The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats on Wednesday rebuked ongoing efforts from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the Department of Education, including moves to shift some of its core functions to other agencies. 

Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia — who hosted a spotlight forum alongside several colleagues — said “over and over again, the administration has circumvented the law to hamstring the future of public education without the consent of Congress or the American people.” 

Scott, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, brought in education advocates and legal voices pushing back against the administration’s ongoing attempts to axe the agency. 

The lawmakers and witnesses expressed particular alarm over the administration’s six interagency agreements, or IAAs, announced with four other departments in November 2025 that transfer several of its responsibilities to those Cabinet-level agencies.

‘Illegal’ transfers 

Ashley Harrington, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, said that “while these agencies all provide important services for our nation, none of them are adequately prepared to take on the massive portfolio of programs that these interagency agreements strip from (the Education Department).” 

Harrington, who previously served as a senior adviser at the department, pointed to a “lack” of institutional knowledge at the four departments compared with career employees at the Education Department who have gained expertise from spending decades running the affected programs. 

Rachel Homer, director of Democracy 2025 and senior attorney at Democracy Forward, the legal advocacy group that is leading the ongoing case challenging the department’s dismantling efforts in federal court, pointed out that Congress creates and decides which agencies exist. 

“Congress charges those agencies with performing certain functions, Congress determines the mission of those agencies, and the executive branch’s obligation is to carry that out, is to implement those laws faithfully,” said Homer, who previously served as chief of staff of the Office of the General Counsel at the department. 

The advocacy group is representing a broad coalition in a legal challenge against the administration’s attempts to gut the agency. 

That challenge, consolidated with a similar suit brought by Democratic attorneys general, was expanded in November in the wake of the interagency agreement announcement to include objections to those restructuring efforts. 

“These transfers through the IAAs, they’re illegal,” Homer added. “That’s not what Congress has set up — that’s not how Congress has instructed the agencies to function.” 

Mass layoffs, downsizing 

Meanwhile, the administration’s attempts to wind down the department have also included mass layoffs initiated in March 2025 and a plan to dramatically downsize the agency ordered that same month. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit these efforts in July.

Trump has sought to end the 46-year-old agency as part of his quest to send education “back to the states.” This effort comes while much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurs at the state and local levels. 

“I know I don’t just speak for myself when I say I can’t believe we’re here having to actually defend the existence of the Department of Education,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education.

“As Education committee members, we came here to work on improving education and opening doors of opportunity and addressing the civil rights disparities, but here we are having to defend the actual existence of the Department of Education,” the Oregon Democrat said. 

Civil rights in the spotlight 

Employees at the Office for Civil Rights — tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families — were targeted in March as part of a broader Reduction in Force, or RIF, effort and put on paid administrative leave while legal challenges against the administration unfolded. 

Though the agency moved to rescind the RIF against the OCR employees in early January while legal challenges proceeded, a Government Accountability Office report released earlier in February found that the Education Department spent between roughly $28.5 million and $38 million on the salaries and benefits of the hundreds of OCR employees who were not working between March and December 2025. 

The government watchdog also found that despite the department resolving more than 7,000 of the over 9,000 discrimination complaints it received between March and September, roughly 90% of the resolved complaints were due to the department dismissing the complaint. 

“We’re extremely concerned of what this means for OCR to actually uphold its statutorily defined duty of protecting the civil rights of students in schools, including the rights of Black students, other students of color, girls, women, students with disabilities and members that identify with the LGBTQI+ communities,” said Ray Li, a policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund.

Li, who previously served as an attorney for OCR, called on Congress to ensure that the unit “remains in a functioning Department of Education” and not transferred to the Department of Justice or another agency. 

He also urged Congress to provide “adequate funding for OCR” and to “play an important role in transparency, sending oversight request letters to get information on the quantity of complaints that are being received, the types of discrimination that they allege, how OCR is processing those complaints and what the basis of dismissals are.”

The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. 

President Donald Trump gives a speech at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, 2026. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education reinforced the right to prayer in public schools in guidance issued Thursday.

Under the guidance to state and local education agencies, students, teachers and school officials have “a right to pray in school as an expression of individual faith, as long as they’re not doing so on behalf of the school,” the department said. 

President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to protect religious liberty in public schools and beyond, and a growing number of GOP state legislators have tried to infuse Christianity in public education. 

Trump announced the guidance during remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, calling the move a “big deal.” 

The president predicted that Democrats would sue over the guidance, but said he was confident his administration would win any legal challenge. 

The guidance also makes clear that “public schools may not sponsor prayer nor coerce or pressure students to pray.”

In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Constitution. 

The new guidance calls on school officials to “allow the individuals who make up a public school community to act and speak in accordance with their faith, provided they do not invade the rights of others, the school does not itself participate in religious action or speech as an institution, and the school does not favor secular over religious views or one religious view over another.” 

The guidance leans on a handful of recent Supreme Court rulings surrounding religious expression and religious freedom in public schools, such as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which found that the actions of a Washington state high school football coach who prayed at the 50-yard line after games were constitutionally protected. 

The Education Department is required by law to periodically reissue guidance on prayer in schools, according to the department.

Trump had previewed Thursday’s guidance while speaking in September 2025 at a Religious Liberty Commission hearing. 

The president established that commission in May 2025 in an effort to “safeguard and promote America’s founding principle of religious freedom.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the administration is “proud to stand with students, parents, and faculty who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights in schools across our great nation,” in a statement alongside the announcement.

“Our Constitution safeguards the free exercise of religion as one of the guiding principles of our republic, and we will vigorously protect that right in America’s public schools,” she said. 

The funding package President Donald Trump signed Feb. 3, 2026, includes $79 billion for the U.S. Education Department, representing a rejection by Congress of the president's plan to close the department. (Photo by kali9/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s attempts to dramatically slash funding for the U.S. Department of Education amid a broader push to dismantle the agency hit a major roadblock this week in the form of bipartisan approval of a spending law that gives the department a small raise. 

The president signed a measure that funds the department at $79 billion this fiscal year — roughly $217 million more than the agency’s fiscal year 2025 funding levels and a whopping $12 billion above what Trump wanted. 

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote in a social media post after the signing that the law was a direct rebuke of several Trump priorities, including eliminating the department.

“Our funding bills send a message to Trump,” she wrote. “Congress will NOT abolish the Department of Education.”

The measure also rejects efforts to dramatically reduce or fully slash funding for a host of programs administered by the department for low-income and disadvantaged students. 

Trump and his administration have sought over the past year to take an axe to the 46-year-old agency as part of a quest to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels. 

Those dismantling efforts included six interagency agreements with four other departments in November that would shift several Education responsibilities to those Cabinet-level agencies. 

The department also saw mass layoffs initiated in March 2025 and a plan to dramatically downsize the agency ordered that same month — efforts that the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit in July. 

The spending package also holds full-year funding for the departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, State and Treasury. The measure includes a two-week stopgap measure for the Department of Homeland Security. 

‘Inefficiencies’ 

The measure does not offer ironclad language to prevent the outsourcing of the Education Department’s responsibilities to other agencies — despite efforts from Senate Democrats to block such transfers. 

However, in a joint explanatory statement alongside the measure, lawmakers expressed alarm over the “assignment of such programmatic responsibilities to agencies that do not have experience, expertise, or capacity to carry out these programs and activities and lack developed relationships and communications with relevant stakeholders, including States.”

Lawmakers added they were “concerned that fragmenting responsibilities for education programs across multiple agencies will create inefficiencies, result in additional costs to the American taxpayer, and cause delays and administrative challenges in Federal funding reaching States, school districts, and schools.”

Due to those concerns, the funding measure directs the Education Department and the agencies that are part of the transfers to provide biweekly briefings to lawmakers on the implementation of any interagency agreements.

The briefings are supposed to include information on “staffing transfers, implementation costs, metrics on the delivery of services” and the “availability of technical support for programs to grantees,” among other matters. 

The Education Department clarified when announcing the interagency agreements in November with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State that it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs.” 

‘Necessary’ staffing levels 

The funding agreement also mandates that the department “support staffing levels necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibilities including carrying out programs, projects, and activities funded in (the law) in a timely manner.” 

The department took heat last summer when it froze $6.8 billion in funds for K-12 schools and informed states just a day before the money is typically sent out. 

The funds were eventually unfrozen, following bipartisan pushback in Congress.  

Pell Grant spared 

The measure also maintains the total maximum annual award for the Pell Grant from the prior fiscal year at $7,395, according to a summary from Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee. The government subsidy helps low-income students pay for college. 

Trump’s budget request called for cutting nearly $1,700 from the maximum award for the 2026-2027 award year, a proposal that stoked alarm last year from leading House and Senate appropriators in both parties overseeing Education Department funding. 

Funding levels maintained for TRIO, GEAR UP 

The administration also called for defunding the Federal TRIO programs and the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, in fiscal 2026 — a move rejected in the measure.

The Federal TRIO Programs include federal outreach and student services programs to help support students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and GEAR UP aims to prepare low-income students for college.

Appropriators maintained funding for the programs at fiscal 2025 levels — with $1.191 billion for TRIO and $388 million for GEAR UP, per the Senate Democrats’ summary.

The administration also sought to axe funding for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program, which, according to the Education Department, “supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services.” 

Instead, the measure allocates $75 million for the program. 

The Education Department did not respond to a request for comment on the funding package.

The administration expressed its support for the entire, multi-bill package, in a Jan. 29 statement of administration policy that barely mentioned the education provisions.

Brent Ganger, far left, and Luke Ganger, second from left, brothers of Renee Good, watch a forum on Department of Homeland Security use of force organized by congressional Democrats on Feb. 3, 2026. Good was killed by a federal immigration officer Jan. 7. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Renee Good’s family, distraught and in disbelief over her killing, took some comfort in the past few weeks thinking her death might prompt change in the country, her brother Luke Ganger said Tuesday. 

“It has not,” Ganger told congressional Democrats at a forum on the disproportionate use of force by U.S. Department of Homeland Security agents. “The deep distress our family feels because of (Renee’s) loss in such a violent and unnecessary way is complicated by feelings of disbelief, distress and desperation for change.”

Brent Ganger, another brother of Good, also appeared at the forum, saying Good “had a way of showing up in the world that made you believe things were going to be okay.”

Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by a federal agent Jan. 7 in Minneapolis. 

Her death prompted widespread outcry over the immigration enforcement tactics of President Donald Trump’s administration. 

“The completely surreal scenes taking place on the streets of Minneapolis are beyond explanation,” Luke Ganger said. “This is not just a bad day or a rough week or isolated incidents — these encounters with federal agents are changing the community and changing many lives, including ours, forever.” 

Backlash over the administration’s immigration efforts grew even louder after federal agents fatally shot 37-year-old Alex Pretti, also a U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis on Jan. 24. 

Administration officials have defended the immigration crackdown, including the aggressive tactics used in Minneapolis and other cities.

“The president is never going to waver in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws and protecting the public safety of the American people in his ardent support of” Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.

First-hand accounts

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Rep. Robert Garcia of California hosted the forum. More than 20 Democrats in the House and Senate joined them. 

The unofficial forum is one of several events put on by congressional Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers, over the past year to protest a host of actions from the administration. 

Three witnesses across Illinois, Minnesota and California — all U.S. citizens — offered harrowing accounts of their encounters with immigration agents in recent months, detailing the trauma, fear and mental distress as a result. 

Marimar Martinez was shot five times by an immigration agent in Chicago. Aliya Rahman, a Minneapolis resident with autism and a traumatic brain injury, was dragged out of her car by agents while on her way to a doctor’s appointment and said she was later refused medical care in DHS detention. And Martin Daniel Rascon was shot at by agents while traveling in a car with family members. 

“Why do we continue to wait for more public executions when we have already seen the evidence in our TVs and computer screens?” Martinez asked the panel. “We have heard the testimonies, we have watched the pain unfold in real time — how many more lives must be lost before meaningful action is taken?”

The meeting came the same day the House passed, and Trump later signed, a funding package that includes a two-week stopgap measure for DHS, as Congress and the administration try to iron out a solution to Democrats’ demands for additional restraints on immigration enforcement following Pretti’s death. 

Many Democrats in Congress have vowed not to support a Department of Homeland Security funding bill that does not include such restraints. Blumenthal, the top Democrat on the Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate committee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security, made that explicit Tuesday.

“Some day we should have a truth and justice commission to investigate the systematic failing,” he said. “But for right now, I can promise that I will not support another dime for the Department of Homeland Security unless there is this fundamental, far-reaching reform and restraint in effect — a rebuilding of the agency.” 

Report blames DHS tactics for fatalities

Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released a report ahead of the hearing Tuesday on Democrats’ findings regarding the deaths of Good and Pretti.

The report claims that the administration’s “extreme policies, violent tactics, and culture of impunity led to the killings.”

The report also argues that “the available evidence suggests that the Trump Administration is attempting to cover up misconduct” and is also “continuing its cover-up by impeding thorough and impartial investigations into the shootings.” 

“We’re seeing ICE, CBP, other parts of DHS, all across our country, terrorize communities,” Garcia said at the forum, pointing to warrantless searches, arrests and detainments of individuals with no prior criminal history and people being sent to detention centers and released without explanation. 

“Now, American citizens — innocent people — have been brutalized … and to be clear, we’ve seen people dragged from cars, beaten, gassed, attacked with crowd-control weapons, blinded, like back in my home state of California, left with broken ribs, run off the road, beaten, injured, disfigured and shot,” he said.  

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education exhausted millions in taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate a chunk of its Office for Civil Rights, a government watchdog found in a report released Monday.  

The department spent between roughly $28.5 million and $38 million on the salaries and benefits of the hundreds of Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, employees who were not working between March and December 2025, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

OCR employees — tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families — were targeted in March as part of a larger Reduction in Force, or RIF, effort at the department and placed on paid administrative leave while legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s administration unfolded.

Amid a mounting backlog of discrimination complaints, the department said in December it would be bringing back the affected employees. The agency moved to rescind the RIFs against the OCR employees in early January while legal challenges proceeded.   

Complaints resolved

The department resolved more than 7,000 of the over 9,000 discrimination complaints it received between March and September, GAO, an independent, nonpartisan body that reports to Congress, said.

However, roughly 90% of the resolved complaints were due to the department dismissing the complaint, the watchdog found. The dismissal rate ranged from 49% to 81% during academic years in the 2010s, GAO found in a 2021 report.

The department “has not made complete information publicly available about potential costs and has not made any information available about potential savings associated with its OCR RIF actions,” GAO said, calling on the agency to provide those estimates and document its analysis. 

Trump has taken significant steps to try to dismantle the 46-year-old department as part of his quest to move education “back to the states.”

In response to a draft of the report, Kimberly Richey, the assistant secretary for OCR, said the matter is rendered “moot” because the agency brought OCR employees back to work in December and rescinded the RIFs. 

“We do not concur with the recommendation,” Richey wrote. 

‘Unacceptable’

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who requested the GAO report, blasted the millions of dollars the department spent as “unacceptable” in a Monday statement. 

“Every child in America should be able to get a good education no matter where they live, what their religious beliefs are or whether or not they have a disability,” said the Vermont independent, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. 

“Instead, the Trump administration fired half of the Education Department employees working to protect the civil rights of students and wasted as much as $38 million in taxpayer dollars by preventing investigators from doing their jobs,” he added. 

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said that “instead of following court orders and federal law, the Trump Administration chose to keep these civil rights professionals on paid administrative leave rather than letting them do their jobs, while students, families, and schools paid the price.” 

Gittleman added that Education Secretary Linda McMahon “has made clear that she would rather play politics than uphold her responsibility to protect students’ rights,” and “her actions have undermined the Department’s mission, harmed families, and subjected dedicated federal employees to needless uncertainty, abuse, and harassment.” 

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. 

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman announces charges against Jeffrey Epstein on July 8, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice released more than 3 million pages of documents Friday related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The release, which in the 3 million pages includes more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images, comes more than 40 days after the agency was legally required to release the full set of files involving the disgraced financier, in compliance with federal law. 

The department instead opted for a piecemeal rollout of the files, prompting backlash.

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Friday’s release marks the end of a “very comprehensive” records review process to “ensure transparency to the American people and compliance” with the federal law — known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act — mandating the release. 

“After submitting the final report to Congress as required under the act and publishing the written justifications for redactions in the Federal Register, the department’s obligations under the act will be completed,” he said. 

In total, the DOJ has now released approximately 3.5 million pages in adherence with the federal law. 

President Donald Trump signed a bill into law in November requiring the DOJ to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California co-sponsored the measure — which gave the department 30 days after the bill was enacted into law to release the files, or Dec. 19.

Trump, who has appeared in several of the files, had a well-documented friendship with Epstein, but has maintained he had a falling-out with the disgraced financier and was never involved in any alleged crimes. 

“There’s a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents,” Blanche said. 

“There’s nothing I can do about that.” 

Louisiana Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy talks with reporters in the Dirksen Senate office building on Wednesday, Dec. 3, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The fierce debate surrounding school choice initiatives took center stage Wednesday during a hearing in a U.S. Senate panel. 

President Donald Trump’s administration and congressional Republicans have made school choice a central point of their education agenda, including a sweeping national school voucher program baked into the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut bill Trump signed into law in July. 

The hearing came in the middle of National School Choice Week, which the U.S. Department of Education dubbed a “time to highlight the many different types of education across the United States and to empower families to choose the best learning option for their child’s success.” 

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

Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which held the hearing, described school choice as “the avenue for expressing the innovation that we need to meet a student’s need.” 

“Traditional schools work for many students — what we’re asking, though, is to give the parent the choice if it does not,” the Louisiana Republican added.

Many models for school choice

Proponents in Ohio and Florida touted the work of their respective organizations and the broader school choice efforts in their states. 

Cris Gulacy-Worrel serves as vice president of Oakmont Education, an operator of dropout recovery charter schools serving more than 5,500 students in Ohio, Iowa and Michigan. 

Gulacy-Worrel said last year, Oakmont Education “graduated 1,309 students, and we’ve placed over 4,500 young people directly into the workforce over the last three years alone.”

“For far too long, we’ve been told school choice is about (Education Savings Accounts) or public charter schools — it’s not,” she said. “What we’re really talking about is educational plurality, a system with room for many models and many pathways to success.”

John Kirtley is chairman of Step Up For Students, a nonprofit scholarship funding organization that distributes scholarships for children in Florida. 

Kirtley said his state “has been moving towards a new definition of public education: Raise taxpayer dollars to educate children, but then empower families to direct those dollars to different providers and even different delivery methods that best suit their individual children’s learning needs.” 

More than half of all K-12 students in the Sunshine State participate in a school choice program rather than attending their local public school. 

Bernie Sanders sees two-tier system created

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders, the panel’s ranking member, said that while there are a “number of things we can and should be doing to strengthen and improve education” in the country, “we should not be creating a two-tier education system in America — private schools for the wealthy and well-connected and severely under-funded and under-resourced public schools for low-income, disabled and working-class kids.” 

The Vermont independent said that “unfortunately, that is precisely what the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues in Congress are doing,” pointing to the national school voucher program that’s now law. 

Sanders’ staff released a committee report Wednesday analyzing the state laws of 21 states with school voucher programs that scholarship granting organizations administer, in an effort to understand the forthcoming federal school voucher program’s potential effects.

Among the findings, the report concluded that “nearly half of analyzed private schools (48%) explicitly state that they choose not to provide some or all students with disabilities with the services, protections, and rights provided to those students in public schools under federal law.” 

Arizona voucher program

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, testified about the negative repercussions of private school vouchers in the Grand Canyon state. 

In 2022, Arizona became the first state in the country to enact a universal school voucher program. 

Garcia described her state’s voucher program as a “bloated mess costing three times more than it was projected” and said vouchers “often only offer the illusion of choice.” 

“Every child deserves a great public school in Arizona,” she added. “Our experiences show that vouchers are not the way to achieve that goal.” 

National school voucher program 

The permanent national school voucher program, starting in 2027, allocates up to $1,700 in federal tax credits for individuals who donate to organizations that provide private and religious school scholarships. 

The program reflects a sweeping bill that Cassidy and GOP Reps. Adrian Smith of Nebraska and Burgess Owens of Utah had reintroduced in their respective chambers in 2025.

Cassidy defended the program during the hearing, saying: “We’re not trying to supplant funding for public education — we’re trying to supplement funding for education.” 

As of Tuesday, nearly half of all states have opted in to the initiative, per the Education Department. 

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem at a roundtable discussion with local ranchers and employees from U.S. Customs and Border Protection on Jan. 7, 2026 in Brownsville, Texas. (Photo by Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A growing number of U.S. House Democrats are pushing for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s impeachment after another fatal shooting of an American citizen by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis this month.  

At least 164 members — more than three-fourths of all House Democrats, who total 213 — backed an impeachment resolution against Noem as of Tuesday afternoon, according to the office of Illinois Rep. Robin Kelly, who authored the measure. 

“Kristi Noem should be fired immediately, or we will commence impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives. We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said in a statement Tuesday.

Kelly’s three articles of impeachment against Noem accuse the secretary of obstruction of Congress, violation of public trust and self-dealing. The resolution came after the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by a federal agent in Minneapolis.  

Democratic calls for Noem’s impeachment grew even louder after federal agents fatally shot 37-year-old Alex Pretti in Minneapolis Jan. 24. 

President Donald Trump’s administration has taken heat for its immigration enforcement tactics and appeared to dial down its rhetoric following the shooting. 

Republicans control the U.S. House with a narrow 218-member majority.

In a statement shared with States Newsroom on Tuesday, Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the department, said, “DHS enforces the laws Congress passes, period,” adding that “if certain members don’t like those laws, changing them is literally their job.” 

“While (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers are facing a staggering 1,300% spike in assaults, too many politicians would rather defend criminals and attack the men and women who are enforcing our laws and did nothing while Joe Biden facilitated an invasion of tens of millions of illegal aliens into our country,” McLaughlin said. “It’s time they focus on protecting the American people, the work this Department is doing every day under Secretary Noem’s leadership.”

Here’s a list of the Democratic co-sponsors, as of Tuesday afternoon, per Kelly’s office: 

Alabama

• Rep. Terri Sewell
• Rep. Shomari Figures

Arizona

• Rep. Yassamin Ansari
• Rep. Adelita Grijalva

California

• Rep. Nanette Barragán
• Rep. Julia Brownley
• Rep. Salud Carbajal
• Rep. Judy Chu
• Rep. Lou Correa
• Rep. Mark DeSaulnier
• Rep. Laura Friedman
• Rep. John Garamendi
• Rep. Jimmy Gomez
• Rep. Jared Huffman
• Rep. Sara Jacobs
• Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove
• Rep. Doris Matsui
• Rep. Dave Min
• Rep. Kevin Mullin
• Rep. Luz Rivas
• Rep. Linda Sánchez
• Rep. Brad Sherman
• Rep. Lateefah Simon
• Rep. Eric Swalwell
• Rep. Mark Takano
• Rep. Mike Thompson
• Rep. Norma Torres
• Rep. Juan Vargas
• Rep. Maxine Waters
• Rep. Sam Liccardo
• Rep. Scott Peters
• Rep. Raul Ruiz
• Rep. Robert Garcia
• Rep. Mike Levin
• Rep. Gil Cisneros
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Colorado

• Rep. Diana DeGette
• Rep. Brittany Pettersen
• Rep. Joe Neguse
• Rep. Jason Crow

Connecticut

• Rep. John Larson
• Rep. Joe Courtney
• Rep. Jahana Hayes
• Rep. Rosa DeLauro

Delaware

• Rep. Sarah McBride

District of Columbia 

• Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton* 

Florida

• Rep. Lois Frankel
• Rep. Maxwell Frost
• Rep. Darren Soto
• Rep. Kathy Castor
• Rep. Frederica Wilson
• Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Georgia

• Rep. Nikema Williams
• Rep. Hank Johnson

Hawaii

• Rep. Jill Tokuda

Illinois

• Rep. Nikki Budzinski
• Rep. Sean Casten
• Rep. Danny Davis
• Rep. Chuy García
• Rep. Jonathan Jackson
• Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi
• Rep. Mike Quigley
• Rep. Jan Schakowsky
• Rep. Eric Sorensen
• Rep. Bill Foster

Indiana

• Rep. André Carson
• Rep. Frank Mrvan

Kentucky

• Rep. Morgan McGarvey

Louisiana 

• Rep. Troy Carter

Maine

• Rep. Chellie Pingree

Maryland

• Rep. Sarah Elfreth
• Rep. April McClain Delaney
• Rep. Kweisi Mfume
• Rep. Johnny Olszewski
• Rep. Steny Hoyer

Massachusetts

• Rep. Bill Keating
• Rep. Stephen Lynch
• Rep. Jim McGovern
• Rep. Seth Moulton
• Rep. Lori Trahan
• Rep. Jake Auchincloss
• Rep. Ayanna Pressley
• Rep. Richard Neal

Michigan

• Rep. Haley Stevens
• Rep. Shri Thanedar
• Rep. Rashida Tlaib
• Rep. Debbie Dingell

Minnesota

• Rep. Angie Craig
• Rep. Betty McCollum
• Rep. Kelly Morrison
• Rep. Ilhan Omar

Mississippi

• Rep. Bennie Thompson

Missouri

• Rep. Wesley Bell

Nevada

• Rep. Dina Titus
• Rep. Steven Horsford
• Rep. Susie Lee

New Hampshire 

• Rep. Chris Pappas

New Jersey

• Rep. LaMonica McIver
• Rep. Rob Menendez
• Rep. Donald Norcross
• Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman

New Mexico

• Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández
• Rep. Melanie Stansbury
• Rep. Gabe Vasquez

New York

• Rep. Yvette Clarke
• Rep. Adriano Espaillat
• Rep. Dan Goldman
• Rep. Tim Kennedy
• Rep. Jerry Nadler
• Rep. Paul Tonko
• Rep. Ritchie Torres
• Rep. Nydia Velázquez
• Rep. Laura Gillen
• Rep. Gregory Meeks
• Rep. Grace Meng
• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
• Rep. George Latimer
• Rep. Pat Ryan
• Rep. John Mannion

North Carolina

• Rep. Alma Adams
• Rep. Valerie Foushee
• Rep. Deborah Ross

Ohio

• Rep. Joyce Beatty
• Rep. Shontel Brown
• Rep. Greg Landsman

Oregon

• Rep. Suzanne Bonamici
• Rep. Maxine Dexter
• Rep. Val Hoyle
• Rep. Andrea Salinas
• Rep. Janelle Bynum

Pennsylvania

• Rep. Brendan Boyle
• Rep. Madeleine Dean
• Rep. Chris Deluzio
• Rep. Dwight Evans
• Rep. Summer Lee
• Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon
• Rep. Chrissy Houlahan

Rhode Island

• Rep. Gabe Amo

Tennessee

• Rep. Steve Cohen

Texas

• Rep. Greg Casar
• Rep. Joaquin Castro
• Rep. Jasmine Crockett
• Rep. Lloyd Doggett
• Rep. Veronica Escobar
• Rep. Sylvia Garcia
• Rep. Al Green
• Rep. Julie Johnson
• Rep. Lizzie Fletcher
• Rep. Vicente Gonzalez

Vermont

• Rep. Becca Balint

Virginia

• Rep. Suhas Subramanyam
• Rep. James Walkinshaw
• Rep. Bobby Scott
• Rep. Don Beyer
• Rep. Eugene Vindman
• Rep. Jennifer McClellan

Washington

• Rep. Pramila Jayapal
• Rep. Emily Randall
• Rep. Adam Smith
• Rep. Marilyn Strickland
• Rep. Suzan DelBene

Wisconsin

• Rep. Gwen Moore
• Rep. Mark Pocan

*Norton is the non-voting delegate who represents Washington, D.C., in Congress. 

A September poll from First Five Years Fund, an advocacy group, found that 4 out of 5 rural Americans “say the ability of working parents to find and afford quality child care is either in a ‘state of crisis’ or ‘a major problem.’” (Photo by Sue Barr/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Several U.S. Senate Democrats launched an investigation into how the Trump administration’s child care funding cuts and policy changes are affecting rural families, in a Sunday letter provided exclusively to States Newsroom.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Raphael Warnock of Georgia led four of their colleagues in urging the respective heads of Rural Development at the Department of Agriculture and the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services to offer up more information on their “current capacity to support child care, particularly in rural communities.” 

Joining Warren and Warnock are Sens. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Alex Padilla of California and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. 

“Despite child care being one of the biggest costs American families face, the Trump administration has taken a wrecking ball to the federal programs that aim to make child care more accessible and affordable, including ACF and USDA’s Rural Development Office,” the senators wrote to acting Under Secretary for Rural Development Todd Lindsey and ACF’s Assistant Secretary Alex Adams. 

USDA Rural Development and ACF work to expand access to child care in rural areas. 

The senators pointed to a September poll from First Five Years Fund, an advocacy group, which found that 4 out of 5 rural Americans “say the ability of working parents to find and afford quality child care is either in a ‘state of crisis’ or ‘a major problem.’” 

The group said the administration’s slashing of staff at agencies and programs that support affordable child care, including ACF and Rural Development at USDA, are raising concerns that the administration is “failing families across the country and adding to the affordability crisis facing working-class families.” 

Cuts from federal child care fund to Dem states

The senators raised alarm over some of the administration’s most sweeping actions regarding child care programs, including attempts to cut off nearly $2.4 billion from the multibillion-dollar Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF, to California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York earlier in January. 

All are led by Democratic governors and the administration cited concerns about allegations of fraud.

CCDF — administered within the Office of Child Care under ACF — provides federal funding to states, territories and tribes to help low-income families obtain child care.

The five Democratic-led states sued in a New York federal court over the freeze, which also included $7.35 billion from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and $869 million from the Social Services Block Grant — totaling more than $10 billion when combined with CCDF. 

A judge temporarily blocked the administration from freezing the funds earlier this month. A separate judge extended that order Friday. 

“States are challenging the legality of this freeze, but the consequences would be devastating should the courts permit the administration to permanently withhold the funds,” the senators wrote. 

Days prior to the announced freeze, the administration said states had to provide “justification” that federal child care funds they receive are spent on “legitimate” providers to get those dollars.

That demand followed allegations of fraud in Minnesota child care programs, which had prompted HHS to freeze all child care payments to the state.

The administration also announced earlier in January it would be rescinding multiple Biden administration child care rules that “required states to pay providers before verifying any attendance and before care was delivered.” 

Head Start in rural America

The Democrats argued that President Donald Trump has also “attacked Head Start at every turn since his inauguration.” 

ACF administers Head Start, which provides early childhood education, nutritious meals, health screenings and other support services to low-income families. 

The senators noted that “Head Start is especially crucial in rural communities, where it is often the only licensed child care program available.” 

During the record-long government shutdown in 2025, scores of Head Start centers experienced lapses in funding grants as a result.  

Even prior to the shutdown, Head Start already experienced chaos during the Trump administration, such as reports of delays in accessing approved grant funding, regional office closures and firings at ACF’s Office of Head Start.

Flood of workers departing USDA 

Meanwhile, USDA saw more than 20,000 employees leave in the first half of 2025, according to a report from the agency’s Office of Inspector General. More than one-third of the agency’s Rural Development unit left during that time.  

“Instead of strengthening the programs that aim to address the rural child care crisis, President Trump is firing the people who administer them,” the senators wrote. 

On top of that, the agency in March confirmed it would be slashing around $1 billion in previously announced funding for programs to help child care facilities, schools and food banks purchase from local farmers. 

USDA also faced backlash during the shutdown for refusing to tap into a multibillion-dollar contingency fund in order to keep benefits flowing for the country’s main food assistance program known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The senators urged Lindsey and Adams to respond to their inquiries by Feb. 16. 

USDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

In response to a request for comment, ACF said Monday it is “currently reviewing the U.S. Senators’ letter and will respond to them directly.” 

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

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is scheduled to travel to Iowa on Jan. 27 to deliver a speech focused on the economy and energy, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles told reporters Wednesday. 

The president is expected to begin weekly travel ahead of the midterm elections — in which the GOP is aiming to improve its razor-thin majority in the U.S. House and maintain its lead in the U.S. Senate. 

The anticipated travel will also come as Trump seeks to boost his affordability policy blitz and as the cost of living marks a focal point of the midterm elections. On Tuesday, stocks plunged after Trump doubled down on threats to acquire Greenland and pledged tariffs on eight European countries that opposed his plans. 

While traveling to Davos, Switzerland, with Trump for the World Economic Forum, Wiles told the traveling press that officials in Trump’s Cabinet would also be increasing their domestic travel. 

The timing and location of the Iowa event have yet to be announced. Trump last visited the Hawkeye State in July 2025, which marked the beginning of a yearlong celebration heading into the 250th anniversary of the country. 

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance is slated to be in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on Thursday for a roundtable with local leaders and community members, according to his office Wednesday. 

The vice president will also give remarks centered on “restoring law and order in Minnesota.”

 Thousands of Minnesotans have been protesting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement presence there following the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by a federal agent.

Vance is also set to make a visit to an industrial shipping facility, in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday, according to his office. 

Vance is set to deliver remarks there focused on the administration’s “commitment to lower prices, bigger paychecks, and creating more good-paying jobs in Ohio and across the Midwest,” per his office. 

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon takes in a selection of grade school students’ patriotic artworks and high schoolers’ recent output in a special installation set up at Exeter-West Greenwich Regional Junior High and High School in Rhode Island on Monday, Jan. 12, 2026. (Photo by Alexander Castro/Rhode Island Current)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education, for now, is backtracking on plans to garnish wages and seize tax refunds of student loan borrowers in default, the department announced Friday.

Less than a month after the agency said it would begin garnishing wages by sending notices to roughly 1,000 borrowers in default the first full week of January, the department said that the temporary delay would allow it to implement “major student loan repayment reforms” under Republicans’ tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law in 2025.

The delay would “give borrowers more options to repay their loans,” the department said. 

It was not immediately clear from the announcement how long the pause would last. 

Education Secretary Linda McMahon signaled earlier this week during the Rhode Island portion of her Returning Education to the States Tour that wage garnishment has been “put on pause for a bit.”  

The agency resumed collections for defaulted federal student loans in May after a pause that began during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A borrower can have their wages garnished as a consequence of defaulting on their loans, and a loanholder can order an employer to withhold up to 15% of their disposable pay to collect defaulted debt without being taken to court, according to Federal Student Aid, an office of the Education Department.

The delay also applies to the Treasury Offset Program, which “allows the federal government to collect income tax refunds and certain government benefits (for example, Social Security benefits) from individuals who owe debts to the federal government,” per FSA. 

Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, said in a Friday statement that “after months of pressure and countless horror stories from borrowers, the Trump Administration says it has abandoned plans to snatch working people’s hard-earned money directly from their paychecks and tax refunds simply for falling behind on their student loans.” 

“Amidst the growing affordability crisis, the Administration’s plans would have been economically reckless and would have risked pushing nearly 9 million defaulted borrowers even further into debt,” she added, while pointing to a Jan. 7 letter from Protect Borrowers and other organizations calling on McMahon to “immediately halt its plan to resume garnishment of millions of struggling borrowers’ wages.”

President Donald Trump displays a signed bill in the Oval Office on Jan. 14, 2026. Trump signed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which restores whole milk to school lunches across the country. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a law Wednesday that will restore whole milk in federally subsidized school lunches.

The dairy staple — out of school meal programs for more than a decade amid a broader push to curb childhood obesity — will soon return to school cafeterias under the law. 

Trump said during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office that the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act will “ensure that millions of school-aged children have access to high-quality milk as we make America healthy again.” 

Seated with a jug of milk on the Resolute Desk, Trump said the changes will also be “major victories for the American dairy farmers who we love and who voted for me in great numbers.” 

White House ceremony

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins celebrated the legislation becoming law and said her department would post Wednesday the “new rulemaking that is necessary to get whole milk back into school lunches.” 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also lauded Trump’s efforts and described the measure as a “long overdue correction of the school nutrition policy that puts children’s health first.” 

Trump was also joined by Dr. Ben Carson, national advisor for nutrition, health, and housing at USDA, along with Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, GOP Sens. John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho and Roger Marshall of Kansas, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and advocates who supported the bill.

Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, also attended the ceremony. 

The U.S. House passed the bill in December, following unanimous passage in the Senate in November. 

Welch and Marshall, along with Pennsylvania Sens. Dave McCormick, a Republican, and John Fetterman, a Democrat, introduced the measure in the Senate. 

Thompson and Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier of Washington state brought corresponding legislation in the House.

What the new law does 

Under the law, schools that are part of the USDA’s National School Lunch Program can offer “flavored and unflavored organic or nonorganic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk and lactose-free fluid milk.” 

The program — which provides free or low-cost lunches in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions — saw nearly 29.4 million children participate on a typical day during the 2023-2024 school year, according to the Food Research & Action Center.

The schools can also provide “nondairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and meet the nutritional standards established by” the Agriculture secretary.

The law exempts milk fat from being considered saturated fat as it applies to schools’ “allowable average saturated fat content of a meal.” 

Parents and guardians, as well as physicians, can also offer a written statement for their student to receive a nondairy milk substitute. 

Michael Dykes, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, celebrated the bill becoming law in a Wednesday statement.

Dykes dubbed the law a “win for our children, parents, and school nutrition leaders, giving schools the flexibility to offer the flavored and unflavored milk options, across all healthy fat levels, that meet students’ needs and preferences.” 

The signing marked the second major nutrition policy change this month. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which encourages more full-fat dairy and protein.  

Demonstrators rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, as justices heard two cases on state bans of trans athletes. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared likely Tuesday to keep in place laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams.

The outcomes from the nation’s highest court expected later this year could have sweeping implications for transgender rights more broadly as President Donald Trump’s administration’s efforts to roll back those rights have extended far beyond athletics. 

In lengthy, back-to-back oral arguments, justices heard two cases — Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — which both deal with whether those states’ bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  

The West Virginia case also calls into question whether its prohibition on transgender athletes participating in women’s and girls’ sports violates the  federal civil rights law barring sex-based discrimination in education programs known as Title IX. 

Rulings in lower courts have halted the two states from implementing the bans, to varying extents, leading GOP attorneys general in Idaho and West Virginia to ask the Supreme Court to step in. 

Idaho and West Virginia represent just two of the nearly 30 states with laws banning transgender students’ participation in sports consistent with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an independent think tank. 

During oral arguments in the Idaho case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he sees the growth of women’s and girls’ sports as one of the country’s great successes over the past half-century. 

He noted that some states, the federal government, the NCAA and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee “think that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will create unfairness.” 

He added that “for the individual girl who does not make the team, or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal, or doesn’t make all league, there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside.” 

Kavanaugh is part of the court’s conservative wing, whose members outnumber liberals 6-3.

Title IX debated

Kavanaugh’s comment seemingly endorsed West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams’ framing of the issue, as a protection of women and girl athletes. 

Williams told the justices that “maintaining separate boys’ and girls’ sports teams ensures that girls can safely and fairly compete in school sports.” 

He argued that Title IX “permits sex-separated teams,” and “it does so because biological sex matters in athletics in ways both obvious and undeniable.” 

Joshua Block, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, argued on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender athlete at the forefront of the West Virginia case.

Block said that though West Virginia “argues that to protect these opportunities for cisgender girls, it has to deny them” to Pepper-Jackson, “Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause protect everyone, and if the evidence shows there are no relevant physiological differences between B.P.J. and other girls, then there’s no basis to exclude her.”

Idaho case

Idaho’s solicitor general, Alan Hurst, argued that “gender identity does not matter in sports, and that’s why Idaho’s law does not classify on the basis of gender identity.” 

Hurst said the law “treats all males equally and all females equally, regardless of identity.” 

Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney with Cooley LLP, represented Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student in Idaho who wanted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University but would have been barred from doing so under the Idaho law because she is transgender.

A federal court in Idaho halted the law from taking effect in 2020. A federal appeals court initially upheld the ruling in 2023 but adjusted the scope of it in 2024 to only apply to Hecox, not other athletes.

Hartnett said the law ignored that trans girls who take medication to block testosterone do not have an inherent physical advantage in sports.

“Circulating testosterone after puberty is the main determinant of sex-based biological advantage that (the Idaho law) sought to address,” she said.

Hecox “has mitigated that advantage because she has suppressed her testosterone for over a year and taken estrogen,” Hartnett said.

The Idaho law, Hartnett said, “thus fails heightened scrutiny as applied to Lindsay and transgender women like her who have no sex-based biological advantage as compared to birth sex females.” 

Hecox has asked both an Idaho federal court and the Supreme Court to drop the case. Though a federal judge in Idaho rejected that attempt in October, the Supreme Court deferred the request until after oral arguments and could ultimately dismiss her case in the coming months. 

Issue actively debated

Earlier landmark rulings involving transgender rights came up before the court Tuesday — including United States v. Skrmetti in 2025 and Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020. 

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s prohibition on gender-affirming care for minors.

The court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that LGBTQ+ employees are protected from employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Kavanaugh suggested the wide-ranging landscape of laws on the issue throughout the country meant the court should tread carefully in meddling in state laws.

“Given that half the states are allowing transgender girls and women to participate, about half are not, why would we at this point — just the role of this court — jump in and try to constitutionalize a rule for the whole country while there’s still, as you say, uncertainty and debate?” he asked Hartnett.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has taken steps at the federal level to prohibit trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports teams aligning with their gender identity, including the president signing an executive order in February 2025 that banned such participation. 

He also signed executive orders regarding transgender people including orders that make it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” restrict access to gender-affirming care for kids and aim to bar openly transgender service members from the U.S. military.

Becky Pepper-Jackson attends the Lambda Legal Liberty Awards on June 8, 2023 in New York City. Her mother sued on her behalf over West Virginia's law barring trans athletes from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams in public schools and colleges. (Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images for Lambda Legal )

WASHINGTON — A pair of blockbuster cases to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court could carry far-reaching implications for transgender rights, even as the Trump administration during the past year has rolled out a broad anti-trans agenda targeting everything from sports to military service.

The court on Jan. 13 will hear challenges to laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports. Both cases center on whether the laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The West Virginia case before the Supreme Court also questions whether the state’s law violates Title IX — a landmark federal civil rights law that bars schools that receive federal funding from practicing sex-based discrimination. 

Lower court rulings have temporarily blocked the states from implementing the bans, to varying extents, and Republican attorneys general in Idaho and West Virginia have asked the Supreme Court to intervene. 

“We know we have an uphill fight, and our hope is certainly that we prevail,” Joshua Block, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT & HIV Project, who will be presenting oral arguments in the West Virginia case, said at a Jan. 8 ACLU press briefing. 

“But we also hope that regardless of what happens, this case isn’t successfully used as a tool to undermine the rights of transgender folks more generally in areas far beyond just athletics.” 

The outcome of the oral arguments before a court dominated 6-3 by conservative justices will be closely watched. Nearly 30 states have laws that ban trans students’ participation in sports consistent with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an independent think tank.

Idaho case  

The justices are taking up both cases in one day. First will be Little v. Hecox, which contests a 2020 Idaho law that categorically bans trans athletes from competing on women’s and girls’ sports teams. 

Lindsay Hecox sued over the ban in 2020, just months before the law was set to take effect. 

Though Hecox wanted to try out for the women’s track and cross-country teams at Boise State University, the Idaho law — the first of its kind in the nation — would have prevented her from doing so because she is transgender. 

A federal court in Idaho halted the law from taking effect later that year. A federal appeals court initially upheld the ruling in 2023 but later adjusted the scope of it in 2024 to only apply to Hecox, not other athletes. 

Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July 2024.

Since that time, Hecox has asked both an Idaho federal court and the Supreme Court to drop the case. 

An Idaho federal judge in October rejected that attempt, but the Supreme Court deferred the request until after oral argument — meaning justices could still dismiss the case.

“The Supreme Court is trying to decide whether Idaho can preserve women’s sports based on biological sex, or must female be redefined based on gender identity,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador said at a Jan. 8 press briefing ahead of the oral arguments.

“I think Idaho is just trying to protect fairness, safety and equal protection for girls and women in sports,” Labrador said at the briefing alongside West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey, hosted by the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom.  

West Virginia case

After the Idaho case, the justices will hear arguments in West Virginia v. B.P.J., which centers on a 2021 Mountain State law that also bans trans athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. 

McCuskey argued that his state’s law “supports and bolsters the original intent and the continuing intent and purpose of Title IX.” 

McCuskey said the law complies with the Equal Protection Clause because it “treats all biological males and all biological females identically” and “doesn’t ban anyone from playing sports.” 

Becky Pepper-Jackson, who was 11 at the time, wanted to try out for the girls’ cross-country team when starting middle school, but would have been prevented from doing so under the West Virginia law because she is transgender. 

Her mother sued on her behalf in 2021.

A federal appeals court in 2024 barred West Virginia from enforcing the ban, prompting the state to ask the nation’s highest court to intervene.  

White House, Congress zero in on trans athletes

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump’s administration has taken steps at the federal level to prohibit trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports teams aligning with their gender identity. 

Trump signed an executive order in February 2025 that banned such participation and made it the policy of the United States to “rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy.”

The NCAA promptly changed its policy to comply with the order, limiting “competition in women’s sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth only.” 

In late 2024, prior to the policy shift, NCAA President Charlie Baker told Congress that of the more than half-million total athletes in NCAA schools, he knew of fewer than 10 who were transgender. 

The GOP-led House passed a measure in January 2025 that would bar transgender students from participating on women’s school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. 

But Senate Democrats in March blocked an attempt at imposing such a ban and codifying Trump’s executive order. 

Forty-eight GOP members of Congress argued in a September amicus brief supporting Idaho and West Virginia that “if allowed to stand, the interpretation of the lower courts will unsettle the very promises that Congress made to generations of young women and men through Title IX.” 

On the flip side, 130 congressional Democrats stood behind the two transgender athletes in a November amicus brief, noting that “categorical bans preventing transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity impose significant harm on all children — especially girls.” 

The group argued that such bans “do not meet the standards this Court has put in place to assess discrimination based on sex — whether as a matter of Title IX or under the Equal Protection Clause.” 

Trump’s broader anti-trans agenda has extended beyond athletic participation in the nearly one year since he took office. 

He signed executive orders that: make it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female;” restrict access to gender-affirming care for kids; and aim to bar openly transgender service members from the U.S. military. 

‘Textbook discrimination’ 

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, has noted that there has been “considerable disinformation and misinformation about what the inclusion of transgender youth in sports entails” and that trans students’ sports participation “has been a non-issue.”

In a statement ahead of oral arguments, HRC’s senior director of legal policy Cathryn Oakley said “every child, no matter their background, race, or gender, should have access to a quality education where they can feel safe to learn and grow — and for many kids that involves being a part of a school sports team.”

Oakley added that “to deny transgender kids the chance to participate in school sports alongside their peers simply because of who they are is textbook discrimination — and it’s unconstitutional.” 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., speaks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stands to the side in the U.S. Senate basement following a classified briefing on President Donald Trump's foreign policy plans on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday he will meet with Danish officials next week, following a recent push from the Trump administration to annex or even use the military against Greenland — a course of action questioned by several Republican senators.

Senators sat through a closed, classified briefing Wednesday with Rubio about ongoing U.S. intervention in Venezuela launched over the weekend, and Democrats said afterward that he did not address their concerns about the operation. 

In addition, President Donald Trump is considering options to acquire Greenland, including possible military operations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.

Danish officials have repeatedly stressed any move to take the sovereign nation by force would violate NATO bylaws, which bar members from acts of aggression against each other. Greenland, with a population of about 56,000, has its own local government but is also part of the Realm of Denmark.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters she does not support Trump’s goals for Greenland. 

“I hate the rhetoric around either acquiring Greenland by purchase or by force. And you know I don’t use the word hate very often. But I think that it is very, very unsettling,” Murkowski said. “And certainly concerning as one who has actually been to Greenland.”

Rubio told reporters following the Venezuela briefing — open to all senators — that Energy Secretary Chris Wright will outline the Trump administration’s plans for that nation’s oil reserves later Wednesday. Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until “a proper transition can take place.”

“We feel very positive that not only will that generate revenue that will be used for the benefit of the Venezuelan people … but it also gives us an amount of leverage and influence and control over how this process plays out,” Rubio said. 

The Senate meeting with Rubio, which also included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, followed days of escalation by the Trump administration abroad that included capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and bringing him to the United States to face criminal charges, threatening to take Greenland by force from NATO member Denmark and seizing a Russian-flagged oil tanker in the North Atlantic sea as well as a second tanker tied to Venezuela. 

Hegseth after the briefing defended the U.S. capture of the vessels, arguing the Trump administration was enforcing sanctions placed on Venezuelan oil. 

The episode with the oil tankers was disclosed early Wednesday when the U.S. military issued a social media statement that the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security apprehended a “stateless” ship in the Caribbean Sea and another in the North Atlantic. 

Leavitt said during an afternoon press briefing that Trump officials will meet with oil executives on Friday to discuss an “immersive opportunity.”

Hours after the Jan. 3 military operation to capture Maduro, Trump stressed that Venezuela’s oil reserves were a major factor in U.S. plans. Trump told reporters that major oil companies were notified before and after the operation in Venezuela. 

Senate GOP skeptical

Besides Murkowski, a handful of other Senate Republicans also expressed concern about the White House statement leaving open the possibility of military action on Greenland.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said “we need to not threaten a peaceful nation that’s an ally where we have a military base already.” 

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins said she also disagreed with the Trump administration’s push to acquire Greenland and said she’s not sure if the Trump administration is serious about using military force.

“It surprises me every time it comes up,” she said.

GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota said he doesn’t “think military intervention is on the table” for Greenland. 

Louisiana’s Republican Sen. John Kennedy said “to invade Greenland would be weapons grade stupid, and I don’t think President Trump is weapons grade stupid, nor is Marco Rubio.” He instead suggested possibly purchasing the territory, an offer that Denmark has already rejected.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, wrote in a critical statement that “cooperation with Arctic allies from Canada to the Nordics already grants the United States sweeping access to positions of strategic importance.”  

“Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” McConnell wrote. “And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters following his weekly press conference he couldn’t comment on hypotheticals about a military takeover of Greenland, including whether Congress must approve such an action. 

“No, I can’t because it depends on what that is. The Congress has a responsibility to declare war and I think there is no scenario where we’d be at war with Greenland,” Johnson said. “Under Article II, as we talked about in the room, the president has broad authority as commander-in-chief, as all previous presidents have. No one can forecast what is going to happen in Greenland. You’re asking a hypothetical that I cannot answer.”

Johnson said during the press conference that he doesn’t believe anyone in the Trump administration is “seriously considering” military action in Greenland. “And in the Congress, we’re certainly not.”

Democrats move toward vote on war powers

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut called the administration’s plan regarding Venezuelan oil “insane.” 

“They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time undefined as leverage to micromanage the country,” he said. “The scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning.” 

Though Murphy said he was glad administration officials held a briefing, he also said he envisioned a “very, very rough ride” ahead. 

Senate Democrats are gearing up to take another vote on a war powers resolution intended to curb Trump’s military actions abroad. An earlier attempt to pass a resolution was prompted by the administration’s multiple boat strikes in the Caribbean, which officials claimed were carrying drugs to the U.S., but backers failed to reach the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

The next vote, led by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, is expected to take place this week.

Walking out of the briefing, Kaine said “it’s time to get this out of the (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) and get it in public hearings where senators can ask questions and the American public can learn what the hell is going on.” Such facilities are secure settings where classified information can be shared.

Kaine said he could not get a clear answer from the briefing if the Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela will be replicated for other countries like Greenland or Cuba.

Sen. Jacky Rosen questioned what the administration’s actions mean for the U.S., despite consensus Maduro is a “very brutal dictator” and satisfaction among many that he’s no longer governing Venezuela. While Maduro is no longer in charge, his vice president was sworn in, Delcy Rodríguez, effectively continuing the regime. 

“We have problems right here at home,” the Nevada Democrat said, pointing to the recent expiration of enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

“Last time anybody checked, December 31st was just about a week ago, and how many people lost their health insurance because they couldn’t afford it because Donald Trump’s so busy, and Pete Hegseth’s so busy with the visuals of all these bombs going off all around the world that they’re not paying attention to people who are going to lose their health care?” asked Rosen.

Murphy, Kaine and Rosen all sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

A preschool teacher prepares lunch for students inside a day care center. (Photo by Billy Hustace/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — States must now provide “justification” that federal child care funds they receive are spent on “legitimate” providers in order to get those dollars, President Donald Trump’s administration announced. 

The Tuesday shift in policy came following allegations of fraud in Minnesota’s child care programs, which prompted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to freeze all child care payments to the state. 

HHS could not offer many specifics on how the review process will play out for other states, but clarified that the money in question is provided through the multibillion-dollar federal Child Care and Development Fund, or CCDF. 

“States will be required to provide documentation, such as written justification, receipts, or photographic evidence, demonstrating that funds are supporting legitimate child care providers,” Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, said in a statement to States Newsroom on Wednesday. 

CCDF provides federal funding to states, territories and tribes to help low-income families obtain child care. 

The program, administered within the Office of Child Care under HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, combines funding from the Child Care and Development Block Grant, or CCDBG, and the Child Care Entitlement to States, or CCES. 

Funding for CCDF in fiscal year 2025 stood at roughly $12.3 billion — comprising $8.75 billion from CCDBG and $3.55 billion from CCES. 

Head Start — a separate program that provides early childhood education, nutritious meals, health screenings and other support services to low-income families — does not appear to be affected. 

In a Tuesday social media post announcing the move, Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said he had “activated our defend the spend system for all ACF payments” and “starting today, all ACF payments across America will require a justification and a receipt or photo evidence before we send money to a state.” 

He clarified in a separate post shortly after that “funds will be released only when states prove they are being spent legitimately.” 

Funds undergo ‘regular audits’

“Federal funding enables millions of parents in every state and Congressional district to access and afford quality child care,” Sarah Rittling, executive director of First Five Years Fund, a federal advocacy group, said in a Wednesday statement. 

Rittling added that “these funds are essential to the nation’s well-being, allowing parents to work while ensuring their children are cared for and safe.” 



She also described the reports of potential fraud as “deeply concerning” and pointed out that “state oversight through regular audits is required by law to ensure that every dollar intended to protect and support young children is used properly and effectively.” 

“At the same time, we must ensure that nothing takes away from making sure funds for child care continue to reach the children and families who depend on them,” she said. 

A vacant hallway at Vaughan Regional Medical Center in Selma, Alabama, on Tuesday, Sep. 3, 2024 in Selma, Alabama. (Will McLelland for Alabama Reflector)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled Monday hundreds of millions of dollars each state will receive this fiscal year as part of a massive $50 billion rural health fund baked into Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law. 

The five-year Rural Health Transformation Program — authorized under GOP lawmakers’ mega tax and spending cut package Trump signed into law in July — is designed to offset the budget impacts on rural areas due to sweeping Medicaid cuts.  

Half of the $50 billion will be distributed equally among each state between fiscal years 2026 and 2030, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the remaining $25 billion, doled out over the same time period, is being allocated to states based on several factors, such as steps states are taking to improve access to care in rural communities. 

Texas will get the highest first-year award at $281.3 million, followed by Alaska at $272.2 million, California at $233.6 million, Montana at $233.5 million and Oklahoma, at $223.5 million. 

New Jersey is receiving the lowest first-year award, at $147.2 million. 

“Thanks to Congress establishing this investment and President Trump for his leadership, states are stepping forward with bold, creative plans to expand rural access, strengthen their workforces, modernize care, and support the communities that keep our nation running,” CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a statement alongside the announcement. 

Oz added that “CMS is proud to partner with every state to turn their ideas into lasting improvements for rural families.” 

Meanwhile, the nonpartisan health research organization KFF found that the program would only offset a little more than one-third of the package’s estimated $137 billion cut to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas over the next decade.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

The U.S. Education Department said it will start garnishing wages from student borrowers in default. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration will start garnishing the wages of student loan borrowers in default beginning early next year, the U.S. Education Department said Tuesday. 

In an email, the department said it expects the first notices to be sent to roughly 1,000 borrowers in default the first full week of January and that the number of notices would increase each month. Wages could be garnished as early as 30 days after borrowers receive notice.

The agency noted that collections activities would be conducted only after borrowers were given sufficient notice and the opportunity to pay back their loans.

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel for the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the decision as “cruel, unnecessary, and irresponsible” in a Tuesday statement. 

“As millions of borrowers sit on the precipice of default, this Administration is using its self-inflicted limited resources to seize borrowers’ wages instead of defending borrowers’ right to affordable payments,” Yu added. 

The agency resumed collections for defaulted federal student loans in May, following a pause that started during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As a consequence of defaulting on one’s student loans, a borrower can have their wages garnished, and the “loan holder can order your employer to withhold up to 15% of your disposable pay to collect your defaulted debt” without being taken to court, according to Federal Student Aid, an office of the Education Department. 

With wage garnishment, borrowers have the right to “be sent a notice that explains ED’s intention to garnish your wages in 30 days, the nature and amount of your debt, your opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to your debt, your right to object to garnishment, and your option to avoid garnishment by voluntary repayments,” according to FSA.

A photograph of President Donald Trump and late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is displayed after being unofficially installed in a bus shelter. (Leon Neal/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice early Tuesday released thousands more files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with several referencing President Donald Trump. 

The latest trove — which features nearly 30,000 more pages of documents related to Epstein — includes a note implicating Trump purportedly written by Epstein that the department later declared to be fake and an email from a prosecutor claiming Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet more times than previously reported.

In a social media post announcing the Tuesday release, the department issued a blanket denial that Trump was involved in Epstein’s crimes, saying the evidence included in the files was discredited.

“Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the post said.

The agency added “the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

The department has faced backlash for its piecemeal rollout of the files beginning Dec. 19, despite a legal mandate to release the full set on that date. 

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein, but has maintained he had a falling out with the disgraced financier and was never involved in any alleged crimes. 

Flights

A 2020 email from an assistant U.S. attorney in New York says flight records indicate that Trump “traveled on Epstein’s private jet many more times than previously has been reported.” 

The email notes that Trump was “listed as a passenger on at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996” and that this includes “at least four flights” on which Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell “was also present.” 

The files also include a letter that Epstein appeared to have sent to convicted serial sex offender Larry Nassar in 2019 but that the Justice Department declared to be “fake,” pointing to several discrepancies. 

The Justice Department said the handwriting did not match Epstein’s, noted it was postmarked after his death in Northern Virginia, not New York, and did not include Epstein’s jail name or inmate number — a requirement for outgoing mail. 

The department said the “fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual.” 

The letter, which appeared to have been sent from Epstein to Nassar, a disgraced former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor, said Trump shared their interest in young girls.

The letter was postmarked Aug. 13, 2019, just three days after Epstein died in his jail cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. 

Another email in the Tuesday release references more potential co-conspirators, according to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer called on the Justice Department to release more information on a note he said indicates the DOJ “was looking into at least ten potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators.”  

The New York Democrat said the department “needs to shed more light on who was on the list, how they were involved, and why they chose not to prosecute.” 

He added: “Protecting possible co-conspirators is not the transparency the American people and Congress are demanding.”

DOJ takes heat 

The Justice Department has faced heat for opting to release the files in batches instead of adhering to the congressionally mandated full release of the files by mid-December. 

The requirement comes from a bill Trump signed into law in November, which requires the agency to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Maxwell.

The measure — co-sponsored by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California — gave the department 30 days after the bill was enacted into law to release the files, or Dec. 19. 

Wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 7, 2022, near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States is located in the Atlantic Ocean 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it’s halting leases for five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast due to national security risks.

The Interior Department paused the projects — off the coasts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York — due to analysis from reports that have “long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference,” which poses a national security risk, according to a department release.

“Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement alongside the announcement. 

The Interior Department said “the clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.” 

The department said leases for Vineyard Wind 1, off Massachusetts; Revolution Wind, off Rhode Island and Connecticut; Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind; along with Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind 1, off New York, have been paused “effective immediately.” 

The department noted that the pause would give it, the Defense Department and other agencies “time to work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects.” 

The moves are part of the administration’s continued attacks against the renewable energy source, which have spilled into courts. A federal judge found this month that Trump’s January order halting permits for offshore wind projects was unlawful. 

‘Desperate rerun’ 

The action drew swift backlash from major environmental advocacy groups and Democratic officials. 

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a Monday statement the administration is “again unlawfully blocking clean, affordable energy.”

The administration has “baselessly and unlawfully attacked wind energy with delays, freezes and cancellations, while propping up aging, expensive coal plants that barely work and pollute our air,” Kelly added.

Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, described the move as a “desperate rerun of the Trump administration’s failed attempt to kill offshore wind — an effort the courts have already rejected.” 

She added that many of the projects had already won approvals through “rigorous review” and court challenges.

“Trying again to halt these projects tramples on the rule of law, threatens jobs, and deliberately sabotages a critical industry that strengthens, not weakens, America’s energy security,” she said. 

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also weighed in, saying in a Monday social media post Trump was “trying AGAIN to kill thousands of good-paying union jobs and raise your electricity bill.”  

The New York Democrat said he’s “been fighting Trump’s war against offshore wind — a war that threatens American jobs and American energy” and vowed to continue fighting “to make sure these projects, the thousands of jobs they create, and the energy they provide can continue.” 

Rhode Island lawmakers slam pause 

Lawmakers in Rhode Island were also quick to blast the administration’s effort, which affects the Revolution Wind project off its own coast. 

Rep. Seth Magaziner said that “at a time when working people in Rhode Island are struggling with high costs on everything, Trump should not be canceling energy projects that are nearly ready to deliver reliable power to the grid at below-market rates and help lower costs.” 

The Rhode Island Democrat rebuked the administration’s claims that Revolution Wind and the other offshore wind projects present national security concerns as “unfounded,” noting that “the Department of Defense thoroughly reviewed and signed off on this project during the permitting and approval process.” 

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said in a statement Monday that Revolution Wind “was long ago thoroughly vetted and fully permitted by the federal government, and that review included any potential national security questions.” 

Whitehouse, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the move “looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.” 

“This is President Donald ‘Stop Work’ Trump trying to keep affordable, clean energy off the grid, without a care about how many working people have to lose their jobs to keep his fossil fuel billionaires happy,” he said. 

In a statement Monday, Sen. Jack Reed noted that amid an increase in energy prices, policymakers should be promoting new energy sources.

“Trump’s repeated attacks on offshore wind are holding our nation back, increasing energy bills, and hurting our economy,” the Rhode Island Democrat said.