WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has scrapped plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department — a proposal that halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified Tuesday before a House committee the DOJ will no longer move forward with those plans shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said the administration had reversed course. 

That decision could clear the way for the Senate to debate a roughly $70 billion package meant to fund immigration and deportation for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term. 

“I think his statements are going to be very definitive, very clear and create the certainty that I hope all of our members, and House members need as well, in order for us to proceed on the reconciliation bill,” Thune said, referring to Blanche. “But I’m not guaranteeing that happens yet.” 

Blanche confirmed Thune’s statements when he testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee in the afternoon.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said when pressed by the subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Grace Meng of New York.

“You and Associate Attorney General Woodward signed earlier documents regarding the settlement and this fund, would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ position on the fund?” Meng asked.

“We’re not moving forward with the fund. I’m not sure what that means to sign documents reversing. There’s nothing to reverse,” Blanche replied.

The DOJ posted on social media this week that it plans to abide by a temporary court ruling that blocked distribution of the funds, but Republican lawmakers said that wasn’t enough to end the impasse it created.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund last month as part of a legal settlement between Trump and the IRS over leaked copies of his returns during Trump’s first term. The settlement included provisions that precluded future IRS investigations into Trump and his family.

Senate Republicans weigh in

Thune said GOP senators had a “quite robust conversation” during a closed-door lunch about the DOJ fund and whether to move forward with their immigration and deportation package. 

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said after that meeting it’s up to GOP leaders to determine whether there are enough votes to move forward with the immigration package. 

“I think the next step is for our whip team to find out where everybody’s at based on the administration’s indication that they’re not going to move forward with the fund,” Hoeven said. 

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said there is a “chance” that Republicans could begin a marathon amendment voting session on the immigration bill as soon as Wednesday, if Blanche’s testimony alleviates concerns created by the DOJ fund. 

Montana Sen. Steve Daines, however, said he believes it’s “unlikely” that process begins this week. 

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said earlier in the day, before the lunch, that he wouldn’t accept taxpayer dollars going toward people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

“To provide restitution to somebody who assaulted a police officer and pled guilty to it. I mean, man, I’ve seen some crazy stuff before, but that’s right up there with crazy,” he said. 

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he needs to know “if it’s dead or nearly dead.” 

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he wants clarification from the White House about the settlement fund in light of the court’s ruling. 

He added that Republicans are waiting to see if “the court case set aside both the settlement fund and the audits.”

“We need clarification for what it is and isn’t, because the White House already said ‘we agree, we don’t like it, but we agree with the courts,’” Lankford said. “What does that mean?”

Amendment to ban fund

Democrats have also criticized Trump and those in his administration over the fund, vowing to block it in law. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during an afternoon press conference that promises from Trump and administration officials are “worthless.” 

“Trump sued his own government, had his own Justice Department settle the case and is now trying to use taxpayer dollars to pay off his MAGA allies, billionaire buddies and cop-beating insurrectionists,” Schumer said. 

“And let’s be clear, Trump has not killed this slush fund,” he added. “He has not revoked the special tax immunity he gave himself and his family. He has not ended the corruption. He hit a temporary roadblock. That’s it.”

Schumer said the first amendment he would offer during debate on Republicans’ immigration and deportation bill would “ban Trump’s slush fund permanently and revoke his family’s free rein to commit tax fraud forever.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a bill Wednesday that would require parental consent before a public elementary or middle school can update a student’s pronouns, gender markers or preferred name on records in order to receive federal funding. 

The measure — which succeeded 217-198 — would also bar federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that provides federal aid to schools from being used “to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology.” 

Eight Democrats broke ranks with their party to vote for the Republican-led effort, including: Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Cleo Fields of Louisiana, Laura Gillen of New York, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state and Eugene Vindman of Virginia. 

Fifteen House members did not vote.

Parental consent 

The bill would also require schools to get permission from parents before changing “sex-based accommodations” to allow a student to access a locker room or bathroom consistent with their gender identity. 

Rep. Tim Walberg, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, said during floor debate the measure “takes monumental strides to restore parental rights and educational sanity.”

The bill “affirms the right of parents to be in charge of their children’s upbringing and ensures schools remain partners in a child’s education” and “also establishes clear guardrails to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support learning, not indoctrinate kids in radical ideology and agendas,” the Michigan Republican added.  

Walberg led the bill alongside Rep. Burgess Owens, a Utah Republican who brought forth a separate measure that was later looped in and bars the use of federal funds “to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology.” 

The bill draws on a definition of “gender ideology” in a January 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

The order defines “gender ideology” as “the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.” 

GLAAD, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, noted in a fact sheet that “gender ideology” is “an inaccurate term deployed by opponents to undermine and dehumanize transgender and nonbinary people.” 

House Dems, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups blast bill 

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce panel, blasted the measure during floor debate, saying it would “impose a rigid federal mandate that ignores context, disregards students’ safety and prioritizes politics over people.” 

The Virginia Democrat noted that the bill “bars any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, including “banning books with transgender characters” or discussing “the existence of transgender people.” 

Scott noted that the bill “takes away state and local control of curriculum on education — the very thing that the current administration claims they’re giving back to states by illegally dismantling the Department of Education.” 

Fears students will be outed

Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, criticized the legislation ahead of floor debate as the “Don’t say trans bill.”

The California Democrat told States Newsroom he was concerned the measure would force school officials to out students to their parents, regardless of whether the official knew the student could suffer harm.

Takano, who also sits on the House education panel, also expressed concern that in the case where parents are supportive of their child using different pronouns, “if the teacher uses a different pronoun, that could be interpreted as ‘promoting gender ideology.’”

He said “we can’t discount that this administration will use a maximalist interpretation of the law, which would make even the case where” a student with supportive parents of trans children “could not go by the preferred nickname.” 

David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, condemned the bill as “cruel” and noted the LGBTQ+ advocacy group was “prepared to fight it,” in a statement shared with States Newsroom ahead of the vote. 

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy added. 

“Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people,” he said.

An increasing number of conservative states are mandating that state and local social service providers verify and report the immigration status of the people they serve — in some cases threatening stiff penalties for public employees who fail to comply.

Under federal law, immigrants who are in the United States illegally are generally barred from receiving public benefits such as nonemergency health care, food aid and housing help, though a handful of left-leaning states use their own money to provide such benefits.

Supporters of the new verification and reporting laws say they will help curb illegal immigration by making it more difficult for people who aren’t eligible for public aid to receive it.

Government-funded health care, housing aid and the right to have a driver’s license are a “pull factor that encourages illegal immigration,” said Cooper Smith, director of homeland security and immigration at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank that has worked on policy development with the current Trump administration.

Government benefits, Smith said, are “an incentive for (immigrants) to come here and cross the border and make this their home, and we don’t want to see that.”

In Tennessee, legislators this week sent a bill to Republican Gov. Bill Lee that would require all state and local agencies to verify the immigration status of people who apply for federal, state or local government benefits, and to report those who are here illegally to the legislature and the state’s new immigration enforcement agency.

The measure, which the governor is expected to sign, authorizes the state attorney general to investigate possible violations, and threatens jail time or a loss of state funding for workers or agencies that fail to comply.

The potential penalties in Tennessee’s law are especially strict, but this year Indiana, Utah, and Wyoming also enacted laws requiring state and local agencies to verify the immigration status of people applying for certain benefits. In Indiana and Wyoming, agencies also must report immigrants who are here illegally to federal authorities. Louisiana enacted a similar verification and reporting law last year.

The Indiana and Wyoming laws go beyond the specific individuals applying for aid.

In considering an application for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Indiana law requires agencies to notify federal authorities if they cannot verify the immigration status of any member of an applicant’s household. Similarly, the Wyoming law requires the state health department and the state department of family services to notify federal immigration authorities if they determine that anyone applying for public benefits resides in a household that includes a person who is here illegally.

Critics say the new state laws will dissuade many people who are eligible for benefits — especially those with family members who are here illegally — from getting help they are entitled to, and force state and local officials to perform an immigration enforcement role for which they are ill equipped.

“They have to do this verification process for everybody that walks in the door. This is something that slows down services for every Tennessean in the name of collecting data and trying to make assessments that folks are not trained to make,” Democratic state Sen. Jeff Yarbro said last month during the floor debate on the bill.

“There’s probably no one who understands enough of the rules to make that determination,” he said. “But we are forcing that decision upon every single government office in the state of Tennessee — it’s just a little bit insane.”

Tanya Broder, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, which advocates for immigrants, said the new laws represent an escalation of state anti-immigration efforts. She said the measures demonstrate that conservative states are moving in lockstep with the Trump administration.

“There are many, many states that impose restrictions on access to public to state and local public benefits, but some of these reporting requirements that states are proposing now likely do violate the law,” Broder said. “I think they are sowing a campaign of fear and misinformation.”

Broder added that the fear of penalties might prompt agency workers in Tennessee to overreport and potentially engage in racial profiling.

The Tennessee bill is part of a sweeping package of immigration enforcement measures the state legislature approved this year. Tennessee’s broad immigration agenda was crafted in coordination with the White House, specifically with Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Earlier this month, Lee signed a measure that requires state judges to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. And last month, the governor signed a bill that makes it a crime under Tennessee law for an adult to refuse or fail to leave the state within 90 days of a final order of removal. The law also makes it a crime for immigrants to try to enter the state if they have an outstanding deportation order.

Other bills that would require local sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration agents and make it illegal for people who are living in the U.S. illegally to operate a commercial vehicle or truck in the state are on Lee’s desk awaiting his signature.

Smith, of the America First Policy Institute, said Tennessee is “serving as a model for other states to follow.”

Republicans struggled this year to secure funding for the Department of Homeland Security, Smith noted, “so they know that their ability to get meaningful legal immigration reform, through both houses of Congress and signed by the president, is very, very unlikely,” he said. “So the next step is to do as much as you can at the state level.”

Julia Gelatt, an associate director at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, agreed with Smith’s assessment of the political situation.

“There are things that the federal government can’t control, or that may be harder to achieve at the federal level, particularly with a Congress that isn’t passing bills,” Gelatt said.

“We know that Stephen Miller advised Tennessee on their immigration bills, and I think that his philosophy is that the federal government and state governments should make life in the United States so hard for people who don’t have legal status that they decide to go home.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

The Land of 10,000 Lakes is moving to crack down on motorists who illegally pass stopped school buses with new legislation aimed at enhancing the state’s current law that a Minnesota appeals court saw a loophole in.

S.F. No. 3623 seeks to amend Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 169.444, subdivision 1, the state law on the safety of schoolchildren and the duty of motorists in school zones, to enforce stricter rules for approaching school buses. It heads to the desk of Gov. Tim Walz for signature.

The bill would continue to require motorists to stop at least 20 feet away from a school bus, but only with its red lights flashing, removing language mentioning federally mandated stop arms. This is due to a motorist’s appeal of an illegal passing conviction that made its way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals last year.

In that case, motorist Allison Waln challenged her conviction by arguing that the school bus video evidence showed the stop arm was not fully extended. The appellate court ruled in her favor in September due to ambiguity of how the law defined the word extended.

“In sum, we hold that the plain meaning of the term extended, as used in Minn. Stat. § 169.444, subd. 1, requires a school bus’ stop-signal arm to be fully stretched out before an approaching driver must stop,” the court found.

Legislating a Fix

This led legislators to try and close the loophole by rewriting the traffic code to reinforce that the flashing amber lights notify motorists that the school bus will begin loading or unloading students. The legislation adds language to the state law that motorists must prepare to come to a complete stop when they see the pre-warning flashing amber lights on school buses, which signals drivers that the bus is preparing to stop and activate its red flashing lights. Under the bill, vehicles must not encroach within 20 feet of a school bus when those amber lights are flashing, reinforcing the need for caution in school zones.

The bill also prohibits vehicles from moving until the stop arm is retracted and the red lights stop flashing by replacing the previous language of “shall stop” with “must stop.”

S.F. No. 3623 advanced quickly through the legislative process. Sen. Ann Johnson Stewart introduced the bill, which was referred to the Transportation Committee on the same day, Feb. 17. The committee recommended the bill for passage Feb. 26, and it underwent a second reading. The bill passed its third reading in the Senate March 9 by a vote of 19-7. The House unanimously passed the bill Monday by a vote of 133-0.

The bill would go into effect as law the day after its final enactment rather than the normal date of Aug. 1 for passed and signed legislation.

Related: Action Plan Puts National Spotlight on Hidden Toll of Illegal Passing
Related: Waymo Driverless Vehicles Continue to Illegally Pass School Buses
Related: Minnesota School Bus Driver Rescues Missing 4-Year-Old from Lake
Related: Minnesota Mom Helps Evacuate 22 Students from Burning School Bus

The post Minnesota Passes Bill to Strengthen Law on Illegally Passing School Buses appeared first on School Transportation News.