resolution

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition to war grows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress exerts its war powers authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

141 UN member states voted in support of the ICJ’s finding climate change is an ‘existential threat’.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has voted to support a landmark ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which found states have a legal responsibility to act to prevent the climate crisis from worsening.

More than two-thirds of UN member states, 141, voted in favour of the resolution on Wednesday, with eight voting no and 28 abstaining.

Ralph Regenvanu, the minister for climate change from Vanuatu, which championed the case, described the vote as a victory for “communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis”.

“Today the international community affirmed that climate change is not only a political and economic challenge, but a matter of law, justice, and human rights,” Regenvanu said in a statement.

“For vulnerable countries like Vanuatu, this resolution is deeply significant because it confirms that no State is above its obligations to protect people, future generations, and our planet.”

The historic ruling from The Hague-based court in July last year found that states have a legal obligation to act on the “existential threat” of climate change.

The case was the biggest ever to be considered by the ICJ’s 15 judges, who reviewed tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments before delivering their verdict.

The case came to the court at the request of the UNGA after a resolution led by Vanuatu was adopted by consensus in March 2023.

Wednesday’s vote, by contrast, attracted a number of objections, with Belarus, Iran, Israel, Liberia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Yemen voting no.

Al Jazeera reported in February that the US had sent a diplomatic cable urging UN member states not to support the resolution.

“We are strongly urging Vanuatu to immediately withdraw its draft resolution and cease attempting to wield the Court’s Advisory Opinion as a basis for creating an avenue to pursue any misguided claims of international legal obligations,” a copy of the cable seen by Al Jazeera stated.

Wesley Morgan, a fellow with the Climate Council, an Australian nonprofit, said the vote confirmed states had a legal duty to act on climate change.

“This landmark resolution is a massive victory for Vanuatu and the Pacific leaders who have spent decades fighting for survival on the frontlines of the climate crisis and a warning for Australian governments,” Morgan said in a statement.

“For far too long, fossil fuel heavyweights have treated climate action as a political choice, but the UN General Assembly has now confirmed it is a binding legal duty,” he added.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Monday moved to withdraw his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns after reports that his administration was poised to create a fund to compensate some of his allies.

The disclosure was made in a filing in federal court in Florida, where the lawsuit was filed last year.

ABC News first reported last week that Trump was prepared to drop his lawsuit as part of a deal that would create a $1.7 billion fund to pay allies of the president who believe they were wrongly investigated and prosecuted.

The court filing did not mention terms of any potential deal.

News that the Trump administration was contemplating a fund to pay Trump allies drew an immediate backlash from Democrats, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, who called the idea “unconstitutional.”

“This, of course, is a political grievance fund that Donald Trump can use to pay off his friends,” Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“If these people have a valid cause of action, they should bring it to the court like every other American does, and use the system of due process, and proving things by clear and convincing evidence, or a preponderance of evidence, go and prove it. But the idea that Donald Trump can just pass it out like a pardon is absurd,” he added.

It was not immediately clear who precisely will stand to benefit from the fund but its creation reflects Trump’s long-running claims that the Biden administration Justice Department was weaponized against him.

He has cited as proof the since-dismissed criminal charges he faced between his first and second terms of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election he lost and of retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Several aides of his were also prosecuted, as were hundreds of Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Merrick Garland, who served as attorney general during the Biden administration, has repeatedly denied allegations of politicization and has said his decisions followed facts, the evidence and the law. His Justice Department also investigated Biden for his handling of classified information and brought separate tax and gun prosecutions against Biden’s son Hunter.

Nonetheless, Trump’s current Justice Department has actively pursued the president’s retribution campaign and grievances, bringing criminal charges against some of his perceived adversaries and initiating a wide-ranging investigation that aims to establish a years-long conspiracy between law enforcement and intelligence officials to destroy Trump’s political prospects and keep him power.

No charges have been brought in that investigation and it is not clear that any ever will be.

Trump filed a lawsuit earlier this year in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also named plaintiffs in the suit.

Hussein, Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.

April 23 (UPI) — Senate Republicans were up all night voting, eventually adopting a budget reconciliation package Thursday morning to prepare to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

The Senate plans to fund the department without Democrats’ help. The resolution was adopted at around 3:30 a.m. EDT Thursday by a vote of 50-48 after about six hours.

The only Republicans to vote against the resolution were Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rand Paul, R-Ky. The bill now goes to the House. If the House adopts the resolution, the final funding bill can be written and voted on by Congress.

They are following a deadline of June 1 set by President Donald Trump.

“We have a multistep process ahead of us, but at the end Republicans will have helped ensure that America’s borders are secure and prevented Democrats from defunding these important agencies,” said Senate Republican Leader John Thune, R-N.D.

Thune told fellow senators to keep the package narrow to ensure speedy passage.

Since the January deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, both shot and killed by DHS officers, Democrats have refused to support funding the department without reforms. The department has been shut down since Feb, 14, though Trump told the department to use emergency funds to pay essential workers.

Just before the Easter recess, the Senate passed a bill that would fund most of DHS but not ICE and Border Patrol. But the House rejected it.

Republicans are hoping to fund the department through 2029 at a cost of between $70 and $80 billion.

The late-night vote-a-rama included votes about amendments that could be added to the resolution. Two Republican Senators who are vulnerable in the November elections — Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska — broke ranks on some amendments.

Collins and Sullivan voted for amendments to lower health care costs, to reverse last year’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cuts and to tackle insurance companies that delay or deny medical care. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., joined with Collins and Sullivan on the latter.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also sponsored an amendment that would tell the budget committee chair to help cut prescription drug prices by half. Hawley, Collins and Sullivan supported Sanders on it. Sanders said his amendment would codify ensuring that Americans wouldn’t pay more for prescriptions than Canadians or Europeans.

The amendments wouldn’t have the power to force Republicans’ hands, but they would make Republicans go on record about their views of these items.

“This reconciliation, or this budget act, will show who’s on whose side, and clearly if Republicans vote against our amendments, they’re not on the side of the American people,” Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Fox and Friends on Tuesday that the department will run out of money for salaries next month.

“I’ve got one payroll left, and there is no more emergency funds so the president can’t do another executive order because there’s no more money there,” The Hill reported he said.

The resolution does not include the SAVE America Act, the voter security bill that Trump and other Republicans have pushed for. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., sponsored an amendment to add similar restrictions, but it failed 48-50. Collins, Murkowski, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-S.C., and Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., voted against it.

Court filings have indicated that lawyers for President Donald Trump are seeking a resolution with the Department of Justice over a $10bn lawsuit he filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

But the trouble, critics say, is that such a settlement would leave Trump essentially negotiating with an executive branch under his control.

Friday’s court filing, however, emphasises the efficiency of seeking a settlement.

In the document, Trump’s lawyers call for the case to be paused for 90 days to allow a resolution to be hammered out.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing says. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

How did the case start?

The case stems from an incident that began in 2017, when a worker named Charles “Chaz” Littlejohn was re-hired as a contractor through the government consulting firm Booz Allen.

While working on IRS files, Littlejohn stole copies of Trump’s tax returns, which had been the source of prolonged public scrutiny.

Until Trump, every president since Richard Nixon had released their tax returns as a gesture of transparency. Trump, however, claimed he could not, citing ongoing audits.

The tax returns Littlejohn stole were ultimately released to the media, and in 2020, The New York Times released a series of articles that showed Trump paid no income taxes in 10 of the 15 preceding years.

Other years, he paid relatively small sums, like $750, because he reported more losses than gains. ProPublica also ran stories based on the leaked tax returns, highlighting inconsistencies and Trump’s low tax payments.

Privacy law protects taxpayer information from being released by the IRS without explicit permission. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024.

But in late January of this year, Trump filed a lawsuit arguing that he, his businesses and his sons Eric and Donald Jr had suffered “significant and irreparable harm” from the leaks.

The defendants in the lawsuit were the IRS and its overseeing body, the Treasury Department, both of which are part of the executive branch.

“Defendants have caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing,” the lawsuit reads.

Questions of ethics and legality

But experts have warned that the lawsuit contains flaws that would normally prompt the Justice Department, also under Trump’s control, to seek dismissal.

The lawsuit, for instance, arrives at its whopping $10bn sum by supposedly tallying up media references to Trump’s leaked tax returns.

However, experts say the formula for damages is calculated by the number of unauthorised disclosures by a government employee, not by media re-printings.

Then there is the question of Littlejohn’s employment status. He was an outside contractor, not a government employee.

Trump also has to contend with the two-year statute of limitations in the case. The lawsuit contends that “President Trump did not discover the numerous violations” of his tax returns until January 29, 2024.

But critics point out he had posted on social media about his tax information being “illegally obtained” as far back as 2020, when The New York Times published its series.

Opponents say the lawsuit should be dismissed or at least delayed until Trump is no longer president. Otherwise, they argue it represents a conflict of interest, with Trump fundamentally negotiating with his own administration for a payout.

Controlling ‘both sides of the litigation’

Trump himself has acknowledged that such a payment would “never look good”. But he has justified the sum by saying it would be donated to charity.

“Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities,” he said in February.

Even that, legal experts argue, could run afoul of the Emoluments Clause in the US Constitution, which prohibits the president from profiting off his position, apart from his salary.

Government watchdogs have attempted to stop a settlement from unfolding. On February 5, for instance, the group Democracy Forward filed an amicus brief arguing the court should act to prevent an abuse of power.

“This case is extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics,” the brief explains.

“To treat this case like business as usual would threaten the integrity of the justice system and the important taxpayer and privacy protections at the heart of this case.”

But the $10bn IRS lawsuit is not the only case Trump is seeking to settle with his own government. In 2023 and 2024, Trump filed administrative complaints seeking compensation for federal investigations he considered to be unfair.

One complaint concerns an FBI investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the other is about the FBI’s raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate after he refused a subpoena to return classified documents.

For those complaints, Trump is reportedly seeking additional damages to the tune of $230m.

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for President Trump are engaged in talks with the IRS to resolve a $10-billion lawsuit the president filed against his own tax collection agency over the leak of his tax information to news outlets between 2018 and 2020.

In a federal court filing Friday, Trump asks a judge to pause the case for 90 days while the two sides work to reach a settlement or resolution.

“This limited pause will neither prejudice the parties nor delay ultimate resolution,” the filing says. “Rather, the extension will promote judicial economy and allow the Parties to explore avenues that could narrow or resolve the issues efficiently.”

Tax and ethics experts say the lawsuit raises a plethora of legal and ethical questions, including the propriety of the leader of the executive branch pursuing scorched-earth litigation against the very government he oversees.

Earlier this year, Trump filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal court, alleging that a previous leak of his and the Trump Organization’s confidential tax records caused “reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”

The president’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are also plaintiffs in the suit.

In 2024, former IRS contractor Charles Edward Littlejohn, of Washington — who worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, a defense and national security tech firm — was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to leaking tax information about President Trump and others to two news outlets between 2018 and 2020.

The outlets were not named in the charging documents, but the description and time frame align with stories about Trump’s tax returns in the New York Times and reporting about wealthy Americans’ taxes in the nonprofit investigative journalism organization ProPublica. The 2020 New York Times report found Trump paid $750 in federal income tax the year he first entered the White House, and no income tax at all some years, thanks to reported colossal losses.

When asked in February how he would handle any potential damages from the case, Trump said, “I think what we’ll do is do something for charity.”

“We could make it a substantial amount,” he said at the time. “Nobody would care because it’s going to go to numerous very good charities.”

Several ethics watchdog groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs challenging the president’s lawsuit.

The watchdog group Democracy Forward’s February filing states that the case is “extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics,” and “the conflicts of interest make it uncertain whether the Department of Justice will zealously defend the public fisc in the same way that it has against other plaintiffs claiming damages for related events.”

Hussein writes for the Associated Press.