Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, speaks at a press conference with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Jan. 13, 2026. At left is a photo of Renee Good, 37, who was killed by an immigration officer in Minneapolis.(Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus announced Tuesday they will oppose any federal funding for immigration enforcement following the deadly shooting of a woman by an immigration officer in Minneapolis. 

“Our caucus will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriations bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices,” Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, who represents Minneapolis, said during a press conference.

Last week, federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis, which has seen a drastic increase in immigration enforcement for weeks following allegations of fraud. After the shooting, massive protests against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement occurred in Minnesota and across the country.

The U.S. Senate is moving forward with the remaining appropriations bills for Congress to avoid a partial shutdown by a Jan. 30 deadline, and negotiations continue over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that  funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “one of the major issues that the appropriators are confronting right now.” 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said the appropriations bill for “Homeland is obviously the hardest one,” and that flat funding, or a continuing resolution, for the agency is the likely outcome.

Members of the Progressive Caucus are pushing for reforms including a ban on federal immigration officers wearing face coverings, the requirement of a warrant for an arrest and greater oversight of private detention facilities that hold immigrants. 

Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal said Congress also needs to pass legislation to roll back the billions allocated to the Department of Homeland Security last summer in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The massive GOP spending and tax cuts package provided a huge budget increase to DHS for immigration enforcement of roughly $175 billion. 

“We have to urgently pass legislation to roll back the excessive funding for immigration enforcement” in the spending and tax cuts package, Jayapal said. “We cannot support additional funding for the Department of Homeland Security without seriously meaningful and significant reforms to the way that federal authorities conduct activity in our cities, our communities and our neighborhoods.”

Progressives press Jeffries

The Progressive Caucus has nearly 100 Democratic House members. Those members joining the press conference included Omar, Jayapal, Maxwell Frost of Florida, Chuy Garcia of Illinois, Delia Ramirez of Illinois and Maxine Dexter of Oregon. 

Garcia, who is the whip of the Progressive Caucus, said the group has informed House Leader Hakeem Jeffries of their position, but did not say if Jeffries supported slashing DHS funds. 

“They are very concerned, and they also share our sentiment that we need to do something to bring reform, to bring change to stop the lawlessness, the cruelty and the abuse of power that’s taking place within ICE and (Customs and Border Patrol) and DHS,” he said of Democratic leadership. 

While Democrats do not control either chamber, one tool lawmakers have used amid the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration campaign is the power of congressional oversight of federal facilities that house immigrants and are funded by Congress. 

But following the shooting in Minnesota, several lawmakers were denied an oversight visit to a federal ICE facility, a move that Democrats argue violates a court order. 

There will be an emergency hearing in the District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday on a new Trump administration policy that argues those facilities are funded through the spending and tax cuts package and therefore exempt from unannounced oversight visits. 

Jayapal called the reasoning “a B.S. argument, and hopefully the court is going to see that.” 

Investigations urged

Jayapal added that there also needs to be “independent investigations of lawlessness and violence by immigration agents and border patrol agents, and meaningful consequences for those who commit these acts of violence, not a slap on the wrist.”

Dexter, who represents part of Portland, Oregon, where two people were shot by CBP the same week Good was shot and killed, agreed.

“One thing is absolutely clear, when any law enforcement officer fires a weapon in any community, the public must have answers to questions,” Dexter said.

Ramirez said there needs to be greater accountability beyond appropriations, and said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should be impeached. 

Illinois Democratic Rep. Robin Kelly is planning to introduce articles of impeachment for Noem on three counts: obstructing Congress, violating public trust and self-dealing. While such a move likely would be uphill in the House, Republicans at the moment control the chamber by a very narrow margin.

“DHS and ICE have been empowered through a lack of oversight and too much latitude to violate our rights under the pretense of security and safety,” Ramirez said.

Frost said that Congress needs to assert its control over appropriations as a check against the Trump administration.  

“We cannot depend on this administration to police themselves and an end to the enforcement practices that are terrorizing our communities,” Frost said. 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title IX debated

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

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

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

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

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

Idaho case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue actively debated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the department on Monday for trying to demote Kelly’s retirement rank and pay after he appeared in a video where he and other lawmakers told service members they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Kelly’s suit, filed in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, says attempts by the Trump administration to punish him violate the First Amendment, the separation of powers, due process protections and the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” Kelly wrote in a statement. “His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted.”

Kelly appeared in the video alongside Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — all of whom are former members of the military or intelligence agencies, though none of the others are still subject to the military’s legal system.

President Donald Trump was irate after seeing the video, posting on social media that he believed it represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

DOD investigation

The Defense Department announced in late November that it was looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, a retired Navy captain, for participating in the video. 

Kelly said during a press conference on Capitol Hill in December the Defense Department investigation into him, along with one by the FBI into all of the lawmakers in the video, marked “a dangerous moment for the United States of America when the president and his loyalists use every lever of power to silence United States senators for speaking up.”

Hegseth, who originally threatened to court-martial Kelly, said in early January the Defense Department would instead downgrade his retirement rank and pay. 

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”

Kelly said at the time he would challenge Hegseth’s course of action. 

First Amendment cited

The 46-page lawsuit marks the next step in the months-long saga, with Kelly asking a federal judge to declare the effort to demote him “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

“The First Amendment forbids the government and its officials from punishing disfavored expression or retaliating against protected speech,” the lawsuit states. “That prohibition applies with particular force to legislators speaking on matters of public policy. As the Supreme Court held 60 years ago, the Constitution ‘requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy,’ and the government may not recharacterize protected speech as supposed incitement in order to punish it.”

The lawsuit alleges that the Pentagon’s actions against Kelly “also trample on protections the Constitution singles out as essential to legislative independence.” 

“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit states. ”Allowing that unprecedented step here would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the Legislative Branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces.”

Kelly’s legal team asked the judge to grant “emergency relief” in their favor by Friday, Jan. 16.

The case was assigned to Senior Judge Richard J. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush.

U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., left, and Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., arrive at the regional ICE headquarters at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building on Jan. 10, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The lawmakers attempted to access the facility where the Department of Homeland Security has been headquartering operations in the state. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A dozen Democratic members of Congress Monday asked a federal judge for an emergency hearing, arguing the Department of Homeland Security violated a court order when Minnesota lawmakers were denied access to conduct oversight into facilities that hold immigrants.

The oversight visits to Minneapolis ICE facilities followed the deadly shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by federal immigration officer Jonathan Ross. Federal immigration officers have intensified immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities following the shooting, leading to massive protests there and across the country. 

“On Saturday, January 9—three days after U.S. citizen Renee Good was shot dead by an ICE agent in Minneapolis—three members of Congress from the Minnesota delegation, with this Court’s order in hand, attempted to conduct an oversight visit of an ICE facility near Minneapolis,” according to Monday’s filing in the District Court for the District of Columbia. 

Democratic U.S. Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison of Minnesota said they were denied entry to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building shortly after arriving for their visit on Saturday morning.

Lawmakers said in the filing the Minnesotans were denied access due to a new policy from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. The new Noem policy, similar to one temporarily blocked by U.S. Judge Jia Cobb last month, requires seven days notice for lawmakers to conduct oversight visits.

“The duplicate notice policy is a transparent attempt by DHS to again subvert Congress’s will … and this Court’s stay of DHS’s oversight visit policy,” according to the new filing by lawyers representing the 12 Democrats.

DHS cites reconciliation bill

Noem in filings argued the funds for immigration enforcement are not subject to a 2019 appropriations law, referred to as Section 527, that allows for unannounced oversight visits at facilities that hold immigrants.

She said that because the facilities are funded through the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act” passed and signed into law last year, the department does not need to comply with Section 527.

The OBBBA, passed through a congressional process called reconciliation, is allowed to adjust federal spending even though it is not an appropriations law.

“This policy is consistent with and effectuates the clear intent of Congress to not subject OBBBA funding to Section 527’s limitations,” according to the Noem memo.  

Congress is currently working on the next funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The lawmakers in their filing argue “members of Congress must be able to conduct oversight at ICE detention facilities, without notice, to obtain urgent and essential information for ongoing funding negotiations.”

“Members of Congress are actively negotiating over the funding of DHS and ICE, including consideration of the scope of and limitations on DHS’s funding for the next fiscal year,” according to the filing.

The Democrats who sued include Joe Neguse of Colorado, Adriano Espaillat of New York, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Robert Garcia of California, J. Luis Correa of California, Jason Crow of Colorado, Veronica Escobar of Texas, Dan Goldman of New York, Jimmy Gomez of California, Raul Ruiz of California, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Norma Torres of California.

Neguse, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement that the “law is crystal clear.”

“Instead of complying with the law, DHS is abrogating the court’s order by re-imposing the same unlawful policy,” he said. “Their actions are outrageous and subverting the law, which is why we are going back to court to challenge it — immediately.”

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a press conference following the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting at the Federal Reserve on Dec. 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s feud with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has escalated into a Department of Justice investigation, raising alarm bells among some Republicans in the Senate, where Trump will need broad backing from GOP lawmakers to get his choice for the next Fed chairman approved after Powell’s term ends in May. 

Retiring North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who sits on the narrowly divided Banking Committee that will hold hearings on the next nominee, wrote in a statement he won’t approve anyone to fill Powell’s seat if Trump or administration officials try to further erode its independence. 

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none,” Tillis wrote. “It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question.”

Tillis added he plans to “oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed—including the upcoming Fed Chair vacancy—until this legal matter is fully resolved.”

Powell fights back in a video

Trump has criticized Powell repeatedly since retaking the Oval Office in January, pressing him to reduce interest rates faster and signaling he wanted to fire him. 

Powell said in a video released this weekend that Justice Department officials on Friday “served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June.”

Powell alleged the DOJ investigation is not purely about oversight of the multi-year renovation project at the Fed’s offices in Washington, D.C., but “a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president.”

“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions—or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation,” Powell said.

Trump first nominated Powell to be chairman of the Federal Reserve in November 2017 for a four-year term that began in February 2018, writing in a statement that Powell had “demonstrated steady leadership, sound judgment, and policy expertise.”

“Mr. Powell will bring to the Federal Reserve a unique background of Government service and business experience,” Trump wrote. “He previously served as Under Secretary at the Department of Treasury in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Mr. Powell also has nearly three decades of business experience.”

The Senate voted 84-13 in January 2018 to confirm Powell to the role. 

President Joe Biden re-nominated Powell in November 2021 for another four-year term that began in May 2022 after the Senate voted 80-19 to confirm him for a second time. 

Tillis leverage on committee

Trump hasn’t said publicly whom he will nominate to succeed Powell as Fed chairman, but whoever he picks will need to move past the Senate Banking Committee in order to receive a confirmation vote on the floor and actually take on the role. 

The Banking Committee holds 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats, giving Tillis considerable leverage to block any Trump nominee from advancing if all of the Democrats on the panel also vote against reporting that person to the floor.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ranking member on the committee, wrote in a statement that “Trump is abusing the authorities of the Department of Justice like a wannabe dictator so the Fed serves his interests, along with his billionaire friends.”

“As Donald Trump prepares to nominate a new Fed Chair, he wants to push Jerome Powell off the Fed Board for good and install another sock puppet to complete his corrupt takeover of America’s central bank,” Warren wrote. “This Committee and the Senate should not move forward with any Trump nominee for the Fed, including Fed Chair.”

Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., had not released any public statements about the Department of Justice investigation into Powell as of Monday morning. 

Murkowski sees ‘attempt at coercion’

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who isn’t on the committee, released a written statement after speaking with Powell on Monday morning, saying “it’s clear the administration’s investigation is nothing more than an attempt at coercion.” 

“If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns—which are not unusual—then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice,” Murkowski wrote. “The stakes are too high to look the other way: if the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer. My colleague, Senator Tillis, is right in blocking any Federal Reserve nominees until this is resolved.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement the Justice Department’s actions represent “the kind of bullying that we’ve all come to expect from Donald Trump and his cronies.” 

“Anyone who is independent and doesn’t just fall in line behind Trump gets investigated,” Schumer wrote. “Jay Powell and the Fed aren’t the reason Trump’s economy and his poll numbers are in the toilet. If he’s looking for the person who caused that he should look in the mirror.”

Former Federal Reserve chairmen, Treasury secretaries and White House economic advisers released a written statement that the Fed’s “independence and the public’s perception of that independence are critical for economic performance, including achieving the goals Congress has set for the Federal Reserve of stable prices, maximum employment, and moderate long-term interest rates.”

“The reported criminal inquiry into Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell is an unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine that independence,” they wrote. “This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in the afternoon she didn’t know if Trump had seen Powell’s video but defended the president’s right to denounce the Fed’s actions under his leadership. 

“Look, the president has every right to criticize the Fed chair. He has a First Amendment right, just like all of you do,” Leavitt said. “And one thing for sure, the president has made it quite clear that Jerome Powell is bad at his job. As for whether or not Jerome Powell is a criminal, that’s an answer the Department of Justice is going to have to find out and it looks like they intend to find that out.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Idaho case  

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

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

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

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

Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July 2024.

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

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

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

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

West Virginia case

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

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

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

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

Her mother sued on her behalf in 2021.

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

White House, Congress zero in on trans athletes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Textbook discrimination’ 

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

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

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

A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune, joined at the U.S.-Mexico border Friday by a handful of other Republican senators, highlighted the president’s signature tax cuts and spending package passed last year that provided billions for immigration enforcement.

The press conference in McAllen, Texas, came after a federal immigration officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, and two people were shot by Border Patrol agents late Thursday in Portland, Oregon.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, touted how the tax cuts and spending package signed into law last summer also provided “for additional reinforcements,” such as the hiring of more Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

On Jan. 3, ICE announced it hired 12,000 new officers, more than doubling its force from 10,000 agents to 22,000. Thousands more are set to be hired.

The GOP-passed bill also included $4.1 billion for Customs and Border Protection to hire 5,000 customs officers and 3,000 Border Patrol agents over the next four years.

Thune said because migration at the southern border has slowed, the time has come for President Donald Trump to shift his focus to immigration reform. CBP data from November, the most recent available, shows total apprehensions at the southwest border slowed to 7,350 that month.

“I think President Trump is probably the president best equipped to lead the effort to reform immigration law in his country in a way that it creates, again, those better paying jobs, opportunities for people who come to the country legally,” Thune said. “We are a nation of immigrants, but we’re also a nation of laws, and we have to make sure we’re enforcing our laws, and that’s where it starts.”

The Trump administration has continued with its aggressive mass deportation efforts throughout the interior of the country and has moved to revoke the legal status of more than 1.5 million immigrants since taking office last January. 

Thune added that the GOP bill, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, also provided billions for border security.

“As a result of the passage of the One Big, Beautiful bill … we got more resources down here, not only for physical infrastructure, for the wall, but for also that virtual infrastructure, for technology and counter drone technology, all those sorts of things that make it possible for the Border Patrol to do their job,” he said.

Thune was joined by Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming and Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Jon Husted of Ohio, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska.

Rounds said that under the Trump administration the southern border has undergone “a remarkable transformation.” 

“There is no such thing as a country that can be a superpower, or, for that matter, be free if they can’t defend their own borders,” Rounds said. 

Cornyn also highlighted how the bill will reimburse, up to $13.5 billion, those border states who have spent money on immigration enforcement. He said of that money, Texas will get $11 billion. 

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2025, at the beginning of a government shutdown of historic length. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats in Congress are cautiously optimistic they can enact the remaining government funding bills before their deadline at the end of the month, avoiding another shutdown. 

The milestone would represent an accomplishment for the typically gridlocked Congress, though it comes months after lawmakers’ original October deadline and the longest shutdown in history that reverberated throughout the country.  

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said recently negotiators are making “progress” toward agreement on the unresolved bills, which include funding for the departments of Defense, Health and Human Services and Homeland Security.

Those three bills are the most complicated to resolve and this year will be no exception given President Donald Trump’s actions on immigration, deportation and military intervention in Venezuela. 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the committee, was somewhat less optimistic than her colleague about the likelihood all of the bills become law. But she didn’t rule it out. 

“It’s up to the Republican leadership,” Murray said. “We’re working hard to get our end of it done.”

House approves some spending

Congress approved three of the dozen annual spending bills in the package that ended the shutdown in November, providing funding for their own offices and operations; military construction projects; the Agriculture Department; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The package provided stopgap spending for the remaining federal programs in the other nine bills. 

The House voted 397-28 Thursday to approve the Energy-Water, Commerce-Justice-Science and Interior-Environment spending bills, sending them to the Senate, where Collins expects that chamber will take a procedural vote Monday.

Collins said the remaining six unresolved bills will likely move through Congress in two separate packages — one funding financial services, homeland security, the State Department and foreign operations as well as one funding defense, education, health care, housing and transportation programs. 

If Congress finishes work on the full slate of bills, which will likely account for about $1.8 trillion in spending, it would mark the end of the first annual appropriations process of Trump’s second term in office.

Minnesota ICE shooting jolts process

The biggest hurdle to completing work on all of the bills will be reaching consensus on funding for the Homeland Security Department, especially after an immigration agent shot and killed a woman in Minnesota. 

Collins said a day after the Jan. 7 incident that members of both political parties in both chambers continue to work on the bill and praised subcommittee Chairwoman Katie Britt of Alabama for “doing a really good job.”

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, ranking member on the subcommittee, however, said there must be “constraints” on how immigration agents are operating. 

Murphy said the sharp increase in hiring at Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection, spurred by billions in additional funding included in Republicans’ big, beautiful bill, “likely resulted in people being out there on our streets who don’t have the necessary training.”

“Now I’m not saying that’s part of the story yesterday, but we know that they are not applying the same standards and the same training that they have in the past,” Murphy said. “There’s a broader question about whether CBP is qualified to operate in the interior at all. From my understanding, CBP was part of that deployment yesterday that resulted in the murder of this young woman.”

Murphy said he has a “handful of ideas” about how to address his and other Democrats’ concerns about how the Trump administration has approached immigration enforcement, while acknowledging any final agreement will need Republican support to move through Congress. 

“I won’t be asking for the moon. We’re not going to fix all of these issues. And I’m not looking for comprehensive immigration reform at all,” Murphy said. “But some targeted improvements in the way that ICE and CBP are operating, I think, are going to be necessary.”

Murphy said he believes there is time to work out a bipartisan solution on that spending bill before the Jan. 30 shutdown deadline. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a press conference that the leaders on the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittee are having an “important and serious discussion” about the funding bill after the shooting. 

Congress could pass a stopgap spending bill for programs within the Homeland Security Department, which includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to keep everything up and running for the rest of the fiscal year. The fall-back option can be used when consensus on a full-year bill isn’t possible. 

That type of funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, would keep DHS’ funding mostly flat and avoid the need for it to shut down after the current funding law expires at the end of the month. It would leave in place the types of policies that DHS has been operating under all year. 

Negotiations continue

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., said Wednesday talks on the unsettled bills are “going well” and that she expects lawmakers to meet their Jan. 30 deadline.

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said his “goal” is to approve the leftover bills before the end of the month, avoiding the need for Congress to use another stopgap measure to keep the government up and running or face a shutdown. 

While the groupings Collins outlined may seem random, Cole said appropriators spent a good bit of time contemplating how to package the remaining bills. 

“There was a lot of thought given to how to work these things together and what would maximize support on each side,” Cole said. “Obviously, those discussions were had not just amongst Republicans but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and in the other chamber. So we think that’s the best package to move forward.” 

Congress rarely approves the final versions of the government funding bills one-by-one and used to approve all 12 in one omnibus package, though Republican opposition to that has led to smaller “minibuses.”

Cole said negotiations between Republicans and Democrats on final versions of the full-year spending bills are being undertaken by subcommittee leaders. 

“If you can solve these problems at the subcommittee level, you’ve got the most knowledgeable people, the people that care the most on both sides of the aisle,” Cole said. “The further up the food chain it goes — whether to my colleagues in the four corners (of the Appropriations Committee) or to leadership — the more political decisions come, and the less knowledgeable the people making the decision are about the topic.”

Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the top Democrat on the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee, said that “great progress” had been made so far toward final agreement on that bill.

“I’m very hopeful and encouraged, given the work that’s been done so far, that we can do that,” Baldwin said. 

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy cast doubt on his colleagues’ ability to reach consensus on the last six bills, saying it will be “difficult” to work out final agreements in the time left. 

“I wouldn’t bet my house on it,” Kennedy said. “And if I were betting your house, it would be just a maybe.”

Kennedy said he isn’t involved in the negotiations on those bills but expects negotiators are “fighting over something.” Kennedy is chairman of the Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee, which already completed work on its bill. 

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks as U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., looks on during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 8, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Schumer and Jeffries spoke to reporters on topics including upcoming floor legislation extending health insurance subsidies. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved a bipartisan bill Thursday to resurrect the enhanced tax credits that expired at the end of last year for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

The 230-196 vote sends the legislation to the Senate, where Republican leadership is unlikely to put it on the floor without considerable changes, which a bipartisan group of senators appears close to finalizing. Seventeen Republicans voted with every Democrat to pass the bill. 

House GOP leaders didn’t want to bring the bill up in their chamber, but a handful of their own members signed a discharge petition in December, forcing the vote amid rising health care costs. 

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern said during floor debate on Wednesday evening “it’s about damn time” the chamber took up a bill to address the now-expired tax credits, arguing lawmakers have a “moral obligation to act” to help people afford health insurance.

“This Congress musters up the will to spend trillions of dollars on tax breaks for billionaires and to send the Pentagon billions of dollars more than they even asked for. And the administration came up with tens of billions of dollars to bail out Argentina, for God’s sake,” McGovern said. “But somehow helping moms and dads, grandparents and kids afford trips to the doctor is a step too far for this Republican leadership.”

New York GOP Rep. Mike Lawler said he only backed the bill after Republican leaders declined to bring up a bipartisan two-year compromise bill he helped negotiate last year. 

“I am voting in favor of this discharge and of this legislation to send it to the Senate so that the Senate will have the opportunity to put forth a reform package that can pass Congress and become law,” Lawler said. 

Republicans and Democrats, he said, agree that the country’s health care system is in need of a serious overhaul. He called on his colleagues to find solutions to the bigger, more structural issues. 

“Enough of the blame game on both sides,” Lawler said. “Let’s focus on actually delivering affordable health care for Americans.”

Prolonged fight over ACA tax credits 

Democrats originally established the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits during the coronavirus pandemic in an attempt to get more people health insurance coverage. They set the subsidies to expire at the end of 2025.

The debate over the sunset date simmered in the background for much of last year but surged to the forefront in October after Democrats shut down the government and repeatedly demanded GOP leaders negotiate an extension to the expiring enhanced tax credits.

The shutdown ended in mid-November after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed to give Democrats a vote on a health care bill of their choosing in December. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ultimately decided to bring up a three-year extension of the enhanced tax credits without any changes, but it failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance.

A proposal from Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, both Republicans, that would have provided funding through Health Savings Accounts for some ACA marketplace enrollees during 2026 and 2027 also failed to move toward final passage. 

A House Republican health care bill passed that chamber last month, but doesn’t have the bipartisan support to move through the Senate and become law. 

Senate problems

Thune said Tuesday any renewal of the enhanced ACA marketplace subsidies would need reforms to move through that chamber.

The bill, he said, would need to set income limits on who qualifies for the enhanced tax credit and eliminate ACA health insurance plans that have $0 premiums, a feature Republicans allege allowed insurance companies to enroll people without their knowledge to receive the subsidy. 

“And then the second component would be some sort of a bridge to (Health Savings Accounts). An expansion of HSAs so that you’re getting more money into the pockets of the American people, the patients, if you will, the consumers, as opposed to insurance companies,” Thune said. “And then finally you’ve got to deal with the Hyde issue.”

The Hyde Amendment has been a feature of government spending bills for decades, preventing federal dollars from going to abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape, or incest, or threatens the woman’s life. 

Republicans want the prohibition to apply to all ACA marketplace health insurance plans without any way for Americans to pay for the coverage themselves, the way they do now. Democrats have rejected the change as a non-starter that would restrict abortion access in blue states. 

‘Be a little flexible on Hyde,’ says Trump

President Donald Trump waded into that debate this week, telling House Republicans during a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center they must be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment in order to broker a health care deal that can reach his desk. 

“You have to be a little flexible on Hyde. You know that. You’ve got to be a little flexible,” Trump said. “You’ve got to work something. You’ve got to use ingenuity. You’ve got to work. We’re all big fans of everything, but you’ve got to have flexibility.”

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser rebuked Trump for the comment, writing in a statement that to “suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November.”

States have a patchwork of laws addressing abortion coverage in ACA  marketplace health insurance plans, with 25 prohibiting coverage with certain exceptions and 12 requiring abortion coverage, according to analysis from the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

“In states that do not bar coverage of abortions on plans available through the Marketplace, insurers may offer a plan that covers abortions beyond the permissible Hyde amendment situations when the pregnancy is a result of rape, or incest or the pregnant person’s life is endangered, but this coverage cannot be paid with federal dollars.”

Any ACA marketplace health insurance plan that offers abortion coverage in circumstances outside those three exceptions must charge each enrollee $1 for that coverage, according to KFF.

Behind the scenes in the Senate

A bipartisan group of senators has been talking behind the scenes for months about how to extend the ACA marketplace subsidies with changes. 

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno said Thursday he expects the group, which has agreed on a “framework,” to release a bill next week, though he cautioned that’s just one small step. 

“We have agreement that we think we have a skeleton of a deal. But it’s all fun and games until you have it on paper in a bill form,” Moreno said. “So we have to do that. And then we have to go sell the heck out of it to our conference. And again, look, this is politics. There’s people on both sides that want this to fail. So we have to get past that massive mountain.”

Moreno said the tentative plan is to revive the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credit for another two years with modifications.

The bill would also: 

• Extend open enrollment for this year until March 1.
• Cap the enhanced subsidy for people making under 700% of the federal poverty level, or about $109,550 in annual income for one person, according to the guidelines for 2025.
• Require people eligible for the enhanced tax credit to pay at least $5 per month or $60 per year for their health insurance to ensure the enrollee knows about their coverage.
• Fine insurance companies $1,000 for “deliberately causing fraud, meaning signing someone up without their consent.”

ACA marketplace enrollees eligible for the enhanced tax credit would have a choice in 2027 to either keep the lower premium that stems from the health insurance company receiving the subsidy, or move to a Health Savings Account where they would receive the money from the government. 

“The final piece, which I think is the biggest sweetener to the whole deal, is putting back in place cost-sharing reduction payments, which, according to (the Congressional Budget Office), reduce premiums for everybody in the exchange by 11% and save the federal government money,” Moreno said, later clarifying that would happen in 2027.  

There is not yet a final proposal regarding how ACA marketplace plans handle abortion coverage in states where it’s allowed, he said. 

The handshake agreement, Moreno said, is intended to give Congress time to overhaul the bigger issues facing the country’s health insurance and health care systems in a way that reduces costs.

Gang of negotiators

Moreno said the core group of negotiators, which he nicknamed the EPTCOG gang on his text chain, includes six Democrats and five of his Republican Senate colleagues. There are 24 senators total in the “extended OG” gang. 

Moreno believes one of his advantages in the negotiations is that he hasn’t been around the Senate that long, having just been elected in 2024. He said senators are also handling the details themselves, instead of deferring much of the work to staff. 

“This has been principals only. We don’t even allow staff in meetings,” Moreno said. “And the idea is if we can’t work it out, there’s really no point in tasking this with staff.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, one of the negotiators, said Wednesday she wasn’t aware of a deadline for the negotiators to release a bill. She also brushed aside the possibility of changes to how the ACA handles abortion coverage. 

“There is no need to come to a compromise because it’s already been dealt with in the Affordable Care Act,” Shaheen said. “There is very specific language on how it is dealt with. And I think that applies to whatever happens with the Affordable Care Act.”

Shaheen said Thursday the House vote “provides momentum” for Senate negotiators.

Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news briefing in the White House briefing room on January 8, 2026. Vance joined White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt to address several topics including the Jan. 7, 2026, fatal shooting of a woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during a confrontation in Minneapolis. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Vice President JD Vance said Thursday the Trump administration would stand by the federal immigration officer who shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis the day prior. 

Vance defended the immigration officer’s actions as “self-defense” and berated journalists for covering the story, including by reporting that on-the-scene videos contradicted claims from the Trump administration that 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good used her vehicle to harm the immigration officer who fired three shots into her windshield. 

“I would appreciate everybody saying a prayer for that agent,” Vance said. “I think the media prejudging and talking about this guy as if he’s a murderer is one of the most disgraceful things I’ve ever seen from the American media.”

The Minnesota Star Tribune identified the federal immigration officer as Jonathan Ross, who Vance said was hit by a vehicle during an immigration operation six months ago.

An analysis from The New York Times of videos from three different angles show Good turning her SUV away from Ross and that he was not in the path of her vehicle when he fired three shots at close range into her windshield. 

“That ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car six months ago, 33 stitches in his leg so you think maybe he’s a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him with an automobile,” Vance said. 

Vance also accused Good of impeding a law enforcement operation.

“I’m not happy that this woman was there at a protest violating the law by interfering with the law enforcement action,” he said. “I think that we can all recognize that the best way to turn down the temperature is to tell people to take their concerns about immigration policy to the ballot box, stop assaulting and stop inciting violence against our law enforcement officers.”

DHS operation to continue

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also defended the immigration agent during a Thursday press conference.

“This is an experienced officer who followed his training,” she said.

The federal immigration operation in Minneapolis began last month but intensified this week after a right-wing influencer reported day care centers run by members of the Somali community as fraudulent. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during the briefing that the aggressive immigration enforcement in Minnesota would continue. 

“The Department of Homeland Security will continue to operate on the ground in Minnesota, not only to remove criminal illegal aliens, but also to continue conducting door-to-door investigations of the rampant fraud that has taken place in the state under the failed and corrupt leadership of Democrat Gov. Tim Walz,” Leavitt said. 

‘Absolute immunity’

The FBI has refused to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from the investigation to have access to evidence or other case materials in order to investigate the shooting.  

When reporters in the White House briefing room pressed Vance on why the FBI is refusing to cooperate with local law enforcement officials, Vance said it was a federal issue.

“The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after and make this guy’s life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous,” Vance said. “The unprecedented thing is the idea that a local official can actually prosecute a federal official with absolute immunity.”

A federal officer can be prosecuted by local and state authorities if a federal official violates state criminal laws. 

Absolute immunity is applied to civil liability, and extended to certain positions such as the president, judges and legislatures acting in their official duty. Qualified immunity is usually applied to the conduct of law enforcement and grants them immunity from certain legal actions.

Congressional Democrats have decried the shooting and have called for a criminal investigation. 

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks to reporters alongside U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.,  during a pen and pad meeting with reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — In a rare rebuke to President Donald Trump, Senate Republicans joined Democrats in advancing a war powers resolution to halt U.S. military action in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Republican Sens. Todd Young of Indiana, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska split with their party to act as a check on the administration’s use of military forces — as did Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the measure’s co-sponsor with Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Trump in response slammed the vote on his own social media platform, writing that the Republicans who voted in favor “should never be elected to office again.” The White House said in a statement he would likely veto the resolution if it reaches his desk.

The move marked a significant moment after Republicans on Capitol Hill have largely smoothed the path for Trump’s agenda throughout the past year.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., also unexpectedly supported the measure, which advanced on a 52-47 vote. Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, did not vote.

The joint resolution directs the “removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.” 

Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky have introduced their own bipartisan war powers resolution in the House. A previous effort failed to advance in the House in December.

Trump looks toward next vote

Trump in his social media post said the Republicans joined Democrats in trying to curb his authority as the chief executive.

“This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief. In any event, and despite their ‘stupidity,’ the War Powers Act is Unconstitutional, totally violating Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate Vote will be taking place next week on this very subject,” he posted on Truth Social.

Thursday’s vote advanced the legislation over a procedural hurdle to discharge the bill from committee. The bill still requires additional Senate debate and votes before it would head to the House. 

The vote came days after U.S. special forces launched a surprise overnight attack on Venezuela’s capital of Caracas on Saturday, capturing the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The couple appeared in federal court Monday on federal drug and conspiracy charges.

Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello claimed Wednesday that more than 100 were killed in the raid, according to numerous media outlets that posted a video of his statement. The Cuban government announced on Facebook Monday that 32 of its citizens were among the dead.

Seven U.S. troops were injured in the incursion, according to the Pentagon. Two are still recovering, while five have returned to duty, a Defense Department official said.

GOP senators’ explanations

Young issued a statement saying that while he supported the U.S. ouster of Maduro, any further military action must be approved by Congress.

“Today’s Senate vote is about potential future military action, not completed successful operations. The President and members of his team have stated that the United States now ‘runs’ Venezuela. It is unclear if that means that an American military presence will be required to stabilize the country. I — along with what I believe to be the vast majority of Hoosiers — am not prepared to commit American troops to that mission. Although I remain open to persuasion, any future commitment of U.S. forces in Venezuela must be subject to debate and authorization in Congress,” Young said.

Collins similarly said she supported Maduro’s capture by U.S. special forces, but expressed concern about Trump’s vague comments regarding the U.S. role in the South American country going forward.

“The resolution I have supported today does not include any language related to the removal operation. Rather, it reaffirms Congress’s ability to authorize or limit any future sustained military activity in Venezuela, while preserving the President’s inherent Article II authority to defend the United States from an armed attack or imminent threat. I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the President’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree,” Collins said in a statement.

Hawley wrote on social media shortly after the vote: “With regard to Venezuela, my read of the Constitution is that if the President feels the need to put boots on the ground there in the future, Congress would need to vote on it. That’s why I voted yes on this morning’s Senate resolution.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth delivered a classified update to members of Congress Wednesday on Capitol Hill on the ongoing U.S. military intervention in Venezuela. Democrats said they remained unsatisfied with the information shared during the meetings.

White House defends actions

In a statement of administration policy released by the White House after Thursday’s Senate vote, officials defended the apprehension of Maduro as a “law enforcement operation” that was supported by military strikes.

The legislation “should be rejected, like the previously rejected Resolutions, as it once again fails to recognize the ongoing national security threats posed by the Maduro-led Cártel de los Soles and other violent drug-trafficking cartels. If S.J. Res. 98 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he veto the joint resolution,” according to the statement.

Vice President JD Vance suggested during the White House press briefing Thursday that the measure would be unenforceable and that the vote would not curtail the administration’s actions.

“Every president, Democrat or Republican, believes the War Powers Act is fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law,” he said. “It’s not going to change anything about how we conduct foreign policy over the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months and that will continue to be how we approach things ahead.”

A similar measure failed to gain enough Republican support in early November, in a 49-51 vote. Murkowski was the only other Republican to join Paul in approval.

Paul and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., first cosponsored the initial effort in October, which at the time failed, 48-51. 

The U.S. launched a bombing campaign off the coast of Venezuela in September, striking small vessels in the Caribbean Sea that the administration alleges were operated by “narco-terrorists.” The death toll from the strikes reached over 100 in December.

Kaine forced Thursday’s procedural vote under the War Powers Resolution, a Vietnam War-era statute that gives Congress a check on the president’s use of the military abroad. 

Dems say vote will restrain Trump, despite veto

Kaine, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff told reporters following the vote that the result would allow debate over the matter to proceed in public, rather than only in the secure facilities where lawmakers have been briefed.

“We’re going to have a fulsome debate on this issue of the kind we haven’t been allowed to have for a very long time,” Kaine said.

The senators added that the more the public hears about the administration’s plans for Venezuela, including Trump’s comments published Thursday in The New York Times that U.S. forces may occupy the country for “much longer” than a year, the less popular it would become.

“The more the American people hear about what’s going on in Venezuela and the more they learn about it, the less they are going to like it, the more fiercely they’re going to oppose it,” Schumer said.

While Kaine acknowledged Trump would likely veto the measure, he said Trump also vetoed a similar bill Congress passed in 2020 to restrain military action in Iran but backed down from an aggressive posture against Iran.

“He vetoed it, we couldn’t override it,” he said. “But what we noticed is the president then backed off for the remainder of his first term because he heard the voices of the American public through the votes of Congress, saying, ‘We do not want more war right now, Mr. President.’ And I think that’s one thing this president is very sensitive to.”

The Democratic senators added that they believed the vote would restrain the administration from taking military action in Colombia, Greenland and Mexico, as administration officials have suggested.

McConnell parts way with Kentucky colleague

Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, opposed the legislation and released a lengthy statement afterward. He said the president “was well within this authority in his decision to bring Nicolas Maduro to justice” and cited past military incursions without formal congressional approval by presidents from both parties.

McConnell continued later in the statement: “Successfully returning Venezuela to its role of stable, prosperous, democratic neighbor is a noble goal … but an ambitious one. It doesn’t come without risk. And it’s worth making the clear case to the country.”

Former Democratic Rep. Max Rose, now with VoteVets, issued a statement Thursday calling the vote “stunning.”

“They stood up and said that Trump does not have the authority to use our military any which way he wants, and if he wants to go further, he’ll have to come to Congress to allow Americans to have their say,” said Rose, an Afghanistan war veteran and senior adviser to the political action committee that endorses veterans to run for office.

“It is sad that it has come to the point where a simple affirmation of the ‘declare war’ clause of the Constitution is news, but it is nonetheless a good day when Republicans join Democrats in telling Donald Trump that this is not ‘his military’ as much as he wants it to be his. It belongs to America,” he continued.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

People gather around the south Minneapolis site where a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot a woman on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump defended a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer who fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis Wednesday, while congressional Democrats universally condemned the action.

Video obtained by the Minnesota Reformer shows an ICE officer demanding the driver of a maroon SUV get out of the vehicle. As the vehicle begins to pull away, an officer fires three shots through the windshield and driver-side window. The video shows no apparent harm to the officer, who walked away from the vehicle shortly after the shooting. 

But Trump wrote on social media that “it is hard to believe he is alive.”

“The woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense,” Trump wrote.

Minnesota’s Democratic congressional delegation, and other Democrats in Washington, D.C., strongly condemned the incident and questioned the subsequent comments from the administration. 

“We need full transparency and an investigation of what happened, and I am deeply concerned that statements made by DHS do not appear to reflect video evidence and on-the-ground accounts,” Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the state’s senior senator, said in a statement.  

A statement from several Minneapolis City Council members identified the victim as Renee Nicole Good, 37. A photo of the SUV shows several stuffed animals hanging out of the glove compartment.

Trump, GOP back officer

Congressional Republicans largely backed Trump’s version of events, calling the shooting self-defense and blaming Democrats for rhetoric they said inspired violence.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said that the woman tried to run over the agent.

“One of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism,” McLaughlin said. “An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called the victim a “domestic terrorist.” 

House Republican Whip Tom Emmer gave his support to the ICE officer.

“Our brave ICE agents put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities from dangerous criminals,” he said in a statement. “May God bless and protect them in their efforts. Shame on the elected officials who endanger these agents by spewing lies and hateful rhetoric.”

Dems call for investigation

Democrats on Capitol Hill denounced the attack and the administration’s response.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called for the ICE officer who shot the woman to be criminally investigated. 

“There is no evidence that has been presented to justify this killing,” Jeffries, a New York Democrat, said in a statement. “Secretary Kristi Noem is a stone-cold liar and has zero credibility. The masked ICE agent who pulled the trigger should be criminally investigated to the full extent of the law for acting with depraved indifference to human life.”

Minnesota Democrats said the ongoing immigration enforcement campaign in the Twin Cities had heightened tensions.

“For weeks, Donald Trump has directed ICE and DHS agents to racially profile and arrest Minnesotans in their homes, their workplaces, and on our streets,” Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said in a statement, adding that more than 2,000 federal immigration agents are in the state. 

“Trump’s reckless and dangerous immigration policies do nothing to make us safer,” she continued. “Today in Minneapolis, these actions resulted in a masked federal agent fatally shooting a woman in the head.”

Democratic Sen. Tina Smith said the woman fatally shot by an ICE officer was a U.S. citizen. She called for ICE to leave Minnesota. 

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, the first Somali-American woman elected to Congress and whose district includes the site of the shooting, said the woman was a legal observer, which is a neutral third party who attends protests or other public demonstrations to observe and record law enforcement actions towards protesters.

“ICE’s actions today were unconscionable and reprehensible,” Omar said.

DHS practices, budget questioned

DHS received billions for immigration enforcement in last year’s tax and spending cuts package passed by congressional Republicans. The funding can be used for hiring new ICE officers and detention and removal of immigrants. 

On Jan. 3, ICE announced it hired 12,000 new officers, doubling from 10,000 agents to 22,000.

A top Senate Democratic appropriator, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, wrote on social media that “Democrats cannot vote for a DHS budget that doesn’t restrain the growing lawlessness of this agency.” 

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker said in a statement that he was concerned the aggressive DHS practices will lead to more tragedies. 

“All evidence indicates that hiring standards have been lowered, training is inadequate, and internal controls are insufficient,” he said. “These conditions have allowed agents to operate without proper oversight, and, in some cases, unlawfully.” 

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego also criticized the hiring practices of ICE, specifically calling out White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a lead architect of the Trump administration’s immigration policy.  

“What happened is a disgrace and we need an investigation immediately,” Gallego said on social media. “It’s clear that that agent didn’t have the proper training, and that’s because Stephen Miller is going full speed ahead to hire as many agents as possible.”

Day care investigation

The federal immigration operation in Minneapolis began last month but intensified this week after a right-wing influencer reported day care centers run by members of the Somali community as fraudulent. 

In response, the Trump administration directed states to provide “justification” that federal child care funds they receive are spent on “legitimate” providers and Noem has zeroed in on the city, which has a large Somali community, for immigration enforcement. 

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a Wednesday hearing on the issue of fraud in Minnesota.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate GOP skeptical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrats move toward vote on war powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

A small crowd of far-right activists marched on the U.S. Capitol Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026 in a nonviolent protest. They followed the path of the march five years ago, when rioters attacked the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden's presidential election win. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Five years after a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, the struggle to define the event and assign blame carried on in events across the city Tuesday that remained nonviolent, though still disturbing.

A crowd of no more than a few hundred of President Donald Trump’s supporters commemorated the deadly attack with a somewhat subdued march from the Ellipse to the Capitol that was in stark contrast to the riot five years ago.

Inside the Capitol, U.S. House Democrats gathered in a small meeting room, apparently unable to secure larger accommodations for an unofficial hearing that largely rehashed the findings of a House committee that spent 2022 investigating the attack.

Trump, meanwhile, addressed House Republicans three miles west at the Kennedy Center. In an hour-plus address, he blamed then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the violence on Jan. 6, 2021 and recommended the GOP lawmakers pass laws to make election fraud more difficult. Trump’s claim that his 2020 election loss was due to fraud sparked the 2021 attack.

“Our elections are crooked as hell,” he said, without citing evidence.

House Dems blast pardons 

Inside the Capitol, at a morning event that U.S. House Democrats organized and in which Republicans didn’t take part, lawmakers and experts criticized Trump’s pardons of people involved in the 2021 attack, one of his first acts after returning to office last year.

They also decried his continued recasting of the events of the day.

White House officials launched a webpage Tuesday that blamed the attack on Democrats, again including Pelosi, and restated the lie that initiated the attack: The 2020 election that Trump lost was marred by fraud and should not have been certified.

“Democrats masterfully reversed reality after January 6,” the page reads. “…In truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters.” 

Pelosi at the hearing on Tuesday condemned Trump’s version of the attack. 

“Today, that president who incited that insurrection continues to lie about what happened that day,” the California Democrat said.

Other Democrats and their invited witnesses also described the pardons as signaling that the president accepted — and even encouraged — his supporters to pursue illegal means of keeping him in power. 

Brendan Ballou, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor who resigned shortly after Trump’s 2025 pardons, told the panel the executive action sent Trump supporters the “clear message” they were above the law.

“The January 6 pardons also fit into a broader narrative of what’s going on with this administration, that if people are sufficiently loyal and willing to support the president, either in words or financially, they will be put beyond the reach of the law,” he added. “It means that quite literally for a certain group of people right now in America, the law does not apply to them.”

Former ‘MAGA granny’ testifies

Homeland Security Committee ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson of Mississippi led the panel discussion, with Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin of Maryland and several others also sitting in on it.

The first panel of witnesses included Ballou, other experts and Pamela Hemphill, a former Trump supporter from Idaho who traveled to the nation’s capital five years ago to “be part of the mob” in support of the president before becoming an advocate for reckoning with the day’s violence.

An emotional Hemphill, 72 and once known as “MAGA granny,” apologized to U.S. Capitol police officers.

“Once I got away from the MAGA cult and started educating myself about January the 6th, I knew what I did was wrong,” Hemphill told the panel. “I pleaded guilty to my crimes because I did the crime. I received due process and the DOJ was not weaponized against me. 

“Accepting that pardon would be lying about what happened on January the 6th,” she added.

She explained her decision to decline Trump’s blanket pardon of offenders convicted of crimes related to the attack, saying it papered over the misdeeds of people involved in the riot. She implored others not to accept revisions of the narrative about what happened in the attack.

Subsequent panels included current and former House members, including two, Republican Adam Kitzinger of Illinois and Democrat Elaine Luria of Virginia, who sat on the committee tasked with investigating the attack.

Flowers for Ashli Babbitt

The crowd of marchers, which included pardoned Jan. 6 attack participants, gathered in the late morning to retrace their path to the U.S. Capitol five years ago.

Organizers billed the march as a memorial event to honor Ashli Babbitt, who was killed by U.S. Capitol Police during the riot in 2021 as she attempted to break into the House Speaker’s lobby.

Far-right activists celebrating the five-year anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol marched in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026, from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Rioters in 2021 attempted to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election win. (Video by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

The crowd of roughly a couple hundred walked from the Ellipse, where Trump spoke to rallygoers in 2021, to just outside the Capitol grounds, where police contained the small crowd on the lawn north of the Reflecting Pool. 

Law enforcement officers permitted Babbitt’s mother, Michelle Witthoeft, and a few others to walk closer to the Capitol to lay flowers at roughly 2:44 p.m. Eastern, the time they say Babbitt died.

A group of counterprotesters briefly approached the demonstration, yelling “traitors.” Police quickly formed two lines between the groups, heading off any clashes.

Proud Boys former leader on-site 

Among the crowd was former Proud Boys national leader Enrique Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack. Trump commuted Tarrio’s sentence upon taking office for his second term.

While looking on at marchers, Tarrio told States Newsroom he was “just supporting.”

“It’s not my event. I’m just trying to help them with organizing and marching people down the street, I guess. But we’re here for one purpose, and that’s to honor the lives of Ashli Babbitt and those who passed away that day.”

When asked if marchers were also honoring the police officers who died in the days and months after the attack, Tarrio said he mourned “any loss of life” but added “I heard some suicides happened. I don’t know. I haven’t really looked into that. I’ve been in prison.”

U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered injuries during the riot, according to the Capitol Police. He died the following day from natural causes, according to the District of Columbia Office of the Medical Examiner.

Four responding police officers died by suicide in the following days and months.

As the march continued, a group of Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers on bicycles stopped Tarrio and asked him to confirm the march route to avoid any “confusion.”

When counterprotesters began to heckle the Jan. 6 attack supporters, Tarrio waved the marchers forward, “C’mon, c’mon, keep moving.”

Jan. 6 rioter Rasha Abual-Ragheb, 45, of New Jersey, addressed the crowd earlier and thanked “Daddy Trump” for her pardon. Abual-Ragheb, who pleaded guilty to parading, demonstrating and picketing in the U.S. Capitol, showed off a tattoo on her arm reading “MAGA 1776.”

Willie Connors, 57, of Bayonne, New Jersey, stood on the edge of the crowd with a yellow “J6” flag tied around his neck. Connors said he didn’t enter the Capitol during the 2021 attack, but said he was in the district that day to protest the 2020 presidential election, which he falsely claimed was “robbed” from Trump.

“Donald Trump, I’ll take the bullet for that man. He’s my president,” Connors said. 

Multi-colored traditional Greenlandic homes in Nuuk, Greenland, are seen from the water on March 29, 2025 in Nuuk, Greenland. (Photo by Leon Neal/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is considering options to acquire Greenland, including possible military operations, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday, renewing a push for the Danish territory that follows the stunning U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without congressional approval over the weekend.

Trump and his top officials have professed a need for the United States to take Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark that, like the U.S., is a member of NATO.

“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” Leavitt said in a statement to States Newsroom. “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen in a Tuesday statement stressed to President Donald Trump that his country is “not something that can be annexed or taken over simply because someone feels like it.”

Leaders of Denmark and the heads of NATO countries Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the United Kingdom, issued a joint statement in support of Greenland’s sovereignty. 

Leavitt’s comments came after the NATO allies’ statement. 

Greenland’s government did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on Leavitt’s Tuesday statement.  

New questions after Venezuela

The Jan. 3 military operation in Venezuela to capture Maduro and his wife to be brought to face a trial in New York opened fresh doubt about the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals.

Following the operation, Trump held a press conference during which he said other countries could face the same fate. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement after senators were briefed by Trump officials Monday saying he could not get a clear answer that officials would not do the same thing to Columbia, Greenland or Iran. 

“Are we going to invade a NATO ally like Greenland? Where does this belligerence stop?,” the New York Democrat said.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 18, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. California Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa has died and Indiana Republican Rep. Jim Baird was injured in a car accident, President Donald Trump said Tuesday. 

Speaking to a meeting of House Republicans at the Kennedy Center, Trump said he wanted to express “our tremendous sorrow” following LaMalfa’s death and said the congressman was “a fierce champion on California water issues.”

“I also want to send our best wishes to Congressman Jim Baird and his wife, who are recovering from a car accident. They’re going to be okay. But they had a pretty bad accident,” Trump said. “And we’re praying they get out of that hospital very quickly. He’s going to be fine. She’s going to be fine. But it was a bad accident.”

The cause of LaMalfa’s death was not immediately clear on Tuesday morning. The Butte County Sheriff’s Office wrote in a statement that they received a 911 call on Monday evening from LaMalfa’s house about a medical emergency. 

The congressman was taken to Enloe Hospital, where he died during an emergency surgery, according to the sheriff’s office. 

“In accordance with standard protocols, the Coroner’s Unit of the Butte County Sheriff’s Office is conducting an investigation to determine the cause of death,” the statement said. “A forensic pathologist is scheduled to conduct an autopsy as part of this investigation.”

LaMalfa’s death will reduce Republicans’ already slim House majority, making it more complicated for leadership in that chamber to pass legislation that’s not bipartisan. 

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation earlier this week, combined with LaMalfa’s death, decreases the GOP majority to 218 seats. 

Baird’s absence until he recovers and can vote in person further erodes that to 217. And it could be narrowed even more by GOP lawmakers missing votes for other reasons. 

Democrats control 213 House seats, giving Republican leaders next to no margin for defections on partisan bills. 

LaMalfa, 65, was first sworn in as a member of Congress in January 2013 and represented California’s 1st Congressional District, which covers a large section of the northeastern corner of the state. 

Baird, 80, has been a member of Congress for seven years, representing Indiana’s 4th Congressional District constituents in the central and northwestern parts of the state. 

Baird’s office released a statement shortly after Trump’s announcement, saying the congressman “is in the hospital and is expected to make a full recovery, and he is extraordinarily grateful for everyone’s prayers during this time. 

“Congressman Baird looks forward to continuing his work on behalf of Hoosiers. The Office of Congressman Baird will continue to provide services and support for those who need it. Congressman Baird and his office remain steadfast in their commitment to serving constituents and focused on advocating for Hoosiers at the highest levels of government.”

Johnson, Jeffries mourn LaMalfa

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., released a statement saying that “Congress is devastated to learn this morning about the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Doug LaMalfa.” 

“Doug was a lifelong resident of northern California and deeply loved its people. He was as fierce of a fighter for his state’s vast natural resources and beauty as we have ever known,” Johnson wrote. “We are mourning the loss of our friend and brother today and we send our respects for his life and work to his wife Jill and the LaMalfa family during this difficult time.” 

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York wrote in a statement that he joined “people across Northern California in mourning the untimely passing of Congressman Doug LaMalfa. 

“Doug and I joined the Congress as classmates in 2013, and it was an honor to witness firsthand his passion and personal resolve for more than a decade,” Jeffries wrote. 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., released a written statement that he was “devastated to hear of the passing of my dear friend and colleague, Doug LaMalfa.”

“A fourth generation rice farmer, he fought passionately for the region’s agricultural community and small businesses, and in 2024 was elected Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, which focuses on the priorities of Western and rural America,” Scalise wrote. “He also worked to bolster disaster recovery efforts and funding for rural schools.”

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson of North Carolina wrote in a statement that he was “deeply saddened by the passing of my colleague and close friend, Congressman Doug LaMalfa.” 

“I cherished our time serving together on the Agriculture Committee and discussing NASCAR; he was a real gearhead and motorsports fan,” Hudson wrote. “I will deeply miss my ‘amigo.’ Renee and I are praying for his beloved wife Jill, as well as Kyle, Allison, Sophia, Natalie, and all his loved ones, friends, and staff during this incredibly difficult time.”

Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly speaks with reporters in the Mansfield Room of the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Dec. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department will attempt to downgrade Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, seeking to punish him for making a video along with other Democrats in Congress, who told members of the military they didn’t need to follow illegal orders. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth originally threatened to recall Kelly from military retirement and court-martial him for his participation in the video, but announced Monday that the department would instead try to downgrade his rank of captain as well as his retirement pay. 

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth wrote in a social media post. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days.”

Hegseth added that Kelly’s “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Kelly wrote in a social media post that he planned to challenge Hegseth’s attempt to alter his retirement rank and pay, arguing it’s an attempt to punish him for challenging the Trump administration. 

“My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head– all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder,” Kelly wrote. “Generations of servicemembers have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.”

Kelly added that Hegseth’s goal with the process is to “send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way. It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”

Constitutional protection

Members of Congress are generally protected under the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that unless a lawmaker is involved in treason, felony and breach of the peace, they are “privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

Hegseth wrote in that letter that if Kelly continues “to engage in conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, you may subject yourself to criminal prosecution or further administrative action.”

Allegations of misconduct

The Department of Defense posted in late November that officials were looking into “serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly for appearing in the video. 

It didn’t detail how Kelly might have violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice but stated that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures.” 

Hegseth referred the issue to Navy Secretary John Phelan for any “review, consideration, and disposition” he deemed appropriate. Hegseth then asked for a briefing on the outcome of the review “by no later than December 10.”

Kelly said during a press conference in early December the military’s investigation and a separate one by the FBI were designed to intimidate the six lawmakers in the video from speaking out against Trump. 

The lawmakers in the video, who have backgrounds in the military or intelligence agencies, told members of those communities they “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.”

The other Democrats in the video — Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander — are not subject to the military justice system. 

Trump railed against the video a couple of days after it posted, saying the statements represented “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funds undergo ‘regular audits’

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

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



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

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

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. According to some reports, explosions were heard in Caracas and other cities near airports and military bases around 2 a.m. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday that the United States will “run the country” of Venezuela until “a proper transition can take place,” following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a strike against the South American nation, a stunning move conducted without congressional notice or approval.

Trump in a press conference from his Florida estate made it clear how much the secret military operation earlier Saturday related to securing oil, and he detailed how petroleum companies would finance the rebuilding of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. 

Trump as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio also signaled other countries, such as Cuba, could face the same interventionist fate as Venezuela. “If I lived in Havana and worked for the government I’d be concerned,” Rubio said, referring to the communist nation’s capital. 

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, who was also captured, will be brought to New York to face a U.S. indictment on narco-terrorism and conspiracy charges originally levied in 2020. The Venezuelan’s reelection to the presidency in 2024 was determined by many countries, including the U.S., to be illegitimate, and he has been characterized by the administration as the leader of a drug cartel.

“This extremely successful operation should serve as (a) warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives,” Trump said. “What happened to Maduro could happen to them.”

The military strike quickly drew strong rebukes from Democratic lawmakers, who said the action superseded Congress’ authority to declare war. It’s also caused deep concern among world leaders, some of whom pushed for an emergency United Nations meeting.

However, Republicans in Congress stood by the president’s decision, saying it was justified.

No timeline for US involvement

Trump did not give a timeline for how long the unusual U.S. intervention in Venezuela might go on, but said the next year would look different for the nation. 

“We are going to run the country until such time that we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said. He added that the U.S. would make Venezuela safe for “the great people of Venezuela, and that includes many from Venezuela that are now living in the United States and want to go back to their country.” 

Since taking office, the Trump administration has tried to end temporary and humanitarian legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. Trump during the press conference repeated accusations that Maduro has sent Venezuelan immigrants with ties to the Tren de Aragua gang to the U.S.

Trump’s military action campaign, named “Absolute Resolve,” came after he waged a months-long pressure campaign to oust the authoritarian leader. Dozens of boat strikes have been carried out in the Caribbean that the president and members of his administration have justified, without showing evidence, by saying the boats were carrying drugs to the U.S.

“The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, early Saturday. “This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement.”

Before the Saturday press event at Mar-a-Lago started, the president posted a picture to social media of Maduro handcuffed, blindfolded and aboard the U.S.S. Iwo Jima Navy ship.

‘We’re not afraid of boots on the ground’

Trump at the press conference was joined by Rubio; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine; CIA Director John Ratcliffe; and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller, who is a lead architect of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

Trump said that an “overwhelming American military power” was used to capture Maduro and his wife in the “dead of night” from “air, land and sea.”

He added that no U.S. military members were killed in the operation, but did not rule out a continued presence for American troops in Venezuelan territory. 

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” Trump said.

Trump said those officials standing behind him at his press conference, “for a period of time,” would “be running” Venezuela. 

The president offered few details on what that U.S. intervention would look like, but called it a “partnership.” It’s unclear if there are any American officials or troops stationed yet in or near Venezuela. 

Cuba

Trump also lodged a thinly veiled threat against the Cuban government.

“Cuba is not doing really well right now,” Trump said. “I think Cuba is going to be something we’ll end up talking about.”

He added that the U.S. also wants to help Cubans who have been “forced out of their country,” so they can return to the island nation. The Trump administration has also moved to end humanitarian protections for more than 110,000 Cubans. 

Rubio, whose parents were part of the first wave of Cuban exiles before the Fidel Castro regime took over the country, agreed, and criticized Cuba’s government as being run by “incompetent, senile men.”

It’s unclear how the next in line to the presidency for Venezuela, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, will fare. 

Trump said that Rubio had a conversation with Rodríguez, and said “she’s essentially willing to do what is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

María Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela’s opposition party, and recent Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work to advance democracy in her home country, called for national unity and said that “the hour for freedom has arrived.” 

“We have struggled for years, we have given it our all, and it has been worth it. What had to happen is happening,” she said in a statement.

Indictment in Southern District of New York

Maduro and his wife will face a trial in the U.S. They have been indicted in the Southern District of New York, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media. 

The DOJ also indicted their son, Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, along with several other Venezuelan politicians, and the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang, Hector Rusthenford Guerrero Flores.

President Maduro is charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States,” Bondi said. 

In 2020, the first Trump administration lodged the same four counts of narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and conspiracy to possess machine guns. 

The new indictment includes Maduro’s wife, son and the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang. 

Andy Kim: Officials ‘blatantly lied’ to Congress

The news drew ire from Congress, which has the authority to declare war. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim said for weeks Trump officials briefed Congress that the boat strikes were not “about regime change.”

“I didn’t trust them then and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress,” Kim wrote on social media. “Trump rejected our Constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the Administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war.”

However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said the capture of Maduro meant the Venezuelan president would be held accountable. 

“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.

He added that when senators return to Congress Monday, he looks forward to additional security briefings from Trump officials.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, made similar remarks and called the attack “justified.” He said he’s working with the Trump administration to schedule briefings with House lawmakers when they return to Washington.

The top Democrat on the House Rules Committee, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, wrote on social media that without “authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela.” 

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who is also co-chair of the Congressional Venezuela Democracy Caucus, said in a statement that the “capture of the brutal, illegitimate ruler of Venezuela … is welcome news for my friends and neighbors who fled his violent, lawless, and disastrous rule.”

However, she called for the opportunity for Venezuelans to partake in democracy, such as being able to swear in the presidential candidate who won Venezuela’s election in the summer of 2024.

President-elect Edmundo Gonzalez was forced into exile and fled to Spain under asylum. Voter results showed that Gonzalez won by a large margin, but Venezuelan government officials, without providing proof, determined that Maduro won. 

Mike Lee speaks to Rubio

Utah’s GOP Sen. Mike Lee initially questioned “what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force.”

But Lee later changed course after speaking with Rubio.

“He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant,” Lee said of Rubio.

Rubio has long stated that Venezuela’s president is not legitimate, nor is his government. Rubio accused him of being the head of a drug cartel.  

“He is not the legitimate president of Venezuela,” Rubio said during Saturday’s press conference. “He is a fugitive of American justice.”

Rubio, who while in Congress was a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also defended a lack of notification to lawmakers.

“This is not the kind of mission you can do congressional notification,” Rubio said. 

For months, Democrats and a handful of Republican lawmakers have tried to curb the president’s strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed about 115, but Congress failed to pass several War Powers Resolutions.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a tool for Congress to check the power of the executive branch by limiting the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad.  

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has pushed for the Senate to vote on the War Powers Resolution, said he will again advocate a vote to curb Trump’s military actions in Venezuela. 

Venezuelans in the US

As the U.S. conducts military land strikes on Venezuela, more than half a million Venezuelan immigrants are legally fighting the Trump administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status. 

TPS is granted when a nation’s home country is deemed too dangerous to return to, due to violence, such as war, or a major natural disaster.

More than 600,000 Venezuelans have TPS, which was initially granted in 2021, just one day before the first Trump administration finished its term. Temporary protections were granted to Venezuelans due to Maduro’s regime. 

Trump has also tried to apply the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to any Venezuelan national, aged 14 and older, who is a suspected gang member, for the purpose of removing them from the U.S. without due process. 

Trump and Maduro also clashed after several deportation planes carrying Venezuelan immigrants landed in El Salvador, where more than 200 men were detained at a brutal mega-prison known as CECOT.

Maduro called the move a “kidnapping,” and several months later the Venezuelans were returned to their home country in a prisoner exchange. 

World leaders call for UN to convene

It’s unclear what the consequences of the Trump administration’s move to capture a foreign leader will have on international relations, but many world leaders disavowed the attacks and called for an emergency United Nations General Assembly meeting. 

The U.N., which is five miles away from the New York court where Maduro will stand trial, did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo condemned the attacks and said they violated Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. 

“Based on its foreign policy principles and its pacifist vocation, Mexico makes an urgent call to respect international law, as well as the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, and to cease any act of aggression against the Venezuelan government and people,” she said in a statement.

Sheinbaum Pardo called on the United Nations to “act immediately to contribute to the de-escalation of tensions, facilitate dialogue and create conditions that allow a peaceful, sustainable solution in accordance with international law.”

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also criticized the attack in Caracas, Venezuela. 

“The justifications put forward for these actions have no factual basis. Ideological hostility has prevailed over pragmatic, businesslike approaches and over efforts to build relationships based on trust and predictability,” according to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said on social media that the U.S. moves to capture Maduro and bomb Venezuela “cross an unacceptable line.”

“Attacking countries, in flagrant violation of international law, is the first step toward a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism,” he wrote. 

The prime minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, called for de-escalation and said that international law “and the principles of the United Nations Charter must be respected.”

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

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he will back off his plans to use National Guard troops in the Democratic-led cities of Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon. 

The move follows the Supreme Court’s decision last week that found Trump could not deploy guard members to Chicago, ruling that the president did not meet the requirements to send guard members to the Windy City for the purpose of assisting with federal immigration enforcement.

Several federal judges have either blocked the deployments or found them unlawful. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally prevents the military from participating in civilian law enforcement.

“We will come back, perhaps in a much different and stronger form, when crime begins to soar again – Only a question of time!” Trump wrote on his social media site, TruthSocial.

The president first deployed National Guard troops earlier this summer to Los Angeles, following massive protests against immigration raids. 

He has continued to send service members to cities with Democratic leaders, a decision that has tested the legal bounds of presidential authority on military law all the way up to the Supreme Court.

An appeals court in early December ruled that the Trump administration must remove troops from Los Angeles, which upheld a lower court ruling that found it illegal to keep an extended military presence long after protests quelled. 

In November, a federal judge permanently blocked the Trump administration from deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

The judge, Karin Immergut, found the move to use service members for the purpose of protecting a federal immigration facility exceeded presidential authority. Trump nominated Immergut in his first term.

Guard members are still deployed in the District of Columbia; Memphis, Tennessee; and New Orleans, Louisiana.