Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayMain stream

Trump pledges additional 100% tariffs on China by Nov. 1

10 October 2025 at 23:16
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)

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.

Former governors, state AGs weigh in on Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops

9 October 2025 at 22:00
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)

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.

Air traffic control staffing steady, but stress during shutdown worries DOT

9 October 2025 at 09:45
An Alaska Airlines jet lands at Newark Liberty International Airport. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

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.”

Trump deployment of troops to Democratic states targets Illinois

7 October 2025 at 19:26
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)

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.

Trump troop deployment to Oregon, Illinois intensifies confrontation with Democratic-led states

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)

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.

Governors call for Congress to avert federal shutdown but differ on how

30 September 2025 at 01:03
The U.S. Capitol on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Capitol on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

State officials from both parties urged Congress to avoid a government shutdown Monday, though Republicans were pushing harder for an extension of current funding.

Though they sometimes clash with federal directives, states depend on funding from the federal government for numerous programs. A government shutdown, which would have a wider effect than any in recent years because Congress has not passed any of the dozen annual funding bills, would delay or cancel that support.

The National Governors Association issued a statement Monday from its chair and vice chair, Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, calling on Congress to come together to avoid a shutdown. The bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors generally avoids commenting on controversial issues that divide its membership.

“The consistent use of political brinksmanship when it comes to our government funding does not serve our states, territories or our people well,” they wrote. “It is long past time to stop kicking the can down the road and return to the regular order of debating and passing a budget, but at this juncture, Congress has a responsibility to ensure the government remains operational. We urge federal leaders from both sides to work to set aside political games and pass a budget that reflects the values and promises states commit to every day.”

While members of both parties expressed a desire to avoid a shutdown, they proposed different solutions. 

Republicans urged lawmakers to approve the “clean” continuing resolution to keep the government funded at current levels, while Democrats backed up their party’s position in Congress to seek an extension of health insurance subsidies in a funding bill.

“Allowing a shutdown would consequently and needlessly disrupt our economies, threaten public safety, and undermine public confidence in our institutions,” 25 Republican governors wrote in a Monday letter to congressional leaders. “Our families and communities would feel the pain with immediate effect and confusion.”

Partisan differences over shutdown extend beyond the Beltway

The U.S. House, where Republicans hold a majority, passed a stopgap spending measure this month, but it failed to clear the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the U.S. Senate, as Democrats have declined to support a proposal that does not address health care costs. 

At the state level, the debate has fallen along similar lines. 

“Put simply, a  government shutdown should not be used as political leverage to pass partisan reforms — these are not chips Congress should be bargaining with,” the Republican governors wrote. “The proposed budget extension is a straightforward, bipartisan solution. There are no gimmicks or partisan poison pills; it’s a clean, short-term funding measure that both parties have historically supported.”

Republican state attorneys general sent a similar letter, which noted a shutdown would affect state and local law enforcement.

Democrats throughout the country, though, echoed congressional messaging that Congress should extend the health care subsidies that were included in the 2010 health care law known as the Affordable Care Act, and take more steps to reduce the cost of health care. Republicans’ failure to include such provisions would put blame for the shutdown on the GOP, Democrats have said.

“Instead of supporting a plan that would lower costs and stop making health care more expensive, Senate Republicans are blindly following Donald Trump and pushing the country towards a devastating government shutdown,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who chairs Senate Democrats’ campaign organization, said in a Sept. 19 statement.

In a press release last week, the Democratic Governors Association touted efforts by its members to call for extending subsidies.

“DGA Chair Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called on Congressional Republicans to extend critical Affordable Care Act subsidies that 22 million Americans rely on and avoid a government shutdown,” the release read. 

“Without action from Republicans in Congress, health care costs for hardworking Americans who rely on these subsidies will balloon by an average of over 75 percent.”

Trump to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon, vows ‘Full Force’

27 September 2025 at 16:06
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

PORTLAND, Ore. — President Donald Trump said Saturday morning he will send troops to Portland, attempting an unprecedented use of U.S. military forces within the country.

In a brief post to his social media platform, Trump said he would have Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth order troops deployed to Oregon’s largest city.

Trump did not specify what legal justification he had to do so, what military branch would be used or other key details. The troops would be used to defend U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities from “domestic terrorists,” he said. 

“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

A 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids military members from conducting domestic law enforcement. Constitutional experts say the idea was one of the nation’s founding principles. 

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said in a statement Saturday morning that she is reaching out to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for more information. 

“We have been provided no information on the reason or purpose of any military mission,” she said. “There is no national security threat in Portland. Our communities are safe and calm. I ask Oregonians to stay calm and enjoy a beautiful fall day. We will have further comment when we have more information.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. National Guard said the branch had no information to share and deferred questions to the White House. 

A White House official writing on background noted a recent history of protests at an ICE facility in Portland. 

The local U.S. attorney has brought charges against 26 people since early June for crimes including arson and resisting arrest, official said. Neighborhood residents have also made noise complaints related to protests, the official said, adding that state and local officials have refused to intervene. 

That description, though, did not correspond with the quiet scene at the facility as an Oregon Capital Chronicle reporter visited Saturday morning. 

Oregon’s senior U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, also posted a video of the undisturbed facility and told Trump, “we don’t need you here. Stay the hell out of our city.”

U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, a Democrat whose district includes much of Portland, blasted the announcement as “an egregious abuse of power and a betrayal of our most basic American values.”

“Authoritarians rely on fear to divide us. Portland will not give them that,” she wrote. “We will not be intimidated. We have prepared for this moment since Trump first took office, and we will meet it with every tool available to us: litigation, legislation, and the power of peaceful public pressure.”

‘Don’t take the bait’

A group of about a dozen local leaders  — including Dexter, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat — assembled on short notice for a press conference Friday evening to discuss the potential deployment.

Merkley described it as a “don’t-take-the-bait press conference.”

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” he said. They’ve been given no details about how many troops are being sent, from what agency or branch of the government, and there’s been no coordination with the city of Portland, he said.

“Here is what I do know — the president has sent agents here to create chaos and riots in Portland, to induce a reaction, to induce protests, to induce conflicts. His goal is to make Portland look like what he’s been describing it as,” Merkley said. “Their point is to lead to an engagement. An engagement that could lead to violence.”

Wilson described the agents as already in Portland.

“They are here without clear precedent or purpose,” he said. “This is happening against the national backdrop of a federal government that may not even be open in a week’s time.”

Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson said that as a sanctuary county in a sanctuary state, the county would not help enforce federal immigration laws without an order signed by a judge.

Escalation of military use

Deploying troops to Portland would mark a dramatic escalation, even for Trump, who has tested the legal limits of domestic military use. 

He sent National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against aggressive immigration enforcement there, despite the Democratic governor’s objections. And he ordered National Guard troops to assist police in Washington, D.C.

But the Los Angeles deployment responded to a specific circumstance, and the president holds power to deploy the National Guard in the District of Columbia because it is a federal territory. 

Neither is true for Portland, where there has not been any evidence of violence at protests against the administration. The state government is dominated by Democrats. 

The city did see extended protests in the summer of 2020 after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Trump deployed federal agents then in what he said was an effort to protect the federal courthouse in downtown Portland.

Alex Baumhardt of the Oregon Capital Chronicle contributed to this report.

A federal government shutdown is nearing. Here’s a guide for what to expect.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Congress’ failure to pass a short-term government funding bill before midnight Tuesday will lead to the first shutdown in nearly seven years and give President Donald Trump broad authority to determine what federal operations keep running — which will have a huge impact on the government, its employees, states and Americans. 

A funding lapse this year would have a considerably wider effect than the 35-day one that took place during Trump’s first term and could last longer, given heightened political tensions. 

The last shutdown didn’t affect the departments of Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor and Veterans Affairs, since Congress had approved those agencies’ full-year funding bills.

Lawmakers had also enacted the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, exempting Capitol Hill from any repercussions. 

That isn’t the case this time around since none of the dozen government spending bills have become law. That means nearly every corner of the federal government will feel the pain in some way if a compromise isn’t reached by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1. 

States Newsroom’s Washington, D.C. Bureau offers you a quick guide to what could happen if Republicans and Democrats don’t broker an agreement in time.

How does the White House budget office determine what government operations are essential during a shutdown?

Generally, federal programs that include the preservation of life or property as well as those addressing national security continue during a shutdown, while all other activities are supposed to cease until a funding bill becomes law. 

But the president holds expansive power to determine what activities within the executive branch are essential and which aren’t, making the effects of a shutdown hard to pinpoint unless the Trump administration shares that information publicly. 

Presidential administrations have traditionally posted contingency plans on the White House budget office’s website, detailing how each agency would shut down — explaining which employees are exempt and need to keep working, and which are furloughed. 

That appears to have changed this year. The web page that would normally host dozens of contingency plans remained blank until late September, when the White House budget office posted that a 940-page document released in August calls for the plans to be “hosted solely on each agency’s website.”

Only a few departments had plans from this year posted on their websites as of Friday afternoon.

The White House budget office expects agencies to develop Reduction in Force plans as part of their shutdown preparation, signaling a prolonged funding lapse will include mass firings and layoffs.

While the two-page memo doesn’t detail which agencies would be most affected, it says layoffs will apply to programs, projects, or activities that are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

Trump will be paid during a shutdown since Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution prevents the president’s salary from being increased or decreased during the current term.

No one else in the executive branch — including Cabinet secretaries, more than 2 million civilian employees and over 1 million active duty military personnel — will receive their paycheck until after the shutdown ends. 

Are federal courts exempt from a shutdown since they’re a separate branch of government?

The Supreme Court will continue to conduct normal operations in the event of a shutdown, according to its Public Information Office. 

The office said the court “will rely on permanent funds not subject to annual approval, as it has in the past, to maintain operations through the duration of short-term lapses of annual appropriations,” in a statement shared with States Newsroom. 

As for any impact on lower federal courts, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the federal judiciary was still assessing the fiscal 2026 outlook and had no comment. 

The office serves as the central support arm of the federal judiciary. 

During the last government shutdown from late 2018 into early 2019, federal courts remained open using court fee balances and “no-year” funds, which are available for an indefinite period. 

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has said that if those funds run out, they would operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which “allows work to continue during a lapse in appropriations if it is necessary to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers.” 

Supreme Court justices and appointed federal judges continue to get paid during a government shutdown, as Article III of the Constitution says the judges’ compensation “shall not be diminished” during their term.

What happens to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

The three programs exist largely outside of the annual appropriations process, since lawmakers categorized them as “mandatory spending.” 

This means Social Security checks as well as reimbursements to health care providers for Medicare and Medicaid services should continue as normal.

One possible hitch is the salaries for people who run those programs are covered by annual appropriations bills, so there could be some staffing problems for the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, depending on their contingency plans. 

The first Trump administration’s shutdown guidance for the Social Security Administration showed 54,000 of 63,000 employees at that agency would have kept working. The CMS plan from 2020 shows that it intended to keep about 50% of its employees working in the event of a shutdown. Neither had a current plan as of Friday.

Will the Department of Veterans Affairs be able to keep providing health care and benefits?

Veterans can expect health care to continue uninterrupted at VA medical centers and outpatient clinics in the event of a shutdown. Vets would also continue to receive benefits, including compensation, pension, education and housing, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs contingency planning for a funding lapse that is currently published on the department’s website. It’s unclear if the plan will be the one the Trump administration puts into action.

But a shutdown would affect other VA services. For example, the GI Bill hotline would close, and all in-person and virtual career counseling and transition assistance services would be unavailable.

Additionally, all regional VA benefits offices would shutter until Congress agreed to fund the government. The closures would include the Manila Regional Office in the Philippines that serves veterans in the Pacific region.

All department public outreach to veterans would also cease.

Will Hubbard, spokesperson for Veterans Education Success, said his advocacy organization is bracing for increased phone calls and emails from veterans who would normally call the GI Bill hotline.

“Questions are going to come up, veterans are going to be looking for answers, and they’re not going to be able to call like they would be able to normally, that’s going to be a big problem,” Hubbard said.

“Most of the benefits that people are going to be most concerned about will not be affected, but the ones that do get affected, for the people that that hits, I mean, it’s going to matter a lot to them. It’s going to change the direction of their planning, and potentially the direction of their life,” Hubbard said.

The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for current VA shutdown guidance.

What happens to immigration enforcement and immigration courts? 

As the Trump administration continues with its aggressive immigration tactics in cities with high immigrant populations, that enforcement is likely to continue during a government shutdown, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s March guidance for operating in a government shutdown.

Immigration-related fees will continue, such as for processing visas and applications from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

And DHS expects nearly all of its U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees to be exempt — 17,500 out of 20,500 — and continue working without pay amid a government shutdown. 

That means that ICE officers will continue to arrest, detain and remove from the country immigrants without legal status. DHS is currently concentrating immigration enforcement efforts in Chicago, known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”

Other employees within DHS, such as those in Transportation Security Administration, will also be retained during a government shutdown. There are about 58,000 TSA employees that would be exempt and continue to work without pay in airports across the country.  

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for a contingency plan if there is a government shutdown.

Separately, a shutdown would also burden the overwhelmed immigration court system that is housed within the Department of Justice. It would lead to canceling or rescheduling court cases, when there is already a backlog of 3.4 million cases.

The only exceptions are immigration courts that are located within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention centers, but most cases would need to be rescheduled. The partial government shutdown that began in December 2018 caused nearly 43,000 court cases to be canceled, according to a report by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC.

And 28 states have an immigration court, requiring some immigrants to travel hundreds, or thousands, of miles for their appointment. 

States that do not have an immigration court include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Will people be able to visit national parks or use public lands during a shutdown? 

Probably, but that may be bad for parks’ long-term health.

During the 2018-2019 shutdown, the first Trump administration kept parks open, with skeleton staffs across the country struggling to maintain National Park Service facilities.

Theresa Pierno, the president and CEO of the advocacy group National Parks Conservation Association, said in a Sept. 23 statement the last shutdown devastated areas of some parks.

“Americans watched helplessly as Joshua Trees were cut down, park buildings were vandalized, prehistoric petroglyphs were defaced, trash overflowed leading to wildlife impacts, and human waste piled up,” she wrote. “Visitor safety and irreplaceable natural and cultural resources were put at serious risk. We cannot allow this to happen again.”

The National Park Service’s latest contingency plan was published in March 2024, during President Joe Biden’s administration. It calls for at least some closures during a shutdown, though the document says the response will differ from park to park. 

Restricting access to parks is difficult due to their physical characteristics, the document said, adding that staffing would generally be maintained at a minimum to allow visitors. However, some areas that are regularly closed could be locked up for the duration of a shutdown.

But that contingency plan is likely to change before Tuesday, spokespeople for the Park Service and the Interior Department, which oversees NPS, said Sept. 25.

“The lapse in funding plans on our website are from 2024,” an email from the NPS office of public affairs said. “They are currently being reviewed and updated.”

Hunters and others seeking to use public lands maintained by Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, which is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will likely be able to continue to do so, though they may have to make alternative plans if they’d planned to use facilities such as campgrounds. 

Land Tawney, the co-chair of the advocacy group American Hunters and Anglers, said campgrounds, toilets and facilities that require staffing would be inaccessible, but most public lands would remain available.

“Those lands are kind of open and they’re just unmanned, I would say, and that’s not really gonna change much,” he said. “If you’re staying in a campground, you’ve got to figure something else out.”

As with national parks, access to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and other hunting and fishing sites will differ from site to site, Tawney said. The Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t require permits for hunting on its lands, but access to some refuges is determined by a staff-run lottery drawing. If those drawings can’t be held, access to those sites will be limited, Tawney said.

What happens to the Internal Revenue Service?

How the Internal Revenue Service would operate during a government shutdown remains unclear. 

When Congress teetered on letting funding run out in March, the nation’s revenue collection agency released a contingency plan to continue full operations during the height of tax filing season. 

The IRS planned to use funds allocated in the 2022 budget reconciliation law to keep its roughly 95,000 employees processing returns and refunds, answering the phones, and pursuing audits. 

Ultimately Congress agreed on a stopgap funding bill to avoid a March shutdown, but much has changed since then.

The new tax and spending law, signed by Trump on July 4 and often referred to as the “one big beautiful bill,” made major changes to the U.S. tax code. 

Additionally, the agency, which processes roughly 180 million income tax returns per year, has lost about a quarter of its workforce since January. Top leadership has also turned over six times in 2025.

Rachel Snyderman, of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said workforce reductions combined with a string of leadership changes could factor into how the agency would operate during a funding lapse.

“It’s really difficult to understand both what the status of the agency would be if the government were to shut down in less than a week, and also the impacts that a prolonged shutdown could have on taxpayer services and taxpayers at large,” said Snyderman, the think tank’s managing director of economic policy.

Do federal employees get back pay after a shutdown ends?

According to the Office of Personnel Management — the executive branch’s chief human resources agency — “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.” 

The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 requires furloughed government employees to receive back pay as a result of a government shutdown. 

That law does not apply to federal contractors, who face uncertainty in getting paid during a shutdown. 

What role does Congress have during a shutdown?

The House and Senate must approve a stopgap spending bill or all dozen full-year appropriations bills to end a shutdown, a feat that requires the support of at least some Democrats to get past the upper chamber’s 60-vote legislative filibuster. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., control their respective chambers’ calendars as well as the floor schedule, so they could keep holding votes on the stopgap bill Democrats have already rejected or try to pass individual bills to alleviate the impacts on certain agencies.   

Neither Johnson nor Thune has yet to suggest bipartisan negotiations with Democratic leaders about funding the government. And while they are open to discussions about extending the enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, they don’t want that decision connected to the funding debate.  

Democratic leaders have said repeatedly that Republicans shouldn’t expect them to vote for legislation they had no say in drafting, especially with a health care cliff for millions of Americans coming at the end of the year. 

Members of Congress will receive their paychecks regardless of how long a shutdown lasts, but the people who work for them would only receive their salaries after it ends. 

Lawmakers must be paid under language in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution as well as the 27th Amendment, which bars members of Congress from changing their salaries during the current session. 

Lawmakers have discretion to decide which of their staff members continue working during a shutdown and which are furloughed.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Capitol Police, which is tasked with protecting members amid a sharp rise in political violence, said a shutdown “would not affect the security of the Capitol Complex.” 

“Our officers, and the professional staff who perform or support emergency functions, would still report to work,” the spokesperson said. “Employees who are not required for emergency functions would be furloughed until funding is available.”

Comey says he’s ‘standing up to Donald Trump,’ while Trump calls for more retribution

26 September 2025 at 16:18
The sun illuminates the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, on Sept. 26, 2025, the morning following indictment charges filed against former FBI Director James Comey. His initial court date is scheduled there Oct. 9. (Photo by Alex Kent/Getty Images)

The sun illuminates the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, on Sept. 26, 2025, the morning following indictment charges filed against former FBI Director James Comey. His initial court date is scheduled there Oct. 9. (Photo by Alex Kent/Getty Images)

Former FBI Director James Comey proclaimed his innocence of federal obstruction charges and characterized the indictment against him as a consequence of “standing up to Donald Trump” in a video posted to social media, while current Director Kash Patel sought to allay concerns the prosecution was politically motivated.

Meanwhile, Trump in remarks to reporters on Friday morning continued to slam Comey and call for other enemies to be prosecuted as well.

Comey in the video urged a trial to prove he is innocent. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system,” Comey said in the late Thursday video posted to Instagram. “I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

Comey, whom a federal grand jury in Virginia indicted on two charges Thursday, said he and his family “have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way.” 

James Comey, 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)
James Comey, 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)

In a Sept. 20 social media post, Trump had publicly pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue charges against Comey — with whom he has long feuded — and other political opponents. 

In the same post, Trump referenced the prosecutions against him to justify an investigation into his opponents. He also withdrew the nomination of a federal prosecutor in Virginia who reportedly resisted instructions to prosecute Comey and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, an insurance lawyer who had worked for Trump in his personal capacity. 

Trump celebrated the indictment in a Thursday evening post.

“JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote. “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI.”

Asked by a reporter Friday morning if others would face retribution, Trump said he hoped so.

“They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history,” he said. “What they’ve done is terrible. And so I would, frankly, I hope there are others, because you can’t let this happen to a country.”

Trump motives questioned

Trump’s moves led Democrats and other Trump critics to describe Comey’s prosecution as an act of retribution meant to punish the president’s opponents, violating a longstanding norm separating the president from direct involvement in Justice Department activity.

In an early Friday post to X, Patel sought to counter that narrative, saying professionals handled the investigation.

“Career FBI agents, intel analysts, and staff led the investigation into Comey and others,” he wrote. “They called the balls and strikes and will continue to do so. The wildly false accusations attacking this FBI for the politicization of law enforcement comes from the same bankrupt media that sold the world on Russia Gate- it’s hypocrisy on steroids. Their baseless objections tell us now, more than ever, that we are precisely over the target and will remain on mission until completion.”

Comey’s initial court date is scheduled for Oct. 9 in Alexandria, Virginia, in front of U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. 

His summons were served to Patrick Fitzgerald, a longtime federal prosecutor who is leading Comey’s defense.

The grand jury charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing a proceeding of Congress related to his testimony to a Senate committee about whether he authorized FBI agents to leak information about a probe into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won.

Democrats blast indictment

In a lengthy statement Thursday, Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, called the indictment “blatantly fraudulent and vindictive.”

“The rule of law was supposed to replace vendettas, blood feuds, and mad kings exacting vengeance on their perceived enemies,” Raskin wrote. “This sordid episode is one more savage assault on justice in America.”

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois called on Republicans to oppose Trump’s involvement with the Justice Department.

“The Department of Justice has become a political tool of a vengeful President,” Durbin said in a Friday morning statement. “President Trump wears his corruption like a badge of honor and defies anyone daring to challenge him. The Attorney General willingly complies with every order from the White House. Is there one Republican left in Washington who gives a damn?”

Former FBI Director Comey indicted on 2 federal charges after Trump urged prosecution

26 September 2025 at 00:43
Author James Comey, 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)

Author James Comey, 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)

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Thursday on two federal charges, after President Donald Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, a Trump critic who led an investigation into the president’s first election victory.

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

“No one is above the law,” Bondi wrote on social media Thursday. “Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

FBI Director Kash Patel on social media referenced the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won. Comey was FBI director at the outset of that investigation.

“Today, your FBI took another step in its promise of full accountability,” Patel wrote. “For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust. …Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose.”

‘We can’t delay any longer’

The Senate confirmed Comey, 93-1, in 2013. He oversaw the agency’s probe of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 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.

Over the weekend, Trump posted on social media urging 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.”

Trump was impeached twice during his first term and was indicted in four criminal proceedings following his first term.

On Monday, Lindsey Halligan was sworn in as the new interim top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the Comey indictments were returned. Halligan, who was endorsed by Trump for the post, has represented Trump as his personal lawyer.

Virginia U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, said Halligan’s appointment — after the firing of Erik Siebert, the permanent U.S. attorney in the district, who declined to pursue charges against Comey — showed the prosecution was political.

“I’ve had my differences with James Comey in the past, but I can spot trumped-up charges a mile away,” Kaine wrote in a statement. “Trump said he’d go after him, then fired a superb, ethical prosecutor when he refused to bring frivolous charges against those whom Trump perceived to be his enemies.”

TikTok sale to US investors OK’d by Trump in deal valued in billions

25 September 2025 at 22:07
Sarah Baus of Charleston, South Carolina,  holds a sign that reads "Keep TikTok" as she and other content creators Sallye Miley of Jackson, Mississippi, and Callie Goodwin of Columbia, South Carolina, stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building as the court hears oral arguments on a TikTok law on Jan. 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Sarah Baus of Charleston, South Carolina,  holds a sign that reads "Keep TikTok" as she and other content creators Sallye Miley of Jackson, Mississippi, and Callie Goodwin of Columbia, South Carolina, stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building as the court hears oral arguments on a TikTok law on Jan. 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

A group of U.S. investors will take over the massive video-sharing platform TikTok, President Donald Trump said Thursday.

Trump signed an executive order certifying a transaction for TikTok complies with a 2024 law requiring the platform’s Chinese parent company, Byte Dance Ltd., divest TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. 

The company is valued at $14 billion in the deal, Vice President JD Vance said. A new U.S.-backed joint venture will hold 80% of the company, while Byte Dance will retain a 20% stake, according to the order. The U.S. parties will control the app’s coveted algorithm that tailors content for users as well as content moderation, according to the order.

The White House did not immediately release a list of U.S. investors, but Trump said Oracle and its CEO, Larry Ellison, would be major players. He also mentioned computer entrepreneur Michael Dell and conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch as others involved.

“It’s run by American investors, American companies,” Trump said. 

Sale needed

The 2024 law responded to concerns about the national security risks of the Chinese government’s perceived involvement with the widely used app. TikTok consistently denied the Chinese Communist Party had any control over the platform.

Without a sale, TikTok faced a ban in the United States. 

The administration’s goal was to keep the platform operating in the U.S., while securing users’ data, Vance said.

“The fundamental thing that we wanted to accomplish is that we wanted to keep Tiktok operating, but we also wanted to make sure that we protected Americans’ data privacy as required by law, both because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s a legal requirement of the law that was passed last year by Congress,” he said.

Deal staves off TikTok shutdown

TikTok said in 2023 that it has 150 million monthly users in the country. The order updated that number to 170 million.

The app was shut down for about 24 hours in January, before Trump suspended enforcement of the law on his first day in office. He has extended that delay several times, most recently last week when he reset the deadline for December. 

Thursday’s order extends the pause on enforcement of the law into January.

Lawmakers across the aisle have expressed concern that China’s ruling Communist Party could access TikTok user data and manipulate what type of content users see. 

“This deal really does mean that Americans can use TikTok, but actually use it with more confidence than they had in the past, because their data is going to be secure and it’s not going to be used as a propaganda weapon against our fellow citizens,” Vance said Thursday.

Republicans in Congress want protections

Others, also across party lines, have argued that free-speech principles should mean the government cannot shut down a private speech platform. 

And TikTok has argued that it is a U.S.- and Singapore-based company. The app is not even available in mainland China, where the government exerts considerable control over speech, CEO Shou Zi Chew told the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2023.

A trio of senior Republicans on that committee — Chairman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Gus Bilirakis of Florida and Richard Hudson of North Carolina — said in a Thursday statement the deal was a positive step.

“As the details are finalized, we must ensure this deal protects American users from the influence and surveillance of CCP-aligned groups,” they wrote. “Limiting the influence and involvement of China remains a vital national security interest, and we look forward to seeing a deal that secures America’s interests on the global stage.”

❌
❌