In an aerial view, a container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025 in Oakland, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump threatened to add a 100% tariff rate on Chinese goods Friday, saying in a social media post he was responding to export controls from the world’s second-largest economy.

“China has taken an extraordinarily aggressive position on Trade in sending an extremely hostile letter to the World, stating that they were going to, effective November 1st, 2025, impose large scale Export Control on virtually every product they make, and some not even made by them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The United States would respond with the 100% tariff on Chinese goods, also starting Nov. 1, he said. The tariffs would be stacked onto existing tariffs his administration has imposed on the country, he said.

Trump added that he would impose his own export controls “on any and all critical software.”

“It is impossible to believe that China would have taken such an action, but they have, and the rest is History,” he wrote.

Trump left open the possibility of scrapping or adjusting the additional tariffs before November, saying in the Oval Office late Friday that “We’re gonna have to see what happens.”

“That’s why I made it Nov. 1,” he said. “We’ll see what happens.”

He told reporters he has not canceled a planned meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, at an international economic conference in South Korea this week, but raised some doubt that the meeting would take place.

“I don’t know that we’re going to have it,” he said. “But I’m going to be there regardless, so I would assume we might have it.”

Tariffs a main part of Trump policy

Trump has used tariffs, taxes paid by the importer of foreign goods, as the central tool of his trade policy, applying broad tariffs on U.S. allies and adversaries alike, with a particular focus on China.

The two countries imposed escalating trade barriers on one another since Trump announced wide-ranging tariffs in early April. The U.S. tariff rate for Chinese goods peaked at 145% before the two sides negotiated an end to the trade war. 

Chinese goods still see a base tariff rate of 30%.

Trump invoked emergency authority to raise tariffs on China, arguing that the tariffs were a putative measure for China’s inability to control fentanyl supplies flowing into the U.S., but federal courts are still deciding the legality of that move.

Rallygoers hold a sign that reads “Free Kilmar” during a rally Friday, Oct. 10, 2025, outside the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge in Maryland seemed inclined to order the release of  Kilmar Abrego Garcia from immigration detention after oral arguments in court Friday, a potentially major development in the high-profile case.

After a more than six-hour hearing, District Judge Paula Xinis said a witness provided by the Justice Department showed little evidence that the Trump administration made an effort to remove Abrego Garcia to the southern African nation of Eswatini, and knew nothing about Abrego Garcia agreeing to be removed to Costa Rica. 

The witness tapped by the Department of Justice was John Schultz, a deputy assistant director who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal operations.

After hearing from him, Xinis said keeping Abrego Garcia detained indefinitely would likely be unconstitutional. She said she would issue an order soon.

Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whose wrongful deportation from Maryland put a spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown, is currently detained in Pennsylvania. 

His attorneys have argued the Trump administration is using detention to punish Abrego Garcia because officials are not trying to remove him, even after Abrego Garcia agreed to be deported to Costa Rica.

‘Three strikes, you’re out’

Xinis expressed her frustration with Department of Justice attorneys for not providing a witness who would give clear answers on how immigration officials were handling the removal of Abrego Garcia. 

“We’re getting to the three strikes, you’re out,” Xinis said. 

Andrew J. Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, argued that if Immigration and Customs Enforcement is making no plans to immediately remove him, he should be released from detention. 

He also argued that since March, when the Trump administration erroneously deported Abrego Garcia to a mega-prison in El Salvador, to the present, Abrego Garcia has been “in continuous containment” way past the six-month limit set by the Supreme Court regarding the detention of immigrants.

“The real aim of the government… is punitive, which is just to keep him incarcerated,” Rossman said. “It’s an overtly political purpose.”

Rossman told Xinis that he has not received an answer from the federal government as to why they will not remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, after he agreed to that proposal in August.

Xinis asked DOJ attorney Drew Ensign why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica.

Ensign said that it was not clear to the government until Friday that Abrego Garcia had agreed to be removed to Costa Rica, because Abrego Garcia had previously expressed fear of being sent there. 

Abrego Garcia changed his position after Costa Rica assured him he would be given refugee status.

“That is a new development that I will report back to people,” Ensign said.

Supreme Court ruling

A 2001 Supreme Court ruling does not allow for immigrants to be detained longer than six months if the federal government is making no efforts to remove them. 

After 90 days without efforts to deport an immigrant, a challenge can be made because detaining that person any longer than a maximum of 180 days, or six months, would likely be unconstitutional, the high court found in Zadvydas v. Davis. 

Earlier this week, Xinis seemed likely to order Abrego Garcia’s release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention, where he has remained since late August. 

Xinis, who also ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garica to the United States after she found his removal to El Salvador unlawful, is overseeing his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention.

Protesters rally outside the courthouse

Ahead of the hearing, dozens of supporters from the immigrant advocacy group CASA gathered in front of the District Court for the District of Maryland, chanting, “Somos todos Kilmar,” or, “We are all Kilmar.” 

Rallygoers also chanted “What do we want? Justice!” “When do we want it? Now!” 

Some also held signs urging the Trump administration to free Abrego Garcia.

Two Maryland state legislators, Dels. Nicole Williams and Bernice Mireku-North, both Democrats, joined the rally.

Williams sponsored legislation during this year’s General Assembly session to prohibit local police from entering into certain agreements with ICE. On the last day of the legislative session in April, lawmakers passed a watered-down version of a bill that does not include the ban, the biggest loss for Maryland immigration advocates this year.

“We are going to be working on legislation with regards to masking by law enforcement officers,” Williams said. “We need to start treating everyone, I don’t care where you’re from, in a humane and decent way. And that’s what we’re going to be fighting for every single day until Kilmar is free and Kilmar comes home. So stop using Kilmar for your own political gain. Bring Kilmar home.”

White House involvement

Schultz, the DOJ witness, revealed that the White House had direct involvement in picking Uganda as a potential third country of removal for ICE’s deportation of Abrego Garcia. 

The move was unusual because the State Department typically coordinates third-country removals for the Department of Homeland Security.

Schultz said the Homeland Security Council, which operates within the White House, notified ICE of Uganda as a third country of removal. The Homeland Security Council works with the National Security Council of the White House. 

While Uganda is no longer a third country of removal for Abrego Garcia, ICE is trying to now remove him to Eswatini. 

Schultz said Eswatini has not agreed to take Abrego Garcia, but discussions, which he said started on Wednesday, are underway. 

“The discussions are continuing,” Schultz said. 

Schultz said he is not aware if ICE has not made any efforts to determine if Abrego Garcia would face persecution or be tortured or confined in Eswatini, or be removed a second time to El Salvador.  

Eswatini has previously agreed to accept third-country removals from the U.S. and the two countries have a memorandum of understanding, he added.

Ghana another potential destination

Schultz said that ICE has also identified the west African country of Ghana as a potential nation for Abrego Garica’s removal. Schultz said once a third country has agreed to accept Abrego Garica, he could be removed by ICE within 72 hours.

However, Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Sam Okudzeto Ablakwa, wrote on social media that the country will not accept Abrego Garcia. 

“This has been directly and unambiguously conveyed to US authorities,” he wrote. “In my interactions with US officials, I made clear that our understanding to accept a limited number of non-criminal West Africans, purely on the grounds of African solidarity and humanitarian principles would not be expanded.”

Schultz said that ICE “prematurely” sent a notice of removal to Abrego Garcia with Ghana as the designation.

The Costa Rica alternative

One of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, Sascha Rand, grilled Schultz about why DHS would not remove him to Costa Rica, despite Abrego Garcia agreeing to go.

Schultz said he was unaware of the letter from Costa Rica’s government saying it would accept Abrego Garcia.

Another attorney for Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said that the Trump administration offered to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica in August if he were to plead guilty to criminal charges in a federal case in Tennessee. 

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration is trying to get him to plead guilty to human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses. 

Rand asked Schultz if anyone from DHS was in contact with Costa Rica.

Schultz said he was unaware if there were conversations between the federal government and Costa Rica about removing him there. 

Rossman said based on Schultz’s testimony, it was clear the Trump administration was “holding hostage passage to Costa Rica.”

“They aren’t presently intending to remove him,” he said. “They have spun the globe and picked various (African) countries… to fail on purpose.”

William J. Ford of Maryland Matters contributed to this report.

Protesters rally outside of the Theodore Roosevelt Federal Building headquarters of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management on Feb. 5, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration announced Friday it had begun mass layoffs of federal employees, a step not taken during previous government shutdowns and one that could significantly reshape the size and scope of government. 

White House budget director Russ Vought posted on social media mid-day that Reductions in Force, the technical name for layoffs, had started.

“The RIFs have begun,” Vought wrote.  

Vought didn’t share any other details on social media and a budget office spokesperson only said that the layoffs would be “substantial” after States Newsroom asked for information about how many federal workers and which departments would be impacted. 

The Trump administration outlined its current layoff plans later in the day in a filing required in a federal court case brought by labor unions.

• Commerce: 315 employees
• Education: 466 employees
• Energy: 187 employees
• Health and Human Services: between 1,100 and 1,200 employees
• Housing and Urban Development: 442 employees
• Homeland Security: 176 employees
• Treasury: 1,446 employees

The Environmental Protection Agency has sent 20 to 30 employees “intent to RIF” notices, though officials have “not made a final decision as to whether or when to issue RIF notices” to those employees, according to the court filing. 

Other federal agencies are considering whether to implement layoffs, but the court filing says “those assessments remain under deliberation and are not final.”

A ‘bloated bureaucracy’

Earlier in the day, spokespeople for the Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Treasury departments said some of their employees will be affected by layoffs, including at DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. 

“RIFs will be occurring at CISA. During the last administration CISA was focused on censorship, branding and electioneering,” a DHS spokesperson said. “This is part of getting CISA back on mission.” 

Andrew Nixon, communications director at HHS, said “employees across multiple divisions have received reduction-in-force notices as a direct consequence of the Democrat-led government shutdown. 

“HHS under the Biden administration became a bloated bureaucracy, growing its budget by 38% and its workforce by 17%,” Nixon wrote. “All HHS employees receiving reduction-in-force notices were designated non-essential by their respective divisions. HHS continues to close wasteful and duplicative entities, including those that are at odds with the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.”

The Education and Treasury Department spokespeople didn’t provide any additional details. 

The government shutdown began on Oct. 1 after Congress failed to pass a short-term spending bill and is expected to continue at least into next week, with the Senate not scheduled to return until Tuesday.

Unions react

Labor unions that represent federal workers indicated they plan to let the judicial system determine whether the layoffs are legal.

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley wrote in a statement that it “is disgraceful that the Trump administration has used the government shutdown as an excuse to illegally fire thousands of workers who provide critical services to communities across the country.”

“In AFGE’s 93 years of existence under several presidential administrations – including during Trump’s first term – no president has ever decided to fire thousands of furloughed workers during a government shutdown,” Kelley wrote. “AFGE is currently challenging President Trump’s illegal, unprecedented, abuse of power and we will not stop fighting until every reduction-in-force notice is rescinded.”

AFGE represents about 820,000 federal and D.C. government workers.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, more commonly known as the AFL-CIO, posted on social media that “America’s unions will see you in court.”

Several labor unions — including AFGE; AFL-CIO; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — filed a lawsuit in late September in the Northern District of California challenging the legality of any layoffs during a shutdown and later asking the judge for a temporary restraining order. 

Judge Susan Illston gave the Trump administration until the end of Friday to provide details of any planned or in-progress Reductions in Force, “including the earliest date that those RIF notices will go out.”

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, released a statement opposing “Vought’s attempt to permanently lay off federal workers who have been furloughed due to a completely unnecessary government shutdown caused by Senator Schumer.”  

“Regardless of whether federal employees have been working without pay or have been furloughed, their work is incredibly important to serving the public,” Collins wrote. “Arbitrary layoffs result in a lack of sufficient personnel needed to conduct the mission of the agency and to deliver essential programs, and cause harm to families in Maine and throughout our country.”

Layoffs, funding cuts, loss of back pay threatened

President Donald Trump has signaled for the last couple weeks that if Democrats didn’t help Republicans advance the stopgap funding bill in the Senate, he would take action. 

“I’ll be able to tell you that in four or five days if this keeps going on,” Trump said Tuesday. “If this keeps going on it’ll be substantial and a lot of those jobs will never come back.”

Trump said Thursday that he would cut funding approved by Congress for programs he believes are supported by or generally benefit Democrats, but he didn’t provide any more details during a Cabinet meeting. 

Trump has also floated the idea of not providing back pay for furloughed federal employees, though he hasn’t made any firm determinations about whether he may try to reinterpret a 2019 law that guarantees back pay for all federal workers after a shutdown ends. 

The Congressional Budget Office estimated before the shutdown began that some 750,000 federal employees would be furloughed. Others have continued working but without pay.

Thune blames ‘far-left activist base’ for shutdown

Vought’s announcement came just as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., wrapped up a joint press conference on Capitol Hill, where they called on Democrats to vote to reopen the government. 

“We have a majority of United States senators — 55 out of 100 senators are voting to open up the government,” Thune said. “We need five bold, courageous Democrats with a backbone who are willing to take on their far-left activist base and join us in passing this.”

Thune largely rejected the idea floated by some Republican lawmakers that the chamber should get rid of the 60-vote threshold for advancing major legislation, which has so far blocked the House-passed stopgap spending bill from moving toward final passage. 

“There are folks out there that think that is the way we ought to do things around here, simple majority,” Thune said. “But I can tell you that the filibuster through the years has been something that has been a bulwark against a lot of bad things happening to the country.”

Thune added the legislative filibuster, which is different from the talking filibuster that most people are familiar with, is necessary to protect the rights of the minority political party and give it a voice in running the government. 

Johnson nixes vote again on military pay

Johnson, R-La., remained consistent during an earlier press conference that he will not bring the House back into session to vote on a bill to ensure on-time pay for military members during the shutdown. He’s repeatedly said the best way to avoid delayed paychecks for federal workers is for Democrats to advance the House-passed stopgap spending bill. 

The stalemate over government funding largely revolves around whether congressional leaders will be able to find bipartisan compromise and enact legislation to extend enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, which are set to expire at the end of the year.

Democrats argue lawmakers need to broker an agreement now, before open enrollment begins on Nov. 1. Republican leaders contend they’re willing to talk after the government reopens, but they haven’t provided any commitments and have been tight-lipped about what they’d be willing to consider. 

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said during a morning press conference before the layoff announcement that Republicans must compromise on health care. 

“What we’ve said to our Republican colleagues is we have to address the health care crisis that they’ve created decisively — that means legislatively and that means right now,” Jeffries said.

Energy projects canceled

Trump’s action to block funding for projects in the states has drawn objections from Democrats.

Thirty-seven Democrats sent a letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright Thursday rebuking the administration for “unlawfully cancelling $8 billion in federal investments in 223 energy projects.”

“For the 21 states with impacted projects, your cancellations will mean thousands of lost jobs for Americans, many of whom had every reason to rely on the stability of their jobs before these cancellations and all of whom will face uncertain job markets in our increasingly slowing economy,” they wrote.

The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons of Delaware, Cory Booker and Andy Kim of New Jersey, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington, Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin of Illinois, Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer of New York, Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith of Minnesota, Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California, Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch of Vermont and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

 Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

The Trump administration has tapped conservative groups to lead an initiative promoting civics education. (Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — A slew of conservative groups will lead a new coalition to spur civics education and push the subject in a more patriotic direction, the U.S. Education Department announced last month, raising alarms for some traditional civics and education groups that were not included in the initiative.

The America First Policy Institute, a think tank with close ties to the president, is organizing and coordinating the America 250 Civics Education Coalition made up of more than 40 national and state-based groups, including prominent conservative advocacy organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.

The vast majority of the groups in the coalition promote a vision of U.S. identity that downplays historical wrongs associated with race and gender and projects the country as an exceptional force for good. Many are well-known conservative groups that have promoted President Donald Trump’s political agenda.

The coalition lacks many of the more traditional civics education groups who say their nonpartisanship is a fundamental element of civics education, leading to concerns from those groups.

“Our organization serves students in every state and over 80% of counties,” said Shawn Healy, the chief policy and advocacy officer at iCivics, a group that promotes public support for civics education. “You can’t do that if your curriculum is shaded red or blue — it has to be fiercely nonpartisan.”

The coalition will have nothing to do with school curricula, a department official said last month, acknowledging that the agency legally cannot dictate what schools teach. And it will not receive any federal funding from the department, the official added.

But the agency has taken other steps that appear designed to steer curricula in a more partisan direction.

The same day the coalition launched, the department announced it would be prioritizing “patriotic education” when it comes to discretionary grants. The agency said patriotic education “presents American history in a way that is accurate, honest, and inspiring.”

Earlier in September, the department said it would invest more than $160 million in American history and civics grants — a $137 million increase in the funds Congress previously approved.

Civics as cultural battleground

Civics — a branch of social studies that focuses on rights and obligations of citizenship and the basic mechanics of government — has been a bipartisan priority, though it’s become a hot-button issue within education culture wars regarding how and what is taught as America grapples with its complicated history. 

Many on the political right, including Trump, have long bristled at how that history is taught. Going back to his first presidency, Trump has sought to exert control over the subject.

After retaking office in January, he reestablished the 1776 Commission — an advisory committee meant “to promote patriotic education.”

“Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains,” notes the executive order first establishing the commission during his first term. 

The commission released a 41-page report in January 2021 that drew criticism from historians and educators, including the American Historical Association.

In a statement signed by 47 other organizations, the association wrote that the report makes “an apparent attempt to reject recent efforts to understand the multiple ways the institution of slavery shaped our nation’s history.” 

Trump formed the commission after The New York Times published the 1619 Project, which aimed to “reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” 

Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA sign up 

In its September announcement, the department said the coalition “is dedicated to renewing patriotism, strengthening civic knowledge, and advancing a shared understanding of America’s founding principles in schools across the nation.” 

The coalition will include more than 100 events and programs across the country over the next year as part of the administration’s celebration of the country’s 250th anniversary. 

The coalition is set to feature a 50-state “Trail to Independence Tour,” a “Fundamental Liberties College Speaker Series” as well as “Patriotic K-12 Teacher Summits and Toolboxes” aimed at supporting “patriotic teaching nationwide.” 

The America 250 Civics Education Coalition includes right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation — the architect of the sweeping conservative policy agenda known as Project 2025 — as is America First Legal, a conservative advocacy group founded by Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. 

Turning Point USA, co-founded by conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in September, is also part of the initiative. PragerU, a conservative nonprofit that has drawn questions among researchers and scholars regarding the accuracy of its content, was also listed as a member of the coalition.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon was the chair of the board of the America First Policy Institute between her roles in the first and second Trump administrations. She had to sign an ethics waiver to participate in the coalition, according to the department official, who did not provide further details on what exactly this entailed. 

‘News to us’

While conservative political organizations were made part of the coalition, leading civics education groups were not even aware of it before its public launch.

“Certainly, it was news to us about this coalition being formed,” Healy, of iCivics, said.

Healy added that his group encourages the America 250 Civics Education Coalition “to be more pluralistic in orientation” and that the organization is “eager” to have a conversation with the coalition about what they’re doing.

iCivics, a nonpartisan organization founded in 2009 by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, launched CivxNow. The latter group describes itself as the country’s “largest cross-partisan coalition working to prioritize civic education in the United States.”

CivxNow’s nearly 400 members comprise a broad swath of mainstream civics education groups. 

“It’s our fundamental belief, both as an organization and as a coalition, that civic education has to be fiercely nonpartisan and nonideological,” Healy said. 

But only one group — Constituting America — is a member of both CivxNow and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition. 

Momentum for civics

iCivics and others in the civics education field said the added attention the initiative brings to the subject will be positive.

The coalition “provides an opportunity for everyone interested in civic education and patriotic education to do something right now,” said Donna Phillips, the president and CEO of the nonpartisan Center for Civic Education, pointing to “decades where there hasn’t been enough, or any, attention to civic education.” 

Phillips, whose organization is a member of CivxNow, said she hopes “the civic education field more widely can benefit from the momentum behind the need for this and that we can all find a place within this momentum and this moment.” 

Hans Zeiger, president of the nonpartisan Jack Miller Center, described the administration’s initiative as the “latest development in what we take to be a growing movement for civics in the country.” 

Zeiger, whose organization aims to empower college professors to work on civics education and is a member of CivxNow, said his group is “very interested in growing the national civics movement, and glad that there are people all across the political spectrum getting involved in the push for civic education.”

“It is always a good thing to have national dialogue on civics education,” the National Council for the Social Studies said in a statement. 

The council, part of CivxNow, added that they “strive for balanced conversations that will continue to elevate high quality social studies standards.” 

Teachers unions criticize coalition  

The two major teachers unions, which are politically aligned with Democrats, blasted the coalition as unserious, and noted the lack of traditional civics groups.

“We have decades of research on what works in civic education,” Mary Kusler, senior director at the National Education Association’s Center for Advocacy, said in a statement to States Newsroom. “The proposal they are peddling lacks the rigor and respect our students deserve — which is evident by the lack of any respected civics or civil rights organizations as signers.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement the 250th anniversary of the nation should have been “an opportunity for parents, teachers, historians and students to learn, celebrate, critique and think critically about our democracy.”

“Instead, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition rushed to create programming based on a single Trump-approved, ideological narrative, excluding the very people who know our history best: civics teachers and historians,” she said.

Members of the Texas National Guard are seen at the Elwood Army Reserve Training Center on Oct. 7, 2025 in Elwood, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s novel use of National Guard troops for law enforcement purposes has reopened a debate over states’ authority to control police powers, as dueling briefs from current and former state leaders filed in Illinois’ lawsuit against the president show.

A bipartisan group of former governors said Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard members to Chicago to control “modest” protests upended the careful balance between state and federal powers. 

At the same time, a group of 17 current Republican attorneys general told the court they supported the administration’s move that they said was necessary to protect immigration enforcement officers.

Both groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division brought by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson to block the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s third-largest city. 

Trump on Wednesday called for the arrest of Johnson and Pritzker for not assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, a provocative demand that raised further concerns about his administration’s relationship with state leaders.

The bipartisan group supported Pritzker and Johnson’s call for a restraining order to block the deployment, while the Republicans said the restraining order should be denied.

Democratic attorneys general back Oregon 

In another case, in which Oregon is challenging Trump’s order to deploy troops to Portland, Democratic governors or attorneys general in 23 states and the District of Columbia argued in support of the state’s position.

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who was among those siding with Oregon, said Wednesday he did so to “put an end to the dangerous overreach of power we are seeing with Donald Trump’s Guard deployments.”

The brief was also signed by Democratic state officials from Washington state, Maryland, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Kansas and Kentucky and the District of Columbia’s attorney general.

Former govs say deployment robs state authority

The federalist structure of the U.S. government, which bestows powers to both the federal and state governments, leaves broad police power to the states, the bipartisan group wrote. 

Sending military forces to conduct law enforcement would unbalance that arrangement, they said.

That group includes Democratic former Govs. Jerry Brown of California, Steve Bullock of Montana, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Parris Glendening and Martin O’Malley of Maryland, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Christine Gregoire, Jay Inslee and Gary Locke of Washington, Tony Knowles of Alaska, Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Steve Sisolak of Nevada, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Tom Vilsack of Iowa and Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania.

GOP former Govs. Arne Carlson of Minnesota, Bill Graves of Kansas, Marc Racicot of Montana, Bill Weld of Massachusetts and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey also signed the brief.

“The present deployment of military resources, based on an assertion of nearly unfettered federal authority, is unlawful,” they wrote. “The president’s assertion of authority to deploy military troops on domestic soil based on his unreviewable discretion, and without the cooperation and coordination of state authorities, threatens to upset the delicate balance of state and federal authority that underlies our constitutional order.”

The Trump administration misunderstands the section of federal law that Trump has relied on to federalize National Guard troops, the group said. 

The administration’s claim that only the president can decide if the conditions are met for National Guard units to be federalized “not only undermines state sovereignty but also deprives governors of a critical public safety tool,” they wrote.

“If federalization of the National Guard is unreviewable, a president motivated by ill will or competing policy priorities could divert Guard resources away from critical state needs, including natural disasters or public health crises,” they continued.

States need ICE enforcement, GOP govs say

The group of current Republican attorneys general argued their states are harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that impede federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.

The attorneys general are Brenna Bird of Iowa, Austin Knudsen of Montana, Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Tim Griffin of Arkansas, James Uthmeier of Florida, Chris Carr of Georgia, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Todd Rokita of Indiana, Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Catherine Hanaway of Missouri, Michael T. Hilgers of Nebraska, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas and John B. McCuskey of West Virginia.

They described the protests in Chicago as acts of violence that require a strong response.

“Rather than protest peacefully, some of those protests became violent, threatening federal officers, harming federal property, and certainly impeding enforcement of federal law,” they wrote. “President Trump’s deployment of a small number of National Guard members to defend against this lawlessness is responsible, constitutional, and authorized by statute.”

The attorneys general added that their states had been harmed by immigrants in the country without legal authorization who had settled in their states, which they said gave the president a public interest purpose in calling up troops to assist. 

“The President’s action of federalizing the National Guard furthers the public interest because it allows ICE agents to continue to perform their statutory duties of identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens, which is the only way to protect the States from the harms caused by illegal immigration,” they wrote.

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Oct. 9, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Thursday he’s prepared to cancel funding approved by Congress that he believes is going toward programs supported by Democrats, though he didn’t share any additional details during a Cabinet meeting. 

“We’ll be cutting some very popular Democratic programs that aren’t popular with Republicans,” he said. “They wanted to do this, so we’ll give them a little taste of their own medicine.” 

Meanwhile, on day nine of the government shutdown, members of the U.S. Senate for the seventh time failed to advance either a Democratic or Republican stopgap spending bill, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said partisan tensions in his chamber are so intense he is reluctant to bring members back until a resolution is found. 

“This gets personal. Emotions are high. People are upset. I’m upset,” Johnson told reporters at a morning press conference.

Layoffs, denial of back pay also threatened

Trump has signaled throughout the shutdown he wants to unilaterally cancel funding approved by Congress, lay off federal workers by the thousands and may try to reinterpret a 2019 law that requires back pay for furloughed federal employees after the funding lapse ends. 

He has yet to give any real details on those plans or say exactly when he’ll try to take those steps, which would likely result in additional lawsuits. 

Trump said during the hour-long public portion of the Cabinet meeting that Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought would be able to share more details, but Vought never spoke and Trump didn’t call on him. 

“The shutdown has been, you know, pretty damaging. I mean, not yet, because it’s early. But it gets a little bit worse as it goes along,” Trump said. “And we’ll be making cuts that will be permanent and we’re only going to cut Democrat programs. I hate to tell you. I guess that makes sense, but we’re only cutting Democratic programs. But we’re going to start that and we have Russell, who can talk to you about it if he wants to.”

The president is generally required to faithfully execute the laws that Congress approves, including the government funding bills. 

The White House budget office has frozen or canceled funding several times this year without going to lawmakers for approval, which is required under a 1970s law. 

That has led to a slew of lawsuits and the Government Accountability Office repeatedly citing the administration for illegally impounding funds. 

No progress on votes

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers remained deadlocked over how to advance a stopgap bill to fund the government for a few weeks. 

The Senate voted 54-45 on the House-passed bill that would fund federal programs through Nov. 21 and 47-50 on Democrats’ counterproposal that would provide spending authority through Oct. 31 and make substantial changes to health care policy. 

The tally for the seventh vote to advance those two proposals wasn’t much different from the previous ones. Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, as well as Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance their bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Legislation needs the support of at least 60 senators to advance under that chamber’s legislative filibuster rule. 

The vote came shortly after Speaker Johnson, R-La., made disparaging remarks about Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer during his press conference, with the two increasingly blaming each other for the funding impasse.  

“There is one thing that Chuck Schumer cares about more than anything else and that is his Senate seat,” Johnson said. “The guy has been in Congress for 44 years. He doesn’t know how to live life outside this building and so he will do anything to make sure that he keeps that seat.”

Johnson, asked about the increasing tensions between Republicans and Democrats over the funding lapse and health care policy, said it is likely better to keep lawmakers in that chamber separated until a resolution is reached. 

“I’m a very patient man, but I am very angry right now because this is dangerous stuff,” Johnson said. “And so, is it better for them, probably, to be physically separated right now? Yeah, it probably is, frankly. 

“I wish that weren’t the case. But we do have to turn the volume down. The best way to turn the volume down is to turn the lights back on and get the government open for the people.”

Shutdown pay for members of the military 

Johnson reiterated that he does not intend to bring the House back from an extended recess to vote on a stand-alone bill to provide on-time paychecks to military members during the shutdown. 

Johnson stuck to his position that the best way to ensure pay for U.S. troops is for Democrats to pass the GOP stopgap spending bill, despite Trump breaking with Johnson on that particular issue. 

Trump, asked Wednesday about the upcoming Oct. 15 payday for military members, said “that probably will happen” and that the “military is always going to be taken care of.”

But, Johnson said during his Thursday press conference the only way out is through the Republican stopgap bill that remains stalled in the Senate. 

“We have already voted to pay the troops. We did it three weeks ago. We put that bill on the floor, and the Republicans voted to pay the troops, TSA agents, border patrol, air traffic control and everybody else,” Johnson said. “So coming back here and doing it and having a duplicative vote to do the same thing they already did would accomplish nothing.”

Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech the shutdown will not end until after Republicans and Democrats find a way to extend tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace past the end of the year. 

Schumer also rebuked Johnson for the House schedule, which has only had members in Washington, D.C., for 12 days since the end of July. 

“If you’re someone who works two jobs or weekends or overtime to make ends meet, what on Earth are you supposed to think when House Republicans can’t even be bothered to show up to reopen the government?” Schumer said. 

New England senators initiate talks

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she has been speaking with New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen about possible solutions to the impasse. 

“I have been in very close contact with Sen. Shaheen, who is very constructive, and is trying to find a path forward,” Collins said.  

“The ACA issue is important to a lot of us, not just to Democrats,” she added. “The tax subsidies were enhanced during COVID. They do need to be reformed, but they do need to be extended as well. They expire at the end of the year. We need to open up government today before more harm is done, before people in the military don’t have their paychecks.”

 Ariana Figueroa and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An Alaska Airlines jet lands at Newark Liberty International Airport. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

The Federal Aviation Administration reported no travel delays due to staffing levels at U.S. air traffic control facilities Wednesday, following a day of some delays related to above-average absences at a handful of facilities.

An FAA operational plan posted about noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, the eighth day of the federal government shutdown, showed no facilities impacted by “staffing triggers.” A day earlier, the same memo showed staffing levels affected operations at major hub airports in Phoenix and Denver, as well as a smaller airport in Burbank, California.

Air traffic controllers are essential to the functioning of the nation’s air transportation system and must continue to work during a shutdown, though they are not paid while it is ongoing.

The group has not yet missed a paycheck during the current lapse in federal funding. The first impact most federal employees will see on their pay will be Friday, when electronic funding transfers are made for the pay period from Sept. 24 to Oct. 7. 

Because Congress has not appropriated money beyond Sept. 30, they would only receive a partial paycheck. Future paychecks would not be allocated until the government reopens.

‘How am I going to pay my mortgage?’ 

The possibility of working without pay is stressful for air traffic controllers, possibly leading to worsening performance or motivating some to call in sick to work on-demand jobs such as driving for ridesharing services, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said at a Monday press conference in Newark, New Jersey.

“Now what they think about as they’re patrolling our airspace is, ‘How am I going to pay my mortgage? How do I make my car payment? I have a couple kids at home, how do I put food on the table? I’m working six days a week, do I have to take a second job and drive Uber?’” Duffy said.

Duffy said there was a slight uptick in controllers calling in sick, but that it had not been widespread. 

Extensive “sick-outs” among air traffic controllers were a major factor in ending the last partial government shutdown, which occurred during President Donald Trump’s first presidency in 2018. 

“Absenteeism as a concern: We’ve had a few airports and we’re tracking it,” Duffy responded to a reporter who asked about the issue. “We don’t have one facility that has had long-term issues with sick leave, but that is concerning to me. And if someone has to take sick leave to drive Uber to make the difference … of course that’s concerning for us.”

Union chief calls for reopening government

Nick Daniels, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said on a CBS Evening News interview Tuesday the union is not coordinating absenteeism and is encouraging members to stay on the job during the shutdown. Air traffic controllers are prohibited by law from striking or taking other actions to disrupt the air transportation system.

Daniels also called on Congress to reopen the government as soon as possible to ease the strain on the workforce.

“There is no concerted effort for air traffic controllers to go in and somehow impede this system,” Daniels said. “But what it shouldn’t be is waiting to see how long air traffic controllers can last.”

The U.S. Capitol, pictured on Oct. 8, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate failed to advance Wednesday night a resolution designed to curb the president’s power regarding military actions abroad after the Trump administration ordered four strikes on boats in the Caribbean. 

The resolution failed to advance 48-51. Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia forced a procedural vote on the measure, which would have blocked the Trump administration from engaging in hostilities abroad without congressional approval. 

Two Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined nearly all Democrats voting in favor. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote against advancing the measure.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a tool for Congress to check the balances of power of the executive branch by limiting the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. 

Since September, President Donald Trump has approved four known military strikes in the Caribbean that have killed 21 so far, and, without offering evidence, said the boats were used by drug cartel members. 

“We call them water drugs,” Trump said about the most recent known boat strike on Oct. 3. “The drugs that come in through the water.”

The White House has released few details of the strikes. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, also without providing any evidence, said on social media that the boats contained narcotics heading for the U.S.

“Our intelligence, without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics, the people onboard were narco-terrorists, and they were operating on a known narco-trafficking transit route,” Hegseth wrote. “These strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over!!!!”

Those attacks have taken place in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, Hegseth added.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in a statement, condemned the attacks as an “illegal incursion of combat aircraft from the United States.”

Use of military

It’s illegal for the U.S. military to intentionally kill civilians who are not actively taking part in hostilities against the U.S. 

Senate Democrats and some Republicans have expressed skepticism about claims from the Trump administration that the boats were affiliated with drug cartels and have pushed the White House for more information on the boat strikes. 

Kaine said it’s possible that more people have died in the boat strikes, but they are seeking that information. He added that the strikes circumvent Congress’ authority to declare war. 

“We are vested with the power of declaring war. We ask basic questions,”  Kaine, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said. “Give us the intel about these particular boats, that they’re actually carrying narcotics.”

The Trump administration has argued that the strikes on the boats don’t warrant notification to Congress because they don’t rise to the level of war, and that the attacks are in self-defense. Kaine said he rejects those arguments.

“That’s just an invented rationale,” he said. “Self-defense has always been understood (as) imminent attack, imminent invasion of the United States. It is not within the norm of self-defense to define a drugrunner’s operation.” 

Paul said he is working on getting a briefing from the White House about the strikes and was skeptical that in the most recent strike, the four people killed were affiliated with drug cartels.

“If they’re members of a gang and you know them to be terrorists, and you’re convinced enough to kill them, why shouldn’t you know their names?” Paul said. 

Schiff said that since the first U.S. military attack near Venezuela in early September, the White House has not answered his and other lawmakers’ questions on those missions. 

“We just have little or no information about who was on board these ships, or what intelligence was used, or what the rationale was, and how certain we can be that everyone on that ship deserved to die,” he said. 

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 to limit the president’s authority to wage war overseas after the Nixon administration secretly bombed Vietnam and Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Then-President Richard Nixon vetoed the resolution, but Congress overrode the veto. 

Adelita Grijalva speaks to the media during a primary election-night party at El Casino Ballroom in South Tucson, Arizona, on July 15, 2025. Grijalva, the Pima County supervisor, won a special election for the state's 7th District seat vacated by the death of her father, longtime U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva. (Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images) 

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats failed again Wednesday to force Speaker Mike Johnson to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva. 

Johnson has said he’s holding off on swearing in Grijalva — an Arizona Democrat elected in September to fill the seat of her father, Raúl Grijalva, who died in March — until he brings the House back into session, which he says will happen as soon as Senate Democrats vote to reopen the government.  

But Democrats have accused Johnson of delaying Grijalva’s swearing-in to stall a vote on the Department of Justice’s release of files regarding the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The Louisiana Republican has denied that accusation.

Grijalva has vowed to be the 218th and final signature needed on a bipartisan petition to force a vote on the measure.

Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona led his Democratic colleagues in trying to gain recognition on the House floor to get Grijalva sworn in Wednesday. 

But GOP Rep. Russ Fulcher of Idaho, presiding over the House during its pro forma session, quickly gaveled out and did not recognize the Democrats. 

Several Democratic House leaders joined Stanton on the floor, including Minority Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the chair and vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Pete Aguilar and Ted Lieu of California, and Arizona’s Rep. Yassamin Ansari, the Democratic freshman class president. 

“That’s undemocratic,” Stanton shouted after the group failed to be recognized. 

The attempt followed a similar failed effort by Rep. Jim McGovern to be recognized in the House during its Monday pro forma session.

Johnson blames shutdown

Johnson has received flak from Democrats for having sworn in two of his own party’s members during a pro forma session earlier this year, including Reps. Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine of Florida. 

“Speaker Johnson needs to stop dragging his feet and follow the same precedent he set in swearing in his Republican colleagues earlier this year,” Grijalva said in a statement.

“If he would simply give me a date and time, I will be there,” she said. 

Wednesday marked the eighth day of the government shutdown, as dueling GOP and Democratic stopgap bills in the Senate failed to advance yet again.

“We will swear in Rep.-Elect Grijalva as soon as the House returns to Session when Chuck Schumer, Mark Kelly and (Ruben) Gallego decide to open up the Government,” a spokesperson for Johnson’s office said Wednesday prior to Democrats’ latest attempt, referencing the respective Senate minority leader from New York and Arizona’s two Democratic senators. 

“It is custom practice in the House to swear in members when the chamber is in session,” the spokesperson said. 

A day prior, Johnson had told reporters “we will swear her in when everybody gets back, it’s a ceremonial duty,” adding: “Look, we’ll schedule it, I guess, as soon as she wants.” 

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks with reporters in the U.S Senate press gallery on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — Congress has just one week to break the stalemate and fund the government before active duty military members miss their first paycheck of the shutdown. 

That would be followed later in the month by absent wages for federal civilian employees and the staffers who work for lawmakers — benchmarks that would traditionally increase pressure on Democrats and Republicans to negotiate a deal.

But both sides remained dug in Wednesday, as the Senate failed to pass Republicans’ short-term government funding bill for the sixth time and Democrats were unable to get the support needed to advance their counterproposal. 

The 54-45 vote on the GOP bill and the 47-52 vote on Democrats’ legislation didn’t reach the 60 votes needed to advance under Senate rules.

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, as well as Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance their multi-week funding bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

The shutdown began on Oct. 1, the start of the federal government’s 2026 fiscal year.

Trump warms up to idea of separate bill on military pay

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., rejected the idea of voting on a stand-alone bill to provide paychecks to active duty military members during the shutdown, saying that if Democrats wanted to ensure salaries for federal workers, they should vote to advance the stopgap spending bill. 

“They live with that vote. They made that decision. The House is done,” Johnson said at a morning press conference. “The ball is now in the Senate’s court. It does us no good to be here dithering on show votes. We did it. We sent the product over.”

Trump, speaking from the White House later in the afternoon, broke with GOP leaders in Congress on passing a stand-alone bill to provide pay for military members during the shutdown. 

“Yeah, that probably will happen. We don’t have to worry about it yet. That’s a long time,” Trump said. “You know what one week is for me? An eternity. One week for me is a long time. We’ll take care of it. Our military is always going to be taken care of.”

Johnson also appeared to fully reject an idea floated by the Trump administration not to provide back pay for furloughed federal employees, which is required by a 2019 law. 

“It’s my understanding that the law is that they would be paid. There is some other legal analysis that’s floating around. I haven’t yet had time to dig into and read that,” Johnson said. “But it has always been the case, it is tradition and I think it is statutory law that federal employees be paid. And that’s my position. I think they should be.”

Trump muddied the waters on that issue during his afternoon appearance, blaming Democrats for how his administration plans to handle back pay for furloughed federal workers. 

“We’re going to see. Most of them are going to get back pay and we’re going to try to make sure of that,” Trump said. “But some of them are being hurt very badly by the Democrats and they therefore won’t qualify.”

The shutdown will likely only end after congressional leaders begin talking with each other about core policy issues, including how to address enhanced tax credits for people who buy their own health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. The credits are set to expire at the end of the year, spurring huge increases in health insurance costs.

Democrats say a deal must be reached before they’ll vote to advance the GOP stopgap spending bill that would fund the government through Nov. 21. Republican leaders maintain they won’t negotiate until after Democrats vote to open the government.

‘You can’t take the federal government hostage’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he and other GOP lawmakers are willing to talk with Democrats about the tax credits, but only after the government reopens. 

“They have other issues that they want to bring up, which I said before we’re happy to discuss, and yes, there are some things that I think there’s interest on both sides in trying to address when it comes to health care in this country,” Thune said. “But you can’t take the federal government hostage and expect to have a reasonable conversation on those issues.”

Thune said the stopgap funding bill is needed to give both chambers more time to work out a final agreement on the dozen full-year government funding bills, which were supposed to become law by the start of the fiscal year.

“What this does is provide a short-term extension in order for all that to happen,” he said. “That’s all that we’re talking about.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans are divided on health care issues and want to avoid a public debate over the Affordable Care Act tax credits. 

Schumer then read part of a social media post by Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in which she said she was “absolutely disgusted” that health premiums will double by the end of the year without action.

“More Republicans should listen to her because, on this issue, she’s right on the money,” Schumer said. “Meanwhile, Democrats’ position hasn’t changed. We urge our Republican colleagues to join us in a serious negotiation to reopen the government and extend ACA premiums.”

Trump threats

The shutdown’s ramifications will continue to get worse the longer lawmakers remain intransigent, especially given President Donald Trump’s efforts to differentiate this funding lapse from those in the past.

Trump has said he’ll lay off federal workers by the thousands, cancel funding approved by Congress for projects in Democratic regions of the country and may not provide back pay for the hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal employees.

Trump and administration officials have been vague about when and how they’d implement layoffs, but a federal judge hearing arguments in a suit brought by a federal employee labor union has ordered government attorneys to file a brief later this week detailing its plans and its timeline.  

Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston has given the Trump administration until the end of Friday to share details of any planned or in-progress Reduction in Force plans, “including the earliest date that those RIF notices will go out.”

Illston, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, also told the Trump administration to detail what agencies anticipate implementing layoffs and how many employees that would impact. 

Illston set Oct. 16 for oral arguments between the American Federation of Government Employees and federal government attorneys over AFGE’s request for a temporary restraining order to block the Trump administration from implementing layoffs during the shutdown.

Murkowski reports informal talks

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, part of a bipartisan group that has begun informal talks, said during a brief interview Wednesday that the government must reopen before real steps can be taken on the ACA tax credits. 

“I think the leadership has made very, very clear that the way to open up the government is, let’s pass a bill that will allow us to open up the government, and then there’s a lot of good conversations that can go on,” Murkowski said. “It doesn’t mean that we wait until then to start conversations, and that’s what we’re doing. We’re talking but we’re talking outside of the range of your microphones.”

She said, “There are not a lot of guarantees around this place, are there?” when asked by a reporter whether Republicans could provide Democrats with assurances on floor votes on ACA tax credit extensions if they vote for the stopgap spending bill. 

North Carolina GOP Sen. Thom Tillis said he expects the shutdown to last for at least a couple more weeks and urged Democratic senators to vote to reopen the government. 

“Go take a look at the list of Democrats who are either not running for reelection or not up until ‘28 or ‘30,” Tillis said. “There are plenty of them to walk the plank like I have multiple times to get the government funded and then the discussions start.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin said that talks between Democrats and Republicans are “stalled” but “we’re having conversations with everybody.” 

South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds said that lawmakers have had bipartisan “visits” though no real conversations. 

“There’s no framework,” Rounds said. “There’s just a matter of a clarification about how important it is to get the shutdown over with. And once we get that shutdown over with, we’ll go back to bipartisan work in the Senate.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

James Comey, author and former FBI director, speaks at the Barnes & Noble Upper West Side on May 19, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty to two felony charges Wednesday in federal court in Virginia, in response to an indictment that followed an extraordinary pressure campaign from President Donald Trump.

A federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted Comey in September on one charge of making false statements to Congress during testimony in 2020 and another of obstructing a proceeding of Congress. Prosecutors had sought an additional charge of making false statements, but the grand jury returned only the two charges. 

Comey faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for each charge.

The indictment came just days before the statute of limitations ran out.

A trial is set for early January. Comey’s lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said he plans to file two batches of motions this month, including one alleging vindictive and selective prosecution. 

“Our view is this prosecution was brought by President Trump,” Fitzgerald said.

Trump told his AG: ‘We can’t delay any longer’

Trump has long targeted Comey for his role leading the FBI during an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump fired him after pressuring him to end the investigation and failing. 

Trump and Comey have publicly sparred since his dismissal. Comey has denied wrongdoing.

Trump in September posted on social media urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other political enemies, demanding retribution for his own prosecutions.

“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done,’” Trump wrote. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT.”

The president then forced out the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia when he declined to pursue charges against Comey. Trump replaced the office’s top prosecutor with former personal lawyer Lindsey Halligan, who swiftly obtained an indictment.

Comey’s legal team plans to fight Halligan’s appointment as unlawful.

Classified information expected to be included

U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed to Comey’s request for a trial in January, after there were no objections from the government to schedule the proceeding beyond the Dec. 17 speedy trial deadline.

Fitzgerald’s challenge to Halligan’s appointment will be heard by a judge outside the Eastern District of Virginia according to standard protocol, Nachmanoff said, adding the separate track will have no bearing on Comey’s case schedule.

Nachmanoff, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, ordered the parties to swiftly agree on obtaining security clearances for Comey and Fitzgerald, as the government contends some of the evidence may be classified.

“We haven’t seen a single piece of discovery to date,” Fitzgerald told Nachmanoff, adding he had not received communication from government prosecutors until Tuesday.

Government prosecutor Nathaniel Lemons said he expects a “large amount” of discovery will be classified. Discovery is the process of exchanging information about witnesses and evidence in a legal case.

“We’re just getting our hands around the discovery as well,” Lemons said.

Nachmanoff responded he is “a little skeptical.”

“This does not appear to be a particularly complex case,” Nachmanoff said during the roughly 30-minute arraignment.

Fitzgerald told the judge the defense is “a bit confused” about the government’s slow movement on producing discovery.

“Frankly, we feel in this case the cart has been put before the horse,” Fitzgerald said.

Nachmanoff ordered the parties to come to a discovery agreement by week’s end, or risk the court setting one for them.

“I want to get this resolved promptly. … There should be no reason this case gets off track because of the existence of classified information,” he said.

Comey’s family accompanies him

Fitzgerald, who served as the U.S. attorney in Chicago for over a decade during the George W. Bush administration, is known for his role as Special Counsel in 2005 during the CIA leak case against Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Fitzgerald told Nachmanoff that representing Comey is “the honor of my life.”

Several of Comey’s family members attended the arraignment at the Eastern District’s Albert V. Bryan Courthouse, including his daughter, Maurene Comey, who was fired earlier this year from her role as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan. 

Comey’s son-in-law, Troy Edwards Jr., was also in attendance. Edwards resigned from his position as prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia immediately after Comey was indicted last month. 

Oral arguments are set for Nov. 19 and Dec. 9. A trial is set for Jan. 5.

Fitzgerald initially argued for a Jan. 12 trial date, but Nachmanoff denied the request.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 7, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi aimed heated rhetoric at Democratic senators on Capitol Hill Tuesday as she faced questions over the administration’s surge of federal agents to blue cities, as well as a litany of controversial issues surrounding the Department of Justice. 

In one fervid exchange during the routine oversight hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Bondi lashed out at Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, “I wish you’d love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump.”

“And currently the National Guard are on the way to Chicago — if you’re not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will,” Bondi continued, responding to a question from Durbin on whether she had any conversations with the administration ahead of a deployment of the National Guard to Chicago.

“And by the way so is (FBI) Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. You’re sitting here grilling me, and they’re on their way to Chicago to keep your state safe,” Bondi said.

“Madam Attorney General, it’s my job to grill you,” Durbin responded.

Battles with states

Bondi’s hearing occurred after a whirlwind weekend of back-and-forth between a federal judge and the Trump administration over whether National Guard troops could be sent to Portland, Oregon, and were necessary to protect federal law enforcement engaged with Immigration and Custom Enforcement protesters.

Illinois is now locked in a legal battle to block troops from coming to Chicago.

Chicago is a month into a federal crackdown. One of the most high-profile raids occurred in the city’s South Shore neighborhood on Sept. 30 when dozens of federal agents, including from the FBI, overran a five-story apartment building with helicopters and flashbangs, ziptying adults and children, and detaining some U.S. citizens, according to multiple media reports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a highly produced video of the raid on social media.

Bondi’s voice grew hoarse during the hearing as she defended the administration’s campaign to arrest “countless” immigrants she described as “illegal aliens.”

The attorney general was combative with Democratic senators throughout nearly five hours of questioning — telling Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, “Don’t you ever challenge my integrity” when he asked about DOJ’s recently dismissed antitrust lawsuit against American Express. 

Bondi later accused Sen. Mazie Hirono of supporting the loose political ideology antifa — which the White House is targeting as a cohesive body — when the Hawaii Democrat questioned a range of issues, including the department’s alleged consideration of a compensation fund for pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.

Tom Homan troubles aired

A laundry list of controversial incidents trailed Bondi into the committee room for the oversight hearing — including revelations of FBI agents handing $50,000 in a restaurant takeout bag to Tom Homan, Trump ally and now White House border czar, ahead of the November 2024 election in exchange for false government contracts.

Bondi declined to answer Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse when he asked, “What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered evidently in a paper bag to Mr. Homan?” 

Whitehouse, of Rhode Island, and other Democratic senators asked if Homan kept the money and if he claimed it on his income tax return.

“The investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review by the FBI and the DOJ. They found no credible evidence of wrongdoing,” Bondi said.

She then accused Whitehouse of corruption and accepting “dark money.”

“The questions here are actually pretty specific, so having you respond with completely irrelevant far-right internet talking points is really not very helpful,” Whitehouse said.

Comey indictment directed by Trump

Lawmakers from both parties volleyed accusations of the department’s “weaponization” against the previous and current administrations. 

Bondi’s appearance came less than two weeks after a grand jury returned an indictment of former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey. The indictment swiftly followed the administration’s ouster of interim U.S. Attorney Erik Seibert in Virginia after he resisted bringing charges against Comey and New York Democratic Attorney General Letitia James. The administration replaced Seibert with President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan. 

Days before the Comey indictment, Trump directly appealed to Bondi as “Pam” on his social media platform Truth Social: “What about Comey, Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.”

Schiff, a California Democrat, sits on the Judiciary Committee. Late in the hearing, Bondi suggested Schiff should “apologize” to Trump for his past efforts in impeachment proceedings during the president’s first term. Bondi also attacked Schiff as a “failed lawyer.”

Grassley Jan. 6 disclosure

Republicans seethed during the hearing at Monday’s disclosure by Committee Chair Chuck Grassley that FBI agents analyzed data on more than half a dozen Republican lawmakers’ phones during their 2023 investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

The FBI allegedly sought data from the days surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack from the phones of Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania. 

Hawley likened the investigation of his colleagues’ phones to a “witch hunt” and called for a special prosecutor to “get to the bottom of” alleged Department of Justice activities under former President Joe Biden.

“I find this breathtaking,” said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.

At Kennedy’s urging, Grassley of Iowa said his staff is conducting an investigation of the possible collection of phone data and that he may schedule a separate hearing on the matter.

Trump responded to the disclosure Tuesday morning on Truth Social: “Deranged Jack Smith got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A real sleazebag!!!” 

Bondi also faced scrutiny from Democratic senators who rehashed her promises to release information on the federal probe of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, only to be followed by an FBI memo denying the release of any further case files.

A bipartisan effort is underway in the U.S. House to compel the release of the government’s investigative materials.

A sign advising that the Capitol Visitors Center in the U.S. Capitol is closed, in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Oct. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration may try to interpret a law enacted during his first term in office differently than it did following the last government shutdown, potentially denying back pay to hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers. 

The change in stance, outlined in a memo from the Office of Management and Budget that was first reported by Axios on Tuesday and confirmed to States Newsroom by a White House official, would drastically change the stakes of the ongoing funding lapse, which began Oct. 1. 

President Donald Trump didn’t clearly say how he personally views the law during an afternoon press conference in the Oval Office, though he indicated he doesn’t intend to provide back pay to all federal workers. 

“I would say it depends on who we’re talking about,” Trump said. “I can tell you this: the Democrats have put a lot of people in great risk and jeopardy. But it really depends on who you’re talking about. But for the most part we’re going to take care of our people. There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of and we’ll take care of them in a different way.”

Trump said he will likely announce mass layoffs of federal employees in the next week and opened the door to canceling funding approved by Congress if the shutdown persists. 

“I’ll be able to tell you that in four or five days if this keeps going on,” Trump said. “If this keeps going on it’ll be substantial and a lot of those jobs will never come back.”

OPM earlier said workers would receive back pay

Reinterpreting the law would go against guidance the Office of Personnel Management released in late September, which stated that after “the lapse in appropriations has ended, employees who were furloughed as the result of the lapse will receive retroactive pay for those furlough periods.”

During the 35-day shutdown during Trump’s first term, Congress approved a bill titled the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 that guaranteed back pay for both exempt and furloughed federal workers. Trump signed the legislation into law himself. 

Before the law, Congress typically voted following each funding lapse to ensure back pay for all federal employees. 

The Congressional Budget Office projected 750,000 federal workers would be furloughed in the current shutdown. 

Democrats on Capitol Hill rebuffed the memo on Tuesday, arguing it is another example of Trump attempting to circumvent the law. 

“The letter of the law is as plain as can be—federal workers, including furloughed workers, are entitled to their backpay following a shutdown,” Senate Appropriations ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote on social media. “Another baseless attempt to try and scare & intimidate workers by an administration run by crooks and cowards.”

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who represents a considerable number of federal workers, said during a brief interview he doesn’t believe lawmakers need to clarify the law in any way, calling it “crystal clear.” 

“This is a bill that (former) Senator (Ben) Cardin and I introduced back during that shutdown,” Van Hollen said. “And I looked at it again today after the White House comments, and they’re blowing smoke. This is part of their effort to scare. So this is all part of their fearmongering. That’s what it’s about.” 

‘That should turn up the urgency’

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., asked about the memo during a morning press conference, said he hadn’t seen it or spoken with anyone in the White House, but he didn’t seem to take issue with its change of course. 

“I’m sure there will be a lot of discussion about that. But there are legal analysts who think that is not something that government should do,” Johnson said. “If that is true, that should turn up the urgency and the necessity of the Democrats doing the right thing here.” 

Pressed by another reporter about the principle involved with possibly not adhering to the law, Johnson said he hopes that furloughed federal workers do receive their back pay.

“I can tell you the president believes that as well. He and I have talked about this personally. He doesn’t want people to go without back pay,” Johnson said. “And that’s why he pleaded with Chuck Schumer to do the right thing and vote to keep the government open. We don’t want this to happen.” 

Johnson didn’t clarify why — if Trump believes furloughed workers should receive back pay consistent with the 2019 law — the White House budget office prepared a memo stating the opposite.

Johnson’s official House website explains that during a shutdown “federal employees will either be furloughed, or in some cases required to work without pay. Under federal law, employees are entitled to back pay upon the government reopening.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during an afternoon press conference he expects furloughed workers will receive their back pay once the shutdown ends. 

“I haven’t looked at the memo specifically yet. My assumption is that furloughed workers will get back pay,” Thune said. “But that being said, this is very simple — open up the government and this is a nonissue.”

The Senate has deadlocked five times on a stopgap government funding bill that passed the House in mid-September. The upper chamber is expected to vote at least one more time this week.

Democrats call for negotiations on shutdown

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a morning floor speech that Johnson “has become a massive roadblock to progress,” though he didn’t address the possibility of no back pay for furloughed workers. 

“Ending this shutdown will require Donald Trump to step in and push Speaker Johnson to negotiate because without the president’s involvement, Speaker Johnson and MAGA Republicans in the House are increasingly dug in,” Schumer said. 

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries,  a New York Democrat, said during a morning press conference the White House was incorrect in its new interpretation. 

“The law is clear — every single furloughed employee is entitled to pay back. Period. Full stop,” Jeffries said. “The law is clear and we will make sure that that law is followed.”

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley wrote in a statement the “frivolous argument that federal employees are not guaranteed backpay under the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act is an obvious misinterpretation of the law. 

“It is also inconsistent with the Trump administration’s own guidance from mere days ago, which clearly and correctly states that furloughed employees will receive retroactive pay for the time they were out of work as quickly as possible once the shutdown is over.”

 Shauneen Miranda and Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks at a news conference in Chicago on Oct. 6, 2025. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson stands at right. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

A federal judge will hear arguments Thursday in Illinois over Chicago’s lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the state before deciding whether to block the move, the judge wrote in an order.

In a one-paragraph order, U.S. District Judge April M. Perry, whom Democratic President Joe Biden appointed to the bench, set an 11:59 p.m. Wednesday deadline for the Trump administration to respond in writing to the suit filed by the Democratic leaders of Illinois and its largest city, which they filed Monday morning. 

Perry did not immediately grant the restraining order Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson sought to block the deployment at the outset of the case.

Perry said she expected the federal government’s response to include evidence about when National Guard troops would arrive in Illinois, where in the state they would go and “the scope of the troops’ activities” once there. She set oral arguments for 11 a.m. Central Time on Thursday.

The suit seeks to stop Trump’s federalization of Illinois National Guard and mobilization of Texas National Guard troops to the state. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has also agreed to send Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, at Trump’s request.

Pritzker and Johnson’s complaint calls the federalization of state National Guard troops “illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional.” The Democrats added that the move was “patently pretextual and baseless,” meaning it could not satisfy the legal requirements for a president to wrest from a governor control of a state’s National Guard force.

Pritzker, appearing at a Tuesday event in Minneapolis with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said the federal government has been noncommunicative about the plan for the National Guard troops, but had received “reports” that troops have arrived at a federal facility in the state.

“We don’t know exactly where this is going to end,” he said. “What we know is that it is striking fear in the hearts of everybody in Chicago.”

A federal judge in another case blocked the deployment to Portland after city and Oregon leaders sued to stop it. The federal government appealed that order, and a panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Thursday, according to a scheduling notice posted Tuesday.

Insurrection Act cited by Trump

Trump has said the extraordinary use of troops, which raises serious legal and constitutional questions about the line between military forces and domestic law enforcement, is necessary to control crime in some Democrat-led cities, including Chicago and Portland. 

State and local leaders in those jurisdictions, as well as Los Angeles, have said military personnel are not needed to supplement local police. Pritzker called the proposed deployment to Chicago an “invasion.”

Trump indicated Monday he may seek to further escalate the push for military involvement domestically, saying he would have no qualms about invoking the Insurrection Act, which expands presidential power to use the military for law enforcement.

“We have an Insurrection Act for a reason,” he told reporters. “If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were getting killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that.”

Democratic U.S. Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden of Oregon and Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff from California — the three states where Trump has sent troops over the governors’ objections — called on Trump to withdraw the troops in a Tuesday statement that warned of the escalating conflict between blue states and the federal government.

“Donald Trump is stretching the limits of Presidential authority far past their breaking point and moving us closer to authoritarianism with each dangerous and unacceptable escalation of his campaign to force federal troops into American communities against the wishes of sovereign states in the Union he is supposed to represent,” the senators wrote.

Dems in Congress question raid

Trump’s use of National Guard troops is in part a response to protests in Democratic cities over this administration’s crackdown on immigration enforcement.

Trump has surged immigration enforcement officers to certain cities. Those agents have pursued sometimes aggressive enforcement, including a Sept. 30 raid on a Chicago apartment building that has been criticized for using military-style tactics.

A group of eight U.S. House Democrats wrote Monday to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling for an investigation into that raid.

The members were Homeland Security Committee ranking member Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland, J. Luis Correa of California, Pramila Jayapal of Washington, Shri Thanedar of Michigan, Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania and Delia Ramirez and Jesús “Chuy” Garcia of Illinois.

“We write to express our outrage over the immigration raid,” they said. “Treating a U.S. city like a war zone is intolerable.”

J. Patrick Coolican contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 2, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump sent mixed messages Monday about whether he would negotiate a deal with Democrats to extend the enhanced tax credits for people who get their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, one of the main issues that led to the government shutdown. 

His comments came shortly before the Senate deadlocked for a fifth time on short-term government funding bills, voting 45-50 on Democrats’ proposal and 52-42 on a House-passed Republican stopgap spending bill. Both needed at least 60 votes to advance.

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, as well as Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance their multi-week funding bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Trump said during a press conference “some very good things could happen with respect to health care” and that “if we made the right deal, I’d make a deal, sure,” before sharply criticizing the 2010 health care law, also called Obamacare. 

“That’s the problem with Obamacare. The subsidies are so much — billions and billions of dollars is being wasted,” Trump said. “And we could have much better health care than we have right now. And we’re talking to them. I’m not saying that’s going to happen.”

Trump centered much of his 2016 campaign for the presidency around repealing and replacing the health care law, but Republicans were unable to do so with unified control of government during the first half of his first term.  

After Democrats swept in the 2020 elections, they enhanced the tax credits for people who buy their health insurance through the ACA Marketplace in a coronavirus relief law. Those enhanced subsidies are set to expire at the end of December. 

Democratic leaders for weeks have called on Republicans to negotiate a bipartisan agreement to extend those enhanced tax credits ahead of open enrollment beginning on Nov. 1. 

That didn’t happen and Democrats have largely voted against advancing a stopgap spending bill written by Republicans that was needed to fund the government past the end of September. 

‘On another planet’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech shortly before Trump spoke from the Oval Office that the president and GOP leaders seem “to be on another planet.”

“Instead of trying to solve this shutdown crisis, Donald Trump spent the weekend golfing and posting memes and deepfakes on the internet,” Schumer said. “He seems to think this shutdown is some big joke. He’s wrong.”

Schumer released a statement following Trump’s press conference, saying the two sides aren’t negotiating, despite the president saying “we are speaking with the Democrats.” 

“For months, Democrats have been calling on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans to come to the table and work with us to deliver lower costs and better healthcare for the American people,” Schumer wrote. “If President Trump and Republicans are finally ready to sit down and get something done on healthcare for American families, Democrats will be there — ready to make it happen.”

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a morning press conference he will only negotiate with Democrats on the enhanced ACA Marketplace tax credits after the shutdown ends. 

But Johnson did indicate he believes the expiring expansion likely needs a resolution before open enrollment begins next month.

“They’ve been saying that some of the insurance companies will be sending out notices in early November. The last time I checked, it’s Oct. 6. We have the entire month of October,” Johnson said. “We’ll stay here around the clock to work through all these things, but we have to get government open again to do it.”

Discussion about passing bills

The House has been in recess since mid-September and Johnson has refused to bring representatives back until after the Senate approves a bill to reopen the government. 

Johnson revealed during the press conference that he had a “fruitful conversation” a few days ago with Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., about the annual government funding process, which lawmakers were supposed to complete by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1.

Johnson said he gave Murray assurances that he would hold floor votes on the final bipartisan versions of the dozen full-year bills after the Democrats and Republicans in charge of each subcommittee worked out an agreement.

“I’m ready to go,” Johnson said. “But we’ve got to open government up so that they can move to that next level, so that the conference committee can get that work done. That is small-d democracy at its best; you get Rs and Ds, everybody in the room, and they hash it out, and whatever that final product is, we will move through the process.”

The House has passed three of the full-year government funding bills along party-line votes and the Senate has approved three with a broadly bipartisan vote. 

Congress’ failure to approve all of the bills on time, combined with its inability to approve a stopgap spending bill to keep funding on autopilot while lawmakers work out a final full-year agreement, is why a shutdown began.

Dems say bipartisan talks needed to end shutdown

Murray posted later in the day on social media that bipartisan talks between the congressional leaders are the best option to end the shutdown.

“I’ll reiterate now what I told @SpeakerJohnson: the only path forward begins with him & @LeaderJohnThune talking with Leaders Schumer & Jeffries,” Murray wrote. “Premium hikes are going out THIS MONTH. We need a deal that reopens the government & stops premiums from doubling.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during an afternoon briefing before Trump spoke that he “is definitely committed to fixing and improving our health care system,” though she declined to say if he supports extending the enhanced ACA tax credits as they exist. 

Leavitt also opted not to fully answer questions about when the administration will begin laying off federal workers by the thousands, saying the White House budget office continues to consult with Cabinet secretaries to determine which workers may lose their jobs. 

“We’ll see how the vote goes tonight,” Leavitt said, referring to the Senate’s Monday evening vote on the stopgap spending bills. 

Rural air service, air traffic controllers

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said during a press conference at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey that the shutdown means there are only a few days left of funding for the Essential Air Service program, which provides federal “subsidies to airlines to service” rural communities. 

“That money runs out this Sunday, so there are many small communities across the country that will now no longer have the resources to make sure they have air service in their community,” Duffy said.  

Alaska will be the most affected by that particular funding lapse, he said. 

Duffy said there has been a “slight” increase in the number of air traffic controllers calling out sick during the shutdown but added it hadn’t caused any safety challenges yet. That will all change if transportation officials feel the staffing isn’t adequate for the number of flights. 

“If we see there are issues in the tower that are affecting the controllers’ ability to effectively control the airspace, we’ll reduce the rate and you’ll see more delays or you might see a cancellation,” Duffy said. “I’m willing to do that before we’re willing to risk anyone’s life in the air.”

Duffy, a former Republican congressman from Wisconsin, said he had spoken earlier in the day with air traffic controllers who were thinking about taking on jobs at ride-sharing companies to pay the bills, since they will not be paid until after the shutdown ends. 

He said the effects of the funding lapse, including air traffic controllers worrying how they’ll make ends meet, are problematic, especially if they’re distracted by it while on shift or exhausted from working other jobs.  

“I don’t want them finding a second job to pay the bills,” Duffy said. “I want them to get paid for the work they’re doing today, keeping our planes in the air and our skies safe.”

Duffy also reiterated the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, which screens people entering airports, is housed within the Department of Homeland Security, not DOT. 

 Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report. 

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.

The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”

For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.

“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.

Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.

Policy lacks procedure

Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”

The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal. 

Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.

“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.

Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.

“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said. 

Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and police, attempt to keep protesters back outside a downtown U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Oct. 4, 2025 in Portland, Oregon.  (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The White House slammed a President Donald Trump-appointed federal judge Monday for blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon, as hostilities escalate between the administration and Democratic states where Trump has begun sending in troops over governors’ objections.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Trump administration is within legal bounds and will appeal the district court’s decision, which she described as “untethered in reality and in the law.” 

“The president is using his authority as commander in chief, U.S. Code 12406, which clearly states that the president has the right to call up the National Guard in cases where he deems it’s appropriate,” Leavitt said at the press briefing, referring to a section in Title 10 of the U.S. Code that authorizes the president to send in the National Guard in cases of invasion or rebellion.

Leavitt told reporters that a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, facility in Portland where nightly protests have been occurring has been “under siege” by “anarchists.”

“They have been disrespecting law enforcement. They’ve been inciting violence,” Leavitt said.

Mainstream local media reports and statements from local officials have contradicted that claim.

​​”There is no need for military intervention in Oregon. There is no insurrection in Portland. No threat to national security,” Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said in a statement Sunday.

Federal agents used tear gas and pepper balls on nonviolent protesters Saturday evening, according to local media reports.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker also filed a legal challenge against the administration Monday morning. A federal judge set a hearing for Thursday. Illinois and Chicago sought a temporary restraining order to stop Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from ordering Texas and Illinois Guard troops to the country’s third-largest city.

Trump teases Insurrection Act 

Trump on Monday afternoon raised the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807, a tool to expand the president’s legal authority for using military personnel for domestic law enforcement.

Asked by a reporter in the Oval Office the conditions under which he would invoke the law, Trump said “if it was necessary,” and speculated that he could use it to defy courts or state officials.

“So far it hasn’t been necessary,” he said. “But we have an Insurrection Act for a reason. If I had to enact it, I’d do that. If people were getting killed and courts were holding us up or governors or mayors were holding us up, sure, I’d do that. I want to make sure that people aren’t killed. We have to make sure our cities are safe.”

Court battle in Portland 

In Oregon, federal District Judge Karin Immergut broadened her order Sunday night barring the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard troops to Portland. 

The edict came after Trump and Hegseth defied a temporary restraining order that Immergut issued Saturday halting 200 Oregon National Guard troops from being sent there. 

Immergut was nominated by Trump in 2019 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate by voice vote.

The administration maintains the Guard is needed to protect federal agents, as sustained small protests pop up outside an ICE facility 2 miles south of city hall. Kotek rebuffed Trump’s claims that the city is “on fire” and said local authorities are equipped to handle the demonstrations that lately range from a dozen or so people to roughly 100.

Trump ordered 101 California National Guard troops to Portland overnight, without the knowledge of Kotek, she said Sunday. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a fellow Democrat, confirmed that Trump had ordered up to 300 of his state’s National Guard troops to Oregon. 

Just before Immergut’s Sunday night emergency hearing, an Oregon assistant attorney general filed a memo with the court showing that Hegseth had ordered 400 Texas National Guard troops to Portland and Chicago.

California joined Oregon and Portland in suing the administration.

‘A domestic militarization’

Pritzker said he has urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to “immediately withdraw his support for this decision and refuse to allow Texas National Guard members to be used in this way.”

“Let me be clear, Donald Trump is using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation’s cities,” Pritzker said at a press conference Monday afternoon.

Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said the deployment “is unfair to National Guardsmen, it is unfair to local law enforcement, and it is certainly unfair to the law-abiding citizens of Illinois who do not want to be subject to military occupation.”

Chicago is nearly a month into a federal immigration crackdown. Dozens of federal agents raided an apartment building in the city’s South Shore neighborhood on Sept. 30, ziptying adults and children, and detaining some U.S. citizens, according to multiple media reports. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security published a highly produced video of the raid on social media.

Trump’s federalization and deployment of National Guard troops to mostly Democratic-run states has alarmed political and constitutional experts. 

Pat Eddington, senior fellow in homeland and civil liberties at the libertarian Cato Institute, said he agrees with Pritzker’s concerns.

“I share his belief 100% that the use of the American military and all these massive employment of ICE and HSI and FBI and marshals and the rest for ostensible immigration enforcement and ostensible crime control, it’s really designed to lay the groundwork to normalize a militarization, essentially a domestic militarization of Americans, civic life,” Eddington told States Newsroom in an interview in late September.

On a Monday afternoon press call, Hima Shansi, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security program, said Trump’s use of military and federal police forces in recent months “raises serious constitutional concerns in terms of federalism, the separation of powers between the federal government and the states which generally exercise police power.”

“What that means in real-people language is that, as the states have been saying, they are fully capable of doing their jobs as needed, and there is absolutely no reason for the president to assert federal power in the way that he is forcibly doing.”

Starting in Los Angeles

Trump federalized California National Guard troops and deployed U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June in response to protests against aggressive immigration enforcement there. 

Newsom objected to the plan and sued to stop the deployment. A federal judge initially sided with the Democratic governor and blocked the deployment, but an appeals panel reversed the decision. 

The trial court ruled again in September that Trump had overstepped the line separating military forces from law enforcement. The administration has appealed.

While that case in California was ongoing, Trump also ordered the District of Columbia National Guard to assist local police in the nation’s capital. Because the district is a federal territory, it is relatively clear that move was within the president’s legal authority, even if many Trump critics questioned its necessity. 

National Guard troops from several Republican states also deployed to the district in a more legally dubious move.

Trump also ordered Tennessee National Guard troops to Memphis last month, with the approval of the state’s Republican governor.

Ashley Murray reported from Washington, D.C. Jacob Fischler reported from Portland, Oregon.

The Rev. Michael Vanacore leads a prayer before a rally ends Oct. 6, 2025, outside U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland,  before a hearing in support of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)

GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to produce evidence within 48 hours on its efforts to again deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, this time to the southern African country of Eswatini.

That evidence from the Trump administration is due by Wednesday to  Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis. She will consider an order to release Abrego Garcia as part of his habeas corpus petition, which challenges his detention at a U.S.immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. 

If the Trump administration is making no effort to remove Abrego Garcia, Xinis said the issue then becomes indefinite detainment of an individual, which runs against a Supreme Court ruling that found immigrants can’t be detained longer than six months if they are not in the process of being removed.

Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran immigrant whom the Trump administration mistakenly deported to his home country and to a notorious mega-prison before returning him to the United States to face criminal charges, has thrown the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown into the spotlight. 

Xinis, nominated by former President Joe Biden, scheduled another hearing Friday, which will be about Abrego Garcia’s possible removal to Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. The African country has aided the Trump administration in accepting third-country removals.

Department of Justice attorney Jonathan D. Guynn during Monday’s hearing confirmed such a removal is planned at some point by the administration.

Xinis pressed DOJ attorneys on exactly what steps the federal government has taken to send Abrego Garcia to Eswatini.

Guynn said the federal government has not formally started a plan of removal, but said he could not confirm if removal plans were in motion. He argued that there are no imminent plans by the federal government to remove Abrego Garcia and the DOJ is trying to show that by keeping him in ICE custody.

“The government feels like it’s in the damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t, situation,” Guynn said. “The government has been trying to respond … about concerns that Mr. Abrego Garcia will be rapidly removed from the United States, notwithstanding his habeas case, and ongoing immigration proceedings, and so in an abundance of caution… the United States is not imminently planning to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia.” 

Previously the Trump administration planned to deport Abrego Garcia to either Uganda or Eswatini. 

DOJ attorneys also asked for a temporary stay in the habeas corpus petition because of the government shutdown. 

Xinis denied the stay. She pointed to the DOJ’s own shutdown contingency plan, which allows for litigation concerning habeas petitions to continue. 

Protests in support of Abrego Garcia

About an hour before Monday’s hearing, the immigrant advocacy group CASA led a rally in front of the courthouse to continue its show of support for Abrego Garcia.

About 100 people led chants shouting, “We are Kilmar!” “No More” and “When we fight, we win!” and held signs in support of Abrego Garcia and criticizing the Trump administration.

Religious leaders said prayers and a few other people spoke, such as Krystal Oriadha, who serves as vice chair of the Prince George’s County Council. Oriadha’s father was born in Kenya and immigrated to the U.S., where he met her mother in college.

“I understand the story of immigration, and it’s one that has been such a story of pride in my life because it’s filled of sacrifice, yes and struggles, but pride and love for your family and hard work,” she said. “It is what every immigrant stands for, not the propaganda that this administration is propping up calling hardworking, loving families criminals, demonizing them. So let’s be careful and mindful of the propaganda that they’re spilling today.”

Tennessee charges

The federal judge in Abrego Garcia’s criminal trial in Tennessee, in which he is accused of human smuggling of immigrants, on Friday granted Abrego Garcia an evidentiary hearing. It will determine if those charges from the Trump administration are an illegal retaliation after Abrego Garcia successfully brought a suit challenging his wrongful deportation to El Salvador. 

Separately, an immigration judge last week denied Abrego Garcia’s request to reopen his asylum case. 

Abrego Garcia first came to the U.S. without legal authorization as a teenager in 2011. He tried to open an asylum case in 2019, but was denied because he did not apply within his first year in the U.S., which is the legal deadline for such claims.

The Friday decision from that immigration judge ends one of the efforts for Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to keep him in the U.S., due to his protections from deportation to El Salvador. 

A separate immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia those protections from El Salvador in 2019, finding that Abrego Garcia would likely face violence if returned to his home country. 

At the time, the federal government didn’t search for a third country to remove Abrego Garcia. 

Six-month limit

Monday’s hearing focused on the time frame of Abrego Garcia’s detainment and whether it conflicted with a 2001 Supreme Court case, in which justices ruled immigrants who are not in the process of removal cannot be kept in ICE detention for more than six months. 

Xinis questioned the reason for Abrego Garcia’s detention since late August if the Trump administration had no evidence of its plans to remove the longtime Maryland man. 

Another DOJ attorney, Bridget K. O’Hickey, said the federal government has not formalized a removal plan for Abrego Garcia, adding that she didn’t know if there were any plans in the process. 

Xinis called a short break in the middle of Monday’s hearing to give the DOJ attorneys time to make any calls to get information if the Trump administration was removing him. 

DOJ attorney Ernesto H. Molina said he was unable to reach anyone, pointing to the possible furlough of federal workers.

“It just is remarkable to me that you’re saying you can’t find a soul who can give you, in this case, any additional information,” Xinis said. “That suggests there is none.” 

One of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers in the Maryland case, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, argued that if the Trump administration wanted to remove Abrego Garcia, they would send him to Costa Rica, which has already agreed to accept Abrego Garicia as a refugee. 

Xinis asked why Abrego Garcia hasn’t been removed to Costa Rica. 

“We’ve received no communications, and I can’t even wrap my brain to think of a constitutionally permissible reason why they would be fighting over whether to send them across the Atlantic Ocean when they can, this afternoon, send him to Costa Rica,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

Xinis asked the DOJ attorneys if there has been any effort to remove Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica, but Molina and O’Hickey said they have not been informed of those efforts.

Human smuggling charges

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia’s criminal case in Nashville said in court filings that the Trump administration was trying to force him to plead guilty to  human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses. 

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty and was ordered released by the federal judge in Tennessee to await his trial there in January on charges he took part in a long-running conspiracy to smuggle immigrants without legal status across the United States. 

In late August, after Abrego Garcia was released from U.S. Marshals Service custody in Tennessee, immigration officials informed him he had to appear in Baltimore before the ICE field office for a check-in appointment. During that appointment, Abrego Garcia was detained. 

Xinis has previously ordered the Trump administration cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the U.S. while his habeas petition continues, and that he must be kept within 200 miles of the courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland. Last month, the Trump administration transferred Abrego Garcia from a facility in Virginia to an ICE detention facility 189 miles away in Pennsylvania. 

William J. Ford contributed to this report. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York speaks to reporters at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol during the third day of a federal government shutdown, on Friday, Oct. 3, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — An agreement to reopen the federal government was nowhere in sight Friday after U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans failed Friday, for the fourth time, to move on a deal and House Speaker Mike Johnson announced he won’t bring his members back until the middle of the month.

Two Senate votes to advance funding bills flopped, as expected, as Senate Democrats remained almost unanimous in demanding Republicans extend health care subsidies amid steep insurance premium increases. 

Republicans maintain they will not negotiate until the government reopens.

At the center of the argument are two separate government funding bills. One is a 91-page House-passed Republican bill that would keep the government open until Nov. 21.

The other is a 68-page Democrat counterproposal that aims to provide funding through October while restoring and permanently extending certain federal health funding and subsidies.

Republicans once again failed, 54-44, to gain enough Democratic support to reach the 60 votes needed — though Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joined the GOP, as did Maine’s Sen. Angus King, an independent. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted no. 

The Democrats’ plan also fell short in a 46-52 vote.

“It’s always wrong to shut the government down,” Fetterman said outside the Senate chamber after voting yes on both bills. “Why do this s–t?” 

Sens. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, and Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, did not vote on either bill.

The Senate will not return to work until Monday, when two more votes on the same bills are planned.

Johnson said after the votes that the House will stay in recess until Oct. 14, which means the government shutdown could last until at least then, if not longer, if Democrats in the Senate continue their resistance to the House bill.

Nonstop messaging

Republican and Democratic leaders spent another day on Capitol Hill hammering their shutdown messages. 

At a morning press conference in the middle of the Capitol’s grand Statuary Hall, Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune doubled down on their claim that Democrats are blocking government funding over a policy that Republicans say would provide health care to immigrants without legal status. 

“We challenge them to tell us why they’re not trying to give illegal aliens health care again when they put it in their own bill,” Johnson said, pointing to a poster of highlighted language from the Democrats’ proposal.

Democrats’ plan includes language reversing the GOP’s roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts that President Donald Trump signed into law as part of a tax and spending cuts package on July 4. 

Johnson hailed a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finding in August that the new law would result in about 1.4 million immigrants losing health coverage. 

“That’s exactly what we promised, and that’s what’s gonna be achieved,” the Louisiana Republican said.

The populations slated to lose the coverage comprise lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, according to analysis by the nonprofit health policy research organization KFF. 

Longstanding federal policy prohibits immigrants without legal status in the U.S. from receiving government-funded health care. 

Health care premium hikes

At their own set of afternoon press conferences, Democratic leaders slammed what they described as a “Republican health care crisis.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries pointed to a poster showing health care premium increases for 2026 plans in Georgia, Idaho and Virginia.

“The crisis is having real impact on working-class Americans right now,” the New York Democrat said.

Jeffries questioned why Republicans extended numerous tax cuts in their July budget reconciliation law, otherwise known as the “one big beautiful bill,” but could not “be bothered” to extend the premium enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

“Republicans spent all year focused on their one big, ugly bill so they could permanently extend massive tax breaks for the wealthy,” Jeffries said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also came armed with a set of posters to his snap briefing after the funding bill failed yet again. 

One showed a PolitiFact graphic arrow pointing to “FALSE” under the question of whether Democrats were threatening a government shutdown over health care for immigrants without legal status.

“They thought they could bludgeon us and threaten us and scare us. It ain’t working, because my caucus and Democrats are adamant that we must protect the health care of the American people,” Schumer said.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said of the news of the House members not returning next week: “There is not a clearer illustration of their lack of seriousness in terms of reopening the government and solving the health care crisis.”  

‘It shifts the authority to the executive’

Johnson dismissed the Democrats’ fight over health care as “a political talking point.”

When asked about the Trump administration’s threats to permanently lay off thousands of federal workers and cancel funding for projects in blue states, Johnson said “when Congress decides to turn off the lights, shut the government down, it shifts the authority to the executive.”

“The president takes no pleasure in this, but if Chuck Schumer is gonna give Donald Trump the opportunity to determine what the priorities are, he’s gonna exercise that opportunity, and that’s where we are,” Johnson said.

When pressed by a reporter about the memes the White House has posted online in recent days, Johnson responded, “what they’re trying to have fun with, trying to make light of, is the absurdity of the Democrats’ position.” 

On Tuesday the White House posted an AI deepfake video that depicted Jeffries in a sombrero and mustache as mariachi music played while Schumer talks in a fake voice about duping people who do not speak English.