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

State officials from both parties urged Congress to avoid a government shutdown Monday, though Republicans were pushing harder for an extension of current funding.

Though they sometimes clash with federal directives, states depend on funding from the federal government for numerous programs. A government shutdown, which would have a wider effect than any in recent years because Congress has not passed any of the dozen annual funding bills, would delay or cancel that support.

The National Governors Association issued a statement Monday from its chair and vice chair, Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore, calling on Congress to come together to avoid a shutdown. The bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors generally avoids commenting on controversial issues that divide its membership.

“The consistent use of political brinksmanship when it comes to our government funding does not serve our states, territories or our people well,” they wrote. “It is long past time to stop kicking the can down the road and return to the regular order of debating and passing a budget, but at this juncture, Congress has a responsibility to ensure the government remains operational. We urge federal leaders from both sides to work to set aside political games and pass a budget that reflects the values and promises states commit to every day.”

While members of both parties expressed a desire to avoid a shutdown, they proposed different solutions. 

Republicans urged lawmakers to approve the “clean” continuing resolution to keep the government funded at current levels, while Democrats backed up their party’s position in Congress to seek an extension of health insurance subsidies in a funding bill.

“Allowing a shutdown would consequently and needlessly disrupt our economies, threaten public safety, and undermine public confidence in our institutions,” 25 Republican governors wrote in a Monday letter to congressional leaders. “Our families and communities would feel the pain with immediate effect and confusion.”

Partisan differences over shutdown extend beyond the Beltway

The U.S. House, where Republicans hold a majority, passed a stopgap spending measure this month, but it failed to clear the 60-vote threshold needed to pass the U.S. Senate, as Democrats have declined to support a proposal that does not address health care costs. 

At the state level, the debate has fallen along similar lines. 

“Put simply, a  government shutdown should not be used as political leverage to pass partisan reforms — these are not chips Congress should be bargaining with,” the Republican governors wrote. “The proposed budget extension is a straightforward, bipartisan solution. There are no gimmicks or partisan poison pills; it’s a clean, short-term funding measure that both parties have historically supported.”

Republican state attorneys general sent a similar letter, which noted a shutdown would affect state and local law enforcement.

Democrats throughout the country, though, echoed congressional messaging that Congress should extend the health care subsidies that were included in the 2010 health care law known as the Affordable Care Act, and take more steps to reduce the cost of health care. Republicans’ failure to include such provisions would put blame for the shutdown on the GOP, Democrats have said.

“Instead of supporting a plan that would lower costs and stop making health care more expensive, Senate Republicans are blindly following Donald Trump and pushing the country towards a devastating government shutdown,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who chairs Senate Democrats’ campaign organization, said in a Sept. 19 statement.

In a press release last week, the Democratic Governors Association touted efforts by its members to call for extending subsidies.

“DGA Chair Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called on Congressional Republicans to extend critical Affordable Care Act subsidies that 22 million Americans rely on and avoid a government shutdown,” the release read. 

“Without action from Republicans in Congress, health care costs for hardworking Americans who rely on these subsidies will balloon by an average of over 75 percent.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

PORTLAND, Ore. — President Donald Trump said Saturday morning he will send troops to Portland, attempting an unprecedented use of U.S. military forces within the country.

In a brief post to his social media platform, Trump said he would have Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth order troops deployed to Oregon’s largest city.

Trump did not specify what legal justification he had to do so, what military branch would be used or other key details. The troops would be used to defend U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities from “domestic terrorists,” he said. 

“At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

A 19th-century law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids military members from conducting domestic law enforcement. Constitutional experts say the idea was one of the nation’s founding principles. 

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said in a statement Saturday morning that she is reaching out to the White House and the Department of Homeland Security for more information. 

“We have been provided no information on the reason or purpose of any military mission,” she said. “There is no national security threat in Portland. Our communities are safe and calm. I ask Oregonians to stay calm and enjoy a beautiful fall day. We will have further comment when we have more information.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. National Guard said the branch had no information to share and deferred questions to the White House. 

A White House official writing on background noted a recent history of protests at an ICE facility in Portland. 

The local U.S. attorney has brought charges against 26 people since early June for crimes including arson and resisting arrest, official said. Neighborhood residents have also made noise complaints related to protests, the official said, adding that state and local officials have refused to intervene. 

That description, though, did not correspond with the quiet scene at the facility as an Oregon Capital Chronicle reporter visited Saturday morning. 

Oregon’s senior U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, also posted a video of the undisturbed facility and told Trump, “we don’t need you here. Stay the hell out of our city.”

U.S. Rep. Maxine Dexter, a Democrat whose district includes much of Portland, blasted the announcement as “an egregious abuse of power and a betrayal of our most basic American values.”

“Authoritarians rely on fear to divide us. Portland will not give them that,” she wrote. “We will not be intimidated. We have prepared for this moment since Trump first took office, and we will meet it with every tool available to us: litigation, legislation, and the power of peaceful public pressure.”

‘Don’t take the bait’

A group of about a dozen local leaders  — including Dexter, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat — assembled on short notice for a press conference Friday evening to discuss the potential deployment.

Merkley described it as a “don’t-take-the-bait press conference.”

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” he said. They’ve been given no details about how many troops are being sent, from what agency or branch of the government, and there’s been no coordination with the city of Portland, he said.

“Here is what I do know — the president has sent agents here to create chaos and riots in Portland, to induce a reaction, to induce protests, to induce conflicts. His goal is to make Portland look like what he’s been describing it as,” Merkley said. “Their point is to lead to an engagement. An engagement that could lead to violence.”

Wilson described the agents as already in Portland.

“They are here without clear precedent or purpose,” he said. “This is happening against the national backdrop of a federal government that may not even be open in a week’s time.”

Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson said that as a sanctuary county in a sanctuary state, the county would not help enforce federal immigration laws without an order signed by a judge.

Escalation of military use

Deploying troops to Portland would mark a dramatic escalation, even for Trump, who has tested the legal limits of domestic military use. 

He sent National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against aggressive immigration enforcement there, despite the Democratic governor’s objections. And he ordered National Guard troops to assist police in Washington, D.C.

But the Los Angeles deployment responded to a specific circumstance, and the president holds power to deploy the National Guard in the District of Columbia because it is a federal territory. 

Neither is true for Portland, where there has not been any evidence of violence at protests against the administration. The state government is dominated by Democrats. 

The city did see extended protests in the summer of 2020 after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Trump deployed federal agents then in what he said was an effort to protect the federal courthouse in downtown Portland.

Alex Baumhardt of the Oregon Capital Chronicle contributed to this report.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Congress’ failure to pass a short-term government funding bill before midnight Tuesday will lead to the first shutdown in nearly seven years and give President Donald Trump broad authority to determine what federal operations keep running — which will have a huge impact on the government, its employees, states and Americans. 

A funding lapse this year would have a considerably wider effect than the 35-day one that took place during Trump’s first term and could last longer, given heightened political tensions. 

The last shutdown didn’t affect the departments of Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Labor and Veterans Affairs, since Congress had approved those agencies’ full-year funding bills.

Lawmakers had also enacted the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, exempting Capitol Hill from any repercussions. 

That isn’t the case this time around since none of the dozen government spending bills have become law. That means nearly every corner of the federal government will feel the pain in some way if a compromise isn’t reached by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1. 

States Newsroom’s Washington, D.C. Bureau offers you a quick guide to what could happen if Republicans and Democrats don’t broker an agreement in time.

How does the White House budget office determine what government operations are essential during a shutdown?

Generally, federal programs that include the preservation of life or property as well as those addressing national security continue during a shutdown, while all other activities are supposed to cease until a funding bill becomes law. 

But the president holds expansive power to determine what activities within the executive branch are essential and which aren’t, making the effects of a shutdown hard to pinpoint unless the Trump administration shares that information publicly. 

Presidential administrations have traditionally posted contingency plans on the White House budget office’s website, detailing how each agency would shut down — explaining which employees are exempt and need to keep working, and which are furloughed. 

That appears to have changed this year. The web page that would normally host dozens of contingency plans remained blank until late September, when the White House budget office posted that a 940-page document released in August calls for the plans to be “hosted solely on each agency’s website.”

Only a few departments had plans from this year posted on their websites as of Friday afternoon.

The White House budget office expects agencies to develop Reduction in Force plans as part of their shutdown preparation, signaling a prolonged funding lapse will include mass firings and layoffs.

While the two-page memo doesn’t detail which agencies would be most affected, it says layoffs will apply to programs, projects, or activities that are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

Trump will be paid during a shutdown since Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution prevents the president’s salary from being increased or decreased during the current term.

No one else in the executive branch — including Cabinet secretaries, more than 2 million civilian employees and over 1 million active duty military personnel — will receive their paycheck until after the shutdown ends. 

Are federal courts exempt from a shutdown since they’re a separate branch of government?

The Supreme Court will continue to conduct normal operations in the event of a shutdown, according to its Public Information Office. 

The office said the court “will rely on permanent funds not subject to annual approval, as it has in the past, to maintain operations through the duration of short-term lapses of annual appropriations,” in a statement shared with States Newsroom. 

As for any impact on lower federal courts, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said the federal judiciary was still assessing the fiscal 2026 outlook and had no comment. 

The office serves as the central support arm of the federal judiciary. 

During the last government shutdown from late 2018 into early 2019, federal courts remained open using court fee balances and “no-year” funds, which are available for an indefinite period. 

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has said that if those funds run out, they would operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, which “allows work to continue during a lapse in appropriations if it is necessary to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers.” 

Supreme Court justices and appointed federal judges continue to get paid during a government shutdown, as Article III of the Constitution says the judges’ compensation “shall not be diminished” during their term.

What happens to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

The three programs exist largely outside of the annual appropriations process, since lawmakers categorized them as “mandatory spending.” 

This means Social Security checks as well as reimbursements to health care providers for Medicare and Medicaid services should continue as normal.

One possible hitch is the salaries for people who run those programs are covered by annual appropriations bills, so there could be some staffing problems for the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, depending on their contingency plans. 

The first Trump administration’s shutdown guidance for the Social Security Administration showed 54,000 of 63,000 employees at that agency would have kept working. The CMS plan from 2020 shows that it intended to keep about 50% of its employees working in the event of a shutdown. Neither had a current plan as of Friday.

Will the Department of Veterans Affairs be able to keep providing health care and benefits?

Veterans can expect health care to continue uninterrupted at VA medical centers and outpatient clinics in the event of a shutdown. Vets would also continue to receive benefits, including compensation, pension, education and housing, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs contingency planning for a funding lapse that is currently published on the department’s website. It’s unclear if the plan will be the one the Trump administration puts into action.

But a shutdown would affect other VA services. For example, the GI Bill hotline would close, and all in-person and virtual career counseling and transition assistance services would be unavailable.

Additionally, all regional VA benefits offices would shutter until Congress agreed to fund the government. The closures would include the Manila Regional Office in the Philippines that serves veterans in the Pacific region.

All department public outreach to veterans would also cease.

Will Hubbard, spokesperson for Veterans Education Success, said his advocacy organization is bracing for increased phone calls and emails from veterans who would normally call the GI Bill hotline.

“Questions are going to come up, veterans are going to be looking for answers, and they’re not going to be able to call like they would be able to normally, that’s going to be a big problem,” Hubbard said.

“Most of the benefits that people are going to be most concerned about will not be affected, but the ones that do get affected, for the people that that hits, I mean, it’s going to matter a lot to them. It’s going to change the direction of their planning, and potentially the direction of their life,” Hubbard said.

The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget did not respond to a request for current VA shutdown guidance.

What happens to immigration enforcement and immigration courts? 

As the Trump administration continues with its aggressive immigration tactics in cities with high immigrant populations, that enforcement is likely to continue during a government shutdown, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s March guidance for operating in a government shutdown.

Immigration-related fees will continue, such as for processing visas and applications from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

And DHS expects nearly all of its U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees to be exempt — 17,500 out of 20,500 — and continue working without pay amid a government shutdown. 

That means that ICE officers will continue to arrest, detain and remove from the country immigrants without legal status. DHS is currently concentrating immigration enforcement efforts in Chicago, known as “Operation Midway Blitz.”

Other employees within DHS, such as those in Transportation Security Administration, will also be retained during a government shutdown. There are about 58,000 TSA employees that would be exempt and continue to work without pay in airports across the country.  

DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for a contingency plan if there is a government shutdown.

Separately, a shutdown would also burden the overwhelmed immigration court system that is housed within the Department of Justice. It would lead to canceling or rescheduling court cases, when there is already a backlog of 3.4 million cases.

The only exceptions are immigration courts that are located within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, detention centers, but most cases would need to be rescheduled. The partial government shutdown that began in December 2018 caused nearly 43,000 court cases to be canceled, according to a report by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC.

And 28 states have an immigration court, requiring some immigrants to travel hundreds, or thousands, of miles for their appointment. 

States that do not have an immigration court include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Will people be able to visit national parks or use public lands during a shutdown? 

Probably, but that may be bad for parks’ long-term health.

During the 2018-2019 shutdown, the first Trump administration kept parks open, with skeleton staffs across the country struggling to maintain National Park Service facilities.

Theresa Pierno, the president and CEO of the advocacy group National Parks Conservation Association, said in a Sept. 23 statement the last shutdown devastated areas of some parks.

“Americans watched helplessly as Joshua Trees were cut down, park buildings were vandalized, prehistoric petroglyphs were defaced, trash overflowed leading to wildlife impacts, and human waste piled up,” she wrote. “Visitor safety and irreplaceable natural and cultural resources were put at serious risk. We cannot allow this to happen again.”

The National Park Service’s latest contingency plan was published in March 2024, during President Joe Biden’s administration. It calls for at least some closures during a shutdown, though the document says the response will differ from park to park. 

Restricting access to parks is difficult due to their physical characteristics, the document said, adding that staffing would generally be maintained at a minimum to allow visitors. However, some areas that are regularly closed could be locked up for the duration of a shutdown.

But that contingency plan is likely to change before Tuesday, spokespeople for the Park Service and the Interior Department, which oversees NPS, said Sept. 25.

“The lapse in funding plans on our website are from 2024,” an email from the NPS office of public affairs said. “They are currently being reviewed and updated.”

Hunters and others seeking to use public lands maintained by Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, which is overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will likely be able to continue to do so, though they may have to make alternative plans if they’d planned to use facilities such as campgrounds. 

Land Tawney, the co-chair of the advocacy group American Hunters and Anglers, said campgrounds, toilets and facilities that require staffing would be inaccessible, but most public lands would remain available.

“Those lands are kind of open and they’re just unmanned, I would say, and that’s not really gonna change much,” he said. “If you’re staying in a campground, you’ve got to figure something else out.”

As with national parks, access to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and other hunting and fishing sites will differ from site to site, Tawney said. The Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t require permits for hunting on its lands, but access to some refuges is determined by a staff-run lottery drawing. If those drawings can’t be held, access to those sites will be limited, Tawney said.

What happens to the Internal Revenue Service?

How the Internal Revenue Service would operate during a government shutdown remains unclear. 

When Congress teetered on letting funding run out in March, the nation’s revenue collection agency released a contingency plan to continue full operations during the height of tax filing season. 

The IRS planned to use funds allocated in the 2022 budget reconciliation law to keep its roughly 95,000 employees processing returns and refunds, answering the phones, and pursuing audits. 

Ultimately Congress agreed on a stopgap funding bill to avoid a March shutdown, but much has changed since then.

The new tax and spending law, signed by Trump on July 4 and often referred to as the “one big beautiful bill,” made major changes to the U.S. tax code. 

Additionally, the agency, which processes roughly 180 million income tax returns per year, has lost about a quarter of its workforce since January. Top leadership has also turned over six times in 2025.

Rachel Snyderman, of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said workforce reductions combined with a string of leadership changes could factor into how the agency would operate during a funding lapse.

“It’s really difficult to understand both what the status of the agency would be if the government were to shut down in less than a week, and also the impacts that a prolonged shutdown could have on taxpayer services and taxpayers at large,” said Snyderman, the think tank’s managing director of economic policy.

Do federal employees get back pay after a shutdown ends?

According to the Office of Personnel Management — the executive branch’s chief human resources agency — “after the lapse in appropriations has ended, employees who were furloughed as the result of the lapse will receive retroactive pay for those furlough periods.” 

The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 requires furloughed government employees to receive back pay as a result of a government shutdown. 

That law does not apply to federal contractors, who face uncertainty in getting paid during a shutdown. 

What role does Congress have during a shutdown?

The House and Senate must approve a stopgap spending bill or all dozen full-year appropriations bills to end a shutdown, a feat that requires the support of at least some Democrats to get past the upper chamber’s 60-vote legislative filibuster. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., control their respective chambers’ calendars as well as the floor schedule, so they could keep holding votes on the stopgap bill Democrats have already rejected or try to pass individual bills to alleviate the impacts on certain agencies.   

Neither Johnson nor Thune has yet to suggest bipartisan negotiations with Democratic leaders about funding the government. And while they are open to discussions about extending the enhanced tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, they don’t want that decision connected to the funding debate.  

Democratic leaders have said repeatedly that Republicans shouldn’t expect them to vote for legislation they had no say in drafting, especially with a health care cliff for millions of Americans coming at the end of the year. 

Members of Congress will receive their paychecks regardless of how long a shutdown lasts, but the people who work for them would only receive their salaries after it ends. 

Lawmakers must be paid under language in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution as well as the 27th Amendment, which bars members of Congress from changing their salaries during the current session. 

Lawmakers have discretion to decide which of their staff members continue working during a shutdown and which are furloughed.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Capitol Police, which is tasked with protecting members amid a sharp rise in political violence, said a shutdown “would not affect the security of the Capitol Complex.” 

“Our officers, and the professional staff who perform or support emergency functions, would still report to work,” the spokesperson said. “Employees who are not required for emergency functions would be furloughed until funding is available.”

The sun illuminates the Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, on Sept. 26, 2025, the morning following indictment charges filed against former FBI Director James Comey. His initial court date is scheduled there Oct. 9. (Photo by Alex Kent/Getty Images)

Former FBI Director James Comey proclaimed his innocence of federal obstruction charges and characterized the indictment against him as a consequence of “standing up to Donald Trump” in a video posted to social media, while current Director Kash Patel sought to allay concerns the prosecution was politically motivated.

Meanwhile, Trump in remarks to reporters on Friday morning continued to slam Comey and call for other enemies to be prosecuted as well.

Comey in the video urged a trial to prove he is innocent. “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system,” Comey said in the late Thursday video posted to Instagram. “I’m innocent, so let’s have a trial and keep the faith.”

Comey, whom a federal grand jury in Virginia indicted on two charges Thursday, said he and his family “have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn’t imagine ourselves living any other way.” 

In a Sept. 20 social media post, Trump had publicly pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue charges against Comey — with whom he has long feuded — and other political opponents. 

In the same post, Trump referenced the prosecutions against him to justify an investigation into his opponents. He also withdrew the nomination of a federal prosecutor in Virginia who reportedly resisted instructions to prosecute Comey and replaced him with Lindsey Halligan, an insurance lawyer who had worked for Trump in his personal capacity. 

Trump celebrated the indictment in a Thursday evening post.

“JUSTICE IN AMERICA!” Trump wrote. “One of the worst human beings this Country has ever been exposed to is James Comey, the former Corrupt Head of the FBI.”

Asked by a reporter Friday morning if others would face retribution, Trump said he hoped so.

“They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history,” he said. “What they’ve done is terrible. And so I would, frankly, I hope there are others, because you can’t let this happen to a country.”

Trump motives questioned

Trump’s moves led Democrats and other Trump critics to describe Comey’s prosecution as an act of retribution meant to punish the president’s opponents, violating a longstanding norm separating the president from direct involvement in Justice Department activity.

In an early Friday post to X, Patel sought to counter that narrative, saying professionals handled the investigation.

“Career FBI agents, intel analysts, and staff led the investigation into Comey and others,” he wrote. “They called the balls and strikes and will continue to do so. The wildly false accusations attacking this FBI for the politicization of law enforcement comes from the same bankrupt media that sold the world on Russia Gate- it’s hypocrisy on steroids. Their baseless objections tell us now, more than ever, that we are precisely over the target and will remain on mission until completion.”

Comey’s initial court date is scheduled for Oct. 9 in Alexandria, Virginia, in front of U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff, who was appointed by President Joe Biden. 

His summons were served to Patrick Fitzgerald, a longtime federal prosecutor who is leading Comey’s defense.

The grand jury charged Comey with lying to Congress and obstructing a proceeding of Congress related to his testimony to a Senate committee about whether he authorized FBI agents to leak information about a probe into Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won.

Democrats blast indictment

In a lengthy statement Thursday, Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, called the indictment “blatantly fraudulent and vindictive.”

“The rule of law was supposed to replace vendettas, blood feuds, and mad kings exacting vengeance on their perceived enemies,” Raskin wrote. “This sordid episode is one more savage assault on justice in America.”

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois called on Republicans to oppose Trump’s involvement with the Justice Department.

“The Department of Justice has become a political tool of a vengeful President,” Durbin said in a Friday morning statement. “President Trump wears his corruption like a badge of honor and defies anyone daring to challenge him. The Attorney General willingly complies with every order from the White House. Is there one Republican left in Washington who gives a damn?”

Author James Comey, former FBI director, speaks at the Barnes & Noble Upper West Side on May 19, 2025 in New York City.  (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted Thursday on two federal charges, after President Donald Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, a Trump critic who led an investigation into the president’s first election victory.

A federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted Comey on one charge of making false statements to Congress and another of obstructing a proceeding of Congress. Prosecutors had sought an additional charge of making false statements, but the grand jury returned only one.

“No one is above the law,” Bondi wrote on social media Thursday. “Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

FBI Director Kash Patel on social media referenced the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won. Comey was FBI director at the outset of that investigation.

“Today, your FBI took another step in its promise of full accountability,” Patel wrote. “For far too long, previous corrupt leadership and their enablers weaponized federal law enforcement, damaging once proud institutions and severely eroding public trust. …Nowhere was this politicization of law enforcement more blatant than during the Russiagate hoax, a disgraceful chapter in history we continue to investigate and expose.”

‘We can’t delay any longer’

The Senate confirmed Comey, 93-1, in 2013. He oversaw the agency’s probe of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election. Trump fired him after pressuring him to end the investigation and failing. 

Trump and Comey have publicly sparred since his dismissal. Comey has denied wrongdoing.

Over the weekend, Trump posted on social media urging Bondi to take action against Comey and other political enemies, demanding retribution for his own prosecutions.

“Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, ‘same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done,’” Trump wrote. “We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT.”

Trump was impeached twice during his first term and was indicted in four criminal proceedings following his first term.

On Monday, Lindsey Halligan was sworn in as the new interim top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the Comey indictments were returned. Halligan, who was endorsed by Trump for the post, has represented Trump as his personal lawyer.

Virginia U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, said Halligan’s appointment — after the firing of Erik Siebert, the permanent U.S. attorney in the district, who declined to pursue charges against Comey — showed the prosecution was political.

“I’ve had my differences with James Comey in the past, but I can spot trumped-up charges a mile away,” Kaine wrote in a statement. “Trump said he’d go after him, then fired a superb, ethical prosecutor when he refused to bring frivolous charges against those whom Trump perceived to be his enemies.”

Sarah Baus of Charleston, South Carolina,  holds a sign that reads "Keep TikTok" as she and other content creators Sallye Miley of Jackson, Mississippi, and Callie Goodwin of Columbia, South Carolina, stand outside the U.S. Supreme Court Building as the court hears oral arguments on a TikTok law on Jan. 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

A group of U.S. investors will take over the massive video-sharing platform TikTok, President Donald Trump said Thursday.

Trump signed an executive order certifying a transaction for TikTok complies with a 2024 law requiring the platform’s Chinese parent company, Byte Dance Ltd., divest TikTok or face a ban in the U.S. 

The company is valued at $14 billion in the deal, Vice President JD Vance said. A new U.S.-backed joint venture will hold 80% of the company, while Byte Dance will retain a 20% stake, according to the order. The U.S. parties will control the app’s coveted algorithm that tailors content for users as well as content moderation, according to the order.

The White House did not immediately release a list of U.S. investors, but Trump said Oracle and its CEO, Larry Ellison, would be major players. He also mentioned computer entrepreneur Michael Dell and conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch as others involved.

“It’s run by American investors, American companies,” Trump said. 

Sale needed

The 2024 law responded to concerns about the national security risks of the Chinese government’s perceived involvement with the widely used app. TikTok consistently denied the Chinese Communist Party had any control over the platform.

Without a sale, TikTok faced a ban in the United States. 

The administration’s goal was to keep the platform operating in the U.S., while securing users’ data, Vance said.

“The fundamental thing that we wanted to accomplish is that we wanted to keep Tiktok operating, but we also wanted to make sure that we protected Americans’ data privacy as required by law, both because it’s the right thing to do, but also because it’s a legal requirement of the law that was passed last year by Congress,” he said.

Deal staves off TikTok shutdown

TikTok said in 2023 that it has 150 million monthly users in the country. The order updated that number to 170 million.

The app was shut down for about 24 hours in January, before Trump suspended enforcement of the law on his first day in office. He has extended that delay several times, most recently last week when he reset the deadline for December. 

Thursday’s order extends the pause on enforcement of the law into January.

Lawmakers across the aisle have expressed concern that China’s ruling Communist Party could access TikTok user data and manipulate what type of content users see. 

“This deal really does mean that Americans can use TikTok, but actually use it with more confidence than they had in the past, because their data is going to be secure and it’s not going to be used as a propaganda weapon against our fellow citizens,” Vance said Thursday.

Republicans in Congress want protections

Others, also across party lines, have argued that free-speech principles should mean the government cannot shut down a private speech platform. 

And TikTok has argued that it is a U.S.- and Singapore-based company. The app is not even available in mainland China, where the government exerts considerable control over speech, CEO Shou Zi Chew told the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2023.

A trio of senior Republicans on that committee — Chairman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Gus Bilirakis of Florida and Richard Hudson of North Carolina — said in a Thursday statement the deal was a positive step.

“As the details are finalized, we must ensure this deal protects American users from the influence and surveillance of CCP-aligned groups,” they wrote. “Limiting the influence and involvement of China remains a vital national security interest, and we look forward to seeing a deal that secures America’s interests on the global stage.”

An aerial of the the Pentagon, May 12, 2021. (Photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War.

Just before Trump signed the order in the Oval Office late Friday afternoon, he and Pete Hegseth, the secretary in charge of the department, who stood next to Trump during the signing, said the renaming reflected their intention to return to a more aggressive mindset for the military.

“It’s restoring, as you’ve guided us to, Mr. President, restoring the warrior ethos,” Hegseth said. “The War Department is going to fight decisively, not endless conflicts. It’s going to fight to win, not not to lose. We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.”

The text of the order calls “Secretary of War” a “secondary” title for Hegseth. “The Secretary of Defense is authorized the use of this additional secondary title — the Secretary of War — and may be recognized by that title in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents within the executive branch,” reads the order.

Defense Department history

The Department of War and the Department of the Navy were Cabinet departments from the nation’s founding until 1947, when Congress combined them, along with the Department of the Air Force, into a new National Military Establishment. Congress changed that name to the Defense Department two years later.

Trump said Friday that renaming 76 years ago revealed a “political correctness” in the military that contributed to poorer results on the battlefield. The U.S. has not won a major war since the reorganization, he said.

“We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct or wokey, and we just fight forever and then, we wouldn’t lose, really, we just fight to sort of tie,” he said. “We never wanted to win wars that every one of them we would have won easily with just a couple of little changes or a couple of little edicts.”

Congress to be asked to act

Because the department’s name came from an act of Congress, it’s unclear if Trump has the power to rename it with an executive order. 

The president said Friday he didn’t know if it would be necessary for Congress to be involved, but that he would ask lawmakers to approve the change.

“I don’t know, but we’re going to find out,” he said when asked if Congress would codify the renaming. “But I’m not sure they have to … There’s a question as to whether or not they have to, but we’ll put it before Congress.”

Trump added that the cost of replacing signage and other materials associated with the department would be minimal.

The order says: “Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on the actions required to permanently change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. This recommendation shall include the proposed legislative and executive actions necessary to accomplish this renaming.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chair of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the department who has often clashed with Trump, including on defense spending, said on social media that the name change was not meaningful without greater financial investment. 

“If we call it the Dept. of War, we’d better equip the military to actually prevent and win wars,” the former Senate Republican leader wrote. “Can’t preserve American primacy if we’re unwilling to spend substantially more on our military than Carter or Biden. ‘Peace through strength’ requires investment, not just rebranding.”

Members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

The District of Columbia’s attorney general sued the Trump administration Thursday over the ongoing presence of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital, arguing the deployment amounts to a military occupation that violates the district’s right to self-rule.

President Donald Trump’s deployment of D.C. National Guard troops and units from states outside the district violates laws against using the military for domestic law enforcement and a 1973 federal law allowing the district to govern itself, D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb wrote in a complaint in federal court in the district.

“No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation,” the complaint says, adding that Trump’s “command and control of out-of-state National Guard units when they are in state militia status violates the Constitution and federal law.”

The administration’s actions, which Trump has characterized as an attempt to control crime in the city, “flout the Posse Comitatus Act,” a 19th-century law, and other sections of federal law that “enshrine the nation’s foundational prohibition on the participation of military forces in domestic law enforcement absent the most extreme exigencies, such as an invasion or rebellion,” the complaint said.

“Defendants have established a massive, seemingly indefinite law enforcement operation in the District subject to direct military command. The danger that such an operation poses to individual liberty and democratic rule is self-evident,” the complaint said.

Despite a Tuesday morning ruling from a federal judge in California that called Trump’s use of military personnel for law enforcement in Los Angeles illegal, the president has continued to explore further use of Guard units for what he said is crime prevention in other U.S. cities. 

The suit asks U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to block the administration from any further use of National Guard troops for law enforcement and to block states’ National Guard troops from operating in the district. 

White House spokespeople did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.

Out-of-state Guard deployments questioned

States with a military presence in the district cited in the suit are Louisiana, South Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Carolina.

Those states’ Republican governors all responded to requests from Trump to send Guard troops, according to the complaint.

But Trump did not federalize any of the state National Guard units patrolling the district, meaning they remain legally under the command of their governors and cannot enter another state or the district without a request from the governor or the mayor of Washington, D.C., according to the suit.

Late last month, Schwalb’s office sent letters to the leaders of states that had deployed troops to the district, asking for information “regarding the factual and legal basis for” their decision to send troops.

Only Tennessee responded, and offered only limited information, the complaint said.

While legally still under their governors’ control, the suit says the out-of-state troops are in practice under the control of Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense.

Police-military separation tested by Trump

As president, Trump does control the D.C. National Guard. But he cannot use its members for domestic law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act, the complaint said.

D.C. and out-of-state National Guard troops have been doing just that, the complaint said. 

U.S. Marshals, a federal law enforcement agency, has deputized at least some troops in the district. The troops, who are armed with service weapons, have patrolled district streets, including in residential areas, the complaint said.

“These are law enforcement activities,” the suit said.

While the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that Trump has broad authority to federalize state National Guard troops — even over a governor’s objection — U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled this week that those troops still may not engage in law enforcement activity.

Trump, who has mused about sending troops to other cities including Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans, is testing the legal limits of the Guard’s ability to assist police forces, University of Houston Law Center Professor Christopher Mirasola said in an interview this week before the District of Columbia suit was filed. 

While a bedrock principle of U.S. democracy, the separation of military from law enforcement is governed more by norms than laws, Mirasola said, giving the administration leeway to at least try to stretch what has been considered acceptable.

“The administration is pushing the bounds of every existing legal theory that’s out there for domestic military deployment,” he said. “It’s absolutely corrosive of our democracy, because I think there’s a potential for a real shift in how we think about the military’s role in our domestic affairs.”

California National Guard members stand guard at an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building on June 13, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to quell immigration protests in Los Angeles this summer violated a federal law against military members conducting domestic law enforcement, a federal judge in California ruled early Tuesday.

The ruling from Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer represents an obstacle to any further use of National Guard troops to assist local police in more cities. Following deployments to LA and Washington, D.C., Trump has openly mused about federalizing other state National Guard troops and sending them to major cities like Chicago and Baltimore he says are overwhelmed with crime.

Breyer, whom Democratic President Bill Clinton appointed in 1997, said Trump could not use the National Guard for a wide array of police activities in California. His order goes into effect Sept. 12.

Breyer said the roughly 4,700 Guard members and Marines engaged in police activity in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which he said built on the constitutional framers’ wariness of a centralized military force conducting police work.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit instruction, federal troops executed the laws,” Breyer wrote in a 52-page opinion. “Defendants systematically used armed soldiers (whose identity was often obscured by protective armor) and military vehicles to set up protective perimeters and traffic blockades, engage in crowd control, and otherwise demonstrate a military presence in and around Los Angeles. In short, Defendants violated the Posse Comitatus Act.”

National Guard expanded

The judge expressed concern about Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s statements they wanted to expand the role of National Guard troops for law enforcement.

“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have stated their intention to call National Guard troops into federal service in other cities across the country… thus creating a national police force with the President as its chief,” he wrote.

The issue itself dates much further back in U.S. history, forming part of the basis for the country’s break from the English monarchy, Breyer noted.

“Indeed, resentment of Britain’s use of military troops as a police force was manifested in the Declaration of Independence, where one of the American colonists’ grievances was that the King had ‘affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power,’” he wrote.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who sued to block Trump’s federalization of the state’s National Guard, said the ruling “sided with democracy and the Constitution” and echoed Breyer’s warning about Trump leading a national police force.

“No president is a king — not even Trump — and no president can trample a state’s power to protect its people,” Newsom said. “Trump’s attempt to use federal troops as his personal police force is illegal, authoritarian, and must be stopped in every courtroom across this country.”

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also cheered the decision.

“The White House tried to invade the second largest city in the country,” she wrote. “That’s illegal. Los Angeles will not buckle and we will not break. We will not be divided and we will not be defeated.”

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Return to appeals court likely

Trump is likely to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where he won a victory early in the case.

After Breyer issued a temporary restraining order in June calling on Trump to return control of the state’s National Guard to Newsom, a 9th Circuit panel unanimously blocked it from going into effect, ruling that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed Trump to make the determination that the proper circumstances existed to federalize National Guard troops.

That appeals ruling dealt with Breyer’s finding that Trump likely violated the president’s legal authority to federalize National Guard troops.

The appeal did not consider potential Posse Comitatus Act violations, Breyer said Tuesday. 

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

The economy-wide tariffs President Donald Trump placed on nearly every U.S. trading partner are illegal, a federal appeals court said Friday.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose tariffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a 7-4 decision upholding a May decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade and dealing a blow to Trump’s signature trade policy.

The unsigned majority opinion said the tariffs “exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA’s text.”

However, the judges delayed their ruling from going into effect until October, providing the Trump administration an opportunity to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling also does not affect other tariffs Trump issued under different authorities, including industry- or material-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and aluminum.

In a post to social media, Trump said he would appeal to the Supreme Court, where he predicted victory, and repeated his claim that tariffs were an essential economic tool.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country,” he wrote shortly after the decision was published. “It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong.… If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products.”

Several Democratic states challenged the IEEPA tariffs. Oregon Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman argued on their behalf on July 31. The 11 judges on the appeals court expressed skepticism of both sides during those arguments.

In a statement Friday, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a huge win for Americans.”

“Every court that has reviewed these tariffs has agreed that they are unconstitutional,” he said. “This ruling couldn’t come at a better time as people are walking into their local stores and seeing price increases for school supplies, clothes, and groceries.”

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy rides on a FrontRunner train in Salt Lake City during a media event on Monday, April 7, 2025. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

Three states are at risk of losing some federal transportation funding because they are not enforcing President Donald Trump’s executive order that commercial truck drivers must be proficient in English, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Tuesday.

New Mexico, Washington and California will have 30 days to comply with the order or risk losing funding from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration — among the smaller of the Transportation Department’s agencies — Duffy said, standing behind a lectern with an “America First” banner on it at the department’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

California stands to lose $33 million, Washington could lose $10.5 million and New Mexico would lose $7 million, Duffy said. He urged the states to comply with the executive order, which Trump signed in April and took effect in June, or face increasingly draconian penalties.

“We don’t want to take away money from states,” Duffy said. “But we will take money away and we will take additional steps that get progressively more difficult for these states. There’s a lot of great tools that we have here that we don’t want to use.”

All three states contributed to a Florida crash this month in which three people were killed, Duffy said. The truck driver involved had a commercial license from California and Washington, and had been pulled over for speeding in New Mexico prior to crashing in Florida, Duffy said.

“So this one driver touched all three states,” he said.

The Florida driver, an immigrant from India who did not have permanent legal authority to be in the country, made an illegal U-turn on the Florida Turnpike, according to local reports.

Duffy said the Florida driver did not understand road signs, but did not further specify how his lack of English comprehension led to the crash, which reportedly involved making a U-turn across lanes of traffic. But Duffy repeatedly said the issue was one of safety.

Duffy said that when the Trump executive order went into effect, it received negative publicity.

“There was a lot of press that complained to us that we were being unfair to people, that we were being mean to people,” he said. “And what we said was, ‘No, this is a safety issue.’ Making sure drivers of very heavy, 80,000-pound rigs can speak the language is truly a critical safety issue. And some complained about it.”

Newsom hits back

On social media, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office said the federal government approved a permit for the Florida driver.

“This is rich,” Newsom’s office wrote on X. “The Trump Administration approved the federal work permit for the man who killed 3 people — and now they’re scrambling to shift blame after getting caught. Sean’s nonsense announcement is as big a joke as the Trump Administration itself.”

A DHS spokesperson denied the federal government issued the driver a work permit and blamed Newsom.

“These innocent people were killed in Florida because Gavin Newsom’s California Department of Motor Vehicles issued an illegal alien a Commercial Driver’s License—this state of governance is asinine,” a spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom.

Newsom has increasingly over the past few months used his social media channels to mock Trump. 

Washington State Patrol spokesman Chris Loftis wrote in an email that the agency was “reviewing the matter with our state transportation partners” and would soon have a more detailed response.

A spokesperson for Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, said he had not received Duffy’s letter. 

“We will review it when we receive it and carefully evaluate next steps,” the spokesperson, Brionna Aho, said. 

That state’s Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat, made a defiant statement last week about complying with the Trump administration’s demands on immigration enforcement.

“Washington State will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations,” he wrote to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.

He has amplified that message several times since.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation deferred a request for comment to the state’s Department of Public Safety, which did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Investigating testing

Duffy said he was puzzled by commercial drivers who were able to pass a skills test without understanding English, and said the department was investigating that issue.

“This is something we’re looking at and working on when someone, an individual, comes in to take their test to become a commercial driver, and then they do a skills test… at that point, it would be clear that this driver doesn’t understand all the road signs and doesn’t speak the language, but miraculously, they’re passing the skills test,” he said. “I think any common-sense analysis would say, well, that doesn’t make sense.”

The federal department would be looking at whether the skills tests are being correctly administered and whether there is “some gaming of the system that we have to address.”

A member of the National Guard stands alongside a military vehicle parked in front of Union Station, near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday directing state National Guard units to be ready to assist local, state and federal law enforcement, a potential step toward a dramatic expansion of Trump’s use of military personnel for domestic policing.

The order calls for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to ensure troops in the National Guard of every state “are resourced, trained, organized, and available to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in quelling civil disturbances and ensuring the public safety” and directs the secretary to establish “a standing National Guard quick reaction force” for “nationwide deployment.”

Hegseth will also work with adjutant generals to decide a number of each state’s Guard “to be reasonably available for rapid mobilization for such purposes,” the order said.

State National Guard units are generally controlled by the state’s governor, except in emergencies. 

In comments in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said the Guard deployment could rapidly “solve” crime in some major cities, but left doubt about his desire to overrule governors who do not want Guard troops in their cities.

Trump mobilized the District of Columbia National Guard, which he is able to do because the district is not a state, to assist local law enforcement this month. Guard troops from West Virginia, Louisiana, Ohio, Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina also have sent troops to the nation’s capital.

Free DC, a group that advocates for district self-governance, issued a lengthy statement calling the move dictatorial. 

“Trump is laying the groundwork to quell all public dissent to his agenda. If he is successful, it would spell the end of American democracy,” the group said. “We refuse to allow that to happen.”

Chicago next?

Following the deployment to Washington, D.C., Trump said “Chicago should be next.”

Democratic governors, such as Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker, should request National Guard assistance, Trump said. But if they would not, Trump said he may not send troops.

Asked if he would send troops into cities over governors’ objections, Trump complained that governors could be ungrateful for federal deployment.

“We may wait,” he continued. “We may or may not. We may just go in and do it, which is probably what we should do. The problem is it’s not nice when you go in and do it, and somebody else is standing there saying, as we give great results, say, ‘Well, we don’t want the military.’”

Pritzker slammed Trump on social media and said he would not accept Trump sending troops to his state’s largest city.

“I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again and again: We don’t have kings or wannabe dictators in America, and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one,” he posted with a link to Trump’s comments.

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits federal military forces from engaging in domestic law enforcement. 

‘I’m not a dictator’

Trump dismissed criticism that deploying the military for law enforcement purposes is antidemocratic, saying that most people agree with extreme measures to crack down on urban crime.

“They say, ‘We don’t need ‘em. Freedom, freedom. He’s a dictator, he’s a dictator,’” Trump said of his critics. “A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we like a dictator.’ I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator. I’m a man with great common sense and a smart person. And when I see what’s happening to our cities, and then you send in troops, instead of being praised, they’re saying, ‘You’re trying to take over the republic.’ These people are sick.”

Trump earlier this summer called up the California National Guard to quell protests over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, setting the stage for his actions in the district. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has challenged the president’s authority in a case that is still in court.

Trump over the weekend also fought with Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, also a Democrat, on social media and threatened to send in troops to Baltimore.

President Donald Trump speaks to the media as, left to right, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon look on after signing executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on April 23, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A New York state appeals court on Thursday overturned as overly punitive a nearly $500 million civil penalty against President Donald Trump, but left in place a finding of fraud based on records that inflated the value of Trump’s business holdings.

A five-judge panel of the New York Appellate Division for the First Department disagreed over aspects of the case and the trial court’s ruling that awarded $465 million to the state after finding Trump liable for fraud, issuing three opinions that spanned more than 300 pages.

Two judges concluded that the finding of liability against Trump was correct, two said errors in the trial court meant a new trial should be held, and one judge said the case was wrongly decided.

Still, all five judges agreed the penalty was excessive, and the two judges who’d called for a retrial joined the two upholding the decision “for the sole purpose of ensuring finality, thereby affording the parties a path for appeal” to the state’s highest court, according to the decision.

Loan applications

A New York state court found last year that Trump committed financial fraud by submitting loan applications that exaggerated the value of some of his real estate assets, which resulted in more favorable loan terms from banks.

Writing the determinative opinion Thursday, Appeals Justice Peter Moulton said New York Attorney General Letitia James was within her power to sue over the statements, even though they were between private parties and did not involve the state.

The state has an interest in upholding “market hygiene” and discouraging fraudulent behavior, he wrote. But the fine went too far, he said.

“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Moulton wrote.

The amendment says that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Trump celebrates

One judge, Justice David Friedman, said he would have thrown out the case entirely, arguing that James overstepped her authority by bringing the civil case because no one was actually harmed. Most of the valuations were not fraudulently high and even if they were, would have resulted in the same favorable terms Trump received, Friedman wrote.

“All parties to these private transactions profited handsomely from the deals, from which there was no discernable negative effect on the public interest,” he wrote. “This action does not serve to protect the consuming public… This action does not protect the integrity or operation of the public securities market…, given that defendants do not issue publicly traded securities.”

In a post to his social media site, Truth Social, Trump exaggerated the court’s finding, saying it cleared him of wrongdoing.

“TOTAL VICTORY in the FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James Case!” Trump posted. “I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State… The amount, including Interest and Penalties, was over $550 Million Dollars. It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before.”

In a statement, James pledged to appeal the opinion, while highlighting that the appeals court had affirmed the finding of fraud.

“The First Department today affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company and two of his children are liable for fraud,” she wrote. “It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit.”

Thursday’s order does not affect Trump’s May 2024 criminal conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Aug. 18, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European allies at the White House Monday celebrated Russian President Vladimir Putin’s concession of NATO-like security protections for Ukraine as part of a future peace deal between the two countries.

In a social media post on Monday night, Trump said he called Putin after the meetings were over and began arrangements for a meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy, at a location to be determined. After that meeting, all three would meet, Trump said.

At the White House earlier, Zelenskyy and officials from Western Europe called Putin’s acceptance of security guarantees for Ukraine protecting the nation against another attack a major step toward ending the three-year-old war. 

Dating to before the war, one point of tension between Ukraine and Russia has been Ukraine’s increasingly warm relationship with the West, with potential membership in NATO a major issue for Putin.

But Trump said Putin accepted something like it during the pair’s meeting in Alaska last week.

“The Alaska summit reinforced my belief that, while difficult, peace is within reach,” Trump said before a group meeting in the White House’s East Room. “In a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine.”

Trump and Zelenskyy met one-on-one in the Oval Office before a handful of European leaders joined them for a multilateral meeting in the East Room.

During introductions for the multilateral meeting, Zelenskyy said it had been his best meeting with Trump to date, and he was “very happy” with Trump about the possibility of winning security guarantees.

“We spoke about it, and we will speak more about security guarantees,” he said. “This is very important that (the) United States gives such (a) strong signal and is ready for security guarantees.”

The other attendees Monday were NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.

‘Article 5-like’

Several European allies highlighted the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine, which they compared to the NATO charter’s Article 5 that compels every member state to defend any other member that has been attacked.

“It’s very good to hear that we’re working on the security guarantees,” von der Leyen said. “Article 5-like security guarantees: so important.”

The next step in the peace process would be to set up direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy, possibly also to include Trump.

Trump said he had spoken to Putin “indirectly” on Monday and that he planned to phone the Russian president following the meeting with European leaders.

Ceasefire needed?

Before meeting with Putin, Trump had supported a ceasefire as a path toward a permanent end to the war, though he came out of the Alaska summit closer to Putin’s position that a ceasefire was not necessary before a final peace agreement.

Monday, he said he would like a ceasefire to immediately end violence, but that it was not strictly necessary from a diplomatic point of view. The United States had helped negotiate the ends of other conflicts without a temporary ceasefire in place, he said.

“All of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace,” he said. “I don’t know that it’s necessary.”

Germany’s Merz pushed back, saying a ceasefire should be a precondition for a Putin-Zelenskyy meeting.

“I can’t imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire,” Merz said. “So let’s work on that, and let’s try to put pressure on Russia, because the credibility of these efforts we are undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations.”

Smoother meeting with Zelenskyy in suit

At the open-press portion of Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy, the two appeared on friendlier terms than they had during the Ukrainian leader’s last Oval Office visit in February, when Trump and Vice President JD Vance complained Zelenskyy was not appreciative enough of U.S. aid.

As the February meeting turned heated, Trump told Zelenskyy he had “no cards” to fight Russia on his own or make demands of the United States.

But Monday, Trump resisted an option to return to that argument, brushing off a reporter’s question about which country had “better cards.”

And Zelesnkyy also wore an all-black suit Monday after a writer at a pro-Trump media outlet questioned him at the February meeting about wearing military-style attire.

“You look fabulous in that suit,” the same writer said Monday.

“I said the same thing,” Trump echoed.

A sign in an Indianapolis store shown on Aug. 1, 2023, says SNAP benefits are accepted. A new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office projects 2.4 million fewer people per month will participate in the program under Republicans’ tax cut and spending law. (Photo by Getty Images)

About 10 million people, mostly Medicaid recipients, will lose access to health insurance and 2.4 million fewer people per month will participate in a federal food aid program under Republicans’ massive tax cut and spending law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Monday.

Median-income U.S. households will see a small overall gain in resources from President Donald Trump and the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law, CBO said.

But major changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, mean Americans at the bottom of the income distribution will see a net loss of benefits, CBO said.

The law, which both chambers of Congress passed without any Democratic votes and Trump signed July 4, significantly narrows eligibility for Medicaid and SNAP.

Those changes, even combined with federal tax cuts, will lead to a roughly 3% drop in resources over the next nine years for households in the bottom tenth of earners, the CBO analysis said.

“The changes in resources will not be evenly distributed among households,” the congressional scorekeeper said. “The agency estimates that, in general, resources will decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources will increase for households in the middle and toward the top of the income distribution.”

The projection shows households in the bottom two-tenths of the income distribution would see a net loss of resources.

Households in the middle 20% of the income distribution would receive, on average, between $800 and $1,200 more per year, which would account for 0.8% to 1% of their income.

At the top of the income distribution, households in the top tenth would see, on average, $13,600 more annually, about 2.7% of their projected income, from 2026 to 2034, the CBO said.

But the lowest tenth of households by income would see a drop of about $1,200 per year, which accounts for 3% of that group’s projected income, the CBO said.

Millions to lose benefits

Roughly 10 million people will lose access to health insurance by 2034, the CBO projected. Most of that group, 7.5 million, would lose Medicaid benefits.

A single section of the law creating new work requirements for Medicaid recipients would result in 5.6 million people losing access to care, the CBO said.

The law also creates new work requirements for SNAP participants and mandates that at least some states pay for a portion of the benefits. States had never been required to cover any share of the cost of SNAP benefits.

The changes to work requirements will result in reduced participation in the program by about 2.4 million people, the CBO said in another analysis published Monday.

The changes to state cost-share in SNAP will save the federal government about $41 billion from 2026 to 2034, CBO said. The agency expects states to pick up most, $35 billion, of that spending.

But the new requirements for states would still likely lead to 300,000 people fewer accessing benefits monthly. The report considered state officials would choose from policy responses including cutting benefits, reducing eligibility or leaving the program altogether in response to the new cost-share.

‘Stealing from working families’

In a press release, a quartet of Democratic leaders in Congress highlighted the regressive impact the CBO projected.

“Prices keep rising and American families are struggling,” House Budget Committee ranking Democrat Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania said. “So what are President Trump’s Republicans doing to help? They passed a law that will make things worse by stealing from working families to give billionaires a tax break.”

“It is truly unfathomable that Trump and Republicans in Congress are championing a bill that gives the top 10 percent $13,600 more per year – while the least affluent 10 percent will lose $1,200 per year,” Senate Budget ranking Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon said. “This is families lose, and billionaires win.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, made similar statements in the release.

President Donald Trump announces a "crime emergency" in Washington, D.C., during a White House press conference on Aug. 11, 2025. Standing behind Trump are, from left to right, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro. (Image via White House livestream)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump asserted control Monday of the District of Columbia police force and mobilized 800 National Guard troops in the nation’s capital under what he declared a “crime emergency.”

Trump took the step despite a three-decade low in violent crime in Washington, D.C., while warning he may pursue similar action in other Democratic-led cities that he sees as having “totally out of control” crime.

Trump at a press conference said that he hopes other Democratic-led cities are watching because Monday’s actions in the district are just the beginning.

“We’re starting very strongly with D.C.,” Trump said.

The president placed the Metropolitan Police Department of roughly 3,400 officers under federal control, citing the district’s Home Rule Act that allows for the federal takeover until an emergency is declared over, or 30 days after the declaration. Congress can also authorize the extension.

“We’re going to take our capital back,” Trump said.

The mayor of the district, Muriel Bowser, called Monday’s action “unsettling and unprecedented.” She added that she was not informed by the president that the district’s police force would be taken over.

DOGE staffer hurt

The escalation of federal control came after a former U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, official was injured in an attempted carjacking incident around 3 a.m. Eastern near the district neighborhood of Logan Circle. Two Maryland teenagers were arrested on charges of unarmed carjacking in connection with the incident.

The president said he is prepared to send in more National Guard “if needed,” and that he will handle the city the same way he has handled immigration at the southern border. The Trump administration has been carrying out a campaign of mass deportations.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during the press conference that members of the National Guard will be “flowing into” the district sometime this week.

Local officials in the district protested Trump’s move. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, an elected official, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the Trump administration’s “actions are unprecedented, unnecessary, and unlawful.”

“There is no crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Violent crime in DC reached historic 30-year lows last year, and is down another 26% so far this year,” Schwalb said.

“We are considering all of our options and will do what is necessary to protect the rights and safety of District residents,” he continued.

Trump at the press conference said that he’s also directed officials to clear out encampments of homeless people in the district, but did not detail where those people would be moved.

Hundreds of federal law enforcement officers, representing agencies from the Drug Enforcement Agency to the Interior Department, were deployed across the city Saturday and Sunday.

Los Angeles and beyond

The president’s crackdown in the district occurred after a federal appeals court this summer temporarily approved Trump’s move to take control of the California National Guard from Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom for the purpose of quelling protests over the administration’s aggressive immigration raids.

The president Monday slammed several major Democratic cities – Baltimore, Chicago, New York City and Oakland – and inaccurately claimed they had the highest murder rates. 

Trump said that he hopes other cities are “watching us today.”

“Maybe they’ll self clean up and maybe they’ll self do this and get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,” the president said.

Trump pointed at Chicago, criticizing Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker.

“I understand he wants to be president,” Trump said of Pritzker, before taking a shot at the governor’s personal appearance. “I noticed he lost a little weight so maybe he has a chance.”

Pritzker is hosting Texas Democrats who left the state to prevent the state legislature from having a quorum after Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session in order to redistrict the state to give more seats to Republicans in Congress.

GOP applauds 

The top Republican on the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over the district, praised Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard and take over the police department.

“President Trump is rightly using executive power to take bold and necessary action to crack down on crime and restore law and order in Washington, D.C.,” Rep. James Comer, Republican of Kentucky, said in a statement.

Comer added that the committee next month will hold a hearing with Schwalb, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Mayor Muriel Bowser.

While state governors have control over their National Guards, the president has control over the National Guard members in the district. The National Guard does not have arresting authority, under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which generally bars the use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.

During Trump’s first term, he deployed roughly 5,000 National Guard on Black Lives Matter protesters in the district after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.

And despite requests from congressional leaders, Trump notably delayed activating National Guard members during the 2021 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, when the president’s supporters tried to subvert the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

In one of Trump’s first actions on his inauguration day in January, he pardoned hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters who were charged by the Department of Justice for their involvement in the insurrection.

Putin meeting

In a question-and-answer session after announcing the National Guard deployment, Trump told reporters he hoped his meeting this week with Russian President Vladimir Putin would help put that country on a path to peace with Ukraine, which he said would involve each country ceding some territory to the other.

Trump described the Friday summit in Alaska — Putin’s first visit to the U.S. in a decade — as a “feel-out meeting.”

Asked if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was invited to the summit, Trump said he was “not part of it.” Any framework for peace discussed between Trump and Putin would be relayed to Zelenskyy, he said.

An end to the war would have to come from direct talks between Putin and Zelenskyy, which may or may not ultimately involve the U.S., he said.

“I’m going to put the two of them in a room, and I’ll be there or I won’t be there, and I think it’ll get solved,” he said of Putin and Zelenskyy.

Trump said he was “a little disappointed” that Zelenskyy did not immediately agree to cede territory to Russia, which invaded his country in February 2022. Zelenskyy has repeatedly said giving land to Russia was a nonstarter, including after Trump suggested it over the weekend.

“Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelenskyy said in a video address Saturday, according to The New York Times.

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, left, and Texas Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, right, listen as Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu speaks to reporters during a press conference at the DuPage County Democratic Party headquarters on Aug. 3, 2025 in Carol Stream, Illinois. Wu was with a group of Democratic Texas lawmakers who left the state so a quorum could not be reached during a special session called to redistrict the state. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Fueled by President Donald Trump’s aims to bolster the U.S. House’s razor-thin GOP majority in the 2026 midterm elections, a rare mid-decade redistricting fight in Texas grew increasingly bitter in recent days and engulfed other states.

As Democratic legislators in the Lone Star State fled to block a new congressional map, a handful of both blue and red states eyed their own redistricting plans, lawsuits cropped up and members of Congress pledged bills to curb redistricting wars.

While Texas is the only state that has so far taken formal action to redraw its U.S. House lines, a full-blown arms race could be imminent.

Here’s a breakdown on the redistricting battle as the drama unfolds:

How did all of this interest in redistricting kick off?

Republicans in Texas drew a new congressional map at the urging of Trump that could give the GOP five crucial new congressional seats in 2026.

Midterm elections typically lead to the loss of congressional seats for a president’s party. 

Meanwhile, the GOP currently holds 219 seats in the House, while Democrats hold 212 spots, with four vacancies. That extremely narrow majority has created immense challenges for U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, as he tries to enact Trump’s sweeping agenda and cater to the president’s demands as well as factions in the GOP conference.

Though congressional districts are typically redrawn every decade following each U.S. Census, the move, particularly in Texas, is not unprecedented and is allowed.

What’s going on in Texas?

Texas Republicans unveiled a draft of the new congressional map in late July, which looks to reshape and flip major metro areas’ districts held by Democrats.

According to The Texas Tribune, the Department of Justice sent Texas’ leaders a letter in early July that said four of its districts violate the U.S. Constitution. The proposed map would dismantle those districts, per the Tribune.

More than 50 of Texas’ Democratic legislators left the state to try to block the legislature from adopting the new map, according to the Tribune.

This move has drawn the ire of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who went so far as to file a lawsuit asking to remove the Texas House Democratic Caucus chair, state Rep. Gene Wu, after Wu left the state.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also said Tuesday that he will pursue a court ruling that declares the seats vacant for the House Democrats who do not return by Friday.

Texas GOP U.S. Sen. John Cornyn has also called on the FBI “to take any appropriate steps to aid in Texas state law enforcement efforts to locate or arrest potential lawbreakers who have fled the state.” Trump on Tuesday, asked by a reporter if the FBI should “get involved,” said, “Well, they may have to.”

How is California reacting?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been among the most vocal Democratic governors in suggesting retaliating against Texas Republicans by redrawing his populous blue state’s own lines before the 2026 elections.

State laws in California and other Democratic states make mid-decade redistricting tougher than it is in Texas.

While pro-democracy groups have praised California’s nonpartisan commission as the “gold standard” of independent redistricting, Newsom has indicated he would ask state lawmakers to temporarily scrap it to join the arms race he says Trump started in Texas.

At a Monday press conference, Newsom justified his exploration of mid-decade redistricting in the Golden State by describing Trump’s recent and historic record as anti-democratic.

“These folks don’t play by the rules,” Newsom said. “If they can’t win playing the game with the existing set of rules, they’ll change the rules. That’s what Donald Trump has done … Here is someone who tried to break this country, tried to light democracy on fire on Jan. 6. He recognizes he’s going to lose in the midterms.”

What other states are looking at potentially redistricting?

Vice President JD Vance is slated to visit Indiana Thursday in an attempt to push redistricting, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.

Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Braun said that as of now, no commitments have been made, when asked about redistricting efforts in the Hoosier State, per the Capital Chronicle.

Leaders of large Democratic states, in addition to California, are considering their own redistricting in response to Texas.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote in an op-ed published in the Houston Chronicle Tuesday that she would “not sit on the sidelines” and watch “Republicans dismantle democracy.”

“What Texas is doing isn’t a clever strategy, it’s political arson — torching our democracy to cling to power,” Hochul wrote. “The only viable recourse is to fight fire with fire.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker appeared alongside Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin and a group of exiled Texas Democratic lawmakers at a news conference Tuesday. Pritzker said it was “possible” the state would pursue redistricting, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Other Democratic governors — even including Laura Kelly of ruby-red Kansas — raised the prospect during a Democratic Governors Association meeting in Wisconsin last week of pursuing mid-decade redistricting if Texas follows through.

Republican states are also considering jumping in the fray.

Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, told a news radio station last week that it was “likely” lawmakers would convene in a special session to redraw district lines after pressure from Trump.

And Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican who holds the most competitive of Nebraska’s three U.S. House seats but plans to step down, told the Nebraska Examiner that Republicans in the state were having conversations about potential redistricting.

What downside do some see?

An arms race to shorten the cycle for redrawing congressional lines could come at a cost for efforts to overhaul the redistricting process.

Common Cause, a national pro-democracy group that advocates for election reforms including nonpartisan redistricting, urged Democrats not to respond to Texas.

A redistricting arms race would only result in “rigged elections across America,” Emily Eby French, the policy director for Common Cause Texas, said on a press call last week. It was wrong for Republicans to put “a thumb on the scale” through redistricting, she said, but also wrong for Democrats to do the same.

“The real solution is for Democrats to help us lift the Republican thumb off of the Texas scale and every other scale in America until we reach free and fair elections for everyone.”

Are party leaders egging this on?

Trump, whose urging appeared to prompt Texas Republicans to action, has consistently pushed lawmakers in that state to reinforce the GOP advantage there.

Tuesday, he said on CNBC that Republicans were “entitled” to five more House seats in Texas.

Martin, the DNC chair, responded in Illinois.

“No party is entitled to any district,” he said. “We have to go out and earn the votes.”

Still, Martin advised Democrats in blue states to do the opposite by responding in kind to Texas Republicans.

In an interview with States Newsroom last week, Martin suggested Democratic states drop any commitment to nonpartisan redistricting in response to Texas.

“We’re not here to tie one of our hands behind our back,” he said. “We can’t be the only party that’s playing by the rules.”

How is Congress reacting?

At least two GOP House lawmakers — representing blue states looking at retaliatory redistricting efforts against Trump — are taking it upon themselves to introduce bills in Congress that bar these initiatives.

GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California introduced a bill in the House this week that would ban mid-decade redistricting across the country.

Kiley said Newsom “is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,” in a statement earlier this week.

“Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”

Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, also said he plans to introduce legislation to prohibit “partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting.”

The New York Republican told CNN on Tuesday that “this is fundamentally why Congress is broken,” adding that “you do not have competitive districts and so, most members are focused on primaries and not actually engaging in a general election.” 

The James H. Shannon Building (Building One) on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland. (Photo by Lydia Polimeni,/National Institutes of Health)

President Donald Trump’s freeze on $8 billion of congressionally appropriated funding to the National Institutes of Health was illegal, the Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday.

Orders Trump signed in the early days of his return to office and related administration directives violated the Impoundment Control Act by failing to spend money that Congress, which holds the power of the purse under the Constitution, had approved, the GAO report said.

Roughly 1,800 grants for health research were held up by the administration, the report said.

Trump’s Inauguration Day order ceased funding for a variety of health research grants that related to diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender issues or environmental harms. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo directing its agencies, including NIH, to cease publishing notices in the Federal Register of meetings of grant review boards.

GAO, an independent investigatory agency that reports to Congress, called those meetings “a key step in NIH’s grant review process.” HHS has since restarted notices of the meetings.

From February to June, the NIH released $8 billion less than it obligated in the past two years, representing a drop-off of more than one-third, according to the GAO. The gap between 2025 spending and that of previous years continued to grow, GAO said, with NIH obligating a lower amount of grant funding each month.

Illegal impoundment

The failure to fund grant awards violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Constitution, which certified Congress as the branch of government responsible for funding decisions, said GAO.

If a law is passed by Congress and signed by a president, it must be carried out by the executive branch, the watchdog said.

“The President must ‘faithfully execute’ the law as Congress enacts it,” the report said. “Once enacted, an appropriation is a law like any other, and the President must implement it by ensuring that appropriated funds are obligated and expended prudently during their period of availability unless and until Congress enacts another law providing otherwise. … The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.”

There are specific circumstances that allow for a funding freeze — a rescissions law, such as the one Congress passed last month to defund public broadcasters and foreign aid, is one example — but they did not apply to this case, the GAO said.

Delays may be permissible to allow a new presidential administration to ensure grants are awarded based on its priorities. But a complete block on funding is illegal, the GAO said. There is no evidence that other grant awards — or any other type of funding at HHS — took the place of the $8 billion in unspent grant money, the report said.

“While it can be argued that NIH reviewed grants to ensure that funds were spent in alignment with the priorities of the new administration, NIH did not simply delay the planned obligations of the funds,” the GAO said. “Rather, NIH eliminated obligations entirely by terminating grants it had already awarded.”

GAO can sue the executive branch based on its findings. The report noted there is already litigation from other parties over the frozen grants.

Dems call for reinstatement

Congressional Democrats responded to the report by harshly criticizing Trump and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and calling for the funds’ release.

“This is simple – Congress passed and the President signed into law investments in NIH research to help find cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, diabetes, mental health issues, and maternal mortality,” U.S. House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said in a statement. “But now, GAO has determined that President Trump and OMB Director Vought illegally withheld billions in funding for research on diseases affecting millions of American families—research that brings hope to countless people suffering.”

Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement the funding freeze “dangerously set back” efforts to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases.

“Today’s decision affirms what we’ve known for months: President Trump is illegally blocking funding for medical research and shredding the hopes of patients across the country who are counting on NIH-backed research to propel new treatments and cures that could save their lives,” Murray said. “It is critical President Trump reverse course, stop decimating the NIH, and get every last bit of this funding out.”

An HHS spokesperson deferred a request for comment Tuesday to OMB.

An agency investigated by the GAO is generally given a draft of the watchdog’s findings and asked to respond.

The HHS response, obtained by States Newsroom, said grant reviews were back on schedule, though it did not address grant obligations.

“Despite the short delay in scheduling and holding peer review and advisory council meetings to allow for the administration transition, NIH has been on pace with its reviewing grant applications and holding meetings and has caught up from the pause when compared to prior years,” the response said.

GAO’s summary of the HHS response said the department had restarted meetings of grant review boards and provided some “factual information” but did not justify the lack of grant spending or provide current status of payments for previously approved grants. 

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin stands outside Woodlawn Coffee and Pastry in Portland, Oregon, on July 31, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

PORTLAND, Oregon — Democrats must be more aggressive organizers and campaigners to win back the working-class coalition they have increasingly lost to President Donald Trump, according to Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin.

Too often in recent decades, the party has ceded ground to Republicans, Martin told States Newsroom in a one-on-one July 31 interview during a stop on a visit to community groups, activists and fundraisers in Oregon.

Since 2009, the national party’s infrastructure has deteriorated, allowing the GOP to build organizational advantages across the country, define Democratic candidates before they can define themselves and put too many states out of reach, he said.

In sometimes more pugnacious terms than might be expected from someone with Martin’s clean-cut corporate look and Midwestern demeanor, he said his task as party leader is to reverse that trend.

“We’re not here to tie one of our hands behind our back,” Martin said. “In the past, I think our party would bring a pencil to a knife fight. We’re going to bring a gun to a knife fight.”

The knife-fight analogy was an answer to a question about how Democrats should respond to Texas Republicans redrawing congressional district lines as the GOP struggles to keep its slim U.S. House majority, but it could apply to other aspects of Martin’s vision for the party.

Martin, whom Democrats elected in February to lead them for the next four years, said Democrats should never turn off their messaging and campaigning apparatus, and work to build party infrastructure in regions, states and cities where they have not competed in decades.

Over 45 minutes, he invoked the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, a liberal whose populist approach to campaigning and governing practically sanctified him among Democrats in Martin’s native Minnesota, several times and indicated Wellstone would be an effective model for Democrats in 2024 and beyond.

“I think what the American people are looking for is people who are going to stand up and fight for what they believe in,” he said. “People didn’t always agree with Paul Wellstone all the time, but they still voted for him. They said … ‘He’s not one of these finger-in-the-wind politicians. He’s standing up for what he believes, and I’m going to give him credit for it even if I don’t agree with him on a particular issue.’ They want authenticity.”

Texas redistricting

The day after Texas Republicans released a map of proposed new congressional districts in a rare mid-decade redistricting effort that could net them five more U.S. House seats, Martin implied he would support blue-state leaders who retaliated with their own maps to give Democrats an advantage — even as he disparaged the move by Republicans.

He called the redistricting effort “a craven power grab” by Trump and Republicans, accusing them of “trying to rig the system.”

“If they can’t win on their own merits, they’re going to cheat and steal,” he said. “That’s essentially what they’re doing right now.”

But, even as Martin condemned those moves, he said Democrats should feel empowered to respond in kind. “We can’t be the only party that’s playing by the rules,” he said.

Leading Democrats in California, New York and Illinois have openly explored the possibility of emergency redistricting if the proposed Texas map becomes final, even though the issue has raised the ire of some usual allies who support less partisan election infrastructure.

The national party would be “very involved” in challenging the Texas map, as well as working with governors seeking to change their own maps, Martin said.

Never stop campaigning

Martin brought up, unprompted, some of the challenges his party faces.

Twice as many voters had an unfavorable view of Democrats as a favorable one in a July Wall Street Journal survey that showed the party with only 33% of support.

Voters now see Republicans as the party of working-class voters and Democrats as representatives of the elite, Martin said. In the 2024 election, the party did worse with nearly every slice of the electorate other than college-educated voters and wealthy voters.

Martin noted Trump made historic inroads with some traditional Democratic constituencies, earning a higher share of Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, young and working-class voters in 2024 than any Republican candidate in years.

That result was part of an ongoing trend going back 20 years, Martin said, and represents an existential threat to the Democratic party.

“We lost ground with every part of our coalition,” he said. “If we continue to lose ground with working people in this country, with all of the other parts of our coalition, we’re toast. We’ve got to reverse course.”

Democrats’ slide with those constituencies is in part “a branding issue,” permitted by the party’s willingness to let Trump and other Republicans’ campaigning in off-years go unanswered and a lack of a positive message articulated to voters, said Martin.

“We didn’t start our campaign until the spring of 2024 — way too late,” he said. “I would argue that they had already defined us before we ever had a chance to define ourselves. That can never happen again. Never, ever, ever. So that means we have to be campaigning all the time, year-round. Year-round organizing, year-round communications. We never stop talking to voters. We never stop campaigning.”

‘We all do better’

That campaigning should be focused on a positive view of what Democrats offer voters and include an appeal to “the vast majority of Americans, not just the people at the top.”

“We have to fix our brand,” Martin said. “We have to give people a sense that we’re fighting for them. We have to stand up and fight with everything we have right now, not just against Donald Trump, but for something. We have to give people a positive vision of what their lives would look like with Democrats in charge.”

Democrats’ message should be about a rising tide lifting all boats, Martin said, quoting Wellstone, for whom Martin, 52, interned at the beginning of his career and still considers an inspiration.

“Remember Paul’s famous slogan: ‘We all do better when we all do better,’” he said. “That should be the slogan of the Democratic Party.”

He praised Zohran Mamdani, the winner of New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, for running an energetic campaign that was focused on showing how he could improve New Yorkers’ lives.

That should include a policy focus on affordability, health care access and a government that works for people beyond the elite.

But even as Martin articulated the positive message he said Democrats should focus on, he slipped into slamming Trump and Republicans, saying the tax and spending cuts law Trump signed last month would take health care away from people. The law was among the least popular in decades, he noted.

There was room for both a positive campaigning and highlighting Republicans’ unpopularity when appropriate, said Martin.

“It’s a both/and,” he said. “Let’s tell folks what is happening and let’s tell folks what Democrats are going to do.”

Senate in reach?

The unpopularity of Republicans’ law, which is projected to cut more than $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, food stamps and other programs while lowering taxes on high earners, gives Democrats an opening in a difficult cycle for U.S. Senate races, Martin said.

Democrats — who control 47 seats, including two independents, compared to 53 for Republicans, who also hold a tie-breaking vote in Vice President JD Vance — need to net four additional seats in next year’s elections to win the majority in the chamber, which Martin said was possible under the right circumstances.

That view is out of step with current projections, which show Democratic seats in Georgia and Michigan at least as likely to flip as Republican seats in North Carolina and Maine. Democrats would have to win all four of those most competitive races, plus two that would be further stretches, to gain a majority.

Beyond North Carolina and Maine, Martin said the map to Democrats’ regaining the Senate would go through traditionally red states.

Iowa, where incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst could be vulnerable, and Alaska, where former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola would be a strong challenger to incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, could be Democrats’ 50th and 51st Senate seats, he said.

Or, if right-wing primary challengers defeat more establishment incumbents in Louisiana and Texas, those states could turn into pickup opportunities, he said — though Trump won both states easily, by more than 20 points in the former.

Growing the party, growing the map

To win next year and beyond, Democrats must unify, he said.

Elements of the party that would impose purity tests on others — whether that’s progressives excluding moderates or vice versa — make that harder, he said.

“I believe you win elections by addition, not subtraction,” he said. “You win by bringing in people, new voices, and growing your coalition.”

Martin also wants to grow the map and compete across the country, using a strategy pioneered by former DNC Chair Howard Dean, who was chair from 2005 to 2009.

When President Barack Obama’s political team took control of the party apparatus in 2009, it “completely eviscerated” the state party infrastructure Dean had built, Martin said.

Earlier this year, he announced an initiative to provide at least $1 million a month to all state parties. The goal is to expand the number of competitive states and districts, reversing a trend that has seen fewer presidential contests focused on fewer states.

“There’s no such thing as a perpetual red state or a perpetual blue state,” he said. Turning states from Republican strongholds to competitive, or from competitive to favoring Democrats — or even to maintain Democratic strength — takes investment of money and energy, he said.

“It’s critical, and it’s something I firmly believe in,” he said. I’ve seen for so many years our national party and other party committees not making the investments to actually call themselves a national party,” he said. “You can’t be a national party if you’re just competing in seven states.”

U.S. Deputy Agriculture Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden testifies before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee on July 30, 2025. (Photo via committee livestream)

Members of both parties on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee chastised a U.S. Department of Agriculture official Wednesday for not consulting Congress before proposing to shift thousands of jobs out of the Washington, D.C., area.

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Alexander Vaden defended the sweeping proposal, which Secretary Brooke Rollins announced with a five-page memo last week, saying it would help bring the department closer to the people the government oversees and lower the cost of living for federal workers, while pledging to work with members of the committee over the next month of planning.

“The secretary’s memorandum was the first step, not the last step,” Vaden told Minnesota’s Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the panel, who criticized several aspects of the plan.

The proposal calls for cutting 2,600 of the 4,600 USDA jobs in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia and expanding the department’s footprint in five regional hubs: Raleigh, North Carolina; Indianapolis; Kansas City, Missouri; Fort Collins, Colorado; and Salt Lake City.

Klobuchar said moving workers out of the capital region hurts the constituencies USDA serves. Agency officials should be nearby to meet with members of Congress, other executive branch offices and trade groups that are based in the nation’s capital, she said.

“Whittling down USDA’s resources to do this crucial work puts rural America at a disadvantage when they don’t have people in the room where it happens,” Klobuchar said.

“We have differences across the aisle,” she continued. “But I think every one of my colleagues understands that you need people that can meet with you, you need people that can go over to the White House so that you don’t have people that don’t have the interests of rural America in mind making all the decisions.”

Vaden said the USDA would keep employees in all of the department’s mission areas in the Washington area.

No advance notice

Even Republicans who said they generally agreed with the aims of the proposal indicated they did not appreciate the lack of notice before it was announced.

“I support finding cost savings where you can, I support the idea of moving people out of the D.C. area and out into the field and closer to the farmer,” North Dakota Republican John Hoeven said. “We support the goals, but we want it to be a process where you work with Congress, with the Senate, both the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee on it, and we achieve those results together. And I think that’ll help garner a lot more support for the effort.”

In an opening statement, Chairman John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican, thanked Vaden for being available for the hearing on “very, very short notice”

Klobuchar took issue with that description.

“The reason it’s short notice is because the administration put out a half-baked plan with no notice and without consulting agricultural leaders,” she said.

Interest groups were not told ahead of the announcement, Vaden told Klobuchar, though the White House Office of Management and Budget did receive notice.

In response to complaints about the lack of engagement with Congress, Vaden said that lawmakers were notified at the same time as USDA employees, shortly before the announcement was public, and he emphasized that the announcement started a 30-day engagement period that would involve Congress.

He also compared the reorganization plan to the remote work that the department’s workforce used well past the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“From January 2021 to January 2025, the Biden administration, 2,200 employees left Washington, D.C.,” he said. “There was no congressional notice, there was no outcry, there was no committee hearing. For more than 1,700 days, extending well beyond any fair definition of the COVID pandemic, USDA was on a maximum telework footing.”

Midwest Republicans miffed

Some Republicans on the panel offered hearty endorsements to the proposal, including Jim Justice of West Virginia, who used his time to promote the plan instead of questioning Vader.

“I don’t have any questions,” Justice said. “All I’m telling you is, we absolutely need to move and do the very best that we can for these great people.”

But the issue transcended party lines in several cases. Some Republicans whose states were passed over in selecting the proposed hubs had sharp questions for Vaden, while some Democrats who would gain a federal presence under the proposal were less critical.

Hoeven questioned the proposed siting selections, noting Fargo, North Dakota, didn’t have a hub within 600 miles. Fargo is “in the heart of ag country,” Hoeven said.

“What’s magic about five hubs?” he asked. “How much agriculture is there in the state of Utah? We can go through all those things and whether, in fact, it’s actually easier or better for our farmers and our ranchers in North Dakota, given the five hubs you’ve selected.”

Utah ranked 37th in total agricultural income, according to the USDA’s 2023 statistics.

No Nebraska hub

Nebraska Republican Deb Fischer said she had discussed with Vaden, prior to his confirmation hearing this year, the possibility of moving some of the USDA’s workforce outside the Beltway, and advocated for Nebraska as a suitable location.

Because of that, she was underwhelmed by the proposal and its introduction.

“I would have liked to see a process that allowed for Nebraska to demonstrate its strong value proposition,” she said. “So while I do agree with the overreaching goal here, I have to express disappointment in how this has been rolled out and the lack of engagement with Congress prior to the announcement.”

Meanwhile, Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet, whose state would see a regional hub that would also house a consolidated U.S. Forest Service office, said he agreed with the plan’s goals.

“I have long called for the idea of trying to relocate people from Washington, D.C., to parts of the country, to partly to get out of the insulation of this place, to just be closer to, in this case, producers, but others as well,” Bennet said. “So philosophically, that’s where I’ve been.”