Chair of the Federal Reserve Jerome Powell, left, administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook, right, to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling and allow the president to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a 41-page appeal that a district court blocking President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Cook “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority—here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”

Trump has had an ongoing dispute with the independent Federal Reserve Board for months, repeatedly calling on them to lower interest rates, which they did on Wednesday. 

Trump said in late August that he wanted to remove Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, alleging she falsified some information in a mortgage application. 

Cook’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court a few days later, arguing that Trump’s attempts were political and violated her due process rights. 

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb granted a preliminary injunction in early September, writing the case marks the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 111-year history that a president has sought to remove one of its members “for cause.”

The Federal Reserve Act doesn’t actually define what “for cause” entails, but Cobb wrote that reasons for firing under the law “are limited to grounds concerning an official’s behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing statutory duties. 

“The ‘for cause’ standard thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they assumed the position.”

The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

A three-judge panel from that court earlier this week rejected the Trump administration’s request to overturn the district court’s preliminary injunction while the case proceeds.

The 2-1 ruling split Judge Gregory G. Katsas, whom Trump nominated during his first term, and Judges J. Michelle Childs and Bradley N. Garcia, both nominated by former President Joe Biden.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., speaks to reporters at the Capitol as lawmakers work on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to approve dozens of nominees, acting on a rule change GOP leadership made last week that allows the chamber to confirm some of the president’s appointees in large batches instead of one at a time. 

The 51-47 vote followed weeks of debate over whether senators could work out a deal on groups of nominees, with Democrats warning along the way that any changes to Senate procedures that benefit the Trump administration now will likely aid a future Democratic president. 

“What Republicans have done is chip away at the Senate even more to give Donald Trump more power and to rubber-stamp whomever he wants, whenever he wants them, no questions asked,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said last week after Republicans initiated the rule change.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a floor speech Thursday a few hours before the vote that changing the rules was necessary after Democrats “fully broke the confirmation process.”

Thune rebutted Democrats’ assessment that Trump has sent the Senate “historically bad” nominees, saying that many of his picks are getting Democratic votes. 

“Every single one of these 48 nominees was voted out of committee with bipartisan support. Every single one. A significant number of them were supported by a majority of Democrats on their respective committees,” Thune said.  

“Under any other president these would be exactly the type of nominees we would confirm in a batch by unanimous consent or voice vote,” Thune added. “Democrats’ obstruction is not about the quality of the nominees. Let’s just put that to rest, pure and simple. It’s about Democrats’ utter inability to accept the fact the American people elected Donald Trump.” 

The eight-page resolution, likely the first of many, lists 48 nominees, including 

• Theodore J. Garrish, of Maryland, to be an assistant secretary of Energy (Nuclear Energy);
• Jessica Kramer, of Wisconsin, to be an assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
• Sean McMaster, of Virginia, to be administrator of the Federal Highway Administration;
• Justin Overbaugh, of Florida, to be a deputy under secretary of Defense;
• Scott Pappano, of Pennsylvania, to be principal deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration;
• Peter Thomson, of Louisiana, to be inspector general at the Central Intelligence Agency; and
• Andrea Travnicek, of North Dakota, to be an assistant secretary of the Interior.

The vote followed weeks of frustration from Trump and numerous GOP senators, who are exasperated by Democrats slowing down the confirmation process for lower-ranking nominees. 

The new way of handling nominations “en bloc” doesn’t apply to Supreme Court or higher-ranking judicial nominees, or Cabinet-level picks. 

People take photos of the closed signs at the Smithsonian National Zoo, which was closed to the public due to the government shutdown on Jan. 2, 2019 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have entered a stalemate over whether to fund the government for seven weeks or begin a shutdown that could last considerably longer, amid high partisan tensions.

Lawmakers, it seems, did not learn from two earlier shutdowns that produced zero results for Republicans who tried to force their policy preferences on Democrats.

The 2013 shutdown that lasted 16 days began with GOP demands to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and ended with it remaining the law of the land. 

The 2018-2019 shutdown started when President Donald Trump insisted on additional funding for a border wall, but concluded 35 days later with the same amount of money included in the original appropriations bill. 

This time around, however, it’s Democrats making demands ahead of a funding deadline and striking a markedly different tone from just a few months ago.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier this year that shutting down the government would cede considerable power to the Trump administration and represented a far worse option than advancing a Republican-drafted stopgap spending bill.

“President Trump and Republican leaders would like nothing more than to pull us into the mud of a protracted government shutdown,” Schumer said in March. “For Donald Trump, a shutdown would be a gift. It would be the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.”

But that has all changed in the six months since. 

Schumer, who fielded considerable blowback from the Democratic base in March, now says his party will not help GOP leaders advance a seven-week temporary funding patch ahead of the Oct. 1 shutdown deadline, since — encouraged by Trump — they didn’t negotiate the bill. 

“Democrats don’t want a shutdown, but Republicans cannot shut Democrats out of the process and pretend like the last nine months have been business as usual,” Schumer said. ”Republicans know that these abuses can’t just continue as if everything is just fine.”

If Schumer sticks to that stance and is joined by enough other Democrats and independents, the Senate will not have sufficient votes for the funding patch. 

Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of Congress but cannot advance legislation in the Senate without the support of at least 60 lawmakers, which typically forces bipartisanship on major issues. 

Schumer on a ‘fool’s errand’?

Republicans and Democrats interviewed by States Newsroom said the most recent shutdowns show that forcing a funding lapse doesn’t lead to policy wins or political victories. But they appeared to acknowledge the increasing likelihood of one beginning next month.  

West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito referred to the prior government shutdowns as a “misery march” and deferred to Democrats on how exactly lawmakers would get out of a funding lapse if one begins. 

“When a shutdown gets predicated on a policy position that’s never going to work — which I think is what Schumer’s brought to (Majority Leader John Thune) — I think that it’s a fool’s errand, quite frankly,” Capito said. “And it’s unfair to the American people.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said Schumer should consider what Trump will do in the event of a shutdown, when the president has considerable authority to determine which federal workers and operations are exempt and which are not. 

“He will have pretty much unfettered discretion, at least in his mind, to do whatever he wants to do,” Kennedy said. “And I personally think the president will make it very painful.”

Exempt federal employees continue to work during a shutdown and often handle the preservation of life or property, or national security issues. Non-exempt workers are essentially furloughed. Both categories receive back pay once a shutdown ends. 

Trump bars negotiations with Dems

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said that Trump telling Republicans not to negotiate a short-term stopgap bill with Democrats led to the impasse.

“Shutdowns are terrible and they should be avoided. And Donald Trump may or may not know that the only way to avoid a shutdown is to work with both parties,” Schatz said. “And yesterday morning … he said, ‘I don’t need to deal with the Democrats.’ And so, Godspeed.” 

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said nothing can be accomplished unless Republican leaders begin serious talks over government funding. 

“Right now, we don’t even have a negotiation,” Murphy said. “The basic responsibility of a majority party when you’re working on a budget is to negotiate with a minority. You need our votes. So who knows what’s possible because right now, they’re refusing to talk to Democrats.”

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt said Schumer’s change in stance on shutdowns is largely political and stems from the criticism he experienced from his own party earlier this year after helping advance the March stopgap. 

Nearly every House Democrat voted against that six-month stopgap bill and many voiced frustrations after Schumer aided Republicans in advancing the bill through the Senate. 

“This is all about political theater because, unfortunately for all of us that are trying to actually get something done, he’s afraid of his own shadow. And that shadow’s name is AOC,” Britt said, referring to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is rumored as a potential Democratic primary opponent when Schumer faces reelection in 2028. 

Dems want health care subsidy extension  

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said there’s still time to avoid a shutdown if GOP leaders begin serious bipartisan negotiations on funding and health care. 

“​​We still have time. We can negotiate a continuing resolution,” DeLauro said. “But there are, as I said, Democratic priorities. And look, the American people are very concerned about what’s happening with health care. It’s already out there. So, you know, they’re going to hear about it. They’ll hear about the fight that we’re going to make on this.”

Democrats have said for weeks that they want Republicans to negotiate an extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the calendar year. The credits are used by people who purchase their own health insurance on the ACA market.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said earlier this week that he views that as “a December policy issue, not a September funding issue,” even though open enrollment in that health insurance marketplace begins on Nov. 1 and ends on Dec. 15. 

There are several health policy provisions in House Republicans’ stopgap spending bill, though none addressing that particular issue. 

Johnson hopes to pass the legislation this week amid a razor-thin majority and some opposition from within his own party. House approval, which is far from guaranteed, would send the bill to the Senate, where it likely will not get the votes to become law before the deadline.

Complicating matters is a week-long recess for Rosh Hashanah. Both chambers are set to return on Sept. 29, with very little time to broker a bipartisan agreement and hold votes, though leaders could cancel part of that break. 

No pay for feds during shutdown

The two most recent shutdowns began after GOP lawmakers believed it was the best way to bring attention to significant policy disputes and force Democrats to back their proposals. 

But the status quo remained after both shutdowns. 

Despite those experiences, Democrats appear ready to gamble they’ll have better luck amid the unprecedented actions of the second Trump administration to challenge the congressional power of the purse and more, though that’s far from a guarantee. 

Any shutdown, especially a prolonged one, would cause considerable financial strain for federal employees and Americans who rely on many government services. 

Since none of the dozen annual government funding bills have become law on time, all federal workers would go without pay during a shutdown, including those at the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation.

Staff for members of Congress, who weren’t affected by the last shutdown, would miss their salaries this time around if a shutdown begins with the new fiscal year on Oct. 1. 

Former Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Susan Monarez testifies before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Sept.17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez testified before a U.S. Senate committee Wednesday that she was fired after just 29 days because she refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations or fire career officials for no reason. 

Monarez, who was nominated by President Donald Trump earlier this year and confirmed by the Senate in July on a party-line vote, became a central figure in the country’s debate over public health last month after she refused to resign. 

Monarez testified that during a meeting in late August, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told her she needed to commit to approving upcoming recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without reviewing any data or research. 

“He also directed me to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause. He said if I was unwilling to do both, I should resign,” Monarez said. “I responded that I could not pre-approve recommendations without reviewing the evidence and I had no basis to fire scientific experts.”

Monarez testified before the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee during the nearly three-hour hearing that she told Kennedy if he didn’t trust her, then he could fire her.

During that same late August meeting, Monarez said Kennedy told her the childhood vaccine schedule would be changing in September and that she needed to be on board with that.

“We got into an exchange where I had suggested that I would be open to changing childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science was supportive,” Monarez testified. “And he responded that there was no science or evidence associated with the childhood vaccine schedule.”

ACIP is scheduled to meet Thursday and Friday at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. 

Kennedy testified before a separate Senate committee earlier this month that he did demand that Monarez fire career CDC scientists but said he didn’t tell her to accept the recommendations of the vaccine advisory panel without further review.

“What I asked her about is she had made a statement that she was going to not sign on and I wanted clarification about that,” Kennedy said at the time. “I told her I didn’t want her to have a role if she’s not going to sign onto it.”

Vaccine safety at issue

Monarez said that undermining vaccine safety will lead to an increase in preventable diseases, some of which have long-term or even lifelong consequences for children’s health. 

“I believe that we will have our children harmed for things that we know they do not need to be harmed by — polio, measles, diphtheria, chickenpox,” she said. 

Former CDC Chief Medical Officer Dr. Debra Houry told the committee there are significant ramifications if the new members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, who were appointed by Kennedy after he fired all of the former members, don’t use rigorous science and data to make their recommendations. 

“It’s going to be heartbreaking,” Houry said. “I think what concerns me is these aren’t harmless diseases. We just saw the case in California of a young child that died of encephalitis years after measles. These diseases have long-term consequences and in the U.S. we have gone so far in reversing this. We don’t want our children to die.”  

Houry was one of several CDC officials who resigned after learning about Monarez’s firing, which happened just weeks after a gunman opened fire at the CDC’s headquarters, killing a police officer. 

Both Monarez and Houry testified, in response to a question from Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, that confusion about vaccines and CDC recommendations had real consequences. 

“I myself was subject to threats,” Monarez said. “And I am very concerned that the further promulgation of misleading information will undermine not just the safety and health of our children, but it will also exacerbate some of these tensions — the willingness to commit harm if someone is affronted by a belief that the people like us that are trying to help them are actually not trying to help them.” 

Houry told the committee the gunman fired about 500 rounds, with approximately 180 of those hitting the building. 

“Each bullet was meant for a person, and each of my staff were very traumatized afterwards,” Houry said. “I had staff that were covering their kids in the day care parking lot. There were people that were out at the ride-share as bullets were passing over their head. I have many that won’t speak about vaccines now and removed their names off of the papers. They don’t wish to present publicly anymore because they feel they were personally targeted because of misinformation.”

‘Did we do something wrong?’

HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at the beginning of the hearing he intended to invite Kennedy and possibly other HHS officials to testify before his committee later in the year if they wanted to respond to what was said in the Wednesday hearing. 

He also raised concerns that Monarez was fired after less than a month in the role, despite her being nominated by Trump, confirmed by the Senate and Kennedy saying while swearing her in that she had “unimpeachable scientific credentials.”

“We as senators need to ask ourselves, did we look past something? Did we do something wrong?” Cassidy said. “It may be that we did nothing wrong, in which case, Dr. Monarez and Dr. Houry, the onus is upon you to prove that the criticisms leveled by the secretary are not true.”

Cassidy later added that “it may be impossible to learn who’s telling the truth.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member on the committee, said the Trump administration’s decision to fire Monarez after less than a month in the CDC director’s role was because “she refused to act as a rubber stamp to implement Secretary Kennedy’s dangerous agenda to substantially limit the use of safe and effective vaccines that would endanger the lives of the American people and people throughout the world.”

Sanders raised concerns that the loss of career officials at the CDC and other federal health agencies could hamper the country from addressing disease outbreaks in the months and years ahead. 

Confusion over whether Monarez was recorded

There were a few awkward moments in the hearing, in addition to the serious discussion about the Trump administration’s approach to public health. 

One came after Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody mentioned twice during her five minutes of questions that Monarez had spoken with Cassidy about her firing, implying that was somehow improper.  

Cassidy gave a lengthy statement afterward, clarifying the record. 

“As chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the CDC that favorably reported Dr. Monarez as the CDC director, it is entirely appropriate for someone with oversight concerns to contact my office, or me, or frankly any of us,” Cassidy said. “Upon receiving outreach from Dr. Monarez, I contacted both the secretary and the White House to inquire about what was happening and to express concerns about what was alleged. As soon as the director was fired, the HELP Committee began reviewing the situation, as it is our responsibility, and any and all communication with the witnesses was conducted by HELP staff in coordination with attorneys.”

Another somewhat uncomfortable and slightly confusing moment came after Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told Monarez that someone had recorded her meeting or meetings with Kennedy.

Mullin then repeatedly questioned her recollection of her conversations with Kennedy, implying that he had a different view because he had listened to the recording. 

The exchange led Cassidy to give another statement to the committee. He appeared somewhat frustrated that someone gave just one senator on the panel the recording, that Mullin had not shared it with any other members of the committee and that HHS had chosen not to give it to the committee in response to a request for documents related to Monarez’s firing. 

“If a recording does not exist, I ask Sen. Mullin to retract his line of questions,” Cassidy said. “I’ll also note that if he has it, I’m also curious why only one senator was given this and why we’re just hearing about it now.”

A few minutes later, Cassidy announced to the hearing room that Mullin told reporters elsewhere that he was mistaken about there being a recording of the meeting or meetings. 

Monarez lawyer

Several GOP senators on the panel also questioned Monarez at length about when and why she chose to hire legal representation and why she ultimately went with Mark Zaid, who has made public statements against Trump and his policies. 

Monarez testified that she wasn’t aware of Zaid’s political beliefs when she hired him and hasn’t spoken with him about politics. 

“I was seeking some critical counsel to be able to help me make sure that I was understanding and aware of everything that had transpired and preparing for what might be next, including this committee hearing,” Monarez said. “Mark and I have never spoken about politics. I never asked him about his politics. He has never asked me about my politics.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson answers reporters' questions during a press conference in the Rayburn Room inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025. Also pictured, from left to right, are California rancher and former president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Kevin Kester; Wisconsin Republican Rep. Tony Wied; Republican Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn.; and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republican leaders released a seven-week stopgap government funding bill Tuesday that’s intended to avoid a shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. 

But GOP leaders opted not to negotiate the legislation with Democrats, who may be needed to approve the bill in the House and will be required to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster. 

Democrats for weeks have called on Republicans to address what they view as critical health care issues, including the expiration of expanded Affordable Care Act tax credits at the end of the calendar year and the effects of the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law on Medicaid recipients.

Speaker Mike Johnson said during a press conference shortly before the bill was released that he views the ACA tax credits as “a December policy issue, not a September funding issue,” even though open enrollment begins in November. 

“They don’t expire until the end of the year and so we have until the end of December to figure all that out,” Johnson said. “But I can tell you that there’s real concern. I have concerns. Republicans have concerns about those policies. 

“If you look at how much they’ve been abused, in my estimation, in some ways. There’s no income cap on it. People who make $600,000 a year get a government subsidy for their health care. I don’t think that’s going to be a popular measure when people understand how that works. There’s a relatively small number of people that are affected by it. But that policy has real problems.”

The tax credits are used by people who purchase their own health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace.

Schumer: Republicans ‘want to shut things down’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech before the bill was publicly released that GOP leaders shouldn’t expect Democrats to help them advance any legislation they didn’t negotiate in a bipartisan way. 

“They can try and play the blame game, but their actions tell a different story. Their actions show clearly they want to shut things down because they don’t want to negotiate with Democrats,” Schumer said. “And it’s more than that. It means Republicans don’t want to help the American people with the crisis they’ve created raising people’s costs, particularly their health care costs.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the stopgap spending bill, which would keep the government running through Nov. 21, is needed to give lawmakers more time to work out final, bipartisan versions of the dozen full-year government funding bills. 

“The goal here should be to fund the government the way it was intended to be funded — through the normal appropriations process,” Thune said. 

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Senate Appropriations ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., issued a joint statement shortly after the bill’s release, saying they’re ready to keep working with their Republican counterparts — House Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., and Senate Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine — on a bipartisan stopgap spending bill.

“Instead of continuing to work through important issues with us on the continuing resolution and government funding to help the middle class and the working class, House Republican leadership has walked away from negotiations and are now threatening a shutdown by trying to jam through a funding bill on their terms alone,” DeLauro and Murray wrote.

Security for members of Congress

The 91-page stopgap spending bill also includes $30 million in additional funds to bolster safety and security for members of Congress following an increasingly violent year that included the killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, the killing and attempted killing of Democratic state lawmakers in Minnesota as well as some of their family members and arson at the Democratic Pennsylvania governor’s mansion. 

Members of Congress, their staff and their families are subject to thousands of threats each year, according to data from the U.S. Capitol Police. 

Johnson told reporters shortly after his press conference that he views the member security funding as a start and that there will be “more to come” in the full-year Legislative Branch funding bill.

Johnson said he expects the House will vote on the stopgap bill before Friday, when both chambers of Congress are set to leave on a week-long break for the Rosh Hashanah holiday week. 

Lawmakers aren’t expected to return to Capitol Hill until Sept. 29, with just hours to avoid a partial government shutdown if they cannot approve a stopgap bill in the days ahead.

The legislation includes an additional $30 million for the U.S. Marshals Service, which is responsible for the safety of federal judges and courthouses, as well as $28 million “for the protection of the Supreme Court Justices.” A GOP summary of the bill says the Marshals Service funding will go toward “Executive Branch protective services.”

A Planned Parenthood clinic in Salt Lake City is pictured on Wednesday, July 31, 2024. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — Planned Parenthood clinics throughout the country began telling Medicaid patients Friday that their routine health care appointments will no longer be covered as a federal court order takes effect. 

The change, which could remain in place for months, if not longer, will likely impact the hundreds of thousands of Medicaid enrollees who go to Planned Parenthood clinics for health care not related to abortion. 

“This decision is devastating to patients here in the state and across this country. And it is compounding what is an already broken and overstretched health care system,” said Shireen Ghorbani, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. “We know that cancers will go undetected, STIs will go untreated.”

Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said there is no plan for other health care providers to absorb the Medicaid enrollees. 

“There’s no one waiting in the wings to take care of our patients,” Lee said. “Planned Parenthood is the safety net.”

Planned Parenthood has identified at least 200 clinics out of about 600 that could close if they cannot treat Medicaid patients and receive reimbursements from the state-federal health program for lower-income people and some people with disabilities.

“We are working, you know, feverishly with our colleagues and teams to mitigate that number,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said. “We have to remember 50% of Planned Parenthood patients use Medicaid for their health care insurance. And so that is a very meaningful impact to the health centers that also rely on reimbursement in the same way every other single health care provider relies on reimbursement for the services provided.” 

GOP law targets Planned Parenthood

Federal law for decades has barred funding from going toward abortion services with limited exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. 

Earlier this year, Republicans in Congress included a provision in their “big, beautiful” law that prevents Medicaid funding from going to certain health care organizations that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in reimbursements from the program during a recent fiscal year. 

The language, which originally applied for 10 years but was reduced to one year in the final version of the bill, appeared to specifically target Planned Parenthood. It prevents the organization from receiving any Medicaid funding for health care services unrelated to abortion, like annual physicals, cancer screenings and STI testing.

Planned Parenthood quickly filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Massachusetts in July, shortly after President Donald Trump signed the legislation.  

A district court judge issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction that month, blocking the Department of Health and Human Services from implementing that one aspect of the law and allowing Medicaid patients to continue going to Planned Parenthood for routine health care services.

On Thursday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s ruling, clearing the way for the Trump administration to stop reimbursing Planned Parenthood for Medicaid patients while the case continues. 

Peyton Humphreville, senior staff attorney at Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the lawyers handling the lawsuit, said on a call with reporters Friday the organization is evaluating all of its options but doesn’t expect additional rulings until later this year at the earliest. 

“The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has entered a briefing schedule on the preliminary injunction appeal that will be fully briefed by mid-November,” Humphreville said. “From there, the court will schedule oral argument and will at some point after the oral argument rule on the preliminary injunction appeal.”

Planned Parenthood signage is seen in New York City on April 16, 2021. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration can block Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood after an appeals court on Thursday overturned a lower court’s preliminary injunction. 

Republicans in Congress included the one-year funding prohibition in their “big, beautiful” law, which President Donald Trump signed in early July. 

The Department of Health and Human Services, however, has not been able to implement that policy change after a district court judge blocked it from taking effect in a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood. 

The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which released a two-page order Thursday without explaining its decision. 

The three-judge panel comprised Gustavo A. Gelpí, Lara E. Montecalvo and Seth R. Aframe, all of whom were nominated to their current position by former President Joe Biden. 

“The July 21, 2025 preliminary injunction and the July 28, 2025 preliminary injunction are hereby stayed pending disposition of the respective appeals,” they wrote.  

The Trump administration did not immediately return messages seeking comment.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson wrote in a statement the court’s decision means that patients, “who rely on the essential health care that Planned Parenthood health centers provide, can’t plan for their futures, decide where they go for care, or control their lives, bodies, and futures — all because the Trump administration and its backers want to attack Planned Parenthood and shut down health centers. 

“This is a blow, but the fight isn’t over. For over 100 years, Planned Parenthood has faced unrelenting attacks, but we’re still here providing care, information, and resources. We will continue to fight this unconstitutional law, even though this court has allowed it to impact patients.”  

Federal law for decades has barred funding for abortion services with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. 

The new law blocks Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health services, like annual physicals, cancer screenings, or birth control.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration made public Wednesday its plans to appeal a lower court ruling that keeps Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook on the independent central bank’s board, for now.  

In a 49-page opinion released late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb wrote that President Donald Trump “violated the Federal Reserve Act because (Cook’s) purported removal did not comply with the statute’s ‘for cause’ requirement” and that his attempts to remove Cook from the board “deprived her of procedural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”

Trump said in late August that he wanted to remove Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, alleging she falsified some information in a mortgage application. 

Cook’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court a few days later, arguing that Trump’s attempts were political and violated her due process rights. 

Trump’s targeting of Cook comes amid his pressure campaign on Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. 

Trump, who has been angling for more influence over the central bank, swiftly nominated his adviser Stephen Miran to fill a separate vacancy on the board ahead of the Fed’s meeting next week where members are widely expected to lower rates.

U.S. Senate Republicans advanced Miran’s nomination out of committee Wednesday morning. Miran is the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Ruling seen as affirming Fed independence

Cobb said the case marks the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 111-year history that a president has sought to remove one of its members “for cause.”

The Federal Reserve Act doesn’t actually define what “for cause” entails, but Cobb wrote that reasons for firing under the law “are limited to grounds concerning an official’s behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing statutory duties. 

“The ‘for cause’ standard thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they assumed the position.”

Cook’s attorney’s Abbe David Lowell, of Lowell and Associates, and Norm Eisen, head of the advocacy organization Democracy Defenders Fund, hailed the district court injunction.

“The court’s ruling recognizes and reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Federal Reserve from illegal political interference,” Lowell and Eisen said in a statement Wednesday morning. 

“Allowing the president to unlawfully remove Governor Cook on unsubstantiated and vague allegations would endanger the stability of our financial system and undermine the rule of law. Governor Cook will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor member.”

Judge Cobb agreed with their assessment that the president seeking to remove Cook represented irreparable harm and that “the public interest in Federal Reserve independence weighs in favor of Cook’s reinstatement.”

Cobb wrote that she “likely cannot directly ‘enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties’ to require him to reappoint Cook.” So she instead issued a preliminary injunction directing Powell “and the Board of Governors to allow Cook to continue to operate as a member of the Board for the pendency of this litigation.”

Attorneys for the Trump administration notified the district court they plan to appeal Cobb’s preliminary injunction to the the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 

This story was updated at 4:33 p.m.

Secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at the Rx and Illicit Drug Summit at the Gaylord Opryland Resort & Convention Center in Nashville, Tennessee, on April 24, 2025. (John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration released its strategy to Make America Healthy Again on Tuesday, which officials hope will reduce chronic diseases and align federal policy with their beliefs. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during a briefing on the strategy the 128 “recommendations are things that I’ve been dreaming about my whole life.”

Kennedy said he hoped to implement several of the changes before the end of the year, including defining what constitutes an ultra-processed food, updating water quality standards for forever chemicals known as PFAS and changing infant formula standards. 

The report also includes potentially controversial elements that address access to vaccines, a topic several Republican senators rebuked Kennedy over during a lengthy hearing last week. 

The 20-page strategy follows the MAHA Commission’s release of its first report in May that outlined four areas of concern — nutrition, physical activity, environmental factors and “overmedicalization.”

The proposals in the new report range in scope from issues that have largely been addressed to initiatives that are likely to cause concerns among doctors and reputable medical organizations. 

For example, the strategy calls on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to “develop guidance on diagnostics and treatments for food allergies,” even though doctors are already able to diagnose and treat those conditions. 

The report also calls on the FDA to “improve regulatory processes for over-the-counter sunscreen, which has fallen behind other countries.”

Vaccine plan to come

The White House Domestic Policy Council and HHS intend to draft a separate plan addressing the childhood vaccine schedule, vaccine injuries, vaccine science, “misaligned incentives” and “scientific and medical freedom.”

Kennedy indicated during the briefing that he may seek to overhaul the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, claiming that 99% of vaccine injuries are not reported, in part, because doctors are not compensated for doing so.  

“We are recasting the entire program so that vaccine injuries will be reported; they will be studied; that individuals who suffer them will not be denied, or marginalized, or vilified, or gaslighted,” Kennedy said. “They will be welcomed and we will learn everything we can about them.”

The report doesn’t include any plans to reduce pesticide use or to seek solutions to end mass shootings, though Kennedy and others at the event said those are issues the administration will look into. 

“The firearms question is a complex question and it’s not an easy question,” Kennedy said. “The violence is what we’re concerned with.”

Kennedy said that guns have been around for a while and that they also exist in other countries that don’t have nearly the number of mass shootings as the United States, before talking about psychiatric drugs, video games and social media. 

“We are looking at that at NIH,” Kennedy said, referring to the National Institutes of Health. “We are doing studies now. We’re initiating studies to look at the correlation and the potential connection between overmedicating our kids and this violence.” 

Kennedy deferred a question about pesticides to White House Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. 

Haley referenced a section in the newly released report titled “cumulative exposure” that said USDA, EPA and NIH will use new approach methodologies “to improve methods for evaluating human health and environmental risks of chemical contaminants.”

Rollins told reporters that pesticides require study before being approved and that they are needed to ensure a stable food supply. 

“Is it a perfect process? Arguably there is no perfect process,” Rollins said. “But it is a strong process that our farmers stand by. And a crop protection tool, such as pesticides, is absolutely essential for America not to compromise our food supply system at this point.”

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

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can temporarily hold on to $4 billion in foreign aid funding approved by Congress, overturning a lower court’s order and continuing a struggle over who controls the nation’s purse strings. 

The one-page ruling from the emergency docket, signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., came just one day after the administration appealed the lower court’s ruling. 

While the original lawsuit over withheld foreign aid began in February and stemmed from an executive order, the Trump administration sent Congress a rescissions request covering some of the spending in late August. 

The proposal is part of the formal process laid out in a 1974 law that allows the president to ask lawmakers to cancel previously approved spending. 

Congress typically has 45 days to approve, modify, or disagree with a rescissions request. During that time the president can legally freeze the funding and only has to spend it if lawmakers don’t approve the plan.  

This particular rescission request, however, was sent to lawmakers within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, creating a dispute that complicated the nature of the original lawsuit. 

That maneuver, sometimes called a pocket rescission, is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and several members of Congress, though White House budget director Russ Vought believes it’s within the bounds of the law. 

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Trump administration’s appeal that the federal district court’s order to spend the funding “requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself.”

“Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients,” he added. 

The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday doesn’t address whether the justices agree with the administration that it can refuse to spend the billions in foreign aid since it sent the rescissions request close to the end of the fiscal year. 

Roberts wrote “that the September 3, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402, is hereby partially stayed for funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025 recission proposal currently pending before Congress pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Friday, September 12th, 2025, by 4 p.m. (EDT).”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 29, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling and allow it to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid that was previously approved by Congress.

The case is one of many lawsuits challenging the White House’s efforts to supersede Congress’ spending authority by canceling funding without lawmakers’ explicit approval.  

This particular case became more complicated in late August when the Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request, asking lawmakers to cancel billions in foreign aid, including some of the funding subject to this lawsuit. 

This “pocket rescission,” as it’s sometimes called, came within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year. Under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law, they believe that allows them to cancel the funding even if Congress refuses to go along with the proposal. 

The move is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and evoked ire from senior lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine.

“Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse,” Collins wrote in a statement. “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”

Administration sees executive branch ‘at war with itself’

The appeal to the Supreme Court filed Monday urges the justices to let the legislative and executive branches figure out the spending dispute on their own and criticizes a federal district court for ordering the Trump administration to spend the money. 

“The injunction requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients.”

The pocket rescissions request at the center of this case is separate from the one Trump sent Congress in early June that asked members to eliminate funding for numerous foreign aid accounts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Lawmakers approved that proposal in July after preserving full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

Congress has yet to act on the second rescissions request as its leaders look for ways to fund the government ahead of an Oct. 1 shutdown deadline. 

Attorneys for the organizations that brought the lawsuit — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council — wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court submitted Monday that they opposed the Trump administration’s request to overturn the lower court’s preliminary injunction. 

“USAID and the State Department have been under a duty to obligate these funds since at least March 2024, when Congress enacted the appropriations; they chose not to act sooner,” they wrote. “The government faces no cognizable harm from having to take steps to comply with the law for the short period while this Court considers its stay application.”

A sign is seen outside the FEMA Disaster Recovery Center at Weaverville Town Hall on March 29, 2025 in Weaverville, North Carolina. (Photo by Allison Joyce/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A broadly bipartisan bill to overhaul and elevate the Federal Emergency Management Agency is heading toward the U.S. House floor after a key committee approved the legislation. 

The Transportation and Infrastructure panel voted 57-3 Sept. 3 to advance the measure, which would make dozens of changes to how the federal government prepares for and responds to natural disasters.

“FEMA is where Americans look for help after what is the worst day in their lives, so it is critical that the agency be postured to respond at all times,” said Arizona Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton, one of the co-sponsors. “This bill gives FEMA independence and tools it needs to respond to disaster.”

Republican Reps. Tim Burchett of Tennessee, Eric Burlison of Missouri and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania voted against reporting the bill to the House floor. Their offices didn’t respond to requests for comment asking why they opposed the legislation. 

The 207-page measure, formally called the Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act of 2025, would remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and make it a Cabinet-level agency.

The legislation would create one application for federal natural disaster assistance from FEMA, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration. 

It would also give local and state governments more flexibility in deciding which types of emergency housing best meet the needs of their residents following different natural disasters. 

Republicans and Democrats on the committee praised the various changes the measure would make during a two-hour markup that offered an increasingly rare example of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. 

Donations from charities and FEMA

North Carolina Republican Rep. David Rouzer and California Democratic Rep. Laura Friedman both spoke in support of a provision reversing a policy that they said penalized people who received assistance from charities following a natural disaster. 

“Too many families who accept a donation from a charity or take an SBA loan to keep the lights on find out later that accepting those essential resources prevents them from receiving other assistance later for which they otherwise would be eligible,” Rouzer said. “This bill makes clear that SBA loans and private charitable donations are not considered duplicative for FEMA individual assistance.”

Friedman said she was shocked to learn that FEMA counted charitable donations against disaster survivors following the Los Angeles wildfires.

That led her to introduce the Don’t Penalize Victims Act with Mississippi Republican Rep. Mike Ezell, which was rolled into the FEMA overhaul bill. 

“I want to thank all the members of this committee, and particularly Chair (Sam) Graves and ranking member (Rick) Larsen, for their understanding of the importance of this measure to victims, who were seeing the charity that their churches, that their friends are raising for them be counted as income and deducted from the amount they were getting from FEMA,” Friedman said. 

Oregon Democratic Rep. Val Hoyle spoke in support of making FEMA a Cabinet-level department, saying that it’s been bogged down in the Department of Homeland Security since just after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. 

“After being folded into the Department of Homeland Security, it became buried in layers of bureaucracy,” Hoyle said. “DHS’s sprawling mission — cybersecurity, counterterrorism, immigration enforcement, transportation security and more — has left FEMA less able to act with the speed and agility disaster-stricken communities need.”

Hoyle said the legislation restoring FEMA’s “independence will help insulate disaster relief from” the types of “political pressures” that exist throughout the Homeland Security Department.

Permitting reform

Despite the broadly bipartisan support for the legislation within the committee, it will likely undergo some changes in the weeks and months ahead. 

House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., and ranking member Jared Huffman, D-Calif., who both sit on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, raised concerns with elements in the FEMA overhaul bill during the markup. 

Westerman said he voted for the bill but expected the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s leadership to work with him to address concerns over “permitting reform issues” that fall under his panel’s jurisdiction. 

“There is one provision on the Endangered Species Act that we have concerns with actually being executable the way it’s written,” Westerman said. “Again, that’s something that’s fixable, and we look forward to working with you as we move forward on the bill.”

Huffman said he had concerns about how the FEMA overhaul bill addresses “environmental review statutes,” which fall under the Natural Resources Committee’s purview. 

“I, of course, share the goal of cutting red tape. We want disaster-stricken families to be able to rebuild faster. There are ways to do that that also ensure that recovery is durable, resilient and sustainable. That we rebuild once. These are things that (the National Environmental Policy Act) helps to ensure. So I look forward to continuing to work with the committee on this as the bill advances. This is a problem that can be fixed, and I hope it will,” Huffman said. 

Potomac River water 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members offered just two amendments to the bill — one adopted by voice vote and one withdrawn. 

Indiana Democratic Rep. André Carson received broad support for his amendment to require FEMA to inform members of Congress about grants within their districts, a practice he said has changed during the Trump administration. 

“We should not need to mandate transparency and accountability, but if FEMA fails to provide this information, my amendment codifies the traditional notifications to Congress,” Carson said. 

Democratic Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia, offered and then withdrew an amendment that would have required FEMA “to submit to Congress a plan to supply emergency drinking water to the nation’s capital region during any period the Potomac River becomes unusable.”

Offering and then withdrawing an amendment is a common way for members to highlight issues without forcing a vote. 

Norton said the Army Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for the city’s water supply, only has sufficient reserves for one day should something happen. 

“If the Potomac River becomes unusable, which could happen at any moment whether through manmade or natural events, it would pose a significant risk to the residents of the nation’s capital, the operations of the federal government, national security and the region’s economy,” Norton said. 

Congress has partially funded a study to identify a backup drinking water supply and additional water storage facilities. But, Norton said, “any solution is years away.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears before the Senate Finance Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Sept. 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  vehemently defended his actions on vaccines and other public health issues under questioning by both Republican and Democratic senators during a contentious hearing Thursday.

Kennedy, confirmed on a mostly party-line vote earlier this year, repeatedly justified firing everyone on an influential vaccine advisory panel, as well as the president’s decision to remove a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director who’d served for less than a month after confirmation by the Senate.

“In your confirmation hearings, you promised to uphold the highest standards for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned,” said Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo. “The public has seen measles outbreaks. Leadership of the National Institutes of Health questioning the use of mRNA vaccines. The recently confirmed director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fired. Americans don’t know who to rely on.”

Video courtesy of C-SPAN.

Barrasso, an orthopedic surgeon, sought to reinforce support for vaccines to Kennedy during the Senate Finance Committee hearing, saying they “are estimated to have saved 154 million lives worldwide.”

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who received several concessions from Kennedy in exchange for voting to confirm him as HHS secretary, raised numerous questions about Kennedy’s behavior. Cassidy is the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Cassidy appeared to box in Kennedy on the COVID-19 vaccine by saying President Donald Trump should receive the Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed, which led to the development of the shot during his first term. 

Kennedy agreed Trump should “absolutely” get the prize, leading Cassidy to question why he’d taken actions as HHS secretary to erode trust and eliminate funding for vaccine development activities. 

“It surprises me that you think so highly of Operation Warp Speed when, as an attorney, you attempted to restrict access,” Cassidy said. “It also surprises me because you’ve canceled, or HHS did, but apparently under your direction, $500 million in contracts using the mRNA vaccine platform that was critical to Operation Warp Speed.”

Cassidy said the cancellation represents not only “an incredible waste of money but it also seems like a commentary upon what the president did in Operation Warp Speed, which is to create a platform by which to create vaccines.”

Cassidy also questioned Kennedy’s actions eliminating everyone on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replacing them with his own choices. 

“If we put people who are paid witnesses for people suing vaccines, that actually seems like a conflict of interest,” Cassidy said. 

Kennedy disagreed, testifying that “it may be a bias. And that bias, if disclosed, is okay.”

Tillis asks RFK Jr. to respond in writing

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis asked Kennedy a series of questions but said he wanted the secretary to submit his answers in writing in order to clarify several of his positions. 

“Some of your statements seem to contradict what you said in the prior hearing,” Tillis said. “You said you’re going to empower the scientists at HHS to do their job. I’d just like to see evidence where you’ve done that, and I’m sure that you will have some.”

Tillis said he wanted Kennedy to respond to reports that he’s gone back on his commitments to senators to not do anything “that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines” and that Kennedy would not “impose my belief over any of yours.”

“That, again, seems to be contradictory to the firing of the CDC director, the canceling of mRNA research contracts, firing advisory board members, attempting to stall NIH funding, eliminating funding for I think a half a billion dollars for further mRNA research,” he said, referring to the National Institutes of Health. 

Tillis said he was having difficulty understanding why former CDC Director Susan Monarez, whom Trump nominated in March and the Senate voted to confirm in late July, had been fired so quickly. 

“I don’t see how you go … from a public health expert with unimpeachable scientific credentials, a long-time champion of MAHA values, caring and compassionate and brilliant microbiologist — and four weeks later, fire her,” Tillis said. 

CDC shooting, Monarez firing probed

Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock questioned Kennedy at length over the firing of Monarez as well as a shooting at the Atlanta-based agency this summer. 

Kennedy testified that he doesn’t believe he criticized Monarez during a meeting in late August over her comments following the CDC shooting that “misinformation can be dangerous.”

During that meeting, Kennedy said he did demand that Monarez fire career CDC scientists but testified he didn’t tell her to accept the recommendations of the vaccine advisory panel without further review.

“What I asked her about is, she had made a statement that she was going to not sign on and I wanted clarification about that,” Kennedy said. “I told her I didn’t want her to have a role if she’s not going to sign onto it.”

Monarez wrote in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal just hours before the hearing began that during the meeting with Kennedy she “was told to preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric.”

“That panel’s next meeting is scheduled for Sept. 18-19,” Monarez wrote. “It is imperative that the panel’s recommendations aren’t rubber-stamped but instead are rigorously and scientifically reviewed before being accepted or rejected.”

Warnock asked Kennedy if he said that the CDC was the “most corrupt federal agency in the history of the world.” 

Kennedy testified he didn’t say that exactly but did say “it’s the most corrupt agency at HHS and maybe the government.” 

Warnock concluded his five minutes of questions telling Kennedy that “it’s clear you’re carrying out your extremist beliefs” and that he represents “a threat to the public health of the American people.”

“For the first time, we’re seeing deaths from children from measles,” Warnock said. “We haven’t seen that in two decades. We’re seeing that under your watch. You are a hazard to the health of the American people.”

Lankford, Daines ask about medication abortion

Several senators, including Oklahoma Republican James Lankford and Montana Republican Steve Daines, asked Kennedy about the ongoing review of mifepristone, one of two prescription pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. 

Kennedy said he spoke with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary about the topic just yesterday and committed to keeping senators informed, but didn’t appear to know much more than that. 

“I don’t know if they’re going to do an insurance claim study. That’s one way to do it. I don’t know exactly whether they’re doing epidemiological studies or observational studies. I don’t know exactly what they’re doing,” Kennedy said. “But I know I talked to Marty Makary about it yesterday, and he said those studies are progressing and that they’re ongoing. So I will keep your office informed at every stage.”

Kennedy testified that he didn’t know when exactly the studies would be completed. 

The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000 before updating the prescribing guidelines in 2016 and during the coronavirus pandemic. 

It’s currently approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients. Mifepristone is the first pharmaceutical of medication abortion and is typically followed by misoprostol. 

Medication abortion accounted for about 64% of all abortions in 2023, according to research from the Guttmacher Institute. 

The Supreme Court rejected an effort to limit access to medication abortion last year in a case originally filed by four anti-abortion medical organizations and four anti-abortion doctors that were represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion that “federal conscience laws have protected pro-life doctors ever since FDA approved mifepristone in 2000.”

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, wrote briefs to the Supreme Court in that case attesting to the safety and efficacy of mifepristone. 

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the medical organizations wrote. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Following days of speculation about his health from users on social media, President Trump made his first public appearance in a week to announce the moving of Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump spoke at length from the Oval Office on Tuesday, proving that he is in fact alive after rumors circulated online over the long holiday weekend that he might have died. 

Trump initially said he wasn’t aware of the speculation when asked about his “demise” by a Fox News reporter after the president announced he would move U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama. 

“Really, I didn’t see that,” Trump said. “You know, I have heard, it’s sort of crazy but last week I did numerous news conferences. All successful. They went very well, like this is going very well. And then I didn’t do any for two days, and they said, ‘There must be something wrong with him.’ Biden wouldn’t do them for months. You wouldn’t see him.”

Trump then said that he had heard about the online speculation of his death, but that he didn’t realize how extensive the rumors were.

“No, I heard that. I get reports,” Trump said. “Now you knew I did an interview that lasted for about an hour and a half with somebody, and everybody saw. That was on one of your competitors. I did numerous shows, and also did a number of truths, long truths. I think, pretty poignant truths. No, I was very active over the weekend.”

Trump added a few moments later: “I didn’t hear that one. That’s pretty serious stuff.”

The rumors that Trump had potentially died began circulating online Friday but began dissipating on Saturday, Sunday and Monday after the group of reporters that follows the president around saw him walk into his golf club in Virginia each of those three days. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency building is seen on May 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Democratic attorneys general have updated their complaint against the Trump administration in a lawsuit over whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency can refuse to spend pre-disaster mitigation grants approved by Congress.

The attorneys general wrote in the new filing that FEMA hadn’t made a single award to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program between April 2 and Aug. 25.

“The BRIC program is critically important nationwide. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding,” they wrote. “Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with California, Louisiana, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, and Washington leading the way. 

“But interior communities rely on BRIC too: Pennsylvania and Utah have received the next largest allocations, and Ohio is not far behind.”

FEMA announced in April that it was “ending” the program and “canceling all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023.” 

Members of Congress from both political parties brought up their disagreement with that decision in May during a hearing on FEMA’s budget request and by sending a letter signed by more than 80 lawmakers.

But that didn’t appear to sway the Trump administration to reverse course and allocate the funding that had been approved by Congress. 

‘Devastating’ delays in FEMA funding

Democratic attorneys general, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro filed their lawsuit in July and later called on the judge to block the Trump administration from moving money out of the pre-disaster mitigation account. 

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Richard G. Stearns, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary ruling in early August preventing FEMA “from spending the funds allocated to BRIC for non-BRIC purposes until the court is able to render a final judgment on the merits.”

The updated 83-page complaint filed Friday argues the two people President Donald Trump has installed as acting FEMA administrator did so unlawfully because they were never formally nominated to run the agency, didn’t receive Senate confirmation and didn’t meet the qualifications laid out in federal law.  

It also alleges that unilaterally canceling funding approved by Congress, which holds the power of the purse, violated the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution. 

“The impact of the shutdown has been devastating. Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding,” they wrote. “Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have invested millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. And in the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.”

Each BRIC grant, the updated complaint notes, “can cover up to 75% of a project’s costs, and the federal share can rise to 90% for small rural communities.” 

Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado. Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin filed the suit, along with the Pennsylvania and Kentucky governors.  

People in New York City look at a sign informing them that the Statue of Liberty is closed on Oct. 1, 2013 due to a government shutdown. Tensions among lawmakers and President Donald Trump, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown next month higher than it has been for years. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week following an uneventful August recess where little to no progress was made on government funding, even though lawmakers have just weeks left until their shutdown deadline.

Republican leaders will need the support of several Democratic senators to approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1, since lawmakers have once again failed to complete the dozen full-year bills on time. 

But what was once a routine bipartisan exercise has taken on heightened stakes, with Democrats and some Republicans increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s unilateral spending decisions.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued several reports faulting the Trump administration for impounding, or refusing to spend funds approved by Congress, in violation of the law. And dozens of lawsuits have been filed, alleging the administration has acted to supersede Congress’ power of the purse. 

The ongoing tension, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown higher than it has been for years. 

President Donald Trump said in mid-August he was open to meeting with Democratic leaders once they were back in town to negotiate a government funding deal but minimized the importance of talks. 

“Well, I will, I guess, but it’s almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything,” Trump said.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a letter last week urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to quickly begin negotiating a bipartisan stopgap bill. 

“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” they wrote. “That is the only viable path forward.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said last week that she wants to keep advancing the full-year spending bills, but that a short-term stopgap would be necessary to give lawmakers enough time. 

“We need to avoid a government shutdown, which would be horrendous if that were to occur on October 1,” Collins said, according to remarks provided by her office. “And we also need to avoid having a continuing resolution, by that I mean a stopgap bill that just puts government on automatic pilot for the whole year. 

“We’re going to have to have a short-term continuing resolution, but we’re making really good progress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I hope that will continue.”

Another failure

Congress is supposed to complete work on the dozen annual appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year but has failed to do so for decades. This year is no different. 

The House and Senate are nowhere near finishing their work on the bills, which provide funding for dozens of departments, including Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.

The bills, which make up about one-third of federal spending, also fund smaller agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and the National Weather Service.

The House has approved two of the dozen bills — Defense and Military Construction-VA. The Senate has passed its Agriculture, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA bills.

The House bills have only been supported by GOP lawmakers, while the Senate’s bills are broadly bipartisan, giving that chamber an upper hand if the two chambers begin conferencing full-year bills later this year. 

Without a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on how much to spend on all of the bills, it’s highly unlikely Congress will be able to complete its work before the Oct. 1 deadline.

Leaders will instead need to reach agreement on a stopgap spending bill that essentially keeps government funding on autopilot until lawmakers can work out a final deal on the full-year bills. 

The calendar doesn’t give Speaker Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader Thune, R-S.D., much time to find compromise with their Democratic counterparts. 

Both chambers are in session for three weeks at the beginning of September before breaking for Rosh Hashanah. They’ll return to Capitol Hill on Sept. 29 with less than two days to fund the government or begin a partial shutdown.

Thune said in mid-August at the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Inside Washington luncheon that he expects lawmakers will “have a big fight at the end of September.”

Last shutdown stretched 35 days

It’s been almost seven years since some federal departments and agencies had to navigate a shutdown, when Congress and the first Trump administration were unable to broker a funding deal before a deadline.

A shutdown this year would have substantially more impact than that 35-day debacle since, when that funding lapse began, Congress had approved the Defense, Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA spending bills.

The departments and agencies funded by those laws, including Congress, weren’t affected by the shutdown.

Lawmakers have failed to send any of the full-year bills to Trump so far this year, so every department and agency would need to implement a shutdown plan if Congress doesn’t approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1.

Federal employees who deal with the preservation of life and property as well as national security will likely be deemed exempt and work without pay until the shutdown ends.

Workers who are not considered essential to the federal government’s operations would be furloughed until Congress and the president broker some sort of funding deal.

Both categories of employees receive back pay once the lapse ends, though that doesn’t extend to federal contractors.

On to the stopgap

Congress regularly approves a stopgap spending bill in September to gain more time to complete negotiations on the full-year appropriations bills.

That continuing resolution, as it’s sometimes called, usually lasts until the last Friday in December when both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be in Washington, D.C.

So a September stopgap would likely last until Friday, Dec. 19, assuming the House and Senate can reach an agreement and hold floor votes in the weeks ahead.

Last year, in the lead-up to the presidential election, lawmakers approved a stopgap bill in September that funded the government through mid-December.

Following the Republican sweep of the November elections, GOP leaders opted not to negotiate the full-year bills and used a second stopgap bill to fund the government until March after a raucous 48 hours on Capitol Hill.

Speaker Johnson took a go-it-alone approach on a third stopgap spending bill, leaving Democrats completely out of the negotiations and jamming the Senate with the legislation.

Schumer and several Democrats ultimately helped Republicans get past the 60-vote legislative filibuster, but most voted against actually passing the stopgap.

The dilemma over forcing a shutdown or helping Republicans pass a stopgap bill will resurface for Schumer in the weeks ahead as he tries to navigate another shutdown deadline amid unified GOP control of Washington.

U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bill Cassidy speaks with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after Kennedy's confirmation hearing on Jan. 30, 2025. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Bipartisan leaders of a U.S. Senate committee dealing with health policy expressed alarm with the direction of the country’s top public health agencies after President Donald Trump fired the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other high-level officials resigned. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy — chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — posted on social media late Wednesday that the “high profile departures will require oversight by the HELP Committee.”

Cassidy separately called on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to indefinitely postpone its September meeting.

“Serious allegations have been made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September ACIP meeting,” Cassidy wrote in a statement. “These decisions directly impact children’s health and the meeting should not occur until significant oversight has been conducted. If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member on the committee, called for a bipartisan investigation into the reasons Trump fired Susan Monarez as CDC director less than a month after she received Senate confirmation.

Sanders said that Health and Human Services Director Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Monarez and the handful of high-ranking CDC officials who resigned this week should be able to testify publicly about what’s happening inside the agency. 

“We need leaders at the CDC and HHS who are committed to improving public health and have the courage to stand up for science, not officials who have a history of spreading bogus conspiracy theories and disinformation,” Sanders wrote.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a briefing that Trump had every right to fire Monarez and that he expects to pick a new nominee “very soon.”

“Her lawyers’ statement made it abundantly clear themselves that she was not aligned with the president’s mission to make America healthy again,” Leavitt said. “The secretary asked her to resign. She said she would and then she said she wouldn’t. So the president fired her, which he has every right to do.” 

Kennedy is scheduled to testify before the Senate Finance Committee next week, that panel’s chairman, Idaho Republican Mike Crapo, announced Thursday.

Kennedy “has placed addressing the underlying causes of chronic diseases at the forefront of this Administration’s health care agenda,” Crapo wrote on X. “I look forward to learning more about @HHSGov’s Make America Healthy Again actions to date and plans moving forward.”

Cassidy key vote for RFK

Cassidy was an essential vote to confirm Kennedy as director of HHS, which oversees the CDC, though he expressed concerns throughout that process that Kennedy’s past statements about vaccines weren’t rooted in reputable medical research.

Cassidy said during a floor speech in February after voting to advance Kennedy’s nomination that Kennedy assured him he will protect “the public health benefit of vaccination.” 

“If Mr. Kennedy is confirmed, I will use my authority of the Senate committee with oversight of HHS to rebuff any attempt to remove the public’s access to life-saving vaccines without ironclad causational scientific evidence that can be accepted and defended before the mainstream scientific community and before Congress,” Cassidy said at the time. “I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongly sow public fear about vaccines between confusing references of coincidence and anecdote.”

Susan Monarez, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, testifies during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 25, 2025 in Washington, D.C.. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t appear inclined to leave her post, despite the Trump administration announcing Wednesday that she’s no longer running one of the country’s top public health agencies. 

Attorneys for Susan Monarez, who received Senate confirmation in late July, posted that she hasn’t been fired or resigned, but didn’t announce whether they plan to sue the administration. 

“When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda,” wrote Mark S. Zaid and Abbe David Lowell. “For that, she has been targeted. Dr. Monarez has neither resigned nor received notification from the White House that she has been fired, and as a person of integrity and devoted to science, she will not resign.”

The statement from Monarez’s attorneys came just hours after the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, wrote on social media that she was no longer running the agency. 

“Susan Monarez is no longer director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” the post stated. “We thank her for her dedicated service to the American people. @SecKennedy has full confidence in his team at@CDCgov who will continue to be vigilant in protecting Americans against infectious diseases at home and abroad.”

The Washington Post first reported the news. 

The U.S. Senate voted along party lines to confirm Monarez as CDC director in late July, giving her just weeks in one of the nation’s top public health roles.

Monarez’s last post on social media from her official account was on Aug. 22, marking the death of a police officer after a gunman opened fire at the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta. 

“A large group of CDC employees and I attended today’s memorial for Officer David Rose, whose Tour of Duty ended on August 8 when he responded to shots fired,” Monarez wrote. “He leaves behind a legacy of love, courage, and service to the community that will never be forgotten.”

The dispute over Monarez’s position as CDC director appeared to potentially mark the beginning of a wave of resignations from other public health officials, including Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Demetre C. Daskalakis.

“I am unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health,” Daskalakis wrote in a lengthy social media post. “The recent change in the adult and children’s immunization schedule threaten the lives of the youngest Americans and pregnant people.”

Monarez second choice after Weldon

Monarez was President Donald Trump’s second choice for CDC director. He originally selected former Florida U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon to run the CDC shortly after he secured election to the Oval Office in November. But the White House pulled Weldon’s nomination in March, after it appeared he couldn’t secure the votes needed for confirmation.

Later that month, Trump announced his plans to nominate Monarez in a social media post.

“Dr. Monarez brings decades of experience championing Innovation, Transparency, and strong Public Health Systems,” Trump wrote. “She has a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, and PostDoctoral training in Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine.

“As an incredible mother and dedicated public servant, Dr. Monarez understands the importance of protecting our children, our communities, and our future. Americans have lost confidence in the CDC due to political bias and disastrous mismanagement. Dr. Monarez will work closely with our GREAT Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr. Together, they will prioritize Accountability, High Standards, and Disease Prevention to finally address the Chronic Disease Epidemic and, MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN!”

Restoring trust in CDC

Monarez testified in front of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in June as part of her confirmation process. The committee voted 12-11 in July to send her nomination to the Senate floor, where Republicans approved her to the post later that month. 

Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., said during the committee’s markup that he believed Monarez would put science first and help to restore public trust in the agency. 

“The United States needs a CDC director who makes decisions rooted in science, a leader who will reform the agency and work to restore public trust in health institutions,” Cassidy said at the time. “With decades of proven experience as a public health official, Dr. Monarez is ready to take on this challenge.”

U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (center) and tribal leaders speak to the media after a public safety roundtable on Aug. 14, 2024, in Wagner, South Dakota. With Rounds, from left, are Cheyenne River Chairman Ryman LeBeau, Lower Brule Chairman Clyde Estes, Sisseton Wahpeton Secretary Curtis Bissonette, Wayne Boyd of Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Yankton Chairman Robert Flying Hawk, Oglala President Frank Star Comes out and Crow Creek Chairman Peter Lengkeek. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

WASHINGTON — Tribal radio stations that are supposed to receive millions to fill the hole created when Congress eliminated funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting haven’t heard anything from the Trump administration about when it will send the money or how much in grants they’ll receive.

Unlike most government spending deals, the handshake agreement South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds negotiated with the White House budget director in exchange for Rounds’ vote on the rescissions bill wasn’t placed in the legislation, so it never became law. 

Instead, Rounds is trusting the Trump administration to move $9.4 million in funding from an undisclosed account to more than two dozen tribal radio stations in rural areas of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota and Wisconsin that receive community service grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 

But neither Rounds’ office, the Office of Management and Budget, nor the Bureau of Indian Affairs responded to emails from States Newsroom asking when the grants would be sent to those radio stations and whether the funding levels would be equal to what they currently receive. 

Loris Taylor, president and CEO of Native Public Media, a network of more than 60 broadcast stations that’s headquartered in Arizona, said she’s written to Rounds and the Bureau of Indian Affairs about the handshake deal reached in July but hasn’t heard back. 

“I can’t place my expectations on something that hasn’t been concretely shared with the stations,” Taylor said. “And so all I can say is that our expectations are to raise money for the stations to make sure that they have operational dollars for FY 2026, and that’s exactly where we’re placing our focus.”

Taylor pointed out that Rounds’ informal deal with White House budget director Russ Vought doesn’t cover all of the tribal stations in the network and will only last for one year, leaving questions about long-term budgeting.

An Interior Department spokesperson wrote in an email after this story originally published that “Indian Affairs has received a list of 37 stations and is working to distribute about $9.4 million in funding to support them. 

“We know how important these stations are for public safety and are moving quickly to get the money out. Before we can set a timeline, we need to coordinate with the stations, tribes and other partners to ensure the funds are delivered efficiently and meet the needs of Indian Country. We will share updates when we have more to share publicly.”

The spokesperson did not provide a list of those stations or information on how the department plans to divvy up the funding. 

‘The little stations like us’  

Dave Patty, general manager at KIYU-FM in Galena, Alaska, said he isn’t planning to receive any federal funding during the upcoming fiscal year, in part because he hasn’t heard anything from the administration. The 2026 federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

“Well, I certainly can’t budget anything that I don’t know is coming, so I’m definitely not planning for it now,” he said. 

President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers’ decision to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of their belief of left-leaning bias at National Public Radio wasn’t the right way to address those frustrations, Patty said. 

“The narrative was definitely centered around NPR and that was definitely wrong because NPR aren’t the ones in trouble,” he said. “NPR is well funded from philanthropists all over the country, and as a mothership, NPR is not going anywhere. It’s the little stations like us that are going to go away because, for instance, about 60% of our budget came from the CPB grant.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting announced in early August it will shutter most of its operations by the end of September, with some staff working through January. 

NPR and the Public Broadcasting Service have made no such announcements, but local stations throughout the country have announced budget cuts since Congress approved the bill rescinding $1.1 billion in funding it previously approved for CPB. That money was supposed to cover costs during fiscal 2026 and 2027. 

Lawsuit feared 

Karl Habeck, general manager at WOJB in Hayward, Wisconsin, said he’s only heard “gossip” and “rumors” about how exactly the handshake agreement will work in practice but is concerned that someone may challenge the Trump administration’s authority to move money around since it wasn’t in the bill and never became law. 

“What gives them the right to take these funds that were allocated for environmental projects and send them towards Native American radio stations?” Habeck said. 

Typically, the administration would need sign-off from appropriators in Congress before moving large sums of money from one account to another. 

Officials haven’t said publicly where exactly they plan on taking the money from and it’s unclear if the Trump administration is trying to create a new account for grants to rural tribal radio stations out of thin air, without an actual appropriation from Congress. 

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, and Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, ranking member on the panel, didn’t immediately respond to a request for details.  

Habeck said he expects WOJB will be okay financially for the next year, but that he and many others don’t know what the future will hold after that. 

“It’s going to be hard,” Habeck said. “I guess people don’t understand. You know, they try to compare us to commercial radio and it’s two different things.”

Local broadcasting stations, he said, have fewer employees and are often a nexus for their communities, providing information about everything from lost dogs to emergency alerts to high school sports updates. 

“That doesn’t happen everywhere. It’d be a shame to lose that,” Habeck said. “I think we’re an integral part of the community and people have come to rely on us and appreciate that. And I’m talking everybody. I don’t care what their political stance is. “

A different mission for tribal radio stations

Sue Matters, station manager at KWSO in Warm Springs, Oregon, said she reached out to one of her home-state senators, Ron Wyden, who contacted Rounds’ office to ask how the funding would be allocated and when. But Wyden was unable to share any concrete information.

Matters also spoke with someone she knows at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who was similarly unable to provide information about how the agreement will actually work.

“I’m just assuming there’s not anything,” Matters said, adding she’s now focusing on securing a grant from the bridge fund that’s supposed to help the more at-risk public broadcasting stations.

Tribal stations, she said, often have substantially different missions than commercial stations, focusing on language and cultural programs as well as preserving their traditional life.

“That’s endangered,” Matters said. “We won’t let anything stop us. But it’s sad that for whatever reason this funding has been taken away.”

President Donald Trump waved and pointed to the crowd as he exited the stage following his remarks at the Iowa State Fairgrounds July 3, 2025 at an event kicking off a yearlong celebration leading up to America’s 250th anniversary. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump and Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley are sparring on social media over whether the Judiciary Committee chairman should abandon a century-old tradition that allows senators to block the advancement of judicial nominees who would serve in the senators’ home states.

The practice, referred to as “blue slips,” has irked Trump, who has had some of his picks for the federal bench opposed by Democratic senators. 

Trump posted on social media over the weekend that he wanted GOP Senate leaders to move his judicial nominees through, regardless of the level of opposition from Democrats, and said Monday he would sue over the practice, which he called “unconstitutional.” 

“We’re also going to be filing a lawsuit on blue slipping,” he said in the Oval Office Monday morning. “You know, blue slips make it impossible for me as president to appoint a judge or a U.S. attorney, because they have a gentleman’s agreement — nothing memorialized.”

The White House comments came after Trump slammed the practice on social media over the weekend and told Grassley how to proceed.

“I have a Constitutional Right to appoint Judges and U.S. Attorneys, but that RIGHT has been completely taken away from me in States that have just one Democrat United States Senator,” Trump posted on social media. 

“This is because of an old and outdated ‘custom’ known as a BLUE SLIP, that Senator Chuck Grassley, of the Great State of Iowa, refuses to overturn, even though the Democrats, including Crooked Joe Biden (Twice!), have done so on numerous occasions,” he added. “Therefore, the only candidates that I can get confirmed for these most important positions are, believe it or not, Democrats! Chuck Grassley should allow strong Republican candidates to ascend to these very vital and powerful roles, and tell the Democrats, as they often tell us, to go to HELL!”

Grassley won’t end blue slips

Grassley responded on Monday morning that he wouldn’t be ending the blue slip tradition. 

“A U.S. Atty/district judge nominee without a blue slip does not hv the votes to get confirmed on the Senate floor & they don’t hv the votes to get out of cmte As chairman I set Pres Trump noms up for SUCCESS NOT FAILURE,” Grassley wrote. 

He wrote in a separate post that Alina “Habba was withdrawn as the President’s nominee for New Jersey U.S. Atty on July 24 &the Judic cmte never received any of the paperwork needed for the Senate to vet her nomination.” 

A federal judge on Thursday said Habba has no lawful authority to be New Jersey’s acting U.S. attorney.

Grassley was reelected in November 2022, for a six-year term that will end in January 2029. 

Tradition since 1917

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service writes in a report on the process that since “at least 1917, the committee’s use of the blue slip has been a feature of its consideration of such nominations.”

“After a President selects a nominee for a U.S. circuit or district court judgeship, the chairman sends a blue-colored form to the two Senators representing the home state of the nominee,” the report explains.

“The form seeks the home state Senators’ assessment of the nominee. If a home state Senator has no objection to a nominee, the blue slip is returned to the chairman with a positive response. If, however, a home state Senator objects to a nominee, the blue slip is either withheld or returned with a negative response. For the purposes of this report, any instance of a blue slip being withheld is treated the same as if a blue slip were returned with a negative response—that is, both instances indicate a nominee lacked the support of at least one home state Senator.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.