special election.

The Voting Rights Project, along with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, filed a lawsuit last week asking the state Supreme Court to uphold the laws that govern how ballots are handled in California — basically protecting that chain of custody and making it clear sheriffs can’t ignore it and are not part of it.

“They do not, under California law, have the right to take ballots away from the Registrar of Voters, and they do not, under California law, have the right to count or handle ballots,” Barreto said. “There’s no question that it violates California election law.”

Separately, Bonta’s office filed its own action, with that issue of constitutional sheriffs front and center. Bonta is asking courts to tell Bianco that he’s not a law unto himself, and does in fact answer to the state attorney general.

This issue of whether sheriffs have any legal duty to listen to the state’s top law enforcement officer has long been one of Bonta’s fights — he argued about it with then-L.A. Sheriff Alex Villanueva in another public corruption fiasco over then-L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.

I’m guessing Bianco will refer Bonta back to that simple communication of a single finger, much the same as Villanueva did.

But it’s long past time that the state decide just how powerful sheriffs are, for the good of the country this time. The state Legislature has repeatedly kicked the can on clarifying the issue, a failure on their part.

Legislators could amend the state Constitution to make sheriffs appointed instead of elected — the same as police chiefs. Then boards of supervisors could hire and fire them just like other law enforcement leaders.

With the Legislature’s resounding absence on the issue, we have to rely on courts. That’s likely to be a long battle.

In the meantime, Bianco is up to his mustache in attention. This has become a national story, boosting his profile throughout the MAGA-verse as a champion of election deniers everywhere.

Whether Bianco wins or loses these legal battles, resumes his investigation or not, he’s won the attention battle — he’s even polling at the top in the gubernatorial race, thanks to the 8 million Democrats who refuse to drop out.

Riverside County, once as red as it comes, is increasingly purple, Barreto points out. Bianco’s tenure as elected sheriff may not last forever. His shot at governor, despite the polls, is unlikely.

But maybe Fox News will be so impressed with his aggressive rants that he’ll get an offer. Maybe Trump, known for watching it, will like what he sees. So many possibilities from the publicity.

And so much real damage to democracy.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Mark Sanford, the former South Carolina congressman and governor whose political ascendancy was stalled by a 2009 affair, wants to return to Congress — again.

Just hours ahead of the deadline to do so, Sanford filed candidacy paperwork with state officials to run in the June 9 GOP primary for South Carolina’s 1st District seat, which he has held twice before.

Sanford’s first political office was in the 1st District. An outsider with almost no name recognition, he navigated a primary for the open seat, finishing second before winning the runoff. He served for six years before his outside run at governor, again pushing his way through a crowded primary, then knocking off the last Democrat to hold the office.

But his eight years were overshadowed by the Appalachian Trail, which became shorthand for Sanford’s disappearance to go to Argentina to see his lover. Sanford’s wife, family and his staff didn’t know where he was.

Beating back both an ethics inquiry and calls to resign, Sanford held fast, leaving office on his own terms.

In 2013, Sanford won back his old seat, beating 15 other candidates in a primary and runoff. He won two more full terms before falling to a GOP challenger in 2018 who had President Trump’s backing.

The seat would go on to flip to Democratic hands that fall for the first time in decades, won back by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace in 2020. Mace is running for governor this year.

Sanford, 65, also briefly ran for president in 2020, challenging Trump for the nomination in what he characterized as a “long shot” effort around warnings about the national debt. Some, including Sanford’s former gubernatorial staffers, initially questioned whether the effort was a serious one, positing that it might be an effort to stay relevant after the 2018 defeat.

Sanford dropped out of the contest just ahead of the New Hampshire primary. Sanford’s home state would ultimately opt not to hold a 2020 GOP presidential primary, clearing the way for Trump’s nomination in South Carolina.

Sanford did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Monday. True to the themes that have dominated his political thinking, an email release on Sanford’s candidacy focused on the national debt, with the candidate saying he felt 1st District voters wanted a representative “who is an advocate for financial sanity that has been lost in Washington for all too long.“

Since leaving the U.S. House, Sanford has hung onto more than $1.3 million in a federal campaign account, funds that he can now use in a primary already crowded with multiple Republican and Democratic candidates.

Kinnard and Collins write for the Associated Press.

After weeks of chaos in U.S. airports, the Transportation Safety Administration said the first paychecks in weeks are being sent as early as Monday to its workers, giving the beleaguered aviation system a boost of optimism.

Wait times at some TSA security bottlenecks, such as the airport checkpoints in Atlanta and Houston, improved significantly Monday morning.

But how long it will take for long security lines to consistently return to normal — and how long federal immigration officers will stay in airports — remains unknown as the busy spring break travel season continues.

The DHS shutdown has resulted in not only travel delays but also warnings of airport closures as TSA workers missing paychecks stopped going to work. Those workers were just recovering financially since last fall’s extended government shutdown.

Wait times still pushed beyond two hours at New York’s LaGuardia Airport Monday morning. Baltimore-Washington International Airport had minimal wait-times Monday morning, but continued to advise travelers to arrive three hours before their scheduled departure.

President Trump on Friday ordered the Department of Homeland Security to pay TSA officers immediately to ease the lines plaguing airports. The move came after Trump rejected bipartisan congressional efforts to fund the TSA while negotiations continue with Democrats, who have refused to approve more funding without restraints on Trump’s immigration enforcement and mass deportation operations.

Democrats are demanding better identification for the officers, judicial warrants in some cases and for agents to refrain from conducting raids around schools, churches or other sensitive places. Republicans and the White House have been willing to negotiate on some points, but the sides have yet to reach a final agreement.

On Monday, there were few signs of progress on Capitol Hill, where the Senate held a short session without considering the House bill and resumed its two-week break. GOP Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said afterward that Senate Republicans are talking with Democrats and also the House as they try to find a way to funding DHS.

TSA employees had gone without pay since DHS funding lapsed in February. The department’s shutdown reached 44 days on Sunday, eclipsing the record 43-day shutdown last fall that affected all of the federal government.

The DHS shutdown has resulted in not only travel delays but also warnings of airport closures as TSA workers missing paychecks stopped going to work. Those workers had already endured the nation’s longest government shutdown last fall. Multiple airports experienced greater than 40% callout rates, and nearly 500 of the agency’s nearly 50,000 transportation security officers quit during the shutdown.

Trump deployed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to some airports a week ago to help with security as TSA callouts rose nationwide. How long they stay, White House border czar Tom Homan said, depends on how quickly TSA employees return to work. A TSA statement said the agency “has immediately begun the process of paying its workforce,” with paychecks arriving “as early as Monday.”

The overall absentee rate among TSA officers scheduled to work dipped slightly on Sunday, according to DHS. The highest were concentrated at major airports that have seen consistently elevated absences lately.

Those included BWI, both of Houston’s main airports; Louis Armstrong International Airport in New Orleans; Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport; and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.

Funk and Seewer write for the Associated Press. AP reporters Rio Yamat in Las Vegas and Mary Clare Jalonick in Washington contributed to this report.

ABOARD THE CRESCENT — There’s something melodic about watching the sun rise over a rural stillness broken only by the rhythms of steel wheels on tracks. Or so we tell ourselves.

In this case, being aboard a train at all owed more to politics than poetry.

Congress and President Trump were mired in their latest budget stalemate, one rooted in his immigration crackdown and the tactics of federal forces he has sent to U.S. cities. But this impasse has upended a foundational constant of American life today: easy air travel.

In Atlanta, my hometown airport, cheerfully marketed as the world’s busiest, had descended into organized chaos. Unpaid federal employees called out from work, leaving a diminished security staff to screen travelers frustrated by hours-long waits in line. I wanted to get to Washington for the NCAA basketball tournament. So I eliminated the risk of a missed flight and booked the train overnight and into game day across a 650-mile route.

In this fraught moment in U.S. politics, I slowed down and thought about things we take for granted. Who ever ponders the conveniences of that 20th century innovation, the airplane, that makes 21st century hustle possible? We book and board. An unconscious, first-world flex of modernity. It’s even rarer to grapple with the inconvenience.

My decision had taken me further back, to the 19th century and another defining innovation: the long-distance train.

A 14½-hour weekend train ride is time aplenty to appreciate how completely politics, economics, social strife and fights over identity and belonging have always affected the order of our lives, including how, when and where we move around in these United States. But Amtrak’s Crescent also allowed me to see the expanse of our collective experience.

I traversed the urban, suburban and rural breadth of East Coast America. I learned how other travelers came aboard. And in that, I found the portrait of people, past and present, who refuse to be as paralyzed as some of their elected leaders.

Convenience on the railways

There is little glamour late night in a crowded Amtrak station. Children are up past bedtime and tended by frazzled parents. Older adults struggle with luggage and stairs.

Airports are not red-carpet affairs either, of course. But there is a certain cache to Delta’s Atlanta-Washington flights. They typically take about two hours gate to gate. They often are slotted at a midpoint gate of the concourse nearest the main terminal. That is almost certainly a nod to members of Congress who use it, but who have lost some airline perks during this extended partial shutdown — which as of Sunday is the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

In normal circumstances I can get from my front porch to Capitol Hill or downtown in as little as 4½ hours. Security lines these days could at least double my overall air travel time.

The train is still longer, and time is money, we are taught. But certainty has value, too, even if it means an 11:29 p.m. departure. And at the Amtrak station, there were no standstill lines, no Transportation Security Administration agents, no ICE agents as stand-ins.

Passengers who arrived mere minutes before departure made it on board and found seats quickly — assigned in boarding order, not predetermined zones that yield jammed aisles. There’s no in-seat service or satellite TV. But even coach seats, the lowest Amtrak tier, are as spacious as airline first-class — and there is Wi-Fi, so it’s not the 19th century or even 20th century after all.

On board, I heard one crew member joke, “I’m no TSA agent.”

The pathways of history

As a boy in rural Alabama, I counted train cars and wondered where they were headed. I’ve since read diary entries and letters from my grandmother and her sisters recounting World War II-era weekend trips to Atlanta.

The South’s largest city has a historical hook too. Originally named “Terminus,” Atlanta developed in the antebellum era as a critical intersection of north-south and east-west rail routes. That is what drew Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman for one of the Civil War’s seminal campaigns that helped defeat the Confederacy.

A century after the Civil War, Delta chose Atlanta for its headquarters rather than Birmingham, Ala., which was the larger city as of the 1960 census. The company’s decision was tied up in tax breaks for the airline, named for its crop duster origins in the Mississippi Delta region. According to some interpretations, Delta’s decision was made easier because of the more overt racism of Alabama’s and Birmingham’s leaders as they defended Jim Crow — a code that, among other acts, allowed states to segregate the passenger trains that predated Amtrak.

On this night, I heard many languages and accents, notable given the role that immigrant labor played in building the U.S. rail system and especially striking now with immigration — legal and illegal — at the forefront in Washington, my destination. I saw faces that reflected U.S. pluralism, a different mix from what my grandmother and aunts would have seen a lifetime ago.

The array of voices celebrated the freedom and ease of rail travel. So did Agatha Grimes and her friends after they boarded in Greensboro, N.C., as part of a long weekend trip to celebrate her 62nd birthday.

“I got stuck in the Atlanta airport last week,” Grimes said, as her group laughed together in the dining car. “It’s just nuts.”

Beretta Nunnally, a self-described “train veteran” who organized their trip, said, “There’s no worry about parking. No checking bags. You come to the station, you get where you‘re going, and you come home.”

An era for planes, trains and automobiles

Still, that is not as easy in the United States as it once was.

Just as politics, economics and subsidies helped expand U.S. railroads, those factors diminished the network as auto manufacturers, oil companies, road builders and, finally, airline manufacturers and airlines commanded favor from politicians and attention from consumers.

Riding hours across rural areas, I noticed the junkyards where kudzu and chain-link fencing framed rows of rusted automobiles. I saw the farmland and equipment that helps feed cities and the rest of the nation. I awoke to see the night lights of office towers in Charlotte, N.C., and its NFL stadium. I saw vibrant county seats — and I thought of countless other towns like them that are not thriving as they sit disconnected from passenger rail and far from the Eisenhower-era interstate system that we crossed multiple times on our way.

In each setting, voters — conservatives, liberals, the extremes and betweens — have chosen their representatives, senators and a president who now set the nation’s course.

When I arrived in Washington, I paused to enjoy Union Station’s grand hall and its Beaux Arts appeal, and I lamented how much splendor has been lost because so many striking U.S. terminals have been razed. I stepped outside and looked up at the Capitol dome.

While I had slept, the Senate managed a bipartisan deal to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except immigration enforcement. As I continued northward, House Republican leaders rejected it. The stalemate continued.

The president, however, took executive action to pay TSA workers, and their paychecks may resume within days, though long airport lines may continue awhile longer.

I was a weary traveler but renewed citizen. I had a game to get to. And the train rolled on.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading Democratic candidate for governor of California, has accused President Trump of trying to sway the election following reports that FBI Director Kash Patel may release documents from a decade-old investigation into the congressman’s ties to a suspected Chinese spy.

According to a report by the Washington Post, Patel has directed agents in the bureau’s San Francisco office to redact the case files for public release. According to the outlet, it’s highly unusual for the FBI to release case files tied to a probe that did not result in criminal charges.

The investigation centered on Swalwell’s ties to a suspected intelligence operative, Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, who worked as a volunteer raising money for his congressional campaign. Swalwell cut off ties to Fang in 2015, after intelligence officials briefed him and other members of Congress about Chinese efforts to infiltrate the legislative body.

Swalwell was not accused of impropriety.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Through great reporting, we now know the outrageous ends the White House will go to target political opponents,” Swalwell said in a prepared statement Saturday, calling the decade-old story “nonsense.”

“Donald Trump is targeting me. He’s trying to influence the election,” Swalwell said in a post on X. “There is only one reason why: he’s scared.”

Swalwell accused Trump of “desperately trying” to stop him, because he’s now the favored candidate for California governor.

“What Trump wants the most is to have a Western White House. An enabler on the opposite coast,” he said. “A lot of people have bent the knee to this administration. But I will not. And neither will the people of California.”

It’s not the first time Swalwell has accused the administration of targeting Trump’s political opponents.

Last year, Swalwell sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, accusing him of criminally misusing government databases to target Trump’s political opponents. Pulte had accused Swalwell of mortgage fraud and referred him to the Justice Department for a potential federal criminal probe. Swalwell dropped that suit this month.

Swalwell, a former prosecutor who ran for president in 2020, announced his bid for California governor in November. Swalwell said his decision was driven by the serious problems facing California and the threats posed to the state and nation with Trump in the White House.

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has endorsed Swalwell for governor, shared the Post story on X Saturday, saying, “This abuse of the FBI is as dangerous as it is unlawful.” Schiff served with Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee, where they riled Republicans by investigating President Trump during his first term.

Schiff served as the lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment and Swalwell as a manager of Trump’s second impeachment.

“Time and again, the President and his appointees have weaponized the Department of Justice against those who dare stand up to Trump,” Schiff wrote. He added that there was no doubt that Trump and Patel “will stop at nothing to try to tell Californians who their next governor should be.”

The Post story unleashed a flood of critiques from California politicians, including Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. On X, Gomez accused Patel of “wasting resources” on a “closed, decade-old case where Swalwell cooperated with the FBI and was found innocent of any wrongdoing.”

“Reopening it now, right as he leads in the polls and ballots are about to drop, is a political hit-job!” Gomez said. “Trump and Kash Patel are weaponizing the FBI against people they deem political enemies.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement accusing Patel of working at “the behest of the White House” and “wasting the resources of the FBI and perhaps violating the Hatch Act by ordering agents to spend hours preparing a political smear file for a personnel vendetta.”

According to the Associated Press, Fang came into contact with Swalwell’s campaign as he was first running for Congress in 2012. She also participated in fundraising for his 2014 campaign and helped place an intern in his office, the report said. Federal investigators alerted Swalwell to their concerns — and briefed Congress — about Fang in 2015, at which point the California Democrat says he cut off contact with her, the AP reported in 2021.

In 2023, the House Ethics Committee closed a two-year investigation into the allegations of his ties to Fang.

In closing the probe, the ethics committee wrote in a letter to Swalwell that it had “previously reviewed allegations of improper influence by foreign agents and in doing so, cautioned that Members should be conscious of the possibility that foreign governments may attempt to secure improper influence through gifts and other interactions.”

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — With the Iran war in its fifth week, support for President Trump is at its lowest point ever, with a growing body of recent polling showing him losing ground with key voting blocs that helped power his 2024 victory.

While public dissatisfaction is evident among many groups surveyed, the decline in support for the president has been most pronounced among Latino voters.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released March 24 found 36% of voters approve of the president’s job performance, the lowest it has been during his second term. The poll found 62% disapproved.

Other polls, such as the AP-NORC poll, placed the figure at 38%.

In all, the president is underwater on almost every single public policy issue. With the exception of crime, which sits around 47% approval, he has recorded no gains in any polled category, according to experts.

On immigration, the president’s marquee issue, approval fell from roughly 45% in late 2025 to 39% in February, according to Reuters.

About 1 in 4 respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, Reuters found, as domestic gas prices surged by more than $1 per gallon after fighting commenced last month. The share of Republicans who disapprove of his handling of cost-of-living issues rose 7 points in one week to 34%.

The shift comes amid growing economic unease and amplified backlash over the war in Iran. About 1 in 3 Americans approve of the military operation, according to a Reuters survey.

And a growing divide among prominent conservatives has emerged over the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The clashes have played out in public and are exposing tensions within the Republican Party, with conservative commentators such as Megyn Kelly openly questioning whether the war is in America’s best interest.

“This is not a foreign policy that makes sense and it is not what Trump ran on. It is, in many ways, a betrayal of his campaign promises, what he sold himself as and of his MAGA base,” Kelly said earlier this month.

Other conservative pundits, including Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, are also opposed.

But the real damage is showing up in the one place Trump can’t afford to lose: his base.

Trump entered his second term buoyed by historic gains with Latino voters. Exit polls indicated he improved his standing with them by more than 20 percentage points in 2024 compared with his 2016 victory, fueling widespread narratives that the demographic was undergoing a durable shift toward Republicans. In all, 48% of Latinos gave him their support in the last election.

Since then, his approval among Latino voters has plummeted to 22%, according to a March 2026 analysis by the Economist.

In a bipartisan poll by UnidosUS released in November, 14% of Latino voters said their lives were better after Trump took office, while 39% said they had gotten worse.

The president’s rapport with Latinos reflects a deep dissatisfaction with economic conditions, according to Mike Madrid, a veteran California Republican political consultant and expert on Latino voting trends.

“Overwhelmingly, this is a function of the economy and affordability,” he said. “Latino voters moved away from Biden-Harris for the exact same reasons that they’re moving away from Donald Trump right now.”

Research and polling suggests Latino voters prioritize cost-of-living issues — such as housing, wages and inflation — over immigration, a topic often emphasized in national messaging.

“It’s not even close,” Madrid said. “Immigration is not even a top 5 issue for Latino voters.”

Madrid suggested the demographic rallying is less a “reversion” and more a reflection of a rapidly changing electorate.

“Latinos have emerged as the only true swing vote in America,” he said. “And they’re rejecting whichever party is in power.”

These volatile, double-digit voting shifts directly contrast more stable voting patterns among other major demographic groups, including the Black and white electorates, where shifts from cycle to cycle tend to be just a few points.

The reason: dramatic turnout fluctuations. Who decides to show out or stay home on election day tends to change by the year. It’s compounded by the fact that there are far more first-time Latino voters than in any other category.

Polling this month suggests Trump is also losing ground among young voters, another group that contributed to his 2024 gains.

More than half of men under the age of 30 supported Trump in that election, helping him turn several swing states.

In just a year, that demographic has cratered by 20 points.

“Trump won in 2024 because of men. They are abandoning him right now,” CNN senior data analyst Harry Enten said Tuesday.

The reversals could have massive implications for the November midterm elections, particularly in competitive congressional districts where small swings could determine control of the House.

Republicans have warned that if they lose hold of their narrow congressional majority, Trump is likely to face a third impeachment.

UCLA political scientist Matt Barreto said movement away from Republicans is already visible in real-world election outcomes, not just polling.

“We’ve already seen in the Virginia and New Jersey legislative and gubernatorial elections really large shifts in the Latino vote, 25 points back to the Democratic Party,” Barreto said. He added that similar patterns have emerged in places such as Miami and Texas, where Democratic candidates have outperformed expectations with strong Latino support.

Latino Democrats who sat out the 2024 election are returning to the electorate, while some Latino Republicans are disengaging, he said.

That dynamic could prove decisive in November. There are more than 40 congressional districts where the number of registered Latino voters exceeds the margin of victory in 2024, Barreto said. Many of them are closely divided between the parties.

“At the district level, the Latino vote is going to make a huge impact,” he said.

WASHINGTON — For several hours Friday, in the stillness before dawn, the Senate appeared to have finally figured out how to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security before it faced the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history.

Senators handed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) their deal and headed for the airports, seemingly confident of success.

Then it collapsed. Spectacularly.

An incensed Johnson marched out of his office Friday afternoon. He angrily denounced the plan that the Senate had unanimously agreed to as a “joke.”

“I have to protect the House, and I have to protect the American people,” Johnson told reporters.

It was a dramatic denunciation of a deal that his counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), had negotiated after weeks of effort, and was the latest abrupt turn in a funding saga that has bedeviled top Republicans for much of the year.

The collapse of the deal leaves Congress, now on a two-week spring break, with no easy way out of the impasse that has put the Homeland Security Department into a shutdown since mid-February. It also has exposed a rare rupture between the two Republican leaders in Congress, testing their alliances as they labor to move another set of President Trump’s priorities into law before the November elections.

Nothing ahead is likely to be easy.

How the deal collapsed

Thune had a deal with Democratic senators after negotiating for weeks on their demands for new restrictions on the department’s immigration enforcement work. Offers were traded several times. The talks moved along at a stop-start pace. Votes failed again and again.

Out of time and patience, senators essentially settled on a draw for the bill: They would not include funding for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and for U.S. Border Patrol, as Democrats had proposed repeatedly in the last week, but while setting aside all the Democratic demands for new limits on the agencies.

Thune pointed out that Congress had allotted money for immigration enforcement and he told reporters that “we can get at least a lot of the government opened up again and then we’ll go from there.”

Asked if he had cleared the compromise with Johnson, Thune said the two had texted.

“I don’t know what the House will do,” the senator said early Friday as the deal came together.

But as House Republicans woke up to the news, their outrage was swift.

Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said that on a GOP conference call that morning to discuss their path forward, a few dozen members ranging from moderates to hard-line conservatives spoke in opposition to what the Senate had done.

“The Senate chickened out,” he said. “The cowards there, only a few of them in the middle of the night with I think only three to five senators present on the floor, chickened out because they wanted to go home for two weeks. We need to raise the bar.”

What’s next for Republicans?

The bitter split threatens to make the job for Republican leaders more difficult as they try to advance their priorities while they still have guaranteed control of both chambers. Trump has said that legislation to impose strict new proof of citizenship requirements on voting is his top priority, but there is no real path for that plan in the Senate with its 60-vote threshold for advancing legislation.

Some Republicans have pushed instead for a budget package that could potentially put some parts of the voting law in place. Republicans are also contemplating how to pass an expected request from the White House to fund the war with Iran that could total more than $200 billion, among other priorities.

Meanwhile, the flop of the funding deal has given Democrats another chance to pin the partial shutdown on House Republicans.

“They know this is a continuation of the shutdown because the Senate is gone,” said Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, the No. 2 Democratic leader. “So they know fully well what they’re doing.”

It is not clear what the Senate will do next. A quick resumption of talks is unlikely. Negotiations ended acrimoniously on both sides, with each blaming the other as moving the goalposts along the way.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said he was proud of his caucus for “holding the line.” But Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Democrats were “intransigent and unreasonable.”

Thune said he believed that Democrats never wanted a deal and would not vote for ICE funding under any circumstances.

“I felt like from the beginning, they just didn’t want to get to ‘yes,’” Thune said after the vote.

The dynamic left senators convinced that the deal was the only way to move past their disagreements and reopen the Homeland Security Department.

But House Republicans on Friday night seemed to revel in the fact they had defied the wishes of the Senate. GOP members said that they work from a perspective that is closer to the will of their constituents.

To Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the Senate’s proposal was “nothing more than unconditional surrender masquerading as a solution.” She said the House ”will not bend itself into submission by acquiescing.”

Those searching for a way out of the shutdown seemed discouraged.

“This takes two chambers to get the job done,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a moderate Republican. “Apparently, there’s not enough communication between those chambers.”

Groves, Jalonick and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Peter Alexander, who covered Washington for NBC News for more than a decade, is leaving the network to join MS NOW, according to people familiar with his plans.

Alexander, 49, will serve as an anchor and chief national reporter for MS NOW. He will have a weekday program and also handle breaking news coverage throughout the day.

A 22-year veteran of NBC News, Alexander served as chief White House correspondent and co-host of the Saturday edition of “Today” with Laura Jarrett. He is among the most familiar faces in the White House briefing room.

Alexander told viewers at the end of his Saturday broadcast that he is departing NBC News but did not mention his new job. A representative for MS NOW declined comment.

MS NOW is the progressive-leaning cable channel formerly known as MSNBC. The network changed its name after it was spun off from Comcast into a new company called Versant.

After the split, MS NOW ended its relationship with NBC News. Journalists who worked on both MSNBC and NBC News had to chose which entity they would work for going forward.

Correspondents Jacob Soboroff and Ken Dilanian switched from NBC News to MS NOW. Data guru Steve Kornacki decided to stick with NBC News as he also has assignments at NBC Sports. Willie Geist, a co-host on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” is an exception as he continues to anchor NBC’s “Sunday Today.”

Alexander is the first NBC journalist to cross over to MS NOW since the split. His deal with Versant also gives him the opportunity to contribute to sports coverage on the company’s other cable properties, USA Network and the Golf Channel.

Alexander will anchor the 11 a.m. Eastern hour on MS NOW, succeeding Ana Cabrera, who is leaving the network when its daytime programming changes take effect in June.

Alexander joined NBC News after serving as an anchor on the network’s Washington station WRC.

He was White House correspondent from 2012 to 2014 during President Obama’s second term and returned to the assignment in 2018 to cover President Trump.

An aggressive questioner, Alexander has been chastised by Trump publicly over news conference questions that made him unhappy.

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance on Friday held the inaugural meeting of a new anti-fraud task force he’s leading as the Trump administration seeks to show it’s cracking down on potential misuse of social programs.

Vance, speaking Friday before the task force held a closed-door meeting, said that the federal government for decades had not taken the issue of fraud seriously and that it needed to be tackled with “a whole-government approach.”

“This is not just the theft of the American people’s money,” Vance said. “It is also the theft of critical services that the American people rely on.”

President Trump, a Republican, has made a crackdown on fraud part of his chief domestic focus as voters have said they’re concerned about affordability ahead of November’s midterm elections. That effort comes after allegations of fraud involving day-care centers run by Somali residents in Minneapolis prompted a massive immigration crackdown in the Midwestern city, resulting in widespread protests.

Vance cited some of the Minnesota allegations on Friday. Last month, he held a news conference to announce a temporary halt of some Medicaid funding until the state took actions that federal officials said would address their concerns.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who faced Vance as a vice presidential candidate in 2024, has called it a “campaign of retribution” and said the Trump administration was “weaponizing the entirety of the federal government to punish blue states like Minnesota.”

The task force is also the most visible assignment to date that Trump has given to Vance, who is seen as a potential 2028 presidential candidate.

Vance and the task force, which includes about half the president’s Cabinet, the leader of a new Justice Department division focused on prosecuting fraud and Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson, are set to meet regularly to look at rooting out potential fraud and waste in federal benefit programs.

Ferguson, who is vice chair of the task force, cast the issue of fraud as a dire crisis facing the country and said it “shreds the social trust on which these programs and our entire nation depend.”

“This fraud crisis is thus existential,” he said. “If we fail to address it, the fabric of our nation will swiftly unravel.”

Joining the task force was Colin McDonald, a top aide to the Justice Department’s second in command. He was recently confirmed as the assistant attorney general overseeing the new division at the department focused on prosecuting fraud.

The Justice Department has long prosecuted fraud nationally through its Criminal Division, but the Trump administration says the new division is needed to crack down on rampant fraud.

Price writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — Attorneys for Georgia’s Fulton County and President Trump’s administration squared off in court Friday over the county’s demand that the FBI return seized ballots and other materials from the 2020 election.

Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing Fulton County, noted that the January raid was “unusual” because it involved an old election and allegations that have already been investigated in the years since Trump, a Republican, lost the county and the state to Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Lowell contended that the Trump administration seized the materials because it grew impatient with litigation the Justice Department filed to obtain them last year. “There’s abundant law that the left hand of the department needs to know what the right hand is doing,” Lowell told U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee.

Michael Weisbuch, representing the federal government, replied that the separate civil litigation wasn’t “relevant in any respect.” He said the administration has already provided Fulton County with digital copies of everything taken and needs to retain physical copies to carry out its own investigation.

Boulee wrote in a scheduling order that the hearing was needed after the two sides failed to reach an agreement in court-ordered mediation.

Trump’s actions alarm Democrats and election officials

The Jan. 28 seizure from a warehouse near Atlanta targeted the elections hub in Georgia’s most populous county, which is heavily Democratic and includes most of Atlanta. Fulton County has been at the center of unfounded claims by Trump and his allies that widespread election fraud cost him reelection.

The FBI’s move was among several actions by the Trump administration that have alarmed Democrats and many election officials who are concerned it’s using law enforcement to pursue the president’s personal grievances and is planning ways to interfere in this year’s midterm elections. The FBI also used a subpoena earlier this month to obtain records related to an audit of the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County in Arizona, another battleground state Trump lost that year.

At the same time, the Justice Department is fighting numerous states in court for access to voter data that includes sensitive personal information. Election officials, including some Republicans, have said handing over the information would violate state and federal privacy laws.

Justice Department says it’s investigating 2020 ‘irregularities’

Lawyers for Fulton County argued in a court filing that the seizure of its documents was “improper and unjustified” and demonstrates “callous disregard” for the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The Justice Department seeks to “set a precedent that would grant the federal government unchecked power to interfere with the local administration of elections,” it wrote.

Justice Department attorneys argued that preparing a detailed affidavit and presenting it to a judge “is the exact opposite of ‘callous disregard’” for those constitutional rights. “Their goal to disrupt an ongoing federal criminal investigation is clear,” they wrote of Fulton County officials.

The Justice Department said it is investigating “irregularities that occurred during the 2020 presidential election in the County” and identified two laws that might have been violated. One requires election records to be maintained for 22 months, while the other prohibits procuring, casting or tabulating false, fictitious or fraudulent ballots.

The filing said the FBI is looking into whether Fulton County properly retained ballot images; whether some ballots were scanned and counted multiple times; whether unfolded, unmailed ballots were counted as mail-in absentee ballots; and potential irregularities concerning tabulator tapes from the scanners used to count ballots.

Fulton County’s lawyers wrote that the “deficiencies” or “defects” in the county’s handling of the 2020 election cited in the affidavit are the kinds of human errors that commonly occur without any intentional wrongdoing and cannot establish probable cause.

Election tech expert cites problems in the affidavit

To support their claims, Fulton County officials submitted a sworn declaration from Ryan Macias, an election technology and security expert who advised the county during the 2020 election. He said the affidavit contains “a multitude of false or misleading statements and omissions” and offered explanations for the alleged “deficiencies.”

Investigations by the Georgia secretary of state and independent reviews contradict the core allegations of the affidavit, which is “rife with statements from witnesses lacking credibility, with extraordinary and undisclosed biases,” Fulton’s lawyers argued.

Georgia’s votes in the 2020 presidential race were counted three times, including once by hand, and each count affirmed Biden’s win.

Federal government lawyers rejected the idea that the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit “intentionally or recklessly misled” the judge, writing that “the supposed misrepresentations and omissions flagged by Petitioners are illusory and/or immaterial.” They also asserted that a lapse of the statute of limitations on the potential crimes does not negate probable cause.

The Justice Department also noted that a federal magistrate judge reviewed the FBI affidavit and signed off on the search warrant. Fulton County sought to have the FBI agent who wrote the affidavit testify at Friday’s hearing, but the Justice Department objected and the judge sided with the federal government.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.

During his first Cabinet meeting since launching the U.S. war on Iran, President Trump spent 10 minutes talking about the price of ceremonial White House pens — which he claimed to have brought down, from $1,000 to $5, by switching to his favored Sharpie brand.

Trump was trying to make the point during the Thursday meeting that he’s a great money saver. He seemed chipper, joking with the other leaders of his administration at the table.

Late Thursday, when asked on “The Five” on Fox News about whether Iranian people have access to basic necessities such as drinking water and food, Trump complimented the looks of Dana Perino, the Fox host who’d asked the question, compared to when he’d met her years before.

“Now I’m not allowed to say this, it’s the end of my political career, but you may be even better looking, OK?” Trump said. “You’re not allowed to say a woman’s beautiful anymore.”

He then talked about Iranian authorities killing protesters, but said he’d been pleased with them more recently because they had given him a “present” by allowing oil ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

Through both discussions, Trump maintained a flippant, casual tone — the same he has maintained since the war began a month ago, and a vast departure from that of past wartime presidents.

For weeks, Trump has batted away criticisms of the war campaign and questions about why it was justified and how long it will last. He has derided reporters for asking questions about tactics and whether he’ll deploy boots on the ground as inappropriate and foolish, and repeatedly met concerns about the human toll of the war by shrugging them off or changing the subject.

Meanwhile, his war has cost the U.S. billions of dollars and depleted its global reserves of critical weapons systems such as Tomahawk missiles, which cost millions of dollars each and are needed to maintain U.S. security around the world, according to the Washington Post.

Entering its fifth week, the war has badly disrupted markets, with U.S. stocks falling Friday as Wall Street approached the end of its fifth straight losing week — the longest such streak in nearly four years — and oil prices rising again.

Markets have fluctuated based on Trump’s changing messages on an end to the war, planned and then postponed strikes on Iran’s power plants, strikes on oil and gas infrastructure across the Middle East and Iran’s stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, through which a quarter of global oil usually passes.

Trump has talked in recent days about an impending deal to end the war, but so far it has not materialized, with Iran downplaying the seriousness of the negotiations. Iran instead appeared to be formalizing its hold on the strait, including by creating what amounts to a toll on ships seeking passage through the channel from its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The number of U.S. deaths in the conflict has held steady for days — at 13 — but the war continues to exact a daily, devastating toll in the Middle East. In Iran, thousands of targets continued being hit, with the death toll ticking toward 2,000.

Speaking by video during a Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva on Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the United States and Israel of harboring a “clear intent to commit genocide” in Iran, claiming that more than 600 schools had been damaged or demolished and more than 1,000 students and teachers “martyred or wounded.”

The discussion related in part to a Feb. 28 strike on an elementary school in Minab that killed more than 165 people, most of them children, which evidence reportedly suggests was the work of the U.S. and which the U.S. says is under investigation.

Casualties also continued in Gulf nations allied with the U.S., where Iran continues to strike U.S. military installations and other infrastructure, and in Lebanon, which Israel has invaded and bombed relentlessly in its own war with the Iranian-aligned Hezbollah force.

And yet, Trump has bounced between speaking engagements and more formal meetings with an apparent lightness — seeming unbothered by the weight of the conflict and acting as if U.S. victory were already at hand.

“We’ve already won the war. Militarily we’ve totally won the war,” he told “The Five” on Thursday.

After Trump’s exchange with Perino, fellow host Greg Gutfeld began to change the topic, saying, “I’m debating whether to be serious or not serious.”

“Do you think Biden would do this interview? Can you imagine? You think Biden — Sleepy Joe — he would do it?” Trump said.

He called the war a “little bit of a detour” from what he said were his otherwise winning economic policies, and asserted again — without providing evidence — that Iran was on the cusp of having a nuclear weapon and would have used it to cause devastation across the Middle East and to the U.S. if the U.S. hadn’t struck first, including when it bombed Iran’s nuclear sites last summer.

“You can’t let a madman or you can’t let a mad ideology have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

He repeated his long-pushed lie that he won the 2020 election, and suggested his support among his MAGA base remains at 100%.

An AP-NORC poll this week found that most Americans believe that the U.S. military campaign in Iran has gone too far — including about a quarter of Republicans — and that many are worried about gas prices.

During his Cabinet meeting Thursday, Trump seemed supremely confident, but also aware that the conflict was far from settled.

He said that the U.S. was “extremely — really a lot — ahead of schedule” in its war effort, and that “the Iranian regime is now admitting to itself that they have been decisively defeated.” But he also said that “even now, we don’t know if there are any mines” in the Strait of Hormuz, despite the U.S. having wiped out Iran’s “mine droppers,” and acknowledged that “if you think there may be a mine, that’s a bad thought and it stops things up.”

He said the U.S. has “decimated” about 99% of Iranian capabilities, but “the problem with the strait” is that the remaining 1% threat “is unacceptable, because 1% is a missile going into the hull of a ship that cost $1 billion.”

“If we do a 99% decimation, that’s no good,” he said.

During “The Five” interview, Trump was also asked if the CIA had told him that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei — who took on the Iranian leadership role after his father, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in initial strikes — is gay, which would be a crime under Iranian law.

“Well they did say that, but I don’t know if it was only them. I think a lot of people are saying that. Which puts him off to a bad start in that particular country, you know?” Trump said, in a stunning acknowledgment of a previously rumored intelligence briefing.