president trump

What we know: The Dodgers lost. Their season is no more. Their three-peat dream has been dashed. Their winter is upon us.

What we don’t know: What the future holds, in what could be a turbulent winter for the Dodgers and for all of Major League Baseball.

Here are four things we don’t know about the Dodgers, but well worth keeping an eye on:

Shohei Ohtani

Just three short months ago, we wondered whether Ohtani would win his fifth most valuable player award and his first Cy Young Award. Has the time come for the Dodgers to consider curtailing his pitching?

As the Dodgers trudged through the playoffs, we endured daily drama over where in the lineup Ohtani would bat (first, second, fourth, fifth or sixth) and what he could produce despite playing through multiple injuries.

We’ll soon get a better understanding of those injuries, and whether rest, rehabilitation and/or surgery might be recommended for each one. We’ll also get a better sense of what the future might hold for Ohtani as a two-way player, and for his potential to perform at an elite level on both sides of the ball.

Ohtani said he plans to resume pitching next year. He is 32. He just completed his 14th professional season.

Ohtani has pitched more than 132 innings once since 2016, when he was 22 and playing for the Nippon Ham Fighters.

In his three seasons with the Dodgers, this was the first that did not involve rehabilitation from elbow surgery. He started 14 games before a knee injury prevented him from pitching any more this season.

Payroll

Dodgers pitcher Tarik Skubal walks off the field during Game 1 of the NLDS.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Major league owners are poised to shut down the sport this winter, in pursuit of a salary cap designed to restrain the Dodgers, since they won’t restrain themselves.

The owners’ initial proposal set a salary cap of $245 million next year. The Dodgers already have $347 million committed to 14 players next year, according to Cot’s Baseball Contracts.

Under a cap, the owners have promised a transition period to account for existing commitments, and an actual negotiated cap could be higher.

Even if the players do not agree to a cap — and they insist they won’t — whatever economic system that would emerge from collective bargaining would be almost certain to make it painful for the Dodgers to spend so freely.

Whatever the case, the Dodgers could face the kind of difficult roster choices they often have papered over with money this decade. Two closers for $141 million? Good luck with that.

And would they be able to fit soon-to-be free agent Tarik Skubal into their payroll? Skubal might well sign before the lockout is expected to start in December, but there is nothing agent Scott Boras loves more than pitching a marquee free agent to a new owner. The two other Southern California teams — the Angels and San Diego Padres — both have one.

Age

Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman, left, and general manager Brandon Gomes have decisions to make about their aging roster.

(Luke Hales / Getty Images)

When Andrew Friedman made his name as the general manager of the Tampa Bay Rays, he did it in large part by taking advantage of one market inefficiency within the American League East: He beat up on the Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees because they were stuck with rosters crowded with aging stars on big contracts. The Rays couldn’t have done that even if Friedman had wanted to.

He didn’t want to do it too much in Los Angeles, because it compromises roster flexibility. But, after seven National League West titles and no World Series championships, ownership went all in: Mookie Betts (12 years, $365 million), Freddie Freeman (six years, $162 million), Ohtani (10 years, $700 million), Yoshinobu Yamamoto (12 years, $325 million), Tyler Glasnow (five years, $137 million), Blake Snell (five years, $182 million), Will Smith (10 years, $140 million) and Kyle Tucker (four years, $240 million).

It worked: three rings in six years. Now the bill comes due.

The Dodgers fielded the oldest group of position players in the major leagues this season. Ohtani and Betts are under contract through their age-39 seasons; Smith will be 38 when his deal’s up, Yamamoto and Max Muncy 37, Snell 36, Glasnow 35.

Something to watch this winter: Freeman is 37, signed through next year. He would like to play until 40 and finish his career here. That would take a two-year extension. Would the Dodgers say no?

Ownership

Mark Walter’s insurance empire is under investigation by federal authorities — and the subject of discussions with state regulators — over allegations the businesses he controls failed to properly follow laws designed to protect investors.

Walter’s company has denied wrongdoing, and neither Walter nor his businesses have been charged with a crime. He is, however, a defendant in multiple civil lawsuits in which insurance policyholders claim he and several of his companies committed fraud and breach of contract.

Walter may need more than $20 billion to satisfy regulators by recapitalizing insurance companies. He abruptly sold the Lakers in August, in a deal that valued the team — not just Walter’s controlling interest — at $12.5 billion. He and fellow Dodgers co-owner Todd Boehly also sold a small stake in English soccer club Chelsea FC last month for about $1.27 billion, the Financial Times reported. It is uncertain how Walter would provide the rest of the money for recapitalization.

“Regarding the Los Angeles Dodgers, to be clear, the team is not being sold,” Walter’s holdings company said in a statement last month.

It is uncertain whether a resolution with insurance regulators would satisfy the Department of Justice, which reports to President Trump. In July, when the Dodgers visited the White House, Walter presented Trump with an official World Series championship ring with his name engraved on it. He also sold the Lakers to former Disney chief Bob Iger and venture capitalist Joshua Kushner, the brother of Trump’s son-in-law.

Major League Baseball is monitoring the situation and could conduct its own review after the state and federal matters are concluded.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump on Sunday announced plans to close a historic public golf course in the nation’s capital for 15 months and redevelop it despite an ongoing court challenge to his long-sought renovation.

Trump posted on social media about his intent to shut the East Potomac Golf Course, not far from the White House, starting Nov. 15 to make it “one of the Best and Most Spectacular Golf Courses anywhere in the World.”

A judge last week, however, ordered a halt to his redevelopment plans until at least Oct. 26 after scolding the government for starting a large-scale tree removal at the course over a holiday weekend while providing little notice to the court or the plaintiffs trying to stop the makeover.

Trump did not acknowledge the legal fight in his post, which included an artist’s rendering for the course redesign.

“When completed, it will be open to the Public while, at the same time, designed to the Highest Level of Golf and able to hold World Class Tournaments such as the U.S. Open, the PGA Championship, the Ryder Cup, and the Presidents Cup,” Trump wrote.

Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs challenging his renovation plans, responded by saying that the course is part of a national park and recreation facility that is meant for everyone to enjoy.

“Our litigation is intended to protect this community jewel for the people and communities it serves and we will continue to work with our plaintiffs to defend it from unlawful and harmful intrusion,” Skye Perryman, the president and chief executive of the group, said in a statement.

The judge in the case took notice of Trump’s online message and ordered the government to notify her by 8 p.m. Eastern time Sunday whether its position had changed from a court filing Friday that said “at most” Trump has given “preliminary thought” to the rebuilding plan and “there is no final agency action.”

Extensive makeover

Trump, a golf aficionado who plays often, already had announced plans to makeover the links as part of his broader project to renovate and refurbish places around Washington, including the White House and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Many of his projects, including plans for a huge ballroom at the White House, the installation of his own name on the Kennedy Center and construction of a massive arch, have been challenged in courts.

The 106-year-old park and course has been the subject of many emergency hearings as the president has sought to renovate it. Although it has been open to Washingtonians of all income levels, opponents of Trump’s plans to turn it into a high-end course have argued that it will alter the character of the space and make it less affordable.

Trump in his post echoed arguments he has made to justify his plans to remake the Kennedy Center, arguing it is in such dangerous condition that it needs to close.

“The current Course is old, broken, dilapidated, and of no further use or effect. It is in very poor condition, with falling, dangerous, and disease infested trees and, importantly, a collapsing and hazardous seawall,” Trump wrote.

Debris from the demolition of the White House East Wing to make way for his ballroom project also has been dumped on the grounds. The National Park Service has said the debris tested positive for lead, chromium and other toxic metals.

Trump also sought to justify the National Park Service’s removal of hundreds of trees that the judge paused, writing in his announcement that when the golf course was originally built, “it was famous for no trees, with views of Washington, D.C., for all to see, but now, it is completely overgrown, dysfunctional, and unsafe.”

Case returns to court

Trump’s post outlining a clear plan for construction complicates a federal court hearing scheduled for Monday in a lawsuit filed by the DC Preservation League and two golfers opposing the construction.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes has ordered key members of the administration to testify on the recent tree cutting and whether those actions are tied to the president’s plans for the historical public links.

The administration on Friday asked for Reyes to be replaced on the case, questioning her impartiality and citing what it called “egregious” behavior from the bench in response to an emergency hearing Oct. 12. Her frustration boiled over in a three-hour hearing when she lambasted the government’s attorney for the lack of notification she and the plaintiffs received before the trees were chopped down.

At the upcoming hearing, the judge is expected to address the request that she step aside. Meanwhile, over the weekend the plaintiffs asked that she grant them a more long-standing preliminary injunction in the case and/or a stay.

Price writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Gary Fields in Washington contributed to this report.

Oct. 16, 2026 10:51 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump signaled Friday that his embattled new press secretary, Katie Zacharia, may be on her way out — a mere week after he picked her for the post.

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn as he left for a rally in Georgia, Trump said he’d spoken to Zacharia and that he felt she didn’t deserve what he called negative media coverage.

Recounting what was said in that conversation, the president suggested that Zacharia might not stay on the job for long: “I told her, ‘I think you’re better off being happy.’”

He added: “I said, ‘Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this,’” and that he wanted “her to have a good life” and not be subjected to criticism, which he likened to being “brutalized by the media.”

The president said he’d make a final determination later, perhaps after his campaign travel on Friday and this weekend, adding, “When I get back, we’re gonna talk.”

Zacharia’s short tenure has been defined by questions about her professional background and lack of polish in fielding questions from journalists.

She was a surprise choice when Trump announced her appointment on Oct. 9, as the successor to Karoline Leavitt, the youngest-ever White House press secretary who had been part of Trump’s inner circle for years.

Zacharia came under immediate scrutiny when she appeared uncomfortable during her inaugural briefing, delivering halting remarks touting the president and his accomplishments.

She took questions from just three reporters, all from conservative-leaning or Trump-friendly outlets, and left after only about 14 minutes.

Zacharia has said she wanted to keep her briefing short to ensure Trump had enough time later that morning for his own question-and-answer session with reporters, and that she had not been fully briefed by White House staff beforehand.

She later traveled with Trump when he held rallies on Wednesday and Thursday in Alaska, Arizona and Montana — but did not hold more press briefings.

In an appearance on Fox News Channel earlier Friday, Zacharia was asked if she had the president’s confidence and responded: “I hope to be able to build the trust and confidence of everyone around me.”

But she also wouldn’t say when her next press briefing might be.

Zacharia, a Pepperdine University law graduate, also faced criticism for calling herself a “lawyer” when she had not passed a bar exam or was otherwise credentialed to practice.

She had described herself as such when appearing as a commentator on conservative television outlets. Zacharia said the term was a proper one to use when she was offering legal analysis, and said she had worked as a lawyer in China.

Zacharia said Friday on Fox News that she wasn’t asked about passing the bar before becoming press secretary, and Trump noted in his subsequent comments that she was hired as a spokesperson for the White House, not as an attorney.

Before joining the White House, Zacharia had been working in communications for Trump Media, the company that oversees the president’s social media site, Truth Social. She also briefly worked at the Department of Homeland Security during the second Trump administration.

Weissert and Kim write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — President Trump says he wants voters to pretend that he’s on the ballot in this year’s midterm elections.

His rivals are doing their best to help his case.

Democratic candidates and their allies have spent more than $163 million since Sept. 1 on television advertising that mentions the Republican president, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from AdImpact, which charts media spending.

That includes airing ads that reference Trump on broadcast, cable and streaming nearly 180,000 times, the data shows. Republicans, meanwhile, have run ads that talk about the president just 16,000 times, at an estimated cost of $11 million, over the same period.

It’s a noticeable silence about the party’s dominant yet unpopular leader.

Many of the Democrats’ ads accuse Republican opponents of siding with the president over voters, particularly on issues like tariffs and the Iran war, which they blame for jacking up costs.

The ads include one from the campaign of Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is running for reelection and has spent nearly $3 million on a Trump-focused ad attacking his rival, Rep. Mike Collins, for his close relationship with the president.

“Mike Collins voted for Trump’s war in Iran, sending gas prices through the roof. He voted for Trump’s tariffs, sending grocery prices soaring. And Mike Collins voted with Trump to double health insurance premiums for more than a million Georgians,” it says. “Mike Collins sides with Donald Trump and makes you pay more.”

Republican National Committee spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said Democratic messaging reflected the party’s hollowness instead of its strength.

“Democrats are lighting money on fire talking about President Trump because they have no agenda other than investigation, obstruction and impeachment,” she said. “Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t a policy platform, it’s a $160 million way of saying you have nothing to offer to the American people.”

Democrats link Trump and his allies to economic woes

Another ad from the House Majority PAC, a super PAC dedicated to electing Democrats to the House, opens with a middle-aged woman standing over her kitchen stove and talking about how her family is “barely getting by” before she expresses her disappointment in Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who is one of Republicans’ vulnerable incumbents.

“He used to be independent. But now it seems like he’s in lockstep with Donald Trump. It really bothers me,” she says, adding, “Congressman Fitzpatrick is not for us anymore.”

Indeed, all the Democratic ads that have aired in Pennsylvania’s tightly contested 1st Congressional District since Sept. 1 have mentioned Trump, even though Fitzpatrick voted against Trump’s tariffs and his power to wage war against Iran without congressional approval.

All four of the ads talking about Trump have aired a combined 2,000 times in that period, the AdImpact data shows. Fitzpatrick is being challenged by Democrat Bob Harvie, a county commissioner who is a former social studies teacher.

Democratic strategists say the messaging reflects the sentiment of voters.

“Every single poll and every single focus group shows affordability to be voters’ number one issue, and they specifically point to corrupt politicians as being responsible for driving up prices,” said House Majority PAC spokesperson Katarina Flicker.

Republican ads back away from the president

Out of dozens of issue categories tracked by AdImpact, the analysis found that Trump was the fourth most common issue mentioned by Democrats in House and Senate races’ final stretch. It was topped only by healthcare, taxes and accusations about opponents being beholden to special interests.

For Republicans in the same races, Trump-themed ads clocked in at number 33, by comparison. The top issues in their ads were taxes and crime.

Idaho Republican Senator Jim Risch tells viewers he “fought alongside President Trump to pass the biggest tax cuts for working families in American history.”

Overall in the race’s final stretch since Sept. 1, Democrats have spent or plan to spend $1.8 billion in ads across all federal, state and local elections. Republicans have spent or reserved $2.2 billion nationwide.

Republican strategist Alex Conant said Democrats are banking on Trump motivating their base to vote, an approach they’ve routinely used over the last decade.

“Democrats want this election to be a referendum on Trump. They want to equate a vote for a Republican candidate to a vote for Trump,” he said.

For Conant’s party, it’s a different calculus.

“We have a ton of money and we’re throwing every kind of message on the wall to see what sticks,” he said. “There’s not a cookie-cutter Republican ad this year. Whereas the Democratic ads are pretty obvious.”

Colvin and Kessler write for the Associated Press.

Two women filed a lawsuit Thursday against former U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, saying they were sexually exploited by him and other men in violation of a federal anti-trafficking law.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Orlando, Fla., comes nearly two years after the House Ethics Committee said the Florida Republican had regularly paid for sex, including once with a 17-year-old girl, purchased and used illicit drugs, and violated state laws while a member of Congress.

Gaetz had left office when the report was released and denied wrongdoing. But the report helped to tank his nomination to become attorney general in President Trump’s second administration.

Two women said they were in their early 20s in 2017 when they met Gaetz through Joel Greenberg, who was a tax official in Seminole County and is now in prison for a raft of crimes, including a sex crime.

Gaetz provided drugs and paid the women for sex, out-of-state travel, lodging and other expenses, according to the lawsuit.

“Much of the conduct alleged against me is false,” Gaetz said in response.

“The lawsuit relies almost exclusively on a Congressional Committee report that didn’t allow me to confront my accusers. Now I will finally have that chance,” he said in a statement.

Gaetz also appeared to mock the women on the social platform X, sharing a 2018 social media photo of the backs of three women in bathing suits looking at the ocean in the Bahamas.

“I’m shocked nobody responded to their repeated cries for help, posted to instagram,” he said Thursday.

The lawsuit also names Greenberg, another man and businesses tied to Greenberg’s family.

“Every part of this venture ran on an exploitative power imbalance,” the women’s attorney, Spencer Kuvin, said in the lawsuit. “On one side stood a sitting congressman, an elected tax collector, and a former state legislator, men with public office, private homes, and money to spend. On the other stood young financially vulnerable women in their early twenties.”

Gaetz hosts a political talk show on One America News Network. He was recently appointed to the board of Triumph Gulf Coast, which oversees how Florida spends money recovered for damage from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

White writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Lawyers for the BBC say President Trump is trying to delay sitting for a deposition in the defamation case he brought against the British broadcaster until January 2027.

In a filing this week, they asked a Florida court to compel the president to appear in the $10 billion case after they say he canceled an agreed-upon date this week, citing “matters of national importance.”

“Two months of discovery remaining, the BBC still has not been able to depose, and does not even have a schedule to depose, the most central figure in this case: Plaintiff himself,” attorney Charles D. Tobin wrote in the filing. “Those delays have flouted the cooperative spirit of discovery and precluded the BBC from obtaining the evidence necessary to robustly litigate its defense.”

Trump, who has a history of avoiding depositions, filed the lawsuit against the BBC last December, seeking $10 billion in damages as he accused the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices related to a documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance.”

Britain’s publicly funded national broadcaster admitted filmmakers spliced together quotes from different sections of the speech Trump delivered to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before the storming of the U.S. Capitol, to make it seem like he was directly urging violence.

The 33-page lawsuit accused the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The broadcaster apologized to Trump over the edit and the head of the BBC and the British broadcaster’s top news executive both resigned. But the broadcaster has denied Trump’s claims that it defamed him.

In the filing this week, BBC lawyers said that they first requested dates for the deposition in July, and followed up repeatedly. Both sides, they said, eventually agreed on Oct. 16.

However, after weeks of silence, they wrote, “Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 28, 2026, indicating that ‘the President is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance’ and that counsel would ‘endeavor to provide you with a replacement date by the end of this week.’ He did not.”

Instead, they said, they were told last week that Trump “has no availability whatsoever for a deposition” before discovery is set to close on Dec. 18. and were told that Trump would instead make himself available the second or third week of January.

In a statement in response to the filing, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team did not address the reasons for Trump’s delay, but repeated its allegations against the BBC and said the president was holding the broadcaster “accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing.”

Trump voluntarily dropped a $500 million lawsuit he filed against his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in 2023, days before he was set to give a deposition in that suit.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 14, 2026 10:49 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook’s lawyers say that a committee set up by the White House last week to investigate an accusation against her is “demonstrably biased,” though they did not close the door on the possibility that she would appear before the panel.

Lawyer Abbe Lowell also said in a letter Tuesday that Cook would not be able to participate in a hearing Nov. 5 because she “will be executing her official duties as Governor at financial and monetary policy meetings in Europe.”

The earliest that Cook could appear before a “committee of inquiry” that the White House set up last Friday would be after the Fed’s policy meeting Dec. 8-9, the letter said. The letter was sent to William Scharf, a counsel to President Trump.

Lowell’s comments are the latest turn in the Trump administration’s extended efforts to fire Cook from her position as one of seven members of the Fed’s board of governors. Trump has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud in 2021, before she joined the board, a claim she has denied. No criminal charges have been filed.

No president has fired a Fed governor before, a reflection of the Fed’s traditional independence from politics. Yet Trump, who has repeatedly demanded that the central bank lower its key interest rate, has taken numerous steps that economists say have threatened that independence. The Justice Department earlier this year sought to investigate then-Chair Jerome Powell over brief testimony he had given about an extensive building renovation, though a judge threw out subpoenas in the case and it was later dropped.

Cook was appointed by former President Biden and is the first Black woman on the Fed’s board.

Trump first tried to fire Cook in August 2025, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year she could remain in her position while litigation continued. The court also suggested, in a footnote to the ruling, that Trump could try again to fire her if the administration provided her adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. The committee of inquiry announced by the White House last Friday is an effort to meet those conditions.

Under the law governing the Fed, the president can only fire a Fed governor “for cause,” but the Supreme Court didn’t address whether Cook’s actions met that standard. The committee of inquiry will ultimately recommend whether there is cause to fire Cook, a White House memo last week said.

Lowell also said in the Tuesday letter that “we have significant concerns regarding the objectivity and fitness of the committee for its assigned purpose.”

One of its three members, Kevin Hassett, a top economic adviser to Trump, has already said the president has “cause” to fire Cook, the letter noted. The other two members — Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling and chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Andrea Rich — are also Trump appointees.

“A hearing with demonstrably biased members, unspecified additional allegations, and an unclear schedule for the disclosure of any additional evidence – with no explanation for why it was not previously produced – is not a process that respects the appearance or history of independence,” Lowell’s letter said.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nixed a trailblazing California law on Wednesday, permanently barring the state’s efforts to force federal immigration agents to display identification while on duty.

“As before, we conclude … the No Vigilantes Act attempts to directly regulate the United States in its performance of governmental functions,” Judge Mark J. Bennett wrote for the panel. “No set of circumstances exist under which the Act would be valid.”

The U.S. Justice Department first sued to block the ID requirement alongside a related law attempting to ban masks for federal agents and local police in the fall of 2025.

The joint case hit Los Angeles federal court at the beginning of this year amid a surge of immigration enforcement in Minneapolis that led to the shootings of civilians Renee Good and Alex Pretti by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

By then, more than a dozen other states were pursuing similar statutes in an effort to rein in what many saw as lawlessness in President Trump’s sprawling deportation force.

Judge Christina A. Snyder ultimately blocked California’s law prohibiting the use of masks by law enforcement, on the grounds that it unfairly carved out an exception for state peace officers, but allowed the ID requirement for ICE agents and others to go forward, agreeing with the state that it was more akin to a speed limit on the highway than a direct regulation of the federal government.

The 9th Circuit quickly disagreed.

“If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” Bennett wrote.

The decision comes as ICE is quietly shedding many of the 12,000 new recruits it hired last year. Although public outrage over Trump’s militarized mass deportation efforts has diminished somewhat since the winter, it remains a potent election issue.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll from September showed more than 40% of Americans strongly disapprove of the president’s handling of immigration. Meanwhile, the share who fret over unauthorized immigration is nearly identical to the proportion who worry about the unchecked spread of measles — anxieties that pale in comparison with stress over the cost of living, the proliferation of data centers and the war with Iran, data show.

BOULDER CITY, Nev. — Janelle Sorenson loves the clear night skies in Boulder City, less than an hour’s drive from the bright lights of the Las Vegas Strip. It’s a small, quiet town, and she thinks an artificial intelligence data center would ruin the community and scar the desert landscape.

So over the summer, she joined with other residents to successfully oppose plans for one of the giant computing warehouses that have popped up around the country.

But their victory was short-lived. The developers withdrew their application and instead sought adjacent land owned by the federal government — and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management signed off.

“Not only did we not get to decide anything or have a say,” Sorenson said, “we were just really kept in the dark.”

The Townsite data center was the first in the country to be approved on federal public land, though construction is stalled after a judge ruled that the government couldn’t use an old environmental review from when the project was intended to be a solar farm.

Tech companies are eager for vast tracts to build data centers that can be as large as 70 football fields, and Townsite could set a precedent for similar projects on federal property with more than a dozen others in the planning stages. President Trump has been a steadfast supporter of the AI industry, which he views as a source of economic growth and part of a global competition with China.

However, data centers have been unpopular in many communities as voters worry about higher electricity bills, declining water supplies and other effects. In Nevada, where 80% of the land is owned by the federal government, Townsite and other projects have become a dominant issue in the battleground state’s closely watched governor’s race.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, one of his party’s most vulnerable incumbents, doesn’t outright oppose building data centers on public lands, as long as they have community support. He recently signed an agreement with Trump’s Republican administration to streamline infrastructure projects, which could include data centers on federal lands.

Democratic nominee Aaron Ford, the state attorney general, has pledged to oppose data centers on public lands, saying affordable housing should be the priority.

Both say the projects, whether on public or private land, must follow state rules, such as requiring data centers to cover their own energy costs and protecting water supplies, or they would lose eligibility for state tax abatements.

Voters across the political spectrum unite against data centers

Sorenson, the Boulder City resident, considers herself a liberal, but she said her conservative neighbors are on the same page as she is.

“We’re all aligned on this,” she said.

Autumn McGrath-Shook, who lives in the same town, said she recently left the GOP and registered with the Green Party over data centers, though she still identifies as conservative. Worried about the environmental impact on wildlife, she joined forces with “these crazy libs” to oppose the project.

Data centers have quickly become a “catalyzing issue” in the midterms, catching many politicians flat-footed, said David Damore, a political science professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Some state leaders who were previously supportive of data centers have rushed to respond. For example, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott paused data center approvals until audits are completed, and Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro signed an executive order removing data center proposals from a fast-track permitting process and requiring them to receive local approval before seeking state approval.

In August, Ford announced his plan to pause new tax abatements for data centers while an audit is conducted to see whether the projects have fulfilled promises about producing tax revenue and economic benefits.

In September, Lombardo, who has said data centers provide enormous economic opportunity for Nevada, signed an executive order placing more guardrails on them and requiring them to pay more taxes to support schools.

The two have successfully “muddied the waters” on their data center positions, Damore said.

Lombardo criticized Ford for co-sponsoring 2015 legislation that created the state’s tax abatement program for the facilities, a measure that received bipartisan support. Ford criticized Lombardo for giving more than $200 million in tax breaks to data centers, which is connected to the legislation that Ford co-sponsored.

Ford told the Associated Press that he would use “every tool” at his disposal to prevent data centers from skirting state guardrails, including withholding tax abatements and pursuing litigation.

Lombardo, whose campaign declined to make him available for an interview, has a similar pitch. His office said he would not hesitate to confront the federal government to advocate for Nevadans.

But that’s not good enough for McGrath-Shook, who is on the fence in the governor’s race. She thinks Ford is soft on crime, but she views Lombardo as more pro-data centers.

“I would much rather vote for Lombardo than Aaron Ford in a normal world,” she said. “But with the looming data centers, it really changes the landscape — and literally.”

Data centers on public lands are the latest effort in AI race

Last year, Trump signed an executive order to accelerate permitting for AI data centers, and his administration has rolled back the National Environmental Policy Act, saying the bedrock law needlessly delays federal approval for energy and infrastructure projects.

Dan Diorio, executive vice president of state policy and government affairs for the Data Center Coalition, said the industry wants to be a part of the conversation about responsible development on federal lands.

“The good-faith actors in this space are going to be approaching that development responsibly,” he said, “ensuring that it’s going to do no harm on important federal lands.”

But environmentalists are concerned about data centers developing on federal lands to skirt environmental protections and laws and circumvent permitting processes. They’re generally opposed to using public lands for the projects in the first place.

“We believe that public lands are reserved for public good and should be protected and kept in trust for future generations,” said Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club’s Toiyabe Chapter. “And the idea of using public lands for data center construction totally flies in the face of that set of values.”

She said Congress should pass legislation with new standards for environmental reviews and public engagement that could slow development.

“Short of some type of legislation to that effect,” Tanager said, “we’re staring down the barrel of having many data centers move forward on public lands over the next few years.”

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

ROMA, Texas — Standing on a high bank of the Rio Grande, Army Lt. Col. Ray Richards points to a stretch of river that was, until recently, one of the busiest spots for illegal border crossings from Mexico.

But on a recent afternoon, the area is quiet. American soldiers gather at a border monitoring post in Roma, Texas, where an infantry vehicle with camouflage netting sits between houses. A Blackhawk helicopter drops soldiers onto an island in the river, while U.S. Border Patrol agents breeze by on fan-propelled boats.

“At any given time, there would be multiple rafts full of people trying to get to this side,” Richards said of the area before U.S. forces made it a priority last year.

The Army has been inviting reporters to the Rio Grande Valley as it deploys hundreds more soldiers to the region this month by shifting some of the thousands of troops already serving along the 2,000-mile border. U.S. officials said the troop surge follows signs of elevated activity from drug cartels and has been accompanied by increased cooperation from the Mexican military. The U.S. Coast Guard said it recently encountered gunfire from the Mexican side of the river, prompting the Americans to fire back.

In this small patch at the southern edge of the United States, a slow saga is playing out — a curious mix of policing, policy and politics.

Some question a troop surge just weeks before midterm elections

While Republicans face increasing headwinds because of President Trump’s unpopularity, persistently high prices and the fallout from the war in Iran, border security has remained a relative bright spot in Trump’s polling numbers, with about half of Americans saying they approve of his performance there.

But some experts have questioned the need for such a large military presence. They suggest it’s less about effective strategy and more about political theater.

Illegal crossings have plummeted due in large part to asylum restrictions that began before Trump returned to the White House. Meanwhile, a large percentage of the fentanyl, cocaine and heroin seized along the border was being smuggled in cars and trucks passing through checkpoints, not the areas in between.

David Shirk, a University of San Diego political science professor, said the Trump administration wants to remind voters it’s been very aggressive on border security.

“I don’t dispute there’s some benefit to having personnel in areas at risk for people smuggling and drug trafficking,” Shirk said. “But the vast majority of that is now happening at ports of entry.”

Dessa Bergen-Cico, a professor of public health at Syracuse University who studies drug trafficking, said street prices for cocaine and fentanyl are still low, suggesting the drug flow remains unimpeded.

But Army Maj. Gen. Curtis Taylor, who commands the military’s southern border task force, said the work has been vital and effective, particularly for targeting human trafficking.

The moral argument for the Army’s mission is “dismantling this marketplace of human trafficking that is bringing people into the border,” Taylor said. “An added benefit of that is there’s an awful lot of drugs moving with that human trafficking.”

Efforts to secure a former epicenter of illegal crossings

Roma, a city of about 10,000 people, lacks a border wall in some places because homes sit close to the steep slopes along the Rio Grande. Directly across the water is Miguel Alemán, a town in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas that’s been plagued by decades of cartel violence. From Roma, it’s a football field’s distance across the river at best and much less in some places.

In 2021, Roma became a center of illegal crossings when thousands of families and unaccompanied children arrived each day to seek asylum. Border crossings fell sharply after President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in 2024 and dipped after Trump suspended asylum at the border.

After Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, the Army and Coast Guard expanded operations to back up the Border Patrol, which remains the lead agency for border security. The Army now commands some 8,000 U.S. troops along the entire border, while the U.S. Coast Guard and Texas law enforcement have brought in more personnel.

Army officials said people still try to cross into Roma despite multiple obstacles. A barrier of strung-together buoys, each the size of a hay bale, stretched along the river. Concertina wire lined the U.S. river bank, while a surveillance blimp hung in the sky. A river island was recently cleared of trees that hid people trying to cross.

Army Sgt. Nathaniel Decker said he recently saw people on three rafts set out from the Mexican side at dusk. He reported to Border Patrol that one group had cleared the buoys. They were eventually caught by a house in Roma.

Mexico also has sent more troops

The U.S. has stopped many of the drones used by the cartels to surveil the border and ferry drugs, by electronically jamming or capturing them or shooting them down with a laser.

The U.S. has gotten better at tracking them and coordinating with Mexican officials to locate the drones’ operators. But some still get across.

“We have reduced a lot of the flights,” said Richards, the Army lieutenant colonel, who has deployed with the Massachusetts Army National Guard. “But in the middle of the night, those drones can fly into the U.S. airspace, and that’s a true threat to any soldier on the ground.”

Under pressure from Trump, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has cracked down more heavily on crime than her predecessors. Mexico this month sent 500 National Guard and military officers to Tamaulipas as part of a coordinated effort with the U.S. to prevent drug and human trafficking.

Mexico’s deployment “is based on intelligence gathered regarding the movements of criminal groups,” a federal official in Mexico told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the matter.

As part of the operation, the Mexican Army is using two UH-60 helicopters, drones and anti-drone equipment.

The U.S. Coast Guard has also boosted patrols on the Rio Grande, bringing in more than 300 personnel in October of last year. While assisting Border Patrol in trying to apprehend someone attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, the Coast Guard encountered gunfire from the Mexican side of the water near Garceno, Texas, the service said in a statement. The Americans returned fire. None were hurt.

U.S. Coast Guard Cmdr. Jeff Miller wouldn’t give additional details about the exchange of gunfire, except to say the personnel are “working in a very challenging environment” and are authorized to use force to protect themselves.

On a recent patrol, the scene along the river was quiet. A Coast Guard boat armed with machine guns motored along the greenish water. Two men fished from a small boat. A privately funded border wall, made from galvanized steel, lined the American side. In Mexico, there was a park with soccer goal posts, homes and a woman waving.

A Coast Guardsman driving the boat, who declined to give his name, said he’s seen kids on the Mexican side get excited as if a fire truck were passing. Others have offered the Americans cold beer. Some have reacted with offensive gestures.

Joel Garcia, Border Patrol’s acting deputy chief patrol agent for the Rio Grande Valley, said the agency has proof that U.S. operations have been effective based on the amount of drug seizures, the number of people apprehended and decreasing traffic within certain areas.

“Border security, when done right, if we have truly secured the line, should be boring,” he added. “It should look as if no one is crossing and nothing is happening.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Fabiola Sánchez and Megan Janetsky in Mexico City contributed to this report.

President Trump’s new press secretary stepped to the podium, the eyes of a packed room of journalists — and many in their audiences — upon her. She smiled broadly at the sea of faces both probing and friendly. With that, Katie Zacharia went live and became the official voice of the world’s most powerful person.

Fourteen minutes and just three questioners later, she was done. In the aftermath, it was clear that the former Newsmax commentator accomplished at least one thing: She put the “brief” back in briefing.

In her debut Tuesday, Zacharia looked downward and often read directly from a script. She paused and grinned when she uttered the words “Department of War.” She stumbled on a question about her background and mixed up the words “husband” and “president.” The few questions she took were nonconfrontational and from media outlets that have been sympathetic to the Republican president. In short: She made no memorable impression — or at least, to hear some tell it, not the one she likely wanted.

This would not be an easy job under any circumstances. Trump most frequently serves as his own spokesman. And his antagonism toward the media has created a new layer of tension. Zacharia is finding out on day one that she, too, will be under constant watch. Some — including a few of those who have stood in her shoes — didn’t think it went all that well.

In fractured times, in a national media scrum unimaginable just a few decades ago, what is the proper way to approach a job like this? How do you speak effectively when your boss speaks for himself so often that he commandeers the news cycle multiple times a day — and sometimes late into the night — with remarks provocative, unexpected and sometimes incendiary?

For one, you realize for whom you work: not your audience of millions but your audience of one, and the absolute need for his approval.

“I get to do what I was doing on the outside already, which was hoping to amplify, multiply and expand upon President Trump’s incredible agenda for the American people,” Zacharia said. Nowhere did she mention the task of disseminating accurate information to Americans.

The press secretary role has been many things

Over the nearly 10 decades since former journalist George E. Akerson made his and the office’s debut as Herbert Hoover’s press secretary in 1929, the job has served many purposes: deliverer of information, amplifier of policy, jouster with journalists, protector of the presidential reputation and, sometimes, overlord of obfuscation.

Under Trump and his second-term press secretary so far — Karoline Leavitt, who resigned in August — the job has been primarily one of acting as the immovable object against an irresistible, and in Trump’s eyes sometimes treasonous, force.

Leavitt got to know this terrain well in her 17-month tenure. She took a smiling but combative stance against a press that was increasingly coming under Trump’s criticism for coverage — and was named in at least one lawsuit about White House media access. She was not shy about interdicting what she considered media bias. “What a stupid question,” she said to one reporter at a briefing last year.

Trump, outside the White House on Tuesday shortly after Zacharia’s briefing, praised her debut as “excellent.” She was standing behind him at the time.

Other early reviews were more critical. MS NOW quoted one unnamed White House official as saying of the performance: “She needs to get much better fast, otherwise she’ll break Scaramucci’s record.” Anthony Scaramucci, an early White House communications director for first-term Trump, lasted 11 days in 2017. Said Scaramucci on X Tuesday afternoon: “I hope she makes it.”

Joe Biden’s former press secretary, Jen Psaki, now the host of a show on MS NOW, put it more succinctly, posting on X: “Well that briefing was basically an SNL skit….except it wasnt.”

Talking up Trump but taking few questions

While Zacharia’s performance — and of course, that’s what every briefing is — may have been bumpy to some, it was also mostly content-free except for news she broke about the White House asking U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle to quit, which she immediately did.

Predictably, also like Leavitt before her, Zacharia spent a great part of her opening monologue praising Trump and giving an “up ‘til now”-style update on his second term’s priorities and accomplishments so far. Talking points included a “booming economy,” “his historic boom in energy production” and “a great relationship with Venezuela.”

She was also fond of superlatives, a trait that likely will resonate with a president whose remarks are often equally if not more expansive: “President Trump is working to secure the Western Hemisphere for centuries to come.”

When it came to questions, though, she was downright parsimonious. She allowed three questioners, then answered an additional one as she prepared to depart. The three called on during the briefing were Breitbart, Fox News and the Daily Mail, all of which have been friendly to Trump in varying degrees during periods of his two terms. And she said she would continue Leavitt’s policy of bringing “new media” in — which has often meant outlets more sympathetic to Trump.

“We love new media and we want to be able to embrace it,” she said. Currently, three major outlets — CNN, MS NOW and Politico — are fighting to regain White House access after Trump banished them last month, saying he didn’t like their coverage and calling it “fake news.”

How will Zacharia fare in coming days and weeks and, if it lasts, months? That, like so much else, depends on one thing: Donald Trump.

The late U.S. Sen. Howard Baker once famously said that, when being asked difficult things, handle it something like this: If you don’t like the question being asked, just answer a different question. On Tuesday, a half-century later, Katie Zacharia found a different way in — pick three nonconfrontational questioners, then defer to your boss and say: The End.

Anthony writes for the Associated Press.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — It’s a long way from Washington, has a small population and hasn’t backed a Democrat for Senate in nearly 20 years.

Yet President Trump on Tuesday will devote a big chunk of his dwindling time ahead of crucial midterm elections to head all the way to Alaska — attempting to bolster a Republican incumbent senator in another sign of GOP fears about retaining control of Congress after Election Day on Nov. 3.

Trump is headlining a rally for Sen. Dan Sullivan in Wasilla, about 45 miles north of Anchorage — famous for being the hometown of former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin and the headquarters of the Iditarod sled dog race across the state.

Trump’s stop is part of a western swing also taking him to rallies in Arizona and Montana on Wednesday.

“I’m right now going to Alaska to try and help Dan Sullivan. That’s a long way away,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for the trip on Tuesday. “I would only do it if I thought he was good. And he’s very good. And so, I’m going to Alaska to help Dan Sullivan, and then I’m stopping in numerous places.”

Democrats last won a Senate seat in Alaska in 2008, and the state hasn’t elected a governor from that party since 1998. The only time Alaska didn’t vote Republican for president was during Lyndon B. Johnson’s landslide 1964 reelection.

Yet high gasoline prices from the Iran war and persistently elevated inflation have damaged Trump’s approval ratings enough to leave Democrats dreaming of Alaska upsets.

Trump and Vance have been trying to boost Sullivan repeatedly

Seeking his third Senate term, Sullivan faces Democrat Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman running to put “Alaska First,” emphasizing cost-of-living issues.

Alaska pollster Ivan Moore said he’s seen a decline in Trump’s support statewide that mirrors the president’s falling approval ratings nationally — meaning the Senate race may be decided by Trump 2024 voters who are now unsure they still back him.

“The visit is certainly appropriate. Whether the visit will be effective or not is another matter,” said Moore, who said when he first heard that Trump would visit Alaska, he didn’t believe it would actually happen.

The Trump administration has prioritized the opening of more of Alaska to oil and gas drilling. Vice President JD Vance already campaigned in Fairbanks for Sullivan.

The senator also recently joined Trump in the Oval Office where the president announced a $54 billion investment by South Korea’s government into an Alaska natural gas project. That’s despite South Korea saying the deal, and its total value, haven’t been finalized.

Still, Trump trekking four time zones west to get to Sullivan’s home turf — an unusually long trip so close to the midterms — is his strongest show of support.

Trump last campaigned in Alaska to try to defeat a fellow Republican

Alaska is home to around 740,000 people, making it slightly less populous than Denver. It ranks 48th out of 50 states in population, smaller than all but Vermont and Wyoming.

Trump nonetheless headlined a 2022 rally in Anchorage opposing Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski after she voted to convict him on a charge of incitement of insurrection during his second impeachment trial, following the attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob of his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump endorsed Kelly Tshibaka, who challenged Murkowski that year, but that didn’t stop incumbent Murkowski from winning reelection.

This year, there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot

Trump has complained about Alaska’s unique elections system. The state has open primaries, in which the four top vote-getters — regardless of party affiliation — advance to the general election, which uses ranked choice voting.

That’s led to a scenario where there also will be another Dan Sullivan on the ballot on Nov. 3: retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan, whom Trump and other allies of Sen. Sullivan have called a sham candidate. Dan J. Sullivan has denied this.

At his rally, Trump also plans to stump for Republican Rep. Nick Begich. Begich is facing a competitive challenge from Bill Hill, an independent.

Alaska has a history of rewarding candidates with an independent streak — something Vance acknowledged during his trip to Fairbanks last week. “In very deep red years, Alaska is competitive. In very deep blue years, Alaska is still competitive,” Vance said. “I think it’s just a reality of the politics of the ‌state.”

Independence has been hard to find in the Republican Party where Trump for years had total control. Some Republicans facing tough elections have begun tiptoeing away from Trump on key issues like Iran and tariffs, but not Sullivan, who has been vocal in supporting both.

In a post last week, Trump questioned why three Republicans were running against a Democrat for governor. “How stupid are we to do this?” he said on social media. This comes at the same time state Republican party leaders are urging voters to rank Republicans on the ballot and leave the Democrats blank.

“We want to be clear: we do not support ranked choice voting. It is a confusing, burdensome and costly voting scheme,” party leaders, including GOP chair Carmela Warfield, said in a statement Saturday. “That said, ranked choice voting is the system Alaska will use for the 2026 General Election, and we must work within it for this election to keep Alaska’s recent momentum going strong.”

Trump’s trade war with Canada may also be a factor

Trump has also triggered a trade war with Canada, which shares a 1,500-plus-mile border with Alaska and is among the state’s most important trading partners.

The U.S. banned nearly $1 billion worth of imports from its neighbor to the north — including alcoholic beverages, dairy products and motorcycles — after previously imposing 50% tariffs on about $20 billion in Canadian products. Canada has responded with reciprocal bans and its own import levies, and the back-and-forth could raise prices for Alaska consumers.

Making Canada an enemy of sorts is “discomforting” for many Alaskans, said pollster Moore.

“We associate, I think, probably more closely with the Canadians — more than a lot of the Lower 48,” he said.

Weissert and Bohrer write for the Associated Press. Weissert reported from Washington. AP reporter Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Oct. 13, 2026 9:33 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Katie Zacharia, the new White House press secretary, faced reporters for the first time on Tuesday for a very brief turn at the lectern, taking a handful of questions before abruptly wrapping it up.

Zacharia, a conservative commentator who most recently worked for President Trump’s social media company, was named to the job on Friday, succeeding Karoline Leavitt, who left in August and is taking a job with Fox News Channel.

Zacharia told reporters her goal is to “amplify” what Trump is doing and that the president is “his own best spokesperson.”

She quickly proved that Tuesday, appearing for only 14 minutes and taking questions from just three outlets before telling reporters they could go ask the president their questions on the South Lawn of the White House as he prepared to leave for a campaign trip.

“In fact, I am going to end it because President Trump is heading out to Marine One for our historic trip to Alaska, and we can ask him all of the questions out there,” she said.

As Trump left the White House for his trip, he praised Zacharia’s performance to reporters.

“I thought she did excellent,” he said. “She did very good.”

Before taking the questions, Zacharia read slowly from an opening statement that began with a focus on Trump’s recent campaign rallies ahead of the midterm elections and his policies on energy, tariffs, immigration and more since he returned to office.

In naming Zacharia, who has a law degree from Pepperdine University, Trump described her as “a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning.” She briefly worked as a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year and has been a commentator for Fox News and Newsmax.

She told reporters that she viewed her role as press secretary to be no different than the way she advocated for Trump while outside the government.

“I get to do what I was doing on the outside already, which was hoping to amplify, multiply and expand upon President Trump’s incredible agenda for the American people,” she said.

She also thanked Trump and said, “I have wanted to work for him for a very long time.”

She took her first question from Breitbart News, the right-wing outlet which has become more influential in the Trump era, and committed to keeping the “new media” rotation created under her predecessor to bring additional media outlets into news briefings and the White House press pool.

But Zacharia did make some big news: she said that Trump had asked for the resignation of Kimberly Guilfoyle, the U.S. ambassador to Greece, after a series of reports alleging she has engaged in improper and possibly illegal conduct before and during her tenure in Athens.

“She has been a wonderful asset to the team and we wish her well,” Zacharia said.

Price and Superville write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Josh Boak and Collin Binkley in Washington and Mike Catalini in Morrisville, Pa., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The high court is intervening for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of President Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favor and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorized the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” its attorneys wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Chuck Schumer has won and lost Senate majorities since becoming Democratic leader a decade ago. But this year’s midterm elections could be his most important yet, with some in the party having said he needs to step down and make way for a new generation.

Schumer, who has directly or indirectly overseen his party’s Senate campaign arm in almost every election cycle over the last 20 years, has regained trust within his caucus, for now, as Democrats are hopeful of making gains in the midterm elections despite a difficult map that favors Republicans.

Allies of the New York Democrat say it’s a significant turnaround from last year, when the party was still reeling from major election losses. A low point came in the spring of 2025, when the party’s base erupted at Schumer for voting to keep President Trump’s government open.

Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic senators in recent weeks indicate that Schumer has recovered his political standing with many in his caucus. If Democrats gain seats in the election, colleagues expect him to easily win enough support in the closed-door leadership election, likely the week after Election Day.

Should they win a majority, a feat once seen as improbable, another term as leader would be nearly assured, many said. Both parties pick their Senate leaders by secret ballot, so no senator has to reveal their vote.

Still, nothing is guaranteed. While no Democrat has stepped up to challenge Schumer, that could quickly change if his party suffers an unexpected level of losses. And several Democratic candidates around the country have said publicly that they won’t vote for Schumer or have remained noncommittal.

Interviewed by The Associated Press earlier this month, Schumer stated unequivocally that he’s running for another term as leader. He said he believes Democrats have won more favor with voters over the last year and have a shot at winning the majority after fighting Trump’s tariffs, forcing more than a dozen votes to end the war in Iran and focusing on affordability, corruption and healthcare.

“I think our caucus is strong, it’s united,” Schumer said. “A year ago, everyone said it was out of reach. Today, we have a broader map, strong candidates, a clear contrast.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said that “Senate seats in some ruby red states seem to be in play” because of candidates Schumer recruited.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who has served with Schumer for almost 30 years, said that “if you had told us in 2025 that we’d be in the home stretch with a really good shot of taking the majority, it would have been like, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me.’ You can’t argue with results.”

And if Democrats don’t win additional seats? “I’m not thinking about that,” Wyden said.

Some senators won’t commit to supporting Schumer

While Schumer appears to be in a good position at the moment, many Democratic senators won’t say publicly whether they will support him — particularly those in the most progressive wing of the party.

“It’s a little bit too early to speculate on that right now,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said she is focused on November’s elections. “We’ll know a lot more after the midterms,” she said.

Freshman Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan has called for a “new generation” of leaders across the party.

“It’s not a secret that Democrats still haven’t totally found their footing after Trump,” Slotkin said in a recent interview, adding that “we have to see what the results of the election are.”

It’s unclear if anyone else wants the job

Even if there are losses in Senate races, it’s unclear if any other Democrat wants the burden of being leader. Many are instead eyeing runs for the White House in 2028.

Speculation about a challenge to Schumer has centered on Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who has already said he’s running for the No. 2 leadership spot to replace retiring Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin.

Asked about Schumer, Van Hollen said he doesn’t want to discuss it yet.

“Look, I think everybody wants to get through this election, and then we’ll go from there,” Van Hollen said in an interview before the Senate left Washington to campaign.

Several Senate candidates around the country have either said they won’t vote for Schumer if they are elected or remained noncommittal, including Troy Jackson in Maine, Adam Hamilton in Kansas and Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan.

At the same time, the Senate Majority PAC, which is closely aligned with Schumer, has put millions of dollars into those campaigns and others. Schumer backed El-Sayed’s primary opponent, but the two met in Washington last month.

El-Sayed said after the meeting that the party is united and “we’re having really productive conversations about what it takes to win.”

Schumer has kept his caucus close

Several of the Democratic senators who insisted on anonymity to share their views agreed that Schumer is likely to win another term as leader. There have been very few discussions about a change, said one, partially because Schumer has stayed close to almost everyone in his caucus, keeping them on speed dial in his famous flip phone. Another senator said that they aren’t aware of Schumer asking for any commitments just yet.

At the same time, some said they would like to see Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2028, announce that this is his last term as leader and commit to helping transition to a successor. A commitment like that could end the conversation, one senator said.

Another senator said that a commitment from Schumer about the future isn’t as important — what will matter is if they win in November.

All of the senators agreed that there are no obvious contenders right now to challenge him, but that could change quickly if Democrats lose Senate seats in November.

Schumer has turned the tables since 2025

Attitudes within the Democratic caucus have improved since last year, when the base revolted against Schumer for the March vote to keep the Republican president’s government open. Progressive groups like MoveOn called for him to step down, arguing that Democrats needed to fight harder against Trump and Republicans.

Schumer regained some favor with Democrats inside and outside the Capitol during a prolonged government shutdown a year ago and as he has repeatedly blocked Trump’s nominees and Republican legislation.

But while the calls to resign or step aside have waned, many are still agitating for change.

“Our priority right now is organizing and making sure we elect a new generation laser-focused on affordability and fighting corruption,” said Joel Payne, a national spokesman for MoveOn.

Referring to the 2025 calls for Schumer to step aside, Payne said the group’s members have “already rendered a judgment on Schumer’s tenure and made clear they’re eager for new leadership that energizes the party base.”

It’s unclear, though, whether calls from the progressive wing of the party will influence the secret ballot vote, in which Schumer needs only a majority to win.

Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., dismissed the talk about Schumer’s future.

“It’s hard to lose if no one else is challenging you,” he said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Steven Sloan, Seung Min Kim and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

NEW YORK — Elon Musk, the world’s only trillionaire, has quietly become the biggest known donor in this year’s midterm elections, doling out more than $276 million since July to try to save Republican majorities in Congress.

The numbers, first reported by the New York Times ahead of this week’s federal filing deadline, were confirmed by Andrew Romeo, a spokesperson for Musk’s super PAC.

The money includes $158 million given to the Senate Leadership Fund, the main super PAC supporting Republican Senate candidates, one of the largest known political donations in American history, according to the Times.

Another $76 million went to America PAC, a Musk super PAC, which has once again built out a major turnout operation like the one it used to help elect President Trump by knocking on doors in 2024.

Musk also provided $10 million to Lone Star Liberty PAC, a group that supports the Republican nominee for Senate in Texas, Ken Paxton. The race has been a major focus of Musk’s efforts.

It’s a dramatic turnaround since last May, when Musk said he intended to cut back on future political spending. “I think I’ve done enough,” he said at the time.

Despite the cash infusion, Musk has generally kept a lower profile than in 2024, when he appeared on stage next to Trump at rallies, and in the early days of the president’s second term, when he led the Department of Government Efficiency.

He had a falling out with Trump while leaving his government post, but the two have since reconciled. Trump presented Musk with the National Medal of Science last week.

Musk’s net worth has fluctuated around the trillion-dollar line this year based on changes in stock prices, but he topped $1 trillion again last week according to Forbes magazine.

Republican have a gaping financial advantage over their Democratic counterparts — a disparity that has been a rare bright spot for a party that is bracing for major potential losses amid deep voter frustration over the president’s performance, stubbornly high prices and the unpopular war with Iran.

They have been using the money to blanket the airwaves in the race’s final stretch.

“These robust investments have allowed the G.O.P. apparatus to get its message out so Republicans can have a fighting chance to defy history,” Romeo told the Times.

Democrats responded to the news by accusing Republicans of using vast amounts of cash to mask their shortcomings.

“Republicans are hoping to buy these elections, injecting tens of millions into races to try and outrun their unpopular candidates, unpopular president, and unpopular economy,” said Lauren French, a spokesperson for Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump must cancel any remaining television commercials paid for with millions of dollars in taxpayer money to promote his political message, a federal judge ordered Sunday night, even as the administration said the ad campaign was coming to an end.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads and called them an illegal misuse of funds. She told the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order.

“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements” during the two-week duration of her order, the judge said.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment Sunday night. In a court filing late Saturday, the Justice Department argued that the temporary restraining order was unnecessary because “the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.”

The Department of Homeland Security tapped $20 million in taxpayer money for the ads. Legal experts have suggested that violated a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda” and potentially other laws.

“We are pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars from being used for such blatantly unlawful political propaganda,” the plaintiffs said in a statement issued by Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization that represents them. “There is no legal justification — and no precedent — for the president to use the machinery of the government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes that further his own agenda.”

In a court declaration Saturday, senior Homeland Security official Holly Mehringer wrote that the money came from funds appropriated by Congress that are “available for, among other things, ‘commemorating efforts and events related to border security.’”

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements in that they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

The ads, which began airing in late September, glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms. One features a clip of the president talking about the threat of communism and another is a replay of an ad from his last presidential campaign. The fifth ad in the campaign began airing Tuesday, focusing on his administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

The use of public funds to pay for the ads drew heavy criticism — including from some in the GOP.

“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters.

The Democratic National Committee has separately sued the Republican administration over the ads.

Amid the backlash, Trump said he would start paying for the ads with a campaign account. A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP reporters Collin Binkley in Washington and Ali Swenson contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan group of six senators — four of them Republicans — called Sunday for the Trump administration to “immediately reverse course” on a plan to purchase diesel from Russia as part of an effort to lower high fuel prices.

President Trump shocked lawmakers when he announced on social media Friday that he had struck a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call. He said Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel to the American and global market, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.” Russia will deliver an additional 3 million tons “within a short period of time” after that, he wrote.

Four Republican senators and two Democratic senators signed onto the statement released Sunday protesting the deal. They said the administration failed to consult with Congress or submit any explanation to justify its decision as required by statute.

“The United States should not provide Putin with a financial lifeline while Russia continues to kill Ukrainian civilians. The Administration must immediately reverse course,” they wrote.

The Republican senators who signed onto the statement are Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Curtis of Utah. The Democratic senators are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut.

Tillis, in an interview that aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said there’s a legitimate case for saying the president is not following the law if the administration goes through with its diesel purchase plan.

“We were very clear that Russia is the aggressor. Russia is the one who can end this war by backing out of territory that they occupied,” Tillis said.

Trump’s announcement came just a few weeks after Congress passed legislation that directed Trump to impose substantial tariffs on the top importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

The congressional effort was aimed at cutting the flow of money Russia receives from oil and gas sales to finance its war against Ukraine.

The lawmakers also noted that Congress explicitly banned Russia energy imports in 2022 — after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — to prevent the United States from financing the war.

“Congress was clear: the U.S. should not import oil from Russia until it ends its aggression against Ukraine and ceases threats against our NATO Allies,” the six lawmakers wrote in their statement. “President Trump’s decision to allow Russian diesel imports to the U.S. runs directly counter to that law.”

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), when asked whether the president’s action would be in violation of U.S. law, said Trump is focused on reducing the cost of energy.

“The president is balancing and has to make tough decisions,” Barrasso said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

He also encouraged Trump to enforce the sanctions law that Congress passed last month.

“This is just another point of leverage for the president to use against Putin in an effort to get a long-term solution in that part of the world,” Barrasso said.

Trump has recently sought to blame record U.S. diesel prices on Ukraine rather than the U.S.-led war in Iran, which has elevated world energy prices.

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

Iran. Afghanistan. North Korea. Somalia. And now, the United States.

If Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is to be believed, America will soon gain the dubious distinction of joining the only four countries on the globe that carry out executions in public.

Hegseth said Thursday that he wanted the execution of convicted F.t Hood shooter, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, to be available for public viewing.

“It was a radical Islamist attack … so he’s going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be,” Hegseth said in an interview with far-right political activist Jack Posobiec. “We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it. That it’s public. Because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

The execution is scheduled to be live streamed Dec. 3 from the same military base where Hasan opened fire in 2009, killing 13 and wounding 32.

The planned public display is, in a word, barbaric. It’s the archaic act of tyrannical monarchies, staged in the shadow of a looming tower or in the town square. The Taliban and ISIS were big on public executions. So was Nazi Germany. They were either fighting a war on their own soil or had just come out of one. It’s a poor excuse, but the U.S. military can’t even point to that as justification for the animalistic intention of broadcasting a state-sanctioned murder.

Should plans for the livestream of Hasan’s killing become a reality, our peers will be countries that the U.S. has long held up as the worst of the worst. Oppressive “shithole” countries, to use a Trump term, that wield intimidation and the threat of death to keep their people in line.

Iran carries out its hangings in public squares, typically using truck-mounted cranes as makeshift gallows. The Taliban exacts its death penalty in sports arenas. Amnesty International reports that North Korea forced local residents, students and workers to watch the 2008 execution of 13 women and two men as a deterrent. Their crime? Attempting to flee to China.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist and a Muslim, opened fire on dozens of his fellow soldiers as they were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. He was reportedly angry about the U.S. involvement in the region and in Iraq. In court, prosecutors argued that he was radicalized online and motivated by an ideology that called for “jihad duty.”

His crimes were horrific, and he should be punished. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not (I do not), turning his execution into a morbid form of entertainment — or a warning to never do what he did — would mark a new low for this country.

And we are pretty low as it is. On Thursday, ICE agents in civilian clothing fired at least seven rounds, at 4 p.m. on a busy Manhattan street, into a car with a 5-year-old boy inside. They hit the driver, who survived, and by some act of god missed the child.

Federal immigration agents have shot at least 21 people, killing seven, since President Trump returned to office less than two years ago with the promise of cracking down on crime and making the country safer via mass deportations. The public execution of Hasan, who is a U.S. citizen, is being sold as part of that tough-on-crime initiative. Hegseth himself said the public killing is meant as a deterrent.

The idea that keeping a population safe requires removing the guardrails of civilized society is absurd, though despots throughout history would have us believe otherwise.

If Hasan’s death is televised, it will be the nation’s first government-sanctioned execution carried out in public since 1939. It will be the first U.S. military execution since 1961 and the first military death by firing squad, or “musketry,” since 1945, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

The Army had planned a very different type of execution for Hasan. ABC News reported that officials were preparing to use lethal injection if Trump authorized the execution of one of the four prisoners on the service’s death row.

Trump’s approval of Hasan’s execution last Friday came days after a botched lethal-injection execution in Tennessee. Christa Pike, who was sentenced to death for a 1995 murder she committed as a teenager, survived despite being injected with two supposedly lethal doses. She is now said to be lucid and even walking.

Hasan, who is partially paralyzed and uses a wheelchair after being shot by officers who were responding to the Ft. Hood attack, will be put to death in a more dramatic fashion — and for everyone to see.

“The public execution even of one who has done grave harm will only further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people,” Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley said in a statement Friday. “The word of God exhorts us: ‘do not repay anyone evil for evil’ (Romans 12:17).”

A few congressional Republicans even broke ranks with their party and criticized Hegseth’s plans for the livestream. Sen. John Curtis of Utah posted on X that “a civilization erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment. Secretary Hegseth’s plan to livestream the Fort Hood execution risks feeding that appetite.”

There is no reason the U.S. should stoop to the barbarism of public executions. It’s ghoulish, inhumane and a marker of tyrannical rule. Do we really want to join Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia in the global hall of shame?

In confirming his plans to live-stream Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Malik Hasan’s military execution by firing squad on Dec. 3, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called it a “no brainer” punishment for a “radical Islamist terror attack” on U.S. service members.

“We’ll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it’s public, because people need to understand [that] there are serious consequences for these types of things,” Hegseth said in an interview with the Real America’s Voice network.

Others across the country and around the world — Democrats and Republicans, human rights experts, legal scholars and military and religious leaders — condemned it as a barbaric throwback to an era when executions were cast as entertainment, and as the world’s leading democracy adopting a form of punishment carried out in modern times only by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations.

Nidal Malik Hasan is shown in a courtroom sketch in 2013.

(Brigitte Woosley / Associated Press)

“Hasan should face the death penalty, but making his execution public and streaming it? Beyond disgusting,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) wrote on X. “Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do. It should not be happening in America.”

“I absolutely support the sentence of death, but live-streaming executions is what jihadists do. America is better than that,” Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) wrote.

The United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights said that “the livestreaming of an execution is tantamount to a public execution and would breach the absolute prohibition of torture.” The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it would “further undermine the moral fabric of our nation and be a blight on the conscience of its people.”

Matthew Robinson, a criminal justice professor at Appalachian State University and author of a book on U.S. capital punishment titled “Death Nation,” said he was “appalled” by the plans. “It strikes me as meant to be entertaining.” He said the last military execution was in 1961, and the last by firing squad was in 1945.

Soldiers hold a candlelight vigil at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, one day after Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 13 people.

(LM Otero / Associated Press)

Hasan was an Army psychiatrist and major who in 2009 entered a medical building on the Texas military base with a laser-sighted handgun, shouted “Allahu akbar” — Arabic for “God is great!” — and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 32 others. He has since spoken of being a “martyr” if executed.

President Trump, an outspoken proponent of the death penalty for years but also a past critic of public executions in places like Iran, has signed off on Hasan’s execution but not addressed Hegseth’s plans. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Vice President JD Vance, who is Catholic, said Friday that people should remember that Hasan “brutally murdered a lot of innocent people.” But he also said he would not watch a live-stream of the execution, and expressed doubt that is “actually going to happen.”

On his first day in office this term, Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to restore the death penalty to prominence. In April, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had taken steps to do so, including by “expanding the protocol” to include firing squads.

Five states currently allow firing squads to carry out executions: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly turned down appeals contending such executions amount to “cruel and unusual punishment,” which is barred under U.S. law. South Carolina executed three men by firing squad last year.

When the Supreme Court last year rejected an Alabama inmate’s request to be killed by firing squad rather than with nitrogen hypoxia, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor — joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, writing, “Boyd asks for the barest form of mercy: to die by firing squad, which would kill him in seconds, rather than by a torturous suffocation lasting up to four minutes. The Constitution would grant him that grace.”

Kathleen Walter prays outside the Nashville, Tenn., prison where Christa Pike was set to be executed.

(George Walker IV / Associated Press)

Last week, a Tennessee inmate named Christa Pike survived what was meant to be a lethal injection of the barbiturate pentobarbital. Other states have also struggled with executions by lethal injection in recent years.

Much of the criticism of Hegseth’s plan for Hasan has centered not on the method of killing, but on the live-streaming of it.

Robin M. Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said the center has “no record of any execution being live streamed,” and is “not aware of any regulation or precedent for a military execution to be live streamed on the internet or otherwise made widely available to the public.”

Fox News commentator Howard Kurtz wrote: “I’m sensing revulsion on the left and right, not so much for killing a death row prisoner — although firing squad seems extreme in the modern age — but for the Pentagon to live-stream it, turning this into a horrifying TV show to entertain the masses. Is this America?”

Daniel LaChance, an associate history professor at Emory University and author of the book “Executing Freedom: The Cultural Life of Capital Punishment in the United States,” said the last public execution in the U.S. occurred in 1936, when a Black man convicted of rape was hanged in Kentucky — which still allowed public executions after most states had abandoned the practice.

That execution was “by all accounts a grotesque carnival” and “sort of like a gladiatorial contest brought to life in the 20th Century, where the crowd was surly, shouting,” LaChance said. “It was a debacle.”

That the Trump administration is seeking to turn capital punishment into a public spectacle once more, LaChance said, is out of line with decades of thinking on the issue, but in line with Trump’s own ethos about crime and punishment.

“His whole brand is this kind of populist, anti-elitism. And when executions moved into the bowels of prisons in the early 20th century, they were really becoming bureaucratic affairs, run by experts, carried out in front of a small group of professionals and clergy,” LaChance said. “It was a denial of the public’s right to see a punishment that was carried out in their name, in part because there were elites who thought that the public couldn’t handle this kind of spectacle, that they were misbehaving, that it would generate more disorder when an execution is designed to do the exact opposite: to generate order.”

President Trump points to fans to as he walks to the stage at a political rally Wednesday in San Antonio.

(San Antonio Express-News via Getty Images)

Trump clearly thinks he is pushing back against elitism and expertise and giving people what they want, LaChance said, though the question many scholars have is whether doing so will “increase people’s bloodthirst” or force them to recoil — and ultimate decrease support for such punishments.

Eugene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said Trump has publicly mused about killing people by firing squad for years, so Hegseth’s plans to use a firing squad should not be surprising. However, the decision to live-stream the killing is clearly a source of “dismay” for many. “Even people who are resigned to the death penalty, who don’t have religious or other scruples about the death penalty, have real heartburn over this,” he said.

Fidell said “brutality” has become an “operating principle” for the Trump administration broadly, from its decision to host an Ultimate Fighting tournament at the White House to its immigration tactics across the country to, now, it’s plans to live-stream an execution — which Fidell said has “nothing to do” with deterring future crime.

“There’s a pathology going on here that is so out of keeping with the dignity that ought to characterize the taking of a life as a result of a legal process,” he said.

Robinson, of Appalachian State, said a student of his Friday morning asked what would happen when children tune in to watch the execution, which Robinson said he believes they will do, as if it’s a video game. He said the idea was appalling — and not just to him.

“I imagine the rest of the world, the civilized world, will see this and have the same response that I did,” he said. “They’ll respond with shock.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Arlington County Board in Virginia filed a lawsuit Thursday opposing the construction of the Triumphal Arch, becoming the first governmental body to take legal action against President Trump’s planned monument.

The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, criticized the speed at which the project slated for Memorial Circle has moved without going through the full review process.

“The National Park Service, the agency responsible for projects on national park land such as Memorial Circle, is proceeding full-speed toward ground-disturbing construction,” the lawsuit said. “Although the agency has claimed that a final decision to construct the Arch has not yet been made and purports to be engaged in a routine decisional process, that rushed process appears to be a pretext designed to shore up justifications for building the Arch in accordance with the President’s repeated marching orders.”

The lawsuit asks that “the agency’s feverish pace toward construction of the arch” be halted to ensure that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act be followed and proper analysis and testing be done.

“The Arlington County Board has filed this lawsuit because our community has the most to lose from this egregious and unlawful proposed project,” Arlington County Board Chair Matt de Ferranti said in a statement. He added that the county has acted in good faith in the review process, pointing out the “severe, unique, and wide-ranging negative impacts” the project will have on the county and its residents, only to see them ignored.

Memorial Circle sits on federal parkland west of the Potomac River across the Memorial Bridge and immediately adjacent to Arlington County.

The county is being represented in the lawsuit by legal advocacy group Democracy Forward.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the Trump administration and White House have been “fastidiously compliant with all procedural and legal requirements and are certain this meritless and dilatory lawsuit will be dismissed.”

The arch will become one of the world’s most iconic landmarks, he added. “It will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike.”

The lawsuit came a day after the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson expressed concerns that the 250-foot arch compounds multiple safety issues that she said have gone unaddressed since a deadly January 2025, crash over the Potomac River that killed 67 people. Nelson also criticized Trump’s plan to turn the arch into “a top grade military complex” able to host drones and snipers while storing ammunition.

Though the arch has received early approval from the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were all tapped by Trump, a group of three veterans and an architectural historian sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., saying the project needs to be approved by Congress. The judge in that lawsuit said the administration must give the court 48 hours before undertaking any activities related to or in preparation for construction of the arch.

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that Trump has undertaken as he remakes the city, from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 9, 2026 8:06 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump opened another chapter in his effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook Friday by establishing a “committee of inquiry” to investigate allegations that she made false statements in mortgage applications.

The inquiry will include a hearing at the White House Nov. 5, Trump said in a written memo, that Cook “shall” attend to answer questions from the committee. The hearing wouldn’t be public but a transcript would be published, the memo said.

Trump’s extraordinary demand that Cook testify before the committee will likely renew concerns about threats to the Federal Reserve’s independence as the president demands the central bank cut its key interest rate. Just last month, the Fed raised its key rate instead, led by Chairman Kevin Warsh, whom Trump appointed earlier this year.

“As President, it is my job to ensure the laws are faithfully executed, including by firing subordinates who cannot be trusted to tell the truth and follow the law,” Trump wrote in the memorandum.

Trump and some of his economic advisers have blamed the Fed’s broader rate-setting committee, which includes 12 voting members and 19 officials in total, for the rate hike. Cook is one of the 12 participants on the committee that votes on interest-rate decisions. The vote to lift rates Sept. 16 was unanimous.

The move follows a Supreme Court ruling in June that Cook could keep her job after Trump sought to fire her last year. That ruling included a footnote that said nothing prevented Trump from “trying again” as long as she was given proper notice and an opportunity to respond to the charges.

Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.