Sen. Cory Booker started his speech on Monday at 7 p.m. and said he would continue as long as he is "physically able." (Photo by John Partipilo)

This story was updated at 7:16 CST

U.S. Sen. Cory Booker broke the record for longest floor speech in the history of the Senate on Tuesday, surpassing the 24-hour and 18-minute record set in 1957 when South Carolina’s Strom Thurmond attempted to prevent passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Booker, a Democrat who began his remarks Monday at 7 p.m. saying he wanted to highlight President Donald Trump’s “complete disregard for the rule of law,” by Tuesday at 7:20 p.m. was raspy-voiced, occasionally teary-eyed, and wearing what he called a “ripe” shirt.

It was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s Democratic leader, who interrupted Booker to say he had broken Thurmond’s record.

“Do you know how proud this caucus is of you? Do you know how proud America is of you?” Schumer said to applause and a standing ovation from his fellow Democrats and visitors.

Booker noted that Thurmond with his 1957 filibuster “tried to stop the rights upon which I stand.”

“I’m not here, though, because of his speech. I’m here despite his speech. I’m here because, as powerful as he was, the people were more powerful,” Booker said.

Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis was one of just two Republican lawmakers in the chamber at the time. Lummis joined Democrats in celebrating Booker’s accomplishment by standing and clapping.

Guests and staff are normally barred from any displays of support or disapproval while sitting in the gallery, but Utah Sen. John Curtis, a Republican who was presiding over the chamber, allowed it.

Booker finally yielded the floor a few minutes after 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Booker’s record-breaking speech comes as the Democratic Party faces criticism from voters who say the party’s leaders are not doing enough to stand up to Trump’s actions, especially those that experts say fly in the face of legal precedent.

“These are not normal times in our nation, and they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate,” said Booker, 55. “The threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more to stand against them.”

Booker, a Democrat first elected to the Senate in 2013, on Monday said he’d continue speaking as long as he is “physically able.” After his speech surpassed 20 hours, he looked exhausted, joked about his shirt being “ripe,” and took occasional breaks by yielding the floor for questions from his Democratic colleagues, who praised the former college football player for his endurance.

His speech comes as the Democratic Party faces criticism from voters who say the party’s leaders are not doing enough to stand up to Trump’s actions, especially those that experts say fly in the face of legal precedent.

“This is not right or left. It is right or wrong. This is not a partisan moment. It is a moral moment,” Booker said early Tuesday afternoon. “Where do you stand?”

Booker’s speech is one of the longest ever given on the Senate floor. The record was previously held by Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican who held the floor for 24 hours and 18 minutes in 1957 in protest of the Civil Rights Act.

The senator covered a breadth of topics: health care, Social Security, Medicaid, grocery prices, free speech, veterans, public education, world leaders, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, and national security concerns. He read letters and comments from constituents and he quoted speeches from the late Rep. John Lewis — invoking Lewis’ famous call to action to “get in good trouble” — and the late Sen. John McCain.

Booker, a former mayor of Newark, also assailed Trump’s policies on immigration. He said the Trump administration is doing “outrageous things like disappearing people off of American streets, violating fundamental principles of this document” — here he held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution — “invoking the Alien Enemies Act from the 1700s that was last used to put Japanese Americans into internment camps.”

“Do we see what’s happening?” Booker asked.

He spent about a half-hour reading the account of Jasmine Mooney, a Canadian citizen who was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for 12 days in March. He also noted that the Trump administration conceded Monday that it deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Maryland man with protected legal status, to an El Salvador prison because of an “administrative error.”

“The government can’t walk up to a human being and grab them off the street and put them on a plane and send them to one of the most notorious prisons in the world, and just say, as one of our authorities did, ‘Oopsie,’” Booker said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who asked about the impact of potential Medicaid cuts and tariffs about 15 hours into Booker’s speech, told Booker he has the support of the entire party.

“Your strength, your fortitude, your clarity has just been nothing short of amazing. All of America is paying attention to what you’re saying. All of America needs to know there’s so many problems — the disastrous actions of this administration in terms of how they’re helping only the billionaires and hurting average families — you have brought this forth with such clarity,” he said.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

White House Senior Advisor to the President, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk arrives for a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol on March 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. Musk is scheduled to meet with Republican lawmakers to coordinate his ongoing federal government cost cutting plan. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

While the role and actions of the Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency remain somewhat murky, data privacy experts have been tracking the group’s moves and documenting potential violations of federal privacy protections.

Before President Donald Trump took office in January, he characterized DOGE as an advisory body, saying it would “provide advice and guidance from outside of government” in partnership with the White House and Office of Management and Budget in order to eliminate fraud and waste from government spending.

But on Inauguration day, Trump’s executive order establishing the group said Musk would have “full and prompt access to all unclassified agency records, software systems and IT systems.”

In the nine weeks since its formation, DOGE has been able to access sensitive information from the Treasury Department payment system, information about the headcount and budget of an intelligence agency and Americans’ Social Security numbers, health information and other demographic data. Musk and department staffers are also using artificial intelligence in their analysis of department cuts.

Though the Trump administration has not provided transparency around what the collected data is being used for, several federal agencies have laid off tens of thousands of workers, under the direction of DOGE, in the past two months. Thousands have been cut from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education, Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury this month.

Frank Torres, senior AI and privacy adviser for The Leadership Conference’s Center for Civil Rights and Technology, which researches the intersection of civil rights and technology, said his organization partnered with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which researches and works with legislators on tech topics, to sort out what DOGE was doing. The organizations published a resource sheet documenting DOGE’s actions, the data privacy violations they are concerned about and the lawsuits that several federal agencies have filed over DOGE’s actions. 

“It doesn’t have to be this way,” Torres said. “I mean, there are processes and procedures and protections in place that are put in place for a reason, and it doesn’t appear that DOGE is following any of that, which is alarming.”

The organizations outlined potential violations of federal privacy protections, like the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the disclosure of information without written consent, and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment, which protects privacy from government interference.

White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields would not say if DOGE planned to provide more insight into its plans for the data it is accessing.

“Waste, fraud and abuse have been deeply entrenched in our broken system for far too long,” Fields told States Newsroom in an emailed statement. “It takes direct access to the system to identify and fix it. DOGE will continue to shine a light on the fraud they uncover as the American people deserve to know what their government has been spending their hard earned tax dollars on.”

The lack of transparency concerns U.S. Reps. Gerald E. Connolly, (D-Virginia) and  Jamie Raskin, (D-Maryland), who filed a Freedom of Information Act request this month requesting DOGE provide clear answers about its operations.

The request asks for details on who is in charge at DOGE, the scope of its authority to close federal agencies and lay off federal employees, the extent of its access to sensitive government sensitive databases and for Musk to outline how collected data may benefit his own companies and his foreign customers. They also questioned the feeding of sensitive information into AI systems, which DOGE touted last month.

“DOGE employees, including teenage and twenty-something computer programmers from Mr. Musk’s own companies, have been unleashed on the government’s most sensitive databases — from those containing national security and classified information to those containing the personal financial information of all Americans to those containing the trade secrets and sensitive commercial data of Mr. Musk’s competitors,” the representatives wrote in the request.

Most Americans have indeed submitted data to the federal government which can now be accessed by DOGE, said Elizabeth Laird, the director of equity in civic technology for the Center for Democracy and Technology — whether it be via a tax filing, student loan or Social Security. Laird said the two organizations see huge security concerns with how DOGE is collecting data and what it may be doing with the information. In the first few weeks of its existence, a coder discovered that anyone could access the database that posted updates to the DOGE.gov website.

“We’re talking about Social Security numbers, we’re talking about income, we’re talking about, you know, major life events, like whether you had a baby or got married,” Laird said. “We’re talking about if you’ve ever filed bankruptcy — like very sensitive stuff, and we’re talking about it for tens of millions of people.”

With that level of sensitive information, the business need should justify the level of risk, Laird said.

DOGE’s use of AI to comb through and categorize Americans’ data is concerning to Laird and Torres, as AI algorithms can produce inaccurate responses, pose security risks themselves and can have biases that lead to discrimination against marginalized groups.

While Torres, Laird and their teams plan to continue tracking DOGE’s actions and their potential privacy violations, they published the first resource sheet to start bringing awareness to the information that is already at risk. The data collection they’ve seen so far in an effort to cut federal spending is concerning, but both said they fear Americans’ data could end up being used in ways we don’t yet know about.

“The government has a wealth of data on all of us, and I would say data that’s probably very valuable on the open market,” Torres said. “It’s almost like a dossier on us from birth to death.”

Musk fired back at critics in an interview with Fox News published Thursday.

“They’ll say what we’re doing is somehow unconstitutional or illegal or whatever,” he said. “We’re like, ‘Well, which line of the cost savings do you disagree with?’ And they can’t point to any.”

U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., points to text messages by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an annual worldwide threats assessment hearing at the Longworth House Office Building on March 26, 2025, in Washington, D.C. The hearing held by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence addressed top aides inadvertently including Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief for The Atlantic magazine, on a high level Trump administration Signal group chat discussing plans to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The now-famous group chat made up of high-ranking Trump administration national security officials and a journalist included a precise timeline of U.S. bombing of Houthi targets in Yemen, and revealed one of the targets of the attack was under surveillance, according to a release of the entire text chain The Atlantic published Wednesday.

Despite the newly revealed details of the leaked chat, administration officials, including President Donald Trump himself, continued to downplay the seriousness of the breach, and Republicans in Congress refused to join Democrats in calls for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to step down.

Administration officials argued the texts lacked key information and that the “attack plans” revealed in the chat were less damaging than “war plans,” the term Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg used to refer to information he’d decided to withhold for national security reasons. Trump aides also implied the magazine – which has endorsed Trump’s opponent in each of his elections – was spinning the entire episode to discredit the administration.

What’s been dubbed “Signalgate” began when The Atlantic on Monday published a stunning account by  Goldberg of his apparently accidental inclusion in a group chat on the messaging app Signal, titled “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.”

The others in the chat were senior administration officials discussing the upcoming war operation.

Administration leaders on Tuesday denied, including in testimony before Congress, that the chat contained classified information. The magazine then published a report Wednesday by Goldberg and staff writer Shane Harris that purported to include virtually the entire transcript of the chat until Goldberg’s voluntary exit.

The administration position was inconsistent with the screenshots published in The Atlantic of detailed and explicit messages in the chat. At the Capitol, concerns were raised even among the administration’s usually obsequious GOP allies in Congress, with U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker saying the information in the chat should have been classified.

“The information as published recently appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that, based on my knowledge, I would have wanted to classify it,” Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, told reporters on the Hill Wednesday.

Attack details revealed

In the initial story, Goldberg reported National Security Advisor Michael Waltz on March 11 added the journalist to a group chat on Signal that included Vice President J.D. Vance, Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Waltz and others.

Goldberg in the first story withheld details of the chat that he said could have compromised intelligence-gathering and military operations.

But after a day of administration figures claiming the Signal chat did not reveal classified material, while smearing Goldberg, the magazine published the entire thread with one redaction: the name of Ratcliffe’s chief of staff, at the request of a CIA spokesperson.

The unredacted messages show Hegseth shared plans of the bombing campaign about 30 minutes before the first planes took off on March 15 and two hours before the start of the window of opportunity for hitting a target.

“TEAM UPDATE,” Hegseth wrote in the chat on the day of the strike, according to the Atlantic’s Wednesday story. “TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.”

In the same message, Hegseth laid out a timeline of the attack, including confirmation that a target was at his expected location.

“Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME,” Hegseth wrote.

He also noted that the mission’s operational security was “clean.”

Two hours and 15 minutes later, Waltz told the group that bombs had destroyed a building where the Houthi “top missile guy” was thought to be present.

“The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed,” Waltz wrote.

Tuesday denials led to publishing

At a previously scheduled U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Tuesday, Gabbard said that no classified information was discussed in the chat.

Trump echoed that message and Hegseth said, “Nobody was texting war plans and that’s all I have to say about that.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on social media:

“Here are the facts about his latest story: 1. No ‘war plans’ were discussed. 2. No classified material was sent to the thread. 3. The White House Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump’s top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible.”

Gabbard and Ratcliffe told the Senate Intelligence Committee they did not recall specific weapons systems or the timing of the operation being discussed in the chat.

But the transcript published by The Atlantic showed Hegseth’s down-to-the-minute timeline of the launch of F-18 aircraft.

The denials led to the magazine’s decision to publish the full transcript Wednesday, Goldberg and Harris wrote.

“The statements by Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, and Trump — combined with the assertions made by numerous administration officials that we are lying about the content of the Signal texts — have led us to believe that people should see the texts in order to reach their own conclusions,” they wrote.

“There is a clear public interest in disclosing the sort of information that Trump advisers included in nonsecure communications channels, especially because senior administration figures are attempting to downplay the significance of the messages that were shared.”

‘No names. No targets.’

But Hegseth and other administration officials continued to deny the growing controversy was serious Wednesday.

“So, let’s (sic) me get this straight,” Hegseth wrote on X Wednesday. “The Atlantic released the so-called ‘war plans’ and those ‘plans’ include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information.

“Those are some really shitty war plans.”

Waltz posted a similar message.

“No locations,” he wrote. “No sources & methods. NO WAR PLANS. Foreign partners had already been notified that strikes were imminent. BOTTOM LINE:  President Trump is protecting America and our interests.”

White House Counselor Alina Habba told reporters shortly after the second Atlantic story posted on Wednesday morning the issue had been overblown.

“We stand by Mike Waltz; he’s doing a tremendous job,” she said, according to a White House pool report. “I think this is a distraction.”

Bipartisan call for investigation

Leading members of Congress, though, were treating the matter with more seriousness.

Wicker said he and Armed Services ranking Democrat Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island had agreed on next steps, which included a letter to the administration asking for an expedited inspector general report on the matter.

He also said they were requesting “a senior person” come to a secure facility on Capitol Hill to provide a classified briefing to the committee to confirm the reporting was accurate.

Asked what the consequence should be for Hegseth if the transcript of the chat was accurate, Wicker took a forgiving tone.

“I make a lot of mistakes in my life,” he said. “And I’ve found that it’s best when I just own up to it and say ‘I’m human, I made a mistake.’ And I’m glad in this case no real damage was done. I think that’s probably the approach of the administration right up to the president.”

He also said that no targets or specific timing were mentioned.

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a moderate who has voiced criticism of Trump more often than most GOP colleagues, wrote in an X post Wednesday that the incident should be a “wake-up call” to prioritize operational security.

“I am appalled by the egregious security breach from top administration officials,” she wrote. “Their disregard for stringent safeguards and secure channels could have compromised a high-stakes operation and put our servicemembers at risk. I hope this serves as a wake-up call that operational security must be a top priority for everyone—especially our leaders.”

Dems urge Hegseth’s resignation

Many Democrats went further, calling for Hegseth to resign over the use of an unclassified messaging platform to discuss impending military action.

Gabbard and others noted the Defense secretary can decide what information is classified to argue that the chat did not include classified information.

But critics said whether or not the information was technically classified, its disclosure would put service members at greater risk.

“Advance strike times are sensitive and classified because they put American military directly at risk,” Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, wrote on social media Wednesday. “The Secretary of Defense was blasting them out to unknown numbers over unclassified channels. It’s sloppy, careless, and dangerous. He should resign.”

Warner spokeswoman Rachel Cohen added that, despite the administration’s denials, the information revealed in The Atlantic would compromise intelligence sources and methods.

“They can keep repeating this but it’s not true,” she wrote, responding to Hegseth’s post. “Those messages, as released by the Atlantic, are source revealing, and include targeting and weapons information that would have, at the very least, been considered at the ‘secret’ classification level.”

The top Democrats in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, both of New York, also called for Hegseth to lose his job.

“The secretary of Defense should be fired immediately if he’s not man enough to own up to his mistakes and resign in disgrace,” Jeffries said on MSNBC Wednesday.

“I agree he should be fired,” Schumer told reporters at the Capitol.

People bag sand in preparation for possible flooding as Tropical Storm Helene, which later became Hurricane Helene, headed toward the state's Gulf Coast on Sept. 25, 2024, in Tallahassee, Florida.  (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images)

A bipartisan pair of Florida U.S. House members introduced a bill Monday to remove the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the Department of Homeland Security and elevate it to an independent Cabinet-level agency.

Democrat Jared Moskowitz and Republican Byron Donalds filed the bill Monday, with Moskowitz saying divorcing FEMA from the bureaucracy at DHS would lead to better outcomes for disaster preparedness and response.

The agency’s mission requires haste, but its workers are too often bogged down in unrelated DHS work, Moskowitz said.

“By removing FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and restoring its status as an independent, Cabinet-level agency, my bipartisan bill will help cut red tape, improve government efficiency, and save lives,” he said in a Monday statement. “It will also help refocus FEMA on its original mission: as an agency tasked with responding before, during, and after disaster events.”

In a statement issued by Moskowitz’s office, Donalds added DHS had become “overly bureaucratic” and “overly political.”

“When disaster strikes, quick and effective action must be the standard––not the exception,” Donalds said. “It is imperative that FEMA is removed from the bureaucratic labyrinth of DHS and instead is designated to report directly to the President of the United States.”

Law creating agency

FEMA, which coordinates federal disaster relief efforts, was moved to DHS at that department’s 2003 inception after President Jimmy Carter signed the law creating FEMA in 1979.

President Bill Clinton made FEMA a Cabinet-level agency, but President George W. Bush did not renew that status.

Moskowitz, a former state emergency management director under Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has been a consistent advocate for funding FEMA while also calling for reforms to the agency.

FEMA is a frequent object of criticism from lawmakers of both parties and has often been targeted for overhaul.

Moskowitz, who led a similar bill last year, has argued making the agency independent of contentious issues like immigration, which DHS is primarily responsible for, would free it to better focus on its core mission.

“For an agency that needs to be fast, it can’t function in an agency of 22 others,” Moskowitz said at a March 4 hearing. “They shouldn’t be involved in immigration, but why are they? Because Homeland is using FEMA to run every grant of every agency … within Homeland. Half of FEMA’s personnel now are running grants.”

He has pitched the issue as nonpartisan, saying at the hearing that both red and blue states are subject to natural disasters and need aid from the federal government.

The endorsement of Donalds, a loyal backer of President Donald Trump and the Trump-endorsed candidate to succeed DeSantis as governor in the 2026 election, appears designed to win support from across the House’s vast ideological spectrum.

At odds with DOGE?

Trump, though, may be more inclined to undercut the agency than to promote it.

Since retaking office in January, Trump and influential adviser Elon Musk have aggressively sought to reduce the federal bureaucracy, slashing staff, eliminating directives and – in the case of the Education Department – moving to close an entire department.

The government-wide staff cuts have hit FEMA, which fired 200 workers last month.

Moskowitz became the first Democrat to join the Congressional Department of Government Efficiency Caucus in December, aligning himself with Musk’s mission to make government more efficient. In his announcement, he cited DHS’s hosting of FEMA as an example of an overextended bureaucracy.

For education, Trump said shuttering the federal department would allow states to be more active in policymaking.

Last week, he made a similar move involving FEMA, signing an executive order to enhance the state and local government roles in disaster preparedness.

The order calls for an administration official to recommend “revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to reformulate the process and metrics for Federal responsibility.”

A Texas National Guardsman observes as Border Patrol agents pat down migrants who have surrendered themselves for processing, May 10, 2023. (Photo by Corrie Boudreaux for Source NM)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is gearing up to militarize a stretch of the southern border, according to a Washington Post report Thursday, raising concerns from experts that the move would put U.S. military members in direct contact with migrants, a possible violation of federal law.

The White House is mulling the creation of a military satellite installation across the 60-foot-deep strip of federal land known as the Roosevelt Reservation, according to the report.

The move would create a military buffer zone stretching across the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico, and mean any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, allowing active-duty troops to hold them until border patrol agents arrive.

Nearly 10,000 military personnel have already been deployed to the southern border, but creating the military buffer zone would be an escalation of the Trump administration’s ramp-up of the use of the U.S. military in its plans for mass deportation of immigrants without permanent legal status, which experts say would be illegal.

“The use of active-duty military for what clearly amounts to law enforcement on the border is absolutely, plainly illegal,” Stephen Dycus, a professor in national security law at the Vermont Law School, said during a Thursday interview. “It’s a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.”

The 1878 law generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight at the Washington Office of Latin America, a research and advocacy group that aims to advance human rights in North and South America, said the escalation of military presence at the border is new.

He added that the military being used to operate deportation flights has “involved an uncomfortable amount of contact between soldiers and migrants.”

“Most of the military that have been sent (to the border) over the years have been a couple thousand National Guard members at a time — a pretty low-level mission,” Isacson said. “So that chance of contact between the soldiers and civilians on U.S. soil (was) very, very, very, very slim. That’s all changing now.”

A Pentagon spokesperson told States Newsroom in an email Thursday that the department has “nothing to announce at this time” regarding the establishment of a base along stretches of the border.

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

The scenario could spark further legal challenges against the Trump administration, which is already in hot water for potentially defying a federal judge’s order to halt deportation flights of Venezuelans under the wartime Alien Enemies Act.

Transformation of military role

While sending activity duty to the southern border has occurred for more than 20 years in intelligence and logistics roles, military members do not engage in immigration enforcement.

During a visit to the border Feb. 3, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters “guys and gals of my generation have spent decades in foreign countries guarding other people’s borders. It’s about time we secure our own border.”

“All options are on the table,” Hegseth said.

Joseph Nunn, liberty and national security counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, said during a Thursday interview he would expect the Trump administration to face lawsuits for essentially using the military for civilian law enforcement.

“This is a transparent ruse to try to evade the Posse Comitatus Act by taking advantage of something called the military purpose doctrine,” Nunn said.

Under that doctrine, Nunn said, the military can maintain order or take action to further other military purposes, even if the action does have incidental benefits to civilian law enforcement. For example, if a drunken driver attempts to drive onto a base, military police can detain them before handing them over to civilian law enforcement.

But Nunn said specifically installing a base along the border as a way for the military to detain migrants as trespassers has not been tried before.

“It’s an abuse of the doctrine and one that the courts should reject because in that circumstance the military installation will have been created and the soldiers will have been stationed there for the purpose of assisting with a civilian law enforcement operation,” Nunn said. “That is immigration enforcement.”

Migrant encounters down

Transferring federal land to the Department of Defense, which because it’s fewer than 5,000 acres doesn’t need congressional approval, comes at a time when border encounters are relatively low.

Apprehensions at the southern border have plummeted to their lowest level in 25 years, with 8,347 encounters reported in February, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data.

The trend started in February of last year due to Mexico increasing immigration enforcement and policies under the Biden administration that limited asylum claims between ports of entry, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh of the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration think tank.

“As with any change in administration, and this was true of the first Trump administration, because of the general rhetoric around immigration, we did see kind of an initial decrease, so it’s not altogether surprising to see that decrease,” Putzel-Kavanaugh, who studies migration trends along the border, said.

“There’s kind of a general wait-and-see period of people trying to figure out what makes the most sense in terms of their own needs and in their journey,” she added.

The sections along the southern border that the Trump administration is eyeing – U.S. Border Patrol sectors based in San Diego; Tucson, Arizona; and El Paso, Texas – are “consistently the busiest,” she said.

Putzel-Kavanaugh added that it’s typical for migration patterns between sectors to change.

“I think it’s certainly plausible to assume that, if they have this militarization campaign across sort of the western side of the border, it’s likely that flows will then start going east,” she said.

Reaction from New Mexico lawmakers

Democrats slammed the idea, questioning why defense funding should be used at the border as global conflict increases.

U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, a New Mexico Democrat, expressed skepticism about relying on defense resources to solve migration issues.

“Securing our border and protecting the safety of New Mexicans is a top priority, which is why I supported the bipartisan border security agreement — an effort that was ultimately killed by then-candidate Donald Trump,” Luján said in a statement.

“Diverting military resources for this purpose would weaken our military readiness. There is broad bipartisan consensus that we need comprehensive immigration reform and stronger border security, but not at the expense of existing defense missions.”

Rep. Gabe Vasquez, also a New Mexico Democrat, said in a statement the reported plan is “yet another reckless and wasteful proposal that does nothing to fix our broken immigration system.”

“In a time of global uncertainty, our military resources are best used to combat serious international threats abroad,” Vasquez said.

The offices for the Republican-led Senate and House committees on the Armed Forces did not respond to requests for comment.

Source New Mexico editor Julia Goldberg contributed to this report.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

About 60% of federal spending is mandatory — appropriations are automatic.

About 27% is discretionary spending, and about 13% pays federal debt interest.

On mandatory spending, more than half is for Medicare and Social Security. 

About 69 million people receive monthly Social Security retirement or disability payments. About 68 million get Medicare, which is health insurance for people 65 and older, and some people under 65 with certain conditions.

Discretionary spending requires annual approvals by Congress and the president. About half is for defense. The rest goes to programs such as transportation, education and housing.

Projected total federal spending in fiscal 2025 is $7 trillion, up about 58% from $4.45 trillion in fiscal 2019.

President Donald Trump pledged March 4 to balance the budget “in the near future.” But the federal debt is projected to grow about $2 trillion annually through 2035.

On March 12, U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-Wis., said most federal government spending is mandatory.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• U.S. Treasury Department: How much has the U.S. government spent this year? (March 17, 2025)
• USA Facts: How much of the federal budget is mandatory spending?
• Axios: Behind the Curtain: Hard truths about Trump budget cuts
• Congressional Budget Office: Mandatory Spending in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic
• Social Security Administration: Fact Sheet
• Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services: Medicare Monthly Enrollment
• Medicare.gov: Parts of Medicare
• U.S. Treasury Department: How much has the U.S. government spent this year?
• Congressional Budget Office: Discretionary Spending in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic
• U.S. Treasury Department: Treasury Bulletin December 2024
• Vicki McKenna Show: Glenn Grothman interview, March 12, 2025
• Congressional Budget Office: The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035
• Axios: U.S. federal deficit soars to record $3.1 trillion in 2020
• New York Times: Full Transcript of President Trump’s Speech to Congress
• Reason: Trump Promised a Balanced Budget. Don't Believe It.

Is the majority of federal government spending mandatory? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The Wisconsin Assembly voted along party lines Tuesday to pass legislation penalizing counties with sheriff's departments that don't cooperate with ICE, the federal Immigration Customers and Enforcement agency. (Photo via ICE)

Legislation passed the Assembly Tuesday that would claw back state aid from counties where the sheriff doesn’t cooperate with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement service (ICE).

The legislation would require sheriffs to check the citizenship status of people being held in jail on felony charges and notify federal immigration enforcement officials if citizenship cannot be verified.

The state Senate, meanwhile, approved a bill that would block a judicial investigation of a police officer involved in the death of a person unless there’s new evidence or evidence that has not been previously addressed in court.

The immigration-related bill, AB 24, passed the Assembly on a straight party-line vote.

In addition to requiring citizenship checks, the bill would also require sheriffs to comply with detainers and administrative warrants received from the federal Department of Homeland Security for people in jail. Counties would be required to certify annually that they were following the law and would lose 15% of their shared revenue payments from the state if they were not.

Proponents described the measure as enhancing safety.

“We have the opportunity to emulate in many ways the best practices that are already happening across our country,” Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), the bill’s author, said at a news conference before the floor session. “We have seen since [President] Donald Trump took office that we have had a dramatic reduction in the number of illegal crossings that are happening at the southern border.”

Opponents said the bill would divert local law enforcement resources while driving up mistrust and fear among immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) said the legislation was “big government” and interferes with local counties’ policy decisions. It also undermines the presumption of innocence for a person charged with a crime, potentially strains resources for local jails, and could lead to holding people “longer than is necessary,” he said.

But he added that those weren’t his top reasons for opposing the bill.

“I’m voting against this because it’s wrong, because this legislation rips people from our communities and families based on the mere accusation of a crime, because our Republicans colleagues’ eagerness to make themselves tools in Trump’s attacks on immigrants, refugees, visitors and those who oppose him is vile,” Clancy said.

On the floor, Vos replied that he agreed with Clancy about the presumption of innocence, and that he also agreed with other lawmakers who said the vast majority of immigrants are not guilty of any crime.

“But I would also say that there is a burden of proof on both sides,” Vos said. “It’s not entirely on just the side of the government to ensure that you follow the law.”

Claiming broad bipartisan support for the measure, Vos said Democratic opposition was “clearly out of step, even with your base.”

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) responded that  he hasn’t heard constituents ask for the legislation or anything like it.

“They are asking us explicitly to make life tangibly easier for working class Wisconsinites,” he said, “and they have not been asking me to engage in redundant acts of political theater to satisfy the whims of a rogue president engaging in a campaign of intimidation and mass deportation that includes constituents in western Wisconsin.”

Senate approves John Doe exemption

The state Senate voted Tuesday to pass a bill that makes an exemption to the state’s John Doe law for police officers involved in a civilian’s death.

In Wisconsin, if a district attorney chooses not  to file criminal charges,  a judge may hold a hearing — known as a John Doe investigation — on the matter and file a complaint based on the findings of that hearing.

The legislation, SB 25, “simply says, if that case goes before a DA, and then the DA  justifies their actions and they are deemed to be innocent of any wrongdoing … that case is closed and it is in a file never to be seen again,” said the bill’s  author, Sen. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield), on the Senate floor.

Hutton said the legislation allows a judicial investigation to proceed, however, “if a new piece of evidence is presented that wasn’t known before, or an unused piece of evidence is found.”

But Sen. Dora Drake (D-Milwaukee) questioned carving out an exemption to the state’s John Doe law. “This bill does not apply to any other crime in Wisconsin,” she said.

Lawmakers, Drake added, should do more to address “the environment and the situations” that have led to officer-involved deaths. 

Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee), said testimony at the bill’s public hearing discussed only two attempts to invoke the John Doe proceeding after a prosecutor declined to file charges in an officer-involved death — and one of them involved former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah, who killed three people in five years.

Allowing for a John Doe investigation in an officer-involved death “protects the public,” Johnson said. “What it does is put a second eye on those cases that deserve a second look.”

The Senate passed the bill 19-13. Two Democrats, Sens. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) and Sarah Keyeski (D-Lodi), voted in favor along with 17 Republicans. Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto), who also opposed the bill in committee, joined the remaining Democrats who voted against the measure.

Reversing DPI testing standards: On a vote of 18-14 along party lines, the Senate concurred in an Assembly bill that would reverse a change that the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) made last year to testing standards.

AB 1 would revert the state’s testing standards to what they were in 2019 and link standards to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Republicans voting for the bill said that the DPI change “lowered” standards — a claim DPI and Democrats rejected.

Direct primary care passes — but Democrats object: The Senate also voted 18-14 on party lines to pass SB 4, legislation that would clear the way for health care providers who participate in direct primary care arrangements. Under direct primary care, doctors treat patients who subscribe to their services for a monthly fee as an alternative to health insurance for primary care.

An amendment Democrats offered would have added a list of enumerated civil rights protections for direct primary care patients. That list was in a direct primary care bill in the 2023-24 legislative session that passed the Assembly but stalled in the Senate when two organizations protested language protecting “gender identity.”

After the amendment was rejected, also on a party-line vote, Democrats voted against the final bill.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

China and the EU: Comparing Two Tech-Forward Plans for the Future of Food Production The EU and China have each released new strategic...

The post China and the EU: Comparing Two Tech-Forward Plans for the Future of Food Production appeared first on Cleantech Group.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

The Social Security Administration’s actuary estimated that 30,000 people died in 2023 while waiting for a decision on their application for disability benefits.

That’s according to testimony given to a U.S. Senate committee Sept. 11, 2024, by Martin O’Malley, who was then the Social Security commissioner.

O’Malley said disability applicants wait on average nearly eight months for an initial decision and almost eight more months if they are denied and request reconsideration.

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) makes monthly payments to people who have a disability that stops or limits their ability to work. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) pays people with disabilities and older adults who have little or no income or resources.

Social Security announced Feb. 28 it plans to cut 7,000 of its 57,000 workers, part of the Trump administration’s initiative to reduce the federal workforce.

The deaths claim was made March 9 in Altoona, Wisconsin, by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Social Security Administration: Testimony by Social Security Administration Commissioner Martin O'Malley before the Senate Committee on Budget
• Social Security Administration: Disability
• Social Security Administration: Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
• New York Times: Social Security Administration to Cut Roughly 7,000 Workers
• Associated Press: Social Security Administration could cut up to 50% of its workforce

Does the Social Security Administration estimate that 30,000 Americans die annually waiting for a decision on their disability benefits? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

RICHMOND, Va. — The 2025 Southeastern States Pupil Transportation Conference (SEPSTC) will be held jointly with the Virginia Association for Pupil Transportation (VAPT) at the Marriott Richmond during the week of July 7-11, 2025. A half-day trade show will be held at the Greater Richmond Convention Center the morning of Thursday, July 10.

A highlight of the conference will be an off-site school bus fire training exercise to be held at the Richmond City Fire Training Academy. According to VAPT president Darrin Wills, “Safe evacuation simulations aim to minimize panic during an emergency and we are pleased with the partnerships that will allow us to bring this important demonstration to
SESPTC and VAPT conference attendees.”

Other important program elements include a TSA Cybersecurity Exercise, two NAPT professional development courses and more. SESPTC president Kevin Harrison expressed appreciation for the collaboration with VAPT.

“SESPTC is excited to be partnering with VAPT this year to provide this opportunity for pupil transportation staff from across the Southeastern States to gather and learn from each other. VAPT has a wonderful team that is focused on providing superior educational opportunities to attendees from not only Virginia, but the other 13 Southeastern States as well.”

Founded in 1951, the SESPTC is the oldest regional pupil transportation conference in the nation. Pupil transportation professionals from school districts in the southeastern states, and from school bus operators providing transportation to those school districts, are invited to attend.

Registration is now open at www.sesptc.com.

The post Southeastern States Pupil Transportation Conference July 7-11 in Richmond, Virginia appeared first on School Transportation News.

Gov. Kristi Noem presents her annual budget address to lawmakers in the South Dakota State Capitol on Dec. 3, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem will be the nation’s next secretary of the Department of Homeland Security after the U.S. Senate confirmed her nomination Saturday.

The 53-year-old Noem, a former congresswoman, will lead one of the federal government’s largest departments, with 260,000 employees and a budget in excess of $100 billion. Its responsibilities include border protection, disaster response, cyber and airline security, and protecting dignitaries.

The bipartisan vote to confirm Noem was 59-34, with her fellow South Dakota Republicans, Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Mike Rounds, casting two of the votes in favor.

Speaking against Noem’s confirmation on the Senate floor, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, warned that the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants Noem could carry out on behalf of President Donald Trump will harm the nation’s economy. Among the industries most affected, Durbin said, could be one of vital importance to Noem’s home state: agriculture.

“In many instances, they will be removing the very workers that pick the crop,” Durbin said.

Speaking in favor of Noem, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the United States is a nation of immigrants, but “we’re also a nation based on the rule of law, and we have not seen that immigration law enforced over the last four years.”

“So I’m going to be voting for Governor Noem, because she’s committed to enforcing our immigration laws,” Grassley said.

SD’s lieutenant governor elevated

Noem ascends to the Homeland Security post after serving as South Dakota’s first female governor. She was serving her second four-year term after being reelected in 2022.

Noem resigned from that job Saturday and was succeeded by her lieutenant governor, Republican Larry Rhoden, who became the state’s 34th chief executive and will fill the remainder of Noem’s term through 2026. Rhoden will choose a new lieutenant governor, subject to confirmation by the South Dakota Legislature, which is in the midst of its annual lawmaking session. Rhoden’s office released a statement Saturday saying details on a ceremonial swearing-in will be announced soon.

Noem’s Saturday confirmation vote capped a rise into national prominence that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her decision as governor to avoid ordering widespread shutdowns in South Dakota caught Trump’s attention during his first term, and he accepted Noem’s invitation to a Fourth of July weekend fireworks display at Mount Rushmore in 2020. That helped cement a relationship Noem had begun with Trump while she served as a four-term member of the U.S. House from 2011 to 2019.

Noem was widely thought to be in consideration for Trump’s running mate last year, until her April book release abruptly ended that speculation.

The Guardian obtained an advance copy of the book, “No Going Back,” and revealed passages Noem wrote about fatally shooting a misbehaving hunting dog and an unruly goat. The Dakota Scout, a South Dakota media outlet, challenged Noem’s claim in the book that she had met North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, and she retracted it.

Noem faced withering scrutiny during a national book tour and became the butt of jokes on late-night television. Yet, less than three months later, she had a prime speaking slot during the Republican National Convention. Shortly after Trump’s election win in November, he announced Noem as his pick to lead Homeland Security.

Noem’s role in border issues

While serving as governor, Noem sent National Guard troops multiple times to assist Texas in securing its border with Mexico, and called a joint session of the Legislature to deliver a speech about the border. In her new role as Homeland Security secretary, Noem will be pivotal in carrying out Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Noem appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last week for her confirmation hearing. She said “border security must remain a top priority.”

“As a nation, we have the right and the responsibility to secure our borders against those who would do us harm, and we must create a fair and a lawful immigration system that is efficient and is effective and that reflects our values,” Noem said.

Trump kick-started his immigration plan shortly after he took office Monday.

In part of a barrage of executive orders this week, Trump moved to end birthright citizenship in the United States. But on Thursday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the plan, which was met with a flurry of legal challenges.

Trump also declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, and earlier this week, the Pentagon said it would immediately send 1,500 active duty troops to secure the area.

Noem is the fourth of Trump’s Cabinet nominees to earn Senate confirmation, after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

States Newsroom’s D.C. Bureau contributed to this report.

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: info@southdakotasearchlight.com.

Law enforcement and security expert Bret E. Brooks will address two facets of the safety and security discussion for student transportation at STN EXPO East.

Brooks has spoken on emergency management, threat detection and violence preparedness at various STN conferences. He will present two sessions in Concord, North Carolina this March. The first session Friday, March 21, “Understanding Violence in Modern Society and the Impact on School Transportation,” will give attendees an in-depth exploration into the complexities of violence in today’s society, including the impact of technology and media. Using real-world examples, data and expert perspectives, Brooks will explain how attendees can equip themselves with strategies to not only address violence in their communities but prevent it and collaborate to build a safer society that translates to safer routes to and from school.

The second general session, “Creating a Bus Captain Program for School Buses,” will be held on Saturday, March 22. This interactive session looks at how to create a successful school bus advocacy program that can not only aid safety efforts but provide a leadership role for students and encourage positive, respectful behavior of their peers and student transportation staff.

Attendees will receive a breakdown of designing and implementing a bus captain program, including details such as program development, age- appropriate responsibilities, communication and evaluation strategies. Brooks will explain how to reach the program goal of equipping students to be role-models, assist drivers and contribute to a safe bus environment.

Brooks is the senior consultant with Gray Ram Tactical and the training coordinator and policy advisor for the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

Register by Feb. 14 to save $100 on main conference registration with Early Bird Savings. Browse conference agenda, explore unique experiences and register at stnexpo.com/east.

---

Related: STN EXPO East Keynote Speaker Brings Dynamic Performance Strategies to North Carolina
Related: Innovative, Bus Technology Meet for Immersive Experience at STN EXPO East
Related: Transportation Director Summit to Provide Empowerment, Networking

The post Security Sessions at STN EXPO East Address Violence, Safety Programs appeared first on School Transportation News.