Women who say they were abused by disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein raise their hands as attorney Bradley Edwards speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — As survivors of abuse inflicted by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleaded on Capitol Hill Wednesday for the release of investigative files, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie accused House GOP leaders of using “the oldest trick in the swamp” to avoid the issue.

An unusually large crowd gathered outside the U.S. House to hear from the women, who described emotional manipulation and physical coercion, beginning as early as age 14 in some cases, at the hands of Epstein and convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. 

The speakers included family of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who pursued charges against Maxwell and died earlier this year by suicide.

In speech after speech, the victims urged Congress and President Donald Trump to make public what federal authorities uncovered about the reach of Epstein’s abuse, and specifically voiced support for Massie’s bipartisan effort that would bypass House leadership and force the release of volumes of records.

“Congress must choose — will you continue to protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?” said Lisa Phillips, who was victimized by Epstein on his private Caribbean island and now hosts a podcast about healing after abuse. 

The government’s investigation into Epstein’s widespread sexual abuse has dogged and splintered House Republicans since July, when Trump’s administration declared it would not share any further information on the powerful and well-connected financier. Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking minors. 

Epstein surrounded himself with celebrities and politicians, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton. 

Trump campaigned on releasing what he and many describe as the “Epstein files,” and for years many of his supporters, including some now in his administration, fixated on conspiracy theories about the scandal.

Discharge petition roils House

“There are real victims to this criminal enterprise, and the perpetrators are being protected because they’re rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C. So today, we’re standing with these survivors,” Massie said at the outdoors press conference.

Massie and House Democrat Ro Khanna of California need just two more Republican signatures on a discharge petition that would trigger the release of the Epstein case file, leapfrogging House leadership.

House Speaker Mike Johnson instead urged his party Wednesday to support a symbolic measure approving an already ongoing GOP-led committee probe.

Khanna, and GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, welcomed the victims to Capitol Hill alongside Massie.

“This is the most important fight we can wage here in Congress, fighting for innocent people that never received justice, and the women behind me have never received justice. And do you want to know why? It’s because Jeffrey Epstein somehow was able to walk among the most rich, powerful people,” Greene said.

Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined Massie and Greene in signing the petition. All Democrats in the House, which has a 219-212 split, are expected to sign.

Lured by Epstein 

With the U.S. Capitol as their backdrop, numerous women shared stories of being lured, some at just 14 years old, by money and opportunities Epstein offered to them.

Annie Farmer said she was 16 when she and her sister were flown to New Mexico to spend a weekend with Epstein and Maxwell, where she said they were assaulted and photographed. Her sister reported their sexual abuse to authorities later that year.

“I am now 46 years old. Thirty years later, we still do not know why that report wasn’t properly investigated, or why Epstein and his associates were allowed to harm hundreds, if not thousands, of other girls and young women. 

“We have never been told whether those images were found when they discovered a large amount of child sexual abuse material on his property,” said Farmer, who testified publicly in both cases against Epstein and Maxwell.

Farmer said for many years it felt like Epstein’s abusive behavior was “an open secret” and that his network of powerful friends “chose to look the other way because it benefited them.” 

Farmer called for a thorough public review of the government’s findings in the Epstein case.

“At a time with record-high levels of distrust in our institutions and a perception that there are two Americas — one for those with power and privilege and one for everyone else — passing this Epstein transparency bill is one important step that can be taken to prove to Americans that the government does not side with sexual perpetrators,” she said.

Jena-Lisa Jones told the large crowd that Epstein began abusing her when she was 14.

“I know that I was just a little kid, but sometimes I still feel like it is my fault that this happened,” she said.

“If you’re a member of Congress and you’re listening to all of us speak here today, please really listen to us. Please vote for this bill to be passed. Please recognize how important it is for transparency relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, this does not matter.”

Jones then directly appealed to Trump: “Please, President Trump, pass this bill and help us. Make us feel like our voices are finally being heard.” 

Trump rebuffs reports on Epstein relationship

Trump’s past relationship with Epstein has been under a microscope since July. The president sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on a 50th birthday card Trump gave to Epstein. The card allegedly featured a cryptic message and a doodle of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair. 

The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein case files. The context in which his name appeared is unclear. 

Trump has denied the reports.

Trump dismissed questions about releasing the Epstein case files when asked by reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon.

“This is a Democrat hoax that never ends,” Trump said while sitting alongside Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki during their previously planned meeting.

“What they’re trying to do with the Epstein hoax is getting people to talk about that instead of speaking about the tremendous success like ending seven wars. I ended seven wars, nobody’s going to talk about (that) because they’re going to talk about the Epstein whatever,” Trump continued. Trump did not detail specifically which wars.

“I understand that we were subpoenaed to give files, and I understand we’ve given thousands of pages of files, and I know that no matter what you do, it’s going to keep going.”

The GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released roughly 33,000 pages Tuesday night related to the government’s Epstein investigation. But the collection was quickly dismissed by many observers as duplicates and items that were already public.

“I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, James Comer, who’s leading the Oversight Committee,” Massie said of his fellow Kentucky lawmaker. “They may find some information, but they’re allowing the (Department of Justice) to curate all of the information that the DOJ is giving them. If you’ve looked at the pages they’ve released so far, they’re heavily redacted. Some pages are entirely redacted, and 97% of this is already in the public domain.” 

Subpoenas issued

Comer’s committee has also subpoenaed testimony from Clinton, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and numerous former Department of Justice officials, from both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Massie told reporters Wednesday that Speaker Johnson urged colleagues not to support the Kentucky Republican’s discharge petition and instead vote for a procedural rule to support the Oversight Committee’s investigation. A committee investigation, however, does not require a floor vote to proceed.

“My message to my colleagues was, ‘Don’t set yourself up.’ Yes, the speaker’s resolution will give you temporary political cover, but there are millions of people watching this,” Massie said.

Members of the House Oversight Committee met with several Epstein victims Tuesday.

Johnson, of Louisiana, said Massie and Khanna’s petition is “moot and unnecessary.”

“The Oversight Committee’s investigation is already ongoing. They’re already producing and putting out there the documents that are covered, the White House is in full compliance. The administration is willfully complying with the subpoenas because they want maximum transparency as well. I talked to the president himself last night, so this is going to be an ongoing effort.”

Jennifer Shutt and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office at the White House on September 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. At left is U.S. Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. At right are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Tuesday the U.S. Space Command will permanently relocate to Huntsville, Alabama, vacating its temporary headquarters in Colorado.

The move reverts back to Trump’s plans during his first administration to locate the combatant command in Alabama to oversee Space Force, the military branch he created in 2019. 

Space Force headquarters has since operated out of Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs. The command’s location has been a yearslong political fight.

“As you know, this has been going on for a long period of time, and I am thrilled to report that the U.S. Space Command headquarters will move to the beautiful locale of a place called Huntsville, Alabama, forever to be known from this point forward as ‘Rocket City,’” said Trump, flanked by Alabama Republicans in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon. 

“We love Alabama. I only won it by about 47 points. I don’t think that influenced my decision though,” he said. (Trump won Alabama’s nine Electoral College votes in November by 31 percentage points, according to The Associated Press. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won Colorado’s 10 Electoral College votes by 11 percentage points.)

Trump said his plans to root Space Command at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville were “wrongfully obstructed by the Biden administration.”

The Biden administration decided in July 2023 to keep Space Command in Colorado Springs to ensure “peak readiness in the space domain,” according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report released in April 2025. The IG’s report was inconclusive on why the Air Force did not push back on the decision, despite the department’s preference for Alabama.

“Today, we’re moving forward with what we want to do and the place that we want to have this, and this will be there for hopefully hundreds of years,” Trump said. “I will say, I want to thank Colorado. The problem I have with Colorado, one of the big problems, they do mail-in voting. They went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections.”

Since his election loss to Biden in 2020, Trump has repeated unfounded claims about mail-in ballots and their effect on elections.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the president is “restoring (Space Command) to precisely where it should be.”

“Whoever controls the skies will control the future of warfare, and Mr. President, today you’re ensuring that happens,” Hegseth said.

Alabama Republicans rejoice over Space Command

Alabama’s Republican U.S. Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt both praised the president as they stood beside him in the Oval Office.

“Mr. President, we are grateful for your leadership on this and restoring Space Command to its rightful home in Huntsville, Alabama,” Britt said, adding the accusation that “obviously the Biden administration chose to make this political.”

Tuberville said the move will save taxpayers $480 million. States Newsroom has not independently verified that figure, and the April IG report did not cite specific relocation costs. He also highlighted the presence of NASA in Huntsville as an advantage.

“I spoke with the president for the last three or four years about this. If I thought it needed to go somewhere else, because (of) the security of our country, I’d be for that. But the best place for Space Command is Huntsville, Alabama, because what we have and what it means to this country is going to be so important,” Tuberville said.

Lawsuit vowed by Colorado AG

But Colorado elected officials aren’t backing down. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, described the decision as “deeply disappointing” for his state and “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Tuesday that he plans to take the administration to court over the “unlawful” relocation, which he described as “political games.”

“Moving Space Command Headquarters to Alabama is not only wrong for our national defense, but it’s harmful to hundreds of Space Command personnel and their families. These El Paso County residents are our neighbors. They relied on the federal government’s decision to keep Space Command HQ in Colorado Springs — they bought homes for their families, selected schools for their children, and have contributed to the local economy.” Weiser said. 

“The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has been preparing in the event the president made such an unlawful decision to move Space Command HQ. If the Trump administration takes this step — I’m prepared to challenge it in court.”

Colorado’s entire bipartisan congressional delegation released a statement Tuesday slamming the relocation announcement.

“Today’s decision to move U.S. Space Command’s headquarters out of Colorado and to Alabama will directly harm our state and the nation. We are united in fighting to reverse this decision. Bottom line—moving Space Command headquarters weakens our national security at the worst possible time,” according to the statement.

Former AmeriCorps service member Daniel Zare, 27, visits Project Change at Sligo Middle School on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025 in Silver Spring, Maryland, where he mentored students before federal government cuts in April. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

SILVER SPRING, Md. — Daniel Zare worked one-on-one as an AmeriCorps member with students going through rough times in school, lightening teachers’ workload in the classroom.

At AmeriCorps Project CHANGE, based in Silver Spring’s Sligo Middle School, Zare was one of several in his group who tracked adolescents’ emotional and social wellbeing over months using a system dubbed “My Score.” They then helped support the kids who were struggling the most.

In April, though, the program screeched to a halt. That’s when the Trump administration abruptly canceled nearly $400 million in active AmeriCorps grants across the United States that fund volunteers who embed in communities, in exchange for a small stipend and education award.

“All the work that we had culminating toward the end of the year, the relationships that we built with teachers and students and officials, it just completely went kaput because we were told we weren’t allowed to go to work at all,” Zare, 27, told States Newsroom.

Like so many longstanding federal programs and institutions severely reduced or dismantled as part of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency project, AmeriCorps — and its nonprofit partners — are now assessing the damage and seeking a way forward.

AmeriCorps programs that survived last spring’s DOGE cuts are slowly beginning a new year of service amid major uncertainty over whether they will be able to continue their work in classrooms, food banks, senior centers and other community hubs.

Winners and losers among states

AmeriCorps, a federal agency signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton, places roughly 200,000 members across the United States at 35,000 service locations, according to current agency data.

Members serve in schools, local governments and with a wide range of nonprofits that focus on health, disaster relief, environmental stewardship, workforce development and veterans.

The staffers, who pledge to “get things done for America,” are paid a modest living allowance that hovers around the poverty line. Some, but not all, can get health insurance while in the program.

Members who complete their service term, which usually lasts from 10 to 12 months, receive an education award that can be used to pursue a degree, earn a trade certificate or pay student loans.

AmeriCorps federal dollars reach programs via a couple routes. In many cases, grants flow from AmeriCorps to governor-led state and territorial commissions that divvy them up according to local priorities. In other cases, federal dollars flow straight to a program via a competitive grant process. 

Kaira Esgate, CEO of America’s Service Commissions, said when the Trump administration ordered the cuts in April, some states lost large portions of their AmeriCorps portfolio, while other states fared better.

“There were no real clear trend lines around what or who got terminated and why,” said Esgate, whose member organization represents all 49 state commissions (South Dakota doesn’t have one) and the commissions for the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico.

Abby Andre, executive director of The Impact Project, an initiative of Public Service Ventures Ltd., a private corporation that launches and scales solutions to strengthen public service and communities., has been collecting data and plotting on an interactive map where AmeriCorps programs have been canceled. Andre, a former Department of Justice litigator, has also worked with her team to build other maps showing where federal workforce cuts have been felt across the country.

“AmeriCorps is a really great example of the federal dollars being kind of invisible in communities. Communities often don’t know that a local food bank or a senior center are supported by AmeriCorps volunteers and AmeriCorps money,” said Andre, who taught administrative law at the Vermont Law School after working under President Barack Obama and in Trump’s first administration.

Andre said communities with a lack of social services, including in rural areas, will likely feel the biggest losses without an AmeriCorps presence because the agency “facilitates pennies-on-the-dollar type services through volunteer work.”

“It’s not as though if these community services folded, those communities would have the money to fund equal or better services through the private market,” she said.

Losing trust

The Maryland Governor’s Office on Service and Volunteerism gave the green light to Project CHANGE to keep its program, which serves Montgomery County in suburban Washington, D.C., running through the upcoming school year.

Paul Costello, director of Project CHANGE, is now scrambling to launch a new AmeriCorps cohort after receiving the news on July 22 that the initiative had been funded. He estimates members won’t be able to begin until almost a month into the school year.

“Sadly, AmeriCorps, as a brand name, is badly damaged, I think. I mean, I’ve got a meeting on Wednesday with a major partner who told us two weeks ago ‘We thought you were dead,’” Costello told States Newsroom in an Aug. 11 interview.

Costello’s program not only places service members in Montgomery County Public Schools, where Zare served, but also with partners including Community Bridges, Montgomery Housing Partnership and Family Learning Solutions.

The nonprofits respectively focus on helping adolescent girls from diverse backgrounds, children whose families live in community-developed affordable housing units and teens eyeing college and career paths.

The county’s school system is the largest in the state and serves a highly diverse population. About 44% of the system’s 160,000 students qualify for free and reduced meals, and close to 20% are learning English while continuing to speak another language at home.

Costello’s 18 cohort members embedded in those schools and nonprofits this past academic year were suddenly yanked in April when the government cut his grant. The partners, which had planned and budgeted to have the members through June, were thrown into “total chaos,” Costello said.

“So some of them are so desperate, they rely on their members. They had to dig into their pockets to keep them on as staff. And then we go back to them this year and say, ‘You want members this year?’ AmeriCorps has made no attempt to make them whole. So they’ve been screwed,” Costello said.

AmeriCorps did not respond to States Newsroom’s questions about nonprofits losing money.

Legal action

The federal courts granted some relief to members and organizations who abruptly lost living allowances and contractually obligated funding.

A Maryland federal district judge ordered in June that funding and positions  be restored in 24 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that sued the agency.

Another district judge in the state also handed a win to more than a dozen nonprofits from across the country that sued to recover funding they were owed.

But for many it was too late, and AmeriCorps’ future still feels shaky.

After suddenly losing his living allowance in April, Zare had to leave Silver Spring.

“I was renting a room off of Georgia (Avenue), and I was not able to pay rent there anymore, so I actually moved back to my mom’s in Germantown for the time being,” he told States Newsroom in August, referring to another Maryland suburb.

Hillary Kane, director of the Philadelphia Higher Education Network for Neighborhood Development, said by the time the court orders were issued, many of her AmeriCorps members had already found other positions and she had completely let go of one of her full-time staffers.

While the court injunctions were “welcome news,” reinstating the programs remained “questionable,” Kane wrote in a July 21 update for Nonprofit Quarterly.

Kane’s organization is a member of the National College Attainment Network, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that was among the successful plaintiffs.

Other organizations that joined the lawsuit are based in California, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Virginia.

The Democratic-led states that won reinstatement for AmeriCorps members include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Going forward?

Kane got news on July 10 that PennSERVE, Pennsylvania’s state service commission, reinstated funding for her AmeriCorps program that places members in four West Philadelphia high schools to mentor students on their post-graduation plans.

The late notice meant Kane could only begin recruiting new members in mid-July.

“And so our start date has to be a bit fluid,” Kane told States Newsroom during a July 22 interview. “We have to essentially recruit people into this one-year cohort position, and say, ‘We’re hoping to start September 2, but we’re not 100% sure. Can you kind of just roll with it?’ It’s an awkward position to have to be in.”

Other AmeriCorps programs have not fared so well, as the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget continues to withhold funds that were appropriated by Congress for the ongoing fiscal year.

Trump signed legislation in March that extended the $1.26 billion for AmeriCorps for the full 2025 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30.

Kane said the most “insidious” part of the recent AmeriCorps storyline is that programs that receive grants directly from the federal agency are being strung along by OMB.

“So there are agencies who have been theoretically awarded money, but they’re like, ‘Is it actually going to happen? Should I spend all this money and then not be able to bill the federal government to reimburse me if OMB is going to hold it hostage?’”

Programs at risk include 130 recently expired contracts for AmeriCorps Foster Grandparent and Senior Companions programs that support roughly 6,000 senior citizen volunteers across 35 states. The programs are eligible for just over $50 million for the new service year, which should be off to a start.

Congress pleads with budget office

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators pressed the executive branch agency on Aug. 1 to release the funds.

“Further delays in grantmaking will have immediate and irreversible consequences for programs, AmeriCorps members, and communities,” the senators wrote in a letter to OMB Director Russ Vought.

Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democratic Sens. Chris Coons of Delaware, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York in signing the letter. All are members of the Senate National Service Caucus.

The White House and AmeriCorps did not respond for comment.

The Republican-led Senate Committee on Appropriations voted on July 31 to preserve $1.25 billion in AmeriCorps funding for fiscal year 2026. Collins chairs the committee.

U.S. House appropriators, which for the last two years under Republican leadership have sought to cut AmeriCorps funding, are expected to debate its budget in September. But it’s almost certain Congress will have to pass a stopgap spending bill when the end of the fiscal year arrives to stave off a partial government shutdown, so a final decision on funding may not come for months.

Change for everyone

Zare never did have a chance to say goodbye to all his students in April.

And even though the option was on the table, he did not sign up to serve a third year with AmeriCorps.

Before he applied and earned a spot with Project CHANGE, Zare was working odd jobs, including as a utilities contractor for Comcast. He had also earned his associate’s degree.

“I don’t think there’s any other program to take someone like me who was working a couple of different jobs and put them in an environment like this, to see firsthand as an American citizen how our classrooms operate and what position I would need to be in to actually be of benefit,” Zare told States Newsroom.

Zare is now freelancing and debating his next move, whether that’s a new job or further higher education.

“AmeriCorps is something that I’m always going to cherish because a lot of the people there still help me,” he said.

Editor’s note: D.C. Bureau Senior Reporter Ashley Murray served in AmeriCorps in 2009-2010.

E.J. Antoni of the Heritage Foundation testifies before a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Oct. 24, 2023. (Screenshot from C-SPAN)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump nominated conservative economist E.J. Antoni to fill the top spot at the Bureau of Labor Statistics after abruptly firing the previous statistician following a disappointing jobs report earlier this month.

Trump announced the nominee late Monday on his Truth Social platform, stating that “Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE.”

Antoni, an economist at the far-right Heritage Foundation, has harshly criticized the previous BLS commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden in 2023 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate 86-6 in January 2024. The bureau tracks national economic data, including employment figures.

Without providing evidence, Trump slammed the latest jobs report, released Aug. 1, as “RIGGED” and fired McEntarfer hours later.

The economy gained just 73,000 jobs in July, according to the monthly report. BLS also significantly adjusted May and June figures, to 33,000 for both months, down from the previously reported 291,000. Revisions to past reports often happen after the bureau receives updated data from businesses and federal agencies.

U.S. economic data collection is often referred to as the “gold standard,” as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, a Trump appointee, said last month.

Trump faced backlash for firing McEntarfer, including from his own former BLS commissioner.

William Beach, whom Trump tapped in 2017 to lead BLS, told CNN McEntarfer’s firing was “groundless.”

BLS data is “more accurate now than they were 30 years ago,” Beach said during the Aug. 3 interview.

In an Aug. 4 appearance on Steve Bannon’s WarRoom podcast, Antoni said BLS data collection is “outdated.”

“You need somebody who is willing to overhaul the entire thing,” he told Bannon.

Shortly after Trump’s November win, Antoni posted on X that “DOGE needs to take a chainsaw to BLS.”

Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation’s president, said Tuesday that Trump made a “stellar choice” in nominating Antoni.

“EJ Antoni is one of the sharpest economic minds in the nation—a fearless truth-teller who grasps that sound economics must serve the interests of American families, not globalist elites,” Roberts said in a statement. “His leadership as chief economist at The Heritage Foundation has been instrumental in advancing our mission to protect American families and rebuild a resilient economy rooted in free enterprise.”

Antoni contributed to the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a roughly 900-page far-right blueprint to overhaul government institutions published ahead of Trump’s election win.

Antoni will need approval from the Senate, which currently has a 53-47 Republican majority.

Sen. Patty Murray, a senior member and former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, slammed Antoni as an “unqualified right-wing extremist who won’t think twice about manipulating BLS data and degrading the credibility of the agency to make Trump happy.”

“Any Senator who votes to confirm this partisan hack is voting to shred the integrity of our nation’s best economic and jobs data, which underpin our entire economy. If E.J. Antoni gets confirmed, I hope Republicans like playing make-believe, because that’s all BLS data will become,” the Washington state Democrat said in a statement Tuesday.

Sen. Bill Cassidy chairs the committee, which will be tasked with advancing Antoni’s nomination to the full Senate. Cassidy, of Louisiana, did not have a statement on Antoni posted on his website or X feed as of Tuesday at 3 p.m. Eastern.

Former U.S. Rep. Billy Long testifies before the Senate Finance Committee at his confirmation hearing as Internal Revenue Service commissioner on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. (Screenshot from committee webcast)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will remove former Missouri Republican U.S. Rep. Billy Long from his post as head of the Internal Revenue Service less than two months after his confirmation, according to the White House Friday.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will step in as commissioner of the agency tasked with enforcing tax law and collecting revenue, according to a White House official. Long’s sudden departure was first reported by the New York Times.

Long wrote on social media that Trump will now appoint him to be U.S. ambassador to Iceland. The White House confirmed Long’s statement.

“It is a honor to serve my friend President Trump and I am excited to take on my new role as the ambassador to Iceland. I am thrilled to answer his call to service and deeply committed to advancing his bold agenda. Exciting times ahead!” Long wrote.

The former lawmaker’s ouster comes as the IRS must begin to implement changes to the tax code championed by Senate Republicans and signed into law by Trump just last month. Those include temporary tax relief for some tipped and overtime workers, as well as permanent changes to the child tax credit and several clean energy tax credits.

The agency, which collects the lion’s share of the country’s revenue from individual taxpayers, lost more than 11,000 employees, or 11% of its workforce, either through deferred resignations or mass firings of probationary workers since Trump began his second term, according to a May 2 report from the agency’s inspector general.

Confirmed in June

Long, who represented Missouri in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2023 and then worked many years as a talk radio host, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a 53-44 vote on June 12.

The former lawmaker and media personality faced scrutiny during his confirmation process from Senate Democrats who demanded an investigation into Long’s work with two companies, Capital Edge Strategies and White River, where he allegedly peddled fake tax credits.

Senate Democrats also scrutinized donations Long received to his defunct Senate campaign after Trump announced in December he intended to install the former congressman at the helm of the IRS.

Long denied any wrongdoing, and received the support of all Senate Republicans, including Senate Committee on Finance Chair Mike Crapo, of Idaho, who praised Long’s promise to “implement a top-down culture change at the agency.”

‘One corruption bombshell after another’

Sen. Ron Wyden, the committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement Friday that “it was obvious this would end badly, but every Senate Republican voted to confirm his nomination anyway.”

“He didn’t even last two months on the job. Let’s not forget that there wasn’t a vacancy at the time Trump announced Long’s nomination. Danny Werfel, a skilled leader with fans among Democrats and Republicans, had years left on his term,” the Oregon lawmaker said.

Upon Long’s confirmation, Wyden said the vote should have been an “easy no” for Republicans.

“It’s one corruption bombshell after another with former Congressman Billy Long,” he said in June.

States Newsroom reached out to what appeared to be Long’s phone number for comment.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a news conference with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., demanding the release of the Epstein files at the U.S. Capitol on July 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A nonprofit government watchdog sued the Trump administration Friday for failing to respond to public records requests for communications between the White House, Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation about Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including any review of President Donald Trump’s past relationship with the financier.

The lawsuit came as the White House continues to face fallout following the Department of Justice’s refusal in early July to release what are commonly referred to as the Epstein files.

According to reporting by CNN, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Vice President JD Vance met Wednesday evening at the White House to discuss next steps in addressing the growing scrutiny.

The Democracy Forward Foundation filed the lawsuit in district court for the District of Columbia alleging the administration violated the Freedom of Information Act for not responding to the organization’s expedited request within the legally required 10 days.

The nonprofit is requesting the court order the DOJ and the FBI to provide a determination and turn over any non-exempt files, including email communication, calendar invites, and Slack and Microsoft Teams messages among officials who reviewed Epstein investigative files this year. The organization also requested records containing information about Trump’s communication with Epstein dating back to 1990.

“President Trump has repeatedly said he would release the Epstein files, his spokesperson claims his administration is ‘the most transparent in history,’ and yet, they continue to hide from the American people. The only thing transparent about the Trump-Vance administration is how clearly they continue to disregard our nation’s laws,” Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward’s president and CEO, said in a statement Friday.

“Public records laws outline a clear and simple process that requires the government to immediately produce important documents in response to urgent public information requests, and yet again, this administration is ignoring the law. The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation.”

The White House and Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

DOJ says no Epstein ‘client list’ exists

The Trump administration’s handling of Epstein case material has come under a microscope since an unsigned Department of Justice memo on July 7 declared “a systemic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” and department and FBI officials concluded that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

The DOJ’s refusal to release further information sparked criticism among Trump’s voter base, and even among some administration officials. The memo also roused both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress, who are now demanding records be released and ex-government officials testify under oath about the investigation into Epstein, who died in a New York City jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, avoided tough votes compelling the release of Epstein records by sending lawmakers home early for August break.

The House Committee on Oversight, chaired by Kentucky Republican James Comer, issued several subpoenas Tuesday to past U.S. attorneys general and former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Epstein surrounded himself with powerful figures through the years, including Trump and the Clintons. A July 23 Wall Street Journal report revealed that Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein files. The context in which Trump’s name appears in the investigative material is not clear.

In response to failing to fulfill his campaign promise to release the Epstein files, Trump ordered the release of grand jury testimony from the Epstein investigation. A Florida judge swiftly denied that request.

Ghislaine Maxwell interview

The president also dispatched Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to a Florida prison to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse girls. Details of the interview have not been made public. Maxwell has since been moved to a minimum-security facility in Bryan, Texas.

The House Oversight Committee also subpoenaed Maxwell for an Aug. 11 interview and rejected her recent request for immunity, according to media reports. The committee has delayed the deposition.

Epstein pleaded guilty to sex trafficking in Florida in 2008. A federal grand jury indicted Epstein in 2019 on charges of sexually trafficking minors. According to the Justice Department, Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims.

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrive at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. , for the inauguration of Donald Trump as president. (Photo by Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The House Committee on Oversight issued subpoenas Tuesday for testimony from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among other ex-government officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations, regarding knowledge of Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Committee Chair James Comer of Kentucky also subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice for records of Epstein’s federal sex trafficking investigation. Comer gave the department until Aug. 19 to turn over the files.

Comer issued the subpoenas following bipartisan committee support in late July to compel the release of records after President Donald Trump backtracked on his promise to open the files.

Epstein, who pleaded guilty to sex crimes in Florida in 2008, died in a New York City jail cell in August 2019 while awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges. Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of a wealthy media mogul, is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for her role in the sex trafficking scheme.

The former financier had surrounded himself with wealthy and powerful figures, including Trump and the Clintons, among many other influential people.

Subpoena list

In letters to several former government officials, Comer wrote that congressional oversight of the government’s investigation of Epstein is “imperative.”

“The Committee may use the results of this investigation to inform legislative solutions to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations. Given your past relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, the Committee believes that you have information regarding their activities that is relevant to the Committee’s investigation,” according to the letters.

In addition to the Clintons, Comer also subpoenaed testimony from:

• Former U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland
• Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr
• Former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions
• Former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch
• Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder
• Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
• Former FBI Director James Comey
• Former FBI Director Robert Mueller

Comer outlined a span of deadlines for the depositions into early October.

Comer previously subpoenaed Maxwell for an Aug. 11 deposition. The Kentucky lawmaker denied Maxwell’s request for immunity but agreed to delay her testimony to the committee, according to multiple media reports.

Bondi won’t release Epstein files

Attention on the federal case against Epstein swelled after the Justice Department, under current Attorney General Pam Bondi, declined to publicly release case files, as Trump had promised on the campaign trail.

According to an unsigned July 7 Justice Department memo, “a systemic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” and department and FBI officials concluded that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

The declaration sparked an uproar among lawmakers and Trump’s voter base, including some in his own administration. The president’s supporters, and Trump himself, have long been fixated on what they describe as the “Epstein files,” with some perpetuating conspiracy theories.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana sent lawmakers home early for August break to avoid votes compelling the release of material. 

Details of the president’s past relationship with Epstein also surfaced, including a report from the Wall Street Journal that Trump gave the financier a 50th birthday note featuring a cryptic message and the outline of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair. The president denied making the note and swiftly sued the Journal.

The outlet also reported that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein materials. The context in which Trump appeared in the files is unknown.

Trump has since called for the release of grand jury testimony in the case, which a Florida judge denied.

Trump also dispatched Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense lawyer, to interview Maxwell in Florida where she was being held.

The administration has since moved Maxwell to a Texas facility.

A container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025 in Oakland, California. President Donald Trump announced that his Aug. 1 deadline for trade deals will not be extended and sweeping tariffs will be imposed on certain countries beginning that day. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump pushed ahead with his promise to raise tariffs on foreign goods by Aug. 1, signing an order late Thursday increasing import taxes on products from nearly every U.S. trading partner.

Trump’s directive, and new data on weaker job growth, sent markets tumbling Friday.

The president imposed a 15% base tariff on products imported from nearly three dozen nations across five continents, plus the 27 trading nations that comprise the European Union. Trump slapped higher rates on select other countries, ranging from 18% on goods from Nicaragua to 30% on South Africa and 50% on Brazil.

The White House hailed the “reciprocal” tariffs as “a necessary and powerful tool to put America First after many years of unsustainable trade deficits that threaten our economy and national security,” according to a press release accompanying the executive order.

Trump describes the tariffs as “reciprocal” because they are his response to countries that have trade deficits with the U.S. — meaning that country sells more products to the U.S. than it buys.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer called the new rates “historic.”

“Over the past few months, the President’s tariff program and the ensuing ‘Trump Round’ of trade negotiations have accomplished what the World Trade Organization and multilateral negotiations have not been able to achieve at scale: expansive new market access for U.S. exporters, increased tariffs to defend critical American industries, and trillions of new manufacturing investments and purchases of goods that will create great American jobs and help reassert American leadership in key strategic sectors,” Greer said in a statement Wednesday.

The tariff announcement, combined with a weaker-than-expected jobs report Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, caused sell-offs Friday from the three major U.S. stock indexes, according to financial media reports.

Trump fumed Friday afternoon about report adjustments that significantly decreased jobs numbers for May and June, even calling for the commissioner for labor statistics to be fired.

Tariffs and lawsuits

Trump made history earlier this year when he became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The move sparked legal challenges from small businesses and Democratic-led states, and the plaintiffs faced the Trump administration Thursday in federal appeals court.

Tariffs are taxes on imported products that U.S. companies and other buyers pay to the U.S. government.

Trump announced staggering tariffs under an emergency declaration on April 2, what he referred to as “Liberation Day,” but delayed the new import taxes after global markets plummeted in response to the shock announcement.

Trump also separately announced Thursday a 35% levy on imported products from Canada that fall outside the bounds of an already established trade agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Trump continued a 25% tariff on certain Mexican goods, but paused any rate increases to allow for 90 days of negotiations, according to media reports. The U.S. is continuing negotiations with China, whose products face a base import tax rate of 30%.

Marc Noland, executive vice president and director of studies for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said Trump’s latest tariff rates are “unfortunate.”

“It will contribute to higher prices and slower growth here in the United States,” Noland said, adding there’s “a question about how sustainable they are legally here in the U.S.”

“And it’s particularly unfortunate, because I’m looking at the entire list of countries and see that the countries with the highest rates are the countries that are in the worst shape — Laos gets 40%, Syria got 41%,  Myanmar gets 40%. It’s the poorest, most desperate countries that are getting hit with the highest tariffs. So it’s bad for us and it’s bad for the world,” Noland told States Newsroom in an interview Friday.

The 15% rate on imports from dozens of countries mirrors the deals Trump announced in recent weeks with Japan, South Korea and European Union — though many details remain unknown.

“There are real questions about what exactly did anybody agree to,” Noland said. “And you know this, these don’t have the force of law that a treaty negotiated and passed by our Congress and somebody else’s national legislature have like, say, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which, as we see, was unilaterally abrogated.”

‘Predictable’ trade agenda urged

Trade and industry advocates have also reacted to the new tariffs.

Gary Shapiro, CEO and vice chair of the Consumer Technology Association, issued a statement Thursday saying Trump’s new rates “highlight the uncertainty American innovators face in today’s trade environment.”

“CTA continues to urge the Administration and Congress to pursue a predictable, forward-looking trade agenda rooted in fairness and collaboration with trusted partners,” said Shapiro, whose organization hosts the annual CES trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. “American innovation thrives when markets are open, trade rules are clear, and businesses are free to focus on creating jobs and bringing groundbreaking technologies to market.”

The National Foreign Trade Council warned that “Whatever progress that’s ultimately achieved as part of these new trade deals will come at the steep price of significant U.S. tariff increases and the erosion of trust with America’s key partners.”

The statement Thursday from the industry group’s president, Jake Colvin, continued: “Institutionalizing the highest U.S. duties since the Great Depression, coupled with ongoing uncertainty, will ultimately make American businesses less competitive globally and consumers worse off while harming relationships with close geopolitical allies and trading partners.” 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, pictured July 31, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit questioned the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs Thursday as the White House pushes on with its Aug. 1 deadline for import taxes at levels not seen since the 1930s.

The case originated from consolidated lawsuits brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who argued the president does not have the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

Through nearly two hours of questioning Thursday, the 11-judge panel probed whether the president could use IEEPA authority to set tariffs without approval from Congress.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Brett Shumate argued the law is “one of the most powerful tools” to protect the economy and national security during emergencies.

Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman, who argued on behalf of the Democratic states challenging the tariffs, maintained Trump’s reason behind declaring the unilateral emergency tariffs — U.S. trade deficits with other nations — did not actually merit a national emergency.

Trump became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 law when in February and March he ordered punitive import taxes on products from Canada, Mexico and China after declaring illegal fentanyl smuggling from those countries a national emergency.

The president took his tariffs worldwide in an April executive order that declared trade deficits an emergency and slapped what he described as “reciprocal” import taxes on nearly all foreign goods.

In late May, the U.S. Court of International Trade sided with Democratic attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon, as well as the business owners from across the country, including in New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

The word ‘tariff’

Judges on the panel grilled Shumate about how IEEPA grants the authority to impose tariffs.

“A major concern that I have is IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word tariffs,” said Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, adding that Congress “certainly was aware about tariffs” when it wrote the law.

Existing laws already create “a highly structured … framework” for tariffs, said Reyna, who was appointed to the bench in 2011 by President Barack Obama. “You would agree with me that those statutes do pertain to tariffs?”

“Correct,” replied Shumate, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

Pressed again by Reyna on “tariff” not appearing in the statute, Shumate said “I don’t think that’s unusual.”

“There are at least two examples of statutes that authorize tariffs that don’t use the word ‘tariff’ — Sections 232c and 122, which authorize the president to restrict imports,” Shumate said.

Judge Leonard P. Stark, who was appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, jumped in with skepticism.

“Both of those are part of the code that deals expressly with customs and duties, unlike IEEPA, which is not in that chapter,” Stark said.

Dependence on deficits probed

The panel also quizzed legal counsel for the businesses and states, including on the weight and content of Trump’s emergency declaration that launched his April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs.

The states ignored arguments in Trump’s executive order that an emergency existed because of a hollow manufacturing base, a threat to national security, supply-chain disruptions and other issues, Judge Richard G. Taranto said to Gutman, of Oregon.

“Your arguments in your brief to us are devoted to the more narrow question of trade deficits alone as not amounting to unusual and extraordinary threat,” Taranto, who was appointed by Obama in 2013, said.

Gutman replied that all other matters the order cites are related to trade deficits.

“You can look at the executive order itself, the justification, the unusual and extraordinary threat that it is identifying, is what it calls persistent trade deficits,” he said. “Everything else that’s discussed there is either mentioned as a cause or an effect.”

Stark followed up with, “Is that the only fair reading of the executive orders, though? Can it be read as there are some recent consequences, some recent effects of the long and persistent trade deficit that now are unusual and extraordinary?”

Gutman said those effects are mentioned “in about a sentence in the executive order.”

Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore fact-checked that answer.

The executive order “goes on for paragraph after paragraph,” Moore said, mentioning production capacity, military equipment, national security concerns and other threats to the U.S. economy, she said.

“How could you stand here and say to me that the president said it’s all about the deficit, and it’s one throwaway sentence at most in this whole order about the rest of these things constituting a threat?” Moore, who was appointed by George W. Bush, asked.

After back and forth, Gutman said, “I will walk back that it was a single sentence. But I think if you read this, the fairest reading of this executive order is that it is about the large and persistent trade deficits.”

Debate continues

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said after oral arguments the U.S. Department of Justice had a “monster flop” during the arguments when at one point Shumate told Moore that the court did not have authority to review the tariffs.

“I think for those in the audience today, they are concerned when the federal government comes in and says that (judges) have absolutely no role to review what the president does under IEEPA. You actually heard laughter in the room,” Rayfield said.

During the White House daily briefing following the arguments, press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended tariffs as a success, citing that the duties have raised $150 billion in revenue since Trump took office.

“Those revenues will skyrocket even further, starting tomorrow, when new reciprocal tariff rates take effect,” Leavitt said.

Tariffs are paid to the U.S. government by American businesses and individuals who purchase foreign goods.

Critics across the spectrum

The case against Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs has attracted support from various points on the political spectrum.

Democratic members of Congress filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state attorneys general and small businesses arguing the president’s import taxes under IEEPA usurped Congress’ tariff powers and violated the Constitution.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

The libertarian CATO Institute also filed an amicus brief raising several issues with Trump’s emergency tariffs, including that IEEPA contains “no textual support for tariff authority” and that it violates tariff power granted to Congress in the Constitution.

Brent Skorup, legal fellow at the CATO Institute, said it’s hard to predict the outcome of the case and whether a longstanding judicial branch deference to the executive branch will “win out” over a recent trend of skepticism of the president’s plans.

“In some ways I think this case has many analogies to President Biden’s attempt to forgive student loans,” he said in an interview with States Newsroom. “I mean, almost an identical issue — a vague statute, a president using it in a way that had never been used before for an economically major event.”

U.S. consumers bear costs

Economists are cautioning that the costs of the tariffs will fall on the shoulders of U.S. consumers.

The Yale Budget Lab’s most recent estimate shows the overall average effective tariff rate is 18.4%, the highest since 1933. The analysis, released Wednesday, included Trump’s latest trade announcement that he will impose a 25% duty on goods from India.

The overall price level and distributional effects of the tariffs are projected to cost American households roughly $2,400 in 2025 dollars, Budget Lab projected.

The analysis shows tariffs are expected to disproportionately affect clothing and textiles, with the prices of shoes increasing by 40% in the short run.

The Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank that advocates for lower taxes, found that Trump’s Aug. 1 tariff regime will affect nearly 75% of imported foods, with products from the European Union seeing the worst of it.

The five food imports that would be most affected, barring any deal changes, include liqueurs and spirits, baked goods, coffee, fish and beer, according to the foundation’s July 28 review.

Economists and some lawmakers also warn that Trump’s constantly evolving tariff policy is perpetuating an air of uncertainty for businesses. 

Sameera Fazili, the deputy director of the National Economic Council during the Biden administration, said the rapid changes are “undermining our economy.”

“You can see it in CEO surveys, where the Conference Board CEO Sentiment Survey for Q2 reported that a quarter of CEOs now plan to cut back on capital investments,” Fazili, now a senior fellow at the liberal think tank the Roosevelt Institute, said Tuesday during a press call organized by the Economic Speakers Bureau.

The same can be said for mid-sized and small businesses, said Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

“When I go home, I’ve yet to come across a businessman or -woman who says, ‘Oh, I love the tariffs.’ It’s the opposite,” Paul said at an event Wednesday at the CATO Institute.

Of the court case, Paul said he thinks the administration is “going to lose.”

“I think there’s a constitutional reason against it,” he said. “And I think there’s, in addition, a statutory reason they may fail.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks during a news conference with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee member Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., demanding the release of the Epstein files at the U.S. Capitol on July 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday began charting a little-known legal path to force President Donald Trump’s administration to release the investigative files on the now deceased Florida sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, requested the “full and complete Epstein files” by Aug. 15.

“After missteps and failed promises by your Department regarding these files, it is essential that the Trump Administration provide full transparency. In 2024, President Trump stated on the campaign trail that he would declassify the Epstein files, with his political account on X stating, ‘President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files,’” according to the three-page letter led by Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the committee’s top Democrat.

“We call on you to fulfill those promises of transparency,” the letter, dated July 29, continued.

In addition to Schumer, other co-signers included Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Andy Kim of New Jersey and Ruben Gallego of Arizona.

Five senators

The senators are invoking a nearly century-old law that compels the executive branch to comply if at least five senators on the committee sign on to a request, Schumer told reporters at a Wednesday press conference.

“While protecting the victim’s identities can and must be of top importance, the public has a right to know who enabled, knew of or participated in one of the most heinous sex trafficking operations in history,” Schumer said.

Blumenthal added that any notes and recordings of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s interviews last week in Tallahassee, Florida, with Ghislaine Maxwell should also be made public. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and is now serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison for conspiring with Epstein to secure and transport minors for sexual abuse.

Along with requesting all investigative materials by mid-August, the senators also demanded a briefing for committee staff by Aug. 29.

Schumer said committee Democrats are “still talking” to Republican colleagues to urge them to join the request.

“And that may help get this public, but if not, there’s recourse in the courts. This is the law,” Schumer said.

A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed to States Newsroom that it received the letter but declined to comment further.

Ghislaine Maxwell subpoenaed

The Justice Department’s decision in early July to keep what are described as the Epstein files out of public view sparked uproar and division among Republicans in Congress, administration officials and Trump’s base.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, issued a subpoena for an Aug. 11 deposition with Maxwell. Committee leadership rejected the convicted sex trafficker’s request Tuesday for the condition of immunity, according to media reports.

The continued noise led House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican and Trump ally, to release members early for the six-week August break to avoid votes related to compelling the release of Epstein material.

The DOJ’s unsigned memo on July 7 stated that a review of the files did not reveal an “incriminating ‘client list’” and that no further disclosure of the investigative materials “would be appropriate or warranted.”

Since the memo’s release, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Bondi briefed Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein materials. The context in which his name appears remains unknown.

The Journal also reported the existence of a 50th-birthday greeting that Trump drew and wrote for Epstein that featured the outline of a naked woman with Trump’s signature as pubic hair. Trump has denied he made the drawing and sued the Wall Street Journal.

The reports have further fueled calls for the files to be released.

Falling-out between Trump and Epstein

Trump told reporters Tuesday that he had a falling-out with Epstein after the financier began “taking” spa workers, whom Trump said were young women, from his Mar-a-Lago estate. Trump said Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre who worked at the Palm Beach, Florida, resort in 2000 at age 16, according to a 2016 deposition.

Giuffre alleged Maxwell and Epstein trafficked her as a teen for illegal sex with influential men, including Britain’s Prince Andrew, who settled with Giuffre and stepped down from his royal duties.

Giuffre became an advocate for victims of sex trafficking. She died by suicide in April.

The Justice Department concluded Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims.

Epstein was found hanged in August 2019 in his New York City jail cell, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

This story mentions suicide.  If you or a loved one are suffering with thoughts of suicide, call or text 988. An online chat option is also available at 988lifeline.org.

Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's nominee to be a judge for the 3rd Circuit, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Tuesday night confirmed President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to a lifetime position on the federal appeals bench, in the face of whistleblower allegations and criticism from former judges and advocates.

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine broke with their party and joined all Democrats in a 50-49 vote to oppose Bove’s confirmation to the U.S. Appeals Court for the 3rd Circuit, which handles cases for Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Bove, 44, currently holds the position of principal associate deputy attorney general at the U.S. Justice Department. Trump initially appointed Bove as acting attorney general at the start of the president’s second term.

The former federal prosecutor and private defense attorney faced numerous accusations of misconduct throughout his confirmation process.

Democrats walked out of a July 17 committee vote to advance Bove’s nomination, largely protesting the GOP-led panel’s refusal to hear further testimony from a whistleblower who alleged Bove suggested defying a federal court order.

Longtime Justice Department senior official Erez Reuveni, who served in the first Trump administration, blew the whistle on Bove for a March 14 meeting during which he allegedly suggested subordinates tell the federal courts “f— you” if a judge ordered a halt to Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador. A second whistleblower corroborated the alleged comment, according to a CNN report Sunday.

Senate Democrats, former judges and advocates also voiced concern over Bove’s alleged unethical behavior, including questions about his role as a top Justice official in the dismissal of federal bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases probing the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Bove has denied any wrongdoing.

Critics also pointed to a trail of allegations from Bove’s former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York that he created a hostile work environment, as first reported by Politico in February.

‘Unfair accusations and abuse’

On Monday, the Washington Post reported that a third whistleblower had come forward, this time alleging the top Justice Department office misled the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in testimony regarding the dropped charges against Adams.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee tasked with vetting judicial nominees, said on the floor ahead of the vote that Democrats “grossly mischaracterized” allegations against Bove.

“I have serious concerns with how my Democratic colleagues have conducted themselves — the vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse directed at Mr. Bove,” the Iowa Republican said.

Grassley said he asked Bove to put in writing his response to the latest whistleblower accusations.

“In his letter, Mr. Bove flatly denies the allegations that he misled the committee,” Grassley said.

In the seven-page letter made public by Grassley Tuesday evening, Bove dismissed the accusations as a “partisan smear campaign” and a “sham.”

“I understand that a lifetime appointment to a federal court of appeals is a serious matter. I welcome serious scrutiny of my record and my service to this country. My record includes 32 appeals, 13 trials, nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor, clerkships in federal trial and appellate courts, successfully defending the President of the United States, and helping lead the Department of Justice,” Bove wrote.

“Principled evaluation of that record, separated from the raw political warfare by Democrats that has tainted this process, confirms that I will be a fearless, independent judge committed to justice and the rule of law,” he continued.

‘So wrong, so unusual’

Senate Democrats railed against the nomination Tuesday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said ahead of the vote the allegations against Bove “were not minor episodes of prosecutorial misconduct.”

“What we’re about to do is so wrong, so unusual, that even if these remarks will have no effect whatsoever, I feel obliged to come to the floor,” the Rhode Island lawmaker said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a social media post that “Three credible whistleblowers have come forward with serious allegations against Emil Bove, a Trump judicial nominee. Republicans are ignoring them and rushing to confirm Bove anyway.”

“They’re afraid of the truth… and Donald Trump’s wrath. Shameful,” Durbin, of Illinois, continued.

In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon by the Not Above the Law Coalition, the organization’s leaders said Bove is “unfit for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.”

“His record of misconduct and disdain for the rule of law is a direct threat to judicial independence and Americans’ rights and freedoms. Any senator who votes to confirm Bove is making clear that their loyalty lies with Donald Trump, not the people they serve or the Constitution they swore to uphold,” the statement continued from the coalition’s co-chairs, including Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen; Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center; Kelsey Herbert, campaign director at MoveOn; and Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at Stand Up America.

President Donald Trump and European Union leaders announced a trade framework over the weekend that will set 15% import taxes on EU goods. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and European Union leaders announced a trade framework over the weekend, just days ahead of Trump’s self-imposed Friday deadline to increase import taxes and his emergency tariffs come under scrutiny in federal appeals court Thursday.

Under the agreement, a 15% tariff will be applied to all products, with some exceptions, coming into the U.S. from the 27 member nations that make up the EU.

The 15% rate will also apply to automobiles, down from the 25% levy on foreign vehicles that Trump ordered in April. Trump’s 50% sectoral tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum will remain unchanged for the EU. The deal exempts certain products, including aircraft, from tariffs altogether.

Tariffs are import taxes paid to the U.S. government by businesses and other buyers that import foreign goods.

“Fifteen percent is not to be underestimated, but it was the best we could get,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters during a press conference Sunday.

Similar to the deal Trump announced with Japan on July 23, the EU has agreed to invest $600 billion in the United States over Trump’s term. The bloc of nations has also agreed to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy, including liquid natural gas, over the next three years as a way to wean off of Russian fossil fuels.

‘Fundamentally rebalancing’

The White House touted the deal as “fundamentally rebalancing the economic relationship between the world’s two largest economies,” in a press release issued Monday.

The U.S. imported more goods from the EU than it exported by about $235.8 billion in 2024, according to Census data.

Trump had threatened to raise what he describes as “reciprocal” tariffs — tariffs on products outside sectoral categories of steel, aluminum and vehicles —  to 30% by Aug. 1 on products from Europe, Japan and numerous other trading partners.

Trump set the date as the new deadline for his “Liberation Day” tariffs to take effect. The president announced the tariffs in early April and then promptly paused them after markets plummeted around the globe. The episode triggered a trade war with China, during which U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods peaked at 145% before the two parties agreed to negotiate.

Appeals case looms

On what the president described as “Liberation Day” on April 2, Trump heralded a universal 10% tariff on all foreign products, plus staggering additional so-called reciprocal import taxes on countries across the globe that carry trade imbalances with the U.S.

Trump justified the steep duties by declaring trade imbalances a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

In February, Trump became the first president to trigger tariffs under the 1977 emergency powers law when he increased import taxes on Canada, Mexico and China in response to illegal fentanyl smuggling.

The emergency tariffs are at the center of a case that will go before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit Thursday.

The case stems from two lawsuits, now consolidated, filed by a handful of businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general who argued the president doesn’t have authority to impose tariffs under the emergency law.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs as unconstitutional on May 28.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, led the business plaintiffs. Others included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Upon appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's order blocking President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order from going into effect nationwide, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court striking down another nationwide ruling. (Photo by Getty Images)

WASHINGTON —  A federal appeals court dealt a setback for President Donald Trump’s offensive to end birthright citizenship, even after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the lower courts to avoid overly broad immigration rulings. The decision likely sets the stage for the high court to again hear arguments related to the constitutional right for babies born on U.S. soil.

Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a 2-1 decision late Wednesday declaring Trump’s policy unconstitutional. The ruling upheld a lower court’s nationwide injunction against the controversial order.

The original complaint was brought by Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon over the economic hardship states would bear if birthright citizenship was stripped from the Constitution.

Writing the majority opinion, Judge Ronald M. Gould affirmed the district court rightly made its ruling nationwide, despite the recent Supreme Court decision.

“The district court below concluded that a universal preliminary injunction is necessary to provide the States with complete relief,” Gould wrote. “We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief.”

An injunction covering only the states that challenged the order would be impractical because migrants covered by the order would inevitably move between states, Gould, who was appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton, continued, explaining that states would then need to overhaul verification for numerous social safety net programs.

“For that reason, the States would suffer the same irreparable harms under a geographically-limited injunction as they would without an injunction,” he wrote.

Judge Michael D. Hawkins, also a Clinton appointee, joined the majority opinion.

In a dissent, Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, appointed to the bench by Trump in 2019, wrote that courts must be “vigilant in enforcing the limits of our jurisdiction and our power to order relief. Otherwise, we risk entangling ourselves in contentious issues not properly before us and overstepping our bounds.”

The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond for comment.

Supreme Court ruling

The decision comes less than two weeks after a district judge in New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s policy to end birthright citizenship and granted a class certification to infants who would be affected by the order.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of immigrants whose babies would be affected by the order shortly after the Supreme Court narrowed lower courts’ abilities to impose nationwide orders.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued the 6-3 decision on June 27 after the justices reviewed three cases consolidated into one that brought together plaintiffs from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

The justices ruled that Trump’s directive to end birthright citizenship can go into effect within 30 days of their ruling in all non-plaintiff states.

The Federal Corrections Institution in Tallahassee, Florida, photographed on Thursday, July 24, 2025. Ghislaine Maxwell, former girlfriend of the late financier and Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, is serving a 20-year sentence at the low-security prison for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse girls. (Photo by Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix)

WASHINGTON — The fallout over President Donald Trump’s handling of financier and Florida sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s case files permeated business on Capitol Hill Thursday, as Senate Democrats urged release of the information.

Meanwhile, in Tallahassee, Florida, a top Department of Justice official interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend and a key figure in the growing controversy.

David O. Markus, lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, speaks to reporters outside the Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building in downtown Tallahassee, Florida, on Thursday, July 24, 2025. (Video by Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix)

Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary accused their Republican counterparts on the panel of “concealing the Epstein files” after they voted to quash an amendment from New Jersey’s Sen. Cory Booker, who proposed tying the start date of an opioid data collection bill to the release of Epstein case material.

The committee’s tumult came a day after U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson sent his members home early for their six-week August break to avoid voting on efforts by both House Democrats and Republicans to make the files public.

Before heading back to their districts, three House Republicans voted Wednesday with Democrats on a House Committee on Oversight panel to subpoena the Department of Justice to turn over all Epstein investigation records. GOP Reps. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Brian Jack of Georgia voted in favor of the push led by Pennsylvania Democrat Summer Lee.

Earlier, House Oversight Chair James Comer of Kentucky issued a subpoena for an Aug. 11 deposition with Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence in Florida for conspiring with the financier to sexually abuse girls.

‘Lies and obfuscation’

Epstein died in his New York City jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal charges for sex trafficking minors. He pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida for procuring and soliciting minors for sex.

The wealthy broker was surrounded by a powerful circle of friends, including Trump. Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the president in May that his name appeared among many others in the case files, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The context in which Trump’s name appears is unclear.

“We had the power today, the possibility today, to force out the truth regarding the Epstein files and the lies and the obfuscation that is happening by this administration,” Booker said after the GOP-led panel advanced an amendment offered by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that rendered Booker’s effort moot.

Booker eventually withdrew his amendment after roughly 40 minutes of back-and-forth in the middle of a vote, and after Sen. Lindsey Graham vowed to help him with a separate funding issue related to the underlying bill to address opioid overdose deaths.

“What we’re trying to do with this bill is really good, and there’s no end to this (Epstein debate). If this is a headline about ‘Cornyn blocks transparency of Epstein,’ then that would be sad because he’s responding to your amendment that would make the bill, quite frankly, fail,” said the South Carolina Republican. “I don’t think it’s helpful.”

Schumer calls for private Senate briefing

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also put a spotlight on the Epstein case in his floor remarks Thursday, calling for the Trump administration to provide a closed-door briefing for all senators on details uncovered during the Epstein investigation, including whose names appeared in relation to the sex offender.

“The Senate deserves to hear directly from senior administration officials about Donald Trump’s name appearing in these files and the complete lack of transparency shown to date,” Schumer said.

Trump and his supporters, including some now working in his administration, dealt in conspiracy theories for years on the information surrounding the Epstein case, including whose names turned up during the investigation and the circumstances of his death.

A July 7 Department of Justice memo poured cold water on the fervor, declaring no incriminating “client list” exists and that officials would not be releasing any materials because of the risk of revealing victim identities. The department concluded Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims.

Trump answered swift and sharp criticism from his voter base by calling them “weaklings” for falling for a “Jeffrey Epstein hoax” in several social media posts.

In lieu of releasing the files, he ordered the unsealing of grand jury testimony in the case, which a Florida federal judge blocked Wednesday.

The president also told reporters that it was “appropriate” for Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former criminal defense lawyer, to interview Maxwell.

Interview at Florida federal courthouse

Blanche traveled to Florida, where reporters Thursday waited at the Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building in downtown Tallahassee, where the U.S. attorney’s office is located.

The courthouse is about 4 miles from the city’s Federal Correctional Institution, where Maxwell is serving time.

Blanche arrived around 9 a.m. Eastern at the courthouse, according to media reports. Maxwell’s appellate lawyer, David O. Markus, told ABC News, “We’re looking forward to a productive day” and declined further comment.

Markus, a Miami-based attorney with the firm Markus/Moss PLLC, emerged just before 4 p.m. Eastern and told news media outside the courthouse, including the Florida Phoenix, that Blanche “took a full day and asked a lot of questions, and Ms. Maxwell answered every single question.”

“She never invoked a privilege, she never declined to answer. She answered all the questions truthfully, honestly and to the best of her ability, and that’s all the comment we’re going to have about the meeting. We don’t want to comment on the substance of the meeting for obvious reasons,” Markus said.

Christine Sexton reported from Tallahassee. 

Supporters of Kilmar Abrego Garcia protest outside the Fred D. Thompson Federal Courthouse in Nashville on June 13 before Abrego Garcia's arraignment on federal charges. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — Two federal court rulings on Wednesday allowed Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man unlawfully deported to El Salvador by federal immigration authorities in March, to be released from pre-trial detention in Tennessee without the risk of immediate removal from the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville denied the government’s request to keep Abrego Garcia jailed while he awaits trial on criminal charges stemming from a 2019 traffic stop.

Abrego Garcia denies the criminal charges lodged against him when the government quietly brought him back into the United States after months of illegal imprisonment in the central American country’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, where he remained until June 6.

“The pieces of evidence the Government cites to, taken alone or together, warrant a finding that Abrego is, at best, a low risk of nonappearance. As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Abrego that the nature of the crimes he is accused of do not, on their own, fall within the categories of crimes Congress specifically enumerated as warranting a presumption of detention,” Crenshaw, appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote in a 37-page opinion.

In a separate ruling in Maryland Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that authorities cannot immediately take Abrego Garcia into custody upon his release in Tennessee.

Xinis granted Abrego Garcia’s emergency request to return to his home state of Maryland while he awaits trial. Federal authorities previously told Xinis they intended to swiftly arrest Abrego Garcia, if released, on an immigration detainer. 

“Accordingly, the Court shares Plaintiffs’ ongoing concern that, absent meaningful safeguards, Defendants may once again remove Abrego Garcia from the United States without having restored him to the status quo ante and without due process. Thus, additional relief is necessary,” Xinis, an Obama appointee, wrote in her 18-page order. 

Xinis’ order requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to return Abrego Garcia to the agency’s order of supervision in Baltimore, the jurisdiction of his original immigration proceedings. If ICE initiates his removal to a third country, the authorities must provide 72 hours notice of the destination to Garcia and his legal counsel.

Sent to CECOT

ICE arrested and detained Abrego Garcia in Maryland on March 12, and days later sent him among hundreds of other migrants on legally contested deportation flights to CECOT.

Abrego Garcia has detailed psychological and physical torture he experienced at the notorious prison.

Upon returning Abrego Garcia to the U.S., the Justice Department indicted him on human smuggling charges, stemming from the 2019 traffic stop. His attorneys maintain the Trump administration used the indictment to save face in light of court orders finding Abrego Garcia’s deportation unlawful and the Supreme Court’s order for the federal government to facilitate his return.

Abrego Garcia has had deportation protections in place since 2019, barring authorities from sending him back to his native El Salvador due to concerns he would experience gang violence there.

New Nissan cars are driven onto a rail car to be transported from an automobile processing terminal located at the Port of Los Angeles on April 3, 2024 in Wilmington, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said late Tuesday he struck a “massive” trade deal with Japan, lowering his threatened tariffs on Japanese products.

The deal, according to Japanese negotiators, will include a lower rate on the country’s top export: automobiles.

Trump’s declaration of a new framework comes as a legal fight over a large portion of his tariff policy will be heard in federal appeals court next week.

The president announced via Truth Social Tuesday evening that Japan had agreed “at my direction” to invest $550 billion in the United States and will open its markets to more American products, including cars, trucks, rice and other agricultural goods.

In exchange, Trump agreed to lower what he calls “reciprocal” import taxes on Japanese products to 15%, down from the 25% rate he threatened in early July.

Tariffs are import taxes paid by U.S. companies and individuals who purchase goods from other countries.

While some details remained unclear, Trump said the agreement is “the largest Deal ever made,” and continued in a post on his online platform that “there has never been anything like it.”

Japan’s government confirmed the new deal Wednesday. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said the parties agreed to a 15% tariff on Japanese vehicles and auto parts imported into the U.S. without any volume restrictions — down from the blanket 25% U.S. tariff on foreign cars that went into effect in April. Hayashi delivered the remarks through an English translation during a morning press conference.

Jeff Schott, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said securing $550 billion in investment from Japan would set the agreement apart from other trade deals.

“There isn’t a lot of information about over what period of time this would cover, and how it would be financed, and things like that, but the headline number of $550 billion is certainly notable, if it’s believable and if it’s achievable,” Schott said Wednesday in an interview with States Newsroom.

While specifics are unknown, possible investments from Japan might include Nippon Steel’s takeover of U.S. Steel, or a joint venture to export liquified natural gas from Alaska.

Schott said the trade deal “is likely going to set a template” for trade talks with other nations, including ongoing negotiations this week in Washington, D.C., with South Korean officials.

Aug. 1 deadline set

The news of a deal with Japan came just after the White House announced new trade arrangements with Indonesia and the Philippines ahead of a self-imposed Aug. 1 deadline, when steeper tariffs are set to trigger on trading partners around the world.

Trump had threatened Japan in a letter earlier this month with a 25% “reciprocal” tariff on all Japanese goods set to begin Aug. 1, in addition to special sectoral and national security tariffs on foreign automobiles, at 25%, and imported steel and aluminum, which now sit at 50%.

The president shocked global markets in early April when he announced a universal 10% tariff on every foreign good coming into the U.S., plus staggering additional “reciprocal” import taxes on major trading partners based on the country’s trading relationship with the U.S.

Trump initially slapped a 24% reciprocal tariff on Japan, which imports less from the U.S. than U.S. entities buy from Japan. The U.S. ran a $69.4 billion trade deficit with Japan in 2024, according to the Census Bureau.

Trump has twice delayed his so-called reciprocal tariffs on other economies as his administration attempts to leverage the threats into agreements. The administration has yet to strike a new deal with the European Union, another major trading partner.

Court hearing

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments July 31 over Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, which he triggered by declaring international trade a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs as unconstitutional in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, led the business plaintiffs. Others included a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Upon appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

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)

WASHINGTON — House Republicans are headed home early for their August break after an uproar over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files all but halted any possibility of floor action.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he’s sending his members back to their districts until September to avoid “political games” relating to a bipartisan effort pressuring the release of government investigative documents on Epstein. The financier was a Florida sex offender who died by suicide in 2019 in his New York City jail cell, according to authorities, where he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

Epstein enjoyed a wide circle of wealthy, powerful friends, including President Donald Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that it reviewed a 2003 birthday greeting from Trump to Epstein featuring a cryptic message and hand-drawn naked woman, leading Trump to promptly sue the publication.

“We’re for maximum transparency. We’re engaging in that right now. We don’t need political games,” Johnson said at a weekly press conference where the Louisiana Republican was asked about an effort by his own members to compel the release of case material.

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky has joined California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna in spearheading an effort to force a vote on releasing what are commonly referred to as the Epstein files. The procedural move, called a discharge petition, could be ready for the floor in September if Massie and Khanna can gather signatures from a majority of members.

“I don’t understand Thomas Massie’s motivation. I really don’t. I don’t know how his mind works,” Johnson continued.

He said the White House needs “space” to produce documents and is “in the process” of releasing materials related to the Epstein case.

“There’s no purpose for Congress to push the administration to do something it’s already doing,” he said.

On a separate track, the GOP-led House Rules Committee, the last stop for legislation before it reaches the floor, recessed Monday evening before Democrats on the panel could force their Republican counterparts to vote on amendments related to release of the Epstein information.

The bills stuck in that committee, largely to do with immigration, permitting and public lands, will no longer go to the floor this week.

Last floor votes are scheduled for Wednesday afternoon. House members will not return until Sept. 2.

Interview sought with Ghislaine Maxwell

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on social media Tuesday that federal prosecutors are seeking an interview with Epstein’s one-time girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for conspiring with the financier to sexually abuse girls.

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Tuesday that the department’s attempt to interview Maxwell “sounds appropriate,” adding that he was uninformed about the matter and downplaying the relevance of the Epstein case.

“I don’t know about it, but I think it’s something that … sounds appropriate,” he said.

Blanche was Trump’s personal criminal defense attorney. Asked if Blanche’s involvement in the interview raised any concerns, Trump said no. Democrats have used Trump’s social relationship with Epstein to imply he may have been aware of Epstein’s illegal activities.

Trump urged reporters to drop the Epstein case and instead focus on a recent declaration from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that former President Barack Obama improperly ordered an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election that Trump eventually won. Democrats denounced the report.

Trump tries to dismiss Epstein uproar

Trump has spent the last couple weeks dismissing loud concerns from Republicans and his voter base since a July 7 Justice Department memo denied the existence of an Epstein “client list” and concluded the department would not publish any of the files.

After receiving intense criticism, Trump ordered the department on July 17 to release grand jury testimony in the case.

The president called his supporters “weaklings” for expressing concern about the Epstein “hoax,” in a July 16 post on his online platform Truth Social. Trump also told reporters last week that the so-called Epstein files were “made up” by former presidents Obama and Joe Biden.

The president’s supporters, including members of his current administration, have fixated for years on unreleased details surrounding the financier’s involvement in sex trafficking, including possible names of clients and the circumstances around Epstein’s death.

According to federal charging documents, Epstein sexually abused dozens of teenage girls at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida. The Justice Department has concluded that Epstein likely had more than 1,000 victims.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

Emil Bove, President Donald Trump's nominee to be a judge for the 3rd Circuit, testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Despite a walkout from Democrats, Senate Republicans tasked with vetting nominees to the federal bench on Thursday claimed to advance President Donald Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, one step closer to a spot on the U.S. Appeals Court that handles cases in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

A spokesperson for Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who chairs the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, told States Newsroom the panel approved Bove’s nomination in a 12-0 vote — that is, despite panel rules that state “at least two members of the minority” must be present to transact committee business. The Iowa Republican’s office did not immediately respond to a follow-up question about committee rules.

In a show of opposition, all Democratic members of the panel, with the exception of Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, stood up and left as Republicans on the panel cast “aye” votes to push Bove’s nomination to the full Senate.

Booker, of New Jersey, refused to stop speaking as Grassley called the vote.

“You are a decent man. Why are you doing this?” Booker protested.

In a post on social media following the meeting, Josh Sorbe, press secretary for the committee’s minority, wrote: “Shameful day in Senate Judiciary. Republicans broke numerous committee rules, ignored privileged motions, denied debate, and rushed through judicial nominees without real vetting. Sen. BOOKER admonished them for it, and Democrats denied quorum and walked out.”

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the panel, later issued a statement acknowledging the vote took place, but maintained Senate Republicans broke committee rules by ignoring Booker’s request for further debate and moving ahead with the vote.

“Chairman Grassley claimed that he was following Committee precedent. This is simply untrue,” Durbin said. 

Questions about bribery charges, Jan. 6

Senate Democrats, former judges and advocates opposed Bove’s nomination over what they describe as unethical behavior, including questions about his role as a top Department of Justice official in the dismissal of federal bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases probing the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. Capitol.

Critics also pointed to recent whistleblower accusations that Bove suggested ignoring a federal court order limiting Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Bove represented Trump in his multiple federal criminal cases in 2023 and 2024, as well as in a New York state trial that ended in Trump’s conviction on 34 felonies for falsifying business records.

Trump appointed Bove as acting attorney general on his first day in office, and Bove shifted to principal associate deputy upon Attorney General Pam Bondi’s confirmation.

Bove’s nomination to a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has been overshadowed by a whistleblower’s account alleging Bove told subordinates to consider defying a federal court order halting Trump’s deportation flights to El Salvador in March.

Both Bove and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, another of Trump’s former criminal defense attorneys, deny the allegations.

Grassley said Thursday prior to the vote that allegations against Bove “frankly crossed the line.”

“What we’re witnessing has all the hallmarks of a political hit job,” Grassley said.

Illinois’ Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the panel, said in his opening statement Thursday that Bove “should not be seriously considered by the Senate for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.” 

“He led this administration’s embarrassing efforts to strike a corrupt bargain with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and he has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump, about his temperament, his poor judgment and lack of candor before the court,” Durbin said.

Whistleblower complaint

Durbin and fellow minority committee members requested the panel hear testimony from Erez Reuveni, a former senior DOJ official who filed a whistleblower complaint in which he alleged he was fired for refusing to follow department orders to undermine the courts in Trump’s deportation cases. 

In the complaint submitted to the DOJ inspector general and Congress, Reuveni, who spent 15 years with the department, outlined “a pattern of deliberate defiance of federal court rulings related to immigration enforcement,” according to a summary from the Government Accountability Project and Gilbert Employment Law P.C., which filed the complaint on Reuveni’s behalf.

Lawmakers who viewed the complaint said Reuveni recounted witnessing Bove suggesting the DOJ might need to tell the courts “f— you” in relation to any order blocking the administration from sending planes full of deported migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

“Mr. Reuveni has made credible allegations against Mr. Bove, which, if true, clearly disqualify him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Thus, it is imperative that the Committee hear from Mr. Reuveni, under oath, before we vote on Mr. Bove’s nomination,” according to a letter Monday led by Durbin.

Grassley shut down the request Tuesday, writing in a response that documents provided by the minority to support the claim do not “substantiate any misconduct by Mr. Bove.”

“I respect whistleblowers and the whistleblowing process and have taken this matter seriously. I note that the available documents and the public record are inconsistent with some of the whistleblower’s assertions, which have been reviewed in good faith,” Grassley wrote.

Dozens of former judges protest nomination

More than 80 former federal and state judges described Bove’s nomination as a “disservice to the constitution, to law enforcement and to the rule of law” in a letter to Grassley and Durbin Tuesday.

The judges, including former 4th Circuit Judge Michael Luttig, a George H. W. Bush appointee who endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris last year, slammed Bove’s “egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself,” adding that the allegations disqualify him for the position.

The letter cited Bove’s alleged role in firing Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and DOJ officials who prosecuted those involved in storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump pardoned all of the nearly 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants on the first night of his second term, including the most violent convicted felons.

The former judges also called Trump’s nomination of his personal defense attorney to a federal judgeship “deeply inappropriate.”

“In fact, when President Trump nominated Bove, he posted on social media that Bove would ‘do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.’ That statement underscores the peril of confirming a nominee whose principal qualification appears to be personal loyalty to the president,” the former judges wrote.

Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the list of concerns over Bove’s nomination “goes on and on and on.”

“I think when it comes down to it, you know, in a lifetime position that requires good judgment, wise discretion, good temperament and the dedication to the rights of all, Mr. Bove fails on every single one of those accounts,” Zwarensteyn told States Newsroom in an interview Wednesday.

GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement after breaking ranks earlier this month on Trump’s budget reconciliation package, said Thursday he found nothing to prove Bove expressed support for Jan. 6 defendants — something that would have been a “red line,” he said.

“The fact of the matter is, I can’t find one piece of evidence where he said that the violent act against police officers were okay or condoned. If you find it, let me know,” Tillis said.

Bove, of Seneca Falls, New York, graduated from Georgetown University Law in Washington, D.C., in 2008. He clerked for Judge Richard J. Sullivan of the Southern District of New York, and Judge Richard C. Wesley, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Bove, 44, worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, and in 2023 became a partner at Blanche Law, the private firm of Todd Blanche.

Tense confirmation hearing

Democratic senators, and in some cases Republicans, peppered Bove with questions and concerns about the numerous misconduct allegations during the Judiciary Committee’s June 25 confirmation hearing.

Booker said he remained worried about a “pattern of behavior” first reported by Politico in February regarding complaints about Bove’s temper from former colleagues in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York.

“The allegations align with reports about your abuse of power now at the DOJ,” Booker said.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, pressed Bove on why the DOJ dismissed the federal corruption case against the New York mayor, who was charged with accepting illegal campaign contributions and luxury travel in exchange for favors.

The Trump administration moved to dismiss the Adams case in February, arguing the case interfered with the mayor’s ability to carry out immigration enforcement in the city. The administration requested a dismissal without prejudice — meaning Adams could be prosecuted again — but a federal judge ultimately dismissed the case in April with prejudice, citing concerns the White House would have leverage over Adams’ policy decisions.

“Do you believe in a higher being?” Kennedy asked Bove.

“It’s a very personal question, Senator, but I do,” Bove responded.

“I want you to look me in the eye and swear to your higher being when you answer this question, did you make a deal, a political deal, and dismiss the charges against Mayor Adams?” Kennedy said.

“Absolutely not,” Bove answered.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 3, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  Trump was joined by, left to right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, former Executive Chairman of Fox Corporation Rupert Murdoch and Oracle CTO Larry Ellison. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Democratic lawmakers argued in a new legal filing this week that President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs usurped congressional power, and they urged a federal appellate court to strike down the duties on foreign imports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is set to hear oral arguments over some of Trump’s tariffs after a lower court blocked them in May. Despite being tied up in court, Trump continued threatening tariffs Wednesday on numerous trading partners, including a 50% import tax on goods from Brazil.

Nearly 200 lawmakers signed onto the amicus brief Tuesday, asserting that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Trump triggered the duties, “does not confer the power to impose or remove tariffs.”

The lawmakers argued that Trump’s unprecedented use of IEEPA violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and “regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

“This reflects the Framers’ interest in ensuring the most democratically accountable branch — the one closest to the People — be responsible for enacting taxes, duties, and tariffs,” wrote the 191 Democratic members of Congress, citing the Federalist Papers, in their 65-page brief.

Congress has “explicitly and specifically” delegated tariff-raising powers to the president, but not under IEEPA, according to the lawmakers.

“Unmoored from the structural safeguards Congress built into actual tariff statutes, the President’s unlawful ‘emergency’ tariffs under IEEPA have led to chaos and uncertainty,” the lawmakers wrote.

‘Economic chaos,’ price hikes cited

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, co-led the brief with Oregon’s Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also co-led, along with Reps. Gregory Meeks of New York, Joe Neguse of Colorado, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Richard Neal of Massachusetts.

In a statement Wednesday, Shaheen said Trump’s “reckless tariff agenda has caused economic chaos and raised prices for families and businesses across the country at a moment in which the cost of living is far too high.”

“The Trump Administration’s unlawful abuse of emergency powers to impose tariffs ignores that he does not have the authority to unilaterally impose the largest tax increase in decades on Americans. This brief makes clear that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs,” Shaheen said.

May decision

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs in a May 28 decision, following two legal challenges brought by a handful of business owners and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general.

Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon were among the states that brought the suit.

The lead business plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, a New York-based company that imports wine and spirits from 16 countries, according to its website. Other plaintiffs include a Utah-based plastics producer, a Virginia-based children’s electricity learning kit maker, a Pennsylvania-based fishing gear company, and a Vermont-based women’s cycling apparel company.

Following an appeal from the White House, the Federal Circuit allowed Trump’s tariffs to remain in place while the case moved forward.

Triple-digit tariff

Trump used IEEPA to declare international trade a national emergency and announced tariffs on nearly every other country on April 2 in what he dubbed as “Liberation Day.”

Tariffs reached staggering levels on major U.S. trading partners, including 46% on Vietnam, 25% on South Korea and 20% on the European Union.

The announcement wiped trillions from markets, which have largely recovered. Trump delayed all but a 10% base tariff for 90 days on every country except China. Trump fueled a trade war with the massive Asian nation, peaking at a 145% tariff rate, but then temporarily settling between 10% and 55%, depending on the good.

Even before Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” announcement, small business owners from around the U.S. told States Newsroom they were bracing for potentially devastating economic effects.

The trade court’s ruling — a pending appeals litigation — does not apply to tariffs Trump imposed under other statutes, including national security-related duties on foreign automobiles, as well as steel and aluminum. Some of the steel tariffs, imposed during Trump’s first term, were left in place under former President Joe Biden.

Shelley Feist, 61, of Washington, D.C., who was raised in North Dakota, protests outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, as House Republicans try to pass the "big beautiful bill." Feist said she's worried about effects on rural hospitals as a result of Medicaid cuts because her parents, in their 80s, depend on rural health care in Minot, North Dakota. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Protesters demonstrated against the “big beautiful bill” outside the U.S. Capitol Wednesday as House Republicans whipped votes to get the bill across the finish line and to President Donald Trump’s desk by a self-imposed July Fourth deadline.

Shelley Feist stood on Independence Avenue near the entrance to the House of Representatives holding signs above her head, one reading “Cruel Corrupt Cowards,” the other a Republican elephant with the word “Treason” written on it.

“I think they’re being cruel. I think cruelty is the point,” Feist, 61, of Washington, D.C., and originally from North Dakota, told States Newsroom. “It’s also extremely alarming that there’s such cowardice in the GOP.”

The massive budget reconciliation package, passed by Senate Republicans Tuesday with a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance, extends and expands 2017 tax cuts at a cost of roughly $4.5 trillion over the next decade. It also yanks funding from federal food and health safety net programs.

The bill aggressively rolls back clean energy tax credits, as well as raising the nation’s borrowing limit to $5 trillion.

Latest figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the package would add $3.4 trillion to the nation’s deficit over the next decade, when the country is mired in record-breaking debt. That office’s earlier analysis of the House-passed bill found the package would reduce resources for low-income families while padding higher earners.

Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, who chaired an hours-long final committee hearing about the bill overnight, said Wednesday the package is an “embodiment of the America First agenda and we would all do well to remember that.”

Medicaid cuts

Top of mind for Feist is the bill’s cuts to Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income individuals and some with disabilities. The Senate version of the package, passed Tuesday, included a  $1 trillion cut to Medicaid over 10 years, according to the CBO.

“I have parents in North Dakota who are 85 and 86. They already have difficulty seeing their doctor. For every doctor that leaves, he takes on 14 times more burden. Rural health care is already extremely difficult. I would expect there will not be a hospital near where my parents live if this bill is signed into law,” said Feist, whose parents live near Minot.

Rural hospitals rely on Medicaid payments. In a last-minute move before Tuesday’s vote, Senate Republicans doubled a fund to $50 billion to subsidize hospitals that will lose funding. Critics say that amount is not enough to fill the gap.

GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted no after voicing concerns over Medicaid cuts.

Nadine Seiler, 60, of Waldorf, Maryland, stood near a press conference by the Congressional Hispanic Conference protesting the bill. Seiler held a large spray-painted sheet above her head with a message on each side: “Free America from Big Bad Bill” and “Coming Soon Freedom in Name Only.”

“I’m concerned about my fellow citizens who are going to be losing Medicaid, food stamps, human health services. People are going to die,” Seiler said.

“And I know Joni Ernst says that we all gonna die, but we gonna die faster and unnecessarily and I care about that.”

Seiler was referring to Sen. Ernst’s response to her Iowa constituents who expressed concern about Medicaid cuts at a town hall on May 30.

SNAP and ICE

Mark Starr sang a protest song he wrote about the “big beautiful bill” as he played guitar and harmonica outside the Longworth House Office Building Wednesday.

The 39-year-old Albuquerque, New Mexico, native told States Newsroom he drove to the capital in late April to begin protesting the bill. He said he’s particularly focused on additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement contained in the package as well as cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides food benefits to low-income households.

“New Mexico is pretty poor, and so if these cuts to SNAP go, kids can go hungry in New Mexico,” Starr said. “It’s just, like, really gonna mess us up, and we’re just one of the many states that will be affected that way.”

New Mexico has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation.

A provision in the bill will shift food assistance costs to state governments for the first time in the federal program’s history. Critics worry that states could tighten eligibility requirements or drop the program because of the financial burden.

The left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 55,000 teens age 14 and up, and adults up to age 64 could lose food assistance in New Mexico because of the bill’s cuts to state work requirement waivers. Children would remain eligible but households would overall see significantly decreased SNAP dollars.

The CBO found in late May that the House-passed bill would result in over 3 million people nationwide losing food assistance.

Starr said he’s also against additional funding provided for immigration enforcement.

“I think they have enough,” he said, pointing to Trump’s visit to a new detention facility in Florida that the White House is touting as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

The Senate-approved version includes an additional $45 billion for ICE detention facilities and $29.9 billion for ICE enforcement and deportation, among billions more directed toward the Southern border.

Clean energy to take a hit

Tiernan Sittenfeld, of the League of Conservation Voters, huddled just outside the House with a group wearing t-shirts that read “Hands off our air, land and clean energy.”

Sittenfeld, the organization’s senior vice president of government affairs, argues the rollbacks of clean energy tax credits in the Senate version will “kill clean energy jobs.”

“It is bad for our economy. It’s bad for jobs. It’s going to raise people’s energy bills. And of course, it’s bad for the planet,” she said.

Senate Republicans accelerated the phase-out of some residential, manufacturing and production credits at a faster rate than the House bill. A last-minute change loosened the timeline on some tech-neutral energy credits though, and removed a previously added tax on wind and solar projects.

Industry groups and energy companies small and large have warned early termination of the credits will have a major impact on growth.

The tax credits for solar, wind, batteries for energy storage, and electric vehicles, among others, were enacted under Democrats’ own 2022 budget reconciliation bill known as the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

The majority of investment in new clean energy manufacturing and production has been concentrated in rural states and states that elected Trump to his second term, according to data collected since 2022 by the Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project by the Rhodium Group and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.

“Any Republican who votes for this legislation is voting against the interest of their constituents, voting to kill jobs in their district, voting to kill clean energy projects, voting to make their constituents’ energy bills go up,” Sittenfeld said.

Far-right House members who as of Wednesday afternoon were withholding their votes maintain the rollbacks on the clean energy tax cuts, which they’ve dubbed the “green new scam,” do not go far enough.