WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump reignited his tariff agenda Friday by imposing new import taxes on products from dozens of top U.S. trading partners, immediately replacing temporary global tariffs he levied after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major blow to his sweeping “Liberation Day” duties.

As of Friday morning, American importers will now pay an extra 10% to 12.5% of a product’s value on most goods from nearly 60 countries, including Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among dozens more. The tariffs could affect 99.4% of imports, according to U.S. trade authorities.

The fresh round of import taxes, first announced late Thursday afternoon, replace a blanket 10% tariff on global goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which expired at midnight Friday. Those tariffs invited new legal challenges, including from Democratic-led states.

The latest tariffs were imposed after the Office of the United States Trade Representative allegedly found forced labor conditions in all of the economies investigated under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

U.S. Trade Ambassador Jamieson Greer said in a statement Thursday that Trump “recognizes that decades of moral suasion have not eradicated forced labor from global supply chains.  The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.”

Supreme Court ruling

The Office of the United States Trade Representative announced two broad investigations in March, less than one month after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s unprecedented global tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, commonly called IEEPA. 

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s blow to his IEEPA tariffs, which he announced in early April 2025 on what he dubbed “Liberation Day,” the government was on the hook for roughly $166 billion in refunds to American importers who already paid the duties.

The latest batch of duties, in effect as of Friday, is the second round of import taxes the Trump administration announced this week. The White House introduced 50% tariffs on most Canadian imports Monday, triggering the duties under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The Depression-era provision, which has never before been enforced, authorizes the president to impose duties up to 50% of a product’s value in response to discrimination against U.S. commerce.

States Newsroom has spoken with numerous small business owners since 2025 about the effects tariffs have on their capacity to keep prices steady, hire employees, invest in new equipment and inventory, and just generally remain in operation.

‘Ridiculously blunt’

Critics slammed the administration’s new series of sweeping duties on a large swath of the country’s imports.

Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote Thursday the outcome of the Section 301 investigations were “clearly predetermined” and “both ridiculously blunt and wildly out of proportion to any measurable economic distortion.”

“And the whole thing establishes precedent for an ‘automatic tariff generator’ that Trump or a future president can deploy at will. It makes a mockery of a real issue and might poison legitimate reform. And Congress probably won’t do anything about it,” Lincicome wrote.

Some Republicans in the U.S. House rebuffed Trump’s tariff agenda in February, but legislative change has not emerged. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Thursday the president has “has bled the inflation-battered American people dry with his tariffs.”

“Now he’s coming back for more. Trump’s chaotic tariff taxes have made life harder and more expensive for the American people. Families are paying more for everyday necessities. Small business owners are struggling to keep the lights on. Manufacturers are shedding jobs and farmers are getting squeezed. Meanwhile, Trump and his billionaire family and friends get richer on the backs of working families,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

The Yale Budget Lab estimates consumer prices could rise up to 1% under the new tariffs, increasing household costs by roughly $1,100.

If the duties remained in place, the U.S. would gain about $2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, though the number would likely be lower after accounting for negative impacts on the economy, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

WASHINGTON — One day after President Donald Trump attended the dignified transfer of the remains of four U.S. service members killed as a result of the Iran conflict, the two chambers of Congress were at odds over whether to rein in the president’s military powers in the monthslong war.

While members of the U.S. House approved a War Powers Resolution 214-208, with four Republicans joining all Democrats, lawmakers in the U.S. Senate rejected the measure by a slim margin of 47-49, though two senators who previously supported the measure did not vote.

Trump reignited the conflict earlier this month, rupturing a ceasefire during 60-day negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to end the war. The countries have since been trading rocket fire on a near-daily basis.

The most recent deaths of U.S. soldiers in the conflict bring the total killed to 18. Three service members were killed July 17 and July 18 in an Iranian strike at a U.S. airbase in Jordan, and a fourth was killed during a controlled detonation of an Iranian drone July 19 at a U.S. base in Iraq. 

The dignified transfer, in which the remains of soldiers are transferred from an aircraft arriving from the theater of operations back to the United States, occurred at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. The soldiers were identified by the Pentagon as:

• Army 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii
• Army Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas
• Army Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, 28, of Ozone Park, New York
• Army Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of Fayetteville, North Carolina

Gas prices shoot back up

Economic fallout is also center stage again as Iran has choked off nearly all traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of the world’s petroleum traveled prior to the war. 

Oil reached over $100 a barrel Thursday, and AAA clocked gas prices at $4.09 a gallon across the U.S.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who prefers the title secretary of War, told Senate appropriators Tuesday the war has so far cost $37.5 billion. The administration has requested an additional $67 billion.

Dissident Republicans

House Republicans who sided with Democrats to stop Trump’s military action in Iran included Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Tom Barrett of Michigan. 

In the Senate, Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky, who both voted “yes” for some or all of the dozen Iran War Powers Resolutions considered so far during the conflict, did not vote.

A spokesperson for Murkowski said the senator returned to Alaska Wednesday for a family emergency. Paul’s office did not immediately respond regarding the reason for his absence.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican locked in a tough reelection race, supported the measure Thursday.

As he has on all previous votes to curb the president’s war powers in Iran, Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., opposed the resolution, which some argue is not legal.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in early May that the 1973 War Powers Resolution is “unconstitutional.” 

Congress overruled President Richard Nixon’s veto of the measure meant to rein in his actions during the Vietnam War.

According to Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell on Monday, 100 troops have been injured since July 7, and 96% have returned to work. 

The department’s Defense Casualty Analysis System only identifies five injuries during Operation Epic Fury in July, and 420 total since the conflict began Feb. 28.

WASHINGTON — Members of the U.S. Senate tasked with advancing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to be the nation’s top law enforcer on Thursday pushed the vote one week.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s delayed vote to send the controversial nominee to the full Senate is “per standard committee practice,” according to a spokesperson for Chairman Chuck Grassley.

The Iowa Republican and the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., used the time that had been allocated for the vote to comment at length on Blanche’s nomination. Grassley then recessed the session because too many Republicans were absent, which he described as “kind of rude.”

Grassley praised the selection of Blanche and said the Justice Department under his leadership as deputy and acting attorney general “has protected Americans at every turn,” but that committee Democrats “like clockwork, sought to defame him.”

Democratic committee member Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey led a forum Wednesday featuring former Department of Justice officials and a survivor of abuse by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. 

The witnesses questioned Blanche’s fitness to lead the Justice Department following his handling of the Epstein files release, during which several victims’ identities were unmasked, and his role is establishing a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund as part of President Donald Trump’s settlement with his own administration’s IRS.

Durbin said Thursday he and fellow Democrats oppose Blanche, who worked as Trump’s personal defense lawyer prior to his appointment to the DOJ, because he “will continue to serve the interests of Donald Trump, not the American people.”

Sen. Darline Graham joins

Committee members were scheduled to address other business, including voting on federal judicial nominees in Ohio and Oklahoma, and approving subcommittee roles for Republican Sen. Darline Graham, sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. She was sworn in as a senator July 14 following the sudden death of her brother.

The committee meeting marked the first for Graham, who was not yet part of the panel when members questioned Blanche for nearly five hours during a confirmation hearing July 15. Her arrival on the GOP-led committee brings the split among members back to 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats and is likely a positive development for Blanche.

Nominations require a majority vote to advance to the Senate floor. All eyes are on whether committee Republicans Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement last year, and John Cornyn of Texas will support Blanche after Trump effectively ended both of their Senate careers.

Trump subjected Tillis to intense criticism for opposing the Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 and said he would find candidates to oppose Tillis in his primary. Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent earlier this year.

Both Tillis and Cornyn pressed Blanche during his confirmation hearing about formally ending the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

While Cornyn was present at Thursday morning’s Judiciary Committee meeting, Tillis was one of several members missing. Grassley’s spokesperson attributed Tillis’ absence to a Senate Banking Committee meeting that convened just a half hour before the scheduled Judiciary Committee meeting. Tillis’ office did not immediately respond to a question about his absence.

Blanche was a prosecutor in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 2006 to 2014. 

He eventually left the Justice Department to work in private law and represented Trump as his personal defense attorney in three criminal cases in 2023 and 2024. 

Trump, with the approval of Senate Republicans, installed Blanche as deputy attorney general in March 2025. 

Trump announced Blanche as his pick for attorney general in early June, just over two months after former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s departure. 

WASHINGTON — Former career Department of Justice officials and a survivor of abuse by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein sounded the alarm Wednesday on acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s fitness to lead the Department of Justice, one day ahead of a scheduled committee vote to advance his nomination to the full Senate.

The narrow committee divide, razor-thin after the death of the late Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, could mean the vote will hinge on two Republican senators spurned by President Donald Trump, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas.

The former DOJ staffers and Epstein survivor testified on Capitol Hill, at a forum held by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats. 

They said Blanche’s relationship with Trump and his “mind-boggling” involvement in the president’s recent settlement with the IRS, as well as the botched release of the Epstein files, disqualifies him from becoming the nation’s top enforcer of the law.

“I don’t know what happened, but he is certainly not the person that I once worked with,” said Perry Carbone, a former federal prosecutor who worked alongside Blanche in the Southern District of New York, where Blanche served from 2006 to 2014.

Blanche eventually left the Justice Department to work in private law. He represented Trump as his personal defense attorney in three criminal cases in 2023 and 2024. Trump, with the approval of Senate Republicans, installed Blanche as deputy attorney general in March 2025. 

Trump announced Blanche as his pick for attorney general in early June, just over two months after former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s departure. 

The Department of Justice did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on the hearing.

IRS deal, Minnesota probe

Carbone listed a number of reasons he believes should preclude Blanche from leading the department, including “the extraordinary IRS settlement,” the prosecution of the president’s political adversaries “on evidence that raises serious doubt about the bona fides of those cases” and efforts to “halt or interfere” with the Minnesota state investigation into the shooting deaths of U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents.

Carbone also highlighted Blanche’s “declaration of war on our judges” and the interview and relocation of Epstein co-conspirator and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell “for what appear to be political reasons.”

“We repeat a mantra daily so that no one forgets it: ‘We do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons.’ It’s not my place to say whether the nominee has forgotten that credo. That judgment belongs to the committee. I can only tell you what I’ve observed and why it troubles someone who spent a career trying to live by that credo,” Carbone said.

He added that Blanche’s firing of department officials who investigated Trump and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, “undermines” public confidence.

“Even the appearance of retaliation for doing one’s job sends a chilling message throughout the department,” Carbone added.

Firings, resignations

Peter Carr, a longtime department spokesperson fired by Blanche in April 2025, estimated the department has lost 19,000 employees, including 30% of its attorneys and 10% of its FBI special agents.

“That includes those who were fired, but also those who’ve been pushed out or chose to leave,” said Carr, who worked as a spokesperson for special counsel Jack Smith’s office during the Biden administration. He first joined the DOJ in 2007 under President George W. Bush.

Elizabeth Stein, an Epstein abuse survivor, expressed anger that victims’ names and images were disclosed when the DOJ published the Epstein files online, as legally mandated after Congress nearly unanimously passed legislation to force the release.

“When the Epstein files were released earlier this year, my own name was left unredacted in a sentence that read in part, ‘Stein was a victim of Epstein and Maxwell in the mid-90s.’ It doesn’t get much clearer than that,” said Stein, now a human trafficking specialist and survivor advocate for World Without Exploitation.

“The name of the school I attended, where I worked, and portions of my home address were also publicly disclosed. The very institution Congress charged with protecting survivors instead exposed us.”

‘Typical’ terms

Carbone also spoke at length about Blanche’s involvement in Trump’s settlement with the IRS. 

In exchange for Trump and his family dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of tax returns, the DOJ ordered the establishment of a settlement fund in the amount of nearly $1.8 billion.

Blanche defended the settlement terms as “typical” during his confirmation hearing with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 15.

“If this is not standard language, can you make that point for us? I think it’s really important to draw that out,” Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., asked Carbone.

The former federal prosecutor, whose career spanned 30 years, said under normal circumstances the IRS would tailor language only specifically to the matter of litigation, and possibly calculate a settlement sum.

“That’s not what this is. Some of this language is mind-boggling, and I have it here in front of me … One of the subcategories is relating to ‘lawfare and/or weaponization.’ What does that mean?” Carbone said.

Booker said the “totality of the evidence is staggering” against Blanche’s nomination.

“I want to let you all know very clearly and unequivocally that if there were just some of these issues, they would be enough to be disqualifying. … This man has had an impact already in his deputy role and now in his acting role,” Booker said at the close of the hearing.

Dramatic vote ahead

Whether Blanche’s nomination advances from the Senate Judiciary Committee depends on whether every Republican on the panel, split 11-10, supports him.

Those campaigning against Blanche’s confirmation are targeting two members — Tillis, who is retiring at the end of his term, and Cornyn.

Trump subjected Tillis to intense criticism for opposing the Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 and said he would find candidates to oppose Tillis in his primary. Trump endorsed Cornyn’s primary opponent earlier this year.

Just over two dozen survivors affected by abuse by Epstein and Maxwell sent a letter Tuesday to Tillis and Cornyn.

“We understand that both of you remain open to opposing his nomination, and we are asking you to stand with survivors of human trafficking and sexual assault at this critical moment,” the survivors wrote.

“Under Todd Blanche’s leadership, the Justice Department released survivors’ names, identifying information and images while the names of alleged abusers and enablers remained hidden. More than a thousand women and girls were abused, yet no one beyond Epstein and Maxwell has been prosecuted.”

The women wrote that Blanche met with them following his confirmation hearing, but that it amounted to “an hour of deflection, interruption and gaslighting.”

“Senator Tillis, when you urged Todd Blanche to meet with survivors, we believed you expected a serious and meaningful conversation. What occurred instead was a box-checking exercise arranged only after his confirmation was put at risk,” they wrote.

Common Cause North Carolina, a state arm of the national progressive advocacy group, urged Tillis in early July to vote against Blanche, who the group’s director, Brooks Fuller, said “has shown the only person he is interested in protecting and defending is President Donald Trump.”

The advocacy organization joined with other groups, including North Carolina for the People and The Justice Project, to deliver messages to Tillis’ office on July 6, according to organizers.

Tillis’ office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for a response. Cornyn’s office said it did not have a comment at this time.

WASHINGTON — Education experts and advocates warned Wednesday that the recent federal student loan system overhaul stemming from the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law will drive borrowers to private lenders and could derail their higher education plans. 

U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, convened a panel to blast the sweeping loan changes, as well as separate, ongoing efforts from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the Education Department and its impact on the federal student aid system. 

“Student loan debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion. Borrowers need clear guidance and certainty,” Scott said. “Instead, they’re forced to deal with uncertainty and chaos created by an administration that has systematically weakened the federal student aid system.”   

Scott criticized Education’s plans to transfer core student aid functions to the Treasury Department. Under an interagency agreement, or IAA, announced in March, Treasury will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt in what marks the first step in a multi-phase process toward Treasury taking on the entire federal student loan portfolio. 

The Virginia Democrat said Treasury “has no expertise serving students or institutions of higher education or monitoring servicers for accuracy.” 

Meanwhile, the Education Department finalized regulations — most of which took effect July 1 — that implement sweeping student loan system changes outlined in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law.

Scott said that the sweeping changes to the federal student loan system originating from that law are “compounding the issues that have risen from the dismantling of the Education Department.” 

Borrowing limits

Among the major changes are new loan limits for graduate and professional students, a restructured repayment system that gives new borrowers only two plans to choose from and the elimination of a key loan program for graduate and professional students that allowed for unlimited borrowing.

Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said the mega tax and spending cut law “restricts access to federal graduate lending, pushing many borrowers, especially those from low-income and middle-income backgrounds, many of whom are students of color, into the hands of private banks.” 

Del Pilar, who was deputy secretary of postsecondary and higher education for the Pennsylvania Department of Education, said that would present a series of challenges for borrowers. 

“That means higher interest rates, fewer consumer protections, stricter credit requirements, and flat-out denials for some, forcing those students to halt their educational journey,” he said.

Access to graduate education 

Clare McCann, managing director of policy and operations at the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center, said her organization was “very concerned that for many borrowers who want to continue to pursue a graduate education, that they will find themselves locked out of the private market or unable to access affordable loans without a qualified cosigner.” 

McCann, whose organization is housed at American University, added that the center’s research suggested almost 40% of student borrowers subject to the new caps have either poor or no credit scores, making them unlikely to be able to borrow money in the private market without a cosigner.

McCann noted that allowing largely unlimited graduate lending is “unwise” and “puts both students and taxpayers at risk,” while calling on Congress to “allow students to borrow enough to make high-return investments in themselves, so long as their loans remain affordable and repayable based on the salaries students should expect.” 

Ellen Keast, a spokesperson for the department, defended the student loan system overhaul, in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Wednesday. 

“Blank checks to universities resulted in tuition skyrocketing for American students and families. Mass student loan forgiveness failed in nearly every courtroom it entered. The student loan portfolio is at a fiscal cliff because the last Administration perpetrated the lie that students do not need to repay their loans,” Keast said. “The Trump Administration is righting these wrongs – all while implementing historic reforms to federal student aid that will drive down the cost of college and simplify student loan repayment.”

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. House on Wednesday approved their outline for the third party-line budget measure of the second Trump administration, though they won’t be able to begin work on that package until they reach agreement with their Senate colleagues on a plan forward. 

The 216-214 vote on a budget resolution sets up a confrontation between GOP lawmakers in Congress over exactly how much funding to provide for the war in Iran and farm assistance as well as whether lawmakers should pay for it by cutting spending elsewhere. 

House Republicans proposed a total of $95 billion in spending in their budget resolution. The instructions in that blueprint would allow four committees to eventually write bills that would spend up to $60 billion on the military, $13 billion on intelligence agencies, $12 billion on agricultural assistance and $10 billion on some sort of grant program for states that implement voter ID laws. 

But work on that package can only begin after Republicans in both chambers vote to approve the same budget resolution with identical sets of reconciliation instructions. 

Third time around

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said during floor debate that the GOP has used the reconciliation process twice to achieve policy goals that wouldn’t garner Democratic support. 

The first time was last year, when Congress approved the “big, beautiful” law. The second occurred earlier this year, when lawmakers approved three years of funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol without new constraints on federal agents. Both were signed into law by President Donald Trump.

“Here we are, reconciliation 3.0, supporting our troops in their time of need,” Arrington said. “Just baseline battlefield readiness. Bullets and bombs to finish the job.”

The yet-to-be-written reconciliation package, he added, would also likely “strengthen our food supply” and “safeguard the integrity of our elections.”

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle, ranking member on the panel, said that Republicans’ support for the two earlier packages and this budget outline shows they aren’t focused on bringing down costs for Americans. 

Boyle also questioned whether campaign promises from GOP candidates to lower the annual federal deficit were genuine, given that this and the previous party-line laws will have a substantial impact on the national debt. 

“Yes, that’s right, the same crowd that loves to cry crocodile tears about deficit and debt whenever there’s a president in the White House who’s a Democrat — cumulatively now they have added $5 trillion to our national debt, more than any other 18-month period in the history of Congress,” he said. “And they’re about to add $100 billion more.” 

Senate GOP not on board

Senate Republicans don’t fully agree on their House counterparts’ proposed spending level, with some wanting considerably more in defense funding, and others looking for ways to offset the costs. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a Tuesday afternoon press conference that he’s unlikely to bring any budget resolution to the floor until after lawmakers figure out a way to fund the government ahead of the Oct. 1 shutdown deadline. 

Congress’ budget resolution is just a blueprint, similar to a blueprint for building a house. It isn’t a bill and never goes to the president for his signature. 

Lawmakers use a completely separate process to fund the government through a dozen annual appropriations bills. 

But since lawmakers are nowhere near close to finishing that appropriations task before the start of the new fiscal year they must agree to some sort of short-term spending bill to avoid another shutdown this fall. 

The House this week passed a stopgap bill that would extend that deadline until Dec. 4, but it doesn’t have the support needed to advance in the Senate, where leaders from both political parties are working toward a bipartisan compromise. 

Thune said he expects the Senate will vote on its stopgap spending bill before leaving for the August recess, which could delay work on a budget resolution until that chamber returns in mid-September.  

“It’s possible that that would be something that would get punted into September,” he said.

That could lead to a significant time crunch for Republicans if they want to use the complex budget reconciliation process to enact their party-line defense and farm aid spending package before the November midterm elections. 

There are just three weeks in September when both chambers are scheduled to be in session before lawmakers depart for their five-week October break.

And while the House can approve the budget resolution and an eventual party-line package without taking up a single amendment on the floor, the Senate process is considerably more arduous. 

The Senate has unlimited amendment debate on both measures, giving Democrats in that chamber dozens of opportunities to challenge Republicans on spending and policy choices.

That’s not necessarily an ideal scenario for Republican Senate leaders, who hope voters will allow the party to hold onto its narrow majority for another two years. 

Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans passed a measure to curb stock trading by members of Congress that was packaged with an unrelated voter ID bill, part of President Donald Trump’s push for major federal involvement in elections.

The legislation passed by a vote of 232-198. All Republicans and 13 Democrats voted in favor.

The bill faces possible headwinds in the narrowly split Senate where 60 votes are required for passage. Republicans control the upper chamber with 53 members, to Democrats’ 47 members. 

The House-passed bill, sponsored by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., would require voters to present a current state-issued driver’s license or identification card, passport, valid military or veteran ID, or tribal government-issued ID card to be able to vote. 

The base bill, the Stop Insider Trading Act, would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses and close family members from purchasing certain stocks, and require a public notice and waiting period prior to selling stocks.

Violators could face a penalty of $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, whichever is greater, plus any net gain realized from the transaction over a specified time period. 

The bill would govern investments issued by a publicly traded company. Some investments would be exempt, including widely held investment funds and investments held in a trust. Also, a spouse’s or dependent’s transactions made on behalf of another person, or held as part of a job benefits package would also be exempt.

Voter ID

But it was the voter ID bill that attracted most attention as lawmakers debated the measure this week.

Under the bill, if a voter doesn’t have one of the listed physical forms of identification, state election officials can issue a provisional ballot. The voter would then have three days to provide the accepted ID or an affidavit that the voter doesn’t have one because of religious objections to being photographed.

Additionally, state officials would be prohibited from accepting absentee ballots unless the voter attaches a copy of a valid ID, the last four digits of their Social Security number with an affidavit that they cannot obtain a photo ID, or a notarized statement that the voter personally completed their ballot.

During Monday’s House Rules Committee debate of the bill, Democrats criticized Republicans for removing a state grant provision from the voter ID section of the bill that would have covered voters’ individual costs of acquiring IDs. 

Democrats also panned the bill for going further than state laws in Florida and Wisconsin that are considered among the nation’s strictest. 

As of April 2025, 36 states had some form of voter ID law on the books, though they vary in restrictions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., asked Steil why Wisconsin state law allows some university IDs at the voting polls, while his federal bill does not.

“Plenty of constituents of yours at a variety of different colleges and universities that you represent … right now comply with what has been described by others as the most strict voter ID law in the country by using their college ID. But their congressman is championing a bill that would tell them that they can no longer do that,” Neguse said.

“Great question,” Steil replied. “Universities across the country, including in my home state, issue IDs to noncitizens, issue IDs to illegal immigrants.”

Not as restrictive as SAVE America Act

Attaching the voter ID legislation to a bill curbing lawmakers’ stock trading appears to be Republicans’ compromise with the president’s eagerness for a more restrictive bill that faces a slim to nothing chance of clearing Congress.

Trump is pushing Republicans to pass an even broader federal election regulations bill dubbed the SAVE America Act. That bill would require additional documents, such as passports and birth certificates, to register to vote. Critics say it would upend state management of elections.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has warned there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass Trump’s preferred bill.

The president promoted the legislation in a primetime address July 16 when he declassified evidence that he said showed attempted election interference by China in 2020.

Experts say the documents released did not prove Trump’s claims, and critics panned the speech as the president’s attempt to undermine trust in the upcoming November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., praised the joint stock trading and voter ID bill Tuesday, saying “probably in excess of 9 out of 10 Americans support both measures.” Johnson also said House Republicans “will continue to hammer” Trump’s messaging about elections.

Dems object

House Democratic leadership urged members to vote “no” on the bill because it would allow lawmakers and close family members to continue buying and selling stocks. 

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., said Americans “have had it” with stock trading by federal lawmakers.

“They are fed up with it. Congress needs to enact a comprehensive ban on members of Congress as well as the president, the vice president and members of their families from owning or trading individual stocks or having other financial dealings,” Scanlon said Monday.

Scanlon’s amendment to replace the GOP-sponsored stock trading bill with the text of Rhode Island Democrat Seth Magaziner’s more restrictive bill, dubbed the Restore Trust in Government Act, failed. Magaziner’s bill also includes restrictions on the president, vice president and their families.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., characterized the bill on the House floor Tuesday as a “fake stock trading ban.” 

“I want to be very clear: their bill does not block insider trading, no matter what it’s called,” Jayapal said.

They also objected to the voter ID portion.

The measure “would functionally eviscerate mail voting by forcing Americans to include photocopies of their IDs alongside their mailed ballots,” according to House Minority Whip Katherine Clark’s email to members ahead of the vote Wednesday.

Additionally, Clark, a Massachusetts Democrat, castigated the bill’s “narrow set of acceptable photo identification in order to cast a ballot in a federal election.”

The Congressional Black Caucus issued a statement Tuesday slamming the bill.

“House Republicans are not serious about enacting a meaningful congressional stock trading ban,” the Democrat-aligned group said. “The combined Stop Insider Trading Act and Voter ID Act — which incorporates provisions from the voter-suppressive, so-called SAVE America Act — would allow Members of Congress to continue owning, selling, and, in some cases, purchasing individual stocks while simultaneously imposing stricter voter ID requirements that would make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote, including by mail.”

WASHINGTON — Advocates and public health experts urged Republicans in Congress on Wednesday to implement a two-year delay on requiring states to begin sharing the costs for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. 

Provisions of the Republican-backed law that President Donald Trump signed last year that go into effect in October 2027 will require states with high SNAP error rates — the percentage of benefits that are overpaid, underpaid or go to recipients who are ineligible — to begin covering some of the program’s costs. It marks a stark change for SNAP, which is solely funded by the federal government. 

In an online briefing hosted by the left-leaning think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Invest in Louisiana, speakers said Congress should use the government funding process to protect access to affordable food for American families. 

Sharon Parrott, the center’s president, said that Republicans are “looking right past this emergency” and using their current budget resolution to help farmers struggling with increased costs that have resulted from Trump’s tariffs and oil prices that have been driven up by the war with Iran — but not low-income grocery shoppers.

“Republican leaders in Congress are ignoring the urgent need to help low-income families and kids who are losing SNAP and can’t afford groceries,” she said. “Congress could use the budget process to help both farmers and families. At a minimum, Congress needs to slow down the hasty implementation of the massive cost-shift in SNAP costs to states.”

She said that since the GOP law, called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, altered SNAP eligibility requirements, more than 4.5 million people have stopped receiving food assistance benefits. Nearly one-third, 1.5 million, are children. 

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the changes to SNAP would reduce federal spending by nearly $190 billion over the next 10 years.

Local leaders push back

Wednesday’s briefing comes amid similar calls from community organizations and state and local leaders from across the country. 

On Monday, the United States Conference of Mayors sent a letter to leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee asking them to reconsider SNAP changes enacted over the last year and shifting funding to states. 

“At a time when many Americans continue to face economic challenges, we should be working to expand opportunity and food security, not create new barriers to assistance,” the letter, signed by more than 200 mayors, read. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Monday that Republicans and Democrats must work together to draft a farm bill that restores SNAP and protects funding for food assistance. 

Schumer added that he will not support any farm bill that does not provide states more time to prepare to shoulder the program’s costs. 

Time is running out to get a cost-shift pause through Congress. 

The House is scheduled to adjourn Friday, and won’t be back in session until Aug. 31. Even then, it will just be back for a few weeks, before again adjourning for almost all of October. The Senate will adjourn after the first week in August and will similarly be out for the beginning of September and almost all of October. 

All about the error rates

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will require most states with error rates of above 6% to cover between 5% and 15% percent of the benefits’ total cost. States under a 6% error rate will be exempt. 

But some states with the highest SNAP error rates — of about 13.3% or higher — will be given an extension to lower their error rates before being forced to bear some of the program’s costs. Depending on the error rate, the states will be granted up to an extra two years to begin sharing costs. 

“Congress can act right now to stop the bleeding and steer us away from this oncoming childhood hunger crisis by extending that same two-year delay to every state — not just the few that benefit from the existing carveout,” said Ty Jones Cox, the budget and policy center’s vice president for food assistance. 

States with the highest error rates in fiscal 2025 included Alaska at 23%, and Delaware and New Mexico both at approximately 16%, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. 

Cox said the center estimates nearly half of U.S. states will likely have to pay $100 million or more because of the cost-sharing changes. 

“These are huge costs,” she said. “States are working hard to reduce their error rates, but they’re up against the wall. The law didn’t give them any time or resources to do so.”

Cox said that states that plan to maintain SNAP benefits will have to find the funding from other places, if they are unable to generate more revenue. She said some states may choose to eliminate summer EBT or end universal school meals to continue funding the program. 

Given the steep costs, some states, such as Alabama, have floated the possibility of cutting their SNAP programs entirely if they are unable to lower error rates, Parrott said. 

Public health impacts

The effect of losing SNAP benefits extends beyond food insecurity, said Andrew Racine, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

Besides clean air and water, and a supportive family and environment, he said, food is the most important determinant of a child’s health and future success. 

Racine added that the long-term benefits of SNAP are not being taken into account when decisions regarding its future are made. 

“The benefits of SNAP accrue to that child, accrue to that family, but they accrue to people around them,” he said. “[If] you have a child who’s not suffering from hunger in the classroom, and their ability to concentrate is improved, that has impact on their fellow classmates who are not on SNAP.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday moved one step closer to confirming the first administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency since President Donald Trump took office last year. 

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-4 to send Cameron Hamilton’s nomination to the floor, though it wasn’t immediately clear whether the full Senate would vote before it breaks for its August recess.

Hamilton led FEMA in an acting role at the beginning of 2025 but was fired that May after testifying before Congress that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

Trump has said repeatedly during his second administration he would like to reduce the size and scope of the federal government’s disaster management role, shifting more responsibility to state and local governments. 

Trump created a FEMA Review Council last year to propose substantial changes to the agency, which is housed within the Department of Homeland Security. That group released its recommendations in early May, though neither the administration nor Congress has taken steps to implement those proposals. 

Hamilton said during his confirmation hearing in June that if confirmed by the Senate he would ensure FEMA is “objective” and “fair.” 

He said he believes the agency’s “disaster declaration process and also the federal mentorship that goes into it needs to be improved.” 

“I believe states need to receive better customer service. I have full faith and confidence in the FEMA workforce, but we can do better,” Hamilton said. “And there’s a significant amount of areas where that process should be simplified, better understood and we owe you answers, I think, much faster.”

Hamilton wrote in the ethics paperwork that is a required part of the confirmation process after being fired from FEMA in May 2025 he worked as a senior adviser in the Education Department until August. 

After that he was hired as the senior vice president of response and recovery at LTS, Inc. in Virginia, where he worked from August until April, when he became a senior adviser/senior counselor at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Hamilton reported a salary of $247,916 and a bonus of $350,000 during the roughly eight months he worked at LTS, Inc. He expects to receive another bonus from the company valued between $250,001 and $500,000 at some point in the future. 

LTS, Inc. writes on its website that it is “an award-winning enterprise consulting” firm that focuses on emergency response, automated healthcare solutions and occupational health services. 

In the ethics agreement filed with the government, Hamilton wrote that he transferred ownership of his consultant business, Onward Operations, LLC, to his spouse in March. He transferred ownership of his retail coffee business, Onward Valor, LLC, to his spouse in January.

WASHINGTON — A supermajority of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus has asked Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to deploy body cameras to all federal immigration officers, following deadly shootings of immigrants in Texas and Maine.

In a July 19 letter addressed to Mullin, 38 Senate Democrats and Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, requested information about the shootings this month in Houston of 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and in Biddeford, Maine, of 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero. 

Neither man was the initial enforcement target when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers stopped their vehicles, the Department of Homeland Security has said.

“The unnecessary loss of life in these incidents demands immediate, thorough, independent, and transparent investigations (including the full involvement of local and state law enforcement personnel), along with a comprehensive examination of enforcement protocols, training, and operational approaches necessary to prevent such tragedies,” the senators wrote.

The lawmakers pressed Mullin about providing body cameras to immigration officers, pointing out the Congress has allocated $175 billion to the department since last year. From that funding, DHS planned to hire up to 10,000 ICE officers.

“While DHS has previously acknowledged that body-worn cameras promote public trust and increase officer and public safety, accountability, and transparency, the Department has clearly not prioritized acquiring cameras,” the senators wrote.

None of the ICE officers involved in the shootings were wearing body cameras. 

“Contrary to recent statements made by the Department and the White House, DHS has had more than sufficient time and funding to procure and deploy a body-worn camera for every officer before the end of 2025,” they wrote.

Enough funding

Congressional Republicans last year used a special legislative maneuver to allocate roughly $175 billion to DHS for immigration enforcement, detainment and deportations, without needing Democratic support. 

They used the same move following the shutdown this year to fund $75 billion for ICE and Border Patrol through September of 2029. 

Republicans used the maneuver that allows party-line votes after Democrats refused to provide more funding for DHS unless restraints were placed on ICE and Border Patrol officers following the killings of two U.S. citizens — Alex Pretti and Renee Good — by federal immigration agents in Minnesota in January. 

Among Democrats’ demands at the time was that immigration officers wear body cameras. Top Trump officials, including then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, said body cameras would be provided to immigration agents.

“The recent tragedies confirm that neither of these commitments were honored,” senators wrote in the letter.

Traffic stops unpaused

White House border czar Tom Homan said over the weekend that ICE officers will wear “at least one body camera” during traffic stops.

Following the two killings this month, DHS instructed immigration officers to pause vehicle stops, but President Donald Trump quickly instructed the department to continue the policy.  

During the second Trump administration, federal immigration officers have shot 22 people and killed six, including three U.S. citizens. Most of the shootings stemmed from traffic stops.

In the letter, senators also sought information about DHS’s plan to have an independent investigation into the killings, the vetting process for new immigration officers, the department’s procedures for vehicle stops and any additional oversight and reporting requirements DHS is implementing.

WASHINGTON — New data reveals the number of women running in the 2026 elections is slightly up from 2024, but experts say there is still progress to be made with women’s representation in public office overall. 

The number of women running for governor has reached an all-time high this election cycle, and the number seeking a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives could also set a record, according to July 20 data from The Center for American Women and Politics, or CAWP. 

The center, part of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, collects data on women’s representation in federal, state and local government. 

The center also conducts research and runs educational programs on the role of women in politics. Its mission is to increase female involvement in public life. 

Women in the midterms

There are 85 women major-party candidates running for governor across 36 states this year, a number that significantly exceeds the previous record of 69, set in 2022. 

Fifty-one of those women are Democrats, another record, and 34 are Republicans. 

On the congressional level, 580 women are currently major-party contenders for the U.S. House, a figure that is just three away from the 2018 and 2020 record of 583 women candidates. 

That record could be broken once Louisiana reaches its candidate filing deadline for the House on Aug. 7, according to CAWP.  

The number of Democratic House candidates who are women has already reached an all-time high at 387. The remaining 183 women running are Republicans. 

In the Senate, 64 women from major parties are running for a seat, exactly half of them Democrats and half of them Republicans. The record for women Senate candidates was set in 2022 at 70. 

Fairly high numbers of women would need to emerge as Senate candidates in Maine and South Carolina to beat that record of 70, said CAWP Director of Data Chelsea Hill during a media briefing with other CAWP research experts on Tuesday.

A day before the briefing, Republican Sen. Darline Graham of South Carolina, who was sworn in July 14 to replace her late brother, Lindsey Graham, announced plans to run for a full six-year term following the encouragement of President Donald Trump. 

Although record numbers of congressional women candidates have not yet been reached in either the U.S. House or Senate, the overall number of women running for Congress is up compared to the last election cycle. 

In 2024, the number of women who sought seats in Congress dropped after having previously increased for three consecutive cycles, a phenomenon that CAWP later described as “evidence of stalled progress toward gender parity,” Hill said. 

Despite the increase in women seeking office over the years, female representation is still low when taken as a percentage of all candidates running for Congress and state governors. 

According to another set of CAWP data from July 20, women make up 27% of total candidacies for the U.S. House and 23.9% of the total for the Senate in 2026. About 25% of gubernationarial candidates are women. 

Milestones within reach 

But at the same time, CAWP experts said at the media briefing, there are many milestones women could achieve in the 2026 election cycle, including firsts for women in certain government positions and for “women of specific racial and ethnic backgrounds and within either party.” 

They pointed to current Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, a Republican, and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a Democrat, who are both running to become the first women to serve as governors of their respective states. 

And Deb Haaland, the former U.S. secretary of the Interior currently running in New Mexico, could become the first-ever Native American woman governor in any state if she wins in November. 

At the congressional level, names such as Milat Keros, Aisha Wahab, Denise Powell and more have the potential to break barriers for women in public office. 

Keros is in place to become the first Black woman to represent Colorado, Wahab the first Middle Eastern or North African woman to serve from California and Powell the first Democratic woman to represent Nebraska in Congress.

At the end of the media briefing, CAWP Scholar and Director of Research Kelly Dittmar said the center’s 2026 candidacy data could be used as a tool to study and open up a broader discussion about women’s political pathways, nodding particularly to Blackburn and Klobuchar’s gubernatorial runs. 

“When we think about women moving to be chief executives of a state as a potential pathway to the presidency, (it’s) also something we need to always keep our eye on,” she said. 

CAWP’s data focuses on major party candidates and will continue to be updated regularly to account for upcoming state filing deadlines and congressional primary results. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate committee in charge of funding the government spent hours in a hearing room Tuesday, trying to parse out just how much extra spending lawmakers should provide for the military amid the ongoing war in Iran. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators the bombing of Iran has cost $37.5 billion. He said that while the department has about $75 billion in unobligated funds from Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law, that money wasn’t intended to cover the costs of the war. 

Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee also heard from three of their colleagues about the need for natural disaster recovery funding and the secretary of Agriculture about her request for emergency aid for farmers. 

Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, summed up the multitude of proposals for additional money by saying the “country has many urgent funding needs.”

Collins said that while there were vastly different views among senators on the panel about the war, “the fact remains that there are must-pay bills and urgent requirements facing the department that affect the ability of our troops to be well trained and more broadly of the U.S. military to deter and defend against potential aggressors worldwide.”

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the committee, said at the beginning of the three-and-a-half hour hearing the United States “is no safer or better off than before the war.”

“In fact, we are considerably less safe. Our stockpiles have been depleted and it will take years of production to fully replenish them no matter how much money is thrown at this problem,” Murray said.

By the end of the hearing, she indicated Democrats may not support any emergency funding for the Defense Department related to the Iran war. 

“Unfortunately, this hearing has done exceptionally little to justify the president’s request or to instill confidence that this administration has an exit plan or a strategy to end the war,” Murray said. “This war has cost us a lot. The last thing we should be doing is rubber stamping another $70 billion to help Trump keep it going.”

Hegseth warns of ‘critical shortfalls’  

Hegseth said that without extra money from Congress, the department would “face critical shortfalls that threaten” its ability to “pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.”

Hegseth repeatedly defended the Iran war during the hearing, pressing back on criticism from several Democrats that it was similar to earlier wars in the Middle East. 

“President Trump said we’re not fighting stupid wars like that again and he hasn’t,” Hegseth said. “That’s why we haven’t been trying to remake Iranian society, but simply in the realist America First way, ensure they never have a path to a nuclear bomb, full stop.”

He declined to go into detail in a non-classified setting about the aid China and Russia has provided to Iran, but did say those two countries are “enabling some of the things Iran is doing.”

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. John D. Caine said he’d prefer not discuss the intelligence about those two countries. 

“I’d rather not opine on the specifics because that would divulge what we know. And I never want the adversary to know what I know. I just want to know it,” he said. 

Caine also declined to go into any level of detail about whether the administration has contemplated sending ground troops into Iran. 

“I think it’d be unhelpful for me to opine on hypothetical situations on whatever decisions the president may or may not take in the future,” Caine said. 

Trump request to Congress

Congress approved $838.7 billion for the Defense Department in February as part of the annual government funding process. A few weeks later, President Donald Trump began bombing Iran, starting a war that has led to the deaths of 17 U.S. service members — including three in the last few days — and injured more than 445.

The administration sent a supplemental spending request to Congress in late June, asking lawmakers to provide $87.6 billion in emergency funding. It proposed an additional:

• $67.15 billion for the Defense Department
• $11.1 billion for the Agriculture Department to provide aid to farmers
• $3.36 billion for the State Department for diplomatic, security and global health programs
• $2.03 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard
• $1 billion for the Transportation Department to “to assist in the final design and construction of a modernized Penn Station in New York City”
• $1 billion for the Labor Department to “increase the benefit levels for participants of certain pension plans that were sponsored by Delphi Corporation and terminated as a result of General Motors’ bankruptcy in 2009″
• $767.5 million for the Energy Department
• $600 million for the General Services Administration’s federal buildings fund
• $500 million for the National Park Service to upgrade a seawall and improve the World War II Memorial
• $40.26 million for the FBI for its role in the Iran war and “other classified needs”
• $36.18 million for the Treasury Department’s office of terrorism and financial intelligence
• $13.1 million for the Homeland Security Department’s operations and support account that was part of a “classified request.”

House Republicans want to use the complex budget reconciliation process to provide up to $60 billion for the Defense Department and $12 billion for farm aid. 

But that effort hasn’t yet garnered the support from Senate Republicans needed to advance. GOP lawmakers used the same process last year to bolster defense funding by about $150 billion in the “big, beautiful” law. 

That means the most likely path to provide extra money for the war and farmers will be a bipartisan supplemental spending bill, likely written by the Appropriations Committees. 

With the House set to leave Thursday for its August recess and the Senate planning to leave for its break on Aug. 6, the earliest any additional funding would become law is September.

Farm aid

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the administration’s request for emergency funding would help farmers, including those who have experienced extreme weather events. 

Collins, however, questioned the administration’s decision to limit its request for supplemental funding to agriculture losses that took place during the last year. 

“Many of our producers are struggling amid a combination of market volatility and disaster conditions last year, which included excessive rainfall in the spring, followed by a severe drought. They need relief. Yet the administration’s supplemental request does not include funding to address these recovery needs,” Collins said. “It does have $1.1 billion to help Florida agricultural producers rebound from a severe freeze this past winter. But nothing for prior disasters in other states.”

Rollins said she would be in full support of Congress providing more funding than requested for farmers affected by severe weather events. 

Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley asked Rollins to ensure the Office of Management and Budget sends lawmakers a specific request to address ongoing costs related to wildfires. 

“Senators are asking for a number from OMB in order to go forward,” he said. “And when we’re looking at the fires right now, my home state is in the epicenter of the highest risk in the country.”

Rollins said she would “absolutely” get that number to lawmakers, adding it “is a paramount importance, especially in the middle of fire season right now.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved a stopgap spending bill Tuesday that would keep the government up and running through the fall, sending it to the Senate, where lawmakers expect to rework the measure.

Congress must pass a government funding bill before the new fiscal year starts on Oct. 1 in order to avoid a shutdown just weeks before the November midterm elections.

The 220-205 mostly party-line vote represents House Republicans’ opening salvo in negotiations, though without Democratic support it won’t be able to advance in the Senate. 

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said during floor debate that GOP leaders hope passing the stopgap spending bill months before the start of the next fiscal year will avoid another shutdown. 

“For anyone questioning this legislation, the facts are simple — it extends the government funding deadline to Dec. 4, denying any party the opportunity to manufacture leverage before elections,” Cole said. “It contains no poison pills or partisan riders. It prevents harmful disruptions to our national security and the vital programs our constituents rely on.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the committee, opposed the stopgap, saying it would “allow Homeland Secretary (Markwayne) Mullin to transfer billions of dollars to the Border Patrol.”

Republicans, she said, “refused” to change that aspect of the bill after Democrats “shared language to fix it.”

“We cannot in good conscience allow billions of dollars to flow to these agencies without major reforms to keep our constituents safe from further violence,” DeLauro said. 

Democrats don’t want a government shutdown but also don’t want “to rush” the process and omit the list of anomalies just sent up by the White House, she said. 

Those tweaks to funding levels are commonly added to stopgap spending bills but weren’t included in House Republicans’ measure because it was written before the White House sent a list of requested anomalies to lawmakers Monday. 

“There are over 50 programs listed by the agencies to take some action so that they can be protected during a continuing resolution,” DeLauro said, using the technical term for a short-term funding bill. 

The changes would support wildfire suppression activities, housing assistance for tens of thousands and programs that help people in rural communities afford their utilities.

“Rushing this bill to the floor haphazardly without carefully considering the various needs that must be met is no way to govern,” DeLauro said. “And it is irresponsible.” 

Senate anticipates changes

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said earlier in the day that she was working with the committee’s top Democrat, Washington Sen. Patty Murray, to draft a continuing resolution of their own. 

“It appears that there is good faith on the Democratic side to try to pass the CR and avoid a government shutdown, which is always a disaster,” Collins said. 

Murray said the House’s stopgap spending bill has “problems” that will need to be fixed in order to move through the Senate.

“We just got the anomalies last night and both of us are trying to figure out the best way to get it put together,” Murray said. 

Appropriations status

Lawmakers must lean on a stopgap spending bill because they will, once again, fail to complete work on the dozen annual government funding bills before the deadline. 

The House has passed three of its spending bills. The Senate hasn’t passed any, in part, because the committee hasn’t released a single bill. The two chambers will need to begin negotiations at some point to settle on a total spending level for the 12 bills and how that roughly $1.9 trillion will be broken down among thousands of federal agencies and programs. 

That means the earliest the full-year government spending bills would become law is during the lame-duck session that is set to last for about five weeks between the election and the start of the new Congress in January. 

Lawmakers could also pass a series of stopgap funding bills instead of completing negotiations on the full-year appropriations bills. 

WASHINGTON — As many as 20,000 unaccompanied immigrant children are at risk of losing their federally funded legal representation due to the Trump administration withholding appropriated funds, immigration attorneys warned Tuesday.

For more than six months, the Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement has not released $65 million Congress appropriated for legal representation of unaccompanied children in immigration cases. That means children may have to press their immigration claims on their own, vastly raising the probability they will be deported, the attorneys said.

“Children are now facing the real possibility of representing themselves alone against experienced government attorneys,” Ana Devereaux, an attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said during a virtual press conference. 

Shaina Aber, the executive director for Acacia Center for Justice, a national group that partners with at least 100 legal organizations to provide services to children, said the lack of funding is already being felt. Several of the group’s partners have declined to continue the partnerships because they have not been reimbursed, she said. 

Aber said the funds were withheld because attorneys refused to hand over to the administration sensitive case data from the unaccompanied children, such as medical records and the types of legal relief the minors are seeking. 

“These children should not, and should never be, leveraged in a political game,” she said. 

HHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. 

‘Children are children’

Without a lawyer, fewer than 10% of immigrant children win the right to remain in the United States while their case goes through immigration court, said Elizabeth Young, a former immigration judge. 

Some children going through the courts are too young to speak, she said during the press conference. 

“A legal system that values fairness cannot expect children to carry that burden alone,” Young said. 

Devereaux said the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center is operating on reserves and has continued to provide legal services for about 1,100 children. 

“Children are children, regardless of their nationality,” Devereaux said. 

Stripping away the legal services for children, Aber said, is “yet another system of mass deportations.”

Additionally, the Trump administration does not plan to renew its contract with Acacia, which ends July 31, Aber said. 

Instead, the administration is eyeing a small Texas state commission that aids low-income people with criminal defense to provide legal services for immigrant children. The commission does not have experience handling immigration cases or unaccompanied minors, Aber said. 

Lawmakers push to release funds

Democratic members of Congress have also called on the Trump administration to release the funds, which Congress approved. 

Last month, more than 70 lawmakers demanded that ORR reimburse the legal groups. 

“Ultimately, we are concerned that these payment delays may be an attempt to circumvent requirements that ORR continue funding legal services for unaccompanied children,” they wrote. “The federal government must meet its obligations under the law.”

Congress created the Unaccompanied Children Program, which, among other things, provides funding for legal representation of migrant children. Free legal representation is not generally provided for immigrants but there is a carveout for unaccompanied children. 

There are about 100 organizations across the U.S. that provide those legal services. 

The move from the Trump administration to withhold funds has sparked several lawsuits. Last year, a preliminary injunction was put in place that ordered the federal government to continue funding legal services for unaccompanied children. 

But advocates have not received any funds since December and were back in court this month. 

Last week, federal Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California probed whether the Trump administration should be held in contempt over the withholding of funds after 11 groups claimed they have still not received any reimbursements, according to El Paso Matters.

Those groups are the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Estrella del Paso, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, National Immigrant Justice Center, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, Social Justice Collaborative and the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project. 

WASHINGTON — Mass voter challenges are likely to occur in the 2026 midterm elections, the Brennan Center for Justice warned Tuesday, with the potential to “undermine the democratic process.”

President Donald Trump and the Republican Party have been laying the groundwork for questioning the election process in state after state, as Trump has made “election integrity” the centerpiece of his recent domestic policy initiatives, including in a July 16 address to the nation. 

The center, at NYU School of Law, found in a report Tuesday that more than 185,000 challenges to voter eligibility were filed by private citizens in 2024, though “the real number is likely higher” since many election officials either were not contacted or sent incomplete responses to an inquiry. The center is regarded as left-leaning.

Mass challenges are a fairly recent development, spurred by improvements in election technology and transparency. Thousands of votes now can be challenged at once.

They’ve rarely been successful, but experts worry they create voter doubts about whether elections are being conducted fairly. Historically such challenges have also often been used to suppress the votes of people of color, a separate brief said.

“Eligible voters facing challenges sometimes don’t vote simply because the process is too confusing. Responding to a challenge requires numerous steps that can trip up voters. They may not understand their options for verifying their identity,” said the report by Brennan Center Counsel Andrew Garber.

Garber found that “mass voter challenges have become a key element in the campaign to use election integrity as a pretext for voter suppression.”

In 2024, he found, election deniers lodged challenges, “in addition to spreading lies about widespread voter fraud, refusing to certify elections, discrediting voting machines, engaging in bad faith poll watching, filing frivolous lawsuits, and threatening election officials with physical harm or criminal penalties.” 

This year, Garber warned, such challenges are likely to be an “integral strategy in the playbook to undermine the democratic process.”

Mass challenges, he said, “add basically zero value to elections while creating new costs.”

One big worry, though: “There are instances of eligible voters being removed from the rolls and learning of their removal after the deadline to register and vote in the next election,” the report said. “As is often the case with voter suppression, vulnerable individuals frequently suffer the effects.”

Mullin threats

The Trump administration is pushing state officials to examine their voter rolls and tighten their election security, thus opening the door for the help of the federal government in conducting mass challenges, the report predicted.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last week that hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote in California, New Jersey, Nevada and Pennsylvania and threatened to prosecute election officials in states that don’t “participate in securing the elections” ahead of the November midterms. He has not specified the source of his data.

Trump has demanded Congress require people to show proof of citizenship when they register to vote and photo IDs at the polls. So far, lawmakers have so far been reluctant to approve the SAVE America Act that in various versions would restrict voting, and it remains stalled in the U.S. Senate. 

Trump and his allies have maintained for years the 2020 election was marred by voter fraud. No evidence of any widespread fraud has been found.

Election officials have largely maintained their rolls are accurate and up to date.

“In most states, list maintenance practices tend to keep pace with natural changes in voters’ lives, such as moving,” said a report this month by the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

Mass challenges

Recent mass challenges have rarely been successful.

The report cited efforts in Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Florida and Iowa in 2022.

“These challenges were widely rejected for lack of evidence or failure to comply with state law,” the Brennan Center found.

In 2024, Brennan’s research found that private citizens filed at least 185,232 voter challenges in the states studied. Of those, the center found officials accepted at least 5,477. That means they may have removed the voter from the rolls, declared them inactive or taken other steps to make it difficult for them to vote.

Researchers sent requests to Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas and to numerous counties in those states, the report methodology said.

“One takeaway is evident: With only around 3 percent of challenges clearly accepted, challenges contributed little to list maintenance in 2024,” Brennan found.

For instance, Georgia got in touch with about 875,000 voters in 2023 who had moved or had not voted for several years. That was more than a hundred times the number of Georgia voters who were successfully challenged the next year.

The center compiled the report by sending public records requests to 42 state and local government entities. It asked for any documents involving voter challenges in 2024 and how officials dealt with those challenges. It also looked at court filings, public reporting and election board meetings.

“Acquiring a complete record of challenges is impossible: They are often made ad hoc, officials may have no obligation to track them, and the records produced are often incomplete,” the center noted, adding that some officials refused to provide records or said they got no challenges.

WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are pushing back against a proposed Trump administration rule introduced by the Office of Management and Budget that would substantially change the way federal grants are reviewed and distributed.

Over the past few weeks, several groups of lawmakers have written public comment letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought expressing strong opposition to the new draft rule, which would give political appointees the power to decide what institutions receive grant funding, among other revisions. 

A summary of the rule cites the Biden administration as to why it is needed. “Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public,” it says, pointing to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies.

Democrats said the proposal exceeds the office’s authority, will make it harder for grant recipients to carry out funding priorities established by Congress and would turn federal grants into a tool for President Donald Trump to “unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.” 

The draft rule would allow Trump to “terminate or suspend any grant at any time for any reason and without any notice,” they said.

“Ultimately, these changes will make it harder for grant recipients to apply for and manage federal funds – undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness, and the government’s ability to address rising costs,” wrote Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in their July 1 letter to Vought. 

Maryland Democrats in Congress and members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus, led by Reps. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, LaMonica McIver of New Jersey and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, also wrote letters urging OMB to rescind its proposed new rule. 

Hundreds of billions in funds affected

The more than 100-page draft rule, published in collaboration with 41 other federal grant-making agencies on May 29 and titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” would change the framework used to evaluate grant applications as well as guidelines for cost sharing.

It would potentially affect hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding at universities, nonprofit organizations and other U.S. institutions, according to SciLine, an independent nonprofit service for journalists and scientists run out of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Under the proposed rule, federal grants could not be used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” DEI initiatives. 

Awards would also in many cases have to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” and agencies would be allowed to cancel funding that is “not effective at achieving program goals or Federal agency priorities” or “no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.” 

“The overarching goal of OMB’s proposed revisions is to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for how Federal taxpayer dollars are used in the context of Federal grantmaking,” according to the executive summary of the rule.

OMB officials say they could implement the new draft rule as early as Oct. 1. 

Community violence intervention programs 

During the public comment period for the draft rule, which ran from May 29 to July 13, congressional Democrats slammed its vague language and the implications it holds for many institutions that rely on federal funds. 

Maryland’s senators and Democratic representatives in their July 10 letter to Vought denounced the rule for changing a process traditionally based on merit. “The federal grantmaking process includes essential, non-political guardrails that this rule seeks to eviscerate,” they wrote.

They also said the proposed rule contains a slew of new undefined standards for grants, including that they must adhere to “gold standard science” and cannot reflect “anti-American values,” that recipients may not be able to understand or comply with. 

Maryland institutions, often known as hubs for scientific research and innovation, have been hit hard by National Institutes of Health funding cuts and mass federal layoffs since Trump began his second term in 2025. Local governments and schools that receive federal funds have also taken blows, as has the state’s overall economy. 

In their July 13 letter, members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus voiced concerns over how the draft rule could specifically affect community violence intervention programs. 

Community violence intervention programs, local efforts that have been linked to drops in violent crime rates in cities across the country, rely on federal grants for “state and local government investments, hospital partnerships, philanthropy, and research support,” according to the lawmakers’ letter.

The new draft rule, they wrote, would jeopardize the operation of these programs by allowing Trump administration officials to “withhold, suspend, or terminate grants, or change terms and conditions mid-implementation, forcing grantees to operate in a tumultuous environment.” 

The administration has already made cuts to parts of the Office of Justice Programs, further limiting the funds available to community violence intervention programs.

Other responses 

Though opposition to the proposed rule is mainly coming from Democratic lawmakers, some bipartisan criticism regarding the rule’s broad scope and fast timeline exists. 

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, on July 6 asked Vought to extend the proposal’s public comment period at least 90 days and “withdraw portions of the rule that would potentially harm small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.”

“While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients … and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process,” she wrote.  

OMB did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on lawmaker pushback to the proposed rule. But Vought took to social media last month to express his view of the opposition. 

“The freakout by those on the Left subsidized by taxpayer funds over OMB’s update of the regulation governing federal grant making tells you how important it is to keep the bureaucracies from leaking out spending that is woke, wasteful, and contra to the policies of the Trump Administration thru the NGOs,” he wrote. 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ordered 50% tariffs on several Canadian products Monday in response to what his administration describes as retaliatory restrictions on imports of American goods, including alcohol, dairy and automotives.

Trump’s three separate proclamations to impose steep tariffs on items like hockey sticks, wine and cement, came just days after he threatened to slap more tariffs on Canada as smoke from raging wildfires in Ontario blanketed much of the northeastern U.S. through the weekend. But a senior administration official denied the new tariffs were in response to the smoke.

“These are not the so-called wildfire tariffs. The president has asked for options on that, and options are being shared with him. These tariffs are in response to discriminatory treatment by Canada against U.S. products,” the senior administration official said on a call with reporters Monday afternoon.

The tariffs will go into effect Aug. 19.

Trump appeared alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Sunday at the FIFA World Cup trophy ceremony in East Rutherford, New Jersey, but the two leaders did not discuss White House plans for the new tariffs, according to the senior administration official.

Trump triggered the new tariffs under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a Depression-era provision that authorizes the president to impose duties up to 50% of a product’s value in response to discrimination against U.S. commerce. The provision has been long forgotten since the 1940s and has never been enforced, experts say. 

“To our knowledge, Section 338 has not been used for this purpose before,” the senior administration official told reporters. “It’s been on the books for a long time. In our view, the terms are clear: It gives the president this authority in situations where a country discriminates against the United States relative to the treatment given (to) a third country.”

Trump’s unprecedented sweeping tariffs on global goods, including from Canada, imposed in April 2025 under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, were found illegal and overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in February.

The administration was ordered by the U.S. Court of International Trade to refund roughly $166 billion in duties paid by importers under the IEEPA tariffs.

Since the Supreme Court’s major blow to Trump’s trade agenda, the White House has sought other routes to impose tariffs. Almost immediately after the court’s decision, Trump announced a temporary base 10% tariff on all imports under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Those tariffs are now being litigated in trade court.

WASHINGTON — Former U.S. Department of Education officials in Republican and Democratic administrations sounded the alarm Monday over the agency’s efforts to outsource its special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies. 

U.S. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state convened the former officials, along with advocates and educators, at a virtual press conference to blast those sweeping moves, which are part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Murray rebuked the transfers as “outrageous” and “completely unacceptable,” noting that while she is fighting “tooth and nail” against any effort to dismantle the agency, she is “especially concerned about what this could mean for all students, especially students with disabilities.” 

The agency in June said the Department of Health and Human Services will administer programs under Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, while civil rights enforcement under its Office for Civil Rights will be transferred to the Department of Justice. 

The Education Department had announced 10 earlier interagency agreements, or IAAs, with HHS, Labor, Interior, State and Treasury, which transfer several of Education’s responsibilities to those agencies.

The department has said it “will continue to perform all statutorily required duties and responsibilities” involving special education programs and civil rights enforcement.

OSERS is responsible for administering the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities. The umbrella unit OSERS includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Programs and the Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

The civil rights office is tasked with investigating complaints from students and families. 

‘Learners, not patients’

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that the transfers “would split apart the offices responsible for making disability rights real in schools, leaving families chasing answers across the federal government instead of getting accountability from one education agency.” 

Neas was the deputy assistant secretary and acting assistant secretary at OSERS during the Biden administration. 

“The stakes have never been higher,” she said. “If we allow the Department of Education to be dismantled, we not only undo decades of progress, we also risk abandoning the promise that every child deserves a chance to try and to succeed.” 

Catherine Lhamon, executive director of the Edley Center on Law and Democracy at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law said the “new interagency agreement between the Department of Education and the Department of Justice is what someone would create if the person were designing a system to fail.” 

Lhamon served as assistant secretary for civil rights during the Obama and Biden administrations. 

“The principal harm of this new agreement is that it guarantees lengthier continued silence from the federal government on the classic kinds of discrimination cases families experience,” Lhamon said. Examples include restraining or secluding students, she said.

It raises “the core question (of) whether students with disabilities have the free appropriate public education to which the law entitles them,” Lhamon added.

Stephanie Smith Lee, co-director of policy and advocacy at National Down Syndrome Congress, pointed out that “IDEA is an education and civil rights law, not a healthcare program.” 

“Students with disabilities are learners, not patients,” added Lee, who served as director of the Office of Special Education Programs under the George W. Bush administration. 

“Moving special education and vocational rehabilitation to the Department of Health and Human Services would separate them from the rest of federal education policy and weaken the expertise and coordinated oversight that students, families and states depend on,” she said. 

Savannah Newhouse, a spokesperson for the Education Department, dismissed the criticism, saying in a statement to States Newsroom that Murray and the former officials were part of a failing status quo. 

“As Senator Murray is well aware, the Department of Education’s interagency partnerships do not alter the Trump Administration’s dedication to students with disabilities and federal civil rights laws,” she wrote. “These agreements simply ensure that well-positioned agencies can support the workload, pool their expertise, and ultimately strengthen protections for students.” 

US House bills ‘dead’ in Senate  

Meanwhile, earlier in July the House Committee on Education and Workforce advanced a package of 10 bills permanently transferring several of Education’s functions to other departments and largely reflecting many of the earlier IAAs. 

Notably, that package does not include any efforts to transfer Education’s responsibilities regarding special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies. 

“As long as this former preschool teacher is a United States senator, every one of those bills is dead on arrival,” Murray said. 

WASHINGTON — In the wake of two fatal shootings in Texas and Maine, U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement officers will wear “at least one body camera” during traffic stops, Tom Homan, the president’s border czar, said over the weekend. 

Homan, who President Donald Trump has tasked with leading his mass deportation campaign, said in a Sunday interview on Fox News that ICE’s acting director has instructed officers to wear a body camera “whenever possible” during vehicle stops. 

This month, two immigrants — 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero and 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo — were shot and killed by ICE agents who stopped their vehicles. Neither man was an initial enforcement target, the Department of Homeland Security said.

During Sunday’s Fox and Friends Weekend program, Homan said he supported body cameras because “they exonerate more law enforcement than they convict.” 

“I want officers to wear body cameras because I want the American people to see what the officers saw when they took that action,” Homan said. 

Federal immigration officers have shot 22 people and killed six, including three U.S. citizens, during the second Trump administration. Most shootings have stemmed from traffic stops, which Homan said officers were continuing. 

After the back-to-back shootings of Salgado Araujo in Texas and Guerrero in Maine, DHS instructed agents to pause vehicle stops, but Trump quickly reversed those plans. 

Congressional standstill

Homan blamed Democrats for the reason immigration agents don’t have body cameras, pointing to the weeks-long shutdown of DHS. He also accused traffic stops of becoming more dangerous because of Democrats criticizing ICE.

“They’re more dangerous now than ever because Democratic members of Congress, Democratic mayors and governors have preached for the past year ‘ICE isn’t a real law enforcement agency. ICE has no authority. Resist,’” he said. 

Democrats refused to approve funding for DHS unless restraints were placed on ICE and Border Patrol officers, such as the requirement for body cameras, after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal immigration officers in Minnesota in January. 

Congressional Republicans last year used a special legislative maneuver to allocate roughly $175 billion to DHS for immigration enforcement, detainment and deportations, without needing Democratic support. 

GOP lawmakers used the same move following the shutdown this year to fund $75 billion for ICE and Border Patrol until September of 2029.

In a separate interview, on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, Homan again gave his support for body cameras on ICE officers and blamed Democrats for a lack of body cameras. 

“I think body cameras are the way to go,” he said. 

After the two killings in Minnesota in January, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said DHS would be issuing body cameras to immigration officers. 

WASHINGTON — A D.C. Superior Court judge on Monday encouraged the Trump administration to preserve the sections of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool that it says a Maryland man damaged to ensure the case moves forward. 

Associate Judge Todd E. Edelman warned during a status hearing in the case against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn that the government may be “operating at its own peril” if it does not preserve the pool for the defense attorneys and their expert to examine and test. 

Edelman questioned why the Trump administration couldn’t “maintain the status quo” for the rest of the week to ensure access to the evidence doesn’t become an “issue in this trial.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Reddington said the Interior Department was in the middle of remedial work on the Reflecting Pool after draining it. 

Reddington said prosecutors “certainly asked them to hold the site as a whole,” but added he doesn’t have control over whether they do. 

Edelman then encouraged the “government to not do anything further” on the Reflecting Pool before denying without prejudice Hearn’s defense team’s motion to dismiss the case. He said the effort was “entirely premature” but didn’t prevent the lawyers’ from filing a different motion to dismiss in the future. 

Mary Dohrmann, a principal at Washington Litigation Group and one of Hearn’s lawyers, wrote in the motion to dismiss the “Constitution simply does not permit the government to charge a man with destroying an object, retain exclusive custody of that object, and then drain, disturb, and alter the object before the defense may examine it, despite a written demand for its preservation.”

“And yet that is what has happened here,” Dohrmann added. “The government’s failure to preserve this evidence, in the face of an express demand no less, has destroyed Mr. Hearn’s ability to collect evidence material to his defense on multiple elements of the charged offense. Dismissal is the only appropriate remedy in view of the government’s actions.”

Edelman scheduled a readiness hearing for Sept. 11 and set the trial to begin on Sept. 28.