A small cannabis plant. (Photo by Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s administration is looking “very strongly” at reclassifying cannabis from the strictest category of controlled substances, Trump said Monday.

In a brief affirmative response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office, the president confirmed he is considering a reclassification of marijuana to unlock research funding.

“A lot of people want to see it — the reclassification — because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify,” Trump said. “So we are looking at that very strongly.”

Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Food and Drug Administration’s classification of controlled substances. The FDA defines drugs on the list, such as heroin and cocaine, as lacking any medicinal value and carrying a high likelihood of abuse.

The designation carries a host of consequences, including a virtual ban on funding research for medicinal or other uses of the drug.

While marijuana use, both medicinal and recreational, is legal in many states, it remains illegal to possess or use in any amount for any reason under federal law.

Advocates have sought for decades to legalize or decriminalize the drug, which many see as less harmful than other Schedule I substances.

The growing split in recent years among many states and federal law has ramped up pressure on federal policymakers to alter the drug’s legal status.

Marijuana businesses in states where it is legal lack access to financial institutions, which cannot lend to businesses considered illegal by federal authorities.

States, meanwhile, have had difficulty regulating the environmental and health aspects of their industries.

And lawmakers, especially Democrats, have increasingly highlighted the frequent injustice of marijuana prosecutions that disproportionately affect communities of color and poor communities, though the drug is widely used across race and economic status.

President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order as, left to right, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks look on in the Oval Office of the White House on Dec. 11, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that aims to preempt states from enacting rules governing artificial intelligence, a major departure from the typical federalist structure of American government that Trump said was necessary because of the issue’s high stakes.

In an early evening signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump said the order would position the United States to win a competition with China to dominate the burgeoning AI industry. Coordinating policy among 50 different states would put the U.S. at a disadvantage, Trump said, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.

“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”

The order creates a task force to monitor state laws on AI and to challenge them in court, and directs the Commerce secretary to complete a review of state laws within three months.

David Sacks, the chair of a White House board on technology, said there were more than 1,000 pending AI bills in state legislatures.

White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the Oval Office event that the order would “ensure that AI can operate within a single national framework in this country, as opposed to being subject to state level regulation that could potentially cripple the industry.”

“The big picture is that we’re taking steps to ensure that AI operates under a single national standard so that we can reap the benefits that will come from it.”

The order, a major assertion of presidential power over state governments and Congress, is likely to see court challenges, including from environmental groups that oppose AI expansion because of the energy resources the technology requires.

“Congress has repeatedly rejected attempts to undermine states’ and local communities’ efforts to protect themselves from the unchecked spread of AI, which is driving a wave of dangerous data center development,” Mitch Jones, the chief of policy and litigation at the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, said in a statement. 

“We’ll be following the administration’s attempts to implement this farcical order, and we’ll fight it in Congress, in the states, in the courts, and with communities across this country.”

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks with reporters inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Sept. 29, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

The Democratic National Committee will run ads Thursday on the home pages of newspapers in a quartet of Republican senators’ hometowns, calling on the incumbents up for reelection next year to support a Democratic bill to extend health care subsidies.

The digital ads target Sens. Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Jon Husted of Ohio and John Cornyn of Texas on the day the Senate is expected to vote on a Democratic proposal to extend enhanced subsidies for insurance purchased on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Without the extension, premiums are projected to sharply rise next year.

“REPUBLICAN ARE DOUBLING HEALTH CARE COSTS,” one mockup of the ad provided to States Newsroom reads. “Tell Senator Collins we can’t afford their price hike.”

The ads running in states with two GOP senators also mention the one not on the ballot next year: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bernie Moreno of Ohio and Ted Cruz of Texas.

“Today’s Senate vote to extend the ACA tax credits could be the difference between life and death for many Americans,” DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a press release. “Over 20 million Americans will see their health care premiums skyrocket next year if Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Jon Husted, and Dan Sullivan do not stand with working families and vote to extend these lifesaving credits.”

‘Affordability’ on the ballot

Democrats have sought to make health care costs a major issue as both parties have projected a focus on affordability issues in next year’s midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

Senate Democrats initiated a six-week government shutdown this year in an effort to force Republicans to negotiate on the expiring subsidies, which Congress expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., promised a vote on a bill to address rising premiums in exchange for ending the shutdown.

The chamber will vote Thursday on a Democratic proposal that would extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits for three years.

Senators will also vote Thursday on legislation from Republicans Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho that would provide up to $1,500 annually for people who buy either bronze or catastrophic health insurance plans from the ACA marketplace.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Wednesday that chamber would vote next week on an unspecified measure to address the expiring tax credits.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Republicans’ goal was to provide funding “directly to the people” to “buy their own health care.”

President Donald Trump participates in a roundtable discussion with farmers and lawmakers in the Cabinet Room of the White House on Dec. 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Left is Cordt Holub of Dysart, Iowa, and right is Meryl Kennedy of Monroe, Louisiana.(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The federal government will provide $12 billion to U.S. farmers who have been hurt by “unfair market disruption,” President Donald Trump said at a White House roundtable event Monday.

Trump said repeatedly the funding was available thanks to tariff revenues, framing his aggressive trade policy as a boon to farmers rather than a drag on their global market share as critics of the policy suggest. 

“I’m delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States will be taking a small portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we receive in tariffs…  and we’re going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance,” Trump said.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, though, told reporters following the event that the money came from the department’s Commodity Credit Corporation, which is funded through regular appropriations from Congress, according to a White House pool report.

The money, which the administration officials described as “bridge payments,” would be in farmers’ hands by the end of February, Rollins said. 

While not officially marketed as a part of a series of Trump events spotlighting affordability issues, the president said several times he was addressing an affordability crisis he “inherited” from President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

“The Democrats cause the affordability problem,” Trump said. “And we’re the ones that are fixing it.” 

The bulk of the funding, $11 billion, would go to row crop farmers who grow barley, chickpeas, corn, cotton, lentils, oats, peanuts, peas, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, canola, crambe, flax, mustard, rapeseed, safflower, sesame and sunflower, according to a USDA statement. The department was planning to reserve $1 billion for unnamed specialty crops, Rollins said.

Payments to arrive before GOP law kicks in

Trump, Rollins and other Cabinet-level officials said the payments were to be used as a “bridge” before policies enacted in Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law this year are implemented.

“This bridge is absolutely necessary based on where we are right now,” Rollins said.

They blamed the Biden administration for a more negative outlook for farmers. Biden failed to close trade deals and a focus on environmental policy led to increased costs for the agriculture industry, they said.

The package limits payments to $155,000 per recipient, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation Richard Fordyce told reporters on a conference call late Monday afternoon.

Iowa farmer Cordt Holub spoke at the White House event, where he thanked Trump for the package.

“I want to say thank you for this bridge payment,” he said. “It’s Christmas early for farmers.”

Louisiana rice farmer Meryl Kennedy said the industry was struggling, but thanked Trump for the aid funding and changes to reference prices in the Republican megabill. 

“Our farmers can feed this nation and many nations abroad, but we need fair trade, not free trade,” she said. 

Tariff impact ignored

But they did not mention the effects of tariffs, which critics of the president have said are responsible for diminishing agricultural exports and hurting farmers’ bottom lines.

House Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota said in a statement the package “picks winners and losers in the farm economy,” and would not provide certainty to farmers or reduce high operational costs.

“It will not bring U.S. agricultural exports back to pre-trade war levels,” she said. “It also ignores (the) fact that the president’s tariffs are responsible for the immense financial strain felt not just by America’s farmers, but also working people, manufacturers, retailers and small businesses. All Americans are tired of the affordability crisis created by this administration and congressional Republicans. We will be right back here a year from now unless the administration changes its policies.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, also slammed the program.

“The reason farmers need relief at all is largely because Donald Trump betrayed them and decimated their businesses with his disastrous tariffs,” Schumer said in a floor speech Monday. “Now, Donald Trump is patting himself on the back, acting like a hero to farmers while using taxpayer dollars to clean up the mess he created. It’s textbook Donald Trump incompetence.”

Another round?

Asked by a reporter during the roundtable if he would be open to another round of relief for farmers, Trump said it would depend on how international trade develops and said farmers would not want further aid.

“It depends on where we go,” he said. “China is buying a lot. Other countries are buying a lot. And you know, the interesting thing about the farmers, they don’t want aid. They want to just have a level playing field.”

He later indicated it would be unnecessary.

“We’re going to make the farmers so strong — and I’m not even talking about financially, because they just want to be able to produce what they can produce,” he said. “We’re going to make them so strong that it will be, indeed, a golden age for farmers.”

Rollins told reporters following the event that Trump was “open to more.”

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

The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday justices will hear a case to decide if President Donald Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship is constitutional.

The court agreed to hear a case, before it is decided in a lower court, that deals with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States. The amendment’s birthright citizenship clause has been used to give citizenship to the children of immigrants in the country without legal authorization or on a temporary basis.

While a schedule for arguments has not yet been released by the court, it’s likely the case would be heard sometime in early 2026.

The Trump administration argued in its petition to the court that the amendment, which was adopted in 1868, was meant to apply to newly freed slaves. It was not meant to provide citizenship to the children of immigrants without legal status, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.

“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Sauer wrote in the September petition.

The petition also sought Supreme Court review of a related challenge to the order by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon. Friday’s court order did not grant a hearing on that case.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20 seeking to redefine the birthright citizenship clause to exclude the children of immigrants in the country without legal authority or only temporarily. Democratic-led states and advocacy groups swiftly sued.

Courts have largely blocked enforcement of the order, although the Supreme Court in June allowed it to go into effect in the states that had not sued to preserve the right.

In a Friday afternoon statement, the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading civil rights group, noted that several federal judges had blocked enforcement and predicted the Supreme Court would preserve birthright citizenship.

“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, ACLU’s national legal director, said. “For over 150 years, it has been the law and our national tradition that everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen from birth. The federal courts have unanimously held that President Trump’s executive order is contrary to the Constitution, a Supreme Court decision from 1898, and a law enacted by Congress. We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”

Federal agents, including members of the Department of Homeland Security, the Border Patrol, and police, attempt to keep protesters back outside a downtown U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Oct. 4, 2025 in Portland, Oregon. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Members of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee decried violence against law enforcement, but seemed to make little headway in identifying how to address the issue during a Wednesday hearing that often saw each party harshly blame the other.

Chairman Andrew Garbarino of New York, at his first hearing since taking over as for the retired Mark Green of Tennessee, sought to strike an even tone in an opening statement, condemning violence against police while noting that officers have a responsibility to maintain the public’s trust.

“Law enforcement personnel are public servants, not public figures. They stepped forward to safeguard our nation and uphold the laws enacted by this body,” Garbarino said. “But that alone does not absolve them from facing any form of accountability. Public trust and public safety go hand in hand.” 

Other members of the panel, though, were less even-handed, with Democrats strongly criticizing some tactics used by federal law enforcement officers under President Donald Trump and Republicans denouncing such criticism as fueling violence against police.

Several members of the panel, of both parties, acknowledged the two West Virginia National Guard members shot in a Nov. 26 alleged ambush in Washington, D.C.

Police witnesses denounce Nazi comparisons

Witnesses from three police organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, largely agreed that heightened rhetoric about law enforcement activity was a danger to their members.

“The rhetoric coming from the top, calling officers Nazis and Gestapo, it better stop right now,” Jonathan Thompson, the executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association, said. 

“You are inflaming dangerous circumstances. You’re attacking people that wake up every single day and do one thing: they put on their uniforms, they put on their star and… enforce the laws of this country.”

Daniel Hodges, a D.C. Metropolitan Police officer who responded to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and who Democrats invited to testify to the panel as a private citizen Wednesday, said protocol of federal officers under Trump invited the comparison.

“There is a semi-secret police force abducting people based on the color of their skin and sending many of them via state-sponsored human trafficking to extraterritorial concentration camps,” he said. 

“Before we go around the room clutching our pearls, wondering how people could possibly compare law enforcement in this country to the Gestapo, maybe we should take a moment and ask ourselves if there isn’t some recent behavior on the government’s part that could encourage such juxtaposition,” Hodges said.

Patrick Yoes, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said violence against officers was a nonpartisan issue.

“My members are both Democrat and Republican,” he said. “And we’re all having the same problem.”

ICE under microscope

Several Democrats said the tactics used by officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, undermined their law enforcement mission and endangered them, while Republicans blamed that rhetoric for making police targets.

New York Democrat Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor, objected to Thompson’s testimony that police officers “put on their uniforms.”

“The problem is that’s not the case,” Goldman said. “They don’t put on a uniform, they don’t wear identification, and they go out with masks on to — violently in many cases — arrest unsuspecting immigrants, non-violent, many of whom are actually here legally.”

Goldman said as a federal prosecutor he worked with DHS officers “who represented the very, very best of our country.” But under Trump, the department’s behavior had grown irresponsible, he said.

Illinois Democrat Delia Ramirez went further, calling DHS “the single biggest threat to public safety right now.”

“They use anonymity to terrorize our communities and to violate our rights,” she said. “They reject accountability. They disregard court orders and they violate consent decrees. Bottom line: DHS agents lie. They act with impunity. They reject checks and balances, and they ignore Congress and the courts.”

GOP defends DHS

Republicans on the panel deflected blame from DHS and drew a direct line from the rhetoric of some Democrats opposed to ICE’s tactics to physical attacks on law enforcement.

Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles said Ramirez’s comment “pisses me off” and characterized DHS agents as carrying out the rule of law.

“This is about the rhetoric against law enforcement, violence against law enforcement,” Ogles said. “This isn’t about ICE. This isn’t about deportations, or the (Homeland Security) secretary doing her job, securing the border and deporting those who are here illegally.”

Rep. Eli Crane, an Arizona Republican, played a video showing Rep LaMonica McIver, a New Jersey Democrat who also sits on the panel, confronting ICE agents at a detention facility in her district.

“What do you think it means to people that are out there watching and listening, watching social media, watching the news, and they see a member of Congress who sits on this committee go out there and behave like that?” Crane asked the witnesses.

Thompson answered he was “appalled.”

“Quite honestly, I find it reprehensible, and it’s obviously dangerous,” he said.

McIver said she had been doing her job to provide oversight.

Jan. 6 pardons at issue

Democrats also cited Trump’s pardons of people convicted of crimes as part of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as condoning violence against law enforcement.

McIver suggested committee Republicans were hypocritical in condemning some anti-police rhetoric while staying silent or praising Trump’s decision to pardon Jan.6 rioters.

“It is not Democrats who are praising, let alone pardoning, people who stormed this very Capitol complex to beat police officers and hunt down elected officials,” she said.

A store displays a sign accepting Electronic Benefits Transfer, or EBT, cards for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program purchases for groceries on Oct. 30, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will begin next week to block nutrition assistance funding for states led by Democrats that have not provided data on fraud in the program, Secretary Brooke Rollins told President Donald Trump at a Cabinet meeting Tuesday.

USDA sought data from states earlier this year related to their administration of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits, Rollins said Tuesday. She added the data was needed to address fraud that she called “rampant” in the program that helps 42 million people afford groceries.

Most states complied with the request, but 21, mostly run by Democrats, refused, she said. A USDA spokesperson later implied the department was missing data from 22 states.

“As of next week, we have begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states until they comply, and they tell us and allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer,” Rollins said.

A USDA spokesperson in an email listed 28 states, plus one territory, from which they said the department has received data.

That would leave the following 22 states, all led by Democratic governors, that have not provided data: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. 

The spokesperson provided some additional details of the initiative, including that the department was targeting administrative funds, and that the next step would be a formal warning.

Blue states sought to protect bad actors, including criminals and immigrants in the country without legal status, “over the American taxpayer,” the statement said.

“We have sent Democrat States yet another request for data, and if they fail to comply, they will be provided with formal warning that USDA will pull their administrative funds,” the spokesperson said.

Court records show the department sent the states a new request for data on Nov. 28, and asked for a response within seven days, which would be Friday. 

The letter was reproduced as part of a suit the 22 states have brought against the administration over the request for SNAP recipients’ data.

Leading Dem calls threat illegal

It’s unclear what authority Rollins would have to block funding, which Congress has appropriated.

The federal government pays for all benefits for SNAP, which was formerly known as food stamps. It splits the administrative costs with states.

The USDA spokesperson did not answer a direct question about the legal authority for withholding funds.

Democrats on the U.S. House Agriculture Committee said any effort to block SNAP funding would be illegal.

“Yet again, Trump and Rollins are illegally threatening to withhold federal dollars,” a social media post from an official account of committee Democrats read. “SNAP has one of the lowest fraud rates of any government program, but Trump continues to weaponize hunger.”

The committee’s lead Democrat, Angie Craig of Minnesota, issued her own statement that also accused the administration of “weaponizing hunger” and said Rollins “continues to spew propaganda.”

“Her disregard for the law and willingness to lie through her teeth comes from the very top – the Trump administration is as corrupt as it is lawless, and I will not sit silently as she carries out the president’s campaign against Americans struggling to afford food in part because of this president’s tariffs and disastrous economic policies.”  

SNAP fraud

The data USDA has sought from states includes verification of SNAP recipients’ eligibility, along with a host of personal information such as Social Security numbers.

An early USDA review of data provided by the 28 states and Guam “indicates an estimated average of $24 million dollars per day of federal funds is lost to fraud and errors undetected by States in their administration of SNAP,” the department said in the Nov. 28 letter.

Preventing those losses could save up to $9 billion per year, the letter added.

But the types of fraud cited in some of the public statements from Rollins and the department are rare, existing data show.

A 2023 USDA report showed about 26,000 applications, roughly 0.1% of the households enrolled in SNAP, were referred for an administrative or criminal review.

People in the country illegally have never been authorized to receive SNAP benefits.

“The long-standing data sources indicate that intentional fraud by participants is rare,” Katie Bergh, a senior food assistance policy analyst for the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a November interview.

Trump administration target

SNAP has been a consistent target for cuts during Trump’s second presidency.

The issue was a focal point during the six-week government shutdown, during which the administration reversed itself often but generally resisted calls — from states, advocates, lawmakers and federal judges — to fund food assistance.

Shortly after the government reopened, Rollins in television interviews said she would force all recipients to reapply for benefits, a proposal seen as logistically challenging by program experts.

And the Republican taxes and spending law passed by Congress and signed by Trump earlier this year included new work requirements and other restrictions on SNAP eligibility that advocates say will lead to major drops in benefits. 

The law will also make states pay for some share of benefits and increase the share of administrative costs that states are responsible for, potentially leading some states to cut benefits.

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 8, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

A senior federal judge dismissed charges Monday against two public officials with long-running public disputes with President Donald Trump, saying the controversial appointment of the president’s former personal attorney as a prosecutor doomed the cases.

Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, whom former President Bill Clinton appointed to the bench in South Carolina, wrote in a Monday order that Attorney General Pam Bondi did not have the authority to make Lindsey Halligan the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

The judge said the deadline for an interim appointee to that position had lapsed.

Because that process was invalid, the prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of whom had investigated or prosecuted Trump, must be dropped, Currie wrote.

Currie dismissed the indictments without prejudice, meaning they could be revived. But at least in Comey’s case, in which charges were brought on the eve of the statute of limitations expiring, that appeared unlikely.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday the administration would appeal the ruling.

“Lindsay Halligan was legally appointed, and that’s the administration’s position,” Leavitt said. “There was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Leticia James and James Comey from receiving accountability.”

120-day clock

U.S. attorneys are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but the attorney general can appoint someone on an interim basis for 120 days. After that, the judges in the district are responsible for appointing an interim prosecutor.

“Ms. Halligan was not appointed in a manner consistent with this framework,” Currie wrote.

Bondi appointed Erik Siebert as the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in January, while his confirmation was pending in the Senate. After 120 days, the judges in the district allowed him to continue.

Siebert resigned in September, reportedly under pressure from Trump and Bondi to bring charges against Comey. Bondi then named Halligan, at the time a White House aide who had also worked for Trump in a private capacity, as the interim U.S. attorney. 

But Bondi could not do that because, after 120 days, the responsibility for naming an interim U.S. attorney fell to the district court judges, Currie wrote.

“The 120-day clock began running with Mr. Siebert’s appointment on Jan. 21, 2025,” she wrote. “When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority. Consequently, I conclude that the Attorney General’s attempt to install Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid and that Ms. Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role.”

Quick indictment

Halligan, after gaining office in September, quickly secured a two-count indictment against the former FBI chief from a grand jury in Alexandria. Comey was accused of lying to Congress about whether he had authorized a press leak of information related to an FBI investigation of Russian actors’ involvement in Trump’s first presidential campaign. 

However, U.S. District Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote last week that issues with evidence, testimony and statements to the grand jury in the case outweighed the usual heavily guarded secrecy of proceedings. He said “profound investigative missteps” could result in the dismissal of Comey’s indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty.

James won a civil case against Trump related to business fraud, though a state appeals court later overturned the sentence as overly punitive.

Trump has publicly blasted James and Comey as using the mechanisms of legal proceedings to persecute him. 

In an extraordinary public message to Bondi just before Halligan replaced Siebert, Trump complained that the prosecutions against both were not developing faster.

The Justice Department did not respond to a message seeking comment Monday.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Oct. 31, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The House speaker's office held the news conference on the 31st day of the government shutdown to discuss food stamp programs running out of funding. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ call for a close reexamination of the 42 million people who receive federal food aid has befuddled advocates and lawmakers, coming mere days after recipients began to see benefits that had been stalled during the government shutdown.

Details remain scant a week after Rollins during an interview on the right-wing Newsmax network first publicly broached the startling idea that every beneficiary would have to reapply for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, often called food stamps.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, asked for an explanation, referenced existing requirements and suggested more changes in SNAP rules could be in store.

“Secretary Rollins wants to ensure the fraud, waste, and incessant abuse of SNAP ends,” a USDA spokesperson wrote Wednesday. “Rates of fraud were only previously assumed, and President Trump is doing something about it. Using standard recertification processes for households is a part of that work. As well as ongoing analysis of state data, further regulatory work, and improved collaboration with states.”

The 2008 law governing SNAP leaves states responsible for administration. Part of that role includes periodically making sure that the low-income people in the program meet the qualifications for inclusion, but the law allows states to determine how often that occurs.

“It’s not clear what she would be proposing that is different from what is already happening,” said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst for food assistance at the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

One interpretation of Rollins’ comments is that she would remove all 42 million individuals from SNAP’s rolls and ask them to resubmit applications. Bergh said that would lead to people losing money they need for groceries. About 40% of those enrolled in SNAP are children.

“If she’s suggesting that they’re going to somehow redo that process for more than 40 million people who already demonstrated their eligibility and who already have to periodically recertify their eligibility, that would be pretty duplicative and would likely create pretty significant paperwork backlogs that would cause people who are eligible to lose the food assistance that they need,” Bergh said.

Administration critics have suggested that, while the comments are unlikely to lead to policy changes, they introduce even more confusion for a program that was used as a political token during the record government shutdown that ended this month. 

Making people reapply would underscore the Trump administration’s opposition to the nearly $100 billion program, which accounts for 70% of federal nutrition assistance. USDA says the average SNAP household in fiscal 2023 received a monthly benefit of $332, or $177 a person based on the average SNAP household size of 1.9 people.

“Secretary Rollins and the Trump administration have cut food assistance for 42 million Americans multiple times this year,” U.S. House Agriculture ranking member Angie Craig said in a Wednesday statement to States Newsroom. “Now, they’ve once again shown that they do not understand the program.”

What did Rollins say?

In the Nov. 13 interview on Newsmax, Rollins said SNAP was beset by widespread fraud, citing data that 29 mostly Republican-run states submitted to the department. Acquiring data from the 21 other states would give the department a way to wholly remake the program, she said.

“Can you imagine when we get our hands on the blue state data, what we’re going to find?” she said. “It’s going to give us a platform and a trajectory to fundamentally rebuild this program, have everyone reapply for their benefit, make sure that everyone that’s taking a taxpayer-funded benefit through SNAP or food stamps that they literally are vulnerable, and they can’t survive without it. And that’s the next step here.”

In an interview Monday on Fox News, host Maria Bartiromo asked Rollins about the move to have recipients “reapply.”

“Business as usual is over,” Rollins answered in part. “The status quo is no more. We know that the SNAP program is rife with fraud.”

She added that guarding against fraud would help those the program is meant to serve.

The comments touched off widespread confusion about what specifically Rollins meant. 

Asked about the initiative during a Thursday press conference, Craig, a Minnesota Democrat, said she was unclear about how it would work and predicted that Rollins would take credit in the future for the existing low rate of fraud.

“We’re hearing off the record that, you know, maybe people don’t know what the hell they’re talking about,” she said. “In fact, I think they’re trying to take credit for the already very strict standards and the actual low fraud rate in the SNAP program … So we can find no real plan there. Not even sure there’s concepts of a plan there.”

In response to a States Newsroom request this week for details about the initiative, USDA provided the statement that did not answer how the department would proceed or under what authority, but said Rollins was seeking to reduce fraud in the program.

Spokespeople did not respond to follow-up questions, or a request to respond to Craig’s remarks Thursday.

Low fraud rate

Program experts say fraud is not a widespread problem for SNAP.

An April report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that retailers illegally trafficked about 1.6% of SNAP benefits from fiscal 2015 to 2017.

Fraud by households applying for SNAP, which appear to be the main target of Rollins’ proposal, is even lower. 

According to a USDA report, about 26,000 applications were referred for an administrative review or prosecution on suspicion of fraud. That number accounts for about 0.1% of the 22.7 million households enrolled in the program, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Long-standing data sources indicate that intentional fraud by participants is rare,” Bergh said.

At Thursday’s press conference, Craig called Rollins’ comments “bullsh*t” and “propaganda.”

“Secretary Rollins goes on TV and talks about all the fraud,” she said. “This most effective anti-hunger program in our history has a fraud rate of 1.6%. It’s actually one of the most effective, well-run programs in the country … The bullsh*t this administration is peddling is egregious.”

More targeted reforms

Even experts who advocate for reforms to SNAP say eligibility fraud is not a major issue.

Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said high-net-worth individuals can receive SNAP benefits, but aren’t committing fraud by doing so.

“Some of the issues with SNAP … aren’t because of fraud or abuse, but they are because of bad program rules,” said Boccia.

Boccia also cited an “incentive misalignment” inherent in the state-federal program. States have little incentive to control payments because the federal government funds the program, she said.

Forcing all beneficiaries to reapply would likely reduce the cost of the program by reducing the number of its beneficiaries, including by forcing out higher earners who may not consider the benefits they don’t actually need to be worth the onerous reapplication process, Boccia said. 

But it would also result in a percentage of low earners dropping off the program, as well as many who would be affected by the administrative backlog that would come with processing tens of millions of new applications, she said. 

Shutdown, the big beautiful bill, and confusion

Bergh said Rollins’ comments “add insult to injury” because they come after congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump signed a major tax cuts and spending law that is expected to shrink federal SNAP spending by $187 billion over 10 years. The law added work requirements for many SNAP recipients and shifted some costs to states.

That was followed by the six-week shutdown that saw a dizzying back-and-forth over whether November SNAP benefits would be paid.

“There has been huge amounts of chaos and confusion and disruption for both states and participants in recent weeks, largely due to the shutdown, but also because simultaneously, the administration has required states to implement many of the reconciliation bill’s SNAP cuts,” Bergh said.

Craig, in her statement, also said Rollins’ comments would hurt the people who need the program.

“I am astounded by the secretary’s careless disregard for the hungry seniors and children who can afford to eat because of this program,” she said.

Sara Naomi Bleich, a public health policy professor at Harvard University, said in a phone interview the confusion from Rollins’ comments compounded hardships produced by the Republican reconciliation law, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“Big picture with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is that there’s basically this tidal wave coming to families that have low income,” Bleich, who worked at USDA during the Obama and Biden administrations, said. “They’re going to lose Medicaid. They’re going to lose SNAP. There could be collateral impacts on the school meals. This is going to be a really hard time for families to navigate.”

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo by Tim Brown/Getty Images)

The Federal Aviation Administration early Monday lifted an order that airlines cut domestic flights to 40 major U.S. airports, as air traffic control staffing levels improve following the six-week government shutdown. 

The move came just before the busiest travel week of the year, though it was unclear how long it would take for airlines to resume normal operations. 

The FAA’s safety team recommended ending the restrictions after seeing only one staffing trigger affect travel Sunday, according to an agency press release. There were 81 staffing triggers on Nov. 8, a few days before the end of the longest shutdown in U.S. history. 

“I want to thank the FAA’s dedicated safety team for keeping our skies secure during the longest government shutdown in our nation’s history and the country’s patience for putting safety first,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in the release. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, controllers have returned to their posts and normal operations can resume.”

The government reopened after a 43-day shutdown on Nov. 12. 

Air traffic controllers were required to work without pay during the shutdown, leaving many to pursue second jobs and the workforce overstressed. The order to reduce flights, peaking at 6% at major airports, was meant to reduce that stress.

The banners at the tops of major U.S. airline websites warning of canceled flights disappeared by Monday morning.

One carrier, Southwest, replaced it with a message that its normal schedule would resume Monday. 

“Good news, the US government shutdown has ended,” the message read. “Our full schedule resumes on Nov 17. Book your next trip with confidence today.”

Planes line up on the tarmac at LaGuardia Airport on Nov. 10, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The record 43-day government shutdown that ended Wednesday night scrambled air travel, interrupted food assistance and forced federal workers to go without a paycheck for weeks.

It also cost the U.S. economy about $15 billion per week, White House Council of Economic Advisers Director Kevin Hassett told reporters Thursday.  

As the government began to reopen Thursday, officials were working to untangle those issues and others.

But in some areas, the processes for getting things back to normal after such a lengthy shutdown will also take time. 

President Donald Trump on Wednesday night signed a package passed by Congress reopening the government, which closed on Oct. 1 after lawmakers failed to pass a stopgap spending bill.

Flights back on schedule by Thanksgiving?

The Federal Aviation Administration’s shutdown plan, announced last week by Administrator Bryan Bedford and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, was to reduce flights to 40 major airports by 10%. 

As of Thursday afternoon, the FAA had not lifted the order restricting flights. But the agency did stop ramping up the percentage of those affected. 

The FAA started by asking airlines to cancel 4% of flights Nov. 7. A Wednesday order halted the rate at 6%.

That was enough to cause major disruptions to travel, and it remained unclear Thursday how long it would take to resume normal operations. 

In a statement, Airlines for America, the trade group representing the nation’s commercial air carriers, welcomed the end of the shutdown but was vague about how much longer air travelers would see disruptions. The statement noted the upcoming holiday as a possible milestone. 

“When the FAA gives airlines clearance to return to full capacity, our crews will work quickly to ramp up operations especially with Thanksgiving holiday travel beginning next week,” the group’s statement said. 

The FAA and Transportation Department did not return messages seeking updates Thursday.

The reduction in flights was meant to ease pressure on air traffic controllers, who worked through the shutdown without pay. 

Many missed work as they pursued short-term jobs in other industries. Duffy said that left the controllers on the job overstressed and possibly prone to costly mistakes.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to reward other federal workers at airports, those employed by her department’s Transportation Security Administration, with $10,000 bonuses if they maintained high attendance records during the shutdown.

Noem handed out checks to TSA workers in Houston on Thursday and said more could come. 

Federal workers return, with back pay on the way

Hundreds of thousands of federal workers who had been furloughed returned to the office Thursday and those who had been working without pay will continue their duties knowing their next paycheck should be on time. 

All workers will receive back pay for the shutdown, in accordance with a 2019 law that states employees “shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations, regardless of scheduled pay dates.”

A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said the White House has urged agencies to get back pay to employees “expeditiously and accurately.”

Agencies will need to submit time and attendance files, and payroll processors can then issue checks. According to the spokesperson, agencies have different pay schedules and payroll processors, and “discrepancies in timing and pay periods are a result of that.”

The office estimates that workers will receive a “supercheck” for the pay period from Oct. 1 to Nov. 1 on the following dates:

Nov. 15

• General Services Administration
• Office of Personnel Management

Nov. 16

• Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and Defense

Nov. 17

• Departments of Education, State, Interior and Transportation
• Environmental Protection Agency
• NASA
• National Science Foundation
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• Social Security Administration

Nov. 19

• Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor and Treasury
• Small Business Administration

Doreen Greenwald, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said in a statement Wednesday that federal workers across all agencies “should not have to wait another minute longer for the paychecks they lost during the longest government shutdown in history.” 

“The anxiety has been devastating as they cut back on spending, ran up credit card debt, took out emergency loans, filed for unemployment, found temporary side jobs, stood in line for food assistance, skipped filling prescriptions and worried about the future. Federal employees should receive the six weeks of back pay they are owed immediately upon the reopening of the federal government,” said Greenwald. 

The union represents workers at 38 federal agencies and offices.

States Newsroom spoke to several furloughed federal workers who attended a special food distribution event during the shutdown.

The American Federation of Government Employees, one of multiple unions that sued the Trump administration over layoffs during the shutdown, said its members were used “as leverage to advance political priorities,” according to a statement issued Tuesday by the union’s national president, Everett Kelley.

The AFGE, which according to the union represents roughly 820,000 federal workers, did not immediately respond for comment Thursday.

The shutdown-ending deal reinstated jobs for fired federal employees and prohibits any reductions in force by the administration until Jan. 30.

Federal workers speak out

A statement released Thursday by a group of federal workers across agencies struck a different tone on the shutdown and praised the 40 senators and 209 representatives who voted against the temporary spending bill deal.

“The fight mattered. It changed the conversation. More members of the American public now understand that Trump is shredding the Constitution,” according to the statement issued by the Civil Servants Coalition.

The coalition also noted, “Even though the government is reopening, none of us will be able to fully deliver our agency’s missions. Our work has been exploited and dismantled since January through harmful policies and illegal purges of critical staff.”

The group emailed the statement as a PDF document to an unknown number of government workers and urged them to “channel that frustration toward action” by contacting their representatives.

SNAP saga concludes

The government reopening ended a drawn-out saga over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which helps 42 million people afford groceries. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states in a Thursday memo they “must take immediate steps to ensure households receive their full November allotments promptly.”

The guidance also noted that states should prepare for another shutdown as soon as next October by upgrading systems so that they could allow for partial payments. 

A key point of dispute between the administration and those seeking SNAP benefits was the lengthy time the administration said it would take to fund partial benefits. 

A Wednesday evening statement from a department spokesperson said full benefits would be disbursed in most states by Thursday night. 

Lauren Kallins, a senior legislative director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Thursday “states are all working hard to resume full benefits.”

 “But there will likely be logistical challenges, depending on a state’s system’s capabilities and whether the state had already issued partial benefits, that may impact how quickly a state is able to push out” benefits, she wrote. 

The program, which is funded by the federal government and administered by states, sends monthly payments on a rolling basis. 

That means that the day of the month each household receives its allotment varies. Households that usually receive benefits mid-month or later should see no interruption. 

But many of the program’s beneficiaries receive their payments earlier in the month, meaning that, depending on their state, they may have missed their November payments. 

Some states, including Democrat-run Wisconsin, Oregon and Michigan, began paying full benefits last week after a Rhode Island federal judge ordered the administration to release full November payments and the department issued guidance to states to do so.

The administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause enforcement of the Rhode Island judge’s order and reversed its guidance to states, telling them to “immediately undo” efforts to pay out full November benefits.

The Department of Justice dropped its Supreme Court case Thursday. 

“Because the underlying dispute here is now moot, the government withdraws its November 7 stay application in this Court,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote to the high court.

In the trial court, the administration cited the USDA guidance and said it would discuss the future of the litigation with the coalition of cities and nonprofit groups that brought the suit. 

Capital area tourist attractions reopen

Tourists in the nation’s capital have been shut out of the Smithsonian Institution’s 17 free museums and zoo for most of the federal shutdown.

The institution on Friday will open the National Museum of American History, the National Air and Space Museum and the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, an annex of the Air and Space Museum located at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, according to a message posted on the Smithsonian’s website.

All other museums and the National Zoo will open on a “rolling basis” by Nov. 17.

Multiple public-facing agencies, including the National Park Service and Internal Revenue Service, did not respond to States Newsroom’s requests for reopening information.

National parks were closed or partially closed during the shutdown.

Several IRS services were reduced or altogether cut as the funding lapse dragged on. Those disruptions included limited IRS telephone customer service operations and the closure of in-person Taxpayer Assistance Centers.

A sign explaining delays in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the government shutdown is displayed at a Sprouts grocery store in Bountiful, Utah, on Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2025. (McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)

The Trump administration will release full benefits for most participants in the nation’s major federal nutrition program within 24 hours of the reopening of the federal government, a U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson said Wednesday. 

Many of the roughly 42 million Americans who rely on USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to help afford groceries have faced uncertainty for weeks about their November benefits, which President Donald Trump and other top administration officials said could not be paid while the government was shut down. 

A USDA spokesperson answered an afternoon email from States Newsroom inquiring about when benefits would restart with a single sentence:

“Upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most States,” the spokesperson wrote. 

Politico first reported the department’s 24-hour timeline.

While the federal government funds SNAP benefits, states are responsible for their administration, meaning an array of different processes across the country. 

The U.S. House was set to vote Wednesday evening to clear a bill to reopen the government after a record 43-day shutdown, after the Senate acted earlier this week. Trump is expected to sign it into law as early as Wednesday night. 

The enactment of the bill — and the subsequent renewal of federal payments — would resolve a dizzying weekslong saga over SNAP that placed the roughly 1 in 8 Americans who use the program in the middle of a political and legal battle playing out across every level of the federal judiciary. 

Since the shutdown began Oct. 1, the USDA has reversed its own position, the U.S. Supreme Court paused lower court orders and Trump himself expressed contradicting views.

In the most recent chapter, USDA said it would authorize states to pay 65% of benefits for November, and the Supreme Court paused until Thursday night lower court orders compelling full payments. 

The department had previously told a Rhode Island federal court it could take weeks or even months for beneficiaries to receive the partial allotments and the administration continued to fight rulings to immediately release full funding, even as the shutdown crept toward its conclusion.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court has extended through Thursday a pause on lower courts’ orders that the Trump administration authorize a full month of benefits for a food assistance program that 1 in 8 Americans use to buy groceries.

A brief, unsigned order published Tuesday evening also said the full court would decide on the administration’s request to block court orders that the U.S. Department of Agriculture release full November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

The case was presented to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said she would have dismissed the case and denied the request for an administrative stay. Jackson was appointed to the high court by President Joe Biden.

The order adds another wrinkle to a case that was already the object of a weekslong tug-of-war over how the program should operate during the government shutdown.

The shutdown could end before the stay expires. The U.S. Senate passed a bill Monday to reopen the government, and the House is expected to pass it Wednesday. President Donald Trump has said he supports the measure and will likely sign it before the end of the day Thursday.

Trump and administration officials have maintained they were not authorized to release November SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

A Rhode Island federal judge ordered the USDA on Thursday to release full benefits for November. The department sent states a memo authorizing those payments Friday morning, then appealed to the Supreme Court on Friday evening to have the district court’s order overturned.

At the same time, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order.

In the face of often contradicting administrative guidance and court orders, some states began processing full benefits for November, while others have yet to release them.