The U.S. Supreme Court, as seen on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a major decision reined in nationwide injunctions by some lower courts that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order barring birthright citizenship.

The high court declined to decide the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. But the justices said the Trump executive order rewriting the constitutional right to birthright citizenship could go into effect within 30 days after Friday’s ruling in the 28 states that did not initially sue.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision thus raises the prospect that a child born in some states would be regarded legally as a U.S. citizen but not in others until the overall question of constitutionality is settled, unless there is further legal action.

The sweeping ruling also likely could hamper other legal challenges against Trump administration actions in which nationwide injunctions are sought. Democratic attorneys general in the states have been successful in obtaining injunctions in the months since Trump was elected.

“GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!” Trump wrote on social media shortly after the ruling.

Speaking at the White House later, Trump said his administration will move forward with several executive orders that have faced nationwide injunctions, such as suspending refugee resettlement and revoking federal funds from “sanctuary” states and localities.

“Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship,” Trump said.

Liberals on the high court issued a strong dissent. “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

Joining the dissent were Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett writes ruling

In the ruling, the conservative justices found that nationwide “injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

“The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,” according to the ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

While the dispute before the court related to Trump’s executive order to rewrite the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the high court to instead focus on the issue of preliminary injunctions granted by lower courts.

“The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” according to the ruling, referring to the practice of granting citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, who appeared at the White House with the president, predicted the Supreme Court in its new term in October will take up the merits of the executive order that aims to redefine birthright citizenship.

The high court’s ruling instructs lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, through April 29, judges issued about 25 nationwide injunctions, according to the Congressional Research Service.

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments,” according to the ruling.

A narrower injunction could refer to a class action suit.

Barrett argued that a nationwide injunction would not grant more relief for barring the enforcement of Trump’s executive order against a pregnant person who is not a U.S. citizen and fears their child would be denied citizenship.

“Her child will not be denied citizenship. And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete,” according to the ruling. “So the individual and associational respondents are wrong to characterize the universal injunction as simply an application of the complete-relief principle.”

Stateless people

Trump ran on a reelection campaign platform promising mass deportations of people without permanent legal status and vowed to end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship.

During the press conference at the White House Trump said that birthright citizenship historically was only meant to benefit the children of the newly freed African Americans, not the children of immigrants.

“It wasn’t meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on vacation,” Trump said.

Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a recent study by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.

It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.

In last month’s oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, he said, the injunctions should be limited to those who brought the challenges.

‘Consequences for the children’

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said during a briefing with reporters that one group of private individuals that challenged the executive order has already filed a class action suit.

“I suspect more will come,” Platkin said.

Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said at the press conference of Democratic attorneys general that because of Friday’s ruling, the rights of future newborns who hail from states that have not directly challenged the order will be in question.

“In Washington and New Jersey and Massachusetts, Connecticut, your rights are much more strong, but in all those other states, including many of our neighbor states, not participating in this case is going to have consequences for the children born in those states,” Brown said.

With 22 states part of the initial suits challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order included, that means the order could impact the 28 states that were not part of the initial suit.

Those 28 states are: Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

‘The gamesmanship in this request is apparent’

Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued that the Trump administration brought the question of nationwide injunctions before the high court because it would be “an impossible task” to prove the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship executive order.

“So the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone,” she said. “Instead, the Government says, it should be able to apply the Citizenship Order (whose legality it does not defend) to everyone except the plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit.”

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,” she continued.

Sotomayor also questioned the irreparable harm the Trump administration would face.

“Simply put, it strains credulity to treat the Executive Branch as irreparably harmed by injunctions that direct it to continue following settled law,” she said.

She argued that the issue of birthright citizenship was ratified in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868, following the Civil War, to establish citizenship for newly freed Black people. It was meant to rectify a 1857 case in Dred Scott v. Sandford where the Supreme Court initially denied citizenship to Black people, whether they were free or enslaved.

“By stripping all federal courts, including itself, of that power, the Court kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies,” Sotomayor said. “That runs directly counter to the point of equity: empowering courts to do complete justice, including through flexible remedies that have historically benefited parties and nonparties alike.”

Origins of birthright citizenship case

The case, Trump v. CASA, was consolidated from three cases.

George Escobar, the chief of programs and services of CASA, which brought the case, said in a statement that the ruling from the high court “undermines the fundamental promise of the Constitution — that every child born on U.S. soil is equal under the law.”

“Today’s decision sends a message to U.S.-born children of immigrants that their place in this country is conditional,” Escobar said. “But we are not backing down.”

The CASA case was on behalf of several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens who filed their case in Maryland; the second came from four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — that filed a case in Washington state; and the third came from 18 Democratic state attorneys general who filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the 14th Amendment, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, extending birthright citizenship.

In that 19th-century case, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had legal authority to be in the United States, such as a temporary visa. While Ark was born in California, his citizenship was not recognized when he went on a trip to China. Upon his return to California, he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

When his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled that children born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

The Trump administration has argued that the 1898 case was misinterpreted and point to a specific phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Government attorneys contend that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship does not apply to people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on May 7, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republicans cannot exempt gun silencers, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns from being classified as firearms under a federal gun regulation law from the 1930s, according to the Senate parliamentarian’s latest ruling on the “big, beautiful bill.”

The provision addressing silencers, also called suppressors, was added to the House’s version of the bill by Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde. The Senate Finance Committee expanded it, adding in the other two classifications.

Also out of the bill is a sweeping private school voucher program that would have extended billions a year in tax credits to parents who move their children out of public schools.

The rulings mean those sections now will be dropped from the Senate version of the tax and spending cut measure, or rewritten in a way that meets the rules. 

Friday morning’s disclosure of the latest parliamentary ruling came as the Senate continues to struggle with the massive legislation, which GOP leaders in Congress want to pass in time for a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline for President Donald Trump’s signature.

The Senate will likely stay in session throughout the weekend and possibly into early next week to finish negotiations on provisions and release the final text, take a procedural vote, debate the bill, hold a marathon amendment voting session and then vote on final passage.

The House, which is scheduled to be in recess all next week for the holiday, is expected to return to Capitol Hill about two days after the Senate approves the bill to clear the legislation for Trump’s signature.

Gun silencer debate in House

Clyde said during floor debate in May that because silencers were included in the National Firearms Act, they were also subject to a $200 tax that he argued violates people’s Second Amendment rights.

“Under the law, they are firearms and therefore are protected by another law enacted in 1791 called the Second Amendment of our beloved Constitution,” Clyde said. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and neither shall it be taxed.”

Florida Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost spoke out against the House provision during floor debate, saying that during mass shootings, “silencers make it harder to identify and respond to the source of the gunshots.

“Earlier, I put forth an amendment to strip this tax cut for the gun lobby, and House Republicans wouldn’t even let it come up for a vote.”

Frost said that during 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “recovered over 400 silencers from violent crime scenes. For this reason, silencers have been highly regulated for nearly 100 years.”

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., released a statement Friday following the parliamentarian’s ruling, saying it eliminated Republicans’ “scheme to eliminate background checks, registrations and other safety measures that apply to easily-concealed firearms and gun silencers.”

“It’s no surprise that Republicans will jump at any opportunity to please the gun lobby by rolling back gun safety measures, but that kind of policy does not belong in a reconciliation bill,” Wyden wrote.

Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the committee has been going back and forth with the parliamentarian on how to rework other provisions deemed noncompliant to get them into the final bill.

A summary of the provision from Crapo’s office says it would have resulted “in the elimination of the transfer and manufacturing tax on these devices” and preempted “certain state or local licensing or registration requirements which are determined by reference to the National Firearms Act by treating anyone who acquires or possesses these rifles, shotguns, or other weapons in compliance with federal statute to be in compliance with the state or local registration or licensing requirements.”

Private school vouchers scrapped

The parliamentarian struck down the private school voucher program tucked into the Senate Finance Committee’s portion of the package, marking a significant blow to Trump’s and congressional Republicans’ school choice push.

The umbrella term “school choice” centers on alternative programs to a student’s assigned public school. Though advocates say school choice programs are necessary for parents dissatisfied with their local public schools, critics argue these efforts drain critical funds and resources from school districts.

The committee proposed $4 billion a year in tax credits beginning in 2027 for people donating to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships.

The tax credit provision mirrored a bill that GOP lawmakers — Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana along with Reps. Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Burgess Owens of Utah — reintroduced in their respective chambers earlier this year.

Immigration

Several provisions to reshape how immigrants apply for asylum were struck down by the parliamentarian Friday.

Those provisions would have required a $1,000 fee for an immigrant to apply for asylum – something that is currently free to people fleeing harm or persecution – and imposed a $5,000 fee for someone to sponsor an unaccompanied minor.

Some of the provisions would have added extra fees to immigration courts, which are already facing a historic backlog of millions of cases, for a mandatory $100 fee to continue a case.

The parliamentarian also struck out a policy that would have extended quick deportations, known as expedited removal, to immigrants arrested for a crime regardless of legal status.

Expedited removal is a deportation tool used to swiftly remove an immigrant near a U.S. border without appearing before an immigration judge. The Trump administration has already expanded its use of expedited removal to include the interior of the U.S., rather than just at borders such as Mexico and Canada.

State and local tax

Senate Republicans were still wrangling Friday afternoon over the amount of state and local taxes, or SALT, that taxpayers can deduct from their federal tax bills. House Republicans who represent high-tax blue states are pressuring their counterparts in the Senate to agree on a $40,000 deduction cap for taxpayers who earn up to $500,000 annually.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent briefly stepped out of closed-door negotiations to brief reporters, telling them a deal was “very, very close.”

The handful of House Republicans who represent blue states, including New York and California, carry a lot of leverage over final passage of the bill because of the party’s razor-thin margin in the House.

Reconciliation process

Republicans are moving their sweeping tax and spending cuts bill through Congress using a special process called budget reconciliation that comes with complex rules in the Senate.

The chamber’s parliamentarian combs through the bill, hears from Republicans and from Democrats before determining whether each provision has an impact on spending, revenue, or the debt limit.

There are several other aspects to the Byrd rule, named for former West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, including that a provision cannot have a “merely incidental” impact on the federal ledger. Reconciliation bills also cannot touch Social Security.

The parliamentarian has ruled several other provisions in the GOP mega-bill don’t comply with the guardrails for a reconciliation bill, though some committees have been able to rework certain policy changes to fit.

Republicans chose to move the bill through reconciliation because it allows them to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which typically forces bipartisan negotiations on major legislation. 

The process is time-consuming and opaque, but Republican leaders in Congress are still pushing forward with their self-imposed Fourth of July goal.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by ICE agents. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

This report has been updated.

GREENBELT, Maryland — The Trump administration plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country once he is released from federal custody, a Department of Justice attorney disclosed during a Thursday emergency court hearing.

Attorneys for the unlawfully deported Abrego Garcia had made an emergency request Thursday to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues.

The move by the lawyers followed earlier public statements from Trump administration officials that they would deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador upon his release from a Tennessee federal court as soon as Friday. But Thursday, plans appeared to have shifted to deportation somewhere else.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn, under questioning by District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis, said the Trump administration planned to deport Abrego Garcia, and “to a third country is my understanding.”

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Xinis declined the request to return him to Maryland, arguing that Abrego Garcia has not been released and that she’s not clear if she has the jurisdiction to fulfill such a request.

She added that Guynn said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security does not have “imminent plans” to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country, while holding out that possibility.

The Supreme Court this week, ruled that it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to continue carrying out deportations to third countries, after a Massachusetts judge barred removals without proper notice. In such cases, immigrants are deported to countries that are not their native countries and may be far from them.

Jonathan Cooper, a partner of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case, tried to ask Xinis if she would require the Trump administration to notify Cooper and his team before deporting him to a third country.

“We have concerns that the government may try to move Mr. Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend,” Cooper said.

Xinis said she would not because Guynn said that the Trump administration had no “imminent plans” to remove Abrego Garcia.

Cooper laid out the same concerns in the written emergency request to Xinis Thursday.

“The Government’s public statements leave little doubt about its plan: remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador once more,” according to the complaint written by attorneys from Quinn Emmanuel.

“If this Court does not act swiftly, then the Government is likely to whisk Abrego Garcia away to some place far from Maryland,” it says.

Federal prosecutors in Tennessee court have said that should Abrego Garcia be released, he would be immediately arrested by ICE agents and could face deportation back to El Salvador, despite having protections from such removal since 2019.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned from El Salvador earlier this month to the United States to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment occurred while Abrego Garcia was housed in a Salvadoran prison.

The human smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee when police pulled Abrego Garcia over for speeding. Eight other men were in the car, but neither Abrego Garcia nor the passengers were arrested.

DHS opened an investigation into the three-year-old stop and Attorney General Pam Bondi held a press conference on the day Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. to face federal charges.

She argued that the traffic stop was part of a years-long human smuggling scheme where Abrego Garcia was paid by members of the MS-13 gang to transport migrants who entered the country without legal authorization to destinations across the country.

His attorneys have denied the charges and Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty in federal court in Nashville.

Stephen Miller, the chief architect of many of the president’s immigration policies and a senior White House adviser, has written on social media that Abrego Garcia would be deported back to El Salvador if released. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have pointed to that statement as to why they want him brought back to Maryland.

The Trump administration has alleged that Abrego Garcia is a leader of the MS-13 gang, and President Donald Trump has made those same allegations. During an interview, the president held up a photo of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles that were digitally altered to type MS-13 on his fingers.

House Democrats pressed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in May about the doctored photo and she sidestepped questions about whether the photo was real, until she eventually said she was unaware it existed.

She added that even if Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. that he would be immediately deported.

Maryland arguments

In Maryland, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said in their complaint they want to ensure he is not deported again.

“This motion does not ask this Court to adjudicate Abrego Garcia’s custodial status in the Tennessee criminal proceedings; that is for the Tennessee district court to resolve,” they wrote.

“Nor does this motion seek to alter any of the conditions of release set by the Tennessee district court or otherwise interfere with the Tennessee criminal proceedings. This motion simply seeks to ensure that when Abrego Garcia is released from criminal custody, he returns to, and remains in, this District (other than to travel to Tennessee as needed), until further order from this Court.”

Abrego Garcia lives with his family in Maryland. “Maryland is where he was on March 12 at the moment his unlawful removal saga began, when ICE agents with ‘no warrant for his arrest and no lawful basis’ arrested him and locked him up at an ‘ICE facility in Baltimore, Maryland,’” the complaint said.

“Returning Abrego Garcia to Maryland implements the Supreme Court’s directive and safeguards this Court’s jurisdiction in this matter,” it added.

Clashes between administration and judges

Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation drew national attention to the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportations campaign that some judges have found skirted due process rights for immigrants. The White House has clashed with the judicial branch with some frequency over immigration decisions.

The Trump administration this week has, in an unusual move, sued the entire judicial bench of the District Court of Maryland, including Xinis, over a standing order to require a two-day pause for deportations due to a high volume of habeas corpus claims from immigrants challenging their detention in the state. A habeas corpus claim allows immigrants to challenge their detention.

Abrego Garcia has had deportation protections from his home country since 2019, but in March he was arrested in Maryland by federal immigration officials while driving his son home and informed his status had changed. Days later, he was deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, a move the Trump administration admitted was a mistake.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States, but stopped short of requiring it.

For the next two months, administration officials would testify in a Maryland court that Abrego Garcia’s return was out of their hands and up to the government of El Salvador.

Xinis has accused the Trump administration of stonewalling information and is allowing for discovery in the civil case to continue to determine if the Trump administration violated her court order to return Abrego Garcia. 

A protester holds a photo of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice in an unusual move has filed a lawsuit against all the judges in the federal court in Maryland, in an attempt to block the court’s two-day pause on deporting immigrants who challenge their detention in the state.

The action by the Trump administration represents the DOJ’s latest clash with the judicial branch, and one that may be repeated in other states. Holds on deportations have slowed the administration’s aggressive plans for mass deportation of people without permanent legal status, on the grounds of due process.

“Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect,” according to the complaint. “In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch.”

The complaint by DOJ argued that a standing order from Chief Judge George Russell of the District Court of Maryland is “nothing more than a particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives—and thus undermining the democratic process.”

In late May, Russell signed a standing order to halt deportations for two days in an effort to accommodate the sudden high volume of habeas corpus claims filed outside of normal court business hours. A habeas corpus claim allows immigrants to challenge their detention.

The Trump administration argues that the order stymies federal immigration enforcement and acts as a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order without meeting the threshold and is therefore unlawful.

“Inconvenience to the Court is not a basis to enter an injunction, and filings outside normal business hours, scheduling difficulties, and the possibility of hurried and frustrating hearings are not irreparable harms,” according to the complaint.

The Department of Justice has also asked that the judges recuse themselves from the case, and that either the 4th Circuit hear the case or a judge randomly selected from another district.

Abrego Garcia case

The Maryland court in Greenbelt has halted several immigration-related moves by the Trump administration, with the most high-profile case handled by Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the return of the wrongfully deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia who was sent to a prison in El Salvador.

The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled the Trump administration must facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia. The Maryland man was brought back earlier this month, but to face federal charges on human smuggling that were filed after he was wrongfully deported and courts ordered his return.

The Maryland case is still ongoing, as Xinis is allowing discovery to determine if the Trump administration refused to comply with her order to return Abrego Garcia.

Another judge, Theodore David Chuang, in February partly granted a request from Quakers and other religious groups to limit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s authority to conduct immigration enforcement in houses of worship.

Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump’s nominee to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on June 25, 2025. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions pressed President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention about vaccine recommendations Wednesday after the Health and Human Services secretary fired members of a critical vaccine panel this month.

Trump’s pick, former acting CDC Director Susan Monarez, said that she trusted vaccines while defending HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision this month — widely seen as part of a vaccine-skeptical agenda — to fire all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, and recommend eight new members.

“Part of the secretary’s vision in restoring public trust is making sure that the American people can be confident in the way the evidence and science is driving decision-making,” she told senators.

The panel’s seven members — one dropped out this week — will meet Wednesday and Thursday to review data and vote on new vaccine recommendations. The recommendations carry significant weight as insurance providers and federal health programs like Medicaid use them to determine if shots are covered and schools rely on them for immunization mandates.

Cassidy questions

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the committee, said he was concerned about ACIP, especially as a non-CDC staff member is scheduled to give a presentation to the committee about thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. The panel is expected to vote on approving flu shots that contain the compound.

Lyn Redwood, the former head of Children’s Health Defense, the anti-vaccine group that Kennedy founded, is giving the presentation arguing that thimerosal causes autism. The CDC’s own research shows that thimerosal does not cause autism. 

Cassidy said that while Monarez had no part in this week’s ACIP meeting, or the agenda, he said that “if the ACIP hearing today is being used to sow distrust, I would ask that going forward, that you would make sure that there really was a balanced perspective.”

“Yes, someone can speak as a critic, but there should be someone who is reviewing the overwhelming evidence of the safety of vaccines,” Cassidy, who is a physician, said.

Monarez, who was the agency’s acting director from January to March, said that she trusted vaccines and that immunization was important to save lives.

If Monarez is confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first director of the CDC without a medical degree in nearly 70 years. She has a Ph.D. in microbiology and immunology.

More concerns about vaccine panel

Cassidy was not the only Republican on the panel concerned about the firing of all the members of ACIP.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was concerned about the backgrounds of the seven new panelists.

“I would hope that one of the things that you would all be looking into is to make sure that these individuals are going to be looking at the science in front of them, (and) leave their political bias at home,” Murkowski said.

Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland also pressed Monarez about Kennedy’s actions to fire everyone on the panel.

Murray asked Monarez if the new members of the panel voted to not recommend vaccines, if she would listen to that recommendation.

Monarez sidestepped the question and said the roles at ACIP were difficult to fill and that members needed to pass an ethics process.

“If they have not gone through an ethics approval process they shouldn’t be participating in the meetings,” she said.

Alsobrooks asked Monarez if she believed the 17 members fired from ACIP lacked qualifications.

Monarez did not answer the question, but said Kennedy’s reasoning for “resetting the ACIP to a new cohort was going to be on the path of restoring public trust.”

Grant funding and layoffs

Senators also raised concerns about grants that had been canceled, even though Congress already approved the funds.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who is the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, said that her state is suffering from a high level of Lyme disease and as a result a vaccine was in the works at a research institute in Maine.

“This vaccine is very promising and I want to make sure that it is allowed to continue to its conclusion,” Collins said.

Monarez agreed and said if she is confirmed, she will specifically work to make sure funding for that vaccine continues.

“It’s ironic that our dogs can get a vaccine to protect them against tick-borne illnesses like Lyme disease but we humans can’t and I hope we can remedy that,” Collins said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, pressed Monarez about the elimination of the Office on Smoking and Health at the CDC. He asked if she was involved in laying off all the staff in April, the month after her brief stint as acting director ended.

“I had no participation in (the layoffs) after I left,” she said.

Fluoride in water

Alsobrooks pressed Monarez about Kennedy’s push to have the CDC stop recommending that low levels of fluoride be placed in public drinking water.

Fluoride is added in drinking water to help prevent cavities, tooth decay and other dental health issues.

Alsobrooks asked Monarez, who is her constituent, if the public water supply that contains fluoride in Potomac, Maryland, where Monarez lives, was safe to drink.

“I believe the water in Potomac, Maryland, is safe,” Monarez said. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana speaks to reporters about the Republican budget reconciliation package at a weekly press conference on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans were scrambling Tuesday to restructure several proposals in the “big, beautiful bill” that don’t meet their chamber’s strict rules for passing a reconciliation package, while GOP lawmakers on the other side of the Capitol warned those changes may doom its passage in the House.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he and several others are working on a way to bolster rural hospitals, which could experience financial strain as a result of the various changes to Medicaid and other health care programs in the package.

“We are working on a solution for rural hospitals and that’s something that’s been in the works now for several days in response to a number of concerns that our colleagues have mentioned in ensuring that the impact on rural hospitals be lessened, be mitigated,” Thune said. “And I think we’re making good headway on that solution.”

Thune said GOP lawmakers shouldn’t let the “perfect be the enemy of the good,” though he predicted there “could be” two or three Republicans who vote against the package.

“We’ve got a lot of very independent-thinking senators who have reasons and things that they’d like to have in this bill that, in their view, would make it stronger,” Thune said. “But at the end of the day this is a process whereby not everybody is going to get what they want. And we have to get to 51 in the United States Senate.”

More objections to Medicaid cuts

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been vocal about Medicaid changes and rural hospitals, said he had “no details whatsoever” about the rural hospital fund or how it would work if it’s added to the bill.

But he said he’s not going to support a bill that takes away working people’s health care.

“We’ve got 1.3 million people on Medicaid in Missouri, hundreds of thousands of kids. That’s 21% of my population. Most of these people are working people. They’re on Medicaid, not because they’re sitting around at home; they’re on Medicaid because they don’t have a job that gives them health care and they cannot afford to buy it on the exchange,” Hawley said. “They don’t want to be, but it’s their only option. And I just think it’s wrong to take away health care coverage from those folks. Now if they’re not working, then sure, they should be.”

Senate Republican Policy Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said she had a “lengthy discussion” with her home state’s hospital association earlier in the day.

“This has a lot of impacts and we want to make sure we have a lot of rural hospitals. That’s why this rural hospital fund idea is developing,” Capito said. “I don’t think anything is set yet but that is an issue. I think Medicaid, we need to preserve it for the people it’s intended for and get rid of the people who don’t deserve it and don’t qualify and are bilking the system.”

Capito said she hadn’t yet formed an opinion on the rural hospital fund since there isn’t yet a formal proposal written down.

Public lands

In one major development, the Senate parliamentarian ruled Monday that a controversial provision championed by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Mike Lee to mandate the sale of at least 2 million acres of public lands in 11 Western states did not comply with the chamber’s rules for reconciliation.

Lee, a Utah Republican, has said the provision would free up land to build new housing. But Democrats and some Republicans from the affected states strongly opposed it.

Lee said on social media Monday evening that he was working to rewrite the proposal to comply with reconciliation rules. A spokesperson for his office did not return a message seeking comment Tuesday morning.

SNAP cost-sharing under debate

In another turn of events, Senate Agriculture Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., earlier Tuesday had announced the panel successfully reworked a provision that would transfer some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments.

But a spokesperson for the panel said later that the parliamentarian actually has not yet made a ruling. The spokesperson said “we’ve gotten some clarification from leadership and it’s steering in the direction it would be compliant but not official.”

Boozman earlier had said his proposal would improve SNAP. “Our commonsense approach encourages states to adopt better practices, reduce error rates, be better stewards of taxpayer dollars, and prioritize the resources for those who truly need it,” Boozman wrote in a statement.

The new language, if accepted, would give states the option of selecting fiscal year 2025 or 2026 as the year that the federal government uses to determine its payment error rate for SNAP, which will then impact how much of the cost the state has to cover starting in fiscal year 2028. Afterward, a state’s payment error rate will be calculated using the last three fiscal years.

Any state with an error rate higher than 6% will have to cover a certain percentage of the cost of the nutrition program for lower income households.

Rushing toward deadline

The internal debates among lawmakers about how to rewrite major pieces of the tax and spending cuts package have led to a rushed feeling among Republican leaders, who have repeatedly promised to approve the final bill before the Fourth of July — an exceedingly tight timeline.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference shortly after a closed-door House GOP conference meeting Tuesday that he’s hopeful the final bill that comes out of the Senate won’t make too many changes to what the House approved earlier this year.

“I remain very optimistic that there’s not going to be a wide chasm between the two products — what the Senate produces and what we produce,” Johnson said. “We all know what the touchpoints are and the areas of greatest concern.”

Republicans, he said, know they need to focus on preserving a fragile compromise on the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, that helps offset the cost of living in some higher-tax states like California, New Jersey and New York.

A deal Johnson brokered with GOP lawmakers in the SALT Caucus has been significantly rewritten in the Senate, but is expected to move back toward the House version, though not entirely.

Johnson also mentioned GOP efforts to roll back certain clean-energy provisions that Democrats approved and President Joe Biden signed into law in their signature climate change, health care and tax package, called the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, in 2022.

“We’ve got to get the SALT negotiation number right. We’ve got to make sure the IRA subsidies are handled in an appropriate manner,” Johnson said. “Look, you’ve got a number of provisions.”

Johnson said he expects the Senate to vote on its final bill by Friday or Saturday and that he’s told House lawmakers to “keep your schedules flexible” on being in Washington, D.C., for a final House vote. 

Trump goads Republicans

President Donald Trump sought to spur quick approval of a final bill, posting on social media that GOP lawmakers should get the package to him as soon as possible.

“To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK. Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote Tuesday. “NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE. Everyone, most importantly the American People, will be much better off thanks to our work together. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said there are concerns among his fellow Republicans about all of the provisions that must be removed or significantly reworked to meet the complex rules for moving a reconciliation bill through that chamber.

“Every time something comes out that we’re using as a pay for, it takes the deficit reduction down. And they’ve taken out nearly $300 billion so far. We’ve got to make that up,” Mullin said after leaving the closed-door House GOP meeting. “The Senate can’t come in below the House version as far as deficit reduction. So that makes it difficult.”

Mullin, who has been acting as his chamber’s top negotiator with SALT Republicans in the House, told reporters he expects the deduction for state and local taxes to remain at the $40,000 level negotiated in the House. But said the Senate will likely rewrite the $500,000 income ceiling to qualify for the tax deduction.

“I think 40 is a number we’re going to land on,” Mullin said. “It’s the income threshold that’s in negotiations.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said “most of us would like to make it zero.”

“I hate the idea of $40,000 but if that’s what it takes to pass the bill, I probably could do it. I would like to maybe find some other tweaks to it, somehow, like changing the income levels,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters he expects a resolution on SALT in the next 24 to 48 hours.

“I had a very successful lunch meeting with the senators. I think that we are on track,” Bessent said.

The ‘red line’ in the House

New York Republican Rep. Mike Lawler told reporters following the closed-door meeting that Senate leaders shouldn’t assume whatever they pass will be accepted by the House.

“I’ve been very clear about where my red line is. So, you know, we’ll let this process play out,” Lawler said. “I think the Senate should recognize the only number that matters is 218, and 50 plus 1. That’s it. And how do you get there?”

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, so leadership cannot lose more than four votes and still approve the package, given that Democrats are universally opposed.

In the House, GOP leaders have 220 seats and need nearly every one of their members to support whatever the Senate sends back across the Capitol for it to make it to the president’s desk before their self-imposed deadline.

In addition to the SALT tax compromise, Lawler said he has concerns about how the Senate has changed other provisions, including those addressing Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower income people.

“Yeah, there are a number of concerns about decisions that they’re making,” Lawler said. “And obviously, the bill on their side is not final, so we’ll see where it goes.”

Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee that crafted the tax provisions in the reconciliation bill, stood by the House’s version of the Opportunity Zone Tax Incentives. The House version extends the incentive from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for a year, while the Senate’s version makes it permanent.

The Opportunity Zone Tax Incentive was pushed by South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott during the first Trump administration, which aimed to create tax cuts for businesses and real estate to invest in low-income communities, but it had mixed results.

“The tax bill that we’re going to deliver is gonna deliver for working families, small businesses and farmers,” Smith said.

Thumbs down from one House Republican

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., posted on social media that he doesn’t support how the Senate has changed the bill and that he would seek to block it from becoming law. 

“The currently proposed Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill weakens key House priorities—it doesn’t do enough to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, it backtracks on Green New Scam elimination included in the House bill, and it greatly increases the deficit – taking us even further from a balanced budget.

“If the Senate tries to jam the House with this version, I won’t vote ‘present.’ I’ll vote NO.”

Rattlesnakes and the Senate

West Virginia Republican Sen. Jim Justice told reporters that it’s important for the Senate to take its time in its changes to the reconciliation package and that GOP lawmakers need to be patient.

“If you’re walking through the woods and you look right over there at that wall and there’s a rattlesnake all curled up there and everything, what do you do?” Justice asked. “Most people just jump and take off runnin’, well … rattlesnakes run in pairs and if you just jump left or right or behind, that one can hurt you right there.”

Rattlesnakes are typically solitary creatures, but new research has shown that rattlesnakes are more social than previously thought.

Justice said the best course of action when dealing with a rattlesnake, or two, is to stand still for a moment.

“Look to the left, look to the right, look behind you, and then decide which way you’re going,” he said. “That’s what I think we need to do (in the Senate).”

The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday to allow, for now, the Trump administration to carry out deportations to third countries after a Massachusetts judge barred removals without proper notice.

An unsigned order approved by six justices granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay a lower court’s decision that barred third-country removals without first giving those removed a chance to raise concerns if they are likely to face harm in the country where they are being deported.

“In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent. “In this case, the Government took the opposite approach.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Sotomayor’s dissent.

Third-country removals, deportations from the United States to a nation other than an immigrant’s home country, occur when the home country does not accept the immigrant’s repatriation.

The Supreme Court order reverses a preliminary injunction U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of the District of Massachusetts ordered in April that those being removed to a third country must have at least 15 days to challenge their removal if they fear they could face harm.

Murphy followed up with an order in early May to delay the removals of several immigrant men from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico who were on deportation flights to South Sudan.

After Murphy found their removal violated his preliminary injunction, the immigrants were rerouted to a U.S. military base in the East African country of Djibouti, where they had credible fear interviews.

The unsigned order means that Murphy’s order is put on hold while the case continues.

As the Trump administration aims to carry out mass deportations, the high court’s order will make it easier for the administration to remove immigrants to countries if their home country does not accept their deportation.

Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the decision violates due process, the right of people on U.S. soil to defend themselves in court. She argued that the Trump administration openly violated the lower court’s order when several immigrants were removed to South Sudan, which was not their home country.

“​​By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle,” she said. “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem speaks during her confirmation hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Capitol Hill on Jan. 17, 2025.  (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem over the weekend briefed state governors regarding public safety measures following President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb nuclear sites in Iran.

On Monday, Iran launched retaliatory strikes toward a U.S. military base in Qatar, according to Iran’s state media and The Associated Press.

“Secretary Noem has spoken with Governors nationwide, as well as state and local law enforcement to ensure our partners at every level of government have the information they need to keep their communities safe,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to States Newsroom. “It is our duty to keep the nation safe and informed, especially during times of conflict.”

Noem was the governor of South Dakota before Trump nominated her to lead DHS.

DHS did not confirm when the meeting took place, but the United States on Saturday bombed three nuclear sites in Iran.

The conflict comes after Israel this month conducted coordinated attacks on Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure and killed senior military officials and nuclear scientists to prevent Iran from becoming closer to building an atomic weapon, according to the AP.

In response, Iran has launched missile and drone attacks in Israel.

Trump has repeatedly vowed that Iran must not have access to nuclear weapons, but his National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard told Congress in March that Iran was not building nuclear weapons since the program was suspended in 2003.

Gabbard over the weekend told CNN that her testimony from March was taken out of context and that she agrees with Trump’s decision to bomb Iran.

Governors take precautions

In response to the bombings over the weekend, governors said they have taken precautionary measures for not only a physical attack but cyber as well.

Maryland’s Democratic Gov. Wes Moore wrote on social media that he was in close contact with the Maryland Military Department “to ensure Marylanders at home and abroad are protected.”

“As someone who has worn the uniform of this country and deployed overseas alongside some of America’s greatest warriors and patriots, I know the profound sacrifices our soldiers and their families make every day,” he said.

Nebraska Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, on social media, thanked Noem for briefing the governors and praised the president for his “leadership and decisiveness yesterday to devastate the Iranian nuclear program and the threat it posed to American national security.” Pillen added that there were currently no threats to Nebraska.

North Carolina’s Democratic Gov. Josh Stein wrote on social media that the meeting with Noem focused on public safety.

“Public safety officials in North Carolina are working in close coordination with local, state, and federal partners to remain vigilant against any retaliatory threat, whether physical or cyber,” he said.

Arizona’s Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs and Georgia’s Republican Gov. Brian Kemp also wrote on social media that potential retaliatory attacks from Iran were discussed at the meeting.

“We are coordinating with law enforcement on all levels as we closely monitor any possible threats,” Kemp said.

Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey wrote on social media that there are no threats to her state, but that her administration is continuing to “coordinate with state, local and federal partners to closely monitor the situation.”

Following the meeting, Missouri’s Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe encouraged his residents to report any suspicious activity to local law enforcement.

“The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) has already notified every law enforcement agency in the state of this heightened sense of awareness as well as all state trained Terrorism Liaison Officers,” he said. 

Rodney Scott, President Donald Trump's nominee to be chief of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, prepares to testify during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill April 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Wednesday confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a major role for carrying out the president’s border enforcement agenda and the handling of unauthorized migration.

In a 51-46 party-line vote, the Senate confirmed Rodney Scott, of Oklahoma.

Scott previously served as the chief of the Border Patrol, which is an agency within CBP, during the first Trump administration and under former President Joe Biden’s administration.

During the first Trump administration, Scott implemented a policy that required asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases were pending in immigration court.

As the new head of CBP, Scott will oversee more than 60,000 employees. The agency also manages more than 300 ports of entry at borders, airports and seaports. 

During his Senate confirmation hearing in April, the Senate Finance Committee’s top Democrat, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, raised concerns about the 2010 death of an immigrant at a CBP station in San Diego that Scott ran.

Anastasio Hernández Rojas was detained by CBP officers, and was beaten and later died from his injuries, Wyden said.

“Rather than following the agency’s own policy and immediately referring the incident to outside investigators, the San Diego CBP office began its own investigation,” Wyden said. “In the course of that investigation, the CBP officers taped over the only video copy of Hernández Rojas’s death and tampered with physical evidence, according to court documents.”

The United States paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Hernández Rojas’ widow and in 2015 the Justice Department declined to pursue federal charges against any of the officers or leaders involved in the case.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent a letter to the committee before Scott’s confirmation hearing, and informed senators that the agency reviewed the 2010 incident and that Scott’s work “was in accordance with his duties, the law and professional standards.”

Workers moving equipment and road signs on a highway. (Getty Images)  

A Rhode Island federal judge seemed likely Wednesday to block the U.S. Department of Transportation’s move to yank billions in congressional funding for bridges, roads and airport projects if Democrat-led states do not partake in federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. during a hearing pressed acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom on how the Transportation Department could have power over funding that was approved by Congress, saying federal agencies “only have appropriations power given by Congress.”

“That’s how the Constitution works,” he said. “Where does the secretary get the power and authority to impose immigration conditions on transportation funding?”

The suit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenges an April directive from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, a former House member from Wisconsin, that requires states to cooperate in federal immigration enforcement in order to receive federal grants already approved by Congress.

“Defendents seek to hold hostage tens of billions of dollars of critical transportation funding in order to force the plaintiff states to become mere arms of the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies,” Delbert Tran of the California Department of Justice, who argued on behalf of the states, said.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Bloom said that Duffy’s letter simply directs the states to follow federal immigration law.

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011, said that while the states could interpret it that way, the Trump administration has gone after so-called sanctuary cities and targeted them for not taking the same aggressive immigration enforcement as the administration.

The judge said Bloom’s argument expressed a “very different” interpretation of the directive than how the administration has described it publicly. He also noted President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have “railed on … the issues that arise from sanctuary cities.”

Trump this week directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to target Chicago, Los Angeles and New York — three major Democrat-led cities that have policies to not aid in immigration enforcement.

McConnell said he would make a decision whether to issue a preliminary injunction before Friday. The preliminary injunction would be tailored to the states that brought the suit and would not have a nationwide effect.

The states that brought the suit are California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Undermines Congress

Tran said the Department of Transportation’s directive is not only arbitrary and capricious, but undermines congressional authority because Congress appropriated more than $100 billion for transportation projects to the states.

Cutting off funding would have disastrous consequences, the states have argued.

“More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States,” according to the brief from the states.

Transportation security and immigration

Bloom defended Duffy’s letter, saying it listed actions that would impede federal law enforcement and justified withholding of funds because “such actions compromise the safety and security of the transportation systems supported by DOT financial assistance.”

McConnell said that didn’t answer his question about the secretary’s authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding.

“It seems to me that the secretary is saying that a failure to comply with immigration conditions is relevant to the safety and security of the transportation system,” Bloom said.

McConnell seemed skeptical of that argument.

“Under that rationale, does the secretary of the Department of Transportation have the authority to impose a condition on federal highway funds that prohibit a state that has legalized abortion from seeking a federal grant?” he asked. 

Bloom said that question was beyond her directive from the Department of Transportation to address in her arguments to the court.

“I understand your question,” she said. “All I think I can say is that here the secretary has, in his statement, set out a rationale for why this is relevant to DOT funding.”

Tran said that the “crux of this case is” that the Trump administration is trying “to enforce other laws that do not apply to these grants,” by requiring states to partake in immigration enforcement.

“It’s beyond their statutory authority,” he argued.

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, speaks on the Senate floor on June 17, 2025, about how he was forcibly removed from a press conference with the secretary of Homeland Security. (Screenshot from Senate webcast)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who was forcibly removed from a press conference with the secretary of Homeland Security, said Tuesday that his home state is the testing ground for President Donald Trump’s push to deploy the military within the United States.

Trump is using immigrants in the country without legal status as scapegoats to send in troops, said Padilla, who in a speech on the Senate floor choked up as he related how he was wrestled to the ground by law enforcement officials. “I refuse to let immigrants be political pawns on his path toward fascism,” Padilla said.

It’s the first floor speech the senior senator from California has given since the highly publicized incident in Los Angeles last week. The Secret Service handcuffed Padilla after he tried to question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was defending to reporters Trump’s decision to send 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to LA.

Trump sent in the troops following multi-day protests over Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s wishes. An appeals court Tuesday is hearing arguments on a suit by California contending that the president unlawfully took control of the state National Guard.

“He wants the spectacle,” Padilla said of the president. “To justify his undemocratic crackdown and his authoritarian power grab.”

The LA protests were sparked after ICE targeted Home Depots, places where undocumented day laborers typically search for work, for immigration raids.

Arrests, confrontations

The Padilla incident, widely captured on video, was a stark escalation of the tensions between Democratic lawmakers and the administration over Trump’s drive to enact mass deportations.

A Democratic House member from New Jersey is facing federal charges on allegations that she shoved immigration officials while protesting the opening of an immigrant detention center in Newark. And on Tuesday, in New York City, ICE officers arrested city comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander while he was escorting an immigrant to their hearing in immigration court, according to The Associated Press.

In a statement to States Newsroom, DHS Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said Lander “was arrested for assaulting law enforcement and impeding a federal officer.”

“No one is above the law, and if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will face consequences,” McLaughlin said.

The president late Sunday directed ICE to conduct immigration raids in New York, LA and Chicago, the nation’s three most populous cities, all led by elected Democrats in heavily Democratic states.

“We will follow the President’s direction and continue to work to get the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens off of America’s streets,” McLaughlin said.

‘They opened the door for me’

Padilla in his Senate remarks gave an account of the events that led to him being handcuffed and detained last week.

On June 12, he had a meeting scheduled with General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, to discuss the military presence in LA.

Padilla, the top Democrat on a Judiciary panel that oversees DHS and immigration policy, said his meeting with the general was delayed because of a press briefing across the hall with Noem. 

Padilla said he has tried to speak with DHS because for weeks LA has “seen a disturbing pattern of increasingly extreme and cruel immigration enforcement operations targeting non-violent people at places of worship, at schools, in courthouses.”

So Padilla said he asked to attend the press conference, and a National Guard member and an FBI agent escorted him inside.

“They opened the door for me,” he said.

As he listened, he said a comment from Noem compelled him to ask a question.

“We are not going away,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, told the press. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Padilla said her remarks struck him as “an un-American mission statement.”

“That cannot be the mission of federal law enforcement and the United States military,” he said. “Are we truly prepared to live in a country where the president can deploy the armed forces to decide which duly elected governors and mayors should be allowed to lead their constituents?”   

Padilla said before he could finish his question, he was physically removed and the National Guard member and FBI agent who escorted him in the room “stood by silently, knowing full well who I was.”

As he recounted being handcuffed, Padilla paused, getting emotional.

“I was forced to the ground, first on my knees, and then flat on my chest,” he said.

Padilla said a flurry of questions went through his head as he was marched down a hallway, and as he kept asking why he was being detained: Where are they taking me? What will a city, already on the edge from being militarized, think when they see their U.S. senator being handcuffed just for trying to ask a question? What will my wife think? What will our boys think?

“I also remember asking myself, if this aggressive escalation is the result of someone speaking up about the abuse and overreach of the Trump administration, was it really worth it?” Padilla asked. “If a United States senator becomes too afraid to speak up, how can we expect any other American to do the same?”

Padilla-Noem meeting

In a statement, DHS, said that the Secret Service did not know Padilla was a U.S. senator, although video of the incident shows that Padilla stated that he was a member of the Senate.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have questions for the secretary,” he said as four federal law enforcement officers grabbed him and shoved him to the ground.

Noem met with Padilla after he was handcuffed, his office told States Newsroom.

“He raised concerns with the deployment of military forces and the needless escalation over the last week, among other issues,” according to his office. “And he voiced his frustration with the continued lack of response from this administration. It was a civil, brief meeting, but the Secretary did not provide any meaningful answers. The Senator was simply trying to do his job and seek answers for the people he represents in California.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested that the Senate take action against Padilla, such as a censure. Johnson criticized the senator’s actions and accused him of charging at Noem, which Padilla is not seen doing in the multiple videos of the incident.

“I’m not in that chamber, but I do think that it merits immediate attention by other colleagues over there,” the Louisiana Republican said. “I think that behavior, at a minimum, rises to the level of censure. I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole.”

Senate Democrats have coalesced their support around Padilla. During a Tuesday press conference, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer praised Padilla for his speech on the Senate floor.

“It was basically a strong plea for America to regain the gyroscope of democracy, which has led us forward for so many years and now we’re losing it,” the New York Democrat said. “It’s a wake-up call to all Americans.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report. 

The U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators emerged from a briefing with federal law enforcement officials Tuesday saying they’ll likely boost funding on safety and security for members and their families in an upcoming government funding bill.

The hour-long briefing by U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate sergeant-at-arms followed the weekend assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband as well as the attempted murder of a state senator and his wife.

The gunman had a list of Democratic elected officials, including members of Congress, and their home addresses, which renewed long-standing security concerns among lawmakers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., spoke about the shootings during a floor speech shortly after the meeting, pressing for an end to political violence.

“I’m profoundly grateful to local law enforcement that the alleged shooter is in custody and I look forward to seeing him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Thune said. “There is no place for this kind of violence in our country. None.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, said that California Democrat Adam Schiff and Pennsylvania Republican Dave McCormick suggested during the closed-door meeting that Congress bolster funding for member safety.

“The Capitol Police and the sergeant at arms gave a very detailed discussion of how they can protect members here, back in our states, at our homes, in our offices,” Schumer said. “The violence, threats against elected officials, including people in the Senate, has dramatically increased, and that means we need more protection. We need more money.”

The USCP and other law enforcement agencies, Schumer said, are taking some immediate steps to bolster security, though he said “there are other things that will take a little while with more resources.”

Schumer also called on political leaders to be more cautious about how they discuss policy differences.

“The rhetoric that’s encouraging violence is coming from too many powerful people in this country,” Schumer said. “And we need firm, strong denouncement of all violence and violent rhetoric — that should be from the president and from all of the elected officials.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith called the meeting “very productive,” but didn’t want to elaborate.

“I’m not going to comment any more,” Smith told reporters. “I think it’s important for members’ safety that we don’t talk a lot about what is being done to keep us safe in order to keep us safe.”

Support for funding increase

Senate Appropriations ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she expects the panel will increase funding for USCP in the bill that covers the upcoming fiscal year.

“I believe we need to do that,” Murray said.

Delaware Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said the current situation is “incredibly concerning, gravely concerning.”

“And I appreciate the prompt and thorough bipartisan response,” Coons said.

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor in Alabama, said USCP will increase its security measures for members of Congress.

“They’re going to try to do as much as they can, that’s about it,” he said after the briefing. “You know, security at home and here.”

Asked whether there’s a legislative solution or anything lawmakers can do, Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford told reporters “there’s a cultural solution.”

Sen. Martin Heinrich did not go into details about the meeting but said “everybody is having a very robust discussion about the sort of heightened security, dangerous environment we’re all operating in right now and what to do about that, both tactically to meet some of that threat, but also how to reduce the volatility of the environment that we’re in every day.”

The New Mexico Democrat is the ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which funds USCP and the sergeant at arms.

Asked about boosting USCP funding, Heinrich said this is “an obvious place that lawmakers will look,” but added that senators should be strategic about funding.

“We also just need to be smart and targeted about this,” he said. “There are a lot of things that can be done that don’t require a lot of funding that would reduce the scale of the target that is on the backs of anybody in public office these days.”

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer's badge is seen as federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court in New York City on June 10, 2025. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON —  President Donald Trump announced late Sunday that he was directing U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement officers to conduct immigration raids in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, the nation’s three most populous cities that are all led by elected Democrats in heavily Democratic states.

The announcement escalates a week-long conflict in Los Angeles, where large protests started after immigration officials began arresting day laborers at Home Depot stores across the city. Trump directed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA amid the protests without California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s consent.

“I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role,” Trump wrote on social media, referring to cities that don’t coordinate with federal immigration officials for civil enforcement. “You don’t hear about Sanctuary Cities in our Heartland!”

Trump’s Sunday social media post to target immigration enforcement in cities came after a June 12 post in which he acknowledged that his immigration crackdown was harming the tourism and agriculture industries. Republican-leaning states generally have fewer big cities and more rural areas.

“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” Trump wrote last week.

The president directed ICE to pause raids on farms, after speaking with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, according to the New York Times.

The Agriculture Department has estimated that roughly 40% of farm workers do not have legal authorization.

However, advocates for farmworkers, such as United Farm Workers, said that immigration officials have not paused on enforcement.

“If President Trump is actually in charge, he needs to prove it: stop the sweeps on hardworking Californians,” UFW said in a statement.

A June 10 immigration raid at a meat processing plant in Omaha, Nebraska, where roughly 80 workers were detained, set off several protests in the city.

Trump wrote in his social media post that it should be taken as a presidential directive.

“ICE Officers are herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” he wrote.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not respond to States Newsroom’s request about details on the president’s Sunday directive to ICE officers.

Noncitizen voting

Trump took aim at Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker, saying during an interview at the G7 Summit with world leaders in Canada on Monday that Chicago was “overrun with criminals.”

“They think they’re going to use them to vote,” Trump said of people without citizenship who live in cities run by Democrats.

The president, without evidence, claimed in his Sunday post that the “Core of the Democrat power center” of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York allowed people without citizenship to vote in federal elections, which is not true. The practice is illegal and, according to studies, exceedingly rare.

A federal judge last week blocked Trump’s executive order that would have required states to mandate voters in federal elections provide documents proving their citizenship.

Last week, Pritzker and the Democratic governors of Minnesota and New York testified before Congress for eight hours on their states’ policies to not coordinate with federal immigration officials.

House Republicans brought in the mayors of Boston, Chicago and Denver in March on the same issue.

Focus for protests

The president’s directive to ICE followed a weekend military parade to celebrate the Army’s 250th anniversary that also coincided with Trump’s 79th birthday and sparked anti-Trump protests.

Millions of people across the country held “No Kings” protests against the Trump administration, according to estimates from organizers. The protests often included rebukes of ICE’s aggressive immigration crackdown.

The protests in LA, which have led to a legal standoff between the administration and the state, have been over immigration raids.

Since returning to the White House, the Trump administration has given immigration officers expanded authority to rapidly deport immigrants.

In Trump’s second week in office, DHS reinstated a 2019 policy known as expedited removal, meaning that immigrants without legal authorization anywhere in the country who encounter federal enforcement must prove they have been in the U.S. continuously for more than two years.

If they cannot produce that proof, they will be subject to a fast-track deportation without appearing before an immigration judge for due process. 

U.S. President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump stand together at the end of the U.S Army parade on June 14, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Saturday celebrated his 79th birthday reviewing a parade of tanks, armament and marching soldiers gathered in the nation’s capital for the Army’s 250th anniversary celebration, amid heightened political tensions across the country and anti-Trump “No Kings” protests.

The nearly 90-minute parade cycled through the Army’s history, beginning with soldiers marching in Revolutionary War uniforms and ending with symbols of the Army’s future, including small robots carrying the U.S. Army flag and new West Point cadets about to be sworn in.

Massive tactical vehicles rolled down Constitution Avenue one after another. Sherman tanks used by the military in World War II were followed by early 2000s-era howitzers and HIMARS, or High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, that can launch newly developed precision missiles that reach up to 310 miles away, according to the Army.

HIMARS were among the weaponry the U.S. provided to Ukraine’s forces under President Joe Biden.

“The Army keeps us free,” Trump said in brief remarks at the conclusion of the parade, after Vice President J.D. Vance introduced him. “Every other country celebrates their victories, it’s about time America did too. That’s what we’re doing tonight.”

But tragedy and deep conflict marked the hours and days leading to the event. Early Saturday, a Minnesota Democratic state lawmaker and her husband were assassinated in their home in an “act of political violence,” said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, while another legislator and his wife were shot and gravely wounded.

Late Friday, dozens of veterans breached barricades around the U.S. Capitol in protest of the Army parade. On Thursday, a Democratic U.S. senator from California was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a press conference with the head of Homeland Security.

Last weekend, multi-day protests erupted in Los Angeles after immigration raids swept across several Home Depots, typically where undocumented day laborers search for work, as Trump’s mass deportations continue to be carried out.

And the president is in a legal standoff with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, after Trump ordered more than 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to be sent to LA without Newsom’s consent and Newsom sued. The Guard troops remained in LA Saturday after a federal appeals court froze a lower court’s order directing Trump to return command to Newsom.

The city saw a large protest Saturday afternoon, according to local media reports. A curfew of 8 p.m. Pacific time remained in effect, Mayor Karen Bass’ office said in a morning press release.

And on Saturday night, the Salt Lake City Police Department said it was investigating a shooting that occurred during a “No Kings” protest and officials urged people to disperse the demonstration.

‘Yeah, I wanna be there’

In Washington, spectators from across the country began lining barriers along the Army parade route hours before the event’s start.

Scott Aiken, 59, of Athens, Georgia, drove 10 hours for the parade. Aiken, who told States Newsroom he voted for Trump in the last three presidential elections, said he wanted to support the anniversary of the Army.

“My father was in the Army, and my wife’s father was in the Army, and we’re a supportive military family. And when I heard the parade was going to happen, I thought, ‘Yeah, I wanna be there.’ So we drove up from Athens on Thursday, and did the Capitol tour yesterday, and here we are.”

When asked about the timing of Trump’s birthday, Aiken said “whether it’s on his birthday or not, I don’t care. That’s not the purpose of this.”

Members of Trump’s Cabinet and other allies on social media posted well wishes and greetings. “Wishing a very happy birthday to our incredible President Donald J. Trump!” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem posted on X. Trump said on his social media site, Truth Social, “President Putin called this morning to very nicely wish me a Happy Birthday, but to more importantly, talk about Iran,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin and a recent attack by Israel on Iran’s military leaders.

Not everyone at the parade was wishing Trump well. Angelica Zetino, 24, and Shoshauna Brooks, 27, from Rockville and Gaithersburg, Maryland, stood out among the crowd as they carried signs protesting Trump’s administration, particularly recent immigration raids.

The pair began their morning at a “No Kings” protest in Rockville before heading to D.C.

“They (the administration) just want to put on a show, which is OK, but we’re here to support the people that can’t have a voice for themselves,” Brooks said.

Tom Moore, 57, of the District of Columbia,, took issue with Trump’s words this week that any parade protesters would be met with force. 

“That’s not acceptable. He didn’t say violent protesters. I wasn’t planning on coming down here before that,” said Moore.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on June 10 that any protests at the military parade “will be met with very heavy force.”

Rallies opposing Trump

Throughout Saturday, protests unfolded across the U.S. bearing the theme “No Kings” to decry Trump’s military display on his own birthday and the mass immigration arrests.

The “No Kings” national organizers said in a press release that as of 2 p.m. Eastern, protesters had rallied at more than 1,500 sites across the country, with 600 more events scheduled through the rest of the day. “No Kings” was organized by liberal groups and labor unions including Indivisible, the American Federation of Teachers, American Civil Liberties Union, Public Citizen, MoveOn, 50501, Interfaith Alliance, Stand Up America, Common Defense, Human Rights Campaign and League of Conservation Voters.

Approximately 60 protesters were arrested outside the U.S. Capitol Friday evening, according to the U.S. Capitol Police. Veterans for Peace, a group that organized the demonstration, posted photos of the arrests and of several demonstrators wearing “Veterans Against Fascists” t-shirts.

Police said 75 people peacefully demonstrated outside of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“A short time later, approximately 60 people from the group left the Supreme Court so as a precaution, our officers began establishing a perimeter,” a police spokesperson told States Newsroom in an email. “A few people pushed the bike rack down and illegally crossed the police line while running towards the Rotunda Steps. Our officers immediately blocked the group and began making arrests.”

Among those arrested was an elderly Vietnam veteran using a walker, Capitol Police confirmed.

Two mules and a dog

A trickle of red “Make America Great Again” hats and apparel displaying support for the Army intermingled as supporters shuffled into the parade grounds Saturday afternoon.

The parade featured soldiers from every division, 150 vehicles, 50 aircraft, 34 horses, two mules and one dog, at a price tag in the tens of millions of dollars, according to the Army.

Among the vehicles and equipment that rolled down Constitution Avenue between 15th and 23rd streets were Abrams tanks, first used in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm; and 9,500-pound titanium M777 lightweight Howitzers that fire 105-pound shells up to 24 miles and are currently in use on Ukraine’s battlefields.

Military aircraft that could be seen above Washington in ceremonial flyovers, from AH-64 Apaches, UH-60 Blackhawks and CH-47 Chinooks. Army Golden Knights parachuted down to the White House South Lawn, red smoke in their wake, to present Trump with a folded flag. The president has never served in the military.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser expressed concern in the weeks leading up to the parade about the heavy tactical vehicles causing damage to the city’s streets. The Army Corps of Engineers had installed large steel plates ahead of the event to reinforce the roads.

The parade coincided with the Army’s 250th birthday celebration festival, which has been in the works for a year.

The parade appears to have been a late addition to the festivities. According to documentation obtained by local D.C. news outlet WTOP, America250 applied on March 31 for a permit for the parade. A May 21 press release about the parade from America250, which describes itself as a “nonprofit supporting organization to the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission,” celebrated Trump’s role in the event.

Trump wanted a military parade during his first term, but the idea was dismissed because of cost, NBC reported at the time.

The last time the U.S. staged a celebratory military parade was in 1991 under former President George H.W. Bush to recognize the victory in the first Gulf War.

Immigration enforcement and military 

The big Army celebration early in Trump’s second term came as the president has intertwined the U.S. military with his immigration policy, as shown in LA and elsewhere.

In his first days in office, Trump signed five executive orders that laid out the use of military forces within the U.S. borders and extended other executive powers to speed up the president’s immigration crackdown.

He’s directed the Department of Defense to use a naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to detain migrants. Military planes have been used in deportations – rather than standard commercial airplanes.

In April, he signed a proclamation creating a military buffer zone that stretches across Arizona, California and New Mexico just north of the U.S.-Mexico border. It means any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, therefore allowing active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.

National and military experts have raised concerns that giving control over the Roosevelt Reservation to the military could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement. A statutory exception in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, is the Insurrection Act of 1807.

Trump has considered invoking the Insurrection Act, but has stopped short. The Insurrection Act is an existing presidential authority that would grant the president access to use all federal military forces, more than 1 million members.

The Insurrection Act has only been invoked 30 times, and is typically focused on an area of great civil unrest that has overwhelmed law enforcement.

The last time a president used it was 1992, during the Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the brutal beating of Black motorist Rodney King.

In calling in the National Guard in LA last week, Trump cited a rarely used statute known as the protective power –  10 U.S.C. 12406 – to use National Guard troops to protect federal personnel and property, but not for broad law enforcement functions.

A voter shows identification to an election judge. (Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring states to mandate voters in federal elections provide documents proving their citizenship, ruling the measure would cause a significant burden to states and potentially harm voters.

U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a preliminary injunction stopping the order from going into effect while the case is pending.

“There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,” Casper wrote in her order.

“The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created (Election Assistance Commission) is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration,” Casper, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, continued.

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states brought the suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after the president signed the order in March.

The order directed the federal Election Assistance Commission, which distributes grants to states, within 30 days to start requiring people registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or state-issued identification that indicates citizenship.

Harm to voters

In her decision to grant the preliminary injunction, Casper said the states had shown that without a pause on the executive order, “citizens will be disenfranchised.”

“The States have also credibly attested that the challenged requirements could create chaos and confusion that could result in voters losing trust in the election process,” she said.

The executive order posed risks of irreparable harm to states “for at least three reasons,” Casper wrote.

She noted the cost and resources to implement the executive order, the federal funding states are at risk of losing if they do not comply with the order and discouraging voter participation.

Chilling voter participation is “the antithesis of Congress’s purpose in enacting the (The Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) and the (National Voter Registration Act),” she wrote.

The order also would prohibit the counting of absentee or mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day. States set their own rules for ballot counting and many allow those that arrive after Election Day but postmarked before.

The states that brought the challenge to the executive order are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Crackdown on immigrants

The executive order that Trump signed in March was a culmination of his rhetoric on the campaign trail about people without U.S. citizenship voting in federal elections and his vow to crackdown on immigration and carry out mass deportations.

Republicans have sought to use the rare examples of people without citizenship voting in federal elections, and local governments that allow immigrants to vote in local elections, to tighten restrictions on voter registration.

U.S. House Republicans in April passed a bill to codify the executive order.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, conducted an analysis of election conduct from 2003 to 2023 and found 29 instances of noncitizens voting, just more than one per year.

Left to right, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul are sworn in before the start of a hearing with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at the U.S. Capitol on June 12, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Three Democratic governors from states that leave immigration enforcement to the federal government said Thursday they oppose President Donald Trump’s decision to send more than 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines into Los Angeles without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The lengthy and tense U.S. House hearing where the trio appeared — highlighted by a shouting match among members and accusations of Nazi tactics — came as the nation’s capital prepared for a major military parade and Trump’s birthday Saturday, along with thousands of “No Kings” protests across the country.

In Los Angeles, a U.S. senator was tackled and removed from an immigration press conference by federal law enforcement agents accompanying Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

The governors, whose states have submitted an amicus brief to a lawsuit by Newsom challenging Trump, said the decisions to bring in the military should be made by local officials.

“It’s wrong to deploy the National Guard and active-duty Marines into an American city over the objection of local law enforcement, just to inflame a situation and create a crisis, just as it’s wrong to tear children away from their homes and their mothers and fathers, who have spent decades living and working in our communities, raising their families,” Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

The hearing with Govs. Pritzker, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York marked the second time House Republicans have called in leaders in blue states that have policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration officials in enforcement efforts. Those policies do not bar immigration enforcement from occurring.

Republicans brought in the mayors of Boston, Chicago and Denver in March.

The eight-hour hearing came after multi-day protests in Los Angeles sparked when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers began widespread immigration raids at Home Depots in their communities in an effort to carry out the president’s mass deportation efforts.

The governors stressed that the president’s decision to send in the National Guard set a dangerous precedent and posed a threat to democracy.

Republicans on the committee defended the president’s actions and instead accused the governors of violating federal law because of their state policies, dubbed as “sanctuary cities.” Immigration policy is handled by the federal government and states and localities are not required to coordinate with officials.

Shouting match over Noem

More than four hours into the hearing, video circulated of California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla being forcibly removed and handcuffed by Secret Service agents while trying to ask a question of Noem during a press conference in LA.

Democrats on the panel, such as Arizona Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari, slammed the video and raised concerns that a “sitting senator was shoved to the ground.”

It led to a shouting match, with Florida Democratic Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost asking the chair of the panel, James Comer of Kentucky, if the committee would subpoena Noem.

Comer said Frost was out of order and tried to move on.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who was next in line for questioning, heckled Frost and said that Democrats “can’t follow the rules.” Comer eventually told Frost to “shut up.”

Pritzker said that he could not “believe the disrespect that was shown to a United States senator” who was trying to ask Noem a question.

“That seems completely irrational,” Pritzker said.

Democrats on the panel such as Illinois Rep. Delia Ramirez and Dan Goldman of New York called for Noem to appear before the committee.

“Anyone with two eyes that can see, can see that was authoritarian, lawless behavior that no person in America, much less a senator conducting congressional oversight, should receive,” Goldman said.

‘People are living in fear’

The Democratic governors defended their immigration policies and criticized the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown, pointing to ICE officers wearing face coverings to arrest immigrants.

“People are living in fear in the shadows,” Hochul said. “People can’t go to school, they can’t worship, they can’t go get health care. They can’t go to their senior center. What is happening has been traumatic.”

Several Republicans including Reps. Comer, Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, took issue with comments by Walz at a commencement speech in May, in which he accused the president of turning ICE agents into a modern-day Gestapo, the official secret police of Nazi Germany.

Republican Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri said that Walz should apologize.

Walz said that as a former history teacher, he was making an observation about ICE tactics — such as wearing a face covering to arrest people — that were similar to those used by secret police.

The top Democrat on the panel, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, defended Walz’s statement, and said that ICE is operating like a modern-day Gestapo.

Lynch pointed to the video of the international Tufts University student who was approached by masked men on the street and taken into a van for writing an op-ed in defense of Palestinian human rights.  

“ICE agents wearing masks and hoodies detained Rümeysa Öztürk and those of you who watched that, that abduction, when you compare the old films of the Gestapo grabbing people off the streets of Poland, and you compare them to those nondescript thugs who grabbed that student, that graduate student, it does look like a Gestapo operation,” Lynch said.

 

Senator Alex Padilla, D-Calif.,  speaks at a Biden-Harris campaign and DNC press conference on July 18, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

Federal law enforcement officials forcibly removed and handcuffed U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla at a Thursday press conference in Los Angeles by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem amid multi-day protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The scuffle between law enforcement, including an officer wearing a jacket with an FBI logo, and a United States senator represented a stark escalation of tensions after President Donald Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA. His action followed major protests sparked by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ramping up immigration raids.

Before Padilla was physically removed, Noem said that the Trump administration would continue its immigration enforcement in LA.

“We are not going away,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, said. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Padilla, 52, a member of the Senate since 2021, when he was appointed to replace former Vice President Kamala Harris, and then elected in 2022, tried to ask Noem a question and was rushed by federal law enforcement.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have questions for the secretary,” he said as four federal law enforcement officers grabbed him and shoved him to the ground. “Hands off.”

The DHS wrote on social media that U.S. Secret Service officers thought “he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.”

DHS said that after the press conference, Noem and Padilla had a 15-minute meeting. His office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

In a statement, Padilla’s office said the California senator was in LA for congressional oversight into the federal government’s operations in LA and across California.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” his office said, referring to General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of United States Northern Command.

“He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

The incident drew swift condemnation from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

“Watching this video sickened my stomach, the manhandling of a United States Senator, Senator Padilla,” Schumer wrote on social media. “We need immediate answers to what the hell went on.”

On the Senate floor, Schumer said the video of Padilla “reeks of totalitarianism.”

He called for a full investigation so that “this doesn’t happen again.”

Padilla gave remarks after the incident, with The Associated Press. He did not take questions. 

“If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they’re doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community,” Padilla said. 

U.S. Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, speaks to reporters on Feb. 6, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Members of a Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee panel Tuesday probed witnesses about how the federal government can ensure public safety at major international sporting events such as the Olympics and World Cup.

The hearing came at the same time as protests in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration crackdown and shortly after President Donald Trump announced his travel ban.

While athletes, coaches and other staff are exempt from the travel ban, it’s unclear how fans wanting to support their home countries will fare.

Nationals from 12 countries face travel bans – Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Iran is the only country from that list to qualify in the  World Cup this year.

Citizens from seven countries have partial restrictions –  Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

Senators, like the head of the panel, James Lankford, were concerned about visa wait times for international visitors wanting to attend the World Cup, which starts Thursday in Miami, Florida.

“While I’m confident there has been a lot of preparation, I am concerned we are getting a late start,” the Oklahoma Republican said.

Senators on the Border Management, Federal Workforce and Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee also raised concerns about drones and said local and federal partnerships can help in hosting sporting events to avoid terrorism threats, such as the New Year’s Day attack on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, Louisiana.

One of the witnesses, Gina Ligon, leads the Department of Homeland Security’s Academic Center of Excellence for Counterterrorism Research at the University of Nebraska. She said the attacker in New Orleans used artificial intelligence through Meta smart glasses to scope out the location before the attack that killed 14 people and injured dozens.

“The threats we observed in the New Orleans attack remain a very real concern that needs significant planning and resourcing given the spread of crowds before, during, and after these events,” she said.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, the top Democrat on the panel, said hosting international sporting events is “an incredible opportunity to show the best of America to visitors.”

Los Angeles and the Olympics

Two GOP senators, Ashley Moody of Florida and Bernie Moreno of Ohio, questioned how LA would be capable of handling the Olympics in 2028, given the ongoing protests sparked after federal immigration officials raided several Home Depots across Los Angeles looking for people in the country without legal authorization.

In response, Trump has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops – without California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s authority – and 700 Marines to LA.

One of the witnesses, CEO of the LA28 Olympic and Paralympic Games Reynold Hoover, said local and state officials in California were capable of handling the Olympics and working with the federal government for security measures.

“There’s no place in the world like LA to host the world’s largest Olympics ever,” Hoover said. “I am confident, come July 14 of 2028, when we do the opening ceremony in the Coliseum and the stadium in Inglewood, the world will be watching and see America at its best.”

Hoover said that hosting the Olympics will be the equivalent of holding seven Superbowls for 30 days straight with more than 11,000 Olympic athletes and more than 4,400 paralympic athletes. 

Drones and the Olympics

Democratic Sens. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Fetterman raised concerns about drones getting too close to sporting events.

Hassan said while the federal government has taken steps to address private drones, she asked Hoover how he was preparing to address any drone issues for the 2028 Olympics.

Hoover said that “tools to include counter (unmanned aircraft systems) drone technology remain key priorities for our ongoing collaboration with our federal, state and local partners.” He added that coordinating with the Secret Service has been helpful in dealing with unmanned drones.

Ligon said she has seen drones being used near global sporting events.

“Malign actors can now more easily acquire, build, or customize drones at lower costs, with extended ranges, higher speeds, and greater payload capacities,” she said. 

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by the U.S. government. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland man who has now been returned to the United States, are pushing to keep his civil case open in pursuit of sanctions against the Trump administration for refusing to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.

“Until the Government is held accountable for its blatant, willful, and persistent violations of court orders at excruciating cost to Abrego Garcia and his family, this case is not over,” according to the brief by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed Sunday.

“The executive branch’s wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution,” they wrote. “If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.”

The Trump administration on Friday moved to dismiss the civil suit filed in federal district court in Maryland, arguing it is moot after Abrego Garica landed in the U.S. to face criminal charges for “alien smuggling.”

A May 21 two-count Tennessee grand jury indictment, unsealed Friday, accused Abrego Garcia of conspiracy to unlawfully transport undocumented people for profit and the unlawful transportation of undocumented people between 2016 and 2025. The indictment also accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang.

His attorneys have disputed those charges.

Department of Justice lawyers also moved to deny Abrego Garcia bond, on the grounds that he is a flight risk and poses a danger to the community.

If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each undocumented person transported.

“Accordingly, the sentencing exposure for the defendant – given the number of undocumented aliens involved – goes well beyond the remainder of the defendant’s life,” Robert E. McGuire, acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, wrote.

Deported to CECOT

The civil suit was brought by Abrego Garcia’s family after he was arrested by immigration officials in March and swiftly put on a deportation plane to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, despite having protections against removal to his home country since 2019.

Abrego Garcia’s arrest in March was not due to any criminal charges, but he was informed his immigration status had changed. The Trump administration has admitted his initial deportation to the brutal CECOT prison was an “administrative error,” but has maintained Abrego Garcia was in the custody of El Salvador and could not be brought back.

Trump officials, including President Donald Trump, repeatedly said that Abrego Garica would not return to the U.S. and the president seemed upset with the news of his return on Friday.

“He should have never had to be returned,” Trump said in a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One Friday night. “It’s a disaster.”

On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi thanked El Salvador President Nayib Bukele after the Trump administration presented an arrest warrant for Abrego Garcia.

‘Determined stalling campaign’

The Trump administration argued that because Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. on Friday, the civil case is moot.

But his attorneys argue that Abrego Garcia was not brought back to Maryland due to court orders – even as high as the Supreme Court – but “rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions.”

“Two things are now crystal clear. First, the Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so,” according to the brief. “Second, the Government has conducted a determined stalling campaign to stave off contempt sanctions long enough to concoct a politically face-saving exit from its own predicament.”

Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis, who has handled the high-profile case since March, has granted Abrego Garcia’s attorneys until Wednesday to file their request for sanctions against the Trump administration.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said they want to push forward with discovery documents because they “are finally on the verge of securing answers from knowledgeable officials about what the Government actually did or did not do to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.”

Abrego Garcia will be arraigned before a federal court in Nashville on Friday.

A protester holds a photo of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongly deported to his native El Salvador three months ago, was brought back to the U.S. on Friday and will face federal charges, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

Abrego Garcia’s case had become a flashpoint in a debate over what due process rights protect immigrants from deportation after federal officials conceded he was sent to a notorious El Salvador mega-prison because of an administrative error. 

Still, President Donald Trump, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, Bondi and other administration officials said for months Abrego Garcia could not be released because of criminal conduct they had not publicly produced evidence of.

In a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One Friday night, Trump declined to say whether it was his decision to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., according to White House pool reports.

“He should have never had to be returned,” Trump said. “It’s a disaster.”

Bondi said Friday a federal warrant for Abrego Garcia’s arrest on human trafficking charges compelled his release from the Salvadoran prison system.

“Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice,” Bondi said at a Department of Justice news conference Friday afternoon. “He was a smuggler of humans and women and children.”

The 10-page indictment filed in the Middle District of Tennessee comes after a federal grand jury indicted him on May 21 for allegedly transporting migrants in the U.S. without legal authorization within the country.

Chris Newman, an attorney representing the Abrego Garcia family said at a virtual press event Friday that he remained skeptical of the federal charges lodged at Abrego Garcia.

“I can tell you that we should all treat whatever charges that are being leveled against him with a high degree of suspicion,” Newman said. “We should make sure that he gets a fair (trial) in court because he’s clearly not getting a fair hearing in the court of public opinion.”

Bondi did not detail when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but said the federal indictment charges contained “recently found facts.”

“This is what American justice looks like upon completion of his sentence, we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador,” Bondi said.

WKRN in Nashville said Abrego Garcia’s arraignment has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday. 

Outcry over due process

Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation to the notorious mega-prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, drew national outcry as the Trump administration clashed with a federal court that ordered the return of the Beltsville man and resisted the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” his return.

Despite the orders, Trump administration officials did not appear to take any public steps to secure Abrego Garcia’s release, and at times seemed to relish their defiance of the courts.

Bondi thanked El Salvador’s government Friday for releasing Abrego Garcia in compliance with the warrant.

The Trump administration has argued in federal court in Maryland for months that Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador and therefore cannot be returned, despite a $15 million agreement between the U.S. and the Salvadoran government to keep roughly 300 men removed from the U.S. and detained at CECOT. Abrego Garcia had been moved to a different El Salvador prison prior to his release.

Abrego Gacia had deportation protections to his home country of El Salvador since 2019.

He was pulled over by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in March and informed that his immigration status had changed. He was later placed on one of three deportation flights on March 15 to CECOT.

The Trump administration admitted his removal was an “administrative error” but has since alleged that Abrego Garcia was a leader in the MS-13 gang without producing evidence in the federal civil court overseeing the suit challenging his removal.

Maryland U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador to press for Abrego Garcia’s release and return to the U.S., welcomed the news as a victory for due process rights.

“As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it’s about his constitutional rights – and the rights of all,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement. “The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.”

William J. Ford contributed to this report.