WASHINGTON — Despite skyrocketing fuel prices and sinking approval ratings for President Donald Trump’s conflict in Iran ahead of the November midterms, Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ efforts Thursday to check the president’s unfettered military action in the Middle East.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., joined Democrats in supporting the House-approved Iran War Powers Resolution. 

But the number of Republicans who wanted to curb Trump’s prolonged military action in the Islamic Republic fell short in the final tally of 49-50.

While Collins, Murkowski and Paul have supported Iran War Powers Resolutions over the past several months, Thursday’s vote marked the first time the retiring Tillis crossed the aisle on the issue. 

The North Carolina Republican announced he would not seek reelection after Trump publicly harangued him for voting against the “big beautiful bill” in July 2025. 

Sen. John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, voted against the resolution, as he has on more than a dozen occasions. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., did not vote.

Senate Republicans locked in tight races, including one who spoke out about the war just one day ago, voted against the measure.

Sen. Jon Husted, who is facing a heated challenge in Ohio from former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, said Wednesday, “The war needs to come to an end as quickly as possible so that we can lower gas prices,” according to Politico.

Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, who’s facing a challenge from Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola, and Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican facing an increasingly tight race, also voted no.

House passes resolution

The block in the Senate comes after seven House Republicans, including two vulnerable Iowa incumbents who for the first time supported halting the Iran conflict via a War Powers Resolution, jumped on board with Democrats Sept. 15 to pass the measure 220-204.

Iowa Republicans Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks both face tough reelection bids rated as “toss-ups” by the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

The war has dragged on since late February, ricocheting through the Middle East and disrupting global oil supplies. Americans are paying on average $1.30 more per gallon of gasoline than they were a year ago, according to AAA. Diesel hit a record high national average of $6.52 Tuesday.

Trump mulls war options

Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signaled this week neither were ready to settle the conflict when they addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. 

Trump contemplated aloud whether he would “annihilate” Iran’s population “with no chance of survival” if the Islamic Republic leaders refused to make a deal. Trump has made similar comments as far back as April, when he was still promising a swift end to the conflict.

Thursday’s vote marks the 14th time Senate Democrats have forced an Iran War Powers Resolution on the floor. Thursday’s vote was on Washington state Democrat Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s resolution that passed the House on July 23.  

A similar measure squeaked through the Senate 50-48 on June 23, when Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., joined Collins, Murkowski and Paul in support – though two Republicans, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell and Pennsylvania’s Dave McCormick, were absent.

Cassidy lost the Senate Republican primary recently after Trump endorsed another candidate. But Cassidy voted against the latest War Powers Resolution Thursday.

Diesel export ban

Iowa’s longtime Sen. Chuck Grassley urged the White House as recently as Wednesday to ban diesel oil exports.

Trump administration officials have so far tiptoed around the issue of halting diesel exports. The White House denied a Politico report Wednesday claiming the administration was preparing for a 90-day embargo. Energy Secretary Chris Wright reportedly told Reuters Wednesday that an export ban would put “upward pressure” on the oil market and increase prices.

A White House official denied the Politico report in an email to States Newsroom Thursday.

But Trump signaled Tuesday that he’s “been talking about it” and supports the idea, according to reporters who traveled with him to New York.

Global petroleum supply is backlogged as Iran maintains its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen gain more control of the Bab al-Mandab Strait. Both narrow passageways on either side of the Arabian Peninsula are major transit points for crude oil and liquid natural gas exports, among other commodities like fertilizer. 

Ukraine’s recent strikes on Russian oil refineries are also contributing to rising fuel prices. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sharply criticized Russia during his address at the U.N. Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump faces a “big decision” to make a deal with Iran or “annihilate” the country, he told the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. 

During a 37-minute speech to his international counterparts including Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, in New York City, Trump asked, “Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before?

“Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly … Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” he said.

Speaking at the annual gathering aimed at promoting multilateral discussion among 193 member nations, Trump suggested Iranian leaders were waiting to see the results of the approaching midterm elections for control of Congress before any major negotiating decision.

“I believe we’ll make a deal right after the election because it doesn’t make sense for them not to,” he said. “They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don’t realize is that I’m not running.”

Iran tied to GOP midterm woes

Republicans running to maintain the majority in Congress in November face a difficult task amid sinking public support for Trump’s costly, months-long war in Iran. 

The Pentagon has confirmed 19 U.S. troops have died in the conflict, though The Washington Post has reported a more accurate count is either 22 or 23. Roughly 830 service members have been injured.

And the war has spiked the price of fuel to record levels.

Trump’s approval rating hit a record low of 32%, according to the latest polling figures published Monday by Reuters/Ipsos.

Diesel hit a new high Tuesday, reaching a national average of $6.52 per gallon, according to AAA. Gasoline hovered at $4.47 a gallon. 

The cost of energy commodities and services, a main driver of current inflation, is up 16.3% over last year, according to the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index.

Iran maintains its stranglehold of the Strait of Hormuz, a major global petroleum trade passageway, amid a U.S. naval blockade. And Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen are now targeting the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a chokepoint for Saudi Arabian oil exports.

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote on yet another War Powers Resolution this week aimed at curbing Trump’s military actions in Iran. Seven House Republicans joined Democrats Sept. 16 in passing a measure to stop Trump’s unilateral decision-making in Iran.

‘They want to talk’

Trump told reporters just before 2 p.m. Eastern that U.S. officials had met with Iranian leaders after his speech for what he described as “a very good meeting.” He did not provide further detail, according to reporters who traveled with him to New York City.

Speaking to reporters just before 1 p.m. Eastern, Trump said he believed “a settlement is going to be reached.” 

“They want to talk to us,” Trump said. “They have been talking to us even today. They’ve been talking to us. The relationship is developing, I’d say. But we can’t let them (have a nuclear weapon). They understand that. … And there’s a price to pay for that.”

White House pool

Trump’s trip to New York City also comes as major U.S. media organizations refused to distribute video, audio or photos of the president after he banned CNN, MS Now and Politico from the White House. The three organizations have sued on First Amendment grounds.

He told reporters Tuesday he has a right “to clean out fake news,” which he also described as “dangerous.”

When pressed by a reporter on how the media outlets are “dangerous,” Trump responded: “When they make statements about the war, when they make false statements, false stories, and they don’t have sources but they say they do, it’s very dangerous for our country.”

Iran’s Permanent Mission to the UN did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. An email address listed for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs appeared to be inoperable.

Upon arrival at the United Nations this week, Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araqchi criticized what he called a “cowardly” war launched by the U.S. in conjunction with Israel on Feb. 28, according to a translation posted on his ministry’s website.

“This year, after the war that took place, it is natural that this rostrum will be a place to express the oppression of the Iranian people, the martyrs of Iran, the martyrs of Minab School, and at the head of them, our martyred leader and leader,” Abbas Araqchi said, referring to early strikes during the war that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his family members and over 100 elementary school children. 

Iranian security forces killed thousands of Iranians in January as part of a crackdown on protests against the current government, according to Human Rights Watch and other advocates and observers.

Threat repeated

Trump’s speech Tuesday was not the first time he’s threatened a choice between striking peace with or heavily attacking Iran. 

Just before a short-lived ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. took effect in April, Trump threatened “a whole civilization will die” if Iran did not cooperate with U.S. demands.

The comment drummed up vocal opposition from some Republicans. 

Speaking about another military conflict, Trump said his Board of Peace was working to stabilize the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip following three years of bombardment by the Israeli government. When listing the countries involved in that effort, he twice mispronounced Kazakhstan.

The board claimed in a statement in July it reached an agreement for the “COMPLETE DISARMAMENT” of Hamas, the militant organization that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, though the conflict remains ongoing.

Trump highlighted in his Tuesday remarks to global leaders the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and claimed the U.S. “is stronger today than ever before.” He repeated familiar refrains on domestic policies, including his immigration agenda and crime statistics in the nation’s capital. 

He also briefly mentioned he would require federal documents to use the term “super intelligence” in place of “artificial intelligence.” Trump has ardently defended the use of AI without guardrails in recent weeks after tech leaders issued a warning to slow its development.

The White House pointed States Newsroom to Trump’s comments to the press following the speech.

WASHINGTON — Diesel prices hit a record average of $6.51 a gallon Monday, and some in President Donald Trump’s own party are breaking their support for the ongoing war in Iran that has driven fuel prices to staggering levels in the United States and across the globe.

Already House Republicans locked in tight races as the November midterms approach have distanced themselves from the president’s conflict and his administration’s stagnant negotiations with Iran over reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for global petroleum products. Another major vote on Iran support is expected later this week in the U.S. Senate.

The cost of diesel, which fuels the movement of goods through the United States, is up nearly $1 since last month, and up from just over $3.69 a year ago, according to AAA. 

The national average cost for a gallon of gasoline landed at just over $4.47 Monday, up more than a dollar from last year’s average at $3.18, according to the motor club’s daily monitor.

Trump has an opportunity this week to potentially meet with Iranian officials, as leaders head to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Trump told Fox News on Sunday he is “open” to meeting with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Trump said he is in “deciding mode” about next steps in Iran, and that “big things” will happen in the “not so distant future,” he told the network’s Trey Yingst. 

Grassley wants diesel embargo

Longtime Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley urged Trump throughout the weekend to embargo diesel fuel exports as costs impact farmers in his largely agricultural state. 

“W(ith) diesel $6.57 in Iowa why doesn’t Pres Trump put an embargo on diesel exports like presidents in the 70s put embargoes on (agricultural) products bc food prices were inflated. High diesel prices ARE KILLING FARMERS INCOME,” Grassley wrote Saturday on X, followed by two more posts on Sunday urging the president to put “AMERICA FIRST.”

The administration does not have plans at this time to ban or restrict diesel exports, according to a White House official Monday. 

Seven House Republicans broke ranks last week and voted in support of stopping Trump’s war with Iran unless Congress approved further action. 

The Republicans included two vulnerable Iowa representatives, Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who are facing tough reelection bids in the fast-approaching midterm elections.

Democratic senators are expected to move on a War Powers Resolution vote this week. 

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said Wednesday he will force the vote to continue applying pressure on Trump to stop the military campaign that has not been authorized by Congress.

“We’re gonna force a vote to end this illegal war every week until we succeed,” Kaine said in a video posted to X. 

Two Republicans who will not serve in Congress next year, largely due to Trump’s public opposition to them, have also spoken out against the Pentagon leadership.

House Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who has consistently supported War Powers Resolutions on Iran, unexpectedly introduced articles of impeachment last week against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, citing his leadership during the Iran conflict. 

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina told reporters on Capitol Hill Thursday that Hegseth “needs to go.” Tillis has voted no on multiple War Powers Resolutions aimed at ending hostilities in Iran.

Energy commodities up 16.3%

Inflation continued a steady march upwards in August, with fuel leading the way, according to the government’s latest consumer price index. 

The cost of all types of gasoline and fuel oil rose 3.9% from July to August. All energy commodities and services, like electricity, shot up 16.3% over the past 12 months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Trump and his administration officials have downplayed the squeeze on Americans at the pump, and Trump has promised fuel prices will drop “quickly” once the conflict ends.

On Monday he shifted the blame for skyrocketing diesel prices on to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

“Russia has unfortunately lost control of its Diesel Oil Industry due to its War with Ukraine. A large number of their Diesel refineries have been blown up and are, at least temporarily, out of commission. This ridiculous and never ending War with Ukraine must be ended,” he wrote on his platform Truth Social.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters Monday that the administration “is doing everything we can” to reduce energy prices, and suggested that states should suspend gas taxes.

“We’re very cognizant of the fact that because the Iranians are terrorizing international shipping, energy prices are elevated,” he said.

Meanwhile the conflict has expanded in the Middle East as Iran -backed Houthi rebels in Yemen fight for control of the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a key route for Saudi Arabian oil exports. 

The State Department issued a safety alert Saturday to U.S. citizens in the Middle East, warning “the security environment remains complex with the potential for unforeseen escalation.”

“Americans currently in the Middle East should exercise heightened vigilance and be aware of potential flight cancellations, airspace closures, and travel disruptions,” according to the warning, which instructs American travelers to make sure cell phones are charged at all times and to “keep a low profile.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge told the Trump administration Friday a case against the Department of Justice’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund is “still alive and kicking.”

The administration sought to dismiss the case brought against President Donald Trump’s negotiated settlement terms to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for a years-old grievance over leaked tax returns. 

The settlement, brokered by the DOJ and Department of Treasury and met by heated opposition even from Republicans, established a massive taxpayer-funded settlement fund to pay “victims of lawfare.” It also included retroactive relief from tax audits and enforcement for Trump, his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization.

Critics of the fund asserted the likelihood that violent participants who assaulted police during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could reap a reward from the pot of money.

The administration maintains the fund never became operational and that the case is moot, though it refused to provide a sworn statement requested by the court saying as much.  Attorney General Todd Blanche testified at his July 15 confirmation hearing that the fund is “dead” and “never started.”

30 days to produce documents

On Friday, Judge Leonie Brinkema at the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia overruled the government’s objection to producing evidence and gave DOJ 30 days to produce documents potentially revealing who structured the deal. 

The “real concern,” she said is “this concept of taxpayer money being used to promote political viewpoints.”

“I think the fund now is gone, but is there a functional equivalent?” she asked, noting violators of federal laws that the administration opposes, like protections for abortion clinic clients, could be paid from a DOJ judgment fund.

Plaintiffs, including individuals and interest groups, sued the DOJ, Blanche and Treasury officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano.

Among the numerous plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd, a former assistant U.S. attorney who alleges he was fired for prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants, and the nonprofit National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion providers and advocates for abortion access.

Pooja Boisture, counsel for the plaintiffs, argued Friday the fund is “discriminatory.”

“This fund was designed to reward and give credence to election deniers and violators of the FACE Act,” she said, referring to the 1994 law that penalizes violence or threats from protesters against those entering to abortion clinics.

In response to a request for comment on Friday’s hearing, a DOJ spokesperson said, “The Department is confident that the court lacks jurisdiction over this lawsuit against the (anti-weaponization fund), which never started and isn’t moving forward.”

Constitutional question

The plaintiffs also allege the tax immunity arrangement for Trump, his sons and private conglomerate amounts to an unfair gain or advantage for the president, therefore violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

The National Treasury Employees Union is also party to the suit and brought the claim of an emoluments violation, as well as allegations of injury to tax auditors who may have been told to stop any audits of Trump.

“These members have no good options: If they comply with a request to terminate audits, they violate their oath of office; and if they refuse to comply, they will likely face retaliation for insubordination,” the union argued in a court filing.

The plaintiffs allege the president has ongoing audits that will be terminated under the immunity deal. 

Lisa Newman, attorney for the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward that is representing the plaintiffs, also told Brinkema, “We do plead that the president was participating in negotiation of the settlement.”

Newman referred to public reporting by The New York Times on May 19 that a loss in an IRS audit of Trump’s previous tax returns could cost him roughly $100 million.

Andrew Block, senior counsel for the Justice Department, told Brinkema he’s “not aware there are or (are) not” audits of the president’s tax returns from that period of time.

“It is speculation to say … that there was an improper request,” he said.

Brinkema shot back that Trump’s underlying $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS is “unique.”

“The plaintiff is absolutely controlling the defendants” who are at risk of being fired by the president on “a whim,” she said.

Settlement ‘castrated’ by judge

Brinkema said the Florida federal judge in Trump’s IRS case “castrated” the settlement in a July 13 order, adding the president’s underlying lawsuit against the nation’s tax enforcement agency is “extraordinarily relevant” to the lawsuit before her.

Judge Kathleen Williams for the  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Trump filed his lawsuit, wrote in a 56-page order that “No sitting President has ever sued federal agencies completely subject to his control for monetary benefits, or any benefits that inure to him, his family, and associates.” 

“The failure of any attorney in this case to address, on this docket, the relationship of this Article II proscription with the benefits conferred by the ‘settlement’ is a glaring omission that speaks to the control of the Lead Plaintiff,” Williams wrote.

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve raised interest rates Wednesday for the first time in three years as inflation continues to dog the economy, largely driven by soaring gas and fuel oil prices while the war in Iran drags on.

The central bank’s Federal Open Market Committee voted 12-0 to increase its benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point, reaching the new range from 3.75% to 4% and making the cost of borrowing more expensive for Americans.

The committee released an upbeat statement touting economic growth at “a solid pace.”

“While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient. Productivity growth is strong, and capital investment is robust. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little,” according to the statement released Wednesday afternoon.

“Inflation remains elevated. Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal. The Committee will deliver price stability,” the statement continued.

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh, four months into his tenure, described Wednesday’s unanimous decision to raise rates as “sober.”

“The plain fact is that inflation is too high, and has been for too long,” Warsh said during a press conference following the Fed’s meeting.

“This summer’s inflation readings do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved. … Too many categories are still posting increases above 3 percent on both a six and 12-month basis,” Warsh said.

Trump campaign for lower rates

President Donald Trump publicly pressured and name-called Warsh’s predecessor Jerome Powell for months for not lowering interest rates. 

The public attacks escalated into a federal probe of Powell and the Fed for costly renovations at the Fed’s headquarters in Washington. The administration eventually dropped the investigation.

Trump criticized the rate increase on his Truth Social platform Wednesday afternoon, saying the U.S. rates “should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World — BY FAR.”

“Our Country is BOOMING with new Investment! If we stopped Trading with every country that we have a Deficit with, which is most of them, we would make, at least, 1.5 Trillion Dollars a year. The word “Deficit” is nothing more than a fancy word for LOSS. We are “carrying” almost every country in the World, and that cannot go on any longer. LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!,” he wrote.

Warsh declined to answer questions from reporters about Trump’s previous calls for lower interest rates.

“Part of the independence of the Federal Reserve is we stay in our lane,” Warsh said.

The interest hike comes less than a week after the government’s latest consumer price index revealed the cost of food, energy, housing and other goods and services rose 0.4% from July to August. The cost of all items over the past year has risen 3.4%.

Rep. Jason Smith, the Republican chair of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, criticized the decision, saying in a statement that “interest rates should be coming down, not going up.”

The Missouri Republican praised the Trump-led “big beautiful bill” tax law passed last summer for delivering “larger paychecks” to Americans, and he blamed former President Joe Biden for past higher inflation.

“After years of elevated borrowing costs, a rate increase is the opposite of the relief families and small businesses need. As President Trump works to restore stability in the Middle East and bring down energy prices, the Fed should recognize the progress,” Smith said in a written statement Wednesday afternoon. 

Soaring gas prices

Spiking energy prices caused by the war in Iran were the main driver behind higher costs. Gasoline alone rose 3.9% over the month of August. 

As of Wednesday, Americans were paying an average of nearly $4.37 a gallon at the pump, according to AAA. Diesel prices reached a record high of $6.31.

The price of a barrel of oil surged above $100 in recent days, including Wednesday afternoon, when it reached $105, as fighting flared in the Middle East. 

The United States and Iran continue launching rockets in the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum traveled prior to the war. U.S. Central Command claimed Sept. 8 that it “destroyed” five Iranian crude oil carriers as part of its naval blockade aimed at damaging Iran’s economy.

The conflict spilled over in July into another key waterway for Saudi Arabian oil exports. Iran-backed Houthi rebels restarted an assault on commercial vessels in the Red Sea for the first time since 2024, and are fighting for control of the Bab al-Mandab strait. The group also directly struck targets in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, beginning in July, and is threatening more strikes, according to Houthi spokesman Yahya Saree. The United Nations Security Council is warning of the likelihood of a humanitarian crisis. 

When asked by a reporter at Wednesday’s press conference how incremental rate hikes will help when geopolitical events do not show signs of improvement, Warsh said the Fed “cannot affect any individual price, whether it be oil prices, whether it be foodstuffs at the grocery store.”

“But what we can do and will do is ensure that any change in relative prices don’t broaden out, don’t have second and third order effects on the economy. That’s what we’re tasked to do, and that’s what we will do,” Warsh said.

WASHINGTON — As the November midterms approach, vulnerable U.S. House Republicans voted late Tuesday to require congressional approval for President Donald Trump to continue his war in Iran.

Seven Republicans broke ranks and joined all Democrats to pass a War Powers Resolution sponsored by Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat. Tuesday’s vote marked the third time since June that the House passed a measure to curb Trump’s military powers in Iran. The war has dragged on for over half a year.

The vote came as diesel prices reached a record high of $6.31 per gallon in the United States, and gas hovered at an average of nearly $4.37 a gallon Wednesday, according to AAA. 

Global oil markets have been rocked since Iranian officials effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, a major petroleum trade route. The conflict has since expanded, and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are slowing traffic through another major trade passage, the Bab-al Mandab Strait.

The resolution passed, 220-204, despite Republicans’ narrow majority in the chamber. GOP House members who voted for the Iran War Powers Resolution for the first time included Zach Nunn and Marianette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, and Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

Nunn and Miller-Meeks both face tough reelection bids in Iowa. The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates both races as “toss-ups.”

Mace lost her South Carolina gubernatorial primary bid in June and is not seeking reelection to the House.

‘Open-ended war’

Nunn posted on social media Tuesday that, as a U.S. Air Force veteran who flew missions in the Middle East, he could not support “another open-ended war,” though he still believes the Islamic Republic “must be held accountable for killing Americans, supporting terrorism, threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and pursuing nuclear weapons.” 

Presidents have a 60-day period to pursue military action with congressional approval, but that window has passed, he added.

“Iowa has already paid a devastating price, including two service members killed by an Iranian drone in Kuwait,” Nunn wrote on X late Tuesday night. “Congress owes them, their families, and every American in uniform clear objectives and constitutional oversight. … We can defend Americans, pressure Iran, and pursue peace while ensuring Congress fulfills its constitutional responsibility.” 

Miller-Meeks posted Wednesday morning that with her 24 years served in the Army, she remains skeptical of Trump’s actions in Iran. 

“I said it in March: the mission had to stay focused and limited, because Americans do not want another forever war. I will not vote to keep our soldiers in an open-ended war, with Iowans paying too much at the pump,” Miller-Meeks wrote on X.

“The Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions have been defanged,” she continued. “The President needs to present a plan to Congress and the American people for how this ends so we can focus on bringing our soldiers home and lowering prices.”

Third House vote

Nunn, Miller-Meeks and Mace joined House Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who have now each voted three times to rein in Trump’s actions in the Iran conflict. Massie voted yes an additional time in April, but the measure failed to pass the House then.

Massie on Tuesday introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for his handling of the war in Iran.

The Trump administration maintains War Powers Resolutions are unconstitutional and has dismissed the measures passed in both chambers. Similar War Powers Resolutions to stop Trump’s hostilities in Iran cleared procedural votes in the Senate in May and June. The Senate has voted on such measures 13 times.

Congress overrode a veto from President Richard Nixon to enact the War Powers Resolution statute, at the time aimed at reining in Nixon’s actions in Vietnam.

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel sidestepped questions about FBI agents at polling places in the midterm elections at a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday that also featured a tense exchange between GOP Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey.

With the November midterm elections fast approaching and the parties jockeying for control of Congress, several Democratic senators wanted assurance from Patel, under oath, that the FBI would not send agents into polling places.

“Do you pledge that you will not, in any way, interfere in the will of the American people when they go to the polls in November?” Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, asked.

“I pledge unequivocally that I will not participate in your charade of lies,” Patel told Welch.

Patel in addition faced questions during the five-hour hearing from members of the Judiciary Committee about recent changes to the agency’s hiring requirements, an ongoing probe into 2020 election ballots seized in Georgia, and how the FBI plans to handle crimes committed by AI agents. 

‘We have a lackey here’

A boiling point came when Booker spoke beyond his allotted time and name-called Patel a “thug” who “wouldn’t qualify” to be an FBI special agent. 

Booker accused Patel of not answering questions about whether the agency was improperly targeting journalists. The FBI subpoenaed multiple New York Times reporters in July after the outlet published accounts of security deficiencies on President Donald Trump’s new Qatari-donated jet now used as Air Force One. The DOJ dropped the subpoenas later that month after a federal judge pressured the agency.

“My concluding remark is we don’t have an FBI director. We have a lackey here who is using government, and frankly, he’s not even a good lackey. He’s an incompetent lackey. He’s like an 18-year-old kid who wants to join a fraternity that he could never be a member of, doing keg stands and chugging with friends,” Booker said, before continuing the exchange for roughly four minutes more.

“Are you ready to shut up?” Grassley, of Iowa, asked Booker with a raised voice.

 

 

Patel brushed off Grassley’s offer during the exchange to respond to Booker.

“I don’t have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It’s kind of ironic. He’s running for president of the United States. He just got his 20-second ad campaign,” Patel said. “Next.”

Booker told NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” in March that he’s “definitely not ruling out” a presidential run in 2028.

Grassley thanked Patel for “putting up with what you had to put up with.”

“And I’m sorry I couldn’t control some of them more than I already did,” he said.

Democratic probes promised

Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, warned a Democratic-led Congress would investigate the FBI’s actions under Patel’s leadership. 

That includes the alleged firing of agents who worked on investigations of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack and President Donald Trump’s alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago following his first term.

“The FBI is being sued for wrongful termination. I will remind you, director, because you probably need reminding, that while this Congress is not going to investigate the wrongful termination of potentially hundreds of agents for working on properly predicated investigations, the next Congress will,” Schiff said.

The panel’s Republicans praised Patel for his record at the agency.

Patel said his agency “has made America safer than it’s ever been.”

“Across six America 250 events and this year’s World Cup alone, we welcomed over 12 million visitors to the United States to attend these events. Not one single incident occurred at any single one of these events,” he said during his opening remarks.

Bizarre exchange over FBI hiring

One topic that drew scrutiny from both sides of the aisle was a recent reported change at the FBI that lifted previous disqualifying behavior for special agent recruits, including theft from employers, prostitution and bestiality.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said he understands “the game” of Democrats broaching the subject of bestiality to “make you look bad,” but said he was also “trying to get to the bottom of this.”

In a bizarre and unexpected exchange for a Senate hearing, Kennedy asked hypothetically, “If ‘Joe’ participated in bestiality, not as the animal, but as the human, don’t you think he ought to be disqualified?” 

“If he voluntarily did it, sure,” Patel said.

Kennedy interrupted, “Okay, how do you involuntarily do that?”

Patel said some people are trafficked and forced into “degrading acts of all kind,” but later want to join the FBI.

“But you’re not telling us today that if a human being (voluntarily) had sex with an animal that they can still be an FBI agent?” Kennedy asked.

“No,” Patel responded.

“In fact, they ought to be in jail, right?” Kennedy shot back.

“They all are,” Patel said.

“Yea, well, okay,” Kennedy said.

FBI at polling locations

On the topic of an FBI presence at the polls on Nov. 3, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Patel he was “dissatisfied that you are unable to give us an unequivocal, clear, unambiguous commitment that the FBI will be kept out of election interference.”

“You are involved in seven voter-related subpoenas issued to the Nevada Secretary of State’s office, you were involved in seizure of election records from Fulton County, Georgia. Clearly, the FBI has been involved in possible election interference,” Blumenthal said.

FBI agents seized 2020 presidential election ballots in Fulton County in January.

The Trump administration served voter-related subpoenas earlier this month in Nevada.

Welch told Patel he’s concerned about what he’s “willing to do for the president in this year’s midterm elections that the president is already saying are going to be rigged if he loses.”

Moments later Welch asked, “Last month, Congressman and Michigan gubernatorial candidate John James said to podcaster Benny Johnson, quote, ‘I’ve already had a good conversation with my friend Kash Patel, who has said already that the FBI will have a presence leading up to Election Day in Michigan, in both West Michigan and Southeast Michigan.’ Is that true?”

“We have an election crimes community coordinator in all 56 field offices, so you bet we’re going to have them there and manning the posts for election interference,” Patel said.

The exchange continued for several minutes, growing more contentious, as Welch pressed for an answer and Patel said he would not take part in a “charade of lies.”

“Then why are you being such a panderer to President Trump, who’s still claiming that he won the 2020 election, and who has said the only way Democrats can win in 2026 is if they cheat. Do you believe that?” Welch replied.

“I believe in the rule of law. … I want to know how your wealth increased 4,000% since you became a United States senator?” Patel shot back.

“Let’s knock it off,” Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, chimed in after taking over the hearing for Grassley.

AI hacking

Sen. Josh Hawley, who has shown skepticism of the skyrocketing growth of artificial intelligence, used part of his time to ask how the FBI will handle illegal hacking incidents by AI agents.

Several incidents this summer involved AI agents hacking into other systems, including OpenAI agents that broke into tech company Hugging Face, without explicit instructions to do so.

The recent explosive development of AI has dominated headlines and conversations on Capitol Hill in recent days after top tech executives warned development was moving too quickly to adhere to safety guardrails. Congress has yet to pass overarching AI regulations.

“What’s the role here for the bureau? How, how do you wrap your head around these kind of crimes?” asked Hawley, a Missouri Republican.

“This is a great question. It’s literally the new frontier, and nobody’s really talking about it, so thank you. So a couple things: The president has issued his AI directive on what the government can and can’t use, and that’s the right first step because you don’t want 77 different large language models,” Patel said.

The FBI, he said, has reviewed 140 “test case models” to measure their capabilities and “make sure they are cooperating and following underlying federal statutes.”

“What we need to do on a resource basis is go after the people that created these models that are going rogue,” Patel said.

Powerful U.S. officials past and present faced families, survivors and first responders Friday at ceremonies to honor the 25th anniversary of the day 2,977 Americans died in terrorist attacks in Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania.

At the Pentagon, Condoleezza Rice, who was serving at the time under President George W. Bush as national security advisor, told the crowd she wanted to share something “deeply personal.”

“Those of us in authority on that day did not see the nature of the danger in time to prevent the attack of 9/11. We did what we knew to do, but by definition, it was not enough. … I will always carry deep personal remorse for the pain that you, the families of the fallen, still feel, and for the trauma that our country endured,” she said.

Speakers at all three Sept. 11 milestone anniversary events recounted stories of courage and loss as people found themselves in an unimaginable circumstance. 

Some also flared with frustration at what they say is a lack of justice for those who planned the attacks.

President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, speaking at the memorial service for the 184 people who died when the hijacked United Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, highlighted the anniversary as a justification for their stagnant war with Iran. 

That nearly seven-month-old conflict has killed 18 U.S. service members, injured over 700 more and taken the lives of thousands of civilians across the Middle East.

“We will never, ever forget. That’s why we fight today. We don’t have a choice,” Trump said. “There can only be victory. We fight hard. We fight to win. We will always remember the victims and the families of September 11, 2001, very famous date, unfortunately.”

Hegseth told the crowd, which was only open to victims’ families, survivors and their families, that Americans were “ignorant of the Islamist threat” 25 years ago.

“Every day, enemies plot to curb our power and kill our citizens, including from Islamic terrorists abroad and at home, but we are ever vigilant,” he said, adding that the U.S. has killed Iran’s leaders and put their Navy “at the bottom of the sea.”

The deeply unpopular war has continued, despite early promises from Hegseth and Trump that it would not morph into the prolonged Middle East conflicts that followed the Sept. 11 attacks.

‘No justice’

At the site in Lower Manhattan where the World Trade Center’s twin towers once stood, families read names of the 2,753 victims who died inside the towers, on the ground and on the two hijacked airliners, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.

Terry Strada, widow of the late Tom Strada, who died in the north tower, slammed recent presidential administrations of both parties for not holding Saudi Arabia accountable for allegations that the kingdom’s officials knew about the attacks.

“My husband Tom Strada, you are missed more with each year that passes. But how can it be 25 years and still we have no justice for the role that Saudi Arabia played in your murder?” she said to loud cheers from the crowd.

“For 25 years, administration after administration, including leaders in front of us here today, chose to protect the Saudis instead of standing with the 9/11 families,” she said. 

 

“President Trump can still change that. Tell the Saudis to stop lying. Tell them that if they want to be friends with the USA, they cannot continue to deny all of this, all of the pain, all of the destruction that we have all been suffering through. Vice President Vance, thank you for being here today. Please carry that message back,” she said, again receiving loud cheers.

Vice President JD Vance sat in a front row at the ceremony alongside former presidents Bush, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. 

Former first ladies Michelle Obama, Jill Biden and Hillary Clinton, also a former secretary of state, were seated in the row, as was former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Neither the Embassy of Saudi Arabia nor the White House immediately responded to States Newsroom’s requests for a response.

Painful memories

Families at the site in Lower Manhattan shared memories seared in their minds.

Bob Lee, 67, was a firefighter in the Bronx that day. He remembers how many first responders had to gather together to clean up the dust and debris that had settled around the city.

“When you see the people that were down here, everybody’s eyes was … full of soot and dust, and their eyes were glowing like bright red because all the stuff that was in their eyes,” Lee said. “It was just a crazy scene.”

Lee moved to Kansas City, Missouri, shortly after 9/11. He was 42 at the time and realized he had been exposed to a lot of toxic air.

“I told them I was retiring,” Lee said recalling that he knew a lot of his colleagues would get sick. He was a union representative for his unit in the Bronx. 

“I lost hundreds of those guys. You know, it’s crazy … Quite a few friends have died of cancer.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani this week announced that his office had released around 170,000 pages of records that had been closed off over the last 25 years on the level of toxic air pollution people were exposed to in the aftermath of 9/11.

The records suggest that New Yorkers were misled about the air quality and that officials downplayed how dangerous it was to breathe the air. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, close to 50,000 people, including first responders and survivors, developed cancer in relation to the event. 

Christopher Santora, then 23, was a firefighter who responded to the attacks and was enveloped in debris as the towers fell. He lost his life trying to save people that day. His cousin Jason Roettger, 56, was chosen to read the names of people who had died during 9/11 at Friday’s ceremony.

Roettger said it was an honor to be a part of the event and to represent his cousin. He said he’s glad the air quality records were released.

“I think everyone that was here in the city, or even in New Jersey, everyone in this area knew the air wasn’t good,” Roettger said. “Even though the government said ‘No, the air is fine.’ I think everyone knew that that was a lie.”

Wanda Hernandez, 72, lost her daughter Monique de Jesus, who was 28 at the time. She was working at the World Trade Center. 

Hernandez said Friday she was focusing on all the beautiful moments she had with her daughter before that day.

“We went on vacation for my birthday before it happened, like a month before. Yeah. Yeah, we had a good time, you know, and we went to a wedding like a week before it happened,” Hernandez said. “Two weeks, so that was nice. Had a good time. I was a good mother. She was a good daughter.”

‘A vast empty space in the side of the Pentagon’

Over a 13-minute speech Friday morning at the Pentagon, Rice, who also served as secretary of state later in the Bush administration, painted a picture of administration officials caught completely off guard by the attacks, orchestrated by the well-known anti-American extremist terror network al-Qaeda.

“I was at my desk at the White House that day when my executive assistant, a young Army officer, told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. ‘What a strange accident,’ I thought,” Rice said.

“I called President Bush, who was reading to children at an education event in Florida. He too thought that it must have just been an accident. But within 17 minutes, a second plane hit the World Trade Center,” she continued.

What followed, according to Rice, was a whirlwind as officials rushed to secure locations — Bush to Air Force One, Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney to a White House bunker and CIA Director George Tenet to an undisclosed location. 

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Peru “and trying to get home.” Those in the White House “Situation Room,” Rice recalled, just heard the “ringing and ringing and ringing” of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s phone at the Pentagon, where he had been hosting a congressional breakfast. 

The late Rumsfeld would end up outside assisting in rescue efforts “as his security detail begged him to flee,” she said.

“I remember turning to a television screen, and the horror and the shock that I felt. There was a smoking crater, a vast empty space, in the side of the Pentagon.”

Fight with hijackers

A morning observance program was also held at the Flight 93 National Memorial near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to mark 25 years since 40 passengers and crew members died when the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a rural field. 

Families read aloud the names of the victims during the ceremony.

Members of Flight 93 fought with hijackers over Western Pennsylvania and forced the flight to crash, which prevented the hijacked aircraft from hitting the intended destination of the U.S. Capitol.

Others expected to speak Friday afternoon included Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

Gordon Felt, brother of Edward Porter Felt, one of the 40 people who died on Flight 93, was set to speak, along with retired United Airlines Capt. Morrie Wiener, who piloted Flight 93 prior to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and Jessica Bowron, acting director of the National Park Service.

Mullin ties mass deportation to Sept. 11

Outside of the Department of Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin used the anniversary to promote the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, and said that lack of cooperation from so-called sanctuary cities is what could lead to another 9/11.

“It’s a safe haven that incubates terrorist activity and it doesn’t just stay local,” he said.

He specifically called out Democratic-led cities of Seattle, Boston and New York City.

“It shouldn’t be political,” he said. “When we start looking at the 25th anniversary, if there’s anything we should agree on, it should be that. Why should the Department of Homeland Security be controversial? We’re taking care of your backyard.”

Immigration enforcement agencies under the department have been roiled in scandal and carried out alleged illegal orders since Trump’s second term began. 

The events have included allowing deportation flights to take off against a judge’s order, erroneous deportations of individuals with legal protections, and the killing by immigration agents of two American citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, of Minneapolis. 

The latest scrutiny of the department comes after a $20 million no-bid contract was extended in Kentucky to outfit agents with electric shock gloves.

Courage and ‘selfless service’

Despite the lasting pain, speakers Friday noted that relatives of those killed in the attacks found ways to move forward and persevere.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine at the Pentagon said the milestone anniversary was not only about remembering those lost, but “it is also a story of great American courage, selfless service, and those who’ve made the choice to carry those memories forward.” 

“The courage of those extraordinary Americans in Pennsylvania, in New York, and right here on these hallowed grounds, did not end when the smoke cleared and the fires went out, because survivors and families have carried it forward through service, through sacrifice, and through remembrance,” Caine told the crowd.

WASHINGTON — A proposal by President Donald Trump to give $5,000 to each American adult if Republicans retain control of the U.S. House and Senate in November would “explode” the national deficit and worsen inflation, according to an analysis issued Thursday by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The committee, whose board includes economists, bankers and former elected and administration officials from both political parties, estimates Trump’s plan would cost roughly $1.2 trillion.

“This proposal is fiscally dangerous, economically backwards, and fundamentally unserious,” Maya MacGuineas, the committee’s president, said in a statement. “It’s hard to understand how anyone could look at our current fiscal and economic situation and think we need to borrow another $1.2 trillion to send everyone cash.”

Trump announced the “Trump dividend” Wednesday night during the latter half of a nearly two-hour keynote speech at the Republican National Committee’s first midterm convention.

Trump told attendees at the political gathering in Dallas, Texas, that his “only caveat” is that Americans spend the money in the United States. 

“We don’t want you going to Canada to spend the money,” he said during the livestreamed speech.

Ultimately, Congress would need to appropriate the funds.

Debt, deficits, inflation

MacGuineas pointed out in her statement that the nation’s debt “is now as large as our entire economy, deficits are running $2 trillion per year, inflation is about 3.5%, and the 10-year Treasury yield is approaching 5%.”

“This half-baked political scheme would make this all worse – exploding the deficit, ginning up inflation, and further driving up the cost of borrowing throughout the economy.”

The national debt sits at $40 trillion to date, which breaks down to $117,446 per taxpayer, according to a tracker by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Vice President JD Vance said on Fox News following Trump’s speech that the dividend would be funded by tariff revenue.

“What the president’s just saying is … if you keep us in power and allow us to continue to do these things, then you’re going to share in some of the benefit of this incredible wealth that we’re creating in the United States of America,” he said to Fox News host Bret Baier.

But the expected revenue generated by Trump’s executive tariffs would only cover one-tenth of the cost of sending $5,000 to each American adult, according to an analysis Thursday from the Tax Foundation.

The organization that identifies itself as pro-economic growth, and generally opposes tax increases, estimates Trump’s new tariffs will bring in roughly $124.9 billion in 2027.

“A deficit-financed dividend payment of this scale would signal to markets that the US is not serious about getting its fiscal house in order. It would risk further rises in interest rates, add to inflationary pressures, and worsen the very problems that are trying to be ‘solved’ by the proposal,” said Erica York, a senior economist with the Tax Foundation, in a written statement. The organization opposes Trump’s tariff policies.

Tariff promises

This is not Trump’s first time promising to send what he describes as dividends to Americans — though none of the payments materialized.

The president said in November 2025 he would send $2,000 to Americans from tariff revenue that he falsely said would reach “trillions” of dollars. 

Trump’s emergency tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court in February, and the government is in the process of refunding nearly $170 billion in illegal import taxes. 

Trump and then-special government employee and billionaire Elon Musk said in March 2025 they would send $5,000 refund checks to Americans as a result of savings created by the project titled the Department of Government Oversight. The ultrawealthy tech mogul went public with his plan without consultation from Congress, which controls the nation’s proverbial purse strings.

In spring of 2020, Trump’s name appeared on $1,200 stimulus checks for individuals, $2,400 for married couples, sent out as part of a $2.2 trillion initial COVID-19 relief package approved by Congress.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump headlined the first night of the first Republican midterm convention Wednesday, seeking to rally his base ahead of the November elections and dangling a “Trump dividend” to voters if his party retains control of both congressional chambers.

While the Republican National Committee’s two-day event — dubbed a “Trump-a-palooza” by party Chair Joe Gruters — aimed to bolster support for major candidates, some vulnerable Republicans were notably absent.

Still, speaker after speaker, including Republican lawmakers, Cabinet members and people billed by the RNC as “everyday Americans,” filled five hours before Trump took the stage and promised, “Vote Republican and we will leave the world in our dust for generations to come.”

“There’ll be nothing like it,” Trump said during a nearly two-hour keynote address in which he touted the “greatest two years in the history of the presidency.”

The event at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, which did not include voting delegates, is the first major-party midterm convention since Democrats’ convention in 1982. Democrats also held convention-like conferences following the 1974 and 1978 elections.

The GOP convention comes amid sagging poll numbers for Trump as his war with Iran drags on and voters worry about inflation driven by increasing energy costs and tariffs.

Financial incentive

Trump acknowledged political challenges without attributing them to the unpopular parts of his agenda.

“For some reason, when a president wins, even if he’s really a good president or a great president — there aren’t too many of them — they don’t win the midterms, and nobody quite knows why,” he said. “We’ve got to change that because we have something going that’s so good we can’t let that string be broken. So I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot.”

Trump said if Republicans retain control of both the House and Senate, he would pay out $5,000 “to every adult.”

“The only caveat I have is that the dividend that we’re making must be spent in the United States of America. We don’t want you going to Canada to spend the money,” he said.

This is not the first time Trump has promised to send checks. The president said in November 2025 he would send $2,000 to Americans from tariff revenue that he falsely said would reach “trillions” of dollars. 

Those payments never materialized and Trump’s emergency tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court. The government is now on the hook for refunding American businesses that paid the import taxes.

Trump announced he’ll be campaigning for nearly three dozen Republican candidates in competitive races over the next 55 days.

“We can win every one of those races, but I’m going to go to every one of those states for congressmen and for senators,” he said.

Collins, Sullivan absent

In perhaps the night’s most surprising turn, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman made an appearance in a video praising fellow Pennsylvania Sen. Dave McCormick, a Republican, and vowing to work with Trump to shore up the steel industry. 

But two of those most vulnerable Republican senators were missing from the more than three dozen speakers Wednesday night.

Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, both locked in tough reelection bids, reportedly declined to attend. Neither Collins’ nor Sullivan’s campaigns or Senate offices replied to States Newsroom’s requests for comment.

Sullivan’s campaign posted several images and videos of the senator in Alaska Wednesday.

Collins posted a message of support for the New England Patriots on her X feed as the RNC event was in full swing. The made-for-TV political gathering aired the same night as the NFL’s season kick-off between the Patriots and Seattle Seahawks.

An analysis by CNBC on Wednesday found fewer than half of Republican candidates in the most competitive congressional districts were slated for speaking roles during the two-day event. 

Crowd boos Thune

But many Trump allies running for reelection spoke, and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, sat in a row with Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet members.

Attendees cheered when Trump said Johnson “will go down as the greatest speaker of the House in the history of our country.”

But a chorus of “boos” erupted when the president asked where Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota was in the crowd.

“No, no,” Trump responded to the booing. “John is working hard. He’s got great opposition.” 

Thune and Trump have been at odds about the Senate taking up a strict election bill that would require voters to provide a birth certificate or passport to register to vote, among other provisions.

Unlike other Republican leaders from both chambers, Thune was not scheduled to speak at the convention.

An individual close to Thune told States Newsroom the majority leader is in Dallas and wanted to give other Republicans an opportunity to speak.

‘We’re so glad you’re here’

Several Trump allies, even those facing tight or toss-up races, spoke in praise of the president while stumping for their own candidacies.

Former RNC Chair Michael Whatley, running for an open Senate seat in North Carolina, and Sen. John Husted, fighting to keep his seat in a special Ohio election, praised Trump for passing tax cuts. 

The North Carolina seat is rated “lean Democrat,” by the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, and the Ohio seat rated a “toss up.”

While both Whatley and Husted mentioned their opponents and former President Joe Biden more times than they did Trump, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, did not shy away from lauding the president.

“We’re so glad you’re here,” said Paxton, who unseated longtime Sen. John Cornyn in a Republican primary after receiving Trump’s endorsement.

“The press, the courts, and the establishment all tried to take President Trump down, but he’s won every single time. He’s delivered more for this country than anyone before, secured victories for America that no other president could, and always stood up for Texas,” Paxton said.

Attendees waved “Keep the Majority” signs and chanted “USA” while House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., railed against Democrats, and said “We will not let the Marxists, communists and anarchists destroy it.”

“This historic midterm convention is rallying Republicans at the perfect time because so much is on the line this November,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican.

‘A party for Donald Trump’

Democrats panned the event as an expensive celebration for the president.

“While Republicans spend millions of dollars throwing a party for Donald Trump, Democrats are spending our time and resources doing the work that wins elections: Talking to voters, registering new ones, organizing communities, and fighting for every vote,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in a statement Wednesday.

“The difference is stark,” he continued. “As Republican candidates worship an unpopular president, Democrats are going on offense and staying focused on lowering costs, making life more affordable, and delivering for working families.”

WASHINGTON — Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on American goods kicked in Tuesday, escalating a trade war with one of the largest U.S. trading partners that President Donald Trump continued to antagonize over the holiday weekend.

Trump posted an AI-generated cartoon image of himself Sunday evening in which he is depicted as a hockey player striking Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who is shown down on the ice, with a hockey stick. 

“Get up, governor,” a speech bubble from Trump’s mouth reads, apparently referring to Canada as a U.S. state rather than a sovereign country. 

Nearly $28 billion in U.S. exports crossing the border to Canada now carry up to 50% tariffs, a dollar-for-dollar match on Trump’s taxes on Canadian goods imposed last month, according to Canadian officials. 

Among the 629 categories of products Canada has targeted are key outputs from U.S. states with hotly contested races in the fast-approaching November midterm elections, including Maine’s paper and lumber industry, Michigan’s vehicle manufacturing and Wisconsin dairy production.

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who’s in the midst of a tough reelection campaign, warned in late August roughly $170 million of her state’s goods will be impacted by the Canadian tariffs, with more than half of that coming from the forest product sector. Canada revised its tariff proposal Aug. 27 to exclude seafood, including Maine’s significant lobster industry. 

5% of goods in question

The United States and Canada’s dueling tariffs represent roughly 5% of the two countries’ massive and intertwined trading partnership, which totaled $879.9 billion in goods in 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

But the escalation has been accompanied by Trump’s near constant trolling of the U.S. northern neighbor, including threats since his days on the 2024 campaign trail to annex Canada as the 51st state. 

Over the Labor Day weekend, the president declared on his Truth Social platform “NO MORE SELLING BOMBARDIER IN THE UNITED STATES!”

“If they want our Market, they must build here, and stop treating America like a ‘piggybank.’ BUY AMERICAN. FLY ON AMERICAN AIRLINERS. ENJOY AMERICAN LIQUOR AND BEVERAGES. SAIL ON LAKE AMERICA. AMERICA FIRST!” Trump wrote, referencing his executive order Aug. 27 renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America.

The Canadian aircraft maker Bombardier has multiple manufacturing partners and facilities in the United States, including in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Kansas and New Jersey, according to the company.

“Bombardier aircraft create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs through the company’s growing American footprint as well as within its supply chain made up of approximately 2,800 American companies across 47 states,” according to a Bombadier statement issued Monday. 

“The company spends over $2.5 Billion with suppliers each year. This deeply integrated network and incredible growth stem from the company’s heritage in the business jet industry, dating back to the innovations of Learjet in Wichita, Kansas, and the first business jets to enter service,” the statement continued.

U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran said in a post on X Monday evening that he contacted Trump “to make certain the President is aware of the significant contributions of Bombardier to Kansas and the importance of its presence in Wichita to many Kansas workers at Bombardier and in the Bombardier supply chain.”

The company supports roughly 1,000 jobs in the state, according to the Kansas Republican.

Executive orders

Trade talks between the U.S. and Canada collapsed Aug. 21. In days prior Trump had said he would delay new tariffs on Canadian goods while negotiations continued. 

Trump signed three executive orders for new tariffs on Canada in late July using a Depression-era law that has never been enforced. 

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 authorizes the president to impose duties up to 50% of a product’s value in response to discrimination against U.S. commerce. 

WASHINGTON — As public opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court flags amid decisions that have roiled the nation, Democrats renewed calls ahead of the midterms to expand the high court, while House Republicans attempted but failed to pass a constitutional amendment this week that proposes to cap the number at nine.

Just Monday, the court gave the green light to President Donald Trump’s ballroom expansion and is expected to issue a major ruling soon on Trump’s vote-by-mail order that could throw the midterm elections into chaos. 

The House voted 212-206 Wednesday on a constitutional amendment to codify the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. A two-thirds majority was needed.

One Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, supported the Republican-led resolution.

Over the weekend, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said, “I think that we are in a position now that calls from some significant actions taken by the Congress.

“And we ought to expand — and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court,” the 17-term House Democrat said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.”

Clyburn said conservatives on the court, specifically naming Justice Clarence Thomas, have decided to “take the country back” in time.

In late April, the Supreme Court’s conservative super majority struck down a protection in the Voting Rights Act that assured the vote of majority Black congressional districts could not be diluted.

In June, the court upheld the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship, but the decision was not unanimous. Four justices dissented, arguing that there are some exceptions for certain babies born to immigrants on U.S. soil, depending on their parents’ immigration status.

Clyburn is not the only Democrat to call for court expansion. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, also advocated for a 13-justice high court during July 31 comments at the National Urban League meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.

Other high-profile Democrats have said in recent weeks and months they want to see change at the Supreme Court, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

As for public opinion, Pew Research found that just over half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court, according to survey results published July 30, a near historic low.

A Gallup poll published July 28 found confidence in the Supreme Court at a record low of 33%.

Constitutional amendment

While many Democrats’ answer to the dissatisfaction is to add more justices, the House Republican resolution proposed a constitutional amendment that would codify the number of justices at nine.

The resolution would also have to pass the Senate to begin the seven-year clock for three-fifths of states, or 38, to ratify it.

House Speaker Mike Johnson at a Tuesday press conference accused the Democratic Socialists of America, whom he referred to as the “communist socialists in the Democrat party who are taking the party over,” of wanting “to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“We’re gonna make sure that doesn’t happen,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democratic Socialists of America, just a few. They’re gonna get a chance to show us tomorrow. … Nine justices has worked well.”

Johnson added expanding the court risks turning into “a political palooza.”

His office did not respond to a States Newsroom request for comment on whether he believes the resolution would succeed or if leadership has put the bill on the floor calendar to send a message ahead of the November midterm elections in which control of the House is at stake.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the resolution in January 2025. The resolution was referred to the House calendar on July 6 of this year. Biggs won the GOP primary for Arizona governor in July.

Biggs argued in early June that his resolution would protect the court from people “threatening to pack this iconic American institution to ensure favorable outcomes for their causes.”

“This action will protect the Court’s legitimacy, preserve the checks and balances that safeguard our cherished freedoms, and ensure every American’s rights remain secure – no matter who holds political power,” he said in a statement after the House Committee on the Judiciary advanced the legislation. 

Rep. Derrick Schmidt, R-Kansas, signed on as a cosponsor in early June, and Rep. Rick Allen, R-Ga., on July 16. Both men are in solidly Republican districts, according to the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

‘Magical thinking’

Not all think that expanding the Supreme Court or restricting its size to nine justices will fix what many see as serious flaws.

Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit Fix the Court, said both ideas are “pretty cynical positions.”

“I think it just is part of this magical thinking that all of a sudden we’re going to have 13 justices and everything is going to be okay in the federal judiciary. That voting rights will come back, abortion rights will come back, and that’s not how cases reach the court,” said Roth, whose organization advocates for “non-ideological fixes.”

On the “keep nine” side, Roth said there’s a belief that the court now has a “perfect construct.”

“It’s not,” he said, adding “I don’t see why keep nine is a good idea other than to try to rile up the base.”

Instead Roth wants to see term limits gradually phased in over time.

“Every democracy that’s younger than ours has term limits or age limits for their apex court justices. Forty-nine out of 50 states have term limits, age limits, or retention elections for their apex courts,” he told States Newsroom in an interview Tuesday.

The Supreme Court lacks term limits “because King George was firing colonial judges, and so some monarch’s mental decrepitude shouldn’t be a reason for maintaining something 250 years later,” Roth said, referring to Great Britain’s King George III at-will firing of judges in the colonies.

Founders of the United States wrote into the Constitution several guardrails against influencing the court, including giving judges lifetime appointments, according to the American Bar Association.

Roth supports legislation introduced last year by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would limit a justice’s Supreme Court service to 18 years, and would give each president a chance to nominate one justice during their first and third years in office.

That means the number of justices could fluctuate at times, depending on retirements or deaths.

“It’s basically like you add a new justice every two years, and you know, if there are 10 or 11 justices for 10 or 15 years, so be it,” he said.

Democrats “came to the number four because that would give Democrats a 7-6 majority. It’s not like they’re pulling four out of thin air,” he said, referring to advocates who want 13 justices.

The system would be “fair” and “regularized,” Roth added.

“​​So we don’t have a system where Trump gets three (nominations) in one term, and then Jimmy Carter got zero in his one term.”

Eight cosponsors, all Democrats, joined Khanna’s legislation. They include Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, Sean Casten, D-Ill., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., Juan Vargas, D-Calif., Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz.

Both Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have sponsored other legislation to create term limits for Supreme Court justices.

Johnson’s bill, first introduced in 2023, has 86 Democratic cosponsors. 

Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., joined Whitehouse to reintroduce their term limits bill in July. 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump does not have to follow a lower court order to stop aboveground construction on his $400 million East Wing ballroom, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-4 decision, all but guaranteeing work on the new complex will continue to accelerate.

In an opinion from the conservative super-majority, the justices wrote that historic preservationists who sued to stop the project likely do not have standing and that the administration would be irreparably harmed by halting the construction.

National security officials, including several Cabinet members, the majority justices wrote, issued statements in the case “attesting to national security and other harms that would likely arise from enjoining a ‘single, coherent’ project that cannot be readily cleaved into distinct below- and above-ground pieces.”

“The Secretary of the Army, for example, represents that ‘[t]he height and mass’ of the planned above-ground ballroom are ‘crucial’ to shield the planned underground military installation ‘from kinetic impacts,’ and that, without such height and mass, ‘engineers would need to dig impractically deep,’” according to the unsigned opinion.

The justices wrote the stay is in effect pending a “timely” petition from the Trump administration to ask the high court to take the case this upcoming term, also known as granting a writ of certiorari. Monday’s opinion came from what’s known as the emergency docket, which provides expedited decisions without full oral arguments.

“Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court,” the justices wrote.

Trump triumphant

Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social that he’s “pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”

Trump added he expects the “magnificent” project to be completed by the summer of 2028 and that it is “totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer.”

The administration has maintained in court filings that the East Wing project is paid for by private donations.

Trump continued: “The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said in a statement the organization is “deeply disappointed” and disagrees with the ruling.

“It is noteworthy that the majority did not weigh in on whether the ballroom project was in fact legal.

We are pleased with Chief Justice Robert’s strong dissent, which reiterated what we have maintained from the start of our case—that construction of the White House ballroom is unlawful,” said Leggs, who leads the private nonprofit that was chartered by Congress in 1949 to encourage the protection of historic sites.

“In addition, this is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument—that each President is a temporary steward of the People’s House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress.”

Leggs said the Trust expects the administration to file a writ of certiorari, and they urge the justices to “expeditiously” consider it.

Roberts disagrees

In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the construction is “likely unlawful” because Congress did not approve the changes to the White House grounds, which sit on federal park land.

“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote in the dissenting opinion.

The administration filed to the court’s emergency docket Aug. 13 asking the justices to block the lower court’s order, after a panel of federal appeals judges upheld it in a split decision a week prior.

Roberts granted a weeklong temporary stay on the lower court’s order while the justices took more time to consider the arguments.

The Trump administration maintained the planned 90,000-square-foot facility slated for where the White House East Wing used to stand will reach deep underground and will seat approximately 1,000 guests in an aboveground ballroom that is vital to national security. Trump demolished the East Wing in October 2025.

Officials told the Supreme Court justices in their stay application that as of mid-August, the project was already 65% complete, with a concrete-and-steel “superstructure” reaching five stories underground and 70 feet high, occupying nearly 50,000 square feet. 

Over the past four months, workers on a 250-person crew had been operating 20 hours a day, seven days a week, “to keep the Project ahead of schedule and under budget,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, adding that $200 million has been spent or committed to date, and has been “shouldered by private donations.”

WASHINGTON — Just over two months from midterm elections and four months removed from a U.S. Supreme Court decision that gutted Voting Rights Act protections for majority Black U.S. House districts, and 63 years after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech there, thousands gathered again at the Lincoln Memorial Friday.

Organizers focused the anniversary march around a “Defend the Vote” message. 

The event, co-chaired by civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton and King Jr.’s son Martin Luther King III and daughter-in-law Arndrea Waters King, featured appearances from union leaders, interfaith organizers, people whose parents attended the iconic 1963 march.

Elected leaders also spoke, including Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a possible 2028 presidential contender.

Demonstrators who traveled from across the country with various organizations marched from the Lincoln Memorial to the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial following a four-hour program of speeches.

From behind bullet proof glass, King Jr.’s granddaughter Yolanda Renee King, 18, told the crowd she never met her grandfather, or grandmother Coretta Scott King, but she is carrying their legacy forward.

“Sixty-three years ago, my grandfather told America, ‘I have a dream.’ Today, I want my generation to say something back — ‘We hear you,’” she said. “We know the dream was never finished, and we know you were never asking us to simply remember you. You were asking us to continue, so we will. We will pick up the baton.

Yolanda King highlighted Civil Rights Movement icons, including John Lewis, who later represented Georgia’s 5th Congressional District from 1987 until his death in 2020.

“This is a marathon, run as a relay,” she said. “That means nobody is expected to run the whole race. My grandfather did it. My grandmother did it. John Lewis did it. Fannie Lou Hamer did it. … The countless people whose names we will never know did it. They ran their leg.”

Lewis shared the stage with King Jr. speaking to roughly a quarter-million civil rights demonstrators at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom in 1963. Organizers also convened that demonstration to pressure President John F. Kennedy to develop robust civil rights legislation with Congress. 

At the time, Lewis was a leader with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.  

King III said his ancestors “woke up with courage and faith to speak truth to power and get into the kind of good trouble that the late John Lewis talked about, that helped to open doors for the marginalized across the country, regardless of race, age, agenda.” 

Callais decision

Several speakers criticized the U.S. Supreme Court’s late April decision in Louisiana v. Callais that overhauled Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that protected against diluting the voting power of minority citizens.

“The fact that we still have to fight to maintain and renew voting rights in this country is beyond abysmal and a truly national disgrace,” King III said.

Rep. Yvette Clark, D-N.Y., chair of the Congressional Black Caucus likened the ruling to “opening the door to a coordinated attack on the Black political power and fair representation across the South.”

“Since the Callais decision came down, Republicans across the country have wasted no time in their zealous pursuit for unbridled power,” Clark told the crowd, highlighting mid-decade voter map redistricting efforts and a bill, titled the SAVE America Act, that is championed by President Donald Trump and would require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, told the crowd, “It’s time to send the SAVE (America) Act to the graveyard.”

Postal Service rule

Gary Roush, 73, of College Park, Maryland, carried a sign protesting a new rule issued by the U.S. Postal Service mandating new requirements for mail-in ballot envelopes, which states say would pose serious challenges before November’s midterms. 

Additionally, the new USPS rule forbids the agency from delivering or collecting ballots from people who are not confirmed to be eligible voters on lists newly mandated from states by the federal government.

A federal district judge on Thursday night issued a temporary restraining order on the rule after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the administration to implement the policy. USPS appealed the order Friday.

Roush, who was among the crowd at the “Defend the Vote” march, said he believes Trump has “made it crystal clear: He plans to use the post office to try to stop most mail-in ballots.”

Roush’s sign featured a USPS promotional character from the 1960s used in ad campaigns to encourage people to write ZIP codes on the envelopes. A message on his sign read, “Trump plans to use us to rig the election.”

“He’s going to create as much havoc as possible,” said Roush, who added he’s “extremely worried” about the upcoming midterms.

Building a movement

Sharpton’s National Action Network and the King family’s Drum Major Institute coordinated the day, along with nearly 100 partner organizations including sorority and fraternity chapters from historically black colleges and universities, and other national and local activist groups.

Ocasio-Cortez, who has been on a speaking tour with Sanders ahead of the midterm elections, said, “Brothers and sisters, these drum majors for justice, just as you all and countless others today, were not handed a movement. They have always had to build one. 

“And when they came here 63 years ago, they came with demands,” she continued. “They demanded the right to vote, an end to segregation, and fair housing. They demanded a federal jobs program, a higher minimum wage, and an end to discrimination in employment… Freedom is both political and economic.”

Organizers evoked numerous founders of the Civil Rights Movement, and other anniversaries since, including the 37th commemoration of the March on Washington in 2000 when Coretta Scott King, the late widow of the slain civil rights leader, urged attendees to continue her husband’s and other leaders’ missions.

That anniversary march at the turn of the millenium, dubbed “Redeem the Dream,” was also co-organized by Sharpton and King III, and focused on ending racial profiling and police brutality following high-profile abuse cases in the previous decade in Los Angeles, New York City and Philadelphia.

“My mother, Coretta Scott King, said that nonviolence is really the only credible response to the violence that we are seeing around the world. She was right about it both then and now,” King III told the crowd.

Attendees in United Auto Workers t-shirts lined the seats at the foot of the memorial steps, another nod to the history of the movement.

The UAW, including its then president Walter Reuther, was among the coalition of activists, labor unions and religious organizations that supported the landmark 1963 march. 

Other speakers and performers at the original march included folk singers Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, and Little Rock, Arkansas, civil rights activist Daisy Bates. 

King and other leaders met with Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson following the march to discuss bipartisanship around civil rights legislation, according to the Martin Luther King Jr., Research and Education Institute at Stanford University.

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in July 1964, less than a year after Kennedy was assassinated in November of 1963. Johnson subsequently signed the Voting Rights Act in August of 1965.

 

WASHINGTON — A developing trade war with Canada could bite Republicans ahead of the upcoming midterm elections as voters worry about rising prices and industries in states with competitive races could suffer.

Maine’s lobster industry dodged what officials had warned could be economic havoc Thursday morning when Canada reversed its decision to tax lobster imports at 25%. But states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan and Wisconsin could see effects if Canada follows through on retaliatory tariffs on alcohol, automobiles, dairy, home appliances, steel and other goods.

Those products are among the 629 categories Canada’s Department of Finance announced Tuesday in response to President Donald Trump’s most recent tariffs on Canadian goods that went into effect over the weekend.

“On one hand you have the issue of the U.S. import tariffs, which voters are associating with affordability, but then on the other hand you have the retaliatory Canadian tariffs, which are going to impact businesses in those states,” said Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, a trade policy analyst with the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. 

“So you could have a sort of double whammy where there’s pressure on behalf of voters for the president to recede this policy,” he said.

Trade talks have completely stalled between the U.S. and Canada, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News on Wednesday evening, a day after Canada announced retaliatory taxes to start Sept. 8 on $27.6 billion worth of American goods. 

The duties on U.S. imports will match Trump’s new 50% tariffs on hundreds of Canadian products “dollar-for-dollar,” according to Canada’s Department of Finance.

Individual businesses and importers, rather than governments, pay the tariffs on goods. Economists warn increased costs on either side of tariffs can affect investment decisions and increase consumer prices.

States Newsroom documented accounts from numerous small business owners affected by Trump’s tariff policies during his second term.

Small portion of trade volume

The Yale Budget Lab estimates that under the Trump administration’s current tariff schedule, including its latest tariffs on Canadian goods, Americans will spend an additional $1,100 annually on household costs.

The increase in annual household costs pre- and post-Trump’s newest duties on Canadian goods, which took effect Aug. 22, ranges roughly between $27 and $33, according to the Yale Budget Lab’s comparison.

Of the massive and intertwined trade relationship between the U.S. and Canada, the new tariffs account for a small fraction of all goods traded. Canada is the U.S.’s second-largest trading partner, and the two countries exchanged $879.9 billion in goods in 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Major areas of trade between the two countries that are subjected to tariffs include automobiles, industrial supplies, steel, iron and aluminum.

“It’s not a huge magnitude. Both the Canadian and the American tariffs cover only about 5% of what each country exports to each other. We’re not talking about all of a sudden everything we get from Canada is going to get tariffs. It’s only a share of that. But this is the initial salvo,” Obregon said.

“If you are a company that relies on imports from Canada, and you’re sort of doing production on both sides of the border in that sense, then you are worried about where this could lead in the future,” he added.

Outsized politics

While tariffs are small in proportion to Canada and the U.S.’s entire trade portfolio, the politics are outsized.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who faces a tough race to keep her seat, told local reporters Wednesday she spoke with the Trump administration about protecting her state’s major lobster and seafood industry, which was spared Thursday.

Collins’ opponent, Democrat Troy Jackson, attacked the incumbent on social media Wednesday, blaming her for having “completely failed” to stop Trump’s tariffs.

The Republican candidate for Michigan’s open Senate seat, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, has not commented on the new tariffs, but Democrats in Michigan are seizing the issue.

Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel told the Michigan Advance the tariffs will “throw Michigan’s economy into chaos.”

Rogers’ opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, on Tuesday responded to Trump’s threat on Truth Social to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America.

“Whatever you call it, you just made all the goods we buy that come across our border more expensive,” El-Sayed wrote on X. “Michigan, he’s asking us to pay for his vanity trade war with our money.”

Trump signed an executive order Thursday renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America.

During comments to reporters, Trump said Canada “has been ripping us off a long time on trade, very sadly, even the military. You know, we defend Canada for nothing.”

He added: “They don’t pay for anything, and they want to be treated like a state, but they’re not a state.”

Imran Bayoumi, an expert on U.S.-Canada relations with the Atlantic Council, said Canadians are “angry, hurt and upset” about Trump’s rhetoric toward their country’s sovereignty. 

The country, which has long received scrutiny over its defense spending, has increased the allocation in recent years, said Bayoumi, a Canadian-American.

“There’s a recognition that you can’t change your geography, and so the two are going to need to find a way to work together … on shared defense challenges, economic priorities, the Arctic, the defense of North America,” Bayoumi said. 

“The challenge now is to either find a narrow way off this path that both sides are on, which seems to be spiraling downwards, or ensure the deterioration of relations in the economic and trade sector doesn’t spill into other areas.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney enjoys approval from 76% of Canadians for his decision over the weekend to walk away from trade talks with the U.S., according to the Canadian Angus Reid Institute. But the poll found two in five Canadians also fear for their job security.

Carney has already pledged a $7.5 billion package for businesses and workers who might be affected by the tariffs.

Trump administration officials remain dug in on the tariffs and denied any major effects of the Canadian retaliatory tariffs.

“The concept that this could have any kind of meaningful effect on the United States is quite limited,” Greer told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Wednesday. 

“And guess what? If there’s something in there that has some negative effect that is brought to the attention of President Trump, he can do what he needs to do,” he added. “I mean, this is just not going to lead to any economic Armageddon.” 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this story.

WASHINGTON — With just over two months until the November midterms, the U.S. Supreme Court gave way Monday for President Donald Trump to have a hand in regulating mail-in ballots nationwide, a voting method he has falsely claimed is rife with corruption since he lost the 2020 presidential election.

In an unsigned emergency docket opinion, the court’s conservative majority wrote the Trump administration is likely to prevail on its argument that 23 Democratic-led states do not have standing to stop his executive order to change how the U.S. Postal Service processes mail-in ballots. 

The majority justices also wrote that a lower court’s injunction is “causing irreparable harm,” but left open the possibility that the executive order could still be considered unconstitutional.

“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote. 

The legality of a Massachusetts federal district court order, which paused the executive order to overhaul vote-by-mail systems before the Nov. 3 midterms, will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

In a lengthy dissent, Jackson wrote the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”

The principle of courts not altering voting systems too close to the election has been eroded, she said, amounting to a “Kafkaesque nightmare.”

“States administering elections and the voting public that relies on them to do so deserve clarity, not caginess or confusion,” she wrote.

Final rule issued

The March 31 executive order at the heart of the case in part directs USPS to direct the redesign of mail-in ballot envelopes, including adding a unique barcode. It also asks USPS to collect voters’ names and addresses from state elections officials and directs the U.S. Justice Department to investigate and prosecute state officials who violate the order.

The Postal Service issued a final rule Friday detailing how the process would be carried out.

Whether an overhaul of mail-in ballots for each state could be completed in time for the Nov. 3 election remains to be seen, as vote-by-mail documents are sent to voters well in advance of Election Day.

A federal district judge in Massachusetts chastised the Trump administration for sowing confusion and “creating” an emergency by noticing a rule Friday that the U.S. Postal Service will eventually require federally regulated mail-in ballot voting envelopes and state data.

A 95-page notice alerting that the final rule would appear in the Federal Register on Aug. 26 outlined justifications for federal requirements on states to redesign ballot envelopes and provide a list of recipient names and addresses to USPS. The final rule became effective Friday, according to the document.

The final rule runs contrary to U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s Aug. 11 preliminary injunction barring the federal government from changing states’ mail-in voting rules prior to the Nov. 3 midterm elections, the judge wrote in a brief order on the docket Sunday. 

“Defendants did not file an appeal and did not seek, let alone obtain, a stay of the preliminary injunction,” Talwani wrote. “Nonetheless, on August 21, 2026, USPS issued its Final Rule, with an anticipated publication date in the Federal Register of August 26, 2026.” 

Talwani was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2013 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate the following year. 

Effective date delayed

The rule includes a provision that it will not be in effect for this year’s midterm elections if Talwani’s injunction is still in place, but the judge said it would still create significant confusion for voters.

The Trump administration asserted the rule would “have no effect on the rules themselves while the injunctions are in place, while ignoring the confusion that the publication will engender,” Talwani wrote.

It’s unclear what effect the final rule will have on the active litigation on the issue.

The federal government had appealed Talwani’s injunction because, it argued, Trump’s order could not be challenged until an agency published a final rule.

Groups want quick order 

The voting rights advocacy groups, led by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, who sued President Donald Trump and administration officials over a March executive order overhauling mail-in voting procedures swiftly filed an emergency motion Saturday. 

They urged Talwani to quickly enforce her injunction, and to order expedited responses from the administration, citing “immediate, ongoing, irreparable harm caused by Defendants’ violation of the preliminary injunction, and in light of these fast-approaching dates.”

“There are now only 73 days before the November 2026 election, and far fewer before mail ballots begin to go out,” they wrote.

The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in late July a similar district court ruling against its mail-in voting restrictions order in a case brought by nearly two dozen Democrat-led states.

The states argued that the federal government has no constitutional role in election administration, that the executive order unfairly limited vote-by-mail, which some states use exclusively, and that an overhaul of ballot requirements this close to an election was unworkable. 

High court appeal

In a supplemental brief filed to the Supreme Court justices Monday, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the USPS’s rule issuance “underscores the need for relief from the district court’s improper, unripe injunction.”

“The Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest requirements for preparation and envelope design for federal ballot mail — requirements that fall well within its traditional authorities to impose mailing standards for particularly sensitive types of mail,” wrote Sauer, who formerly worked as Trump’s personal defense attorney. 

Democratic officials in 23 states — California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and the District of Columbia brought the suit challenging the executive order. 

Twelve states with Republican attorneys general — Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas — joined the appeal to the Supreme Court on the federal government’s side.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has not slowed his pursuit of central policy goals and personal passions, even after major setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts.

The high court in its 2026 term delivered blows to Trump’s core campaign promises to upend a constitutional provision governing who becomes a U.S. citizen at birth and to swiftly address the growing national debt with “trillions of dollars” raised by taxing imports. 

The justices also ruled the president cannot fire, without cause, Fed Board Gov. Lisa Cook and deny her a chance to plead her case. And a lower court blocked Trump from installing his name on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

But even after the Supreme Court ruled against him, Trump is forging ahead and using what some legal observers describe as “creative lawyering” to find alternative routes to push his agenda, even as public support fades.

He ordered new blanket tariffs in late July on at least 60 trading partners. He signed a new round of birthright citizenship orders Aug. 6. Reports also revealed that Cook received a letter Aug. 5 from administration officials that Trump is again “considering” firing her.

The moves test the power dynamic between the executive and judicial branches, but are not illegal or even unconventional in modern times, experts said.

“They look at it and they say, ‘We want to advance a particular policy agenda. Here’s the whole array of legal arguments that we might be able to use that give us authority,’’’ said Scott Anderson, senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institution and senior counsel and editor of the publication Lawfare.

Trump is not alone in this pursuit. After all, President Joe Biden found another route to student loan debt relief after a loss at the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court effectively axed the Biden-era relief program in March.

“It does happen, and (administrations) will sometimes run the risk of legal reversal, but it’s a rarer move,” Anderson said. “For this administration, it’s become the standard move.”

‘Spirit of the law’

While Anderson said Trump’s responses to the rulings are “not surprising” given the legal strategy of his second term, one could argue the “legal brinksmanship … often clearly runs contrary to some of the spirit of the law, and it capitalizes on a lot of institutional inefficiencies.” 

Thomas Berry, a legal scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, said while Trump has often used rhetoric to “delegitimize the court,” his recent actions are not out of legal bounds.

“What he’s doing is distinct from outright disobedience or ignoring a Supreme Court’s decision, and it’s important to stress that that line has not been crossed,” said Berry, who directs the institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

A White House spokesperson said the administration has “always followed court orders.”

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Cook case required notice and an opportunity for a hearing in considering whether the President should take certain adverse employment actions. The President’s notice sent to Fed. Governor Cook offers exactly that within the precise structure enunciated by the Court,” said Lauren Bis in a brief written response from the White House.

A Department of Justice spokesperson, who did not provide a name, wrote in a statement, “Investigative and prosecutorial decisions are made based on the law and the facts. To date, DOJ has prevailed in 24 emergency applications before the Supreme Court, winning over 80 percent, an unprecedented win rate that speaks for itself, and has also won dozens of merits cases at the Court.”

The spokesperson highlighted the department’s Supreme Court win in June that allows the administration to follow through with plans to deport between about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians who were living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status.

Birthright citizenship

On the final day of its 2026 term, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s sweeping attempt to deny citizenship to children born to parents who either do not have legal status or hold temporary legal visas. 

Chief Justice John Roberts led the 6-3 opinion on June 30, writing that children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present “are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

Today’s exceptions for those who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction include foreign diplomats and their families, members of invading armies and in most cases foreign public ships passing in nearby waters.

On Aug. 6, Trump signed two executive orders again aimed at curtailing birthright citizenship. The first targets children born to the staff working for foreign diplomats; to children born in American Samoa, where Congress has yet to pass a citizenship law; and to the children born to parents who belong to what the U.S. defines as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”  

“So what Trump is trying to do with these executive orders is he’s trying to say, ‘OK fine, those are the categories you’ve given us. We’re going to try to push those to the maximal extent possible,’” Berry said.

“And he interprets them broadly,” Berry continued. “Do people have diplomatic immunity or not? That’s kind of a factual question. Literally the ambassador and the ambassador’s spouse, they get diplomatic immunity. But does everyone from the foreign country working in the embassy similarly get immunity from U.S. law? That wasn’t my impression.”

Trump is also seeking to limit birthright citizenship by taking what Berry described as a “maximalist view” of what an invading army is.

“It’s not obvious that that analogy extends to people who are part of designated terrorist groups because they’re not literally rampaging and pillaging,” he said. “This is more people who are living here but have been, you know, labeled as part of a group that’s at odds with the United States.”  

Anderson said the administration “clearly is intending to just take advantage of every hint and every limitation the Supreme Court decision left open.”

The American Civil Liberties Union on Aug. 12 began the process of asking the federal judiciary to reaffirm the Supreme Court ruling. 

Tariffs

Trump’s trade policy provides another example of the administration finding a new legal reasoning after the Supreme Court struck down the initial basis for a major administration goal.

In the midst of refunding roughly $166 billion to businesses that paid taxes on imports under Trump’s emergency tariffs, the president has hopscotched across multiple trade statutes to continually impose at least 10% duties on most global goods since his Supreme Court loss in February.

In a 6-3 opinion, the high court struck down Trump’s unprecedented claim of tariff authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Congress retained tariff authority in most circumstances, Roberts wrote for the majority, and Trump could not use the statute to impose duties after declaring emergencies on trade imbalances and illegal drug smuggling.

Trump lost the case to a handful of small business owners and Democratic state officials. Tariffs are taxes paid by the importers, meaning American businesses were shouldering the additional costs.

Trump immediately turned to another statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the president to unilaterally set up to 10% in tariffs for 150 days. 

The order set off another round of legal challenges, including from Democratic-led states, in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Less than a month after the Supreme Court loss, the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative also opened broad trade investigations under Section 301 of the 1974 law into the practices of nearly all U.S. trading partners.

As the clock ran out on Trump’s 10% blanket tariff under Section 122 on July 24, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced his office had found forced labor practices by roughly 60 of America’s trading partners, including Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among dozens more. The findings triggered a 10% to 12.5% duty on most goods from those countries.

Days earlier, Trump announced he would use a Depression-era provision that had never been enforced — Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — to slap a 50% duty on most Canadian imports. The U.S., for now, has delayed the start of the high tariffs as talks with Canada continue, according to reports.

Trump’s strategy on pushing tariffs is “not really surprising at all,” Anderson said, adding “it’s not even inappropriate.”

“The Supreme Court never said, ‘You can’t do tariffs.’ In fact, it said basically you can. It just said ‘You can’t do it this way.’ And that automatically points to these other ways, which everyone said is probably a more sound way to do this if the president really wants to do this,” Anderson said.

“It doesn’t mean it’s good policy,” he added. “It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but there’s at least a very colorable case the president can do this all legally. ”

2025 deportation flights

Trump’s “aggressive” legal strategy has set him apart from other presidents, and, despite specific recent examples that haven’t crossed a legal line, the administration likely violated court orders in relation to immigration, according to observers.

“I think there are some cases that push the envelope, might be unlawful, particularly around, like, some of those early deportations,” Anderson said. “But the majority of the time, the executive branch has been responding and complying with court orders. It’s capitalizing on the fact that those orders are often very narrow.”

Berry also highlighted the March 2025 deportation flights that took off with hundreds of immigrants on board despite a court order as a potential example of cases “where these agencies have outright violated court orders.”

Overall, the courts have been a check on the administration’s view of expansive power, both experts said.

“It is worth taking a moment to realize, like, just how vastly smaller the scope of this (most recent) birthright executive order is after the Supreme Court,” Berry said. “The decision did cut off the vast majority of options the administration has. I mean, you think about the scope of millions of people that the original order would have affected, and compare that to this. It’s just night and day.”

Electorate another check

Voters are also a check on power, observers say.

With crucial midterm elections approaching, Trump’s net approval rating is -26, meaning the percentage of voters who approve of him is 26 points below those who disapprove, according to The Economist/YouGov poll figures published Aug. 18. A Reuters/Ipsos found Trump’s approval rating at a record low of 33%, according to data published Aug. 17.

A recent Fox New poll last month showed most voters disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy. And 55% told Reuters/Ipsos just days before the Supreme Court ruling that they disapproved of Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

Trump surrounded himself in his second term with people who “openly denigrated” a lot of norms of the executive office and are “acting accordingly” to what they saw their voter base wanted, Anderson said.

“I think they probably overreacted to this idea that simply by winning the last election, that voters have a high tolerance for this,” Anderson said. “And Republicans in Congress and potentially in 2028 are going to pay a price for that.”

Anderson added if voters and lawmakers don’t like the loopholes Trump’s legal strategy is employing, then maybe it’s time for Congress to close them.

“If we don’t think our laws align with what we think is right ethically and good policy, then maybe they do need to be adjusted,” he said. 

“Maybe if we want a robust separation of powers, we need to take actions that will empower the courts and Congress to push back on executive aggrandizement more effectively, as opposed to the trajectory over the most of the 20th century, which was implicitly, sometimes expressly, more or less empowering the executive branch on the assumption that the executive branch was going to self-constrain itself.” 

‘Everything people don’t like’

As for the Kennedy Center: Despite a judge’s order that led to the yanking of Trump’s name from the facade of the revered performing arts venue in mid-June, Trump’s hand-picked board voted Aug. 13 to again affix his name to the building. 

This time, instead of above John F. Kennedy’s name, the board voted to add an inscription underneath to read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump,” according to court records.

A federal judge had found that Trump’s name, which had already been added, could not officially remain there without authorization from Congress.

“It’s sort of everything people don’t like about lawyers at its extreme. … This is kind of again looking for a loophole —  they’re going to argue ‘We are not naming the center. We are adding this appendage,’” Berry said. 

“So long as it’s just like naming the renovation, you know, kind of like a sponsorship deal at the end of the name of a stadium or something like that, that’s acceptable because it’s not renaming the center,” he continued. “So we’re likely to have litigation about that too, and it’s going to be a pretty lawyerly and probably annoying debate.”

WASHINGTON — Historic preservationists asked the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to deny President Donald Trump’s appeal to continue construction on his $400 million White House ballroom on the grounds of the demolished East Wing.

In response to Trump’s application to the high court, the National Trust for Historic Preservation argued irreparable harm would result if construction continued, and that the project is “illegal” without authorization from Congress.

The Trust lawyers highlighted that the Trump administration has argued in court the ballroom will be “virtually impossible to deconstruct” because it will be constructed out of nuclear power plant-grade concrete.

“That is the essence of irreparable harm,” the Trust argued in the 48-page filing.

“Petitioners make no secret of the fact that if the Court permits construction to continue, they will declare the case over,” according to the Trust, a private nonprofit chartered by Congress in 1949 to encourage the protection of historic sites.

By contrast, the organization argued, the president and his administration would not be harmed if the Supreme Court left intact a lower court order halting above-ground construction.

Security complex

Court filings from the administration have publicly revealed that a security complex under the ballroom will descend five stories, and is well on its way to completion. 

The concrete-and-steel “superstructure,” reaching five stories deep and 70 feet high, already encompassing about 50,000 square feet, is 65% finished, according to the administration. 

Plans include a 1,000-seat ballroom incorporated into a “highly integrated military complex” with drone-proof ceilings, bomb shelters, sniper nests, “military-grade venting,” and “state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities.” 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel on Aug. 7 upheld, 2-1, the lower court order blocking all but underground construction while litigation continued.

The Trust further argued Tuesday that any above-ground construction happening is already illegal because Congress didn’t authorize it, which means the administration would not likely win the case should the Supreme Court take it up. 

“The question is simply who decides whether a ballroom can be built on federal property. Our constitutional system and federal law commits that choice to Congress,” the Trust argued. 

“If Petitioners believe there is a pressing need for a ballroom, nothing prevents them from asking Congress for one — today, tomorrow, or any time in the future,” the brief reads. “But Petitioners’ efforts to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded with a stay that allows Petitioners to complete a ballroom they lacked any authority to commence in the first place.”

Democrats back preservationists

More than 30 Democratic U.S. senators, U.S. House Democratic leaders and committee ranking members from both chambers filed a brief Tuesday in support of the Trust.

Lawmakers who signed the brief are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

“The White House is, indisputably, federal property. It was built only after Congress authorized its construction and appropriated funds to cover that expense,” the lawmakers wrote. “And for over two centuries since, the White House has been renovated and maintained pursuant to congressional authorizations and appropriations.”

But Congress “neither authorized the demolition of the White House’s East Wing and construction of a ballroom nor appropriated funds to carry out that project,” they continued.

Trump maintains the ballroom project is being funded entirely by private donations. 

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was Trump’s personal attorney before joining the government, told the Supreme Court in the administration’s application last week that $200 million has already been spent or committed to the project. 

Sauer argued that a statute governing the Department of the Interior allows private donations to cover projects on land administered by the National Park Service. The service, an agency within the Interior Department, manages the White House and President’s Park.

The Democratic senators who signed onto the amicus brief were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Gary Peters of Michigan, Adam Schiff of California, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden of Oregon

The Democratic House leaders who joined the brief were Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, Minority Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California. 

The other representatives who signed on were Robert Garcia, Jared Huffman, Ro Khanna, Mark Takano, Maxine Waters and Zoe Lofgren of California; Jim Hines of Connecticut; Rick Larsen and Adam Smith of Washington state; Jamie Raskin of Maryland; Bobby Scott of Virginia; Bennie Thompson of Mississippi; and Gregory Meeks and Joe Morelle of New York.

Republican AGs want ballroom

A brief led by the Republican Attorneys General Raúl Labrador of Idaho and Todd Rokita of Indiana argued the Supreme Court should side with Trump because the National Trust allegedly built its case on the “associational standing” of one of its board members who would not suffer harm.

“This case is about more than a ballroom. It is about whether a passerby’s aesthetic objection to a government construction project furnishes not just the passerby standing, but an uninjured association standing to air its grievances in court,” the attorneys general wrote. 

The argument echoed Trump’s many public statements that the case against his ballroom rests on the objection of one person who sometimes walks by the White House.

That risk is “of significant interest to States across the Nation,” they wrote.  “Amici States have extensive experience litigating against organizations that invoke associational standing as their ticket into court.”

The attorneys general concluded: “The Court should not allow groups whose members claim offense to sue over virtually anything and everything.” 

A federal district judge in December had already denied the Trust’s initial request for a temporary restraining order based on the lack of irreparable harm for an initial plaintiff.

The most recent lower court decision is based on an amended complaint filed by the Trust in early March.

In addition to Idaho and Indiana, the Republican attorneys general who signed the brief are from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Two members of the Arizona state legislature also signed it.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to intervene in a lower court decision that halts his $400 million White House ballroom construction unless he receives authorization from Congress.

The administration requested the justices grant an immediate stay to a 2-1 federal appeals court decision that sided with historic preservationists who argued Trump doesn’t have the authority to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the White House East Wing stood until Trump ordered its demolition in October 2025.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the decision on Aug. 7 but delayed the ruling for two weeks to allow the administration time to appeal.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who previously defended Trump before the high court as his personal defense attorney, argued the project was needed to enhance security at the White House.

The “updated East Wing complex is absolutely required and should not be enjoined,” he said, citing assassination attempts on the president. 

Sauer also wrote that Congress has “twice over” already authorized the current project, through a 1916 law governing the National Park Service and a 1978 statute, by empowering the Department of the Interior to embark on major construction projects and delegating powers to the president to use appropriated funds to alter the White House.

“Following this tradition, President Trump determined that many factors urgently required modernizing the old East Wing — most critically, that it no longer performed vital security functions,” according to the appeal.

“Compounding those problems were structural defects, such as a degraded foundation, crumbling roof, pervasive mold and mildew, water-related deterioration, obsolete electrical infrastructure, toxic asbestos, and lead paint.”

In a written statement to States Newsroom Friday, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the group that initially sued to stop construction, described the administration’s application to the Supreme Court as “audacious.”

The “transparent efforts to evade the rule of law, frustrate judicial review, and limit the availability of meaningful relief in the courts must stop here,” the statement, attributed to the group as a whole, said.

‘Military complex’

The Trump administration has asserted publicly the project would serve as a security upgrade. Sauer again made that argument in his 45-page appeal. 

The ballroom, which is expected to seat 1,000 people, will be incorporated into a “highly integrated military complex” descending several stories underground, he told the court, and would include security features such as drone-proof ceilings, bomb shelters, sniper nests, “military-grade venting,” and “state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities.”

The trust noted that courts had already rejected the security arguments.

“Each court reviewing this case has ruled that construction of the Ballroom is unlawful,” the statement said. “Each court has seriously and carefully considered the administration’s asserted national security concerns. And each court has ruled that while underground bunker construction can continue, Ballroom construction must stop.”

According to Thursday’s appeal, the project is already 65% complete, with a concrete-and-steel “superstructure” reaching five stories underground and 70-feet high, occupying nearly 50,000 square feet. 

The construction has accelerated over the past four months, with workers on a 250-person crew operating 20 hours a day, seven days a week, “to keep the Project ahead of schedule and under budget,” Sauer wrote, adding that $200 million has been spent or committed to date, and has been “shouldered by private donations.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation accused the administration of taking advantage of the court delay to speed construction.

“The administration has not only refused to listen, but is now actively attempting to outrun the courts by accelerating construction of the Ballroom,” the group said.

“The administration’s audacious Supreme Court filing today announced it would be installing another 1 million pounds of rebar and pouring another 3,000 cubic yards of concrete in just the next week alone, before the Appeals Court’s stay of the injunction expires next Friday,” the group said.

Court battle

In mid-April, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked any above-ground construction on the ballroom, allowing underground construction on security facilities to continue. 

A day later, April 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the lower court ruling and put the case on a fast track. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation hailed the split appeals court decision earlier this month as a “great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.”

“From the beginning, our position has been clear and consistent: the law states that only Congress can authorize the construction of a ballroom at the White House,” the trust’s president and CEO Brent Leggs said in a statement Aug. 7.

The East Wing was originally built in 1902 as a receiving area for visitors, according to the White House Historical Association. A 1942 renovation added a bomb shelter and a second story. From the late 1970s onward, beginning with first lady Rosalynn Carter, the wing housed the office of first ladies and their staff.