The National Guard’s top general told Congress on Friday that it would follow the Constitution and the law when he was asked about the possibility President Donald Trump would order troops to polling places for the midterm elections.

The remarks at a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee hearing came as Democratic lawmakers also voiced unease over the continuing deployment of nearly 2,500 National Guard members in Washington, D.C.

Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, asked Gen. Steven Nordhaus, chief of the National Guard Bureau, what assurances he could provide to Americans concerned about the deployment of troops at the polls. 

“The National Guard, obviously, always follows the Constitution, law, policy and guidance, both at the federal and the state level,” Nordhaus said.

Federal law prohibits the deployment of the military to polling places unless necessary “to repel armed enemies of the United States” and violations are punishable by up to five years in prison.

Trump has said that he should have ordered the National Guard to seize ballot boxes during the 2020 election, which he falsely maintains was stolen. Steve Bannnon, a former Trump adviser, has publicly urged the president to send the military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents to patrol the polls.

Trump last year deployed National Guard members to several Democratic-led cities, in some instances federalizing them against the will of governors, who typically command National Guard members. He also sent active-duty Marines into Los Angeles. Opponents of the deployments expressed fears that they represented a test run for intimidating voters.

While the deployment to the District of Columbia continues, Trump withdrew troops from other cities after the Supreme Court in December left in place a lower court decision barring a deployment in Chicago.

Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, questioned how long the D.C. deployment is sustainable. She also referred to reporting by ABC News that the Pentagon intends to keep troops in D.C. through the end of Trump’s term in January 2029.

“Picking up waste in the District of Columbia does not prepare anyone for conflicts that could arise in Europe, Asia and the Middle East,” McCollum said.

WASHINGTON — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s legal team is urging a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that allows the former Navy captain to keep his retirement rank and pay while his First Amendment case against the Pentagon moves forward. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, partner at Arnold & Porter, wrote in a brief filed April 15 that the Defense Department violated Kelly’s constitutional rights when it tried to punish him for appearing alongside other Democrats in the “Don’t Give Up The Ship” video. 

The Trump administration’s appeal of the district court’s ruling, he wrote, doesn’t cite “a single case” that has expanded the limited speech rights of active-duty military members to “retirees like Senator Kelly.”

The legal precedent the Trump administration did reference, Parker v. Levy, “involved an active-duty officer directly urging soldiers at his wartime military post to refuse specific orders to deploy and fight,” Mizer wrote. 

“Senator Kelly, by contrast, is a retired officer and legislator who publicly called, alongside other Members of Congress, for adherence to settled law, not defiance of it,” Mizer wrote. 

‘Illegal orders’ video posted in November

Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, and Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video at the center of the case on Nov. 18.

They said that Americans in those institutions “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

Mizer wrote in his legal brief that “Kelly never told members of the armed forces to refuse any particular military orders. The video did not even identify any specific military orders or operations.”

Mizer added the obligation to refuse clearly illegal orders “is a bedrock of the law of armed conflict.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in January that he would attempt to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay for his participation in the video, leading the senator to file a lawsuit. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court issued a preliminary injunction in February, blocking that from taking effect while the case progresses through the legal system. 

The Trump administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for May 7.

Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990; Cornelia T.L. Pillard, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013; and Florence Y. Pan, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022, make up the three-judge panel that will decide whether to uphold the district court’s preliminary injunction or overturn it. 

DOJ argues discipline at risk

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote in a 71-page brief filed March 20 the district court judge’s ruling “was gravely wrong and sweeps far beyond Kelly’s suit, calling into question the military’s ability to maintain discipline among servicemembers.”

Shumate added later in the filing that “while retired officers may well have greater speech rights than active-duty servicemembers in some respects, the district court erred in holding that they are indistinguishable from civilians for purposes of First Amendment analysis. 

“The court reasoned that retired officers cannot undermine discipline as significantly as active-duty servicemembers, but that conclusion is unsupportable.”

Shumate contended that the “district court also erred insofar as it suggested that Kelly is entitled to heightened First Amendment protection because he is a Member of Congress. Whatever enhanced speech rights Kelly has in that capacity, they come from other constitutional provisions, not the First Amendment.”

“If anything, Kelly’s role in Congress provides more, not less, reason to hold him as accountable as other servicemembers for counseling disobedience to lawful orders, given that his ‘leadership position’ as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee gives him ‘unique sway over the military,’” Shumate wrote. 

As the midterms approach, Republican and Democratic election officials are split over a powerful federal computer program at the center of President Donald Trump’s quest to expose noncitizen voters and compile lists of voting-age Americans.

A U.S. House Administration Committee hearing Thursday underscored the partisan divide over the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program. The online tool can verify U.S. citizenship by checking names against a host of government databases.

Republicans have embraced SAVE — Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — as an effective new way to identify potential noncitizen voters. But Democrats have spurned it amid fears Trump is building a national voter database and concern that the program wrongly flags U.S. citizens.

Kansas Republican Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Minnesota Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon staked out opposing views on SAVE during Thursday’s hearing. Purging noncitizens registered to vote is an ongoing focus of the Trump administration, though studies show noncitizen voting is extremely rare.

Kansas ran its voter roll through SAVE last year after the Trump administration refashioned the program, initially intended to check whether individual noncitizens are eligible for government benefits, into a citizenship verification tool and made it free for states. Schwab said SAVE had led Kansas to identify more than 5,500 registered voters who had died out of state.

“SAVE is one of the most important tools states have to verify voter information,” Schwab told the committee.

But Simon has previously raised concerns about the program. He signed a Dec. 1 letter with 11 other Democratic secretaries of state that said SAVE was likely to degrade rather than enhance state efforts to ensure free, fair and secure elections. The program is likely to misidentify eligible voters and chill voter participation, they wrote.

“I’m not throwing shade on my colleague, Secretary Schwab, but we have made the determination that it’s not yet ready for use in Minnesota,” Simon said Thursday, adding that Minnesota law doesn’t allow the use of SAVE.

Program central to Trump elections push

SAVE underpins Trump’s efforts to assert more White House power over federal elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by states.

The Department of Justice is suing 29 states and the District of Columbia for access to their unredacted voter rolls, including sensitive personal data on voters, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers. 

A Justice Department attorney said in federal court last month that the department has an agreement to share the information with Homeland Security for the purpose of identifying noncitizens.

Trump also signed an executive order last month that limits voting by mail and directs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age American citizens. The order says the lists will be derived from SAVE data, along with naturalization and Social Security records. At least five lawsuits have been filed against the order, including a challenge brought by Democratic state officials.

The White House is also pressuring Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump’s signature elections proposal. The measure would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship. Among its provisions is a requirement that states run their voter rolls through the SAVE program.

The House passed the bill in February. The Senate is debating a version of the legislation, which doesn’t appear to have enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

Nonprofit alternative available

“Election integrity is not a complicated issue. Only eligible voters should be casting ballots in our elections. One illegal vote is too many,” said Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican and the House Administration Committee chair.

In January, Steil introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act, which contains similar provisions to the SAVE America Act but is more sweeping in its scope. It would impose additional limits on mail-in voting and require states to use SAVE to update voter lists every month.

Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the committee, suggested states already have effective options other than SAVE. He singled out ERIC, or the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonprofit organization that allows states to compare voter registrations and other data to identify out-of-date registrations, deceased voters and in some cases possible illegal voting.

“I think it would probably be malpractice not to talk about Electronic Registration Information Center,” Morelle said.

Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia belong to ERIC. Some Republican-led states withdrew from the organization several years ago after Trump urged them to leave amid false conspiracy theories, which he helped promote, that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Simon said ERIC offers “really good” data that provides tremendous value in helping to keep Minnesota’s voter roll up to date. 

“Good data is the coin of the realm here,” he said.

Kansas doesn’t participate in ERIC. Schwab, who is running for governor in Kansas’ Republican primary, said it would be a good tool but that it’s expensive.

ERIC charges new members a one-time $25,000 fee, in addition to annual dues approved by its board of directors, according to the organization’s bylaws. Larger states pay more each year than smaller ones, with annual dues ranging from roughly $37,000 to $117,000, its website says.

“We don’t have the resources to join,” Schwab said.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Thursday passed a measure that would extend Temporary Protected Status for Haiti for three years, in a rare rebuke by the GOP-led Congress to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Ten Republicans defected, including Reps. Maria Salazar, Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez of Florida, Rich McCormick of Georgia, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mike Turner and Mike Carey of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California independent who caucuses with the GOP, also voted for the bill. 

The bill, which succeeded 224-204, came as Trump’s administration has sought to revoke legal protections for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, including Haitian nationals, amid his crackdown on immigrants without legal status.  

The bill now heads to the GOP-led Senate, and should that chamber pass the measure, would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump. 

Discharge petition

The Democratic-led effort came to the floor under a discharge petition, which allows a bill to skirt Republican leadership and be brought to the House floor once it gains the signatures of a majority of House members.

U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley — a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus — brought forth the petition in January and it reached the 218-signature threshold in late March.

Pressley’s petition forced a floor vote on a bill from New York Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen. The version voted on by the House would require the secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for TPS until April 2029. 

Lawler, a New York Republican, was an original co-sponsor of Gillen’s measure.

Lawler, Salazar, Fitzpatrick and Bacon had also signed on to Pressley’s discharge petition.

The bill’s passage in the House came just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over Trump’s efforts to revoke TPS for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

A federal judge in February blocked the termination of TPS for Haiti from going into effect — shortly before the designation was slated to end. 

TPS is provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary to nationals who cannot safely return home. The deportation protection lets individuals legally work in the United States, with renewal cycles that range from six to 18 months.  

‘A death sentence’

“Let us be clear about what deportation would mean — we would be sending parents back into danger, ripping our seniors away from their caregivers, faith leaders back into instability, and essential workers back into insecurity,” Pressley said at a Wednesday press conference she and Gillen held with colleagues and advocates regarding the effort. 

“To deport anyone to a country that is grappling with layered political, humanitarian and economic crises is unconscionable, it is dangerous and it is preventable,” Pressley added. 

“To deport anyone to Haiti right now is unlawful, and it would be a death sentence.” 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday said he will nominate Erica Schwartz, who served in the president’s first administration, to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a seat left vacant for months after his last director said she was ousted in a rift over childhood vaccines.

Trump announced his new pick on his social media platform, Truth Social, touting Schwartz’s career as a medical doctor with the U.S. armed forces.

“She is a STAR!” he wrote.

Schwartz was a deputy surgeon general during Trump’s first term, and previously served as the director of health, safety and work life while a rear admiral in the U.S. Coast Guard.

Trump’s previous CDC director, Susan Monarez, told U.S. senators under oath in September that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired her for not agreeing to pre-approve changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, and for refusing to fire agency scientists without cause. 

Monarez held the position for just 29 days before she was ousted. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on a party-line vote in July.

The president also announced nominations of several other health officials to fill open spots at the CDC.

“I am also pleased to announce the appointment of Sean Slovenski as the CDC Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Jennifer Shuford, MD, MPH, as the CDC Deputy Director and Chief Medical Officer, and Dr. Sara Brenner, MD, MPH, as Senior Counselor for Public Health to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,” Trump wrote.

“These Highly Respected Doctors of Medicine have the knowledge, experience, and TOP degrees to restore the GOLD STANDARD OF SCIENCE at the CDC, which was an absolute disaster focused on ‘mandates’ under Sleepy Joe,” he added.

The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee adjusted recommendations for childhood vaccines in September, withdrawing the agency’s recommendation that children receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Democrats on a U.S. House spending panel slammed President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts to farm and nutrition programs Thursday, as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pledged to collaborate with members of both parties to address their concerns.

The president’s budget request would make deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gutting programs to help feed hungry people and support farmers in need — even as the rising costs of groceries, gas and other necessities made those programs even more essential, Democrats on the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee told Rollins.

“It’ll be hard for our constituents to believe that USDA serves America’s farmers and rural communities when USDA is taking away their services,” the panel’s ranking Democrat, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, said.

The proposed USDA budget for fiscal 2027 would cut $4.9 billion, or nearly one-fifth of the department’s budget. Already, due to the Republican spending and tax cuts law last year, 2.5 million people have lost access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the department’s major food assistance initiative.

Trump overall in his budget request is seeking a huge boost in defense spending accompanied by cuts in domestic programs.

Accessibility, cooperation promised

Rollins defended the budget proposal, but projected a spirit of cooperation with the panel, which writes the annual spending bill for her department, telling Democrats and Republicans that she would be happy to address their priorities. She offered to field direct phone calls from several members.

Asked by Michigan Republican Rep. John Moolenaar about foreign growers undercutting U.S. sugar producers, she said she was ready to take on the issue in upcoming trade negotiations.

“We’ve got a lot going on around the world, but anything you hear, Congressman, that you think would be helpful for me, any way I can lean in… I would love to get more involved in that,” she said. “We are making progress but it does need to remain a priority.”

Rollins also touted some of her department’s wins over the past year, noting that bird flu cases were down 61% and that egg prices had also dropped. 

The administration has also increased exports of key crops and Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts bill raised the exemption to the federal estate tax that allows more family farms to be inherited with fewer taxes, she said. 

She also called the Make America Healthy Again initiative that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spearheaded, with USDA also playing a major part, “one of our most important legacies.”

She agreed to Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree’s request to develop a “comprehensive overview” for the Make America Healthy Again philosophy.

Rollins vows no Farm Service Agency closures

Democrats on the panel, including leading members Bishop and full Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, hammered the budget request’s many cuts.

The budget would eliminate more than 70 USDA programs and was particularly ill-timed as prices continue to climb, DeLauro said.

“The price of everyday goods continues to escalate: Grocery prices are up, gas prices are up, utility costs, housing costs, health care costs are through the roof,” she said. “And the administration’s only plan is to decimate the public programs that help alleviate the strain on working families and farmers across the country.”

Bishop complained that assistance from the Farm Service Agency, which provides credit, disaster relief and other financial programs, would be more difficult for farmers to access.

Rollins sought to justify the proposed decrease, noting that the cuts Bishop mentioned made up only about 4% of the total department budget. 

But she also said she would never close a Farm Service Agency office and offered to work directly with the Democrat and others to address understaffed offices.

“But as we are looking to make sure we are honoring the taxpayer, making sure we’re doing the best we can with every tax dollar, while putting the farmers first, (we are) taking key advice from you,” she said. 

She added that members should contact the department “if you hear of an FSA office that isn’t fully staffed, or that the farmers aren’t getting what they need — and I realize they’re out there, I’m not living in some Pollyanna world, these are very difficult times.”

She ended her dialogue with Bishop by telling him to “feel free to call me, sir, anytime.”

Power of the purse

DeLauro and Bishop led a push to assert Congress’ power to control spending, executed by Appropriations committees in both chambers.

Bishop said he expected USDA to “not circumvent this appropriations process by refusing to spend or obligate program funding once it is signed into law.”

DeLauro quizzed Rollins about a grant program that was created in a December 2024 law to assist farmers hit by extreme weather events over the prior two years. “Not a single dime” of the $220 million appropriated in the law had been allocated to qualifying states, DeLauro said.

Again, Rollins was conciliatory, saying the issue was a priority for the department and that funding for DeLauro’s home state was “at the finish line.”

“Yes ma’am, we’re moving on that,” she said.

WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. testified before Congress on Thursday that he’s not pleased with how spending cuts to programs that help lower-income Americans afford food will affect his efforts to bolster healthy eating habits. 

“Am I happy about the cuts? No, I’m not happy about the cuts,” Kennedy said during a lengthy hearing in front of the House Ways and Means Committee, one of several congressional panels he’ll testify before in the days ahead. 

Kennedy added that President Donald Trump and White House budget director Russ Vought also didn’t truly want to propose funding cuts to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, often called WIC, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 

“Nobody wants to make the cuts. Russ Vought doesn’t want to make the cuts. President Trump doesn’t,” he said. “But we got a $39 trillion debt.”

Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore, who asked the questions, then referenced comments Kennedy made earlier in the hearing about Froot Loops, when he said it “isn’t even a food. It’s just poison.”

Moore noted the cereal is “a lot cheaper than good, healthy food.”

Froot Loops includes a corn flour blend, sugar, wheat flour, whole grain oat flour, modified food starch and other ingredients. 

Trump advocates reductions for HHS

The Trump administration’s budget request for the fiscal year set to begin on Oct. 1 proposes Congress increase defense spending by more than half a trillion dollars, accounting for a 43% boost, and that lawmakers cut domestic spending by 10%. 

It suggested Congress reduce spending at HHS by $15.8 billion, or 12.5%, to $111.1 billion, though lawmakers largely rejected proposed spending cuts to the department during last year’s government funding process. 

Vought testified earlier this week that the administration expects to ask Congress for additional defense spending for the war in Iran, though he said he couldn’t give lawmakers a ballpark estimate for how much that will add to the current request for $1.5 trillion in defense funding. 

Lawmakers questioned Kennedy about dozens of other issues throughout the hearing, including how he’s spoken about vaccines since being confirmed HHS secretary, the rise in measles cases throughout the country and comments Kennedy and Trump made about the possible causes of autism. 

Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, after sharing that his 10-year-old is on the autism spectrum, said he was “underwhelmed” by what the administration has released so far about possible causes. 

He also said that his wife was hurt by claims from Trump and Kennedy that women who take Tylenol when pregnant could increase the risk their children are later diagnosed with autism. 

“We don’t even know if she took Tylenol during her pregnancy, but that was a hurtful moment for her,” Blake Moore said. “And I just want to encourage the administration and your team to keep at it. And I think there’s more we can do here with low expectations.”

Medical experts say that decades of research shows autism is the result of a combination of genetic and environmental factors.  

Measles death

California Democratic Rep. Linda T. Sánchez questioned Kennedy about comments he made during his Senate confirmation hearing on vaccines, arguing that he hasn’t stuck to the commitments he made during that process. 

She then asked him if the measles vaccine could have prevented a boy from dying of the disease in Texas. 

“It’s possible, certainly,” Kennedy said. 

But, he repeatedly declined to answer a question from Sánchez about whether Trump approved the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to remove a messaging campaign to encourage vaccination, even as she asked it several times. 

Sánchez then displayed a poster showing a photograph of Kennedy and Kid Rock to illustrate her discontent with his work so far as HHS Secretary. 

“Now, one thing that I find incredible is that you suspended this pro-vaccine messaging campaign. But somehow you’re spending taxpayer dollars to drink milk shirtless in a hot tub with Kid Rock,” she said. “And somehow you think that’s a better public health message than informing the public about the importance of vaccines.”

Day care, Medicaid, Black maternal health

Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis pressed Kennedy about whether he agrees with a statement Trump made earlier this month when the president said, “We can’t take care of day care. It’s not possible for us to take care of day care. Medicaid, Medicare, all of these individual things. They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing, military protection.” 

Kennedy responded that he was “told to make a 12% cut across our department” because the national debt, which has accumulated over decades, has reached $39 trillion. 

“We’re now having to tighten our belt,” Kennedy said. 

Davis also questioned Kennedy on funding and initiatives to reduce Black maternal mortality, saying “the Trump administration is undermining Black maternal health from all sides.”

“The GOP slashed over a trillion dollars from Medicaid, which pays for over 40% of births in the United States. President Trump just proposed cutting maternal and child health programs by over $800 million,” he said. “DOGE canceled funds for several research projects that could save countless Black mothers, like the Morehouse School of Medicine research on improving the health of Black pregnant and postpartum women.”

Kennedy responded by arguing that he and others in the Trump administration are “doing more to advance maternal health than any other administration in history.”

“There was tremendous duplication in the departments. We had 42 different maternal health services in our department,” Kennedy said. “And we cut some of those and consolidated them. Right now, we are investing huge amounts of money in maternal health.”

WASHINGTON — The approval gap on President Donald Trump’s war in Iran narrowed slightly Thursday in the U.S. House, when a War Powers Resolution gained a handful of votes, though still falling just short of passage.

The effort to force Trump to seek congressional authorization before further action in Iran failed 213-214, with one Republican voting present — shrinking the daylight compared to a 212-219 result in early March.

Democrats Greg Landsman of Ohio, Juan Vargas of California and Henry Cuellar of Texas flipped to vote in favor of the resolution brought to the floor by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. 

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, remained the only Democrat in opposition.

Golden said in a statement following the vote that he opposed the War Powers Resolution because it “would weaken our hand.”

“The purported aim of this and other war powers resolutions is to stop the hostilities. Thankfully, the United States and Iran are currently in a ceasefire, and we are negotiating over critical questions of national security and international order. I believe we must maintain a strong negotiation position over Iran’s nuclear program, freedom of movement in the international waters at the Strait of Hormuz, and how to achieve a durable peace between our two nations,” Golden said.  

As he did in early March, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., supported curtailing Trump’s military operations in the Middle East without further approval from Congress.

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, switched his support from last month’s “yes” vote to “present” Thursday.

The vote occurred one day after the Senate rejected a similar proposal, for the fourth time. The Senate’s vote margin has remained unchanged, with the exception of a couple absences.

Ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon

The vote also happened minutes after Trump announced on his social media platform Truth Social a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, a separate deadly war front that flared just days after the United States and Israel launched their Feb. 28 joint strikes on Iran.

The U.S. and Iran, meanwhile, are more than halfway through a two-week ceasefire that began on tenuous ground on April 7.

Talks with the Iranians, led by Vice President JD Vance, collapsed Saturday in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Trump on Thursday repeated his earlier claims that the war is winding down.

“We’re very close to making a deal with Iran. You’ll be the first to know,” Trump told reporters at the White House before departing for a planned event in Nevada to promote his no tax on tips policy. 

“I think we have a chance. And if that happens, oil goes way down, prices go way down, inflation goes way down, and you’re going to have much more importantly than even that, you won’t have nuclear holocaust happening now,” Trump said.

The war is “very close to being over,” Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo Wednesday. Trump told the New York Post Tuesday that Iran-U.S. peace talks could pick up again “over the next two days.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Thursday the U.S. military remains “locked and loaded” on Iran’s “critical dual use infrastructure,” including power plants and energy infrastructure, if the regime does not meet U.S. demands.

Strait of Hormuz

The U.S. is three days into a blockade on vessels from any nation sailing in and out of Iranian ports and coastline. 

Thirteen vessels turned around to comply with orders from the U.S. Navy in the waters just east of the narrowest point in the Strait of Hormuz, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said during a joint press briefing Thursday morning from the Pentagon.

U.S. Central Command updated that figure to 14 in a Thursday morning X post.

Caine said more than 10,000 sailors, marines and airmen are executing the operation on more than a dozen ships and dozens of aircraft.

Caine said in addition to the blockade, U.S. forces in all international waters are ordered to “actively pursue any Iranian flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran.”

The flashpoint in the Strait of Hormuz has rocked global energy markets, causing massive fuel shortages and soaring gas prices. Americans are paying on average $4.09 for a gallon of regular gas, and $5.61 for a gallon of diesel, according to AAA.

The war has claimed the lives of 13 American troops, and injured 398 as of Thursday, according to the Pentagon. Thousands of civilians have been killed and injured across the Middle East since the start of the conflict.

WASHINGTON — The 2026 tax filing season closed Wednesday with the Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill hailing success under last year’s massive tax cuts law, while Democrats said any benefits have been wiped out by skyrocketing gas prices, inflation and more.

More than 53 million Americans claimed at least one new benefit, averaging a tax cut of $800, under the tax cuts and spending package passed by congressional Republicans and enacted by President Donald Trump on July 4, according to the Department of the Treasury.

Originally titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but rebranded by Republicans as the Working Families Tax Cuts law, the measure made permanent Trump’s 2017 reduced tax brackets. 

It also quadrupled the state and local tax deduction cap and increased the child tax credit by $200.

Democrats marked Tax Day by criticizing the law and pointed to increasing inflation and tariff costs as wiping out the value of tax relief, as both sides try to gain the advantage in messaging ahead of crucial midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

Tips, car loans, overtime

The new law cut taxes on tips until 2028 and on qualifying car loan interest until 2029. 

As for Trump’s campaign promise for no tax on overtime, the law applies the advantage on up to $12,500 in overtime earnings for individuals, and $25,000 for joint filers, through 2028. 

Additionally, eligible senior citizens can now deduct up to $6,000 for individuals, $12,000 for couples, until 2029.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Tax Day statement that Trump’s leadership upholds “the foundational principle that hardworking Americans should be rewarded, not punished with tax hikes, and the results of this tax season prove it.”

According to Internal Revenue Service statistics to date and made public Wednesday:

• Six million filers claimed no tax on tips, with an average deduction of $7,100.
• Twenty-five million filers claimed no tax on overtime, averaging a $3,100 deduction.
• Thirty million seniors claimed the enhanced senior deduction, receiving an average break of $7,500.
• One million Americans deducted car loan interest, getting a $1,800 break on average.

Bessent, acting IRS commissioner after a turnover of six IRS commissioners in 2025, said the agency has “worked tirelessly to ensure our tax system works for the people it is meant to serve.”

“From the shop floor to the kitchen table, taxpayers are feeling the difference of the largest tax cuts in our nation’s history, and millions of Americans are keeping more of what they earn and seeing their paychecks go further than ever before,” Bessent said.

The White House circulated a collection of statements from taxpayers Tuesday praising the new deductions. 

Trump also held a photo opportunity Monday, when he received a McDonald’s delivery from a self-proclaimed “DoorDash Grandma” who lauded tax relief on her tips in a planned event. Trump subsequently pulled cash from his pocket and handed it to the woman, Sharon Simmons of Arkansas, who represented the tech delivery service. 

Simmons, no newcomer to such GOP appearances, also testified before the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee in late July 2025, following the passage of the tax law, to praise the no tax on tips policy.

134 million income tax returns

Frank Bisignano, IRS chief executive officer, told Senate tax writers on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the 2026 filing season was the “most successful tax filing season in IRS history.”

Trump created the IRS CEO position last year. Bisignano also serves as the commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration.

“This landmark legislation forms the cornerstone of the administration’s growth agenda. The latest numbers tell the story,” Bisignano told the Senate Committee on Finance during the panel’s annual oversight hearing examining tax collection.

The agency to date has seen over 134 million income tax returns filed for 2025 earnings, with 98% of them done electronically, according to IRS data. Bisignano hailed the issuance of 80 million refunds that on average totaled $3,400, up by 11% compared to 2024. 

Senate Democrats on the panel panned the cost of the new tax regime and questioned whether a shrinking IRS staff will contribute to less enforcement. 

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., said “the lack of cops on the beat at the IRS is going to cost the Treasury in the United States $646 billion in unpaid taxes by the wealthiest people in America.”

According to reports, roughly 26,000 employees left the IRS last year as part of Trump’s civil service reduction incentives and firings.

“I remember you saying when you and I met before your confirmation that you are deeply concerned about the level of national debt in this country,” Bennet said to Bisignano. “It is $38 trillion and a lot of that is because of the completely unpaid-for tax bill that is the Trump tax bill.”

The cost of the tax bill will be realized in years to come, according to congressional scorekeepers.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the law will cost $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years —  more than $4 trillion if accounting for interest that will accumulate on the nation’s debt.

An analysis by the Tax Foundation, which generally advocates for lower taxes, found tax revenue coming into U.S. coffers will drop by nearly $5.2 trillion over the next decade. Individual income taxes have been the government’s largest single source of revenue since 1944, according to data compiled by the Tax Policy Center, a partnership between the Urban Institute and Brookings Foundation.

How the tax cuts were offset

Lawmakers who wrote the massive tax law accounted for some of the lost revenue by overhauling eligibility and work requirements for government health and food assistance for low-income Americans. 

According to a recent report from the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, roughly 2.5 million Americans have lost Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits since the tax law came into effect.

The CBO estimated the law’s changes to work requirements for Medicaid, the government’s low-income health care program, will result in millions of Americans losing health insurance. 

Senate Republicans defended the law, saying it helped Americans by avoiding “the largest tax increase in American history.”

“Had the 2017 tax cuts expired, taxpayers earning less than $400,000 would have faced a more than $2.6 trillion tax hike over the next decade,” said Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. 

Pilot program canned

The panel’s highest-ranking Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., slammed the new law for terminating a free alternative for tax filing, IRS Direct File, enacted under former President Joe Biden’s own budget reconciliation megabill.

The limited pilot program offered a free filing portal directly through the IRS and was available to 19 million taxpayers in 2024.

“Direct File in America died on Mr. Bisignano’s watch,” Wyden said, adding the program’s termination again puts taxpayers at the mercy of “tax software giants who overcharge for a service that ought to be free.”

Rather, the IRS offers Free File, an option available to taxpayers under a certain income level, now capped at $89,000, via a handful of tax preparation software companies that contract with the federal government.

A 2019 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report described the program as “fraught with complexity and confusion.” Estimates show roughly 14 million free-file-eligible taxpayers were led to pages where they were prompted to pay for add-ons and extra services.

Taxpayers at any income level have the option to file for free via fillable PDF forms, but that option requires manual entry without guided prompts.

Wyden said the arrangement is a “multi-billion dollar rip-off.”

Bisignano called Direct File an “unnecessary and less popular duplicate of programs.”

Dems continue ‘affordability’ argument

The Democratic National Committee pounced on Tax Day to highlight Trump’s policies and use of taxpayer funds. Affordability is front and center in the upcoming midterm elections.

Though Trump campaigned on lowering prices and taxes, DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement the president has so far given Americans “a reckless trade war that has hiked prices, and a deadly and costly taxpayer-funded war with Iran.”

“This Tax Day, Americans are seeing lower-than-promised refunds hit their bank accounts that won’t even cover the higher costs Trump has forced them to shoulder. It couldn’t be clearer: Trump and the Republican Party are on the side of billionaires, big corporations, and wealthy special interests,” Martin said.

WASHINGTON — An effort to force President Donald Trump to seek congressional approval for further war actions in Iran failed in the U.S. Senate for the fourth time Wednesday, with all but one Republican continuing to support the president’s Middle East conflict.

Senators voted down the measure, 47-52, with a similar partisan breakdown as earlier votes that saw one Republican and one Democrat break with their parties.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who previously sponsored one of the Iran War Powers Resolutions, again split with his party to oppose Trump’s military actions in Iran, which the president launched without approval from Congress. 

As he has previously, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., was the only Democrat to support Trump continuing the war in Iran.

Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va., did not vote.

Senate Democrats have vowed more votes ahead to rein in Trump’s joint operations with Israel in Iran.

Wednesday’s War Powers Resolution was sponsored by Sens. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Tim Kaine, D-Va., Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.

Fourth failed vote

Prior votes to cut off Trump’s unchecked military operations in Iran were held March 18, March 4 and June 27, when the U.S. and Israel bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities last year.

The U.S.-Israeli war in Iran has claimed the lives of 13 American troops, and as of Wednesday injured 395, according to the Pentagon. Thousands of civilians in Iran and across the Middle East have been killed and injured in the shelling on both sides.

Meanwhile, the war has set off an oil crisis across the globe as Iran and the U.S. vie for control of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea that moves one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas.

A gallon of regular gas peaked at $4.16 on average across the U.S. last week, while diesel reached nearly $5.97, according to AAA. As of Wednesday, a gallon of regular gas sat at $4.10 on average, and diesel at $5.63.

A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday showed voters held Trump responsible for the spike in gas prices by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

WASHINGTON — The White House budget director on Wednesday defended the administration’s latest request for Congress, testifying before the House Budget Committee that a 43% increase in defense spending and a 10% cut to domestic programs is the best path forward. 

Democrats on the panel were highly critical of that proposal, which lawmakers will debate in the months ahead and is unlikely to be approved in full.  

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle, ranking member on the committee, said the administration’s request to increase defense spending so significantly while not bolstering health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid or helping people pay for child care “is a reflection of priorities that are out of whack,” with what Americans truly need. 

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said during the three-hour hearing that the administration believes a significant boost to defense spending “is meant for significant paradigm-shifting investments.”

“For instance, the president and his Department of War are exhibiting tremendous leadership to build ships, planes, drones, munitions and satellites faster without the backlog of status quo,” he said. “For the industrial base to double or triple and build more facilities, not just add shifts, it requires multi-year agreements to purchase into the future. That cost has to be booked in this first year.”

Vought said the administration’s preference is that Republicans place about $1.15 trillion in the annual Defense spending bill, which will require bipartisan support to move through the Senate, and put another $350 billion in a budget reconciliation bill, which Republicans can advance on their own.

He believes that will avoid Democrats demanding that each $1 increase in defense spending be matched by a $1 increase in domestic spending. 

“This Congress has changed the way we can spend money through the reconciliation process to avoid the pitfalls that really caused two decades of not being able to accomplish anything,” he said. “And I think you should be commended for that.”

Republicans used the complex budget reconciliation process last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law and are looking to advance another reconciliation bill in the coming months that would further bolster spending on immigration enforcement activities. 

No numbers on Iran war spending

Vought testified before the committee that he isn’t yet able to provide a ballpark estimate for how much in additional defense spending the administration plans to ask Congress to provide for the war in Iran. 

“We’re not ready to come to you with a request. We’re still working on it,” he said. “We’re working through to figure out what’s needed in this fiscal year versus next fiscal year.”

The current fiscal year will end on Sept. 30. 

Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee raised concerns about what such a steep increase in defense funding would mean for a department that has consistently struggled to account for all of its spending during several audits. 

Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal questioned whether the Trump administration was serious about addressing fraud in every department, given its proposal to bolster funding for the Defense Department by more than half a trillion dollars. 

Vought responded that the “department is making progress towards the audit.”

Wisconsin Republican Rep. Glenn Grothman was even more frustrated with leadership in the Defense Department, saying that there “is so much arrogance in that agency.”

“I keep holding my nose because defense is the most important thing. And they just say, ‘We don’t have to do an audit. We’re so damn important. We don’t care what Congress thinks,’” Grothman said. “I hope that they dial up this audit and have the guys work around the clock, complete an audit by July 31 or before we eventually have to pass this stuff.”

Vought sought to reassure Grothman and other lawmakers on the panel that the Trump administration does want to address how DOD spends money. 

“The notion that we’re not trying to find any kinds of inefficiencies at the Department of Defense is not true,” Vought said. “Our view is that we would want to plow those into being able to invest in procurement and research.”

What’s next

The House Budget Committee won’t actually draft the dozen annual government funding bills. 

That is up to the Appropriations Committee, which will hold hearings with Cabinet secretaries and agency leaders in the coming weeks to hear more about the president’s budget request for the fiscal year set to begin Oct. 1. 

The Appropriations subcommittees will then draft and debate the spending bills that account for a fraction of the $7 trillion federal budget. A much larger chunk of annual funding, about $4.2 trillion, goes to mandatory programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Another $970 billion goes to interest payments on the debt. 

While defense spending predominantly goes to the Pentagon, with a bit going to the Energy Department for nuclear security programs, domestic spending that the administration wants to cut overall is allocated among dozens of agencies. 

The departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, State, Veterans Affairs and numerous smaller agencies all share the total spending level for domestic programs.  

During fiscal year 2025, which ended last September, defense spending totaled $893 billion, while non-defense programs received $980 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 

WASHINGTON — Tucked into President Donald Trump’s new budget request is a plan that could dramatically change — and, critics say, slash — how much money and help states provide to people needing jobs and training.

Trump’s latest budget proposes a federal “Make America Skilled Again’’ grant that would combine a dozen current programs and provide $3.4 billion in spending for certain employment and training programs, down from $4.65 billion anticipated this fiscal year.

The president’s plan would fund block, or general, grants to states, which could then tailor the spending to employment and training needs.

There’s no formula in the budget proposal detailing how or where the money would be distributed, other than a requirement that at least 10% be spent on an apprenticeship program and 3% on innovations. The secretary of the Department of Labor could also reserve up to 0.75% on “program accountability” and technical support.

Congressional Republicans are moving ahead with other ways to fund, and in some cases revamp, federal job programs, though they showed little interest in Trump’s MASA proposal that was also in his budget request last year.

The Trump plan

The MASA effort is another in a series of administration initiatives aimed at streamlining job training programs’ administrative costs and making them more responsive to changes in the workplace.

The Labor Department referred questions about the plan to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not respond to questions.

At the National Skills Coalition, an advocacy organization for skills-based training, Megan Evans saw the MASA effort as a way of making deep cuts that ultimately hurt workers and employers, she said in an interview.

“The administration says it’s trying to streamline,” said Evans, the coalition’s senior government affairs manager. “But in reality it’s combining deep cuts with risky consolidations and rollbacks.”

The White House last year issued a detailed report and a video on its strategy, outlining how “workforce programs are fragmented across agencies, stifled by red tape, and too often misaligned with the skills employers need.”

These issues, it said, “pose particular risks as the United States advances toward a bold reindustrialization agenda and navigates the transformational impact of AI (artificial intelligence) on the workforce.”

In the budget released this month, the administration called the program “a key part of the administration’s strategy to fill the growing demand for skilled trades and other occupations,” along with some other programs, including the tax cuts enacted last year.

Changes in getting money and help

While MASA aims to reduce administrative costs, a long-sought goal of administrators across the country, popular programs would be consolidated under the block grant, including several with strong constituencies. 

Among them are programs for adult training and employment, youth training and employment, the Labor Department’s Re-integration of Ex-Offenders program, Native American programs and others.

The National Skills Coalition saw trouble in folding these programs into a single grant.

“These programs weren’t created in a vacuum,” it said in a blog post last year. “They each serve distinct populations.”

Merging them would be “making it harder for people to access training that fits their lives and needs,” the group said.

It also had doubts about whether block grants would in fact be more efficient.

“By combining multiple workforce programs into a single grant, it becomes significantly harder to track program outcomes, monitor equity and assess whether specific populations–such as veterans, youth, people with disabilities, or former incarcerated people–are being effectively served,” the coalition said.

Some state and local officials share the concern. 

“Washington state is already facing significant budget shortfalls, and this proposal would further widen that gap,” said Marisol Tapia Hopper, director of strategic partnerships & funding at the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County.

She said combining the programs into a block grant “functions as a reduction in workforce investment, applying a one-size-fits-all approach to a system that is already chronically underfunded.” 

The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group comprising all the nation’s governors, has taken no position on the proposal.

“Workforce training is a huge bipartisan priority for governors,” said Jack Porter, NGA program director for workforce development & economic policy.

“Federal support is critical to standing up effective workforce programs, but the federally funded workforce system as it stands now comes with a lot of red tape that shifts time and focus away from the goal, which is (to) provide workers with training,” he said.

Congressional reluctance

Congress has shown little enthusiasm for the administration’s consolidation.

Earlier this month, the Republican-led U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee proposed a comprehensive job training blueprint.

Among its ideas: providing funding for on-the-job learning and strengthening the system that holds state and local workforce boards responsible “for delivering positive outcomes for workers and job seekers.”

The bill would have adult education programs governed by the Labor Department. The aim would be to “connect adult education to apprenticeships, sector partnerships, and employer-led training especially as artificial intelligence reshapes skill demands.”

Included in the legislation, which a committee spokeswoman says is clearly “in line with the broad goals proposed in the president’s budget,” is a Make America Skilled Again pilot program.

It would permit states to apply to combine different workforce funding streams and then spend them on programs that best suit their needs.

The bill, said committee Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., in a statement, “modernizes a struggling and underutilized workforce development system, delivering reforms that strengthen participant outcomes and ensure greater accountability for taxpayer dollars.”

In the U.S. Senate, Republicans began pushing changes that will help people get access to current programs.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Republicans’ aim is to “increase Americans’ access to job opportunities by eliminating red tape, increasing flexibility, and modernizing the workforce system.”

The goal is to create one-stop centers where people can get information about jobs and training. The measure would “help Nebraskans find great jobs more efficiently,” said Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican who co-sponsored the bill.

Spending bill season

At the moment, Democrats and Republicans appear deadlocked on how to proceed. The House Appropriations Committee plans to write labor spending legislation in June. The Senate has not announced a schedule. 

The partisan lines are forming.

The Trump labor budget “attacks workers and small businesses by undermining workforce development programs at the Department of Labor,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., top Democrat on the House workforce panel, in a statement.

Without the specific programs, he said, “many workers will struggle to provide for their families.”

Walberg sees a need for big change.

“The workforce is evolving rapidly, and legislation designed over a decade ago is no longer meeting today’s demands,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress are once again looking toward the complex budget reconciliation process as a way to achieve some of their policy goals without Democratic votes. 

GOP leaders were able to use the special pathway last year to approve the “big, beautiful” law that extended tax cuts, overhauled and cut Medicaid, provided hundreds of billions in extra funding for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and raised the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion, among other provisions. 

Now, Republicans will try to use the process at least one more time to provide years of funding to the Department of Homeland Security amid a two-month shutdown, with none of the constraints on immigration enforcement that Democrats have sought. 

Democrats’ push to rein in enforcement after federal immigration officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis led to a record-breaking stalemate over the annual DHS appropriations bill. 

The funding lapse hasn’t yet affected Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, DHS agencies which Republicans bolstered in the last reconciliation bill. But it has had an impact on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration.

Reconciliation will require Republicans in the House and Senate to be almost completely unified on their goals, especially if the party tries to include elements of a hot-button voter identification bill called the SAVE America Act or other policies that don’t have a significant impact on federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit. 

What goes in and what is kept out of another reconciliation package will become increasingly important to GOP leaders’ reelection message as the country moves closer to November’s midterm elections. 

Why use budget reconciliation? 

Regular bills need a simple majority vote to pass the House, but at least 60 senators need to vote to end debate in that chamber. This step, sometimes called the legislative filibuster, or cloture, forces bipartisanship on most legislation, unless it moves through the reconciliation process. 

Budget reconciliation bills are exempt from that Senate rule. 

So why haven’t Republicans used reconciliation to enact all of their policy goals and campaign promises since taking over unified control last year? 

Budget reconciliation bills must follow a specific process and meet strict requirements in the Senate, known as the Byrd rule, named for former West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd.

Very simply, this requires reconciliation bills to address federal spending, revenue, or debt in a way that is not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. 

How complicated could reconciliation really be?

Very.

First, the House and Senate must adopt a budget resolution with identical sets of reconciliation instructions for committees. Those guidelines will give committee leaders either a minimum amount to spend during the next decade or a maximum amount they can add to the deficit during that window. 

The Senate cannot approve the budget resolution without going through a marathon amendment voting session referred to as a vote-a-rama, which typically lasts well into the night. 

A budget resolution is a tax and spending blueprint, sort of like a blueprint for building a house before you’ve actually gotten a mortgage or purchased any land. It’s a proposal, but it doesn’t actually change tax law or spend any money. 

Once the budget is adopted, the House committees that receive reconciliation instructions must draft, debate and vote to send their bill to the Budget Committee. 

Then, the Budget Committee bundles all of the reconciliation bills together in one package and sends it to the House floor, where lawmakers must vote to send it to the Senate, where things get even more complex. 

What happens next?

Before a reconciliation bill goes to the Senate floor, it moves through something referred to as the “Byrd bath,” where the Senate parliamentarian determines if each provision fits the strict rules. 

Senate leaders can take up the House-passed version of the bill or work through the committee process on their side of the Capitol. Typically, the upper chamber goes directly to the floor and amends the House-passed bill. 

The Senate then goes through another vote-a-rama session, giving the minority party, currently Democrats, the chance to put all 100 lawmakers in that chamber on the record about various proposals in the bill. 

That process will be especially challenging this year, with Democrats looking to institute guardrails on immigration enforcement activities and get Republicans up for reelection on the record over some of the most pressing issues facing the country. 

If the Senate makes any changes to the House-passed bill, it must go back to that chamber for final approval before it can go to President Donald Trump for his signature. 

If the Senate approves a bill identical to the one passed by the House, it would go to Trump without needing another House vote. 

What exactly is the Byrd rule?

Elements in the bill would violate that rule if they:

• Didn’t change revenue, spending, or the debt limit. 
• Change revenue or spending in a way deemed “merely incidental.”
• Change policy outside the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee.
• Didn’t comply with the committee’s reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution.
• Increases the deficit past the budget window (usually 10 years).
• Change Social Security in any way, shape, or form.

How many times can Republicans use reconciliation? Is it unlimited? 

They have two more chances during this Congress but are limited by how many budget resolutions they can adopt. 

GOP leaders used the fiscal 2025 budget resolution to set up passage of the “big, beautiful” law. They can write a fiscal 2026 budget resolution for one more round and then use the fiscal 2027 budget resolution to run through a third reconciliation process, if they want to. 

Fiscal years for the federal government begin on Oct. 1.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday he plans to use the complex reconciliation process to fund immigration enforcement for the next three years, though it wasn’t immediately clear if House Republicans were on the exact same page.

The plan to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol with only Republican votes could end the two-month shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security when combined with the regular funding bill for that department, which the Senate already approved but is stalled in the House. 

Thune, R-S.D., said during an afternoon press conference that House GOP leaders “could” add additional provisions to the reconciliation bill, but said he would like it to remain narrow. 

“My hope would be that if we can execute on getting that done here in the Senate, the House would be able to follow through,” he said. 

Thune said the Senate could vote as soon as next week on a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions. That is the first step of the complicated process. But the House must vote to adopt that budget resolution before Republicans can pass the funding bill for ICE and the Border Patrol.  

Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Homeland Security shuttered

The Department of Homeland Security has been shut down since Feb. 14, after Democrats insisted on new guardrails for immigration enforcement following the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers.

Without any bipartisan consensus on how to do that, Republicans have instead decided to use the same reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law to approve funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol. 

The House would then likely pass DHS’ spending bill without those two line items, which the Senate has already approved. That would provide funding for the other agencies within the department, including the Coast Guard, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration.

Safeguards demanded

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during a separate press conference that Democrats have repeatedly asked for “common sense” safeguards that would require immigration agents to show identification, prevent them from wearing masks and require judicial warrants to enter someone’s home. 

“The bottom line is these are simple. These are common sense,” he said. “They’re what every police department uses and when you ask the American people, they’re on our side. It’s the intransigence, particularly of the hard right, who seem to like what ICE is doing.”

Schumer said Democrats would use the marathon amendment voting session on both the budget resolution and the later reconciliation bill to hold Republicans’ “feet to the fire on DHS, on the war, on so many other issues.”

Thune said he has been “trying to figure out exactly” what Democrats have gotten out of the DHS shutdown, especially considering that immigration enforcement operations haven’t been affected since there was funding for that in last year’s reconciliation bill, exempting those programs from the funding lapse. 

“All of the things that the Democrats made this about, which was supposed to be reforms to the way that ICE and CBP operate. They got none of that. Zero,” he said, referring to Customs and Border Protection, the larger agency that includes the Border Patrol. “And now we’re going to fund those agencies for three years into the future.”

The Department of Justice’s stated reason for obtaining sensitive personal data on millions of voters masks the Trump administration’s true intention for obtaining state voter lists, Michigan’s top election official asserted in federal appeals court Monday.

Attorneys for Michigan Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson made the allegation in a brief in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The argument reflects a concern broadly held among Democratic state election officials that the Trump administration wants to compile voter data in an effort to influence the upcoming midterm elections. 

The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, is suing 29 states for refusing to provide voter information. It says it needs the data to evaluate efforts to clean and maintain voter rolls, including whether noncitizens are registered to vote.

But Benson’s brief says that “appears to be a pretext for improper purposes.”

Michigan and other states argue the Trump administration is instead effectively building a nationwide voter registration list — a move not authorized under the 1960 Civil Rights Act, a federal law to combat voting discrimination that the Justice Department has cited in demanding states turn over voter data.

“Collecting Michigan’s voter data to conduct its own list maintenance and to use Michigan’s list as part of creating a national voter file is not encompassed within the purpose stated in DOJ’s demand, which is simply ‘to ascertain Michigan’s compliance with the list maintenance requirements’” of federal election laws, Benson’s brief says.

“Moreover, creating a national voter file of U.S. Citizens is beyond any purpose contemplated by the (Civil Rights Act).”

After U.S. District Court Judge Hala Jarbou ruled in February that the Justice Department isn’t entitled to Michigan’s unredacted voter list containing driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers, the department appealed to the 6th Circuit.

Trump priority

Over the past year, Trump has attempted to exercise greater power over federal elections, which, under the U.S. Constitution, are run by the states.

“Trump does not have the authority to create a Trump voter list,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat whom the Justice Department is suing for not providing voter data, said in an interview earlier this month.

Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare, though Trump has long fixated on the prospect of noncitizen voting and other forms of election fraud. Last year, Trump signed an executive order that would have unilaterally required voters to provide documents proving their citizenship. The order was struck down in court, but Trump is pressuring the U.S. Senate to pass the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar proof of citizenship rules.

Michigan state officials and other critics of the Justice Department’s voter data effort point to actions by Trump and remarks by a DOJ attorney as evidence that the Trump administration is already compiling a national voter list.

Trump’s recent executive order to restrict mail-in ballots directs the Department of Homeland Security to build lists of voting-age citizens in each state and then share those lists with state officials. Homeland Security operates a powerful computer system, called SAVE, that can verify citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases.

And at a federal court hearing in Rhode Island in late March, Justice Department Voting Section Acting Chief Eric Neff said his department intends to share voter lists with Homeland Security, according to a transcript. He said DOJ and DHS have already entered into a use agreement to govern the sharing of data, though he didn’t detail its requirements.

Mail ballot order an ‘iceberg’ to DOJ case

A DOJ attorney, James Tucker, has denied any effort to create a national voter file. 

“There is not going to be a national voter registration database,” Tucker said at a hearing in Maine on March 26 — less than a week before Trump signed the executive order.

But David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, likened the Justice Department’s litigation strategy to a legal Titanic and the executive order to an iceberg: The order effectively creating a nationwide voter list could sink a strategy that denies such a goal exists.

“The DOJ … has been trying to assure the courts that this data is not going to be used to create a national voter list,” Becker said during a press briefing this month.

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Civil Rights Act argued

The Justice Department has so far failed to persuade any federal judges that it’s entitled to state voter data. Judges have dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits against California, Massachusetts, Michigan and Oregon. 

At least a dozen states, all Republican led, have voluntarily provided their voter lists. The Justice Department has also reached a settlement agreement with one state, Oklahoma, to obtain its data. 

When Jarbou, a Trump appointee, dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit for Michigan’s voter roll, she ruled that the Civil Rights Act doesn’t require the disclosure of the information. The law, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, empowered federal officials to investigate state and local discrimination against Black voters.

The law requires states to preserve election records for at least 22 months after a federal election, including any documents that come into the possession of an election official. Jarbou wrote in her decision that the state’s voter registration list is created by election officials but isn’t a document, such as a voter registration application, that comes into their possession.

When the Justice Department filed its brief in March, it argued that Jarbou misinterpreted the Civil Rights Act. “The CRA’s text … does not exclude self-generated documents,” the department’s brief says.

The Justice Department’s appeal of the Michigan loss has advanced the furthest, with state officials filing their brief on Monday. The DOJ has pushed for quick timelines in the appeals, arguing that court rulings are needed ahead of the midterms to ensure the fairness of elections.

Local officials back states

Regardless, 18 local election officials from across the country, including seven in Michigan, on Monday filed a brief in the case arguing that the Justice Department hasn’t provided a legitimate basis to obtain election records under the Civil Rights Act.

As election misinformation has proliferated in recent years, local election officials face increasing requests for information, the group wrote. They are accustomed to providing public voter registration information, with steps in place to exclude sensitive, nonpublic data.

Courts act as a “backstop” to enforce bans on disclosing sensitive information in response to records requests from the public, the local election officials argue.

“Courts should perform that same function for requests for records under the CRA,” the group said.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump lashed out at Pope Leo XIV Sunday night following the pontiff’s sharp criticism of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and wider Middle East conflict.

In a lengthy post, littered with falsehoods, on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump accused the first U.S.-born pope of being “WEAK on crime” and of supporting Iran having a nuclear weapon. The president also invoked the 70-year-old pontiff’s brother, Louis Prevost, “because Louis is all MAGA.”

Leo, born Robert Prevost, is from Chicago.

During a flight to Algeria on Monday, Leo told reporters, “I have no fear of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the church is here to do.”

“We are not politicians,” he said, as reported by Vatican media. “We don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it, but I do believe in the message of the Gospel, as a peacemaker.”

List of complaints

Trump’s Sunday night post criticized Leo for not backing his foreign policy and aggressive immigration agenda, and generally for not being more supportive of his administration. 

The United States and Israel ordered military strikes on Iran in late February, despite not facing an imminent threat from the Islamic state. Trump did not give a clear rationale for the strikes until about a month after they launched, saying they were meant to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country,” Trump posted just after 9 p.m. Eastern.

“And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History,” the president continued in his 334-word message about the pontiff.

Further, Trump claimed Leo should be “thankful” because Trump is responsible for the Chicago native being installed as the leader of the Roman Catholic church.

“He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” he wrote.

Less than an hour later, the president posted an artificial intelligence-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ blessing an ailing man as what appear to be angels in full military fatigues hover in the clouds above with fighter jets nearby. Trump deleted the post Monday morning.

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

While speaking to reporters outside the Oval Office Monday afternoon, Trump said he posted the image but that he wasn’t depicted as Jesus. Rather, he said, he was supposed to represent a doctor associated with the Red Cross.

“I did post it, and I thought it was me as a doctor, and had to do with Red Cross as a Red Cross worker there, which we support, and only the fake news could come up with that one,” he said in response to a question about the image.

“So I just heard about it, and I said, ‘how do they come up with that?’ It’s supposed to be me as a doctor, making people better. And I do make people better, I make people a lot better,” he continued.

One minute after the post depicting Jesus, the president posted an AI-generated image of a skyscraper bearing his name on the moon’s surface.

Iran talks crumble

In the hours prior to sounding off on the pope, Trump posted a video of himself shaking hands with mixed martial artist Paul Costa following an Ultimate Fighting Championship cage match he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended in Miami on Saturday night.

At the time of the fight, Vice President JD Vance was wrapping up failed peace talks with Iranian leaders in Pakistan. U.S. and Iranian leaders reached a two-week ceasefire deal last week. Trump described it at the time as a major step toward a permanent peace deal.

Trump threatened to establish a U.S. military blockade in the Strait of Hormuz Monday after talks collapsed. Not long after the war began, Iran effectively closed the narrow maritime passageway that moves one-fifth of the world’s oil.

Vance, whose forthcoming book focuses on his conversion to Catholicism, was one of the last guests to visit Pope Francis before his death nearly one year ago.

Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement Sunday night disapproving of Trump’s social media post about the pontiff.

“I am disheartened that the President chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father,” said Coakley, the archbishop of Oklahoma City. “Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the Pope a politician. He is the Vicar of Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s post “viciously attacked” Leo’s opposition to the Iran war. Trump’s comments that the pope is “weak on crime,” among other claims, reached “a new low,” the New York Democrat added.

Schumer also said the president’s AI-generated image of himself depicted as Christ “makes a mockery of millions of Christian Americans, many of whom voted for Trump and who fervently believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.”

“If King Herod had a Truth Social account in the first century, I think he’d probably describe Jesus Christ, who saved the penitent thief crucified alongside him, as weak on crime,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales both announced Monday evening that they would resign from Congress amid sexual misconduct allegations.  

Swalwell’s announcement came just one day after he suspended his campaign for governor over allegations of sexual assault. 

“I am aware of efforts to bring an immediate expulsion vote against me and other members,” he wrote in a statement on X. “Expelling anyone in Congress without due process, within days of an allegation being made, is wrong. But it’s also wrong for my constituents to have me distracted from my duties. Therefore, I plan to resign my seat in Congress.”

Just over an hour later, Gonzales posted his plans to resign on social media.

“There is a season for everything and God has a plan for us all,” he wrote. “When Congress returns tomorrow, I will file my retirement from office. It has been my privilege to serve the great people of Texas.”

Debate about whether to expel four House members, which would require the support of two-thirds of the chamber, resurfaced this weekend when Swalwell dropped out of the gubernatorial election. 

New Mexico Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández, chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus, wrote in a statement that the reports regarding Swalwell were “horrific.”

“Rep. Swalwell’s actions would not be tolerated in any place of work, and the United States Congress should be no different,” she wrote. “We must believe and support survivors, and hold perpetrators accountable.”

Fernández called for an immediate investigation that ensures the “staffers and interns who courageously came forward must be listened to and kept safe.”

Fernández wrote in a separate statement that Swalwell and Gonzales, who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations he engaged “in sexual misconduct towards an individual employed in his congressional office,” should immediately leave Congress. 

“Reps. Gonzales and Swalwell are not fit to serve. They must resign. If they do not, I will vote to expel them,” she wrote. 

Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna wrote in a social media post that she “will be supporting this resolution!”

The House Ethics Committee announced Monday afternoon its members had opened an investigation into Swalwell “with respect to allegations that he may have engaged in sexual misconduct, including towards an employee working under his supervision.”

Florida lawmakers

There is also the possibility that an expulsion resolution would include Florida Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick and Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills.

The House Ethics Committee voted to find Cherfilus-McCormick guilty on more than two dozen ethics charges in late March after holding a public hearing. The panel plans to hold another hearing on April 21 to decide “what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend to the House of Representatives.”

Mills has been under investigation by the Ethics Committee for months over allegations he “engaged in misconduct with respect to allegations of sexual misconduct and/or dating violence,” among several other possible violations. 

Few expulsions in history

The House has rarely expelled its members, voting just six times to force lawmakers out. 

New York Republican Rep. George Santos was the most recent member removed from the House, following a 311-114 vote in December 2023 to approve an expulsion resolution sponsored by Mississippi Republican Rep. Michael Guest, chairman of the Ethics Committee. 

The resolution noted that in May 2023 “Santos was charged in Federal court in the Eastern District of New York with wire fraud in connection with a fraudulent political contribution scheme, unlawful monetary transactions in connection with the wire fraud allegations, theft of public money in connection with his alleged receipt of unemployment benefits, fraudulent application for and receipt of unemployment benefits, and false statements in connection with his 2020 and 2022 House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statements.”

The next most recent expulsion came in 2002, when Ohio Democratic Rep. James A. Traficant was expelled for conspiracy, defrauding the government, illegal gratuity, obstruction of justice, racketeering and tax evasion violations, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. 

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Michael J. Myers was expelled in 1980 for bribery, conspiracy and Travel Act violations. In 1861, during the Civil War, Kentucky Rep. Henry C. Burnett along with Missouri Reps. John B. Clark and John W. Reid were expelled for “disloyalty to the Union.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Spikes in energy prices caused by the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran drove up inflation for Americans in March, according to the latest consumer price index figures released Friday.

Costs jumped 0.9% in March compared to the previous month — that’s up from the 0.3% increase in February. 

Prices for all items together, including food, energy, shelter and other commodities like vehicles, rose by 3.3% from a year ago. That’s the highest annual jump since May 2024, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics historical data. 

Fuel costs drove the spike, with gasoline and fuel oil together rising 10.9% in March compared to the previous month. Singled out, gas prices jumped 21.2% in March. The cost for airfare, largely driven by jet fuel prices, rose 2.7% in March, up from the 1.4% jump in February.

President Donald Trump launched the joint war in Iran with Israel on Feb. 28. In response to the intense bombing campaign that killed the country’s supreme leader and numerous senior officials, the Iranian regime effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage in and out of the Persian Gulf vital to the transport of one-fifth of the world’s petroleum.

As of Friday, Americans were paying $4.15 on average nationwide for a gallon of regular gas, according to AAA. The average for diesel across the U.S. is $5.68 per gallon.

Prior to the war, a gallon of regular hadn’t topped $3 all year.

Iran’s de facto takeover of the Strait of Hormuz by threatening to strike any tankers, other than a handful from friendly countries, has caused the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market, according to the International Energy Agency.

Despite a tenuous ceasefire agreed to Tuesday evening Eastern time, Iran is still controlling the strait. Ten oil tankers transited the waterway Tuesday, and only one on Wednesday, according to the latest figures available from the Joint Maritime Information Center, which tracks tankers and cargo ships worldwide that are transmitting location data.

Prior to the war, roughly 140 vessels daily flowed freely through the Strait of Hormuz.

Dems pounce on affordability issue

Democrats blamed Trump Friday for higher inflation, as affordability is emerging as perhaps the single-most important issue ahead of the 2026 midterm elections in November that will determine control of Congress.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said the president is “pushing working families to the brink.” 

“Trump promised to ‘lower prices on Day One,’ and instead he waged an unhinged trade war and started an unpopular war with Iran — and what have Americans gotten in return? Nothing except even higher prices. Americans are sick and tired of this president putting his own interests first and using their hard-earned dollars to fund his war instead of making health care more affordable or expanding access to child care,” Martin said in a statement Friday morning.

White House senior deputy press secretary Kush Desai responded to the inflation figures, saying the president “has always been clear about short-term disruptions as a result of Operation Epic Fury, disruptions that the Administration has been diligently working to mitigate.”

“Although gas and energy prices are seeing volatility, prices of eggs, beef, prescription drugs, dairy, and other household essentials are falling or remain stable thanks to President Trump’s policies. As the Administration ensures the free flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, the American economy remains on a solid trajectory thanks to the Administration’s robust supply-side agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and energy abundance,” Desai wrote in a statement Friday morning posted on social media. 

Other costs

The price index for food consumed at home decreased 0.2% compared to the previous month, but increased 1.9% from a year ago. 

The costs of fruits and vegetables rose 1% in March compared to the previous month, but prices for meat, poultry, fish and eggs declined 0.6%, according to the latest BLS figures.

The price index for items minus food and energy rose 0.2% in March, matching the increase in February. The cost of all items, less food and energy, rose 2.6% over the past 12 months.

WASHINGTON — First lady Melania Trump said Thursday she was “never involved in any capacity” with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and that “baseless lies” about her are being circulated.

In a rare solo statement livestreamed on the White House website, Melania Trump also called for a congressional hearing featuring the women who have shared stories of abuse by Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges.

“I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors, to give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress,” the first lady said in her nearly six-minute remarks. 

“With the power of sworn testimony, each and every woman should have her day to tell her story in public, if she wishes, and then her testimony should be permanently entered into the Congressional Record,” she added. “Then and only then, we will have the truth.”

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has repeatedly dismissed the government’s files related to Epstein as a “hoax.” However, throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump promised to make the investigatory materials public.

The scandal has followed the president through most of his first term. While Trump shared a well-documented friendship with Epstein, who pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor in Florida in 2008, he denies any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities.

The first lady also reproached individuals who she said are “devoid of ethical standards” for spreading “completely false” stories that she shared relationships with Epstein and convicted sex trafficker Ghislane Maxwell. 

“I was not a participant, was never on Epstein’s plane, and never visited his private island,” she said. “I have never been legally accused or (convicted) of a crime in connection with Epstein sex trafficking, abuse of minors and other repulsive behavior. The false smears about me from meanspirited and politically motivated individuals and entities looking to cause damage to my good name to gain financially and climb politically must stop.”

Free speech suit

It was unclear what spurred the first lady’s statement. 

She specifically mentioned the Daily Beast, James Carville and HarperCollins UK. The three are mentioned in exhibits attached to a lawsuit in New York against Melania Trump by journalist Michael Wolff, accusing her of seeking to intimidate him into retracting statements he’d made alleging a connection between her and Epstein. 

She also mentioned a 2002 email exchange between her and Maxwell that was revealed among the hundreds of thousands of records from the federal Epstein investigation that the Justice Department released beginning in December, as required by law. The first lady defended the email exchange as “casual correspondence.”

All but one member of Congress supported legislation compelling the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. 

The effort gained steam after the department, then under Attorney General Pam Bondi, said in July it would not release anything further related to the case. Bondi had previously claimed she had Epstein’s client list sitting on her desk.

Trump removed Bondi this month.

Dem endorses call for hearing

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, lauded the first lady’s call for a hearing.

“We agree with First Lady Melania Trump’s call for a public hearing with the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. We encourage Chairman Comer to respond to the First Lady’s request and schedule a public hearing immediately,” Garcia wrote on X.

The Oversight Committee, led by Kentucky Republican James Comer, is conducting its own investigation into the files and has subpoenaed high-profile figures to testify, including former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as Bondi.

Millions of women could face new challenges to voting under President Donald Trump’s SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship before casting a ballot.

The federal legislation would mandate that most Americans show a birth certificate or passport to register to vote. But people with names that don’t match their birth certificate in some instances could have to produce additional documents like a marriage certificate or divorce decree linking their past and current identities.

The proposal holds potentially outsized consequences for millions of married and divorced women, transgender individuals and others who have changed their names. 

As many as 69 million American women have birth certificates that don’t match their current name, according to an analysis by the liberal Center for American Progress. 

“The fact that the majority of women upon marriage do change their name already means that this is going to be completely unequal in how the law is applied,” said Letitia Harmon, senior director of policy and research at Florida Rising, a racial and economic justice nonprofit.

Harmon, 43, has personal experience with the issue because of state proof-of-citizenship laws, which have become more common in recent years. 

The Florida resident used to live in Kansas, which required individuals to show documents like a birth certificate or passport to register to vote until federal courts struck down the law as unconstitutional. Ahead of the 2014 election, Harmon was unable to locate her birth certificate before the registration deadline and couldn’t vote.

More recently, Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota and Utah have all enacted proof-of-citizenship measures this year, in addition to Wyoming in 2025. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Florida SAVE Act last week.

A dozen years later, Harmon worries she could again face additional hurdles to voting — this time because of multiple name changes. Harmon, who changed her name when she married but later divorced and changed it back, voiced concern that if election officials ever check her registration, it will be flagged.

“It’s heartbreaking and it’s infuriating. It feels like we’re going backwards,” Harmon said.

Debate in D.C.

In Washington, the U.S. Senate has been debating the SAVE America Act, Trump’s signature elections initiative, after a version of the legislation passed the House. The bill doesn’t appear to have enough support to survive a filibuster, but Trump and his allies have pressured senators to end the filibuster to pass it before the midterm elections.

Supporters of the bill describe it as an election integrity measure and say it’s necessary to prevent noncitizen voting, though studies have shown that’s extremely rare. The measure reflects a long-running effort by Trump to assert more federal control over elections that includes a campaign by the Department of Justice to obtain sensitive state voter data and an executive order signed last week restricting mail-in voting.

Opponents condemn the legislation as unneeded and poorly drafted. If enacted, the bill would take immediate effect, throwing the election process into chaos in a midterm election year as millions of people registering to vote attempt to prove their citizenship. The new requirements would risk disenfranchising American voters struggling to obtain the documents they need in time.

Disproportionate effect on married women

Critics have especially focused on the disproportionate effect the legislation could have on women. Eighty-four percent of women in opposite-sex marriages take either their husband’s last name or hyphenate their name, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey. By contrast, less than 6% of men took their wife’s last name or hyphenated their name.

“Given that 85% of American women change their name when they get married, the impact on women is going to be huge and it’s going to be very problematic,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said in a February interview.

The House-passed version of the bill says that when individuals applying to register have names that don’t match the name on their proof-of-citizenship documents, they could provide “additional documentation as necessary to establish that the name on the documentation is a previous name of the applicant” or sign an affidavit affirming that the name on the documents is their previous name.

According to the bill, each state would establish a process to carry out this provision, in line with guidance from the federal Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan independent commission that aids election officials.

Affidavit provision unclear

Some election and legal experts have said the affidavit provision is unclear. It comes immediately before another provision that allows individuals without proof-of-citizenship documentation to register if they sign an attestation that they are a citizen and an election official signs an affidavit saying the person has sufficiently established citizenship. The Election Assistance Commission would create a uniform affidavit for use in that situation.

“Who knows what sort of process they’ll say,” said Alison Gill, director of nominations and democracy at the National Women’s Law Center, a progressive legal advocacy group. “So there is language there, but it’s still very vague and conflictual.”

Because states would be responsible for setting procedures to vet those with different names on their documents, Gill said some states would probably try to make the process easier than others. But election officials would likely err on the side of strict enforcement because they could be prosecuted for registering individuals who don’t provide citizenship documents.

“Ultimately, this puts the burden on election officials, who face criminal and civil liability under the bill, potentially to decide whether to risk registering a person with mismatching documents,” Gill said.

‘Frankly insulting’

White House officials and some congressional Republicans have denied that individuals who change their name would face greater difficulty registering to vote. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in March that there was “zero validity” to claims that the legislation would stop women from voting or make it harder for them to vote.

Married women who have changed their name and are already registered to vote would be unaffected by the legislation, Leavitt said. She added that for the “small fraction” of individuals who go on to change their name or their address, they would have to go through their state’s process to update their documentation.

“I think it’s frankly insulting that the Democrats are saying that there are certain groups of people in this country who aren’t smart enough to update their documentation to allow them to vote,” Leavitt said.

But Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how the SAVE America Act would affect married women. Murkowski, who opposes the bill, said in a floor speech that an estimated 155,000 female citizens in Alaska age 15 and older have names that don’t match their birth certificates.

“Again, is it impossible? No,” Murkowski said. “Is it going to be really challenging? Absolutely, yes.”

Lawsuits ensured

The SAVE America Act would almost certainly face legal challenges if it became law and the Supreme Court would come under immense pressure to weigh in because of the sweeping, nationwide changes in the legislation.

Some federal courts have ruled against proof-of-citizenship voter registration requirements. In 2020, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Kansas’ law, finding that it violated federal voting laws as well as the Constitution’s equal protection clause. The Supreme Court at the time declined to take the Kansas case.

The provisions on name changes alone could face their own legal challenges. 

Tracy Thomas, a constitutional law professor at the University of Akron School of Law in Ohio, said opponents could argue the bill’s impact on people who change their name amounts to voting discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Courts have affirmed some election restrictions, like requirements to show a photo ID at the polls, as acceptable rules that don’t overly burden voters. However, Thomas suggested the SAVE America Act may go too far if it delays people from registering, requires multiple steps and forces them to pay for needed documents.

“That starts to sound like more than minimal inconvenience,” Thomas said.