WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Monday he expects war with Iran will continue however long it takes to achieve his objectives, which include eliminating the country’s missile program, preventing its leaders from building a nuclear weapon and ensuring it cannot fund terrorism.

“Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks,” he said at a Medal of Honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House. “But we have capability to go far longer than that. We’ll do it. Whatever.”

His remarks followed an early morning briefing by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who emphasized to those in attendance the U.S. war on Iran will continue unabated on Trump’s terms, with more troops on the way and more casualties expected.

Speaking in public for the first time since the United States and Israel launched a massive attack early Saturday, Hegseth would not specify a timeline or exit strategy for the mission.

“We will finish this on America first conditions of President Trump’s choosing, nobody else’s, as it should be,” Hegseth said.

By 4 p.m. Eastern, U.S. Central Command had updated the death toll of American service members to six, though little detail was provided. Their names, ranks and hometowns have not been disclosed.

Trump mentioned the U.S. military troops who had been killed as a reason to continue with his war.

“Today, we grieve for the … heroic American service members who have been killed in action, and send our love and support to their families,” he said. “In their memory, we continue this mission with ferocious, unyielding resolve to crush the threat this terrorist regime poses to the American people, and a threat, indeed it is.”

Trump said the objectives of the conflict with Iran “are clear.”

Military forces, he said, will destroy the country’s missile capabilities and its navy, prevent it from building a nuclear weapon and block its leaders from sponsoring terrorism.  

Trump did not say whether he would seek approval from Congress, which holds the power to declare war under the Constitution. And he did not take questions from reporters as he left the Medal of Honor ceremony about whether he would send U.S. ground troops into Iran.

Hegseth at his briefing commented on the three U.S. service members whose deaths were announced Sunday. The secretary said that “a squirter” — apparently referring to an offensive missile or drone — was not intercepted by air defense systems.

“And in that particular case, (it) happened to hit a tactical operation center that was fortified, but these are powerful weapons,” Hegseth told reporters.

The Associated Press reported Sunday the troops were U.S. Army soldiers deployed to Kuwait.

Congress heads toward war powers votes

Votes are expected this week in both the U.S. Senate and House on war powers resolutions attempting to check Trump’s power to engage in armed conflict.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during an afternoon floor speech that lawmakers need to “pick a side” this week, urging them to reject what he described as “a war of choice, not necessity.”  

“Donald Trump has just launched America into a full-scale conflict against one of our most fervent adversaries without a plan, without an end game and without authorization from Congress, or even a debate in full view of the American people,” he said. 

Instead of engaging in “military escapades,” Schumer said, Trump should focus on implementing policies that would bring down the cost of living and focus on ensuring Americans have good-paying jobs. 

“They don’t want a war that leads to lost American lives and that costs billions and billions of taxpayer dollars,” he said. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was much more supportive of Trump’s military endeavors, saying the “administration relentlessly pursued a diplomatic solution to the threat posed by Iran,” but that country’s leaders “refused diplomatic off-ramps.” 

“Iran has relentlessly pursued the development of its own nuclear program despite repeated violations identified by the international atomic watchdog, the (International Atomic Energy Agency),” Thune said. “Iran is also aggressively growing the range and inventory of its ballistic missiles and launchers, an inventory that is already the largest in the region. Combine that with a navy that aims to threaten a key shipping channel and it is clear that Iran poses a serious risk to America’s national security interests as well as those of our allies and partners.”

Thune and Schumer both said their prayers were with the families, loved ones and fellow service members of the U.S. troops killed so far in the war. 

House war powers vote

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said following a closed-door briefing that he believes the vote on the House floor later this week will fail, allowing Trump to keep pursuing war in Iran. 

“I am certainly hopeful and I believe we do have the votes to put it down,” he said. “That’s going to be a good thing for our country and our security and civility.”

Johnson said he doesn’t believe that Trump needed to seek congressional authorization to begin the war, arguing that “the president was acting well within his authority” since he believes U.S. military actions were “defensive in nature and design and necessity.”

Johnson said that since Israel was going to strike Iran and that intelligence sources believed Iran would have retaliated by striking both Israel and the United States, Trump acted appropriately when he began the war without lawmakers’ sign off. 

There is a chance that if the war drags on the Trump administration will ask Congress to provide additional funding for military operations, but Johnson said “it will be some time before we can put a final number on it.”

Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, said after the same briefing that there was “no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians.

“There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States then we are in uncharted territory.”

Rubio: ‘Hardest hits are yet to come’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday afternoon that the administration has “complied with the law 100%” in briefing congressional leadership ahead of Saturday’s attack, and notifying all of Congress within 48 hours afterward.

“If they want to take a war powers vote, they can do that. They’ve done that. They’ve done that a bunch of times,” Rubio said. He added: “There’s no law that requires the president to have done anything with regards to this.”

The secretary told reporters “there absolutely was an imminent threat” that Iran would attack U.S. troops in the region upon Israel striking Tehran.

“We were not going to sit there and absorb a blow before we responded, because the Department of War assessed that if we did that … we would suffer more casualties and more deaths,” Rubio said. 

“We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage. Had we not done so, there would have been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was going to happen and we didn’t act preemptively to prevent more casualties,” he said as he continued on his way to a classified briefing with the congressional leadership and heads of intelligence committees.

When pressed by a journalist on whether the U.S. was forced to act because of Israel, Rubio said, “no matter what, ultimately, this operation needed to happen.”

Rubio said the U.S. focus is narrowly on destroying Iran’s current conventional weapons capabilities, which he repeatedly claimed are a “shield where they can hide behind” as they continue to build up a nuclear weapons program.

“I’m not going to give away the details of our tactical efforts, but the hardest hits are yet to come from the US military. The next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now,” Rubio said.

Caine says more troops on the way

Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, at the briefing with Hegseth, said more U.S. troops and airpower were expected to arrive in the region Monday.

“This is not a single overnight operation. The military objectives that (U.S. Central Command) and the Joint Force have been tasked with will take some time to achieve, and in some cases will be difficult and gritty work. We expect to take additional losses, and as always, we will work to minimize U.S. losses,” Caine said.

Hegseth said the mission, dubbed by the administration as Operation Epic Fury, is “laser focused” on eliminating Iran’s nuclear ambitions by destroying its offensive missile stockpile and production facilities, as well as its naval and security infrastructure.

“We’re hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly, and unapologetically with every passing day. Our capabilities get stronger and Iran’s get weaker. We set the terms of this war from start to finish,” Hegseth said.

The secretary sidestepped a question on how much of Iran’s infrastructure has been destroyed since Saturday. Caine said assessing what remains of Iran’s long-range strike capabilities “will take some time.”

Trump reiterated that a bombing campaign he initiated earlier this year “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, though he said the country’s leaders, many of whom are now dead, “ignored those warnings and refused to cease their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

“In addition, the regime’s conventional ballistic missile program was growing rapidly and dramatically, and this posed a very clear, colossal threat to America and our forces stationed overseas,” he said. “The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America.”

Iranians began rebuilding the facilities bombed by the U.S. and Israel in June, but  authorities had blocked international inspectors from assessing the areas, according to a PBS report citing an anonymous U.S. official.

Iran retaliation

The conflict rapidly spread Sunday and into Monday across the Middle East, as Iran launched retaliatory missiles and drones following the targeted fatal strike by Israeli defense forces and U.S. intelligence of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On Monday, Iran attacked key energy infrastructure, interrupting oil and gas production in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two of the world’s largest suppliers, according to international media outlets. 

Gulf nations, usually safe havens and luxury getaways in the volatile region, ground to a halt as strikes and debris from intercepted missiles damaged the United Arab Emirates’ Dubai International Airport, one of the world’s busiest, and nearby iconic tourist destinations, according to Reuters. 

The U.S. State Department issued directives for Americans in the region, including a shelter-in-place order Sunday for all U.S. embassy staff in Qatar as airspace remained closed.

Jets go down over Kuwait, deaths in Iran and Israel

No deaths were reported after three U.S. F-15 fighter jets crashed over Kuwait Monday in an apparent friendly fire incident, according to U.S. Central Command. Video of an apparent U.S. fighter jet falling from the sky circulated on social media Monday.

The fighting spread to Lebanon after Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters fired rockets into Israel. Israel returned fire, including in Lebanon’s capital, Beirut. Several media outlets reported casualties, citing Lebanon’s health officials.

Nine people were killed Sunday in central Israel after a missile hit a synagogue bomb shelter, The Associated Press reported.

The death toll across Iran hit at least 555 since the conflict began, according to Iranian Red Crescent Society figures cited by Al Jazeera. Iranian officials attributed more than 150 deaths to a strike Saturday on a school in southern Iran, according to numerous international reports.

Buildup of troops over past month

The administration began amassing thousands of troops, aircraft and naval ships over the past 30 days in the region, including relocating its largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, from its position in the southern hemisphere where U.S. troops apprehended Venezuela’s leader on Jan. 3.

The “rapid buildup,” Caine said, included service members from Wisconsin’s Army National Guard, which was operating in Kuwait and Iraq, and Air National Guard units from various states, including Vermont and Virginia.

Caine would not answer questions about the total number of U.S. troops involved.

Trump gave the final order for the attack on Friday, just before 4 p.m. Eastern, and joint strikes with Israel’s forces commenced overnight Saturday, at 9:45 a.m. Tehran time.

“The president directed, and I quote, ‘Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts, good luck,’” according to Caine.

Operations centers in Tampa, Florida and at the Pentagon directed strikes on more than 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours, Caine said.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a major blow to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda Friday, ruling the tariffs he issued under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act are illegal.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said Congress alone holds the power to tax in almost all circumstances. The Trump administration’s argument that trade deficits and illegal drug imports granted it emergency power to levy tariffs was not justified, the court said. Tariffs are taxes on imported goods.

The Trump administration had argued that a provision in the law, known as IEEPA, that said the executive branch could “regulate” imports empowered the president to levy tariffs.

“Based on two words separated by 16 others (in the law)—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts’ opinion. 

Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed dissenting opinions. Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s.

Kavanaugh’s dissent accepted the administration’s reading of the law and said it was not the justices’ role to decide a policy matter that has “generated vigorous” debate. 

“The sole legal question here is whether, under IEEPA, tariffs are a means to ‘regulate . . . importation,’” he wrote. “Statutory text, history, and precedent demonstrate that the answer is clearly yes: Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation.”

New tariffs

Trump blasted the ruling at an afternoon press conference. Asked if he regretted nominating Gorsuch and Barrett, he said the decision was “an embarrassment to their families.”

He said the judges were “being politically correct” and catering to special interests rather than fairly interpreting the law.

He also said he would impose global 10% tariffs under a provision of the Trade Act of 1974, which  allows the president to unilaterally apply tariffs for up to 150 days.

“Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” he said.

Tariffs were an important tool to balance the country’s trade and hold leverage over other countries, he said. 

‘Unchecked’ presidential authority

In the opinion of the court, Roberts wrote that Trump’s expansive use of the emergency tariff powers would upend the balance of powers between branches of government.

The administration’s position would empower the president “to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs,” simply by declaring an economic emergency, Roberts wrote. Further, that declaration would be unreviewable and could be overturned only by a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress.

That view “would replace the longstanding executive-legislative collaboration over trade policy with unchecked Presidential policymaking,” he wrote.

When Congress intends to convey that kind of power to the executive branch, it generally does so in uncertain terms, Roberts said.

“In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” he wrote. 

The government’s argument that IEEPA authorized that power, “falls short,” the opinion said. 

The chief justice added that it was telling that in the nearly 50 years since the IEEPA became law, no other president has read such broad powers into it.

What to do about the taxes that were collected?

The ruling opens a new debate about how to handle tariff revenue that the government has already collected since Trump first imposed the IEEPA tariffs a year ago.

Kavanaugh noted the likely confusion the issue would cause.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,” he wrote. “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat and prominent economic liberal, said that revenue should be sent to small businesses that were harmed by the imposition of tariffs.

“Any refunds from the federal government should end up in the pockets of the millions of Americans and small businesses that were illegally cheated out of their hard-earned money by Donald Trump,” she wrote in a statement.

Main Street Alliance, a national trade group representing small businesses, called for the revenue collected under the tariffs to be returned to small businesses.

“If the authority was unlawful, the collections were unlawful,” Executive Director Richard Trent said in a statement. “Every penny taken from small businesses under this framework should be returned.”

Attention turns to Congress

With the court ruling that taxing power lies with Congress, efforts to codify the tariffs Trump had applied could become a priority for Republican lawmakers.

“No one can deny that the President’s use of tariffs has brought in billions of dollars and created immense leverage for America’s trade strategy and for securing strong, reciprocal America-first trade agreements with countries that had been taking advantage of American workers for decades,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, wrote on social media. “Congress and the Administration will determine the best path forward in the coming weeks.”

Adrian Smith, a Nebraska Republican who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee’s subpanel on trade, said Congress should work with the president to legislate tariffs.

“Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers create world-leading products and deserve reliable access to global markets,” he said. “I am committed to working with the administration to deliver long-term certainty through comprehensive and enforceable trade agreements. The President has made clear his intention to use every available tool to secure strong deals, but only Congress can ensure that these agreements provide lasting stability beyond any single administration.”

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, though, said in a social media post that the ruling would severely hamper efforts to rebalance trade, and called for Congress to codify the tariffs.

“SCOTUS’s outrageous ruling handcuffs our fight against unfair trade that has devastated American workers for decades,” he wrote. “These tariffs protected jobs, revived manufacturing, and forced cheaters like China to pay up. Now globalists win, factories (sic) investments may reverse, and American workers lose again. This betrayal must be reversed and Republicans must get to work immediately on a reconciliation bill to codify the tariffs that had made our country the hottest country on earth!”

Democratic lawmakers praised the court’s decision, while blasting the tariffs as a matter of policy.

“This is a win for the wallets of every American consumer,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “Trump’s chaotic and illegal tariff tax made life more expensive and our economy more unstable. Families paid more. Small businesses and farmers got squeezed. Markets swung wildly. We’ve said from day one: a president cannot ignore Congress and unilaterally slap tariffs on Americans. That overreach failed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, called the decision “a win for farmers, small businesses, and hardworking, middle-class families across the country,” he said in a statement. 

“Trump’s illegal and chaotic tariffs have harmed American consumers and businesses, leaving them to foot the bill for rising prices due to Trumpflation,” the Oregon Democrat added. “While Trump continues his ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda, we’re using every tool at our disposal to fight back against his reckless policies and build an economy where families thrive, and billionaires pay their fair share.”

Arguments were heard in November

The justices heard arguments in early November in what was the first major case of the second Trump term to move beyond the court’s emergency docket and be heard on the merits of the case.

Small businesses and Democratic state attorneys general led the legal challenges against Trump’s tariffs in the two separate cases, consolidated before the Supreme Court. They alleged Trump usurped taxing power, which belongs to Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.

Victor Schwartz, founder and president of the family-owned, New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections led the small business plaintiffs, which included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

State attorneys general who sued included those from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

Two Illinois-based toy makers that primarily manufacture products in Asia filed a separate challenge.

For nearly three hours on Nov. 5, the justices dissected the language of IEEPA, a 1970s-era sanctions law that Trump invoked during the first year of his term in a series of emergency declarations and proclamations triggering import taxes on goods from nearly every country.

The high-profile case drew Cabinet officials to the court, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. 

Members of Congress also attended. Among the crowded rows were U.S. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Ed Markey of Massachusetts.

‘Liberation day’

Trump began imposing tariffs under IEEPA via executive order in February and March on products from China, Canada and Mexico, declaring the countries responsible for illegal fentanyl smuggled into the United States.

The president escalated the emergency tariffs April 2, which he dubbed “liberation day,” when he declared trade imbalances a national emergency. In addition to a new baseline 10% global tariff, Trump announced hefty additional duties on products from countries that export more goods to the U.S. than they import from U.S. suppliers.

The White House calculations baffled economists, as the administration proposed steep duties on close trading partners — including 20% on products from the European Union, 25% on South Korea, 32% on Taiwan and 46% on Vietnam. 

Inexplicably he also announced a 50% tariffs on goods from the landlocked, 11,000-square-mile African nation of Lesotho, and 10% on the Heard and McDonald Islands, only inhabited by penguins and seals.

Trump’s announcement crashed markets, wiping trillions of dollars away in just a matter of days. He relented and delayed most of the tariffs, but escalated a trade war with China — shooting up the levy to 125%, and eventually to 145%.

The administration’s trade war with China cooled a bit in May, but left the rate on some products at an effective 55%.

Trump maintains his tariffs have forced the hand of other governments to invest in the U.S. in exchange for lower tariffs. For example, Trump officials claimed victory in a framework deal with Japan that lowered duties on Japanese products to 15%, from 25%, with a promise from Japan to invest $550 billion in the U.S.

As recently as late August, Trump imposed an extra 25% tariff on goods imported from India, bringing the total tariffs on Indian products to 50%, because of the country’s usage of Russian oil. 

In early August, Trump slapped a 40% tax on all Brazilian goods after he disagreed with the country’s prosecution of its former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022.

WASHINGTON — Aluminum cans rolling off Virginia cider maker Tristan Wright’s production line cost more because of increased tariffs on aluminum.

Minnesota baby product inventor and seller Beth Benike ran out of inventory and lost income for months last year when President Donald Trump sparked a trade war with China.

Maryland dog apparel producer Barton O’Brien pulled the plug on a new line of Irish-style fisherman sweaters. Importing from his manufacturers in India became unfeasible.

Pennsylvania glass and ceramic decorator Walt Rowen worries about his tariff bill each time he replenishes stock.

“If there’s one thing that’s universal in business, no matter what you’re doing, it’s that stability and calmness create a positive market,” said Rowen, a third-generation owner of Susquehanna Glass Company in eastern Pennsylvania.

But many small business owners feel anything but calm since Trump began his whiplash trade policy shortly upon starting his second term. And now they are waiting on the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been mulling since November what was supposed to be an expedited opinion on whether large shares of the president’s unilateral emergency tariffs are legal. 

The Supreme Court is not scheduled to release opinions again until Feb. 20.

In a tariff impact survey to roughly 3,000 small business members from June to November 2025, the advocacy group Main Street Alliance found that 81.5% indicated they may raise prices to offset tariff costs, 41.7% reported they would delay business expansion and 31.5% said employee layoffs were likely if tariff rates remained unchanged. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated as of August that Trump’s tariff policies will cost America’s roughly 236,000 small businesses about $200 billion annually.

Tariffs are taxes paid by U.S. importers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection on goods purchased from abroad. 

Trump tariffs pass one-year mark

Trump began using the novel approach of imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, just over a year ago. 

As the first president to use the 1970s emergency statute to trigger import taxes, Trump slapped duties in February 2025 on products from Canada, Mexico and China, pointing to a crisis of illicit fentanyl smuggling. 

He next targeted global imports in April with a universal 10% import tax, adding varying “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from numerous trading partners — all due to his declared emergency on trade deficits.

A handful of small business owners, led by a New York-based wine and spirits importer, sued and won in two lower courts.

Trump appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted an expedited case.

The justices grilled the government and lawyers for the small businesses in early November on whether the president legally used the statute — which does not include the word tariffs — and if his presidential power extends to unilaterally upending trade policy.

The arguments attracted rare appearances in the courtroom from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other Cabinet members.

The case outcome will only apply to the import taxes the president imposed under his declared emergencies. Sectoral tariffs on imports on metals, critical minerals and pharmaceuticals, put in place by Trump because of national security concerns or unfair trade practices, will remain.

“We’ve been waiting on it. Nobody’s sure what really is going to happen — are they going to decide one way or another, and then what will happen?” Rowen said.

Rowen’s company, among other things, sandblasts and laser engraves glassware, mugs and tumblers found in winery tasting rooms, on restaurant tables and in university gift shops. 

“If they decide that the president’s policies are legal, then we’re stuck where we’re at. Potentially, he might become emboldened to do even more. If they decide that (he) can’t then what happens? What happens to all the money that’s already been set aside?” Rowen asked.

Trump promises on tariffs

The Trump administration hails the tariffs as a windfall for the country. He’s promised the customs duties collected from U.S. businesses and other importers will, in part, help the country crawl out of its nearly $39 trillion debt. 

Trump has also said tariffs will bring factories back to U.S. soil, provide for $2,000 dividend checks to taxpayers and even offset the cost of child care.

The import taxes pulled in $195 billion in 2025, up from $77 billion in 2024. 

So far for fiscal year 2026, which began Oct. 1, the government has earned about $118 billion in tariffs, according to the U.S. Treasury monthly statement through Jan 31, though the report does not delineate between emergency and sectoral tariffs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates roughly 41% of tariffs collected last year were due to those imposed under IEEPA. The office projects if tariffs are left in place, revenue will jump to $418 billion in 2026 — exceeding corporate income tax receipts for the first time since the 1930s, a high-water mark for levies on imports.

Wright, founder and president of Lost Boy Cider in Alexandria, Virginia, said the administration is “literally banking the future of the country on the tariffs.”

“They don’t have another way of getting us out of this debt situation (and) you can point all the fingers you want over the last couple of decades,” he said.

While Wright has not had to directly pay tariffs, he’s shelled out more and more money for the aluminum cans that hold his specialty cider. China is, by far, the world’s largest aluminum producer.

“We work with a lot of people that purchase internationally because they can’t get the products here. And I understand it. You know, some point in five, 10,15 years from now, maybe we have 16 aluminum plants in the country. But you don’t just snap your fingers and, like, create an aluminum plant,” Wright told States Newsroom during an interview at his cidery.

Costs to households

Economists argue that while tariffs have raised revenue, they hurt the economy by shrinking business growth and reducing consumers’ purchasing power.

“You can’t do partial accounting. How much additional income growth and business income growth did you not get because of the tariffs?” Wayne Winegarden, an economist with the pro-growth Pacific Research Institute, told States Newsroom.

“If you wanted to raise taxes, there are ways of doing it that would be less obstructive to the economy than imposing tariffs,” he said.

The Tax Foundation estimates the president’s tariffs will cost households roughly $1,300 in 2026.

“If you have $100 to spend on groceries every week and the price of coffee goes up by like $5, your grocery budget doesn’t magically increase to $105 to pay for the higher coffee price. Instead, you’re forced to make trade-offs. If I want to buy the coffee, then that means I have $5 less to spend,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy for the think tank, which advocates for business growth.

O’Brien, owner of the Annapolis, Maryland-based Baydog company, said he boosted his inventory of woven collars manufactured in India and dog harnesses from China to get ahead of the tariff costs.

“I have been forced, as a business owner, to borrow money and tie up all that cash in product,” he said.

“If I look at other dog harness manufacturers, the prices have gone up everywhere. We have chosen not to raise prices, but to take that money out of our own pocket. So instead of everybody paying five bucks more for a dog harness, basically everyone at Baydog makes less money, myself included,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom.

Benike, who owns 15 patents for specialty baby products including silicone dining trays with attachments for toys and sippy cups, said she had to lay off her brother and forfeit her own paycheck last year.

The owner of Busy Baby told States Newsroom in an early February interview that she delayed a shipping container of her product from China’s Guangdong province, in case the Supreme Court ruled Trump’s emergency tariffs were illegal.

“I was holding off on shipping it until that decision was made, because the difference would have been $40,000 for me,” she said.

She had to pull the trigger in mid-January as the Supreme Court continued deliberating and she began running out of product.

“I have a container that should be sitting at the port. It should be clearing customs, hopefully, like as we speak, so I’ll have a tariff bill to pay,” Benike said.

The following day she emailed to say she didn’t realize Trump had lowered the fentanyl emergency tariff on China last year during negotiations. 

“​​So my final tariff ended up being 10% less than I expected. YAY!” she wrote.

The big ‘what if’

Shawn Phetteplace, national campaigns director for Main Street Alliance, said the advocacy organization is preparing to help its network of small business members if the Supreme Court strikes down the emergency tariffs. 

“My understanding is that the things that can be done to get people’s money back is either some type of class action lawsuit, so that it forces customs and government to essentially refund the dollars,” Phetteplace said in an interview with States Newsroom. “But that process will take quite a bit of time. The other option is for individual businesses to sue the government and to recoup those costs.”

O’Brien said of the delay, “The Supreme Court has proven they can issue decisions very quickly when they want to. Every day that goes by, they’re making the mess bigger.”

In a response to States Newsroom, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an emailed statement, “President Trump promised to bring prosperity back to Main Street with an America First agenda that benefits every small business, just as he did in his first term.” 

“In addition to slashing regulations and lowering energy costs, the Trump administration signed the largest Working Families Tax Cut in history to unleash unprecedented growth for small businesses with a permanent 20% tax deduction and full expensing of equipment investments,” according to Rogers’ statement.

WASHINGTON — The Department of Homeland Security is headed for a shutdown as lawmakers on Capitol Hill remained stuck Thursday over bans on face masks and other immigration tactics. 

The department’s funding expires Friday night.

A procedural vote to advance a funding bill failed in the Senate, 52-47, with Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., the only Democrat to join Republicans on the measure. Senate Majority Leader John Thune changed his vote in a maneuver to recommit the bill and bring it up again later. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., did not vote.

The Senate then left for a scheduled recess over the Presidents Day holiday, and will not return for votes until Feb. 23.

Democrats have so far rebuffed counter proposals from the White House and a Republican offer to further extend temporary DHS funding while negotiations continue. 

The vote came just hours after President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan announced immigration officers will retreat from Minneapolis, which has become ground zero for the administration’s aggressive and deadly escalations that sparked mass protests and sinking approval numbers for the president.

Thune said the administration’s exit from Minneapolis is “certainly a demonstration of good faith.”

Demands for warrants and more

The fatal shootings in Minneapolis by federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both U.S. citizens, has prompted Democrats to demand immigration officers obtain judicial warrants to forcibly enter homes, wear and actively use body cameras, remove face masks, wear identification and undergo additional training.

The department, which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is the remaining part of the government for which Congress has not passed full-year funding. In addition to ICE and Customs and Border Protection, the department also includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, otherwise known as TSA.

Short-term stopgap funds for the department expire Friday at midnight, though ICE will likely continue operations on an influx of cash earmarked for the agency in Republicans’ massive tax and spending cuts law enacted in July.

TSA agents, Coast Guard personnel and other essential government workers will continue their duties without pay until lawmakers strike a deal. Others will be sent home, also without pay, though all will receive back pay once the shutdown ends.

Red lines

Thune said Democrats “don’t seem to want to play ball” and consider his party’s “reasonable efforts and requests.”

“There’s some obviously red lines that Democrats have and that the White House has. I think Republicans, as I told you before, are very interested in making sure that law enforcement officials continue to be able to do their jobs in a way that is safe and that we aren’t in any way enabling, you know, dangerous illegal aliens, or disallowing them being detained and deported from the country,” the South Dakota Republican said following the failed vote.

Thune said the White House is “giving more and more ground on some of these key issues” but declined to provide further detail on the administration’s proposal.

He added he did not plan to cancel the Senate’s planned recess next week but has let members know they’ll need to be available if a deal emerges.

“I’m encouraged to hear that they’re actually going to put together another counterproposal. I think if people are operating in good faith and actually want a solution … this can get done,” he said.

Following the failed vote for full-year funding, Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., asked for unanimous consent to keep Homeland Security open with another stop-gap measure.

“Let’s keep talking, let’s keep working. Don’t let anyone miss a paycheck,” Britt, the chair of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, said.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, objected, saying the Democrats want “to rein in  ICE’s lawlessness.” 

Democrats want GOP to get ‘serious’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doubled down on Democrats’ demands following the failed procedural vote. 

“This vote today asked a simple question: Will you rein in ICE’s abuses, or will you vote to extend the chaos?” he said. “Republicans chose chaos and the Democrats, we refused — Republicans chose to put a bill on the floor that ignored the abuses, ignored the outrage, ignored what the American people want, overwhelmingly, and they failed to get the votes to avoid a shutdown at DHS.” 

The New York Democrat called on Republicans to get “serious” if they want to keep DHS funded. 

“They need to sit down, they need to negotiate in good faith, produce legislation that actually reins in ICE and stops the violence,” Schumer said. 

Both sides have complained that the other did not work fast enough during the past two weeks to find a deal.

“I wish our Republican colleagues in the White House had shown more seriousness from the start, but Senate Democrats have been clear that we have all taken an oath, an oath to uphold the law of the country and this Department of Homeland Security, this ICE, is out of control. They are tear gassing our children’s schools. They are killing American citizens. They are disappearing legal migrants,” Murphy said. 

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Murphy said Democrats would not fund the department until an agreement is reached with the White House to “reform abusive practices of ICE.” 

Murphy told reporters the White House is “obviously trying to get us to fund the department,” pointing to the announcement of immigration officers soon leaving Minneapolis. 

“If we fund ICE, because we believe that the drawdown is meaningful, they’ll just pocket that money and show up in another city two weeks from now,” he said. “We need statutory changes to stop them from the abuse, or they will be quiet for a couple of weeks and show up in Philadelphia on April 1.” 

Thune said “the ball is in Democrats’ court,” during remarks on the Senate floor Thursday morning. 

“Are they going to shut down the Department of Homeland Security — which would be their second shutdown this fiscal year — or are they going to allow for the time to negotiate with the White House and get agreement on a final bill?” he said.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Thursday, blocking the Department of Defense from downgrading Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s rank as a retired Navy captain for appearing in a video where he and other lawmakers reminded members of the military they aren’t required to follow illegal orders. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court wrote in the 29-page ruling that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others named in the lawsuit have “trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees.”

In his scathing opinion loaded with emphasis and exclamation points, Leon wrote, “After all, as Bob Dylan famously said, ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.’ To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their Government, and our Constitution demands they receive it!” 

The senior judge ruled that Kelly is likely to succeed on the merits of his case. The preliminary injunction will block Pentagon action while the case proceeds through the courts.

 

 

Leon conceded that while active military personnel are subject to “well-established doctrine” limiting First Amendment rights, “(u)fortunately for Secretary Hegseth, no court has ever extended those principles to retired servicemembers, much less a retired servicemember serving in Congress and exercising oversight responsibility over the military.” 

“This Court will not be the first to do so!”

Leon was nominated by former President George W. Bush.

Leon concluded the ruling with a biting passage suggesting that “Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years.” 

“If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues,” Leon wrote.

‘This case was never just about me’

Kelly said in a lengthy statement following the ruling that the federal court “made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.” 

“But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That’s why I couldn’t let it stand,” Kelly said.

Kelly said the nation is at a “critical moment” to defend free speech.

“The First Amendment is a foundation of our democracy. It’s how we demand better of presidents like Donald Trump – whether they are jacking up the cost of groceries with tariffs or sending masked immigration agents to intimidate American communities.  

  “But Donald Trump and his administration don’t like accountability. They don’t like when journalists report on the consequences of their policies. They don’t like when retired veterans question them. And they don’t like when millions of everyday Americans peacefully protest. That’s why they are cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of anyone they can.”

The Department of Defense pointed to Hegseth’s X account as official comment on the matter.

The secretary wrote about the case: “This will be immediately appealed. Sedition is sedition, ‘Captain.’”

DOD investigation

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video on Nov. 18

President Donald Trump reacted on social media a few days later, falsely claiming the video represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

The Defense Department announced on Nov. 24 that it had opened an investigation into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly. Officials wrote the senator could face “recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth wrote in a social media post on Jan. 5 that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank as a Navy captain and his pay. 

Hegseth wrote Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense and Hegseth on Jan. 12, asking a federal judge to declare the effort “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement at the time. “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Court hearing

Leon held a hearing on Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction on Feb. 3, where he asked the attorney representing the Department of Defense how any retired member of the military who is later elected as a member of Congress, especially one that sits on the Armed Services Committee, like Kelly does, could challenge any actions taken by the Defense Department. 

John Bailey, the Justice Department attorney, contended that Congress has determined that certain retired military members are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Benjamin Mizer, one of the lawyers on Kelly’s team, told the judge the Defense Department’s actions represented a “clear First Amendment violation.” 

Grand jury non-indictment

The other Democratic lawmakers in the video aren’t subject to the military’s judicial system but rebuked the Justice Department Wednesday for seeking a grand jury indictment against them for publishing the video, where they told Americans in the military and intelligence communities they “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, posted a video on Feb. 5, saying she had informed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that she wouldn’t be sitting for an interview. 

Slotkin said her letter to Bondi and Pirro also told them “to retain their records on this case in case I decide to sue for infringement of my constitutional rights.”

“To be honest, many lawyers told me to just be quiet, keep my head down and hopefully this will all just go away. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration and Jeanine Pirro want,” Slotkin said. “They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up. But more importantly they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration.

“The intimidation is the point and I’m not going to go along with that.”

House members 

Houlahan released her own video the same day saying she would not sit for an FBI interview and that the Democrats’ video “told the truth, it stated facts, it reiterated the law and it exercised speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

“Free speech is not a favor that the government can revoke,” Houlahan said. “It is a right and I will not surrender it, for myself or for anyone else.” 

Deluzio wrote in a social media post the following day that he would “not be intimidated by any harassment campaign” and does “not intend to sit down for a voluntary interview with DOJ or FBI officials sent to interfere with the important work I’m doing for my constituents.”

Goodlander wrote in a statement that the “Justice Department is targeting us for doing our jobs, and the aim here is clear: to intimidate, coerce, and silence us. It will not work. I will not bend the knee in the face of lawless threats and rank weaponization — I will keep doing my job and upholding my oath to our Constitution.”

Crow told CNN’s Pamela Brown last week that he was treating the FBI’s investigation as “an attempt to try to threaten, harass and intimidate political opponents.”

“(Trump’s) trying to make an example out of me and Mark Kelly and others because if he can make an example out of a member of Congress or a senator then why would everyday Americans stand up and protest and dissent? But he has chosen the wrong people.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed legislation Wednesday that would require the public to produce a passport or birth certificate in most cases to register to vote, less than a year out from November midterm elections.

The 218-213 vote split mostly along party lines, with one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, breaking with his party to support the measure. One Republican, North Carolina’s Greg Murphy, did not vote.

Republicans argued the bill, dubbed by House Republicans as the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act,” or the SAVE America Act, will prevent noncitizens from voting in federal elections, which is already illegal and rare.

The Senate is considering its own version of the bill.

The GOP’s championing of the bill follows President Donald Trump’s comments advocating to nationalize elections, a mid-decade campaign to redraw state congressional districts in Republicans’ favor and more than two dozen Department of Justice lawsuits demanding Democratic-led states turn over unredacted voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security.

The bill also includes a provision requiring each state to send an “official list of eligible voters for federal office” to Homeland Security to be run through the department’s database to identify any noncitizens.

‘Show your papers’

The legislation has attracted sharp criticism from Democrats and voting rights advocates as a “show your papers” law that will disenfranchise the roughly 146 million Americans who do not have a passport. 

They say it would also affect those without ready access to a birth certificate and married women whose last names do not match the name appearing on birth records.

If passed by both chambers and signed into law by Trump, the measure would take effect immediately.

“Republicans know that they cannot win on the merits, so rather than change their policies, they’re seeking to change the rules. John Lewis was not bludgeoned on a bridge in my hometown for the Republicans and Donald Trump to take these rules away from us,” said Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., invoking the late Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who was beaten in 1965 in Selma, Alabama, during a march for voting rights. 

“This is a blatant power grab, as Democrats will not stand for it,” Sewell, whose district includes Selma, said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Sean Morales-Doyle, director of voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the timing of the measure, if enacted, would cause “maximum chaos.”

“A change of this magnitude to our election system right before an election would be not only terrible in substance in that it would block Americans from voting, but would also be chaos-causing,” Morales-Doyle said. 

“It would change the rules that govern our elections and government registration right when that is happening at the highest rate. … There’s always a huge increase in registration in the run-up to an election.”

‘Daggum ID’

But Republicans argue the legislation provides “safeguards” to ensure only U.S. citizens vote, as Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said on the floor ahead of the vote.

“House Republicans and President Trump want to protect the ballot box and ensure integrity in our elections across this great country,” Burchett said.

“When you purchase a firearm, when you board a plane, when you open a bank account — if I put $100 in the bank and right then ask for $20 of it back, guess what: I gotta show a daggum ID,” Burchett continued.

Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said Democrats’ arguments against the bill amounted to “hyperbole.”

“We should be checking and cleaning up the voter rolls and removing individuals who are not eligible to vote, because every citizen deserves the right to vote,” he said.

Claims of noncitizen voting in federal elections represent “tiny fractions of voters,” according to a July 2025 analysis from The Center for Election Innovation and Research. The report was updated this month.

Murkowski not on board

The Senate version, sponsored by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, may face stronger headwinds.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, issued a statement on social media Tuesday saying she won’t support the legislation.

“Not only does the U.S. Constitution clearly provide states the authority to regulate the ‘times, places, and manner’ of holding federal elections, but one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington, D.C., seldom work in places like Alaska,” Murkowski wrote, adding that changing procedures so close to the midterms would “negatively impact election integrity.”

WASHINGTON — In a notable break from President Donald Trump’s signature trade policy, several House Republicans joined Democrats in passing a resolution to terminate the president’s national emergency at the northern border that triggered tariffs on Canada just over one year ago.

The measure, passed 219-211, revokes Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025, executive order imposing tariffs on Canada, which he triggered under an unprecedented use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. 

Whether he has the power to invoke tariffs under the 1970s law is under review at the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments in November. An opinion, still not released, has been expected for months.

Reps. Don Bacon, R-Neb., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., Jeff Hurd, R-Colo., Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., broke ranks with the GOP to join Democrats in rebuffing Trump’s levies on Canadian goods.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. 

Two Republicans, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Riley Moore of West Virginia, did not vote.

The House vote occurred less than 24 hours after three House Republicans delivered a rebuke to Trump and joined Democrats in blocking House leadership’s effort to extend a ban on bringing any resolutions to the floor that disapprove of the administration’s tariffs.

Trump’s centerpiece economic policy has drawn criticism over its on-again, off-again changes, causing uncertainty for business and costs passed along to consumers.

The vote also comes just days after Trump threatened to close a new bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, if Canada does not negotiate a new trade deal with the United States. 

In a nearly 300-word post Monday on his platform Truth Social, Trump predicted that if Canada struck a deal with China, the eastern power would “terminate ALL ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup.”

‘Canada is our friend’

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the resolution’s lead sponsor, criticized Trump’s “manufactured emergency” regarding Canada.

“Canada isn’t a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally. Canadians have fought alongside Americans, whether it was in World War II or the war in Afghanistan,” Meeks said. 

Meeks also said tariffs are costing his constituents up to $1,700 per year. 

“That’s what this is about. It’s about American people and making things affordable for them,” Meeks said on the floor ahead of the vote.

Analyses from the Tax Foundation and Yale Budget Lab pin the average cost per household between roughly $1,300 and $1,750 from all current tariffs combined — not just import taxes on products purchased from Canada.

Fentanyl debate

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., disagreed, arguing the cost amounted not to lost income but to drug overdose deaths attributed to illicit fentanyl.

“Who will pay the price? It’s a very sad thing to have (been) asked by this colleague of mine … because it’s important to remember, what is this resolution? This resolution ends an emergency related to fentanyl,” Mast said during pre-vote debate. 

But U.S. Customs and Border Protection data from fiscal year 2023 to the present shows fentanyl seizures at the northern border dwarfed by the amount intercepted at the southwest border.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement  Agency identifies China as the beginning of the illicit fentanyl supply chain that moves through clandestine labs in Mexico and then into the United States.

Trump’s Feb. 1, 2025 executive order conceded that Border Patrol agents seized “much less fentanyl from Canada than from Mexico last year,” but claimed the amount seized at the northern border in 2024 was still enough to kill 9.5 million people.

The synthetic opioid “is so potent that even a very small parcel of the drug can cause many deaths and destruction to America(n) families,” according to the executive order.

Senate action so far

A handful of Republican senators have also rebuked at least one category of Trump’s emergency tariffs.

In late October, Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Maine’s Susan Collins and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, supported a joint resolution in a 52-48 vote to terminate Trump’s 50% tariffs on Brazilian products, including coffee.

The president declared a national emergency and imposed the steep tariff on Brazilian goods on July 30 after accusing Brazil’s government of “politically persecuting” its former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power in 2022. 

The Senate vote marked a shift from two earlier efforts in April to stymie Trump’s tariffs, including a measure to terminate the president’s levies on Canadian imports.

WASHINGTON — A handful of House Republicans tanked a procedural vote Tuesday night that would have kept intact a ban on congressional action against President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs.

Republican Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska, Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Kevin Kiley of California joined all Democrats in a 214-217 vote  blocking language to continue a prohibition on any House votes challenging the unprecedented import taxes Trump triggered under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA. Rep. Gregory Murphy, R-N.C., did not vote.

“I don’t like putting the important work of the House on pause, but Congress needs to be able to debate on tariffs. Tariffs have been a ‘net negative’ for the economy and are a significant tax that American consumers, manufacturers, and farmers are paying,” Bacon said in a post on X following the vote. 

“Article I of the Constitution places authority over taxes and tariffs with Congress for a reason, but for too long, we have handed that authority to the executive branch. It’s time for Congress to reclaim that responsibility. I also oppose using the rules votes to legislate. I want the debate and the right to vote on tariffs,” Bacon continued, referring to the “rules” vote, a procedural vote often taken prior to advancing legislation.

The provision, tucked in a vote to advance three unrelated bills, would have continued the ban until July 31.

Trump declared national emergencies on numerous occasions in 2025. The resolution, enacted in September, effectively prohibited any congressional counteraction to Trump’s emergency tariffs imposed on Feb. 1, April 2, July 30 and Aug. 6. 

The president targeted imports from a host of trading partners on those dates, including establishing steep tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, Brazil and India.

Trump’s novel use of IEEPA to immediately trigger tariffs on global imports is currently under review at the U.S. Supreme Court after a group of small businesses sued the president. The justices heard oral arguments in early November, and an opinion has been expected for months. 

WASHINGTON — Democratic governors headed to an annual bipartisan gathering in the nation’s capital will not participate in a traditional White House black-tie dinner after President Donald Trump disinvited several Democrats from the event.

A joint statement Tuesday from the Democratic Governors Association said the state leaders “have a long record of working across the aisle to deliver results and we remain committed to this effort. But it’s disappointing this administration doesn’t seem to share the same goal.”

“At every turn, President Trump is creating chaos and division, and it is the American people who are hurting as a result,” the statement continued. “If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year. Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states.”

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, the association’s chair, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, vice chair, led the statement, and were joined by 16 Democratic governors from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. 

A traditional formal working meeting at the White House including governors of both parties also appeared to be off the agenda.

Brandon Tatum, the National Governors Association’s acting executive director and CEO, said, “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

“To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration. At this moment in our nation’s history, it is critical that institutions continue to stand for unity, dignity, and constructive engagement. NGA will remain focused on serving all governors as they deliver solutions and model leadership for the American people. Traditionally the White House has played a role in fostering these moments during NGA’s annual meeting. This year, they will not,” Tatum said in a statement.

Reports surfaced over the weekend that Trump had planned to exclude some Democratic governors from the annual White House events when Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, the National Governors Association vice chair, made public that the president had “uninvited” him from the dinner.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday at the daily briefing that Trump “can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House.”

Leavitt said Tuesday that Moore “did not show up” to last year’s dinner, and “nobody reported on it.”

“But again, the president has the discretion to invite whomever he wants to the White House, and he welcomes all those who received an invitation to come, and if they don’t want to, that’s their loss,” Leavitt said.

The association’s 2026 gathering is scheduled for Feb. 19-21. The gathering will include “special guests and national experts for solutions-driven conversations on pressing national issues including education, energy, economic growth, artificial intelligence and more,” according to the association website.

The office of National Governors Association Chair Kevin Stitt, an Oklahoma Republican, said in a statement: “Governor Kevin Stitt has been honored to chair the National Governors Association this past year and has found that its strength does not rest on a single annual event but in its facilitation of ideas and best practices among leaders of 55 sovereign states and territories. In light of White House events no longer being associated with NGA, he is working with NGA leadership to adjust programming to ensure all governors coming into town have a productive time together. “

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump decided to exclude Democratic governors from a traditional annual meeting at the White House and to disinvite several others from a black-tie dinner, according to the White House, the governors and the National Governors Association.

The National Governors Association organizes the bipartisan winter gathering that usually includes a working meeting with the U.S. president and a major dinner at the White House. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, serves as current chair of the association, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, is vice chair.

The governors’ visit to the nation’s capital comes amid rising tensions over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and surge of federal immigration border patrol agents into Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois, Minnesota and Oregon.

Moore: ‘blatant disrespect’

Moore issued a statement Sunday that he was “uninvited” from the dinner, adding that the decision was “especially confounding” given that he was among a bipartisan group of governors at the White House in recent weeks to discuss lower energy costs.

“My peers, both Democrats and Republicans, selected me to serve as the Vice Chair of the NGA, another reason why it’s hard not to see this decision as another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership,” Moore said. “As the nation’s only Black governor, I can’t ignore that being singled out for exclusion from this bipartisan tradition carries an added weight — whether that was the intent or not.”

Moore’s exclusion also comes on the heels of Trump’s posting of a racist video Friday depicting former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama as apes. Trump deleted the post following loud disapproval that included criticism from his own party but has declined to apologize.

The offices of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz did not immediately respond for comment. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek decided “some time ago” not to attend the event so that she could be in her state during the legislative session, according to spokesperson Elisabeth Shepard.

Moore added: “As Governor of Maryland and Vice Chair of the NGA, my approach will never change: I’m ready to work with the administration anywhere we can deliver results. Yet, I promised the people of my state I will work with anybody but will bow down to nobody. And I guess the President doesn’t like that.”

The office of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, learned Friday about the exclusion of Democratic governors and similarly issued a statement of concern.

“Gov. Polis has always been willing to work with anyone across the political spectrum who wants to help work on the hardest problems facing Colorado and America, regardless of party or who occupies the White House. This is a disappointing decision for a traditionally bipartisan event between governors and whomever occupies the White House,” according to a statement from his office emailed to States Newsroom. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office confirmed Monday he had also been uninvited.

‘Many Democrats’ invited, but not all

A White House official on Monday confirmed Trump’s exclusion of some Democratic governors from the annual dinner.

“Many Democrats were invited to dinner at the White House, and others were not. These are White House events and the President reserves the right to invite whomever he wants,” the official told States Newsroom in an emailed statement.

Brandon Tatum, the National Governors Association’s acting executive director and CEO, said, “The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

“To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration. At this moment in our nation’s history, it is critical that institutions continue to stand for unity, dignity, and constructive engagement. NGA will remain focused on serving all governors as they deliver solutions and model leadership for the American people. Traditionally the White House has played a role in fostering these moments during NGA’s annual meeting. This year, they will not,” Tatum said in a statement.

This year’s meeting follows a tense exchange during the 2025 gathering between Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, and Trump, who threatened to withhold all federal funding from the state unless Mills complied with the president’s executive order to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports.

The association’s 2026 meeting is scheduled for Feb. 19-21. The gathering will include “special guests and national experts for solutions-driven conversations on pressing national issues including education, energy, economic growth, artificial intelligence and more,” according to the association website.

Julia Shumway contributed to this report.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on June 17, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal Thursday to sue the Trump administration over allegations that it did not fully release the Epstein files, as mandated under a law unanimously approved by senators and signed by the president nearly three months ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., asked for unanimous consent on a resolution compelling the Republican-led Senate to challenge President Donald Trump in court to release more records from the government’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal defense attorney, said Jan. 30 that the department had finished complying with the new law after a final release of 3 million pages, containing 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. In total, the department released about 3.5 million records since the law’s passage.

The latest tranche revealed a global network of numerous men in powerful positions in communication with Epstein.

Late and redacted

The legal deadline to release the files was Dec. 19.

“Fifty days past the deadline, at best, according to the Department of Justice’s own admissions, maybe half of all the available Epstein files have been released,” Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.

Schumer said that among the records released, many have been “redacted to an absurd degree.”

“This is not what the law requires. This is a mockery of the truth and an insult to the survivors. What makes this all the more sickening is that in over 1,000 instances, the Justice Department failed to follow the law and leaked the identities of over 100 victims. But do you know who the Justice Department did seem to protect? Epstein’s co-conspirators,” Schumer continued.

The minority leader entered into the congressional record a letter he brought along from roughly 20 Epstein victims decrying the “reckless and dangerous” release of victims’ identities.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., blocked the resolution, chalking it up as “another reckless political stunt designed to distract Americans from Democrats’ dangerous plan to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.”

Barrasso was referring to negotiations underway to fund DHS. Democrats have demanded changes to immigration enforcement tactics after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis, and numerous other U.S. citizens were injured by federal agents during Trump’s surge into blue states.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., criticized Barrasso’s objection on the floor, calling it “morally wrong.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

A DOJ official told States Newsroom in an email that the resolution presented “a tired narrative.”

“Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law and, in full transparency, has disclosed to the public and to Congress what items were not responsive. I assume all members of Congress read the actual language before voting on it, but if not, our press release and letter to Congress clearly spells this out,” the official wrote, including a link to the department’s Jan. 30 press release.

‘Hunger or thirst for information’

Blanche told reporters on Jan. 30, “There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. There’s nothing I can do about that.” 

He said no information uncovered in the files warranted new prosecutions.

The new law, dubbed by lawmakers as the Epstein Files Transparency Act, required the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. 

Epstein avoided federal charges in 2008 when he pleaded guilty to Florida state prostitution charges, including for the solicitation of a minor. 

A 2007 draft of a federal indictment that laid out more robust charges was among the files released by the DOJ on Jan. 30.

President Donald Trump signs a government funding bill in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2026. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The partial government shutdown that began this weekend ended Tuesday when President Donald Trump signed the funding package that both chambers of Congress approved within the last week. 

“We’ve succeeded in passing a fiscally reasonable package that actually cuts wasteful federal spending while supporting critical programs for the safety, security and prosperity for the American people,” Trump said in the Oval Office.

The House voted 217-214 earlier in the day to clear the package for Trump following a tumultuous couple of weeks on Capitol Hill after it had stalled in the Senate. Democrats demanded additional restraints on immigration enforcement in reaction to the shooting death of a second U.S. citizen in Minneapolis. 

Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., reached agreement last week to pull the full-year appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security and replace it with a two-week stopgap measure.

That is supposed to give leaders in Congress and the administration a bit of time to find consensus on changes to how immigration officers operate.

Trump did not say if he agreed with any of the proposed changes to immigration enforcement floated by Democrats. 

“I haven’t even thought about it,” Trump said. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a morning press conference he wants negotiations to address local and state governments that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement activities, often called sanctuary cities. 

“What must be a part of that discussion is the participation of blue cities in federal immigration enforcement,” he said. “You can’t go to a sanctuary city and pretend like the law doesn’t apply there. It does and so we are going to be working through all that.” 

Administrative warrants debate

Johnson said GOP lawmakers would not agree to require federal immigration agents to secure judicial warrants in order to detain people, one of several proposals Democrats have put forward.

“We are never going to go along with adding an entirely new layer of judicial warrants because it is unimplementable,” he said. “It cannot be done and it should not be done and it’s not necessary.” 

Johnson, a constitutional lawyer, said those administrative warrants are “sufficient legal authority to go and apprehend someone.”

When pressed if that type of warrant is enough to enter someone’s home without violating the Fourth Amendment, Johnson said that a “controversy has erupted” over what immigration agents should do when someone they’re trying to detain enters a private residence. 

“What is Immigration and Customs Enforcement supposed to do at that point? ‘Oh gee whiz, they locked the door. I guess we’ll just go on.’ So there is some logic and reason that is to be applied here,” Johnson said. “Some have complained that the force has been excessive or what have you. I don’t know. We’re going to figure that out. It’s part of the discussion over the next couple weeks.”

Johnson said GOP negotiators will also make sure Congress maintains “important parameters” on immigration law and enforcement.  

“We can’t go down the road of amnesty, you can’t in any way lighten the enforcement requirement of federal immigration law,” he said. “That’s what the American people demand and deserve.”

Senators ‘ready to work’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said during an afternoon press conference that Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, would lead negotiations for Republicans in that chamber. 

“Katie Britt will lead that on our side, but ultimately, that’s going to be a conversation between the President of the United States and (Senate) Democrats,” Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said. 

During an afternoon press conference, Schumer said that “Thune has to be a part of these negotiations.” 

Schumer said that Democrats are going to detail their proposals to Republicans in the House, Senate and White House.

“If Leader Thune negotiates in good faith, we can get it done,” Schumer said of the Homeland Security funding bill. 

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who serves as ranking member on the Senate Committee on Appropriations, said Senate Democrats are “ready to work.”

“We have a proposal ready. We’re going to start moving no matter who they (pick) at the end of the day, and the White House needs to be involved,” Murray said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said there are “a whole bunch” of proposals.

“The House had to do what they had to do … which is great. And what we now have to do is figure out what’s this universe of reforms that we can come to consensus on,” said Murkowski, who issued a statement last week declaring her support for “meaningful reforms” for ICE.

‘Most basic duty’ of Congress

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said during floor debate on the government spending package that clearing the legislation was the best way to move into negotiations about immigration enforcement.

“We will be in the strongest possible position to fight for and win the drastic changes we all know are needed to protect our communities — judicial warrant requirements, no more detentions or deportations of United States citizens, an enforceable code of conduct, taking off the masks, putting the badges on, requiring the body cameras, real accountability for the egregious abuses we have seen,” she said.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said funding the government “is not an optional exercise, it’s the most basic duty we have in Congress.”

“Shutdowns are never the answer, they don’t work,” he said. “They only hurt the American people. So today lawmakers in this chamber have an opportunity to avoid repeating past mistakes.”

In addition to providing two more weeks of funding for the Department of Homeland Security, the $1.2 trillion spending package holds full-year appropriations bills for the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, State, Transportation and Treasury. The Senate voted 71-29 on Friday evening to send the package to the House.

Congress had already approved half of the dozen annual appropriations bills for the fiscal year that began back on Oct. 1. 

Kevin Warsh, second from left, listens during a panel discussion at the Semafor 2024 World Economy Summit on April 18, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Semafor)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s new Federal Reserve chair pick likely faces headwinds in the U.S. Senate, as a key lawmaker opposes the administration’s ongoing criminal probe of current Fed leader Jerome Powell.

Trump announced early Friday he’s tapped Kevin Warsh to lead the central bank after Powell’s term ends in May. Warsh sat on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from 2006 to 2011 after being nominated by President George W. Bush and is a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s business school and the university’s conservative think tank, the Hoover Institution.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best,” Trump wrote on his own platform, Truth Social. “On top of everything else, he is ‘central casting,’ and he will never let you down.”

But the president is one vote short needed to push the nominee through the tightly divided Senate Banking Committee if all Democrats on the panel vote against.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., a member of the Banking Committee, praised Warsh as a “qualified nominee with a deep understanding of monetary policy.” 

But Tillis, who is retiring after this term, said he won’t vote for the pick if Trump continues to investigate Powell on accusations that he lied to Congress over the cost of renovations to the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

“Protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable. My position has not changed: I will oppose the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominee, including for the position of Chairman, until the DOJ’s inquiry into Chairman Powell is fully and transparently resolved,” Tillis wrote on social media Friday morning.

The Federal Reserve holds significant influence over the nation’s economy, and numerous experts advise separating monetary policy from political influence. Adjusting interest rates, to cool inflation or stimulate the economy, is one tool the central bank uses to accomplish maximum employment and price stability.

Threats to Powell

Trump has publicly threatened to fire Powell multiple times if the chair did not lower interest rates more aggressively.

Powell revealed in mid-January that he received a federal grand jury subpoena from the Department of Justice for a probe into whether he lied to Congress about construction costs.

Powell said in a rare video statement at the time that the investigation was not purely about oversight but rather about “setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.”

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to comment on the status of the subpoenas Friday when asked if Trump’s nomination process would speed up the investigation into Powell.

“I don’t think the timing of President Trump’s decision to nominate somebody is a controlling factor in any investigation,” he told reporters at an unrelated press conference at the Justice Department.

No commitment to lower rates

Trump praised Warsh on social media Friday morning, upon announcing his decision.

Warsh, a former New York banker and economic adviser to Bush, served on the Fed board through the tumultuous global financial crisis.

Trump told reporters Friday afternoon that he hasn’t asked Warsh about a commitment to lower interest rates. 

“I don’t want to ask him that question. I think it’s inappropriate. Probably, probably would be allowed, but I want to keep it nice and pure. But he certainly wants to cut rates. I’ve been watching him for a long time,” Trump said.

When asked about Tillis’s opposition, Trump called the senator an “obstructionist.”

“I mean, you know, if he doesn’t approve, we just have to wait till somebody comes in that will approve it, right?” Trump said. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Banking Committee, urged her Republican colleagues on the panel to oppose Trump’s pick.

“Trump can’t appoint his next puppet to the Fed all by himself. The Senate has to approve it. Any senator who claims to care about the independence of the Fed, including my Republican colleagues, should refuse to move forward with this nomination period until Trump drops his witch hunts,” Warren said in a video message posted on social media Friday afternoon.

Powell has not been Trump’s only target on the Federal Reserve. The president is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether he violated the law when he fired Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lisa Cook, a President Joe Biden appointee, via social media over the summer.  

Jacob Fischler and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.