U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks to reporters alongside U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.,  during a pen and pad meeting with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — In a rare rebuke to President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans joined Democrats in advancing a war powers resolution to halt U.S. military action in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Republican Sens. Todd Young of Indiana, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska split with their party to act as a check on the administration’s use of military forces — as did Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the measure’s co-sponsor with Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Trump in response slammed the vote on his own social media platform, writing that the Republicans who voted in favor “should never be elected to office again.” The White House said in a statement he would likely veto the resolution if it reaches his desk.

The move marked a significant moment after Republicans on Capitol Hill have largely smoothed the path for Trump’s agenda throughout the past year.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., also unexpectedly supported the measure, which advanced on a 52-47 vote. Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, did not vote.

The joint resolution directs the “removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.” 

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky have introduced their own bipartisan war powers resolution in the House. A previous effort failed to advance in the House in December.

Trump looks toward next vote

Trump in his social media post said the Republicans joined Democrats in trying to curb his authority as the chief executive.

“This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief. In any event, and despite their ‘stupidity,’ the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate Vote will be taking place next week on this very subject,” he posted on Truth Social.

Thursday’s vote advanced the legislation over a procedural hurdle to discharge the bill from committee. The bill still requires additional Senate debate and votes before it would head to the House. 

The vote came days after U.S. special forces launched a surprise overnight attack on Venezuela’s capital of Caracas on Saturday, capturing the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple appeared in federal court Monday on federal drug and conspiracy charges.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello claimed Wednesday that more than 100 were killed in the raid, according to numerous media outlets that posted a video of his statement. The Cuban government announced on Facebook Monday that 32 of its citizens were among the dead.

Seven U.S. troops were injured in the incursion, according to the Pentagon. Two are still recovering, while five have returned to duty, a Defense Department official said.

GOP senators’ explanations

Young issued a statement saying that while he supported the U.S. ouster of Maduro, any further military action must be approved by Congress.

“Today’s Senate vote is about potential future military action, not completed successful operations. The President and members of his team have stated that the United States now ‘runs’ Venezuela. It is unclear if that means that an American military presence will be required to stabilize the country. I — along with what I believe to be the vast majority of Hoosiers — am not prepared to commit American troops to that mission. Although I remain open to persuasion, any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress,” Young said.

Collins similarly said she supported Maduro’s capture by U.S. special forces, but expressed concern about Trump’s vague comments regarding the U.S. role in the South American country going forward.

“The resolution I have supported today does not include any language related to the removal operation. Rather, it reaffirms Congress’s ability to authorize or limit any future sustained military activity in Venezuela, while preserving the President’s inherent Article II authority to defend the United States from an armed attack or imminent threat. I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the President’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree,” Collins said in a statement.

Hawley wrote on social media shortly after the vote: “With regard to Venezuela, my read of the Constitution is that if the President feels the need to put boots on the ground there in the future, Congress would need to vote on it. That’s why I voted yes on this morning’s Senate resolution.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a classified update to members of Congress Wednesday on Capitol Hill on the ongoing U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. Democrats said they remained unsatisfied with the information shared during the meetings.

White House defends actions

In a statement of administration policy released by the White House after Thursday’s Senate vote, officials defended the apprehension of Maduro as a “law enforcement operation” that was supported by military strikes.

The legislation “should be rejected, like the previously rejected Resolutions, as it once again fails to recognize the ongoing national security threats posed by the Maduro-led Cártel de los Soles and other violent drug-trafficking cartels. If S.J. Res. 98 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the joint resolution,” according to the statement.

Vice President JD Vance suggested during the White House press briefing Thursday that the measure would be unenforceable and that the vote would not curtail the administration’s actions.

“Every president, Democrat or Republican, believes the War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” he said. “It’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months and that will continue to be how we approach things ahead.”

A similar measure failed to gain enough Republican support in early November, in a 49-51 vote. Murkowski was the only other Republican to join Paul in approval.

Paul and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., first cosponsored the initial effort in October, which at the time failed, 48-51. 

The U.S. launched a bombing campaign off the coast of Venezuela in September, striking small vessels in the Caribbean Sea that the administration alleges were operated by “narco-terrorists.” The death toll from the strikes reached over 100 in December.

Kaine forced Thursday’s procedural vote under the War Powers Resolution, a Vietnam War-era statute that gives Congress a check on the president’s use of the military abroad. 

Dems say vote will restrain Trump, despite veto

Kaine, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff told reporters following the vote that the result would allow debate over the matter to proceed in public, rather than only in the secure facilities where lawmakers have been briefed.

“We’re going to have a fulsome debate on this issue of the kind we haven’t been allowed to have for a very long time,” Kaine said.

The senators added that the more the public hears about the administration’s plans for Venezuela, including Trump’s comments published Thursday in The New York Times that U.S. forces may occupy the country for “much longer” than a year, the less popular it would become.

“The more the American people hear about what’s going on in Venezuela and the more they learn about it, the less they are going to like it, the more fiercely they’re going to oppose it,” Schumer said.

While Kaine acknowledged Trump would likely veto the measure, he said Trump also vetoed a similar bill Congress passed in 2020 to restrain military action in Iran but backed down from an aggressive posture against Iran.

“He vetoed it, we couldn’t override it,” he said. “But what we noticed is the president then backed off for the remainder of his first term because he heard the voices of the American public through the votes of Congress, saying, ‘We do not want more war right now, Mr. President.’ And I think that’s one thing this president is very sensitive to.”

The Democratic senators added that they believed the vote would restrain the administration from taking military action in Colombia, Greenland and Mexico, as administration officials have suggested.

McConnell parts way with Kentucky colleague

Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, opposed the legislation and released a lengthy statement afterward. He said the president “was well within this authority in his decision to bring Nicolas Maduro to justice” and cited past military incursions without formal congressional approval by presidents from both parties.

McConnell continued later in the statement: “Successfully returning Venezuela to its role of stable, prosperous, democratic neighbor is a noble goal … but an ambitious one. It doesn’t come without risk. And it’s worth making the clear case to the country.”

Former Democratic Rep. Max Rose, now with VoteVets, issued a statement Thursday calling the vote “stunning.”

“They stood up and said that Trump does not have the authority to use our military any which way he wants, and if he wants to go further, he’ll have to come to Congress to allow Americans to have their say,” said Rose, an Afghanistan war veteran and senior adviser to the political action committee that endorses veterans to run for office.

“It is sad that it has come to the point where a simple affirmation of the ‘declare war’ clause of the Constitution is news, but it is nonetheless a good day when Republicans join Democrats in telling Donald Trump that this is not ‘his military’ as much as he wants it to be his. It belongs to America,” he continued.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

A small crowd of far-right activists marched on the U.S. Capitol Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026 in a nonviolent protest. They followed the path of the march five years ago, when rioters attacked the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden's presidential election win. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Five years after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, the struggle to define the event and assign blame carried on in events across the city Tuesday that remained nonviolent, though still disturbing.

A crowd of no more than a few hundred of President Donald Trump’s supporters commemorated the deadly attack with a somewhat subdued march from the Ellipse to the Capitol that was in stark contrast to the riot five years ago.

Inside the Capitol, U.S. House Democrats gathered in a small meeting room, apparently unable to secure larger accommodations for an unofficial hearing that largely rehashed the findings of a House committee that spent 2022 investigating the attack.

Trump, meanwhile, addressed House Republicans three miles west at the Kennedy Center. In an hour-plus address, he blamed then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the violence on Jan. 6, 2021 and recommended the GOP lawmakers pass laws to make election fraud more difficult. Trump’s claim that his 2020 election loss was due to fraud sparked the 2021 attack.

“Our elections are crooked as hell,” he said, without citing evidence.

House Dems blast pardons 

Inside the Capitol, at a morning event that U.S. House Democrats organized and in which Republicans didn’t take part, lawmakers and experts criticized Trump’s pardons of people involved in the 2021 attack, one of his first acts after returning to office last year.

They also decried his continued recasting of the events of the day.

White House officials launched a webpage Tuesday that blamed the attack on Democrats, again including Pelosi, and restated the lie that initiated the attack: The 2020 election that Trump lost was marred by fraud and should not have been certified.

“Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6,” the page reads. “…In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters.” 

Pelosi at the hearing on Tuesday condemned Trump’s version of the attack. 

“Today, that president who incited that insurrection continues to lie about what happened that day,” the California Democrat said.

Other Democrats and their invited witnesses also described the pardons as signaling that the president accepted — and even encouraged — his supporters to pursue illegal means of keeping him in power. 

Brendan Ballou, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor who resigned shortly after Trump’s 2025 pardons, told the panel the executive action sent Trump supporters the “clear message” they were above the law.

“The January 6 pardons also fit into a broader narrative of what’s going on with this administration, that if people are sufficiently loyal and willing to support the president, either in words or financially, they will be put beyond the reach of the law,” he added. “It means that quite literally for a certain group of people right now in America, the law does not apply to them.”

Former ‘MAGA granny’ testifies

Homeland Security Committee ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson of Mississippi led the panel discussion, with Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland and several others also sitting in on it.

The first panel of witnesses included Ballou, other experts and Pamela Hemphill, a former Trump supporter from Idaho who traveled to the nation’s capital five years ago to “be part of the mob” in support of the president before becoming an advocate for reckoning with the day’s violence.

An emotional Hemphill, 72 and once known as “MAGA granny,” apologized to U.S. Capitol police officers.

“Once I got away from the MAGA cult and started educating myself about January the 6th, I knew what I did was wrong,” Hemphill told the panel. “I pleaded guilty to my crimes because I did the crime. I received due process and the DOJ was not weaponized against me. 

“Accepting that pardon would be lying about what happened on January the 6th,” she added.

She explained her decision to decline Trump’s blanket pardon of offenders convicted of crimes related to the attack, saying it papered over the misdeeds of people involved in the riot. She implored others not to accept revisions of the narrative about what happened in the attack.

Subsequent panels included current and former House members, including two, Republican Adam Kitzinger of Illinois and Democrat Elaine Luria of Virginia, who sat on the committee tasked with investigating the attack.

Flowers for Ashli Babbitt

The crowd of marchers, which included pardoned Jan. 6 attack participants, gathered in the late morning to retrace their path to the U.S. Capitol five years ago.

Organizers billed the march as a memorial event to honor Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by U.S. Capitol Police during the riot in 2021 as she attempted to break into the House Speaker’s lobby.

Far-right activists celebrating the five-year anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol marched in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026, from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Rioters in 2021 attempted to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election win. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The crowd of roughly a couple hundred walked from the Ellipse, where Trump spoke to rallygoers in 2021, to just outside the Capitol grounds, where police contained the small crowd on the lawn north of the Reflecting Pool. 

Law enforcement officers permitted Babbitt’s mother, Michelle Witthoeft, and a few others to walk closer to the Capitol to lay flowers at roughly 2:44 p.m. Eastern, the time they say Babbitt died.

A group of counterprotesters briefly approached the demonstration, yelling “traitors.” Police quickly formed two lines between the groups, heading off any clashes.

Proud Boys former leader on-site 

Among the crowd was former Proud Boys national leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Trump commuted Tarrio’s sentence upon taking office for his second term.

While looking on at marchers, Tarrio told States Newsroom he was “just supporting.”

“It’s not my event. I’m just trying to help them with organizing and marching people down the street, I guess. But we’re here for one purpose, and that’s to honor the lives of Ashli Babbitt and those who passed away that day.”

When asked if marchers were also honoring the police officers who died in the days and months after the attack, Tarrio said he mourned “any loss of life” but added “I heard some suicides happened. I don’t know. I haven’t really looked into that. I’ve been in prison.”

U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered injuries during the riot, according to the Capitol Police. He died the following day from natural causes, according to the District of Columbia Office of the Medical Examiner.

Four responding police officers died by suicide in the following days and months.

As the march continued, a group of Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers on bicycles stopped Tarrio and asked him to confirm the march route to avoid any “confusion.”

When counterprotesters began to heckle the Jan. 6 attack supporters, Tarrio waved the marchers forward, “C’mon, c’mon, keep moving.”

Jan. 6 rioter Rasha Abual-Ragheb, 45, of New Jersey, addressed the crowd earlier and thanked “Daddy Trump” for her pardon. Abual-Ragheb, who pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating and picketing in the U.S. Capitol, showed off a tattoo on her arm reading “MAGA 1776.”

Willie Connors, 57, of Bayonne, New Jersey, stood on the edge of the crowd with a yellow “J6” flag tied around his neck. Connors said he didn’t enter the Capitol during the 2021 attack, but said he was in the district that day to protest the 2020 presidential election, which he falsely claimed was “robbed” from Trump.

“Donald Trump, I’ll take the bullet for that man. He’s my president,” Connors said. 

The James H. Shannon Building (Building One), on the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)

The Trump administration will review frozen grants to universities without using its controversial standards that discouraged gender, race and sexual orientation initiatives and vaccine research.

In a settlement agreement filed in Massachusetts federal court Monday, the National Institutes of Health and a group of Democratic attorneys general who’d challenged the new criteria for grant funding said the NIH would consider grant applications made up to Sept. 29, 2025, without judging the efforts related to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, or vaccines.

The settlement provides an uncontested path for the agency while courts decide whether the administration can use its controversial analysis. The administration did not agree to permanently ditch its campaign to evaluate health research funding decisions based on schools’ DEI programs.

NIH officials “will complete their consideration of the Applications in the ordinary course of NIH’s scientific review process, without applying the Challenged Directives,” the settlement said, adding that the agency would “evaluate each application individually and in good faith.”

The settlement was signed by U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

In a Tuesday statement, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said the agreement commits the Department of Health and Human Services to resume “the usual process for considering NIH grant applications on a prompt, agreed-upon timeline.” 

The 17 attorneys general sued in April over $783 million in frozen grants. 

A trial court and appeals court in Massachusetts sided with the states, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in August that the trial judge lacked the authority to compel the grants to be paid, especially in light of a similar decision involving the Education Department.

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 for now has not met the requirements to send National Guard troops to Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday afternoon in a major setback for the president.

The court’s majority rejected the Trump administration’s request to stay, or halt, a lower court’s order barring federalization of National Guard troops to assist federal immigration enforcement officers in Chicago. 

The president is only empowered to federalize National Guard units when the troops are enforcing laws that regular military forces are legally allowed to enforce, the court said in a ruling from its emergency docket that will apply while the merits of the case are argued.

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

The decision on the eve of a five-day holiday weekend for the federal government appeared to be 6-3, with three conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissenting. The ruling represented the first time the high court has weighed in on Trump’s use of the guard in several cities, though other legal fights continue.

The administration had not shown why the situation in Chicago, in which residents have protested aggressive immigration enforcement, should present an exception to the law, the court majority said.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the majority opinion said.

In an emailed statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the ruling would not detract from Trump’s “core agenda.”

“The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters,” Jackson wrote. “He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers, and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property.”

Protecting federal officers

In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom Trump appointed during his first term, wrote that he agreed with the decision to deny the motion for a stay, but would have done so on narrower grounds.

The majority opinion was overly restrictive and would block the president from using National Guard forces to protect federal property and personnel, Kavanaugh said.

Alito wrote in a dissent, joined by Thomas, that their interpretation of the majority’s order could have far-reaching consequences that undermine the traditional role of the guard.

It would free National Guard members to enforce immigration law, but not to provide protection to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who are assigned that function, Alito wrote. 

“Whatever one may think about the current administration’s enforcement of the immigration laws or the way ICE has conducted its operations, the protection of federal officers from potentially lethal attacks should not be thwarted,” Alito wrote. “I therefore respectfully dissent.”

Implications for other cities

The ruling is only in effect while the case, in which Illinois is challenging the administration’s deployment there, proceeds. 

But it marks a rebuke, including from a Trump appointee, of the administration’s strategy of deploying National Guard troops to assist in its aggressive immigration enforcement.

Trump has ordered troops to Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tennessee, and Portland, Oregon, to either counter crime generally or assist federal immigration officials. Governors of Democratic-led states have strenuously pushed back against those deployments. Republican attorneys general have argued their states are harmed by the protests in Chicago and other cities that impede federal ICE officers from doing their jobs.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzer in a statement praised the ruling. “Today is a big win for Illinois and American democracy,” he said. “I am glad the Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump did not have the authority to deploy the federalized guard in Illinois. This is an important step in curbing the Trump Administration’s consistent abuse of power and slowing Trump’s march toward authoritarianism.”

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, speaks following a hearing in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Dec. 22, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

GREENBELT, Md. — U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis will retain an order keeping the wrongly deported El Salvador national Kilmar Abrego Garcia out of federal custody for the rest of the year, the judge said at a Monday hearing.

In the first hearing that Abrego Garcia was present for after his release last week, Xinis pressed U.S. Department of Justice attorneys to say by Friday how they planned to proceed, including whether they would seek a new warrant to arrest Abrego Garcia. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia would then be able to respond to the government next week, with a decision coming in the new year. 

Xinis expressed frustration with the Trump administration Monday, as she has throughout the monthslong case that has highlighted the nationwide crackdown on immigration.

She said she would “happily” consider a lawful request from the administration to detain Abrego Garcia under a different section of law than the one she has already rejected. But the government has not given her the assurance that they would pursue a different authority to detain him again.

“But the problem is, you want me to lift the (temporary restraining order) so that we don’t know what’s going to happen,” she said. “Why should I give the respondents the benefit of the doubt in this case? Why should I do that here? Show your work. That’s all.”

DOJ lawyer Ernesto Molina objected to a restriction on the government’s ability to detain Abrego Garcia.

“There’s no period during which an alien cannot be detained under the appropriate circumstances,” he said.

Move to Costa Rica?

Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, told reporters following the hearing that Abrego Garcia, who is married to and the father of U.S. citizens, would be with his family for the holidays.

“As of right now, Mr. Abrego Garcia is going to return to his home with his wife and his children and his family members in Maryland,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “And he will be at home through Christmas and New Year.”

Sandoval-Moshenberg also blamed the federal government for keeping Abrego Garcia in the country, rather than allowing him to self-deport to Costa Rica.

Costa Rica has agreed to accept Abrego Garcia, who entered the United States without legal authorization in 2011. The Trump administration has rejected deportation to the Central American country, instead proposing he be removed to several African nations to which he has no relationship.

Abrego Garcia “remains willing” to move to Costa Rica, Sandoval-Moshenberg told Xinis. If not for the government’s actions to pursue criminal charges in Tennessee and to reserve the right for future immigration enforcement in Maryland, Abrego Garcia would now be out of the country, Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

“It’s the government that’s preventing him from doing so,” he said. “He’s literally in a double bind. …. He’s got two ankle bracelets.”

Abrego Garcia after his deportation was imprisoned in a brutal prison in El Salvador and returned to the United States to face criminal charges in Tennessee stemming from a 2022 traffic stop. After he was ordered released from U.S. marshals’ custody by a federal judge, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him again at an appointment at the Baltimore, Maryland, ICE field office.

In mid-December, he was released from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania. He had remained there since September. 

Former President Bill Clinton, rock star Mick Jagger and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are seated at a table in this undated photo released as part of the Epstein files on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, by the Department of Justice. Clinton has denied any connection to Epstein's alleged crimes. (Photo from Department of Justice)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice began releasing thousands of records Friday related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but questions remained over whether officials will meet the requirements of a law overwhelmingly backed by both Republicans and Democrats and signed by President Donald Trump.

The department posted four data sets of images and documents just after 4 p.m. Eastern.

The trove reviewed by States Newsroom reporters contains numerous images of Epstein with celebrities, including the late pop star Michael Jackson, rock legend Mick Jagger, illusionist David Copperfield and former President Bill Clinton. Many other faces in photos are redacted. The photos were released without dates or context. 

A reproduction of Epstein’s contact list included entries for Trump, his late former wife, Ivana Trump, and his daughter, Ivanka Trump.

An array of photos of Trump with several women appeared amongst the files, according to a preliminary scan by the New York Times. But the Times also said most of the images already had been made public. 

Trump, who is prolific on social media, had not yet commented in the hours after the files were released. During an earlier press conference on prescription drugs Friday, the president declined to take any questions.

Trump had a well documented friendship with Epstein, a hedge fund manager who enjoyed a circle of wealthy and influential friends — though Trump maintains he had a falling out with Epstein and was never involved in any alleged crimes.

Since July, when Justice officials announced no further files would be released, Trump had resisted loud protests, even from his base, that all investigative material in the government’s possession should be made public. Trump repeatedly called the files a “Democrat hoax,” despite the investigation occurring during his first administration.

Files in the first dataset include images of lavishly furnished rooms, including one that appears to have a taxidermied tiger, as well as bathrooms with framed photographs of women whose faces have been redacted.

Photos in the second data set reveal Epstein seated at a table with Jagger, and another of Clinton lying in a hot tub or spa with the top of his chest visible. Another photo was of Clinton with the late pop star Michael Jackson.

Clinton was also photographed with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated on his lap and with his arm around her. In another, Clinton and Epstein stand side by side, smiling at something off camera and dressed in shiny party shirts.

A spokesperson for Clinton posted on social media that the former president was unaware of Epstein’s illegal activities and cut the financier off socially before allegations were public. The spokesperson, Angel Ureña, also redirected attention back to Trump.

“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever,” he wrote about the Trump White House. “So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be.”

In a Dec. 10 letter from Clinton’s lawyer obtained by the New York Times, the former president denies being connected to any alleged crimes Epstein committed. 

Photos in the third dataset document Epstein’s travels to Europe, desert locations and island locales. Most photos of people other than Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and Clinton are redacted.

The last dataset also included a completely redacted 119-page grand jury file from New York federal court. Both Epstein and Maxwell were prosecuted in New York, and the Justice Department requested the sealed records be made public.

Maxwell was convicted and sentenced for her role in the scheme to traffic teenage girls for sex.

The fourth trove of files appeared to relate to law enforcement and attorneys’ investigation into potential sex abusers, such as coordinating interviews and crafting timelines. A portion of the documents related to a 2019 grand jury were completely blacked out. 

Following the Justice Department’s release Friday afternoon, both Rep. Tom Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, released scathing statements.

“Unfortunately, today’s document release by @AGPamBondi and @DAGToddBlanche grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago,” Massie posted on X.

Document release to continue

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News Friday morning the department will “release several hundred thousand documents today, and those documents will come in all different forms, photographs and other materials associated with, with all of the investigations into, into Mr. Epstein.” 

But Blanche also said the release will carry over into “the next couple of weeks,” which would be past the Friday deadline set in the law.

The law, unanimously supported by the Senate and approved by the House 427-1, requires the Justice Department to publicly disclose “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell.” 

‘ALL the Epstein files’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday slamming the department’s admission that it will not meet the law’s deadline. Trump signed the bill into law on Nov. 19.

“The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be — the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth,” Schumer said, alleging a “cover up.”

“Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out,” the New York Democrat continued.

Schumer later criticized in a separate statement the late afternoon release as “just a fraction of the whole body of evidence.”

House Democrats Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., released a joint statement Friday stating they “are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law.” Garcia and Raskin are, respectively, the ranking members of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees. 

Massie, who pushed to bypass Republican leadership to pass the legislation, published a 14-minute video on social media Thursday night regarding how the public should interpret whether the Justice Department follows the statute.

“How will you know if they’ve released all the materials?” Massie said. “Well, one of the ways we’ll know is there are people who covered this case for years, and I’ve talked to them in private, then they know what some of the material is that’s back there.”

The Kentucky Republican said he’s been in contact with victims’ lawyers who claim federal investigators are in possession of names that should be contained in the files.

“If we get a large production on December 19, and it does not contain a single name of any male who’s accused of a sex crime or sex trafficking or rape, or any of these things, then we know they haven’t produced all the documents. It’s that simple,” Massie said.

In a press conference Tuesday led by several Senate Democrats, Schumer said the lawmakers have been “preparing for any scenario” and warned “there will be serious legal and political consequences” if the Trump administration withholds documents required by law to be released.

‘New information’ on Epstein cited  

The brief text of the law does not outline penalties if the deadline is not met.

Types of documents cited in the law include flight logs, plea agreements and immunity deals, and any internal DOJ communications about Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

The law states documents cannot be delayed, redacted or withheld “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

Victims’ identities must be redacted, and written justification is required for any information withheld, according to the law.

Carve-outs also exist for any material relating to ongoing investigations. 

The department announced new investigations on Nov. 14 into Epstein’s ties to Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and prominent investor Reid Hoffman. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Nov. 19 during a press conference that “information has come forward, new information, additional information.”

House Democrats release more photos

Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have been releasing a trickle of private files from Epstein’s estate that were handed over in response to a congressional subpoena. Committee Democrats disclosed dozens more images Thursday.

The public disclosure of the digital files, released via a cloud folder without context, follows the committee Democrats’ announcement Dec. 12 that it had received 95,000 more images from Epstein’s estate. 

Among those images was a photo of Trump surrounded by women whose faces had been redacted, and an image of apparent packaged condoms with Trump’s face on them and a sign reading “I’m HUUUUGE!” Another image, which featured an apparent “Bill Clinton” autograph, shows the former president posing with Epstein, Maxwell and others.

The latest batch of private records released included photos of Epstein with guests at meals and multiple photos of Epstein talking with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon across a sizable wooden desk in what appears to be an office with antique books and collectibles. Another photo shows Epstein dressed in traditional sheikh-style garments. 

A few images of the New York Times’ David Brooks surfaced in the latest batch as well. Epstein is not in the frame with Brooks, an opinion columnist. The Times released a statement to media outlets Thursday that “Mr. Brooks had no contact with (Epstein) before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner” in 2011.

Other images feature former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates standing with a woman whose face has been redacted by the committee, and a solo photo of Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

“Oversight Democrats will continue to release photographs and documents from the Epstein estate to provide transparency for the American people,” Garcia said in a statement Thursday. “As we approach the deadline for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, these new images raise more questions about what exactly the Department of Justice has in its possession. We must end this White House cover-up, and the DOJ must release the Epstein files now.” 

A wolf makes its way across a road in Yellowstone National Park. (Jacob W. Frank/Courtesy of the U.S. National Park Service)

The U.S. House on Thursday passed, 211-204, a bill to remove Endangered Species Act protections for the gray wolf outside Alaska.

The bill, sponsored by Colorado Republican Lauren Boebert, would direct the Interior secretary to reissue a 2020 rule removing ESA protections that delisted wolves other than the Mexican wolf in the lower 48 states, while stipulating it could not be challenged in court. 

The rule from President Donald Trump’s first administration was struck down by a federal court in 2022.

Five Democrats voted for the bill and four Republicans voted against it. The measure was considered during the chamber’s last vote series before a two-week break, and 18 members did not vote.

Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, has sponsored a companion bill in that chamber. The measure faces an uphill road in the Senate, where passage of partisan bills is rarer due to the 60-vote threshold for most legislation.

The bill would remove gray wolves from the ESA list, even though they have not reached population figures that the Fish and Wildlife Service has said would indicate full recovery.

Rep. Donald S. Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, said it would be reasonable to adjust population thresholds, but that congressionally mandated delisting was unwise and illegal.

“This bill fails to recognize the status of gray wolves today, taking us back to an outdated rulemaking that didn’t hold up in court,” Beyer said on the House floor Thursday.

House Natural Resources Committee ranking Democrat Jared Huffman of California said the bill set a “troubling” precedent by blocking judicial review.

“It tells the American people they no longer have the right to challenge unlawful government actions,” he said. “The ESA is simple and effective. It ensures decisions are grounded in science — that’s the heart of it — and this bill throws that principle out the window.”

Several Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee spoke in favor of the bill, saying it would delegate wolf management to states.

In a statement, Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican, said the gray wolf has been “fully recovered” for two decades.

“States are more than capable of managing thriving wolf populations. This legislation restores a common-sense, science-based approach to wolf management, returning decision-making to states,” he said.

Republicans also argued the bill would protect livestock and humans.

Rep. Pete Stauber showed a photo from his district in Ely, Minnesota, of a wolf in a school parking lot.

“Because of the gray wolf’s listing status, nothing could be done to protect the lives of the students there,” the Republican said. “The broken ESA is putting my constituents’ lives at risk.”

A cannabis pre-roll is held at a legalization anniversary party in Cranston, Rhode Island, Dec. 1, 2023. (Photo by Christopher Shea/Rhode Island Current)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana, which Trump said reflected the drug’s potential medical benefits while discouraging recreational use.

The order moves cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III on the Federal Drug Administration’s list of controlled substances. Schedule I, the most restrictive category under federal law, indicates a high likelihood of abuse and no accepted medical value. 

Trump said the move reflected that cannabis could have medicinal value, even if abuse was still possible.

The order “doesn’t legalize marijuana in any way, shape or form and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug,” Trump said. “Just as the prescription painkillers may have legitimate uses, but can also do irreversible damage … it’s never safe to use powerful controlled substances in recreational matters.”

Still, the order marks a major step in the decades-long liberalization of cannabis policy. 

Since 2012, when Washington and Colorado voters legalized personal marijuana use, 22 other states have legalized at least some form of recreational use. Only 10 states still restrict both medicinal and recreational use.

In a statement, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, praised Trump while calling for further reforms to bring federal law into harmony with states where the drug is legal.

“I thank the President and am pleased that they are finally taking this step to begin the process to reschedule,” Polis wrote. “Colorado’s cannabis industry is the gold standard ensuring that products are safe and regulated. It’s good to see the federal government finally following suit, but it’s frustrating it’s taken this long and there is much more to do for a full descheduling,”

President Joe Biden started the process for rescheduling the drug last year.

Medical angle

A group of administration officials and medical doctors flanked Trump during the Oval Office signing, with some speaking to the potential medical benefits of marijuana, including as an alternative to highly addictive opioid painkillers.

“The facts compel the federal government to recognize that marijuana can be legitimate in terms of medical applications when carefully administered,” Trump said.

Researching the potential benefits of marijuana is nearly impossible because of the tight restrictions on Schedule I substances, advocates have argued.

Removing cannabis from Schedule I would help ease those restrictions, Trump said. 

“This reclassification order will make it far easier to conduct marijuana-related medical research, allowing us to study benefits, potential dangers and future treatments,” he said. “It’s going to have a tremendously positive impact.”

In addition to researchers, the split between federal law and the legal landscape in many states has created challenges for the industry, users and law enforcement, among others.

For example, the unusual position of state-legal businesses in a federally banned industry means they cannot use certain tax provisions, access some banking instruments or transport their product across state lines.

In a lengthy statement, Paul Armentano, the deputy director of leading marijuana legalization organization National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, offered qualified praise for the move, saying it “validates the experience” of patients who have used marijuana to treat chronic pain and other conditions. 

“This directive certainly marks a long overdue change in direction,” Armentano said. “But while such a move potentially provides some benefits to patients, and veterans especially, it still falls well short of the changes necessary to bring federal marijuana policy into the 21st century. Specifically, rescheduling fails to harmonize federal marijuana policy with the cannabis laws of most states.”

The reclassification could provide tax relief to many marijuana businesses, he added.

GOP senators opposed move

Many Republicans in Congress remain opposed to legalizing marijuana.

In a letter dated Wednesday, 24 Senate Republicans urged Trump not to reclassify marijuana, which they said had a high likelihood of abuse and no medical value.

Allowing marijuana businesses to take advantage of federal tax deductions would give them a tax break of as much as $2.3 billion, allowing them to increase marketing efforts and expand into additional states, the lawmakers wrote. The benefits of economic growth would be outweighed by the costs of accidents, “not to mention the moral costs of marijuana advertising that could reach kids,” they wrote.

“In light of the documented dangers of marijuana, facilitating the growth of the marijuana industry is at odds with growing our economy and encouraging healthy lifestyles for Americans,” the GOP senators wrote. “We urge you to continue your strong leadership of our country and our economy, and to turn away from marijuana rescheduling.”

North Carolina’s Ted Budd led the letter, which was also signed by John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, John Cornyn of Texas, Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Jim Banks of Indiana, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch of Idaho, Rick Scott of Florida, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

A small cannabis plant. (Photo by Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s administration is looking “very strongly” at reclassifying cannabis from the strictest category of controlled substances, Trump said Monday.

In a brief affirmative response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office, the president confirmed he is considering a reclassification of marijuana to unlock research funding.

“A lot of people want to see it — the reclassification — because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify,” Trump said. “So we are looking at that very strongly.”

Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Food and Drug Administration’s classification of controlled substances. The FDA defines drugs on the list, such as heroin and cocaine, as lacking any medicinal value and carrying a high likelihood of abuse.

The designation carries a host of consequences, including a virtual ban on funding research for medicinal or other uses of the drug.

While marijuana use, both medicinal and recreational, is legal in many states, it remains illegal to possess or use in any amount for any reason under federal law.

Advocates have sought for decades to legalize or decriminalize the drug, which many see as less harmful than other Schedule I substances.

The growing split in recent years among many states and federal law has ramped up pressure on federal policymakers to alter the drug’s legal status.

Marijuana businesses in states where it is legal lack access to financial institutions, which cannot lend to businesses considered illegal by federal authorities.

States, meanwhile, have had difficulty regulating the environmental and health aspects of their industries.

And lawmakers, especially Democrats, have increasingly highlighted the frequent injustice of marijuana prosecutions that disproportionately affect communities of color and poor communities, though the drug is widely used across race and economic status.

President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order as, left to right, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks look on in the Oval Office of the White House on Dec. 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that aims to preempt states from enacting rules governing artificial intelligence, a major departure from the typical federalist structure of American government that Trump said was necessary because of the issue’s high stakes.

In an early evening signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump said the order would position the United States to win a competition with China to dominate the burgeoning AI industry. Coordinating policy among 50 different states would put the U.S. at a disadvantage, Trump said, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.

“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”

The order creates a task force to monitor state laws on AI and to challenge them in court, and directs the Commerce secretary to complete a review of state laws within three months.

David Sacks, the chair of a White House board on technology, said there were more than 1,000 pending AI bills in state legislatures.

White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the Oval Office event that the order would “ensure that AI can operate within a single national framework in this country, as opposed to being subject to state level regulation that could potentially cripple the industry.”

“The big picture is that we’re taking steps to ensure that AI operates under a single national standard so that we can reap the benefits that will come from it.”

The order, a major assertion of presidential power over state governments and Congress, is likely to see court challenges, including from environmental groups that oppose AI expansion because of the energy resources the technology requires.

“Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to undermine states’ and local communities’ efforts to protect themselves from the unchecked spread of AI, which is driving a wave of dangerous data center development,” Mitch Jones, the chief of policy and litigation at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said in a statement. 

“We’ll be following the administration’s attempts to implement this farcical order, and we’ll fight it in Congress, in the states, in the courts, and with communities across this country.”

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks with reporters inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Sept. 29, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

The Democratic National Committee will run ads Thursday on the home pages of newspapers in a quartet of Republican senators’ hometowns, calling on the incumbents up for reelection next year to support a Democratic bill to extend health care subsidies.

The digital ads target Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and John Cornyn of Texas on the day the Senate is expected to vote on a Democratic proposal to extend enhanced subsidies for insurance purchased on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Without the extension, premiums are projected to sharply rise next year.

“REPUBLICAN ARE DOUBLING HEALTH CARE COSTS,” one mockup of the ad provided to States Newsroom reads. “Tell Senator Collins we can’t afford their price hike.”

The ads running in states with two GOP senators also mention the one not on the ballot next year: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bernie Moreno of Ohio and Ted Cruz of Texas.

“Today’s Senate vote to extend the ACA tax credits could be the difference between life and death for many Americans,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a press release. “Over 20 million Americans will see their health care premiums skyrocket next year if Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Jon Husted, and Dan Sullivan do not stand with working families and vote to extend these lifesaving credits.”

‘Affordability’ on the ballot

Democrats have sought to make health care costs a major issue as both parties have projected a focus on affordability issues in next year’s midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

Senate Democrats initiated a six-week government shutdown this year in an effort to force Republicans to negotiate on the expiring subsidies, which Congress expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., promised a vote on a bill to address rising premiums in exchange for ending the shutdown.

The chamber will vote Thursday on a Democratic proposal that would extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits for three years.

Senators will also vote Thursday on legislation from Republicans Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho that would provide up to $1,500 annually for people who buy either bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans from the ACA marketplace.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Wednesday that chamber would vote next week on an unspecified measure to address the expiring tax credits.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Republicans’ goal was to provide funding “directly to the people” to “buy their own health care.”