Residents in Damascus rejected US President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Syria should confront Hezbollah in Lebanon. They say Syria should avoid being drawn into new regional conflicts. In a rare critique, Trump told Israel to let Syria take on Hezbollah.
Published On 24 Jun 202624 Jun 2026
Share
WASHINGTON — More than $350 million from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has been quietly directed to White House security, an allotment that Democrats warn appears to be helping fund his new ballroom project — despite the president’s insistence that no taxpayer dollars would be used.
The apportionment of funds, which the White House’s Office of Management and Budget made late Friday, comes from two accounts that were intended to provide the U.S. Secret Service with extra money for hiring and training in the aftermath of last year’s assassination attempts on the president, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The shift was made days after Congress rejected a $1-billion request for the White House in a Homeland Security bill that Trump signed into law and as the ballroom project is tangled in legal challenges.
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel initially drafted the security funding, said Thursday he was unaware of the allocations.
“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley (R-Iowa). “And that’s what the country expects.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, charged that Trump’s actions are potentially illegal.
“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.
“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley said. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”
Trump has faced setbacks in his attempts to build the ballroom on the White House grounds, where he ordered the demolition of the storied East Wing to make way for it.
Touring the construction site last month, Trump called the development a “gift” to the American people. He has repeatedly said that it is being paid for by donations — which has also run into ethics questions from watchdogs concerned about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.
Congress refused the Trump administration’s request for $1 billion for the ballroom last month. The administration wanted the money as part of a Homeland Security bill, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers rejected efforts to tack it on. It became politically toxic at a time when Americans are reeling from inflationary high costs of living.
The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the price tag for the project has ballooned to $600 million, according to a project summary prepared by the contractor, with more than half of that funding coming from taxpayers. Roll Call first reported on the apportionment of new funds for White House security.
At its core, arguments are swirling over how much of the White House project is to bolster security underground, with bomb shelters and a medical facility, and how much of the costs are related to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom on top.
A spokesman for the White House said that Trump and donors are funding some $400 million for the ballroom development, and that the coordination with the Secret Service had been noted in the initial announcement of the project.
“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” said White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle in a statement.
He said the events over the past weekend, including an alleged attack plan targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, proves why the project is needed.
“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.
Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones and missiles.
The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the White House’s $1-billion request would go to harden the ballroom addition, with bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other systems.
The rest of the money would go for other security improvements, according to a document provided to Senate Republicans, including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” White House visitors screening facility.
The shifting funds are certain to ignite growing concerns in Congress over the separation of powers, and the president’s use of federal funds allocated by lawmakers.
The money comes from Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that the president signed into law last summer. It provided more than $1 billion for Secret Service resources, including “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”
The provision was uncontested at the time, even as Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats said they did not challenge this section or try to strip it out from the package.
Under the Constitution, only Congress has the specific authority to allocate funds across the federal government, including the executive and judicial branch operations.
While the president holds the power to sign — or veto — those appropriation bills, once the funding becomes law, it largely must stand.
Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — Most Americans continue to disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, while his overall presidential approval holds steady, according to a new AP-NORC poll that was conducted as he suggested a deal with Iran had been reached.
The poll points to just how unpopular the war, which began Feb. 28, has been with Americans even as the Republican president turned abruptly from threatening Iran to reopening negotiations. Support for his handling of the war remains lopsidedly partisan. About two-thirds, 65%, of U.S. adults disapprove of how Trump is handling issues with Iran. But while the vast majority of Democrats and independents view Trump’s actions negatively, only 28% of Republicans are unhappy.
Americans’ views on how the president is handling Iran are roughly in line with his overall job approval, which stands at 37%, unchanged from an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted in May.
The new survey was conducted June 11-17, just after Trump called off threats to escalate the war with Iran. The poll was fielded as Trump announced a deal with Iran and authorized an end to the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, concluding just before the deal was signed Wednesday.
Approval of Trump’s actions on Iran has been low over the past few months. But in interviews, some Republicans also weren’t pleased with the outcome of this week’s agreement, which gives Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again.
The deal also reopens the strait without tolls for two months, restarts talks between the U.S. and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program and calls for Tehran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
David Farrington, a 79-year-old Republican-leaning independent in Fort Worth, Texas, “doesn’t have any love lost” for Iran, but he’s frustrated the agreement focused on the strait and didn’t deliver more on the country’s nuclear weapons program.
“Any agreement regarding the strait is hardly what I would consider a recognizable concession on the part of Iran,” Farrington said. “So, I consider that some fluff that attempts to make this agreement look better when it’s not.”
Only about one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Iran in the new poll, in line with May.
Donald McBride, a 28-year-old independent in Plano, Texas, is frustrated that Trump has not maintained his campaign promise to keep America out of foreign wars. McBride voted for Trump but he opposed going to war with Iran.
“I would like the war to end,” he said. “The original objective of the war was to end the Iranian regime, and that’s just not possible. I don’t really know why we’d continue fighting.”
The poll suggests most Americans want action in Iran to wrap up. Even with an agreement on the horizon, 53% of U.S. adults said American military action against Iran had “gone too far,” only a slight decline from 59% in March.
About 4 in 10 Republicans, though, said in the latest poll that action has been “about right,” and 37% said it had not gone far enough.
Joan Jones, a 64-year-old independent in northwest Florida, believes the United States’ actions in Iran have been necessary to address the threat Iran posed.
“Those attacks are ultimately to protect us from nuclear attacks,” Jones said. “I think we have to go through that … and eliminate that worry so we don’t have that hovering over us.”
About one-third, 34%, of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling Israel.
Tensions have been rising between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump as the president criticizes recent Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which jeopardized negotiations between Washington and Tehran.
James Huffman, a 69-year-old Republican in Medway, Ohio, thinks Trump is taking the wrong strategy when it comes to Netanyahu.
“Netanyahu is not going to do everything Trump wants. He’s going to do what he wants,” Huffman said. “I just don’t think it’s effective.”
About one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to the economy. That’s in line with last month, and continues a challenging stretch for Trump on the issue.
Jones, the Florida independent, is more optimistic than most. She said she can hardly leave the house some hours without getting stuck in the traffic of tourists headed to the beach on vacation. She also spots lines around the block for Starbucks, McDonalds and Chick-fil-A in her community — all signs to her that the economy is doing well overall.
“I think President Trump’s policies are contributing to a better economy,” Jones said.
Other Republicans are more skeptical, a troubling sign for a president who prides himself on his business acumen. Only 69% of Republicans approve of how he’s handling the economy, slightly lower than the 78% who approve of how he’s handling the presidency overall.
Patricia Bailey, a 42-year-old Republican in Parkersburg, West Virginia, sees an economy where prices have gotten out of control. “I just said the other night, ordering pizza is for rich people,” she said. Bailey voted for Trump but added, “He’s kind of let me down a little bit.”
Even if high prices preceded Trump, Bailey doesn’t think he’s lived up to his pledge to improve the economy.
“I think he got so distracted with the war that he forgot some old promises,” she said.
Sanders and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press.
The AP-NORC poll of 3,040 adults was conducted June 11-17 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.
WASHINGTON — Cameron Hamilton, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency, pledged to senators Wednesday to be “fair and reasonable” in assessing requests for disaster aid as he seeks to run an agency roiled by the administration’s threats to dismantle it.
Hamilton appeared before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at a hearing where lawmakers assessed a group of 10 nominees for administration posts.
“My focus will be to ensure that FEMA is objective, is fair and reasonable, follows the law, and is consistent” in how it reviews disaster declaration requests, Hamilton told Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the committee. Peters had asked about partisanship in granting major disaster declarations.
Hamilton had a brief tenure as FEMA’s temporary leader early last year but was ousted after defending the agency’s existence. At a House hearing in May 2025, he said he did not “believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate” FEMA. He was fired the next day.
His nomination comes as the Republican administration has increasingly signaled it is backing away from promises to dismantle an agency that the president has heavily criticized.
If confirmed, he would be FEMA’s first permanent administrator in Trump’s second term. He will need to lead FEMA through what is expected to be a busy summer disaster season, while answering to Trump, who is likely to expect major changes after a council he appointed recommended sweeping moves at the agency that is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Nominees did not give opening statements, but Hamilton received the bulk of lawmakers’ questions while appearing with four others in the first half of the hearing.
His answers suggested a departure from some of the more aggressive policies considered and enacted during Kristi Noem’s turbulent leadership at DHS. FEMA’s workforce has been worn down by mass staff departures, policies that hamstrung operations and a protracted DHS shutdown.
Hamilton expressed faith in the FEMA staff and praised the recent opening of 350 positions to counteract some of the cuts. He said that if confirmed by the Senate, he would do what he could to speed up disaster declaration decisions and reimbursements to states, tribes and territories.
“We owe you answers, I think, much faster,” he told Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), adding that many FEMA processes needed to be simplified.
Hamilton disavowed a recommendation he included in an April 2025 memo to quadruple the threshold of financial damages a state needed to prove to receive FEMA public assistance. He also noted the importance of resilience funding, despite halting billions in resilience grants during his previous tenure.
Republican and Democratic senators at the hearing expressed support for FEMA’s mission, despite Trump’s early threats to eliminate it. “I think what your agency does is hugely important,” Hawley told Hamilton.
But multiple Democrats echoed Peters’ concern that Trump was approving far more disaster declaration requests from Republican states than Democratic ones.
Of the state disaster declaration requests Trump answered through the end of May, he approved about 82% from states that voted for him in the last election and 44% from states that voted for Democrat Kamala Harris, according to an analysis of public FEMA data by Andrew Rumbach, senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Urban Institute.
Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL, has never worked as a state or local emergency manager and has publicly criticized FEMA in the past. He has held positions at DHS and the State Department related to emergency response.
No senator questioned Hamilton’s suitability for the position.
Federal law requires the FEMA administrator to have “a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security” and at least five years of “executive leadership and management experience.”
Peters criticized the committee chairman, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), for scheduling so many nominees at once, saying that made it more difficult for senators to properly screen them.
“The lineup today severely limits our ability to have transparency for the American public,” Peters said. He noted that Hamilton was among two nominees whose FBI background investigations were not yet complete, and that two others had not submitted their financial disclosure reports.
Others who appeared included Trump’s pick for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Hal Duncan, and administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, David Cummins.
Paul said the committee would only vote on the nominees when their financial and background checks were complete.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom did something this week that most politicians would only in a nightmare: He announced that the federal government is investigating him and his wife.
The revelation, delivered in a direct-to-camera 4½-minute video set against a backdrop of U.S. and California flags, became a top headline across the country.
In the upside-down politics of the Trump era, that was exactly as intended.
“He seems to be wearing this as a badge of honor because his brand is being the strongest opponent of Donald Trump,” said Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at UC San Diego. “The ability to show that you’re going on offense and that you know how to effectively fight back against this president is part of making your case for office.”
As he eyes a run for president in 2028, an antagonistic relationship with President Trump is Newsom’s political currency.
So when friends and former employees said the FBI and Internal Revenue Service had knocked on their doors and asked about him and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, last Wednesday, the governor took advantage of the situation to boost his political profile.
“Mr. President, come after me,” Newsom said in the video he posted online. “I’m not going anywhere, and the country is watching.”
Newsom, who is in his final year as California’s governor, has not declared his intent to run for president, though his claim that Trump is targeting him because he’s considering a bid for the White House was an open acknowledgment of his thoughts about the future. Announcing the probe himself — before federal authorities had a chance to describe it on their terms — allowed him to get ahead of and try to discredit any findings as a “personal vendetta” long before potential charges are brought.
Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and national pollster, said Newsom publicly defending his wife could also play well with voters.
“He’s positioned himself as the front-runner because he’s the one who’s under attack,” Lake said. “Primary voters love it when he engages Trump, and I think the combination of engaging Trump and then also the sexism of going after your wife is just a real home run for a primary electorate that’s 59% female.”
The video released Monday seemed similar to a speech Newsom delivered after Trump sent federal troops to Los Angeles last summer.
That address, in which he countered Trump’s version of events and challenged the president to come after him instead of women and child immigrants, made Newsom the captain of the Democratic response to the unprecedented deployment and ended his attempt to play the part of respectful statesman and ease political tensions following the 2024 election.
Liberals have since seemed to relish Newsom’s near-constant derision of the president on social media.
But David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University, said casting the case as another instance of Trump’s political weaponization ignores questions about the murky timeline and origin of the investigation.
Newsom’s aides point to Trump saying that the governor should be arrested during last summer’s anti-ICE protests as evidence that he personally called for the inquiry. The claim has gained oxygen — and been echoed by other Democratic leaders in the state — while going largely unchallenged by federal officials. The Justice Department has declined to comment, as has the White House.
A source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly, said two federal probes have been going on for about a year, and that they originated not from Washington, D.C. but from conversations between whistleblowers and federal prosecutors based in Sacramento. The probes are linked to Newsom’s former chief-of-staff, Dana Williamson, and Siebel Newsom’s taxes, the source said.
Newsom’s critics have also noted that federal prosecutors under the Biden administration had pursued questions about his involvement in a state lawsuit against Activision Blizzard Inc., a major video game distributor, before Trump retook office.
“This is something that could lead to other elements that blow up, so there’s a risk,” McCuan said.
Newsom’s aides described the investigation as a fishing expedition, with federal authorities searching for anything they can use against the governor.
They said federal authorities appeared to initially investigate allegations that turned up nothing about the Activision case before refocusing their questions on nonprofits and other entities tied to the couple. Investigators also asked about personal information related to the family’s household, Newsom’s office said.
McCuan said three nonprofits that surround the couple have received millions of dollars from donors and political interests and are not subject to campaign finance limits.
The California Partners Project is a nonprofit that promotes gender equity. The Representation Project is an avenue for Siebel Newsom’s documentary films. The California State Protocol Foundation uses private donations to pay for gubernatorial expenses and was founded under former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“It’s a long-running game,” McCuan said. “It’s just the Newsom first couple has perfected it and moved it forward.”
Newsom getting out ahead of prosecutors and framing their probes as nothing but a “witch hunt” — borrowing a phrase often used by Trump during his own previous prosecutions — carries risk.
If prosecutors do turn up evidence of wrongdoing, Newsom’s decision to parade his indignation could backfire.
Publicly challenging Trump also runs the risk that the president could instruct the Justice Department to dig in deeper on an investigation that might have otherwise petered out.
But Lake and others said there’s no placating Trump, who has targeted Newsom and other Democrats.
While traditional politics suggest facing federal charges could sink Newsom’s political ambitions, the rules have been thrown out under Trump.
“You know the last person who got tied up in courts on the campaign trail?” Kousser asked. “That was Donald Trump, and nothing elevated Donald Trump more than doing courthouse press appearances and being seen as the target of an unfair political prosecution.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday accused the Justice Department of launching — at President Trump’s request — a baseless and politically-motivated investigation into him and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
“After calling for my arrest last year, Donald Trump directed his Department of Justice to investigate me,” Newsom said. “And just in the last week, I’ve learned his campaign has reached my own home: to get me, he’s coming after my wife, Jen.”
Newsom adamantly denied any wrongdoing by him or his wife. The White House referred questions to the Justice Department, which declined to comment.
A source familiar with the matter who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Times that there are two probes underway, one related to Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, and one related to Siebel Newsom’s taxes.
Share via
The source said both investigations have been ongoing for about a year; were launched by prosecutors in Sacramento based on information provided by whistleblowers and other local sources in California; and were not the result of directives out of Washington or the White House.
Newsom said that in recent days, “federal agents have knocked on the doors of family friends and former employees,” and have been “demanding records,” “digging through years and years of random documents” and “abusing the grand jury process” in a quest to find any kind of wrongdoing by him or his wife.
“Not because they found a crime. Because they are simply trying to find one,” he said.
Newsom did not describe the specific nature of the alleged probe, the line of questioning faced by friends and employees or the types of records taken or reviewed by federal investigators. But he alleged that Trump instigated the probe because Newsom is considering running for president in 2028, and because Trump “hates that I’ve consistently called him out — over and over again — for his lies and deceit.”
“He has turned the levers of government into his own personal power ministries to reward cronies and to try to jail his opponents,” Newsom said.
Newsom cited Justice Department investigations of several other of the president’s political opponents, including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, former FBI director James Comey, former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and former vice presidential candidate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
“One by one, anyone who has challenged Donald Trump has ended up on his hit list,” he said. “And today, I proudly join that list.”
This article will be updated.
Well, that just happened.
The president held a cage fight on the White House South Lawn, complete with flyovers, fireworks, mini-skirted “octagon girls” and the surrealistic sight of mixed martial arts fighters striding through historic White House rooms flanked by National Medal of Honor winners.
Despite wide public disapproval for Sunday’s event and much scathing commentary about the political and psychological messaging of Donald Trump’s choice of a Vegas-like spectacle to celebrate his 80th birthday, and the country’s 250th, the sky did not fall, the original Constitution in the nearby National Archives did not tear in two and none of the fighters passed out from the heat or bug bites.
Things didn’t even get bloody until the final match in the fifth hour, when Justin Gaethje kicked and punched the crap out of widely favored Ilia Topuria.
Even so, it was impossible to emerge from watching UFC Freedom 250 without feeling punch-drunk.
Not because of the fighting; because of almost everything that was not the fighting.
Beginning with Paramount+, owned by the Trump-friendly Ellison family’s Paramount Skydance, which recently received Justice Department clearance for its highly controversial acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery.
The jarring sight of past UFC matches being seemingly projected onto the Jefferson Memorial and the Capitol gave way to a series of poorly produced “historical” moments in which UFC fighters were cast as inheriting the same “fighting spirit” that motivated this nation’s Founding Fathers, past presidents and war veterans. Down to the inevitable strains of the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.” (the baffling anthem of MAGA), the event projected a macho-man view of patriotism that was just as ghastly as many feared it would be.
UFC fighters are indeed dedicated and talented athletes who have overcome all manner of personal obstacles. But to compare them with Thomas Jefferson or American soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy is absurd and more than a little insulting.
The tens of thousands of UFC and Trump fans who gathered on the South Lawn and the Ellipse, however, were clearly having a very good time. Proceedings were delayed an hour by the threat of storms, but the weather cooperated in the end. “The President’s Own” United States Marine Band, and in particular, soloist Staff Sgt. Hannah Davis, gave masterful performances throughout. And while the Claw, the 600-ton steel structure arching above the Octagon, certainly looked like the first stage of an alien attack during the day, it put on a pretty terrific (if more than a little Vegasy) light show at night.
For those watching from home, however, these bright spots were glimpsed and heard infrequently, drowned out by the endless hyperbolic intonations of commentators (including Joe Rogan, who initially criticized the event), the long and invariably self-aggrandizing introductions of the various participants and the onslaught of frequently militaristic commercials, more than a few of which, included ads for Ram, featured UFC President and Chief Executive Dana White.
Which isn’t surprising when you think about it. White’s longtime support for the president culminated in his organization covering the event’s $60 million in production costs, and from the moment a smiling White joined Trump as he made his way through the White House to the front row, the event served as an almost-six-hour ad for the UFC.
Though I am not a UFC fan, I realize that showmanship is key to the sport’s wild and increasingly broad popularity. Championship matches, which rarely last longer than 30 minutes and sometimes much less, are inevitably preceded by hours of participants making all manner of florid claims and trash-talking their opponents. (Which may explain Trump’s fondness for the UFC.)
But when all of this strutting, preening and wild-eyed reaction revolves around what was, for better and worse, a series of rules-free brawls being force-fed into a narrative about this country’s enduring strength, what emerges is not so much a sporting event as it is a piece of naked and nationalistic propaganda.
Which came to a head in the final fight. After the six previous matches concluded rather quickly with bloodless knockouts (a UFC record), the fight between American Gaethje and the German-born, Georgia and Spain-representing Topuria lasted much longer. Gaethje, introduced as “the most violent man in the most violent sport,” left the lightweight champion’s face such a mess that even Rogan was shocked.
By all metrics, including Topuria’s refusal to go down, it was the best fight of the night. But hearing the crowd chant “USA, USA” as the bloody blows fell … well, let’s just say it was not everyone’s notion of a presidential birthday celebration.
Some have suggested that Trump staged the event in the hope of regaining the support of young men who helped him win the last election. Even if that was not the case, it was difficult to view UFC Freedom 250 in any way nonpartisan (especially after British former heavyweight champion Tyson Fury strode out of the White House wearing a “Trump for Prime Minister” hat).
Yes, several of the six non-American participants entered to Spanish or Portuguese songs (why so much fuss then about Bad Bunny at the Super Bowl?) but some of the winners are longtime MAGA supporters and made that very clear — Bo Nickal thanked Trump for being the only one “to have the balls” to stage such an event while Josh Hokit followed up his thanks to “my lord and savior Jesus Christ” with “Michelle Obama is a man. Am I right, America?”
Because it was Trump’s birthday after all.
June 13 (UPI) — Trump’s name has been completely removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the executive director told the court Saturday.
Executive Director Matt Floca told the court in documents that the name was changed before the extended deadline of noon Saturday, CNN reported. The court had allowed an extension after the center missed the midnight Friday deadline due to thunderstorms, Justice Department attorneys said.
Workers began removing the name from the building early Saturday, and documents confirming the name change were filed around 11 a.m. EDT.
Since December, the center has been named the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, after the center’s board, whose members Trump installed, voted to rename the venue.
Trump claimed that naming the center after him was a surprise, but the name was added to the sign the next day.
Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, filed a lawsuit on Dec. 23 against Trump and others alleging that renaming the center was illegal.
And on May 29, a judge agreed. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the center’s board had overstepped its authority when it voted to add Trump’s name to the center.
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper said.
On Friday, a court denied the center’s last-minute request to stop the name change while the case gets appealed.
WASHINGTON — One by one, the burly mixed martial arts fighters made their entrance past the solemn, hulking marble statue of America’s 16th president and jogged down the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to roars from thousands of fans drawn to the unusual sporting weekend marking the nation’s 250th anniversary and President Trump’s 80th birthday.
The news conference Friday night featured the fighters who are preparing to face off Sunday in the Octagon built outside the White House. But it was also a chance to see the UFC fans who have thronged to Washington and endured lightning, humidity and bugs.
Tracy Philbeck and his son Levi drove from Charlotte, N.C., with a group of friends to support their favorite fighter, American Justin Gaethje, in the upcoming lightweight title bout against Georgian Ilia Topuria.
“You will hear an eagle screaming when Justin Gaethje wins,” the elder Philbeck said with a chuckle.
David Halstead journeyed from Albany, Australia, to watch the sport he has loved for a decade. Halstead said Trump, who regularly attends the fights, “put UFC on the map.”
The UFC has said it spent $60 million on this weekend’s festivities, and the president has billed his birthday fete as “the greatest show on Earth.”
Not everyone agrees.
The Public Integrity Project described the event as a “private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain” in a lawsuit the watchdog group filed to try to stop it from happening on federal land. A federal judge ruled Friday that the White House was allowed to go ahead.
About 1 in 10 U.S. adults consider themselves mixed martial arts fans, according to Ipsos Sports polling conducted in February and March. That survey suggests MMA fans tend to be male and nonwhite. They are more likely to identify as Republicans than Democrats.
“One misconception is that everyone who watches UFC is a Trump supporter, but that’s not the case,” said Ricardo Rodriguez, 24, explaining that he loves the physicality of the sport. “People also expect a knockout every time.”
Ellie Louizes, who practices Muay Thai, or Thai kickboxing, and jujitsu martial arts, drove from Daytona Beach, Fla., with her boyfriend, Jacob Purvis.
Female fans of MMA are the minority. But Louizes said she knows a lot of women who get into watching the sport through their male partners. She said “female fighters are often way more aggressive” than the men.
The fans at the Lincoln Memorial brushed off criticism about the bouts being held at the White House — on federal grounds owned not by its occupant, but by the American people.
Holding fights at the “people’s house,” Tracy Philbeck said, “goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt.”
President Theodore Roosevelt regularly held sparring sessions at the White House, though they were not formal, public prizefights. He was an enthusiastic amateur boxer who had boxed at Harvard and continued the sport throughout much of his life.
Boxing fans also make up a large part of the UFC’s fan base.
At a UFC-sponsored community event this week at the District of Columbia’s Midtown Youth Academy, the boxing gym’s executive director was helping out with a visit from UFC fighter Randy Brown, who sparred with more than a dozen local teenagers and preteens.
Gloria Lee said meeting the fighter was a big deal for kids at her gym. “It’s just been a thrilling week, and I was about to fall out when he came in the door!” she said.
Asked about her personal UFC fandom, Lee said she had not watched it much. But by the end of Brown’s visit, she got into the ring with the professional fighter and threw some slugs of her own.
Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.
The US president has sought to reshape the capital city’s image and institutions through series of plans and projects.
Published On 12 Jun 202612 Jun 2026
President Donald Trump’s name is set to be removed from the facade of the Kennedy Center, an entertainment and cultural institution in Washington, DC, after a judge rejected a last-minute request to keep it in place.
US District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed an effort by the centre’s board, whose members were handpicked by Trump, to reverse a previous order taking his name off the building by Friday.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The saga is yet another example of Trump’s effort to make changes to major sites and institutions across the nation’s capital, on which he has sought to impose himself through a series of planned projects that include an enormous triumphal arch and a White House ballroom.
Many of those efforts have faced legal challenges.
Trump dismissed the centre’s previous leadership and appointed a board that named him chairman.
Cooper had ruled last month that the addition of Trump’s name to the exterior of the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was illegal and ordered its removal.
“Unfortunately, Judge Cooper and the Radical Left would rather see it DIE than have President Trump transform it into something that everyone could be proud of,” Trump wrote in a 580-word social media post at the time, slamming the decision, referring to himself in third-person.
A June 4 memo from the centre’s Office of General Counsel had instructed staff to use the name “The John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” or “Kennedy Center” in email signatures, letterhead and other documents. The centre’s website also dropped Trump’s name.
But the board attempted to salvage the change in an appeal on Thursday, appealing a previous ruling that denied their request for a stay. Cooper rejected that request on Friday.
Justice Department had walked back controversial plan after meeting backlash from lawmakers and lawsuits.
Published On 12 Jun 202612 Jun 2026
A federal judge in the United States has indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with plans for a $1.8bn “anti-weaponisation” fund, meant to offer payments to those who experienced alleged “lawfare” and “weaponisation” of the government.
The ruling on Friday represents another setback for the scheme, which has faced heavy resistance from lawmakers and has been walked back by the Department of Justice previously.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had issued a temporary halt to the fund last week and issued a preliminary injunction as it was set to expire on Friday.
The fund was the product of a settlement between Trump and the Justice Department of a $10bn lawsuit the president had brought against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The Justice Department set up a $1.776bn fund that would have been helmed by a five-member commission to distribute funds to those they deemed victims of “weaponisation”, a term that Trump has used to describe investigations and criminal cases into himself and his allies.
Attorney General Todd Blanche walked back the plans earlier this month amid growing criticism, and government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the scheme are now irrelevant.
Even before the administration announced it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission to decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out or claims accepted.
Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche would not rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged in violence could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.
Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the January 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.
Plaintiffs who sued to block the plan argued that the scheme diverted taxpayer funds into what was essentially a slush fund and have expressed doubt about Blanche’s assurances that the fund will not move forward.
While the administration has moved away from the scheme, Trump himself has not endorsed its cancellation and has continued to discuss it positively in comments to the press.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A federal judge agreed on Friday to extend a court-ordered block on the Trump administration’s creation and operation of a $1.8 billion settlement fund for compensating people who claim to be victims of a weaponized government.
Earlier this month, acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche told Congress that the government is scrapping its plans for the fund in the face of a fierce bipartisan backlash. Government attorneys have argued that lawsuits challenging the fund are now moot, but plaintiffs’ attorneys aren’t satisfied by Blanche’s assurances that the fund won’t move forward.
Neither was U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who ruled that the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” will remain blocked until further notice from the court.
“The (government’s) mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere,” the judge said.
President Trump, meanwhile, has not publicly and unequivocally endorsed its cancellation. He has continued to express support for the fund in remarks to reporters.
Brinkema gave the parties a week to negotiate an agreement for Blanche to submit a sworn declaration that the administration won’t revive the fund.
Brinkema previously agreed to temporarily block the administration from proceeding with the fund for at least two weeks. Her May 29 order was due to expire on Friday.
Trump’s Republican administration created the fund to resolve his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns.
Plaintiffs who sued to block fund payouts argue that the government can’t legally divert taxpayer money into what they argue is a slush fund for compensating Trump’s allies.
In a separate case on Wednesday, a different judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a government watchdog’s parallel request for a court order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from forging ahead with the fund. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said he accepts Blanche’s representation that the fund is now moot.
Leon had asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Block why Blanche doesn’t formally rescind his May 18 order establishing the fund. Block said he didn’t know. He still didn’t have an answer to that question when Brinkema posed it two days later.
“It’s a huge gap in the record that we don’t have an answer to that question,” the judge said.
In the Virginia case, attorneys from the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward asked for an order to temporarily suspend the fund’s implementation and stop the Trump administration from disbursing any payouts from it.
The plaintiffs include a fired prosecutor and a college professor acquitted of assaulting federal agents at a protest.
Even before the administration said it was dropping the fund, the Justice Department did not form the five-member commission that would decide on payout criteria, so no money was paid out nor claims accepted.
Many of the Republican president’s allies are opposed to compensating rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In May, however, Blanche wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Capitol rioters who engaged could be eligible to apply for payments from the fund.
Trump issued mass pardons to Capitol rioters on his first day back in the White House last year. More than 1,500 people were charged in the Jan. 6 attack before Trump erased every case with his sweeping act of clemency.
Brinkema was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat.
Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.
The TWZ Newsletter
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
The U.S. Air Force has confirmed that the VC-25B “Bridge” aircraft is now wearing its new (and controversial) red, white, and blue livery as it undergoes final preparations for its official delivery.
Aviation photographer Travis Ghormley shared the first picture of the modified Boeing 747-8i with its new paint scheme yesterday. It was taken the day before in Waco, Texas. The aircraft had been undergoing modification and flight testing at L3Harris’ facility in Greenville, also in Texas, as part of the conversion into its new role, since at least April, before subsequently moving to Waco to be painted. The jet, gifted to the Trump administration by the government of Qatar last year, is set to serve as an interim Air Force One aircraft ahead of the much-delayed arrival of two fully outfitted VC-25Bs from Boeing.
“The VC-25B Bridge aircraft has been painted and is going through final modifications,” an Air Force spokesperson told TWZ today when asked for more information about the aircraft’s current status. “I don’t have any additional details I can provide on delivery dates at this time.”
A press release the Air Force put out on May 1 said that the “VC-25B Bridge aircraft has officially completed modification and flight testing” and was “being painted.” We have confirmed that the completed modifications referred to here were on the contractor side, but the U.S. government still has additional modifications to make to the jet.
Ghormley’s picture does clearly show the jet wearing the same red, white, and blue scheme that has already been appearing on various Air Force and other U.S. government VVIP jets. The livery also includes a large American flag, depicted blowing in the wind, painted on both sides of the tail and “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” written on both sides of the fuselage. The paint job is virtually identical to what President Donald Trump had previously chosen for the future VC-25B Air Force Ones during his first term. President Joe Biden had previously reversed that decision, bringing back plans to paint the VC-25Bs in the iconic scheme that dates back to President John F. Kennedy’s administration.
The Bridge aircraft’s current location is also unclear. Video posted on social media yesterday, seen below, purported to be of the jet departing for its new home at Andrews Air Force Base just outside of Washington, D.C. This is where the two current VC-25A Air Force One jets, as well as a host of other Air Force VVIP aircraft, are based.
Full blown operation to get this thing out without us seeing. Fueled, loaded crew, and preflighted in the hangar. Flipped CRANE01 to face me at the south end and beam me with landing lights. Entire airport blacked out, crew and grounds crew all wearing NOD’s.
You can barely see… https://t.co/kaNB5FCdJ5 pic.twitter.com/JprSF5ykXW
— jadams (@jadamzs) June 7, 2026
Online flight tracking data does show that another U.S. military Boeing 747-8i flew from Waco, Texas, to Andrews on June 7, using the callsign Crane 01. However, this callsign has been associated with an ex-Lufthansa 747 the Air Force has also acquired for use as a trainer in support of future Air Force One operations. This aircraft, which may now carry the serial number 25-3200, has been tracked multiple times flying between facilities in Texas and Andrews in recent months. There does not appear to be tracking data for the VC-25B Bridge jet, which may also now have the serial number 25-3300, but it could have made the trip without broadcasting on ADS-B.
Past reports have indicated that the Bridge aircraft could make its public debut on July 4, which this year is also wrapped up in additional celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. President Trump’s birthday (June 14) is also this weekend.
Otherwise, TWZ has previously laid out significant questions about the general feasibility of actually using the VC-25B Bridge aircraft in the Air Force One role, given the kinds of modifications that should be required for this demanding mission. Potential operational security concerns have been raised about using the gifted jet as a presidential aircraft, as well.
“L3Harris, known for its executive communications systems and services, was selected to undertake a complex modification of the bridge aircraft. L3Harris not only delivers secure, reliable and resilient communications for VC-25A and the executive airlift fleet but has extensive experience with self-protection and customization of VIP aircraft,” the Air Force wrote in the May 1 press release. “The accelerated timeline was further made possible by a mission-focused partnership with Boeing, who provided the necessary engineering data to support the required structural modifications.”
“Additionally, elite specialists from multiple government agencies developed advanced protocols to detect and-if necessary-neutralize potential technical hazards on previously owned aircraft,” it added. “Their rigorous approach on the Bridge aircraft has literally ‘written the book’ and set the benchmark for integrating used airframes into the secure military inventory.”
“Safety and security were at the forefront of this program. We deliberately minimized interior aesthetic modifications to focus on modifications for safety, security and mission execution. We assessed which requirements were necessary for an interim capability. We had greater flexibility in developing our mission requirements,” the Air Force also told TWZ directly at that time. “After safety and security, we focused on the mission communications systems.”
“We have made deliberate decisions such as the reduction of the number of airstairs, less chiller space, and exclusion of the Golden Eagle mission [to fly the remains of former presidents] to minimize structural modifications, while prioritizing modifications focused on safety, security and secure communications,” the service added.
Getting a new Air Force One aircraft of some kind into service on an accelerated timetable has long appeared to be a major goal for President Trump. The fully-equipped VC-25Bs from Boeing are years behind schedule. Last year, the Air Force announced that there had been some improvement on that front, but that it still did not expect to have the first of the two jets in hand until mid-2028, which would be just months before Trump is set to leave office.
What we do know for sure is that the VC-25B Bridge aircraft is now wearing Trump’s preferred red, white, and blue paint scheme ahead of its official rollout later this summer.
Contact the author: joe@twz.com
WASHINGTON — House Republicans will look to get nearly $70 billion for immigration enforcement over the finish line Tuesday, enough to fund a pair of Homeland Security agencies through the next three years and the rest of President Donald Trump’s time in office.
Speaker Mike Johnson will need near perfect attendance and unity on his side to complete weeks of action on the bill. The legislation got sidetracked when Republicans sought to include $1 billion for enhanced security on the White House grounds, including for Trump’s new ballroom, and the Trump administration tried to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund to compensate allies of the president who claim they have been unjustly investigated and prosecuted. Those proposals proved politically toxic and were scrapped.
Now, the bill is focused entirely on immigration enforcement, a topic that Republicans have treated as a defining issue between the two major political parties and one they hope will carry them to victory in this year’s midterm elections. The bill provides $38 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, $26 billion for the Border Patrol and another $5 billion to cover unforeseen costs, fueling Trump’s deportation agenda.
“It’s long overdue,” said Johnson, R-La., of the bill. “We have to fund border security and immigration enforcement, and it’s sad that Republicans have to do it on our own.”
The funding comes on top of the nearly $140 billion that the Republican-controlled Congress gave ICE and Customs and Border Protection last year as part of Trump’s tax and spending cuts bill.
Democrats objected to giving the agencies more money without significant changes in the way they operate after the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis. For example, Democrats insisted that agents be required to display their ID badges during enforcement operations and that they get a judicial warrant before entering private property. Instead, the funding will come with virtually no strings attached.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed his party would oppose the package.
“We believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people – not give ICE another $70 billion blank check so that they can unleash brutality on American citizens and violently target law-abiding immigrant communities,” said Jeffries of New York.
The package is the result of a monthslong standoff in Congress after Democrats refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis and other American cities, leading to the longest shutdown in agency history.
Negotiations had been underway with the White House to alter ICE operations as Democrats were demanding. When those negotiations failed, Republicans turned to a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the immigration funding with no Democratic votes.
If approved, the package would next go to Trump for his signature, all but assuring an essentially uninterrupted flow of funds for his immigration enforcement and deportation agenda into 2029.
The Senate completed its work on the legislation last week during an all-night session that extended into the early morning hours Friday. The final 52-47 vote on the bill was nearly party line, with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska the only Republican to oppose it.
The money will come at a pivotal time for the Department of Homeland Security, which is under new leadership after Trump replaced Kristi Noem with new Secretary Markwayne Mullin in March.
While Mullin has vowed to keep the department out of the headlines, the administration is under pressure from anti-immigration advocates to deliver on Trump’s campaign promise of the largest deportation operation in American history.
So far, the administration has not hit its goal of 1 million deportations a year, but Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, has promised more to come, including hinting at immigration enforcement actions in New York, the nation’s biggest city, which is heavily Democratic.
At the same time, the administration is making it more difficult for legal immigrants to remain in the U.S. by working to end Temporary Protective Status, changing the processes for obtaining green cards and leaving some Dreamers — the young people who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children — reporting delays in renewing their status, which allows them to stay and work.
On the House side, Johnson has little margin for error. Republicans can afford to lose only a couple of votes if every lawmaker is present. GOP leadership opted to avoid any hiccups and sent lawmakers home last week rather than take up the bill early Friday once the Senate had completed its all-nighter.
The bill is just a slim package, without the hundreds of pages of details and directives that typically come from Congress when it provides funding for agencies.
Leading up to the vote, Democrats portrayed DHS as an agency that has used its new resources to buy private jets for its leadership, warehouse immigrants in deplorable conditions and attack U.S. citizens.
“To give these rogue agencies another $70 billion now when they still have $100 billion in the bank from last year would implicate all of us in the escalating corruption and shameful actions of this department,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democratic member on the House Judiciary Committee.
Republicans countered that they were fulfilling their duty to safeguard the nation and support the men and women charged with enforcing the law.
“Democrats can say whatever they want, but what it’s about is public safety. What’s it about is keeping Americans safe,” said Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-Minn.
Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.
SACRAMENTO — Even before President Trump’s latest wave of unfounded claims of election fraud in California, a significant share of voters in the state expressed concerns about federal interference in the electoral process, according to a new poll.
Trump on Monday claimed on his social media site that the race for Los Angeles mayor was a “Rigged Election,” an allegation that came after Democrat Nithya Raman overtook Republican Spencer Pratt for second place in the ongoing primary election vote count.
Raman’s lead had prompted Rep. Abe Hamadeh, an Arizona Republican, to call for the election to be federalized, or run by the federal government rather than the state, a message Trump reposted.
Earlier Sunday, Trump had alleged during an interview with NBC News that California elections officials “were cheating.” That came after a debunked social media conspiracy theory claiming that a lag in an update of electronic voting data by the Associated Press showed Pratt was being cheated. On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the elections process in the L.A. mayoral race “stinks to high heaven.”
The ongoing attacks by Trump and his supporters continue to erode confidence in the nation’s elections, especially among Republicans, threatening a pillar of American democracy, said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.
“The president … wants to use those claims to make changes in the election process that could make it harder for people to vote, and that certainly is a threat to our democratic institutions,” Schickler said.
“One thing we’ve learned in recent years is that we just cannot take the voting process for granted, cannot take for granted that both sides will accept as legitimate the outcome, and can’t take for granted the idea that there won’t be efforts to essentially manipulate the vote counting process,” he added.
A new poll released Friday by the institute found that 41% of California voters were “not confident” that this year’s elections would be free of federal interference. Although 48% had confidence that there would be not meddling, the concerns expressed were still significant, Schickler said.
More telling was the partisan divide among voters when asked whether they have confidence that local officials would conduct fair and secure elections and that the vote count would be accurate. Among Democratic registered voters, 79% said they trusted elections officials to provide an accurate vote count. Among Republicans, 55% said they were not confident that would occur.
California voters who don’t belong to either party said by a 2-1 margin that they had confidence in the vote count, the poll showed.
“The positive is that local officials are still widely trusted by Democrats, no-party-preference voters, and at least a share of Republicans, though a lot fewer than I think in the past, and a lot fewer than you know we would want for a really healthy democracy,” Schickler said.
That growing mistrust among certain parts of the electorate comes after years of baseless claims by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.
Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. In April, the court sharply limited a part of those protections that had forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress, as well as state and local boards.
Trump and his allies have used California’s slow vote-counting process to allege cheating. The day after the June 2 primary, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats were trying to “steal” the gubernatorial and L.A. mayoral primaries. The next day, he alleged that California Democrats had “found” mail-in ballots and were “rigging the election” with them.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber and other officials have said California’s voting system prioritizes voter accessibility and security over speedy results. The state has more than 23 million registered voters, and ballots go through numerous verification steps, including verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.
“Over 97% of our folks actually vote by mail. They want to keep that system. That system demands more contact, more touching of the ballot, more verification of the individuals who are voting. All of those things take time,” Weber said during a recent interview with ABC10 in Sacramento.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called Trump’s claims during the recent “Meet the Press” interview the “most severe case of California Derangement Syndrome we’ve ever seen.”
Newsom is considering a 2028 run for president and has consistently warned that Trump may try to interfere in both the 2026 and 2028 elections.
The Berkeley poll found that California voters overall — 74% — want candidates running for president in 2028 to prioritize defending democracy and making voting more accessible. Among Democratic voters, 95% said that was important; among Republicans, 41%.
Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.
The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted between May 19 and 25 online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.
Times staff writers Alene Tchekmedyian and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.
BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, contradicting an earlier federal court ruling upholding the fee hike.
The administration announced the much-higher fee as a way of preventing foreign workers from taking American jobs.
But U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston sided with 20 states and struck down the visa policy, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin wrote.
H-1B visas are meant for high-skill jobs that are difficult to find American workers to fill. Deep-pocketed technology companies are the biggest users, with nearly three-quarters of approvals going to workers from India. The states argued that using the H-1B program to fill vacancies for much-needed doctors and teachers was already difficult before the higher fee.
Most H-1B visa applications cost several thousand dollars before the announced increase set off a wave of panic among confused employers, students and workers in the United States and abroad and led to several lawsuits, including in Boston.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also sued, in federal court in Washington, D.C., and has appealed a denial of a summary judgment against the fee hike. That left the higher fee in effect, at least until September, when it is scheduled to expire. Monday’s ruling is also a summary judgment, to the opposite effect. Still another lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco, by religious groups and labor organizations, setting up the possibility of divided rulings in three appellate court circuits.
The states argued that the policy impedes their ability to hire primary and secondary school educators and to staff public colleges and universities, will stymie academic research and will lead to a decline in medical workers.
“The Proclamation makes various overtures to domestic economic policy goals to justify the unprecedented $100,000 fee,” plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. “But the Proclamation gives no indication that the President gave any consideration to how the fee would affect Plaintiff States and their ability to provide their residents access to education, healthcare, and other basic human needs.”
A Department of Homeland Security statement said the agency disagrees with “this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”
“Under President Trump and Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin, our immigration system is being reformed to serve American citizens, American workers, and American families and to preserve our national identity — not to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs, commit crimes, burden our welfare system, and erode our cultural and social fabric.”
Casey writes for the Associated Press.
Legal challenge claims US president did not seek proper approval for fighting event to be held on his 80th birthday.
Published On 7 Jun 20267 Jun 2026
A lawsuit is seeking to stop United States President Donald Trump from hosting an Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) match at the White House.
The lawsuit, lodged on behalf of two Virginia residents, is the first known legal challenge to the mixed martial arts event, which is set to be hosted on June 14.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The event will take place on Trump’s 80th birthday. It is also pegged to the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which the US will commemorate on July 4 of this year.
The legal challenge filed on Saturday maintained that Trump did not receive proper authorisation to host the fight.
It argued that the event violated US National Park Service regulations prohibiting sporting events on federal parklands, that Congress did not consent to the construction of a towering arch overlooking the event space, and that no environmental review was conducted before the construction.
“This is fundamentally a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain,” said Brendan Ballou, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “And that is what is motivating this lawsuit.”
In a statement to the Associated Press, the White House dismissed the lawsuit as “obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory”.
The White House maintained the UFC fight was “no different than the various other White House-hosted events on the South Lawn and properly permitted events on the Ellipse and National Mall throughout the year”.
Crews have been erecting an octagon-shaped fighting cage on the South Lawn of the White House, with Trump saying the project will include a “5,000-seat arena right outside the front door of the White House”.
Attendance at the fight will be invite-only and closely monitored. The Military Times news site reported earlier this week that 1,200 service members given tickets to the event must meet certain waist-to-height ratio standards.
Public viewing areas will also be set up at the nearby Ellipse.
Trump has long been closely involved with both professional wrestling and UFC, with his casinos and event spaces hosting past events.
He regularly appeared as a version of himself in World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) events throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. His current secretary of education, Linda McMahon, is a co-founder of the WWE.
Trump has more recently embraced UFC, which is currently owned by the same company, TKO Group Holdings, as the WWE.
UFC president Dana White has been a close ally of Trump’s.
Political analysts have credited Trump’s embrace of the sport with reaching disaffected male voters in the US, particularly during his 2024 election campaign.
WASHINGTON — With virtually no strings attached, Congress is on the verge of providing a sizable infusion of cash to the Department of Homeland Security, powering President Trump’s mass deportation agenda for the remainder of his term in the White House.
The nearly $70-billion package, which cleared the Republican-held Senate in a middle of the night vote and now heads to the House, was declared a “rotten bill” by the Democratic leader and an “ATM for ICE” by pro-immigrant advocates.
But for those aligned with Trump’s campaign promise for the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, it all but guarantees an uninterrupted flow of money to carry out the administration’s immigration enforcement operations — and comes on top of some $170 billion Congress already approved for the department last summer, as part of Trump’s big tax breaks bill.
“We’re going to continue to arrest people, we’re going to continue to detain people and we’re going to keep deporting people,” Trump border advisor Tom Homan told CBS News on Friday.
He hinted at summer sweeps of enforcement actions coming next to New York City.
The work of Congress comes at a pivotal time for the Republican president and his party as they face restless voters before the midterm elections. About 1 in 3 U.S. adults know someone who has been affected by Trump’s immigration operations, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in April. And as America celebrates its 250th anniversary, most say it’s no longer a great place for immigrants.
The funding package from Congress is just a slim dozen-page bill that carries none of the usual guardrails or directives typically demanded in legislation. It turns loose $30 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, and billions for the Border Patrol, and others, prepaying the department’s operations into 2029.
“Their options are limitless in terms of what they can do with this money,” said Vanessa Cardenas, the executive director at America’s Voice, a longtime advocacy organization for immigrants.
“That is such a hard thing to accept as a taxpaying citizen that our dollars are going to this massive, mass deportation machine, while Americans are struggling to meet healthcare costs, and have access to food and they’re paying so much in gas.”
The administration has sought to shift the debate over its immigration operations, installing new leadership at Homeland Security in the aftermath of violent scenes of immigration enforcement earlier this year and the shooting deaths of Americans Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
Rather than the dramatic street sweeps, the administration is working behind the scenes on actions that are stripping immigrant groups of their ability to remain in the U.S., by doing away with Temporary Protected Status or making it more difficult to secure green cards.
The so-called Dreamers, young immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children, have reported delays in renewing their Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status, exposing them to potential deportation.
But protests on American streets continue, including over detention conditions at the Delaney Hall facility in New Jersey.
At the same time, Homeland Security continues to hire more ICE agents — it’s hosting an employment fair next month in Florida — build more detention facilities and partner with countries around the world to take people who are being deported from the U.S.
In a statement, the department said Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are “laser focused on ensuring the hardworking men and women” of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol are fully funded. It said the package from Congress “will ensure our critical national security operations continue despite any Democrat attempts to hold our great patriotic employees hostage in the future.”
Typically a funding package from Congress would run hundreds pages or more, with a range of specific instructions about how the money can be spent and on what timelines.
Congress, after all, holds the power of the purse, and often uses that constitutional role to put checks on the administration.
But after Democrats refused to fund Homeland Security earlier this year following the violence in Minnesota, Republicans retaliated by using the congressional budget resolution process to muscle the package through on their own, outside the traditional appropriations channels.
It’s the same process both parties have used in the past, most recently on Trump’s 2025 tax cuts bill.
“All this important oversight doesn’t happen,” said Bobby Kogan, a former staff member of the Senate Budget Committee and now at the Center for American Progress, a think tank.
Overnight, Democrats in the Senate worked to exert that authority, offering amendments to ensure Congress had some say in the process. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, for example, sought to protect “Dreamers” from deportation as their DACA renewals are being delayed. But those efforts all failed.
Meanwhile the administration is under enormous pressure to deliver on its promise to boost deportations to some 1 million a year, after the Republican president’s first year numbers fell short.
Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, is a leader of the Mass Deportation Coalition that is pushing the Trump administration to stick to its promises.
“Everyone’s talking about it like ICE is about to get another massive cash injection, and that’s not how I see it at all,” he said. “They’re getting like life-support money.”
“We’re not asking them to keep going,” Howell said. “We’re asking them to start.”
Howell said there’s little chance the Trump administration will be able to reach the president’s deportation goals unless it drops its priority to go after what they call the “worst of the worst.”
His group put out a framework earlier this year that proposes more comprehensive sweeps to arrest immigrants, particularly in the workplace. He also wants to see the Trump administration make it more difficult for immigrants who are in the U.S. to use the banking system, get social services and obtain driver’s licenses. Republicans in Congress have offered bills tackling some of those issues.
The administration has been amping up its own rhetoric and recently posted a new website that characterizes immigrants as “aliens” — with outer-space themes — and suggests ways the White House is working to prevent people from staying in the U.S.
Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is waiting for clarity from the Pentagon following President Trump’s back-and-forth on troop levels in Europe, upending the lives of military personnel and potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars, two U.S. defense officials told the Associated Press.
NATO allies were bewildered in May when Trump said he would send 5,000 U.S. troops to Poland just weeks after ordering the same number pulled from Europe, following a spat with Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the Iran war. The Trump administration says troop reductions in Europe have long been planned and coordinated with allies.
The Republican president announced on social media two weeks ago that he was sending troops to Poland — the same day the Pentagon had officially ordered the cancellation of a rotation of soldiers heading there, one of the defense officials said.
The unit’s equipment was already on the way. Sending it cost the military $32 million, said U.S. Transportation Command, the military agency largely responsible for moving troops and gear across the globe.
The abrupt changes are forcing the military to “retroactively engineer” a policy in line with the president’s latest pronouncement, the official said. Both officials were briefed on the decisions and, along with others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters.
The uncertainty is not only rattling European allies worried about the message being sent to Russia, but it also risks hurting morale among American troops — some of whom had their rotations canceled shortly before departure — and comes as the Army budget is already strained.
Changes to troop deployments to Poland add up
The rotational deployment to Poland of 4,000 troops from the Army’s 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, based in Fort Hood, Texas, was canceled in a memo sent to the military at the beginning of May. European allies found out mid-month.
Some of those troops were told shortly before traveling not to get on a flight to Poland, while those who had been sent ahead — initially around 1,000 troops — are still waiting for confirmation they are being sent back, a U.S. military official said.
The military also is still waiting for details from the Pentagon on how to satisfy Trump’s order to send 5,000 troops to Poland, that official said. The working assumption is that they will come from units already in Europe, rather than an additional deployment from the U.S., the official said.
U.S. Transportation Command had chartered a ship to take the team’s equipment from Texas to Poland and transport a departing unit’s gear back to America. The incoming team’s portion of the cost was $32 million, including chartering the ship and loading and unloading the gear.
Because the ship was chartered to take one unit to Europe and bring another back, it is hard to say if that amount would have been saved had the decision to halt the deployment been made before the new team had already begun moving overseas.
However, the military official said the unscheduled move of personnel and equipment back from Europe is most likely not a cost the Pentagon budgeted for and would be an additional expense.
Total costs of canceling the rotation are hard to quantify because of many factors, said Joe Costa, a former senior Pentagon official who now focuses on challenges faced by the U.S. military as director of the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense program.
They most likely stem from returning equipment and troops sent ahead of the deployment and would probably be on the low end of the rotation’s overall cost, Costa said. The greater impact is on the readiness of troops who were trained for one mission and may be deployed on another, he said.
U.S. military contracts with private companies to transport troops and equipment contain cancellation clauses that often add extra fees if a deployment is called off, said John Deni, a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council who has studied such costs.
“The question is what additional costs were incurred by deciding to send them back prematurely, changing the arrangements, changing the plan?” said Deni, a former U.S. military advisor and planner who focused on forces in Europe.
It is not clear if the Pentagon can recoup those costs or those associated with moving the unit to Europe. The Defense Department did not answer questions about the costs of changing the deployment plans, and the White House referred a request for comment to the department.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly said they planned to lower troop levels to have Europe shoulder more of its own defense and that the decision was part of a “comprehensive, multilayered process.”
Last month’s memo also led to the cancellation of a deployment to Germany of a battalion trained in firing long-range rockets and missiles.
Pulling troops stationed in Germany would be more expensive
When Trump first threatened to remove 5,000 troops from Europe, Pentagon officials initially suggested pulling back the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, which is based permanently in Germany, the defense official said.
Instead, officials decided to cancel the rotation of the other unit to Poland. Then Trump threw that plan into confusion as well.
Pulling the troops stationed in Germany could cost in the low billions because there is no dedicated space and infrastructure in the U.S. to accommodate them and their families, Costa said.
“The other option is basically breaking up the unit,” Costa said. “They move the equipment in different places. They move the people to different places. That carries significant readiness costs because now you’re artificially jamming pieces of units into places where they don’t necessarily belong.”
Pulling or pausing deployments also can hurt morale among soldiers and families because they plan for them months and years in advance, Deni said. The uncertainty can be disruptive.
“That’s often the last thing you want to do to military families,” Deni said.
It is still unclear what will happen to U.S. troops stationed in Europe, the two officials said. Options include moving military units assigned to Germany to Poland, but that could take several years and cost more, the military official said.
Troop changes happen during an Army budget shortfall
The moves come as the Army is facing a budget shortfall, which the service’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Christopher LaNeve, recently acknowledged to Congress.
Estimates put the deficit somewhere between $2 billion and $6 billion, according to an Army official who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive defense matters. One impact has been cutting training courses for soldiers nationwide, which ABC News earlier reported.
In a statement, the Army said it has issued guidance to its commands to “make tough and sound resource decisions that optimize and prioritize resources toward their most critical requirements, to include major training and readiness events.”
The Army official also noted that the service has been tasked with missions like the National Guard deployment in Washington, a bolstered presence along the U.S.-Mexico border and its part in the Iran war — all of which have strained its budget.
The Department of Homeland Security expects to reimburse the Army for its role in the border mission.
Army Secretary Dan Driscoll told lawmakers at a May 15 hearing that he was “optimistic” there would progress on those payments “within a week or two.” But to date, the Army has not been reimbursed.
“We want those backfilled payments,” Driscoll said then.
The U.S. military in Europe also is scaling back support for non-combat related training and ruthlessly prioritizing critical functions, the military official said.
Burrows, Finley and Toropin write for the Associated Press. Burrows reported from London.
Republicans in the United States Senate have renewed their push to pass a controversial $70bn immigration-enforcement funding bill, a top policy priority for President Donald Trump.
But the effort on Thursday faced a series of hurdles, with Democrats forcing votes on several amendments that highlighted controversies related to the Trump presidency.
list of 3 itemsend of list
The rapid-fire votes on the amendments were dubbed a “vote-a-rama“, and they are slated to include issues ranging from Trump’s White House ballroom to his tariff policies and the US-Israel war on Iran.
“Amendment after amendment, vote after vote, Republicans are going to have to answer to the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.
Early on, Republicans were forced to confront a topic that has dominated headlines in recent weeks: Trump’s proposed $1.776bn “anti-weaponisation” fund.
The fund has been controversial on both sides of the aisle, with critics calling it a slush fund for Trump’s allies.
Several Republicans indicated that the optics of such a fund could be politically catastrophic ahead of November’s midterm elections, and the Department of Justice has since backed away from the scheme.
But Trump himself has avoided saying whether the fund was dead, or just on hold.
It was created as part of a settlement following a lawsuit Trump filed against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a part of his government, and it was designed to award payouts to alleged victims of politically motivated prosecution.
Senate Democrats have repeatedly called for such a fund to be banned outright, rather than relying on the Trump administration’s commitment not to revive it.
Nevertheless, on Thursday, Senate Republicans rejected the Democrats’ measure to permanently block the fund.
Republican Tom Tillis introduced a second amendment, which would have also banned the settlement fund. Instead, the legislation would have redirected the allocated funds to a separate anti-fraud fund within the Justice Department. That, too, was rejected.
Thursday’s votes on the “anti-weaponisation” fund were just the start of several rounds of voting on issues uncomfortable to the Republican Party.
Schumer, the top Democrat, signalled that other amendments would tackle another part of the IRS settlement: the permanent immunity from tax audits that Trump had secured for himself and his family.
Trump’s controversial immigration enforcement campaign and other issues were also scheduled to be taken up in the day’s amendments.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he was not sure whether Republicans would defeat every measure, with some members of the party showing an increasing willingness to stand up to Trump.
“I can’t predict how it comes out,” he said.
The situation on Thursday was the result of a standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement.
Democrats had pledged not to approve further funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), following the killing of two US citizens during immigration operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Republicans control 53 seats in the 100-seat chamber, short of the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.
They have instead been forced to pursue a lengthy procedural manoeuvre to bypass the filibuster, which has taken weeks.
The $70bn funding bill had been stalled by the Trump administration’s demand to include $1bn for security upgrades for Trump’s White House ballroom project.
The request came after the president had repeatedly said that no taxpayer dollars would go towards the project.
The security funding, which roiled several Republicans, was subsequently dropped before the voting started.
The Senate’s parliamentarian, an official who interprets the chamber’s rules, had previously ruled that adding ballroom funding to the $70bn bill would make it ineligible for the budget reconciliation process, which allows the passage of fiscal-related bills with a simple majority.
If Senate Republicans remain unified, they are expected to pass the funding bill late Thursday night or early Friday.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to take up the bill shortly after.
June 4 (UPI) — The Kennedy Center ordered its staff Thursday to remove President Donald Trump‘s name from the center by June 12.
A memo was sent out from the center’s general counsel that said they must remove all references from signs, brochures, websites, furniture and more, and that they must update email signatures and letterhead immediately.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the center’s board had overstepped its authority when it voted to add Trump’s name to the center. The memo was the first sign that the center plans to comply with the order.
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” Cooper said.
Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, filed a lawsuit on Dec. 23 against Trump and others alleging that the move was illegal.
Trump claimed that naming the center after him was a surprise, but the name was added to the sign the next day.
Justice Department lawyers representing Trump later said the speed of the move showed it had been “prepared and/or purchased prior to the Board’s vote the day before,” The Washington Post reported.
Thursday’s memo also said officials were “considering their options and will provide further guidance shortly” on whether the center will close after July 5. The center was scheduled for two years of closure for a $257 million renovation.
In his decision, Cooper said the renovations are “sorely needed,” and his ruling doesn’t bar the board from closing “should it come to this decision anew after independently balancing its multiple obligations to the Center in a prudent fashion,” CBS News reported.
“By way of this opinion, the Court does not purport to dictate how the Center should be run, nor does it prescribe any particular plan for the institution — construction, closure or otherwise — moving forward,” he wrote. “It simply holds the Kennedy Center Board to certain minimum requirements imposed by law. Beyond that, the Court will let the parties play on.”
WASHINGTON — Initial efforts in the Senate failed Thursday to block the $1.8-billion fund that the Trump administration has sought to establish to pay people who claim the government wronged them, though further attempts were likely to come Thursday afternoon.
Republicans narrowly voted down a Democratic amendment to ban the payout fund and then Democrats killed a Republican amendment, which would have prohibited the use of federal money for the fund but would have sent $1.7 billion to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
It was the second effort in Congress to rebuke President Trump in two days, following the House vote Wednesday to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran.
The dueling amendments were proposed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). They were attached to the reconciliation bill that would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, a high priority for Republicans.
The votes came as the Senate began a “vote-a-rama,” during which lawmakers were expected to propose a stream of amendments to the immigration bill on various topics.
The Trump administration’s plan for the payment fund — widely seen as a way for Trump to compensate his political allies, including those who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — set off particular ire from some GOP lawmakers.
The plan has fueled growing unrest within parts of Trump’s party over his governance, compounded by the president’s endorsement of primary challengers to Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), as well as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), which angered some Republican senators.
Cassidy, who lost his primary and has since voiced strong opposition to Trump’s $1.8-billion fund, became a key player in the Thursday votes, voting down Schumer’s amendment but supporting Tillis’.
On Wednesday, Cassidy joined with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to argue in a court filing that the $1.8-billion fund circumvents Congress’ authority and violates the Constitution’s spending and appropriations clauses.
“It is an unconstitutional attempt to spend the People’s money without Congressional approval,” Cassidy and Booker wrote in an amicus brief filed in the federal court case challenging the fund.
The fund was created by the Justice Department to settle a lawsuit brought by Trump against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Trump and his sons agreed to drop their personal lawsuit against the government in exchange for the creation of the $1.776-billion fund. Critics immediately questioned the plan, and it drew a rare backlash from Republicans.
In late May, GOP senators derailed plans to vote on the immigration bill over their displeasure with the payout fund and with Trump’s desire to use taxpayer funds for his planned White House ballroom. Senate Republicans removed the ballroom funding from the immigration package Wednesday, another setback for Trump.
The Trump administration sought to back away from its plans for the fund this week, following bipartisan outcry and a federal court ruling that temporarily blocked any payouts from the fund. Acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said Tuesday the administration would end its plans to move ahead with the concept.
But Trump on Wednesday told reporters he didn’t know whether the fund was dead, calling it “a beautiful thing.”
After Schumer proposed the first amendment to ban the fund Thursday morning, the Senate came to a standstill as three key Republican senators deliberated. Schumer framed his effort to ban the fund Thursday as a way to force a referendum on Trump’s plan.
The amendment “offers Republicans a choice: Do you support Donald Trump’s $2 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund, or do you want to protect the American people and their paychecks?” Schumer said on the Senate floor before the vote.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) urged Republicans to reject the amendment, saying Democrats were planning to “play so many games” on Thursday during the marathon session.
“We are going to fund immigration enforcement and border patrol, and I urge my Republican colleagues to stay united on that singular mission,” Moreno said.
The amendment failed after Cassidy voted against it. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska voted in favor.
Schumer’s amendment was uniformly supported by Democrats, including California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla.
Tillis, who also voted against Schumer’s amendment, immediately proposed his amendment. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) urged Democrats to oppose it, saying that the proposal would create “a new slush fund” by giving the money to the Justice Department.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward. All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is,” Tillis said on the floor before voting began on his amendment. “This [fund] is unpopular, this administration has said they’re not moving forward with it; this is an opportunity for us to put it to bed.”
Responded Merkley: “Taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under control of the attorney general is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether.”
Trump has faced a recent string of failures, including the House vote Wednesday, a court ruling to remove his name from the Kennedy Center and a record-low approval rating among Americans as concern rises about economic issues, gas prices and Trump’s war with Iran.
On Wednesday, Trump lashed out against the four Republicans who backed the House war powers resolution, calling it “an unpatriotic thing” to do and calling the vote “meaningless.”
“They’re GRANDSTANDERS! They should be ashamed of themselves. MAGA!!! President DJT,” Trump wrote.
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos, in Washington, contributed to this report.