John Bolton, a national security adviser to President Donald Trump in his first term, pleaded guilty Friday to a federal charge of mishandling classified information, the Department of Justice said in a news release Friday.

The plea resolves an 18-count indictment against Bolton, who lives in Bethesda, Maryland. He has agreed to pay a $2.25 million penalty, the DOJ said. He could face up to five years in prison, according to the release.

During his stint as national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019, Bolton recorded “highly sensitive classified information” from his official duties in a personal diary. He shared the diary entries with two family members who were not cleared to have access to the information, which included top secret material, according to the indictment.

“John Bolton held a position of extraordinary public trust as the country’s top National Security Advisor, and he betrayed that trust, jeopardizing our nation’s security,” Hayden O’Byrne, the acting deputy assistant U.S. attorney general for the National Security Division, said in the statement. “Today’s resolution ought to send a message to other public officials whom the public has entrusted with classified, national defense information.”

Bolton and Trump

Bolton’s attorney, Abbe David Lowell, said in a statement Friday that Bolton’s plea took responsibility for a mistake, which was “what real leaders do,” and contrasted that approach with Trump’s conduct while the Department of Justice secured similar federal charges against the then-former president in 2023.

“By contrast, President Trump thumbed his nose at the classified information laws, took actual classified documents to his Florida mansion, interfered with the investigation of that conduct, and has never accepted any accountability for his conduct,” Lowell wrote. “Ambassador Bolton, whose offense was only keeping a diary which contained classified information, kept a record to preserve history, but Donald Trump kept secrets to serve himself.”

Since leaving the White House, Bolton has been a consistent critic of Trump’s foreign policy. 

That has continued even after he was indicted last year. Bolton, who also held roles in President George W. Bush’s administration and is associated with the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party, has repeatedly slammed on social media Trump’s deal with Iran as recently as this week.

State courts cannot find liability for labeling shortcomings in pesticides and similar products because such products are covered by federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court said Thursday in a decision backing agricultural giant Monsanto. 

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, threw out a $1.25 million verdict a Missouri court awarded to a man who said long-term use of the weedkiller Roundup caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. 

The herbicide, produced by Monsanto, does not include any warning of carcinogenic material. Monsanto and parent company Bayer deny there is any link and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has routinely found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, does not likely cause cancer. 

Consumer and health advocates, though, said the decision provided companies immunity from health-related claims.

The decision created an unusual split for the conservative-dominated court, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing the majority opinion and his fellow conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining a dissent written by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Federal law trumps state

The majority ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, which governs herbicide use, explicitly preempts state claims like the one awarded to John Durnell of St. Louis. 

Roundup’s label complied with EPA regulations, to which states cannot add requirements, Kavanaugh wrote. Placing a cancer warning would open the company up to civil and criminal penalties for using a label the EPA did not approve, he said.

“In sum, federal law requires Monsanto to sell Roundup with the label that EPA approved at the initial registration and that EPA has subsequently re-approved on multiple occasions—that is, the label without a cancer warning,” he wrote. 

“Durnell’s state tort claim, by contrast, would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning to its labels. That Missouri-law requirement is ‘in addition to’ and ‘different from’ Monsanto’s federal-law labeling obligations.”

In a statement, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson praised the ruling for providing regulatory certainty to farmers and the herbicide producer.

“This decision is good for American farmers who help feed the world,” he said. “It provides the regulatory clarity necessary for innovators like us to develop the agricultural tools that guarantee an affordable food supply.”

Closing the courthouse doors

In her dissent, Jackson wrote that the majority’s decision improperly prioritized national uniformity over consumer protection.

While the federal law does include a preemption clause, it also includes a provision against “false or misleading” statements. That provision covers the absence of a warning necessary to protect health and the environment, she wrote.

“Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell,” she wrote.

Advocates also criticized what they said was the ruling’s creation of legal immunity for manufacturers. 

Bill Jordan, whose 40-year EPA career included three years as the deputy director of the Office of Pesticide Programs during the Obama administration, said in a statement distributed by the Environmental Protection Network, a coalition of former EPA officials, that the decision leaves people “with fewer tools to protect themselves.”

“When people are exposed to pesticides, they deserve honest warnings about the risks,” Jordan said. “If federal protections aren’t enough, states should be able to act before people get sick. This Supreme Court decision favors companies and takes away one of the important ways states can require stronger health warnings for the public.”

Farm bill amendment

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker said on a press call the decision reversed thousands of jury awards to people who said they were harmed by herbicides like Roundup.

The court “sided with the wealthy, powerful multinational corporations, reversing years and years of precedent, dismissing, ultimately, effectively hundreds and hundreds, in fact thousands, of cases,” the New Jersey Democrat said. “They sided with the big multinational corporations against the people.”

Booker said he would introduce an amendment to the farm bill to strip out the preemption clause.

He also suggested that corporate lobbying and campaign contributions influenced the decision.

“We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars pouring into our political system, corrupting all three branches of government,” Booker said.

Missouri verdict

Durnell sued Monsanto and parent company Bayer in 2019, claiming that exposure to Roundup over two decades led to his cancer diagnosis. A Missouri trial court awarded him $1.25 million, and a state appeals courts affirmed the ruling.

The Supreme Court was the first federal court to hear the case. 

Federal law typically trumps state law, which Monsanto and the Justice Department emphasized during April oral arguments. Industry groups across the economy tend to support federal supremacy because it saves companies from complying with 50 separate regulatory schemes across states.

President Donald Trump derailed a housing overhaul that he was set to sign into law Wednesday, canceling a signing ceremony for the broadly popular bipartisan bill until Congress passes an election security measure.

Trump had been scheduled to sign the bill, which passed the Senate Monday and House Tuesday with wide margins, during a Capitol ceremony.

But in a pair of social media posts prior to the event, he derided the overhaul aimed at lowering housing costs as “minor” before refusing to sign it entirely.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social.

The controversial SAVE America Act, a top priority for Trump, addresses the extremely rare phenomenon of noncitizen voting. Republican senators have told Trump there are not enough votes in the chamber for it to pass.

The housing bill’s Senate sponsors, Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott and ranking Democrat Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, sought to lower the costs of housing construction by removing regulatory barriers, expanding the uses of federal housing grants and banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes.

Scott, a South Carolina Republican, lauded the bill Tuesday as not only bipartisan, but nonpartisan, addressing universal needs.

Republican leaders framed the measure as addressing affordability, which is expected to be a key issue in November’s midterm elections amid stubborn inflation.

The measure, which combined elements of proposals in each chamber, appeared on a fast track to becoming law after the Senate approved it 85-5 Monday and the House voted 358-32 Tuesday. The White House had said Trump supported the bill.

The House opponents were virtually all from a group of conservatives, led by Florida’s Anna Paulina Luna, who said she would oppose all legislation from the Senate, and even some House rules resolutions, until the Senate passed Trump’s elections security measure.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a Wednesday morning press conference that he spoke with the president earlier in the day and that he is going to delay signing the housing bill until Congress approves a grant program for elections through the complex budget reconciliation process. That’s the same procedure the GOP used to enact its “big, beautiful” law and $70 billion for immigration enforcement.

“You have to put it on a reconciliation bill,” he said. “We believe that if you create a grant program that ties it to reconciling the budget and you allow blue states, if they come to their senses and they want to avail themselves of election integrity proposals and ideas and policies, they can draw down from a federal fund and use those funds. We’re willing to invest heavily in that.”

Johnson said he told Trump that Republicans in Congress can enact that policy if they “stand together.”

“As you know he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a bit more of that window of time,” Johnson said. “And we’re going to go through this together.”

Johnson said he expects Trump to sign the housing bill within the 10-day window.

The U.S. House cleared a bipartisan housing policy overhaul Tuesday, aiming to lower the cost of homeownership as members of both parties attempt to focus on affordability issues ahead of November’s midterm elections.

The House passed the bill, 358-32, sending it to President Donald Trump’s desk a day after the Senate’s 85-5 vote. The White House has said the administration supports the measure and Trump’s aides would advise he sign it.

The bill would reduce some regulatory hurdles, including environmental reviews, to home construction and expand the possible uses of federal housing funds. It includes a high-profile provision to ban private equity firms from buying single-family homes.

The bill would allow money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant program to be used for construction of new affordable housing. It would also tie the amount some cities and states receive from the $3.3 billion grant program to their rates of affordable housing construction.

Increasing worries over cost of living

The action from Congress this week reflects a bipartisan focus on affordability, as both parties have sought to address voters’ increasing concerns with the cost of living that has been consistently rising since the start of the decade.

Margaret Spellings, the president and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said at a housing policy conference hosted by the Washington, D.C., think tank that the rising cost of housing was due to a lack of supply.

“During the past two decades, the U.S. has simply not built enough housing to meet demand,” she said. “This supply-demand imbalance has led to soaring prices and rents in communities across the nation, with millions of households struggling to make their payments and unable to achieve the American dream of home ownership.”

She added that the issue had animated policymakers at the national, state and local levels.

“Housing is now a top-tier issue here in Washington and in state capitols and city halls all across our country,” she said.

Broad consensus

The measure includes provisions from earlier proposals in both chambers, reflecting a consensus not only between the two major parties but between the two chambers of Congress that often cannot agree on how to approach even broadly supported legislation.

Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, lauded the measure’s broad appeal in a pre-recorded message to the BPC conference.

The bill was nonpartisan, reflecting “advocacy on behalf of common sense,” he said.

“But it does take a bipartisan coalition who puts America first,” he said. “Your work encouraging all of us to put the country first, to put first-time homebuyers first, has resulted in legislation passed through the Senate yet again, and this time is on a path straight to the president’s desk.”

The committee’s ranking Democrat, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, called it a “BIG WIN to build more housing” in a post to social media Tuesday.

“I’ve worked on this bill for over a year,” she wrote. “It’s still possible to find bipartisan, common ground on legislation that actually helps the American people.”

Conservatives revolt 

Despite the bill’s broad appeal, a bloc of House conservatives frustrated with the Senate’s inability to pass a Trump-supported bill to require photo ID at polling places and other measures they say are important to secure elections, mounted a last-minute objection to the housing bill.

Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna was the most vocal member of the opposition Tuesday, pledging to vote against other bills and House rules resolutions until the Senate passed the elections security measure, titled the SAVE America Act, whose proponents have noted would restrict noncitizen voting, which is already illegal and extremely rare.

“I will be voting no and oppose other bills AND rules until we fight for SAVE America Act,” Luna wrote on social media Tuesday afternoon, well after the bill had been scheduled for a floor vote. “That means if House GOP leadership chooses today to move the SENATE HOUSING BILL under suspension (getting rid of our house rules) I will vote to shut the floor down. I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE.”

Democrats are growing hopeful they can recapture the U.S. Senate in this fall’s midterm elections amid President Donald Trump’s plummeting approval ratings. 

But they still need nearly everything to break their way against a map that put them at a starting disadvantage, analysts and campaign officials say.

At the outset of this election cycle, Republicans appeared highly likely to hold their majority. Democrats would need to flip four seats, and competitive races this year are in states that are more Republican than average. 

But as election watchers increasingly expect a blue tint to the November midterms, the question is now whether it will be blue enough to put Democrats back in the Senate majority, where they are now at a 53-47 disadvantage.

Democrats are mounting competitive campaigns in Republican-run states typically seen as stretches, including Texas and Iowa. But analysts say scandals surrounding the party’s nominee in Maine, Graham Platner, have exposed how dependent Democrats are on a rising tide of voter anger with Trump and Republicans to lift their candidates to victory. 

“Is 2026 gonna be a mildly blue lean year, like 2018, or a kind of tsunami blue year, like 2006 or 2008?” J. Miles Coleman, the associate editor at Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a University of Virginia-based election forecaster, said. “I think the answer to that question is still kind of, we’ll see.”

Strong candidates, high prices

Thirty-five Senate seats will be on the ballot during the November midterm elections. 

Of the nine deemed most competitive — Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas — that will likely decide control of the chamber, Trump won all but Maine and New Hampshire in 2024. Democrats would have to retain their current seats and flip others in some combination of seven of those Senate races to take over control of the chamber. 

But Democrats have also offset their geographic disadvantage by fielding strong candidates in a few of the most important races, making pink-to-red states such as Alaska, Ohio and North Carolina ultra-competitive.

Democrats’ optimism comes as Trump has made a series of moves they believe could prove toxic for Republicans. Potentially most damaging, the war with Iran sent gas prices soaring and inflation rising, calling into question his handling of the economy as voters continue to rate affordability as a top issue.Trump has signed a ceasefire agreement and gas prices are dropping, but the question is whether there’s enough time left to erase the damage. 

The president’s approval rating was near 50% when he won the 2024 election, Coleman said, but has since sunk as the cost of living keeps rising. 

Trump continues to turn off voters, with elections now less than five months away. A New York Times daily average of polling placed the president’s approval rating at 39% as of June 17.

A switch in Senate control would have major implications for the remainder of Trump’s term. 

Democratic senators, assuming they vote together, would have the power to block any U.S. Supreme Court nominees put forward by Trump in the final two years of his term, as well as executive branch nominees and federal judges, and to shut down major party-line legislation enacted by Republicans twice already in the past year through the budget reconciliation process.

The combination of an unpopular president and a strong crop of candidates gives Democrats a fighting chance to win the majority, even if they still face long odds, Coleman said.

“If you asked me a year ago if Democrats had a path to the Senate, I would have said the chances aren’t zero, but they’re very hard,” Coleman said. “Now, I think there are several paths that the Democrats have to take the Senate, but I think the Republicans just have an easier path holding it.”

Moderates put red states in play

Alvin Tillery, a Democratic pollster and consultant who is also a professor in Northwestern University’s political science department, said strong candidates in North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska give his party the edge in those states

Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and former Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola are “moderates who have won statewide,” Tillery said.

Though the Democratic candidates in those states are establishment-friendly, Tillery said Democrats generally should look to motivate younger voters and voters of color by leaning in to issues that the No Kings protests have elevated, as well as keeping affordability in focus.

But, despite the apparent quality of Democratic candidates, those states are still purple at best. Trump has won each state in each of his three White House runs.

The president’s drooping approval may not be as big a factor as Democrats need, a national Republican campaign operative said.

“Yes, approval ratings, obviously, have gone down,” the operative, who declined to be identified by name, said. “However, when it comes to the Republican base, they are still showing up for Trump, and he will make sure to turn them out … At the end of the day, we have an advantage when it comes to the state-specific electorates that we’re looking at.”

Control of the Senate may come down to the Democratic candidates’ strength against the overall partisan lean of the states in play.

“They’ve by and large done a good job of recruiting the candidates they need to to put those states in play,” Coleman said of Democrats. “It’s just a question of: Are those states too red?”

Democrats are also defending open seats in Michigan and New Hampshire, while Sen. Jon Ossoff is seeking reelection in Georgia. Sabato’s Crystal Ball rates the Michigan race as a toss-up and the contests in New Hampshire and Georgia, where Ossoff will face Trump-endorsed Rep. Mike Collins after his win in the June 16 GOP primary, as leaning toward Democrats.

A Maine street fight

On paper, Maine could be seen as the bluest state on the map this year because of its state’s record in presidential elections.

But its Senate race also may be the most immune from the national environment, with a battle-tested Republican incumbent running in a lightly populated state where retail politics can still swing an election.

The matchup, which may be the single most competitive in the country, pits a controversial newcomer in Platner against Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate and powerful Republican with proven electoral appeal who has occasionally criticized the president during the Trump era but also voted for conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Democrats are betting that Maine voters want more full-throated opposition to Trump. Primary voters formally made Platner the nominee in June after Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, seen as a more establishment candidate, suspended her campaign. 

Platner, a gruff-looking oyster farmer and Marine veteran, has connected with voters with a populist, outsider message. But he has faced an array of flaps, including over a tattoo with Nazi associations and that Platner had sexted several women while married. The New York Times also reported on women who said they were disturbed by Platner’s behavior while dating him.

He faces a difficult matchup with Collins, who has won other races in the face of significant national headwinds. In 2020, even as Trump lost the presidential election nationwide and in Maine, Collins won reelection while outperforming Trump by 18 points.

Senate math

The president’s party typically does poorly in midterm elections. Republicans are seen as likely to lose the House, though gerrymandering may make the fight for control of that chamber tighter than before. Republicans losing the Senate, too, would be seen as a stinging rebuke of Trump and GOP lawmakers.

In Ohio, Republican Sen. Jon Husted is seeking election after he was appointed to the Senate last year to replace JD Vance, who resigned to become vice president. Brown is running against Husted after losing reelection in 2024 to Sen. Bernie Moreno. 

Brown, who promotes a populist message, hearkens back to an earlier era of Ohio politics, when Democrats were more popular. President Barack Obama won the state in 2008 and 2012 but Republicans have since become ascendant, with Trump winning the state all three times he’s run for president.

While Husted hasn’t won a Senate race, he’s won statewide races for lieutenant governor and secretary of state. 

In North Carolina, Cooper is now favored in a contest with Republican Michael Whatley, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Sabato’s Crystal Ball and the Cook Political Report have said the race leans Democratic, though another forecaster, Inside Elections, rates it as a tossup.

They are battling to flip the seat and succeed Sen. Thom Tillis, a Republican who chose not to run for reelection after repeatedly clashing with Trump. He has publicly said Trump is harming Republican chances in November.

“We need Republicans to do well in November, but the stupid stuff is killing our chances!” Tillis wrote on social media in late May.

Alaska’s Senate race pits two well-known politicians in the state against each other. Incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan is facing Peltola, who was the state’s lone U.S. House member for more than two years.

Peltola represents a hope by Democrats that a familiar face will resonate with voters in a state where the party has struggled. She was the first Democrat to win statewide in Alaska since 2008. Peltola, who was first elected to Congress in a 2022 special election, lost her race for reelection in 2024.

Sullivan’s campaign got a boost after Alaska election officials disqualified a different Dan Sullivan from appearing on the ballot. Alaska Elections Division Director Carol Beecher wrote that the other Sullivan had filed “with a purpose to confuse or mislead” voters.

In Iowa, Republican U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson and Democrat Josh Turek, a state representative, are running for an open seat created after Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, declined to run for reelection.

Iowa was once a major swing state and home of long-serving Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, and helped power President Barack Obama’s rise in 2008. It has since become solidly Republican, but anger over Trump’s tariffs and concerns that the war in Iran will send fertilizer prices rising have potentially created an opening for Democrats.

Lone Star longing

After Maine, no race has perhaps attracted as much attention as Texas.

Republicans are emerging from a bruising primary battle between Sen. John Cornyn and Ken Paxton, the scandal-plagued and previously indicted state attorney general. Paxton won and will face Democrat James Talarico, a state lawmaker and seminary student who speaks openly about his faith, a progressive form of Christianity.

A Democratic victory would represent a political earthquake. Democrats haven’t won a Senate seat in Texas since the 1980s and haven’t won a statewide election since the 1990s.

Trump won 56% of the vote in Texas in 2024. A Talarico victory — a statewide Democratic victory — would open up the possibility that the party might one day again compete at the presidential level in Texas, the state that sent President Lyndon B. Johnson to Washington. Texas has 40 Electoral College votes, the second-biggest prize after California’s 54.

The federal government will spend $700 million on building or refurbishing coal power infrastructure across the country in a boost to “clean, beautiful coal,” President Donald Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office.

Trump said he was invoking the Cold War-era Defense Production Act, which gives the president authority over domestic industry, to save 13 existing power plants and build two new ones. He said the move would save 14,000 coal jobs and lower energy costs, though the spending will not lower the price of gasoline or diesel fuel, which has spiked since Trump launched a war with Iran in February.

Trump criticized subsidies for wind power championed by Democrats, including his predecessor, Joe Biden, characterizing coal as the most important energy source to cultivate.

“It’s real power,” Trump said. “In terms of power, there’s really nothing like it. We have so many different alternatives. You talk about some, there’s no real alternative.” 

New coal plants would be built in Alaska and West Virginia, Trump said. A defunct plant in Maryland would also be restarted. Those projects would be funded with $200 million in Department of Energy grants.

Coal plants receiving a combined $425 million in Defense Production Act funding are in West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Wisconsin, according to the White House.

Coal mines benefiting from the move are in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wyoming, North Dakota and New Mexico, according to the White House.

The administration would also spend $75 million, authorized by the Defense Production Act, to help open a long-delayed new coal export terminal in Oakland, California, the White House said.

Administration officials said Thursday’s announcement built on a record of the past 18 months in which the administration has saved dozens of coal production facilities.

“It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “If you look at our efforts across the whole government, so far 45 coal plants are open today that would not be open.”

Republican approval

Trump Cabinet members, congressional Republicans and two governors, Wyoming’s Mark Gordon and West Virginia’s Patrick Morrissey, joined Trump for the Oval Office announcement, with several extolling the importance of the coal industry after Trump spoke.

Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin praised Trump for intervening to help the industry and refocusing federal energy policy away from renewables.

Wright said Democratic policies were more responsible for high energy costs than the war in Iran, even though Republicans have held unified control of the federal government since January 2025 and the Trump administration has consistently touted its moves to encourage fossil fuel production.

“We wish they were lower, but gasoline prices in the U.S. are a little over $4. They’re $10 in Europe, they’re higher in Asia, they’re very high in California,” Wright said. The national average price for regular gasoline Thursday was $4.24 per gallon. 

“The bigger threat to energy prices in the United States is Democratic green energy policies,” Wright continued. “They have driven up energy prices far more than a conflict in Iran.”

Burgum said the president was perhaps the strongest advocate for coal in the country’s history.

He echoed Trump’s statements that the coal industry needed to be reinvigorated after the Biden administration focused more on renewable energy production.

“The prior administration, under Biden, had gone so far down the path of pursuing the highly subsidized, intermittent, weather-dependent sources of electricity that our grid was at risk. You understood that and you understood how key coal is,” Burgum told Trump. “It’s the backbone of having affordable, reliable and secure American energy to power our country, our electric grid, power our competitiveness in AI, and power all the manufacturing that’s coming back.”

Morrissey said the moves would benefit his state.

“We believe your policies are going to allow America to compete and win,” Morrissey said. “West Virginia is going to supply the coal, the gas, the nuclear to help make that happen. So I’m very excited by everything you’re doing.”

Greens decry ‘polluter handout’

Environmental groups blasted the move, saying it propped up a failing industry and would have little long-term impact on energy prices or reliability.

Jesse Lee, a senior adviser with the advocacy group Climate Power, said the spending on coal projects would not lower utility prices, which he said have climbed 18% during Trump’s second term.

“He’s gaslighting the American people by claiming that this move will lower electricity prices in the middle of an energy affordability crisis that he created,” Lee said. 

Environmental groups noted the coal industry heavily contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Several environmental advocates, including Lena Moffitt, the executive director of the climate group Evergreen Action, suggested that relationship drove Trump to promote coal at the expense of renewable energy sources.

“Spending $700 million to bail out the coal industry is like throwing a lifeline to a ship that has already sunk,” Moffitt wrote. “Trump is handing out taxpayer money to coal barons and leaving us with nothing but higher energy costs. … There’s no coal revival waiting around the corner—just polluters collecting a handout while their friends run the White House and Americans foot the bill.”

KANSAS CITY, Missouri — When Vice President JD Vance pitched voters on electing Republicans to Congress this November during a trip to a Kansas City manufacturing plant on Monday, he delivered the message while standing in a newly gerrymandered U.S. House district.

“If you want congressional leadership that fights to lower your taxes, that fights to put more money in your pockets and fights to protect your jobs, the only game in town is Donald J. Trump and congressional Republicans,” Vance said.

But the Trump brand is hurting — placing Republicans’ miniscule U.S. House majority at high risk, despite a GOP rush to redistricting in Southern states this spring following a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision and earlier gerrymandering.

Public polling shows most voters are dissatisfied with President Donald Trump’s job performance and historically, the party not in the White House wins seats in the midterms.

The GOP gerrymandering could offset some losses, analysts say. But whether voter displeasure with the president translates into enough Democratic gains to retake the House and usurp the GOP trifecta in Washington also remains to be seen, five months out.

Vance’s visit to Democratic-leaning Kansas City underscored the extraordinary effort Republicans have undertaken to give the party a chance at retaining control of the House in the midterm elections. The GOP now holds 217 seats to 212 for Democrats, with one independent and five vacancies.

GOP states, including Missouri, have engaged in a blitz of gerrymandering over the past nine months, dividing areas like Kansas City in hopes of securing additional seats as the party faces political headwinds ahead of November. 

Without the redistricting war that Trump triggered last year, Republicans could lose no more than three House seats and keep their majority. Redrawn lines push that number up slightly, in the eight-to-10 range, Erin Covey, an editor who specializes in U.S. House races for the elections forecaster Cook Political Report, said in an interview.

“That is still not going to be enough to protect (Republicans) from a difficult national environment,” Covey, who specializes in House races, said.

Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, said redistricting may be more beneficial to Republicans in the long term than in the 2026 election.

“Because of the economic problems that the country is confronting, and the fact that a lot of that blame is going to be at the doorstep of the White House, it’s going to be a challenge for Republicans,” he said. “Republicans are playing the long game, and it’ll eventually pay off, but it’s going to be a tough ride this cycle.”

The case for Democrats

The president’s party has gained House seats in a midterm cycle only three times in the last century. Twice, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and at the height of the Great Depression, history-shaping events explained the exception.

Not only is there no comparable event this year, but the political environment strongly favors Democrats.

A Quinnipiac University poll published Wednesday showed 50% of voters preferred Democrats won control of the House, while only 39% preferred Republicans.

The same survey showed Trump’s approval rating at a second-term low, 34% approval with 58% disapproving. On economic issues, as the price of gas has skyrocketed during the war with Iran, nearly twice as many voters disapproved of Trump’s handling than approved.

Other polls show similar attitudes. Both the preference for Democratic House control and disapproval of Trump have risen steadily.

“Midterms are typically a referendum on the party in power,” Covey said. “So the fact that Trump’s approval rating has been under 40% for the past several weeks, and it has obviously been made worse by the war in Iran, is going to be a really significant issue for Republicans.”

Redistricting might cap Democrats’ best-case scenario, but it doesn’t change the underlying conditions, Democratic campaign strategist Tom Bowen said in a Tuesday interview.

“It’s going to change some outcomes for sure,” said Bowen. “But the environment is what shapes these races more than anything else. Voters aren’t going to vote on redistricting. What they’re going to vote on is high gas prices, and that’s going to make seats where Trump did well… it’s gonna put some of those seats in play.”

Republicans in the Trump era have also struggled to get their voters to the polls when Trump himself is not on the ballot. 

“Your base is depressed,” Bowen said of Republicans. “Sure, you theoretically drew yourself, you know, 10 points of margin. It doesn’t matter if the environment is that terrible.”

US House redistricting arms race

Republicans did have a plan to prop up their House majority.

At Trump’s urging last year, a handful of Republican states redrew their congressional lines, beginning with Texas. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio followed. States traditionally enact new maps once a decade following the census, but that norm has now been shattered.

Democrats responded with a California gerrymander approved by voters. In Virginia, voters also approved new lines but the election was invalidated in May by the Virginia Supreme Court.

California and Virginia are the only Democratic-controlled states to have advanced the new maps. In conservative Utah, state courts have forced adoption of a new map that could allow a Democrat to win a race to represent the Salt Lake area.

Democrats are actively weighing action in Colorado, Maryland, New York and other states, but their ability to act this year is restricted by state limits on gerrymandering and other procedural barriers.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on April 29 in Louisiana vs. Callais then set off a new round of Republican-led gerrymandering. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority sharply weakened the federal Voting Rights Act, which had protected districts where a majority of residents belonged to a racial minority group.

The Callais decision only explicitly struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which contained a second majority-Black district that the conservative justices found unnecessary. 

But GOP-controlled states in the South interpreted the decision as a green light to eliminate majority-Black districts, often centered on major cities, that reliably elect Democrats.

Florida lawmakers passed a new map within hours of the Supreme Court decision. Alabama and Tennessee advanced gerrymanders, with Louisiana expected to follow soon. South Carolina lawmakers are also advancing a new map.

Federal and state court lawsuits have been filed against the maps, leaving open the question of whether judges could eventually block some of the gerrymanders. But opponents of Republican gerrymanders have not fared well in their legal challenges up to this point.

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for Southern states to act quickly to redraw maps, including lifting a lower court order that had stopped an Alabama gerrymander from taking effect. The justices also sped up paperwork to allow Louisiana lawmakers to move forward on developing a new map.

At the state level, the Missouri Supreme Court last week refused to block a gerrymander of the Kansas City region. Opponents had wanted the court to halt the map until state officials decide enough signatures have been gathered to force a statewide vote over the redrawn lines.

The dust is still settling on redistricting this year, but it so far has given Republicans a moderate edge.

The case for Republicans

While it would take a historical anomaly for Republicans to keep their House majority, the party’s campaign apparatus argues that some variables are in its favor. 

Notably, the GOP holds an edge in fundraising and a map with few Republicans running for reelection in districts Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris won in 2024.

“House Republicans are on offense and well-positioned to defy history thanks to strong candidates, a historic fundraising advantage, and a message that’s connecting with voters in battleground districts across the country,” Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, wrote in a statement. 

“While Democrats remain bogged down by messy primaries, a weak national brand, and a shrinking battlefield, Republicans are building the infrastructure and momentum needed to grow the majority in November.”

Even without redistricting, the 2026 House map favored Republicans: Sixteen Democrats won 2024 races in districts Trump carried, and only three Republicans came from districts that voted for Harris.

Those so-called crossover districts provide a starting point for the number of competitive districts, which continue to shrink as the country becomes more polarized and lawmakers draw U.S. House districts to favor incumbents.

Chris Pack, a Republican campaign strategist, said the situation was reversed in Trump’s first-term midterms, when Democrats gained 40 seats.

“I don’t think it’s fair to compare this (year) to 2018,” he said. That year, 23 Republicans represented districts that Democratic presidential nominee Hilary Clinton won. “Now, it’s three.”

In fundraising, the two House campaign committees, the NRCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, have raised similar amounts this cycle and have roughly equivalent cash on hand.

But the Republican National Committee’s cash on hand dwarfs the Democratic National Committee’s, $117 million to $14 million, according to Federal Elections Commission records filed April 30.

The president’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., has also raised more than $300 million this cycle, which it could spend on congressional races.

Pack also said the party could compete, despite the environment, by emphasizing Democratic positions outside the mainstream.

“It’s just really reminding voters that, again, Democrats are far more out of touch with everyday Americans than Republicans are,” he said.

Analysts maintain it is still the GOP at a disadvantage.

“Republicans do have a path — more of a path, certainly, than they did before the Virginia and U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” Covey said. “But they’re still the underdogs.”

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, sued the Trump administration Wednesday to block the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion fund to pay people said to be victims of judicial weaponization, saying the fund would aid and encourage the pro-Trump rioters who attacked that Capitol that day and still harbor desire to harm the officers.

Retired U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges said in a complaint in federal court that Jan. 6 rioters, nearly all of whom received a pardon from President Donald Trump on his first day back in office last year, could benefit from the fund and use the money to organize more violent activity.

“In the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century, President Donald J. Trump has created a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name,” the first paragraph of the complaint reads.

The complaint lists Trump, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as defendants.

The Justice Department, which Blanche has led since last month, announced the creation of the fund on Monday in conjunction with Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.

Claims by victims of ‘weaponization’

The fund would use money from a pool designated for settling legal claims against the federal government to compensate people who were “victims of lawfare and weaponization,” Blanche said in a press release.

Trump has long complained that the Biden administration targeted him, his allies and supporters for prosecutions that were not supported by facts on the ground. That claim was part of his rationale for pardoning people convicted of crimes on Jan. 6. 

The press release explicitly says there is no partisan test to benefit from the fund, but the structure gives Trump and Blanche, who was Trump’s criminal defense attorney before joining the government, near total control.

Payments from the fund would be decided by a five-member panel, which the attorney general would appoint. Only one appointment would require “consultation” with Congress and the president would be able to fire any member. The fund would dissolve in December 2028, the month before Trump’s term ends.

Dunn and Hodges said in Wednesday’s challenge that Trump’s IRS lawsuit was frivolous from the start because the president was suing a government agency that he controlled. The suit also came after the statute of limitations expired, they said.

The settlement “is a corrupt sham,” they said.

Jan. 6 injuries

Dunn and Hodges both deployed to the Capitol during the 2021 attack. The lawsuit describes the danger they faced and injuries they incurred. Hodges said a rioter tried to gouge out his eyes and that he thought he would die while crushed between metal doors.

Investigations of the attack showed that it was a “planned insurrection” by paramilitary groups like the Proud Boys, the suit says.

Many of the people Trump pardoned for crimes connected to the attack, including former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison for sedition, have expressed a desire to exact revenge, according to the suit.

On Jan. 6 of this year, Tarrio said on the podcast of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones that after his pardon, he was “searching for … retribution, retaliation.” 

Fund called ‘stupid on stilts’

The fund is illegal, Dunn and Hodges’ lawsuit says. No law authorized its creation, and the appropriation creating the judgment fund that is used to pay out other settlements does not apply when no settlement has been reached, they said.

Members of Congress, including Republicans, have major reservations about the fund.

Blanche pitched a group of Senate Republicans during a two-hour meeting Thursday, but didn’t appear to change many minds.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said the meeting was a “spirited discussion.”

Shortly after the meeting, the chamber’s GOP leaders told members they would not vote this month on a $72 billion bill to fund immigration enforcement and security upgrades to Trump’s proposed White House ballroom. Senators sought to insert guardrails on the DOJ fund into the bill.

In a Wednesday interview with Spectrum News, retiring GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina called the fund “stupid on stilts.”

“It will invariably put us in a position where your taxpayers dollars and my taxpayer dollars could potentially compensate someone who assaulted a police officer, admitted their guilt, got convicted, got pardoned, and now we are going to pay them for that,” he said. “That’s absurd.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, has also voiced her objection. Blanche testified at a Senate Appropriations hearing Tuesday, when Collins questioned him about the fund. She later said his answers did not win her support.

“After my exchange with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, I do not support the creation of the proposed Anti-Weaponization Fund,” she said in a written statement that also noted no court had approved it.

Dunn also a candidate

A White House spokesperson deferred a message seeking comment Thursday to the Justice Department. Spokespeople for the department did not return messages.

Dunn, who is running as a Democrat for a Maryland U.S. House seat, told Maryland Matters the fund did not come as a surprise.

“This was a promise to his supporters,” Dunn said. “When it was finally announced, there was no doubt in our minds to stop this.”

Ashley Murray and Will Ford contributed to this report.

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

The suspect in the attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night was prepared for a mass casualty event, prosecutors said in a document filed in federal court early Wednesday.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and three assistants in her office signed a memorandum asking a judge to keep 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen detained as he awaits trial. They said his “actions were premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” and he sought to “express his political opinions through violence.”

“Had the defendant achieved his intended outcome, he would have brought about one of the darkest days in American history,” they wrote. “The defendant traveled across the country with the explicit aim to kill the President of the United States.”

A detention hearing is set for Thursday. Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump, as well as interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the Washington Hilton ballroom.

The document lists a host of weapons, ammunition and other supplies Allen had in his possession at the time of his arrest.

He had a “12-gauge pumpaction shotgun with one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired cartridges in the magazine tube,” the document reads. He carried additional ammunition in a Velcro strapped to his body and in a separate pouch, the prosecutors said. 

He also carried a fully loaded .38 caliber pistol with two additional magazines. 

The document also shows a mirror selfie Allen appears to have taken in his hotel room just before the planned attack. He is fully armed and outfitted in the photo.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner, dating back more than 100 years, is an annual black-tie event, often attended by the president, that hosts more than 2,000 journalists, administration officials and other guests at the Washington Hilton. 

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and members of the Cabinet attended Saturday’s dinner, along with many members of Congress. 

Allen, who traveled by train from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., prior to the attack, sent a note just prior to attempting to rush the Capital Hilton ballroom, brandishing a gun. 

He did not name Trump but said, “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Prosecutors argued his intent was to inflict mass harm and disrupt the government.

“Had the defendant successfully made it into the ballroom, he not only could have killed or injured dozens of people, but he could have destabilized the entire federal government, given the number of high-ranking government officials present,” the Department of Justice said. “The defendant sought to express his political opinions through violence. The Court should consider the identities of the defendant’s intended victims and the significant roles they play in governing this country to assess the nature of the charged offenses.”

The U.S. Supreme Court could be ready to overturn a Missouri state court verdict that favored a man who sued the manufacturer of the popular herbicide Roundup for lacking any warning that the product carried a risk of cancer after oral arguments in the case Monday.

The arguments focused on whether states could enforce their own labeling requirements of pesticides, or whether federal law preempted any deviation among states. Members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority emphasized the need for uniformity across the country.

The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case in favor of Monsanto, the Missouri-based company that manufactures Roundup and has been owned since 2018 by German pharmaceutical company Bayer. The company faces thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to Roundup increased a risk of cancer and that the company failed to warn consumers when it reasonably should have known of the risk.

Monsanto denies that the product causes cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has consistently agreed.

John Durnell, a St. Louis resident, sued the company in 2019 claiming that exposure to Roundup over two decades led to his developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A Missouri trial court awarded him $1.25 million, and appeals courts affirmed the ruling.

But the Supreme Court, which is the first federal court to hear the case, seemed inclined to protect federal supremacy. The EPA, which regulates labeling requirements for herbicides, does not require the kind of warning the Missouri jury said was appropriate.

Federal law typically trumps state law, which Monsanto and the Justice Department emphasized Monday. Industry groups across the economy tend to support federal supremacy because it saves companies from complying with 50 separate regulatory schemes across states.

‘Is that uniformity?’

An exchange between Ashley Keller, the attorney for Durnell, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump appointed in his first term, may hold the key to the court’s ultimate ruling.

Keller argued that Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which governs herbicide use, did not include a clause to expressly say that the federal law would preempt any state claims.

There was no issue of a difference between state and federal law, Keller said. Instead, a particular jury decided a single case based on unique facts, he continued. Different juries in other cases may have decided differently.

But Kavanaugh seemed not to accept that argument. He rephrased a similar question several times, and, even as Keller objected, appeared to dismiss the idea that the Missouri verdict was compatible with a national standard.

“You think it’s uniformity when each state can require different things?” he asked.

Keller rejected that framing. 

“The label’s illegal in one state and legal in another state,” Kavanaugh responded. “That’s uniformity?” 

Keller said he didn’t agree with that premise either, saying the label is not illegal based on the state but based on the facts presented at trial and the jury’s interpretation.

“The label subjects you to liability in one state and does not subject you to liability in another state,” Kavanaugh continued. “Is that uniformity?”

“I don’t think it’s state by state,” Keller said. “I think it’s jury by jury.”

Paul Clement, a well-known conservative appeals lawyer, represented Monsanto in the case, and described Keller’s argument as chaotic. It would not just open up separate regulatory regimes in each state in the country, but subject manufacturers to liability based on the makeup of any particular batch of citizens on a state court jury.

“It’s worse than 50 states,” he said. “It’s every jury is a new day.” 

A host of agencies in countries across the globe have all done studies on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, Clement said.

“It’s probably the most, like, studied herbicide in the history of man, and they’ve all reached the conclusion based on more data and the kind of expert analysis they can do that there isn’t a risk here,” he said. “You shouldn’t let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment.”

Liberal justices seek consumer protections

The court’s liberal justices spent more time questioning why states shouldn’t be allowed to enforce stricter regulations.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who argued on behalf of the federal government in favor of throwing out the verdict against Monsanto, if she agreed with Clement’s argument.

Harris said she largely agreed, noting that 50 states setting up separate regulations on labeling pesticides would cause confusion.

But Kagan asked why uniformity should be a higher goal than safety, saying a certain state government might have a better understanding than the EPA.

“It does undermine uniformity, I appreciate that,” Kagan said. “On the other hand, if it turns out that they (state regulators) were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something to call this danger to the attention of the people while the federal government was going through its process.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pointed out that the EPA only registers herbicides once every 15 years, meaning that states might have better information than the EPA, especially later in that cycle.

“Lots of things can happen in science in terms of developments about the product,” she told Clement. “So if the product can become misbranded because of new information, I guess I’m just wondering why you think that you couldn’t have a situation where it would be perfectly rational for either the EPA or the states to bring to the attention of that manufacturer this new information and process a claim related to it.”

The alleged shooter at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C., wrote a “manifesto” ahead of his planned attack, President Donald Trump said in a Sunday morning interview on Fox News and later in the day on the CBS show “60 Minutes.”

Meanwhile, Trump and MAGA allies online said security flaws exposed by the incident prove the need for a new secure ballroom at the White House. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet officials were safely evacuated from the Washington Hilton after shots were fired by a suspect said by officials to be armed with a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives.

Multiple news reports Sunday identified the suspected shooter as 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California, and The Associated Press said he is a tutor and amateur video game developer. The White House has not released that information publicly and spokespeople did not return a message Sunday.

Fox News Host Jacqui Heinrich used the name in her interview with Trump, who did not use it himself but did not correct Heinrich when she named Allen and called the manifesto “anti-Trump” and “anti-Christian.”

Trump said the document revealed a “hatred” for Christianity.

“The guy is a sick guy,” he said. “When you read his manifesto, he hates Christians. That’s one thing for sure: He hates Christians.”

The New York Post published what the outlet said was the full text of the manifesto, which sought to reconcile the attack with Christian teachings, rather than mock the religion itself. The document was also referenced in the CBS interview, with host Norah O’Donnell saying it characterized members of the administration as targets.

The document lays out a series of objections to a planned attack and the writer’s rebuttals.

“Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek,” Allen wrote, according to the New York Post. 

“Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed,” he continued. “I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

Noting this was what he characterized as the third assassination attempt of Trump in less than two years, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on social media that a Trump trademark is a calm demeanor under pressure.

“I’ve spent a lot of time with him over the past several years, and he is at his strongest in times of crisis and turmoil,” the Louisiana Republican wrote. “It is a primary reason why his time in office is so historic. Adding to that history, he has now survived a third assassination attempt.”

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday on news shows that the gunman appeared to be targeting administration officials but did not say it was specifically Trump. The White House put out a statement with the headline, “President Trump Stands Fearless After Third Assassination Attempt.”

Arraignment Monday

Blanche also said he expects the suspect to be arraigned in D.C. federal court on Monday. Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, said Saturday night the man would be charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon. 

The suspect traveled from Los Angeles to Washington by train, switching trains in Chicago, Blanche said in a Sunday morning interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.” That mode of travel would have allowed him to transport the weapons that officials said were found on him across the country without facing a security check, unlike an air flight.

Blanche said he did not think any additional laws to increase security on trains were needed.

The shooter was staying at the Washington Hilton, the longtime site for the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, for days before the attack, Blanche said. 

At the time of the interview, Allen was not cooperating with the investigation, Blanche said.

Asked if there was any foreign connection to the planned attack, Blanche said many details of the shooter’s plans were yet unknown.

“We’re still looking into motivation, and that’s something that hopefully we’ll learn over the next couple of days,” Blanche said. “We do believe, based upon just a very preliminary start to understanding what happened, that he was targeting members of the administration. We don’t have specifics beyond that.”

Blanche added that the law enforcement agent injured by a shot to his bulletproof vest Saturday night was doing well and had received a call from Trump.

“The president spoke with him last night,” Blanche said. “He was in great spirits. He apparently didn’t really even want to go to the hospital, although he was certainly injured.”

Ballroom pitched as security fix

Trump, a host of right-wing influencers and at least one Democratic member of Congress called for the construction of a new ballroom for the White House in response to the incident.

“What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure Ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, Sunday morning. 

“This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House,” he continued. “It cannot be built fast enough! While beautiful, it has every highest level security feature there is plus, there are no rooms sitting on top for unsecured people to pour in, and is inside the gates of the most secure building in the World.”

The initial White House announcement of the ballroom, in July, emphasized space needs for large events and gave only a passing mention to security updates, saying the Secret Service would provide them.

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is among the senators who most commonly cross party lines, posted on social media Sunday that a new ballroom was a necessity, calling on opponents to drop their “TDS,” or Trump Derangement Syndrome, a name to describe people who oppose anything Trump does.

“That venue wasn’t built to accommodate an event with the line of succession for the U.S. government,” Fetterman wrote. “After witnessing last night, drop the TDS and build the White House ballroom for events exactly like these.”

Montana Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy said he would propose a bill to expedite the construction of the White House ballroom.

“This week I will introduce and seek unanimous consent for legislation providing express approval for construction of a Presidential ballroom,” he wrote on X. “It is an embarrassment to the strongest nation on earth that we cannot host gatherings in our nation’s capital, including ones attended by our President, without the threat of violence and attempted assassinations.”

And Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who is a leader among the caucus’ far-right members, said ballroom construction should be included in an upcoming funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

“Any consideration of DHS reconciliation instructions this week & beyond should provide for construction of a secure ballroom on White House grounds – in addition to other concerns,” he wrote.

President Donald Trump safely evacuated the White House Correspondents Dinner at a hotel in Washington, D.C., on Saturday night after shots were fired by an alleged lone gunman.

About two hours after the shots were fired, Trump, still wearing his tuxedo, addressed a roomful of reporters also in formalwear at the White House briefing room. Trump said one officer had been shot in the attack, but was saved by “a very good bulletproof vest.”

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a separate press availability that the officer and the suspect had been transported to local hospitals. 

The suspect was armed with a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives, Washington Metropolitan Police interim Chief Jeffery Carroll said. As of Saturday night, investigators believed the suspect acted alone, though a full investigation was underway, Carroll said.

He would be prosecuted on two charges, using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said. He would be arraigned in federal court Monday, she added. 

No other casualties were reported, and the U.S. Capitol Police said all members of Congress in attendance were unharmed. The high-profile press dinner intended to honor the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel, often dubbed “nerd prom,” attracts about 2,600 attendees who pay $480 each for tickets.

Charged security checkpoint

The suspected shooter, who law enforcement said was a guest at the hotel, was a man from California who charged “a security checkpoint armed with multiple weapons,” from about 50 yards away, Trump said. 

He posted a photo on his social media platform of what appeared to be the suspect, lying shirtless flat on the floor. Some news media identified the individual but States Newsroom cannot yet confirm those reports.

Anthony Guglielmi, a Secret Service spokesman, said in a statement on social media the incident occurred near the main magnetometer screening area at the dinner.

“He was running full-blast,” Trump said. 

Federal law enforcement on Saturday night was pursuing warrants to search the man’s home, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the briefing with Trump.

Asked if he believed he was the target of the attack, Trump said, “I guess.” 

Trump said he’d been targeted, now apparently in a third assassination attempt in two years, because of his impactful record as president.

“It comes with the territory,” he said. “You take a look at what’s happened to some of our greatest presidents, and it doesn’t happen to people that don’t do anything,” he said.  

In a social media post before briefing reporters, Trump said he was in “perfect condition.”

Rescheduled dinner

At the White House briefing room podium, Trump praised the law enforcement response and committed to rescheduling the event in the next 30 days. The dinner, an annual celebration of the White House press corps, is “dedicated to freedom of speech,” he said.

“And we’ll make it bigger and better and even nicer,” he said. “I just want to thank everybody that was involved. I also want to thank the press, the media. You’ve been very responsible in your coverage, I will say. I’ve been seeing what’s been out.”

An initial press pool report from the hotel after the shooting occurred, sent at 8:39 p.m. Eastern, said “There was several loud bangs and the Secret Service with guns drawn rushed the pool out of the room. (The) Secret Service pushed us back screaming ‘Shots fired.’”

Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News said on social media shortly after 9 p.m. Eastern that she was behind the podium with other guests, “in a hold,” and Trump was still down the hall and did not want to leave.

Trump himself confirmed that in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. 

“Quite an evening in D.C. Secret Service and Law Enforcement did a fantastic job,” he wrote. “They acted quickly and bravely. The shooter has been apprehended, and I have recommended that we ‘LET THE SHOW GO ON’ but, will entirely be guided by Law Enforcement. They will make a decision shortly. Regardless of that decision, the evening will be much different than planned, and we’ll just, plain, have to do it again. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Frightened reporters seated at tables in the Hilton ballroom dove for the floor. Cabinet members and White House officials were hustled out of the room.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said on air that he heard “a really loud blasting away” and the next thing he knew he was being pushed to the floor by police. “I was just a few feet away from the gunman, and it was a really scary moment,” Blitzer said.

Reagan shooting

The annual formal dinner is hosted by an organization made up of journalists who cover the White House. Trump’s invitation to the event had been controversial given his frequent personal attacks on reporters and the news media in general.

The Hilton was also the site of another attack on a president when on the afternoon of March 30, 1981, gunman John Hinckley Jr. shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan while he was leaving the hotel. Reagan recovered after a stay in the hospital. Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady, also was wounded, as were police officer Thomas Delahanty and Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy.

Details of the shooter’s motive and plan Saturday were not immediately clear. Trump said the public would know much more about him in the coming days.

Trump was injured in an assassination attempt during a campaign stop in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. Another suspected assassin was arrested near Trump’s home in Florida on Sept. 15 of that year.

Jonathan Shorman contributed to this report.

Medicinal marijuana products that are legal at the state level will see looser federal regulation under an order the U.S. Department of Justice published Thursday, while a process that could remove the drug in all forms from the federal list of the most dangerous drugs is set to begin in late June.

The order, signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, shifts many marijuana products from Schedule I — the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of drugs with the greatest potential for abuse and least legitimate use — to Schedule III. 

That will open the door to greater research and provide an effective tax break for businesses that sell medicinal marijuana that is legal under state law.

The move follows President Donald Trump’s executive order last year directing the DOJ to move toward rescheduling.

“The Department of Justice is delivering on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options,” Blanche said in a statement. “This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information.”

The order applies to state-licensed medical marijuana products in the states that allow medicinal use of the drug.

The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from their federal taxes and researchers have access to state-legal products. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federal facility could be studied, severely limiting the supply available to researchers.

The DEA also scheduled a hearing on broader reclassification to begin June 29 and end no later than July 15. That hearing will explore the possibility of rescheduling marijuana products that could include recreational use.

The order likely has no immediate impact on the difficulty marijuana businesses have had accessing the banking system. Institutions that lend to even state-legal businesses could be prosecuted on federal money laundering charges for offering banking services to businesses that violate federal drug laws.

‘Historic’ shift

Moving a limited number of products from Schedule I, which includes drugs such as heroin and cocaine, to Schedule III, which includes highly regulated prescription drugs such as acetaminophen with codeine, does not satisfy advocates who have called for complete legalization. 

But it does represent a major shift in the federal government’s official position on cannabis, several pro-legalization groups said.

“It’s historic because the federal government, historically, has denied the existence of medical cannabis, even as a concept,” Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the advocacy group the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said in an interview. 

The federal government was in recent memory “outright hostile” to medicinal marijuana, Armentano added. The order “finally acknowledges and recognizes not only the legitimacy of marijuana as a medicine, but also the legitimacy of these state programs, and it is trying now to integrate these state programs into our own existing federal regulatory schemes.”

Forty states and the District of Columbia allow medicinal marijuana.

Jasmine Johnson, CEO of Florida-based cannabis company GŪD Essence, wrote in an email that the federal government’s acknowledgement of cannabis’ legitimate medical value was the most important part of the order. 

“That shift alone helps move the industry out of decades of stigma and opens the door for expanded research, more institutional participation, and a more rational regulatory framework,” she wrote.

Medicinal vs. recreational

Recreational use will see no immediate changes from the order. In the 24 states in which recreational use, also called adult use, is legal, businesses that sell both medicinal and recreational products may experience confusion.

Chuck Smith, the CEO of Colorado Leads, an industry group, said in a statement that for Colorado cannabis businesses, “the immediate effects of this order are significant but relatively narrow.”

“Hybrid businesses should expect a transitional period in which federally covered medical activity and federally non-covered adult-use activity may be treated differently for registration, tax, and compliance purposes,” Smith said.

Such businesses would likely not see a tax benefit “when it comes to producing and selling, arguably, the products that consist of the majority of their business,” Armentano said.

Ryan Hunter, the chief revenue officer for Colorado-based marijuana company Spherex, called the DOJ order “a very silly announcement,” noting that it created a third regulatory category of a single plant species.

“Though this is all the same plant,” hemp and medical marijuana “are now considered Schedule III substances under the Controlled Substances Act (similar to Tylenol + Codeine),” while non-medical use is still considered Schedule I, he wrote in a statement. “My mind boggles at these arbitrary and artificial distinctions, but here we are.”

Eventual changes

Johnson, the Florida CEO, said she expected regulators to eventually merge how they treat different uses of the drug.

“The distinction between medicinal and recreational use has always been more regulatory than practical. From an operator’s standpoint, the same plant, supply chain, and compliance standards exist regardless of how it’s categorized,” she wrote. 

“Over time, we’ll likely see a continued shift toward a more unified framework that reflects how consumers actually engage with cannabis, rather than maintaining rigid distinctions that complicate operations.”

The race by each party to redraw U.S. House districts in their favor could be headed for a draw after Tuesday’s big win for Democrats in Virginia, though major shifts are still possible before crucial midterm elections in November.

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment that clears the path for the state’s legislature, controlled by Democrats, to redraw congressional district lines to benefit Democrats in 10 of the commonwealth’s 11 U.S. House districts. 

That could net the party four new seats in Virginia, though state court cases challenging the proposal are still to be decided.

Former U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Florida Democrat who now leads the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University, said the results showed a dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump and the nation’s capital in general.

“It sends a clear message to the administration, to the White House, to Washington, D.C., that they’re not happy with the status quo, with the policies that are coming out of Washington, that they want to see a change,” she said in an interview Wednesday.

After 10 months of bitter back-and-forth that began with Trump urging Texas Republicans to revise their congressional map to help gain seats in the House, neither party has netted a significant advantage.

But the tit-for-tat may have a lasting harmful effect on U.S. democracy, experts said.

If Virginia’s proposal goes into effect, Democrats would be favored in one more House district nationwide than they had been in 2024, according to the nonpartisan election research organization Ballotpedia.

Further changes, including the Florida Legislature potentially redrawing its House map and a U.S. Supreme Court decision to gut the federal Voting Rights Act’s protection of majority-Black districts in Southern states, could tilt the advantage back to the GOP. 

Republicans narrowly control the chamber now, 217-212, with one independent and five vacancies after Georgia Democrat David Scott died Wednesday. 

The president’s party typically loses House seats in midterm elections, and Trump’s sagging poll numbers and the results of special elections do not suggest anything different this year.

Good for Democrats, bad for democracy

Elected Democrats largely framed the Virginia results as a win for free and fair elections.

“Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a President who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress,” Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, wrote on X.

But the entire cycle could deepen political polarization, leading to less compromise and policymaking in Congress and ceding power to the executive branch, Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communication & Public Policy at Northwestern University, said Wednesday.

“There were some quotes today from some leading Democrats about how you can’t bring a knife to a gunfight, and this is the only way to, like, save democracy, and sort of rationalizing it,” he said. “It’s still bad for democracy long term… It means that Congress, long term, is even more polarized and ineffectual.”

Mucarsel-Powell, who represented one of the country’s few competitive House districts, also said redistricting would make legislating more difficult.

“Redistricting doesn’t necessarily help the country overall,” she said. “As we continue to become more polarized, I think that having these maps being redrawn to favor one or the other party is just going to deepen the polarization. I think it makes it more difficult for members to be able to reach consensus. I’ve seen it, right? When you represent a solid red or a solid blue district, there’s really no incentive to compromise.”

Republicans sour on Virginia result

Republicans, from Trump on down, complained Wednesday that the result was unfair because it could give Democrats 91% of the U.S. House seats in a state where the party’s most recent presidential candidate gained only 52% of the vote.

In a post to his social media site Wednesday afternoon, Trump said the result was illegitimate — repeating, without evidence, his frequent assertion in elections he has lost that mail ballots were fraudulent — and called for courts to “fix” the result.

“A RIGGED ELECTION TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT IN THE GREAT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA!” Trump wrote. “All day long Republicans were winning, the Spirit was unbelievable, until the very end when, of course, there was a massive ‘Mail In Ballot Drop!’ Where have I heard that before — And the Democrats eked out another Crooked Victory!”

Questionable strategy

But the proposed Virginia map would only even the playing field after Trump initiated a rare mid-decade redistricting cycle last year by asking Texas officials to redraw the state’s districts. 

Texas’ new map could net Republicans five more House seats. But its creation kicked off an arms race that included California drawing five new Democratic-leaning districts, effectively neutralizing Texas’ move. 

Legislatures in Missouri and North Carolina then voluntarily redrew their maps, while an Ohio constitutional amendment and a Utah Supreme Court decision led to new district lines in those states.

Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary under Republican President George W. Bush, bemoaned the Virginia results but called them a self-inflicted wound. States should stick to redistricting once a decade after a census, he said, blasting the GOP strategy to attempt mid-decade redistricting in some states.

“The GOP will now lose net seats across the country. If you’re going to pick a fight, at least win it. The other side will always fight back,” he wrote. “All this was foreseeable and avoidable. We should not have started this fight.” 

Fleischer linked to a post he’d written in August criticizing the GOP effort in Texas as that state geared up for a vote on the new map. “Mid-census change” was not the way to win more seats in the House, he’d said.

National Democrats celebrated.

“House Democrats have crushed Donald Trump’s national gerrymandering scheme,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York wrote on social media Tuesday night. “Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

What’s next?

Two more decisions could further alter the landscape for U.S. House races before November.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last year in a case challenging a Voting Rights Act provision that has been interpreted to require majority-Black districts in Southern states equal to their population. Louisiana is challenging a lower court ruling that threw out a map in which only one of the state’s six districts was majority-Black, though Black people make up about one-third of the state’s population.

Depending on the scope and timing of the conservative court’s ruling, several safe Democratic seats in the South could be in jeopardy.

And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called the state legislature into a special session, scheduled to begin next week, to consider a redistricting effort and other issues.

‘Dummymanders’?

Florida Republicans have not fully endorsed a redistricting push, which could ultimately make some incumbents’ districts less reliably red. Gerrymandering relies on spreading a party’s voters across more districts, making some individual races more difficult, especially in a potential wave election year.

“Republicans are pushing back, saying that it’s going to actually lessen the power that they have in some of these districts,” Mucarsel-Powell said. “Because if you have (a district favoring Republicans by five points), with all the overperformance that we’ve seen, including here in the state of Florida, it’s very likely going to favor the Democrats.”

Jeffries in a Wednesday morning news conference practically dared Florida Republicans to dilute their U.S. House districts, comparing the effort to the Texas map that he said was not as Republican as they thought and calling the entire GOP effort a “dummymander” that would backfire.

“F around and find out,” Jeffries said. “If they go down the road of a DeSantis dummymander, the Florida Republicans are going to find themselves in the same situation as Texas Republicans, who are on the run right now.” 

“The Republicans are dummymandering their way into the minority before a single vote is cast,” he added. “They started this war, and we’re going to finish it.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum defended the Trump administration’s approach to energy production Monday, as Democrats on a U.S. House Appropriations panel accused the department of kowtowing to oil and gas interests at the expense of renewable energy.

Burgum said President Donald Trump’s administration aimed to ease regulatory burdens on oil and gas producers, and said former President Joe Biden sought to shut out those industries in a misguided attempt to boost renewable energy sources. 

Burgum indicated at several points that what Democrats called a pro-oil-and-gas bias was a correction to Biden’s “over-rotation” toward wind and solar.

“The last administration said ‘all of the above’ and then there were a set of rules that were completely punitive against the stuff that we needed to actually, you know, have baseload power in this country,” he said about Biden’s oil and gas policy. “It was just too early. It was too premature to say we’re going to shut all that down and we’re going to transition.”

But Democrats on the House Appropriations Interior-Environment Subcommittee said the Interior Department under Burgum was doing exactly the opposite: subsidizing fossil fuels while discouraging solar and wind power.

“Shortly after taking office, the White House moved quickly to halt offshore wind development and took steps to rein in solar and wind projects,” Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, said. “Why? Why are we kneecapping industries that create jobs, expand our energy supply and help address the climate crisis? Because this administration’s energy policy is based on political grievance, ideological hostility and, of course, propping up big oil and gas.”

California Democrat Josh Harder called for an overhaul of permitting regulations to enable faster construction of renewable energy infrastructure. Some of that responsibility fell to Congress, he said, but he complained that Trump was making it even harder for wind and solar projects to get off the ground.

“There is, again, one standard for one type of energy and another standard for another type,” he said. “I hear the complaints about previous administrations putting their thumb on the scale. What I see now is secretary-level approval required for one type of project, but not for another. And again, I don’t think that’s sustainable or good policy.”

Burgum responded that the administration was pro-hydro power and pro-nuclear, but was wary of “weather-dependent, intermittent” solar and wind power because those sources can be more expensive for ratepayers.

Cutbacks in parks, Bureau of Indian Education 

The topic of Monday’s hearing was Trump’s $16 billion budget request for the Interior Department for the next fiscal year. The request would keep the department’s funding roughly even with the current fiscal year, which was a nearly 12% cut from fiscal 2025.

Democrats voiced their disapproval of that new baseline, including a $757 million cut to National Park Service operations.

“The department is on a dangerous course,” Pingree said. “This budget would only make the damage worse, and as the ranking member of the subcommittee, I will do everything in my power to oppose these reckless cuts and fight the administration’s destructive policies.”

Members of both parties raised questions about proposed cuts to the Bureau of Indian Education budget after the Department of Education offloaded part of its responsibility in that area to Interior. 

The BIE would receive about $437 million less under the proposed budget, a roughly 32% cut.

“While your agency begins to manage these new programs, I would strongly recommend — I’m sure you will — carrying out thorough tribal consultations to ensure that there are no funding award delays or program disruptions that would potentially harm,” full Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole told Burgum.

Cole, an Oklahoma Republican and enrolled member of the Chickasaw Nation, is the first Native American to lead the Appropriations Committee.

Full committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who is also the top Democrat on the subcommittee that oversees Education Department funding, said she was concerned about the shift.

“I worry about transferring the programs from Education,” she said. “Quite honestly, (BIE) doesn’t have a great track record, and I don’t know whether or not the funding that goes along with those programs is going to come over.”

Burgum said 16 full-time staffers in four Education Department programs would transfer to the BIE, along with all the funding for the programs.

Local issues

Members also raised a host of specific concerns.

Minnesota Democrat Betty McCollum criticized the U.S. Senate vote last week to undo restrictions on mining in the Boundary Waters in northern Minnesota.

Rep. Jake Ellzey, a Texas Republican, focused much of his time on poor conditions at Maryland’s Fort Washington, a unit of the National Park Service a short drive from Washington, D.C.

Ellzey pointed to photos of buildings in need of repair and noted that a longtime park ranger retired last year and her role has not been filled, leaving only two rangers across almost 350 acres.

And subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, joked that the Bureau of Land Management’s $144 million wild horses and burros program was his top priority.

“If you can solve that problem, I don’t care what happens to the rest of the budget,” Simpson said. “We’ve been trying to deal with that for so long that it’s crazy.”

Democrats on a U.S. House spending panel slammed President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts to farm and nutrition programs Thursday, as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pledged to collaborate with members of both parties to address their concerns.

The president’s budget request would make deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gutting programs to help feed hungry people and support farmers in need — even as the rising costs of groceries, gas and other necessities made those programs even more essential, Democrats on the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee told Rollins.

“It’ll be hard for our constituents to believe that USDA serves America’s farmers and rural communities when USDA is taking away their services,” the panel’s ranking Democrat, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, said.

The proposed USDA budget for fiscal 2027 would cut $4.9 billion, or nearly one-fifth of the department’s budget. Already, due to the Republican spending and tax cuts law last year, 2.5 million people have lost access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the department’s major food assistance initiative.

Trump overall in his budget request is seeking a huge boost in defense spending accompanied by cuts in domestic programs.

Accessibility, cooperation promised

Rollins defended the budget proposal, but projected a spirit of cooperation with the panel, which writes the annual spending bill for her department, telling Democrats and Republicans that she would be happy to address their priorities. She offered to field direct phone calls from several members.

Asked by Michigan Republican Rep. John Moolenaar about foreign growers undercutting U.S. sugar producers, she said she was ready to take on the issue in upcoming trade negotiations.

“We’ve got a lot going on around the world, but anything you hear, Congressman, that you think would be helpful for me, any way I can lean in… I would love to get more involved in that,” she said. “We are making progress but it does need to remain a priority.”

Rollins also touted some of her department’s wins over the past year, noting that bird flu cases were down 61% and that egg prices had also dropped. 

The administration has also increased exports of key crops and Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts bill raised the exemption to the federal estate tax that allows more family farms to be inherited with fewer taxes, she said. 

She also called the Make America Healthy Again initiative that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spearheaded, with USDA also playing a major part, “one of our most important legacies.”

She agreed to Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree’s request to develop a “comprehensive overview” for the Make America Healthy Again philosophy.

Rollins vows no Farm Service Agency closures

Democrats on the panel, including leading members Bishop and full Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, hammered the budget request’s many cuts.

The budget would eliminate more than 70 USDA programs and was particularly ill-timed as prices continue to climb, DeLauro said.

“The price of everyday goods continues to escalate: Grocery prices are up, gas prices are up, utility costs, housing costs, health care costs are through the roof,” she said. “And the administration’s only plan is to decimate the public programs that help alleviate the strain on working families and farmers across the country.”

Bishop complained that assistance from the Farm Service Agency, which provides credit, disaster relief and other financial programs, would be more difficult for farmers to access.

Rollins sought to justify the proposed decrease, noting that the cuts Bishop mentioned made up only about 4% of the total department budget. 

But she also said she would never close a Farm Service Agency office and offered to work directly with the Democrat and others to address understaffed offices.

“But as we are looking to make sure we are honoring the taxpayer, making sure we’re doing the best we can with every tax dollar, while putting the farmers first, (we are) taking key advice from you,” she said. 

She added that members should contact the department “if you hear of an FSA office that isn’t fully staffed, or that the farmers aren’t getting what they need — and I realize they’re out there, I’m not living in some Pollyanna world, these are very difficult times.”

She ended her dialogue with Bishop by telling him to “feel free to call me, sir, anytime.”

Power of the purse

DeLauro and Bishop led a push to assert Congress’ power to control spending, executed by Appropriations committees in both chambers.

Bishop said he expected USDA to “not circumvent this appropriations process by refusing to spend or obligate program funding once it is signed into law.”

DeLauro quizzed Rollins about a grant program that was created in a December 2024 law to assist farmers hit by extreme weather events over the prior two years. “Not a single dime” of the $220 million appropriated in the law had been allocated to qualifying states, DeLauro said.

Again, Rollins was conciliatory, saying the issue was a priority for the department and that funding for DeLauro’s home state was “at the finish line.”

“Yes ma’am, we’re moving on that,” she said.