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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems pounce on affordability issue

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

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

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

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

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

Other costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free speech suit

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

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

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

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

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

Trump removed Bondi this month.

Dem endorses call for hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate in D.C.

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

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

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

Disproportionate effect on married women

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

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

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

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

Affidavit provision unclear

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

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

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

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

‘Frankly insulting’

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuits ensured

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hotel ballroom in downtown Madison was packed with cheering supporters as Chris Taylor gave her victory speech Tuesday night after her huge, 20-point win over her conservative opponent Maria Lazar, cementing a 5-2 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The four other liberal women on the Court high-fived Taylor as she took the stage. The deliriously joyful crowd repeatedly interrupted Taylor’s remarks with shouting and applause, including to chant the name of her dog when she mentioned it during a lengthy list of thank-yous: “Ollie! Ollie!” 

Democrats are so hungry for success they are ready to throw their arms around any champion, including canines — yellow, blue, whatever. 

Eager to catch that wave of enthusiasm, many of the seven gubernatorial hopefuls in the Democratic primary field hovered around the ballroom. After the results were tabulated, party operatives began circulating statistics showing Taylor’s big margins of victory in Republican-leaning counties, using those results to forecast a crushing blue wave in November. Democratic Party Chair Devin Remiker called Taylor’s win “an indictment of Trump and Tom Tiffany,” the GOP candidate for governor.

Without question, Taylor’s 60-40 percentage point drubbing of Lazar is good news for Democrats, who poured money and organizing energy into the nominally nonpartisan race. And it’s a serious loss for Republicans, who backed Lazar, an anti-abortion election skeptic. But Taylor’s lopsided victory does not mean that Wisconsin has turned, overnight, from a 50-50 purple state that narrowly elected both Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump into a liberal stronghold where Democrats can expect to run the table in November. 

The reality is that Republicans gave up. After repeated, double-digit losses in the last three Supreme Court elections in a row, including the 2025 record-breaking $100 million race — when Elon Musk proved that all the money in the world and even outright bribery couldn’t convince Wisconsin voters to embrace the Republican-backed candidate Brad Schimel — they threw in the towel. This year, the state Republican party gave $64,000 to Lazar, compared to the $775,000 the Democratic party gave to Taylor. Republican donors also held onto their wallets. Final fundraising reports ahead of the election showed Taylor had raised more than $2 million while Lazar reported about $472,000. 

The Wisconsin GOP has concluded that spring judicial elections are a lousy bet, especially in the Trump era. Democratic voters are energized for these races, while Republican voters, especially the MAGA base, turn out in low numbers. The voters who care about April judicial races are disproportionately college educated liberals, as political analyst Craig Gilbert explains. 

All of these are reasons to take Democratic optimism pegged to Tuesday’s results with a grain of salt. After all, liberal Justices Jill Karofsky and Janet Protasiewicz posted big wins in the Wisconsin Supreme Court elections of 2020 and 2023, followed by Trump’s 2024 Wisconsin victory. 

Still, Taylor’s 20-point triumph matters. For one thing, the failure of the Republicans to put up much of a fight for Lazar comes at the same time that the GOP leaders of both chambers of the Legislature have announced they are calling it quits, along with several key members of those bodies who would face tough reelection battles now that the state’s voting maps are no longer rigged in their favor. The whole Wisconsin Republican Party seems to be in retreat. 

The only thing that got legislative Republicans off the couch recently was the UW Regents’ decision to fire their ally, University of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman. They are so outraged they’re planning to hold long-delayed confirmation hearings this week just to fire the regents. Nothing motivates Wisconsin Republicans like spite, and the defense of their own diminishing power. 

After steadfastly refusing to confirm most of Gov. Tony Evers’ appointees during his entire two terms in office, they are coming back into special session, not to strike a deal to fund schools or lower property taxes or address any of the other issues that matter to voters they didn’t get around to by the end of the session, but to take revenge on the regents and showcase their own pettiness. It’s their last power grab before they lose their gerrymandered power altogether. The regents were apparently willing to take the risk to get rid of Rothman, who is no longer needed to make nice with a soon-to-depart Republican majority.

Taylor’s huge win on Tuesday bolsters the growing sense among Wisconsinites that the Republicans are about to lose more than one judicial race. By not fighting harder, the Republicans showed their own lack of confidence. And who can blame them? As Taylor’s victory party kicked off, the news was all about whether Trump would make good on his pledge to annihilate an entire civilization in Iran — a threat so unhinged even Sen. Ron Johnson felt compelled to renounce it. 

Trump’s approval numbers are in the toilet. He is, as investigative reporter Ken Kippenstein points out on Substack, the first president in U.S. history to get no public approval bump at all for going to war. Members of Congress and even some former Trump supporters are openly discussing the need to invoke the 25th Amendment to put the Republican Party’s national leader in a straitjacket.

Add to that the cost of gas, groceries, and the deliberate destruction of affordable health care and you have a recipe for a massive midterm rebellion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is part of that picture, even if it’s a lopsided measure of Democratic energy and Republican depression.

Plus, the new, now locked-in majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will be a bulwark against GOP efforts to limit voting rights and interfere with fair elections.

All in all, it’s pretty terrible news for Republicans. That barking dog that’s chasing them might have a nasty bite.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump agreed Tuesday evening to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, at least delaying his threat of a catastrophic attack on the country’s civilian population as he said the countries were near a long-term peace agreement.

The ceasefire was negotiated with Pakistani leaders as intermediaries, Trump said in a post to his social media site, Truth Social. The deal was conditional on Iran agreeing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane for the global supply of oil, Trump wrote.

“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” he wrote. 

Trump added that he had received “a 10-point proposal from Iran” that would form the basis of a long-term agreement. 

“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” he said.

A day of global outrage

Earlier Tuesday, Trump had escalated his rhetoric against Iran, even as some Republicans in Congress began to back away from his declarations, threatening that “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.”

“I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” he wrote. 

He ended the 85-word message with “God Bless the Great People of Iran!”

The threat drew intense opposition throughout the day, including from Pope Leo XIV.

Trump posted the early-morning message roughly 12 hours before his self-imposed deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise face U.S. strikes on the country’s bridges and power plants, he wrote Sunday in an expletive-laden Truth Social post. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y, denounced Trump as “an extremely sick person.” 

“Each Republican who refuses to join us in voting against this wanton war of choice owns every consequence of whatever the hell this is,” he wrote on X Tuesday morning.

Some Democrats in Congress said it’s time to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution and remove Trump from office.

Threats followed rescue operations

Trump’s flurry of fresh threats followed Iran’s downing of two U.S. military aircraft. U.S. forces and intelligence officers launched a major operation to rescue one of the plane’s weapons system officers, which proved successful Sunday, according to the president and U.S. officials. Two pilots had already been rescued.

As of Tuesday, the United States struck Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal, according to The Associated Press, and Israeli forces struck eight bridges, according to a post on X by Israel’s military. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday forces had also struck railways. “Yesterday, we destroyed transport planes and dozens of helicopters. Today, we attacked the train tracks and bridges used by the Revolutionary Guards,” he wrote on social media.

Speaking in Hungary, Vice President JD Vance said he hopes Iran chooses “the right response” by Trump’s evening deadline. 

“We’ve got tools in our toolkit that we so far haven’t decided to use. The president of the United States can decide to use them, and he will decide to use them if the Iranians don’t change their course of conduct,” Vance said.

Sharif n a statement prior to Trump’s post announcing the ceasefir urged all parties to continue negotiations, and for Trump to abandon his Tuesday night deadline.

“To allow diplomacy to run its course, I earnestly request President Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks. Pakistan, in all sincerity, requests the Iranian brothers to open Strait of Hormuz for a corresponding period of two weeks as a goodwill gesture,” Sharif wrote on social media.

Trump repeated the threat to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure Monday during a lengthy White House press conference. Targeting civilian infrastructure violates international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions that were updated following World War II.

U.S. cybersecurity officials alerted critical infrastructure operators to “urgently review” cybersecurity protocols and take measures to disconnect certain components from the internet after indications that Iranian hackers have begun exploiting water and energy systems. 

The advisory Tuesday from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, and a host of other federal agencies including the FBI and Department of Energy, did not provide details on locations.

Sens. Ron Johnson, John Curtis express objections

Republicans on Capitol Hill, with the exception of Kentucky’s Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, have blocked efforts to rein in Trump’s war on Iran, but three more GOP voices against the conflict emerged in recent days. 

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told conservative commentator John Solomon Monday that he is against Trump’s threats to bomb civilian targets in Iran.

“I hope and pray that President Trump is just using this as bluster,” he said on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast, produced by Just the News. “… We are not at war with the Iranian people. We are trying to liberate them.”

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, declared opposition Friday to funding the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. 

“I stand by the President’s actions taken in defense of our national security interests in the Middle East. But we must be clear-eyed about history and the Constitution. While I support maintaining our readiness and replenishing stockpiles, I cannot support funding for further military operations without a formal declaration of war from Congress,” he wrote on X.

On Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Nathaniel Moore, R-Texas, joined the opposition, posting on X that “what sets America apart is not only our strength, but how we use it.”

“I do not support the destruction of a ‘whole civilization.’ That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America,” Moore wrote in a statement on X.

The U.S. and Israel began a joint bombing campaign on Iran on Feb. 28, killing  Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and numerous other senior officials of the Islamic state. 

In response, Iran has targeted global oil trade by effectively choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a major maritime passage for one-fifth of the world’s petroleum and liquid natural gas. 

The conflict has killed thousands of civilians across the Middle East and injured thousands more. Thirteen U.S. service members have died, and 372 have been injured since the start of fighting, according to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System.

25th Amendment

Trump’s rash threat to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” sparked numerous calls to remove the president from office.

Former U.S. House GOP lawmaker and Trump loyalist, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, swiftly denounced Trump’s latest threat.

“25TH AMENDMENT!!! Not a single bomb has dropped on America. We cannot kill an entire civilization. This is evil and madness,” she posted on X.

Nearly two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including several progressive members, also turned to social media to appeal for the 25th Amendment, which authorizes the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members or Congress to deem the president unfit for office. The amendment has never been invoked.

Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., accused Trump of threatening “massive war crimes” and also implicated Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

“In the last 48 hours alone, the rhetoric has crossed every line. Pete Hegseth is complicit. I’ve called for the 25th Amendment and am introducing Articles of Impeachment against Hegseth,” said Ansari, an Iranian-American.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said “removal is the top priority.”

In a video message posted on X, Markey urged the House to “immediately” come back into session and pass articles of impeachment against Trump, and for the Senate to remove him from office.

“He is completely unstable and dangerous,” Markey said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., countered the calls, saying, “The president is facing serious mental decline; I’m with you on that.”

“But unfortunately, invoking the 25th is not realistic right now, given his oddball cabinet of sycophants and eccentrics, and Republican ‘spines of foam.’ We’re going to have to buckle down and win this the old-fashioned way.”

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, whose seat in red northwest Ohio is under threat, stopped short of mentioning the 25th Amendment, but urged GOP congressional leadership to act as Trump is “recklessly threatening to commit atrocities and war crimes.”

“This is unhinged saber rattling that follows consistent threats over the past week to violate international law. The President is using the might of the United States military to wage war without constitutionally mandated approval from Congress. Until Congress reasserts itself as a co-equal branch of government, he will remain unchecked and the security of our nation will continue to be at risk,” she said in a statement.

Illegal orders

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., reminded American service members in a statement Tuesday that attacking civilians en masse “puts them in very real legal jeopardy,” as the action is not only in violation of the Geneva Conventions, but also the Pentagon’s Law of War Manual.

Slotkin, a former CIA analyst, and five other congressional Democrats who served in the military or national security roles, published a video in November stating that members of the armed services are not obligated to follow illegal orders. The video came during the height of the administration’s strikes on small alleged drug-running boats in the Caribbean.

“It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops — especially those in command — will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders,” Slotkin said in a statement Tuesday.

Rep. Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who appeared in the video with Slotkin, said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., must bring the House back into session and vote to end the war.

“Members of our Armed Forces must remember their oaths to the Constitution. As I have said before, if servicemembers are asked to carry out illegal orders, they have a solemn duty to follow the law,” said Crow, a former paratrooper and Army Ranger.

Pope Leo XIV, during a press gaggle outside his summer residence near Rome, appealed to Americans to contact Congress and express opposition to the Iran war.

“I would invite the citizens of all countries involved to contact the authorities, political leaders, congressmen, to ask them, tell them to work for peace and to reject war always,” he said.

The offices of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Johnson did not respond for comment on Trump’s latest statements.

A general social media account for the Senate Republican Conference posted mid-day Tuesday: “Iran would be wise to take President Trump at his word. They can choose the easy way or the hard way.”

While President Donald Trump has shown an unexpected openness to Chinese automakers building cars in the United States, three senators from the other side of the political spectrum have now joined Republican voices pushing to ensure that never happens.

Late last week, Democratic Senators Tammy Baldwin, Elissa Slotkin, and Chuck Schumer urged the administration not to allow Chinese car companies to manufacture vehicles locally, noting this could severely harm American companies. China is none too pleased and has accused the US of engaging in “trade protectionism.”

Read: US Senator Calls Chinese Cars “Cancer,” Wants Permanent Ban

“We must be clear-eyed that inviting China’s automakers to set up shop in the ⁠United States would confer an insurmountable economic advantage impossible for American automakers to overcome, and it would trigger a national security ​crisis that could never be reversed,” the senators wrote in a letter to Trump, first reported by Reuters.

They sent the letter to President Donald Trump following comments he made in January. Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, Trump said that “if they [Chinese companies] want to come in and build a plant and hire you and hire your friends and your neighbors, that’s great, I love that.”

Responding to Reuters about the letter from Baldwin, Slotkin, and Schumer, the White House said that “while the administration is always working to secure more investment into America’s industrial resurgence, any notion that we would ever compromise our national security to do so is baseless and false.”

China’s Not Happy

Chinese car companies have effectively been banned from selling vehicles in the United States due to policies enacted by the Biden administration in early 2025. However, it appears the Trump administration is more open to Chinese companies coming to the US than ex-President Joe Biden was, particularly if it can help to reverse the trend of ongoing job losses in the manufacturing sector.

According to the Chinese Embassy in Washington, the US has “engaged in trade protectionism and set up obstacles, including discriminatory ⁠subsidy policies ​to obstruct access to the U.S. market by Chinese-made cars.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday declined to rule out bombing certain types of civilian infrastructure in Iran, including schools and hospitals, and said that any agreement to end the war must include free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

“We have to have a deal that’s acceptable to me,” he said during a 90-minute press conference. “And part of that deal is going to be, we want free traffic of oil and everything else.”

Trump said he hopes he doesn’t need to bomb non-military targets, like power plants and bridges, but that even if he did, he doesn’t believe it would constitute a war crime. International law, including the Geneva Conventions ban on destroying “objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,” generally considers the targeting of civilian infrastructure a war crime.

Trump also reiterated a Tuesday evening deadline for Iranian leaders to make a deal to end the war.

“We’re giving them until tomorrow, eight o’clock Eastern time,” he said. “And after that, they’re going to have no bridges. They’re going to have no power plants. Stone ages, yeah. Stone ages.”

Negotiations to end the war that Trump and the Israeli government began in late February, have been slow going, in part, due to the destruction of Iran’s communications infrastructure.  

“We’re communicating like they used to communicate 2,000 years ago with children bringing a note back and forth,” Trump said. “They have no communication.”

Trump contended during the press conference that many Iranians have welcomed their country being bombed and that they get upset when the destruction halts. 

“They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” he said. “We’ve had numerous intercepts. ‘Please keep bombing.’ Bombs that are dropping near their homes. ‘Please keep bombing. Do it.’ And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding. And when we leave and we’re not hitting those areas, they’re saying, ‘Please come back. Come back. Come back.'” 

Trump said that after the war ends, his administration “may even get involved with helping them rebuild their nation.”

“Right now, if we left today, it would take them 20 years to rebuild their country, and it would never be as good as it was,” he said. “And the only way they’re going to be able to rebuild their country is to utilize the genius of the United States of America.”

Prosecuting leak

Trump said a search had begun for whichever official or officials released information last week about a U.S. aircraft being shot down over Iran, leading to rescue operations for two servicemen. 

“So whoever that was, we think we’ll be able to find it out, because we’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security, give it up or go to jail,’ he said. “And we know who, and you know who we’re talking about.” 

Numerous news organizations published the information on Friday and it wasn’t immediately clear which one Trump planned to pursue. 

As the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed skeptical.

The order as written applies only to babies born in the future, and the Trump administration has asked the court to exclude current citizens from any decision. Still, the court’s senior liberal justice wasn’t so sure it would work out like that.

“But the logic of your position, if accepted, is that this president or the next president or Congress or someone else could decide that it shouldn’t be prospective,” Sotomayor told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government’s top advocate at the court. “There would be nothing limiting that, according to your theory.”

The birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, is forcing the Supreme Court to confront the prospect of the United States becoming a much different kind of nation — one where Americans risk losing their citizenship and babies could be born effectively stateless. It’s also a nation that would more closely resemble its past, when broad swaths of people were excluded from the coveted title of American.

A majority of the court, including several conservative justices, appeared unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s argument that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified during Reconstruction, doesn’t guarantee citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil. The court may very well strike down the order, which has never taken effect, later this year.

But whatever the decision, the case has prompted a high-stakes debate over who is an American — and the consequences of that definition — that’s playing out in the courtroom, in court documents and on the steps of the Supreme Court.

“Birthright citizenship is not just a legal principle,” Norman Wong said at a demonstration outside the Supreme Court last week.

Wong is a grandchild of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco but denied entry back into the country after visiting China more than a century ago. Officials at the time argued he wasn’t a citizen, but he took his case to the Supreme Court and, in a 1898 decision, the justices affirmed that virtually all children born in the United States were guaranteed citizenship.

“It’s a statement about who we are as a nation,” Wong said of birthright citizenship. “It affirms that America is not defined by bloodlines or exclusion, but shared values and equal rights.”

A different view

Trump and some Republicans view birthright citizenship differently. 

The 14th Amendment says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” 

The Trump administration, which has worked to carry out mass deportations, contends that children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily are not subject to the country’s jurisdiction. Most historians and legal scholars repudiate that position.

The executive order, signed on Trump’s first day back in office, calls citizenship a privilege — not a right — that’s a “priceless and profound gift.” 

During a recent Oval Office event, Trump told reporters that birthright citizenship was intended to extend citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children following the Civil War. 

“The reason was it had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Some Republicans have embraced a conception of the U.S. as a nation bound by a distinct cultural heritage — sometimes in language that celebrates European settlers — as opposed to a people brought together by the idea of America or a set of common principles. Like Trump, they advocate for a restrictive approach to immigration.

At a conference last fall on national conservatism — the name sometimes given to this perspective — U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, called America a “a way of life that is ours, and only ours, and if we disappear, then America, too, will cease to exist.”

Schmitt filed a brief with the Supreme Court in January, along with Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, in support of the executive order. 

“The Citizenship Clause applies only to those who have been allowed to adopt our country as their permanent and lawful home,” the brief says.

Revoking citizenship?

At the Supreme Court last week, Sotomayor pressed Sauer on a 1923 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Thind. In that case, the justices ruled that a Sikh man from India, Bhagat Singh Thind, wasn’t eligible for citizenship. 

Thind argued that he was a “free white person,” a category of person allowed to naturalize under federal law at the time. The court found that Thind didn’t meet that definition under the common understanding of the phrase. The federal government revoked the citizenship of dozens of South Asian Americans following the decision.

Sauer reiterated that the Trump administration was only asking for “prospective relief,” prompting Sotomayor to interject.

“No, what I’m saying to you (is), yeah, that’s what you’re asking for relief right now,” Sotomayor said. “I’m asking whether the logic of your theory would permit what happened after the court’s decision in Thind, that the government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents.”

Sauer responded no, before concluding that “we are not asking for any retroactive relief.”

The exchange spotlighted the scenario that many advocates for immigrants fear if the Supreme Court strips away birthright citizenship. 

In a court brief, the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, which uses litigation to advance racial justice, and more than 70 other nonprofit groups warned that upholding the order would invite efforts to revoke the citizenship of countless Americans.

While the order is styled as only forward-looking, the groups said it threatens much deeper harms. To uphold Trump’s order, the Supreme Court would need to conclude that birth on U.S. soil doesn’t guarantee citizenship. Once that happens, they argue, “it is all too easy” to imagine the government retroactively removing citizenship.

“In that scenario, without further intervention from Congress, the affected individuals would become undocumented, with many or most becoming stateless,” the brief says.

American Civil Liberties Union national legal director Cecillia Wang, arguing against the order at the Supreme Court, said the 14th Amendment has provided a “fixed, bright-line rule” on citizenship that has contributed to the growth and thriving of the nation. 

She cautioned that the order would render whole swaths of American laws senseless.

“Thousands of American babies will immediately lose their citizenship,” Wang said. “And if you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans — past, present and future — could be called into question.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report. 

Democrats sued over President Donald Trump’s executive order clamping down on mail ballots on Wednesday, signaling the start of another fight with the White House over elections.

The order, which would create a national list of voting-age American citizens and directs the U.S. Postal Service to place limits on mail-in ballots, constitutes an extraordinary and illegal attempt by Trump to intervene in the voting process, election experts said.

An array of Democratic groups, including the Democratic National Committee, filed a federal lawsuit against the order in the District of Columbia late Wednesday. U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York are also plaintiffs. They are represented by Marc Elias, a prominent progressive voting rights litigator.

The Democrats allege in a 61-page complaint that Trump has tried “again and again” to rewrite election rules for his own advantage. It accuses the president of acting beyond the scope of his authority and unlawfully intruding on the authority of Congress and the states, as well as violating the authority of the U.S. Postal Service.

“The Executive Order’s provisions are convoluted and confusing,” the complaint reads. “What is clear is that it dramatically restricts the ability of Americans to vote by mail, impinging on traditional state authority.”

Several Democratic election officials have also promised to challenge the order. 

“The executive order is unconstitutional and I think it is very likely that it will be struck down,” Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold said in an interview. She said her state would join litigation against the order.

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said he would meet the federal government in court, while Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar said “we look forward to our day in court challenging this illegal action.” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said her state was “not going to obey in advance” because the states, not Trump, are in charge of elections.

Advocacy groups also promised lawsuits. The Campaign Legal Center said it would challenge the order with its partners, the Democracy Defenders Fund, the League of United Latin American Citizens and other organizations.

White House calls for passage of SAVE America Act

Ahead of the Democrats’ lawsuit, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that election integrity has always been a top priority for Trump. She also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship to register to vote.

“The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them,” Jackson said.

In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen downplayed the possibility of immediate changes to his state’s elections, while praising Trump for prioritizing election integrity. Nebraska will hold a primary on May 12.

“Over the coming months, we will continue to monitor and participate in how the implementation of the executive order might impact the November 3rd general election,” Evnen told the Nebraska Examiner.

Tens of millions of Americans vote by mail in federal elections, underscoring the stakes of any major restrictions on voting by mail. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

Another elections challenge

Opponents of Trump’s election-related moves have a good track record in court.

Trump’s first order on elections, issued just over a year ago, attempted to require voters to prove their citizenship. While Congress is debating the SAVE America Act, which would implement similar requirements, federal courts found that the president had overstepped his authority when he attempted to impose changes unilaterally.

Nearly 30 states are also fighting U.S. Department of Justice lawsuits seeking to force them to turn over copies of voters containing sensitive personal information on voters. Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Trump administration.

State administration of elections is a fundamental feature of American democracy, spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. States run and regulate elections, but Congress — not the president alone — can override states and set national standards.

At a basic level, critics of Trump’s executive order argue it tramples on state authority and bypasses Congress. 

“Once again, the President is attempting to act beyond his powers and seize control of our elections. Now he is attempting to weaponize the United States Postal Service against the voters. We will not stand for it,” U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement.

‘This will help a lot’

Trump cast the executive order as a necessary step in support of election integrity when he signed it during an Oval Office event on Tuesday. He acknowledged it would likely face legal challenges but called it “foolproof.”

Trump, who has long called the 2020 election stolen, falsely asserted that elections have been marked by significant fraud, saying the order was aimed at “stopping the massive cheating that’s gone on.” In fact, instances of noncitizen voting are extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

The order requires the Department of Homeland Security, with help from the Social Security Administration, to compile a list of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state and then provide that information to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The Trump administration has been encouraging states to run their voter rolls through SAVE to identify potential noncitizens, but some election officials say it wrongly flags Americans as noncitizens. Several voting rights and civic groups have sued over Texas’ use of SAVE.

The Justice Department confirmed last week that it will share voter data it obtains with Homeland Security. At the same time, DOJ lawyers have been adamant in court that the Trump administration isn’t creating a national voter registration list.

“And yet here is an executive order that very overtly and expressly directs DHS to create that national voter database,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told reporters on Wednesday.

Postal Service involvement questioned

The order directs Postmaster General David Steiner, who was named to the role by USPS’s Board of Governors last year, to require every outbound mail ballot be in an envelope that includes a tracking barcode. 

At least 90 days before a federal election, states must notify the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

“What the president is doing today is he’s going to make sure mail-in ballots are safe, secure and accurate,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on Tuesday.

Trump’s effort to enlist USPS in election administration goes against the agency’s own policies. When the Postal Service updated its rules last year, it noted that it does not establish rules or deadlines for elections, or determine how the mail is utilized for elections.

USPS spokesperson Cathy Purcell said the agency was reviewing the executive order.

The order is a “structural inversion” of how mail voting works, said Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting, an organization that promotes the responsible use of technology in elections. USPS delivers mail and isn’t involved in distributing ballots, she said.

“It is not up to the Postal Service to have this gatekeeping role over ballot delivery,” Smith said.

Under the order, the Justice Department and other federal agencies would be directed to withhold federal funds from states and localities that don’t comply with federal laws. It doesn’t specify what federal funds would potentially be targeted or whether states could lose election-related dollars.

States receive minimal federal election security grant funding each year from the Election Assistance Commission. During the 2025 fiscal year, the EAC distributed $15 million total, which can be used for upgrades to voting systems, cybersecurity, training and other needs.

“Even if it were to come to pass,” Smith said, “I don’t think it would carry much weight as a stick.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday seemed poised to reject the Trump administration’s attempt to redefine the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, and instead uphold the country’s long understanding of citizenship by birth on American soil. 

If a majority of Supreme Court justices strikes down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents without legal status or temporary immigration statuses like visas, it will be the second recent major blow to the president via the high court. Earlier this year, a majority of justices struck down his use of sweeping tariffs. 

Trump, who signed the executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship as one of his first acts after his inauguration in 2025, came to the courtroom to hear the oral arguments, a first for a sitting president. 

‘Quirky’ administration argument

A majority of the justices during Wednesday’s oral arguments were skeptical of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s arguments that the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment was only intended to grant citizenship to the children of newly freed African American slaves, not immigrants. 

Chief Justice John Roberts called one of Sauer’s key arguments “quirky,” and questioned how it could be applied to an entire class of immigrants without legal status. 

Sauer argued that the children born to parents without legal status or temporary visitors are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and are instead subject to the laws of their home country. He cited carve outs in birthright citizenship, such as the children born to foreign diplomats.

“You expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Along with Roberts, the liberal wing of the court and conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett also did not seem swayed by Sauer’s argument. 

Gorsuch asked Sauer if, under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens “under your test.” 

“Uh, I think so,” Sauer said.

Indigenous people were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress in 1924, but were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because those children were born to parents who were citizens of tribal governments. 

Sauer also contended the 1898 Supreme Court ruling that upheld citizenship based on birth on American soil, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, was wrongly decided. 

He argued that the Wong Kim Ark case did not take into consideration “sojourn travelers,” who are temporary visitors in the U.S. and give birth.   

Sauer also said the Trump administration was not looking for the justices to overturn that case. 

ACLU arguments

Liberal justice Elena Kagan said that Sauer’s argument to the court was an effort to create a “revisionist history” of the Wong Kim Ark case. 

“Everyone took Wong Kim Ark to say that, as a result of that, birthright citizenship was the rule,” she said. “And I think everybody has believed that for a long, long time.”

American Civil Liberties Union lead attorney Cecillia Wang said during oral arguments that when the federal government tried to strip Ark of his citizenship, “largely on the same grounds (the Trump administration) raised today,” the Supreme Court rejected those efforts.

“This Court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule (that) virtually everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen,” said Wang, who is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants.

Her parents were in the U.S. on student visas when she was born in Oregon, meaning that if Trump’s executive order were in effect at that time, she would have been denied U.S. citizenship.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. 

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Experts have warned that if the constitutional right to birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people, leaving them without a country to call home.

If the high court determines that Trump violated the Constitution with his executive order, it would be a major block to the president’s goal in defining who is American, as Trump has aimed to reshape the country’s racial and ethnic makeup through limits to migration and an aggressive immigration campaign of mass deportations. 

A decision from the high court on the case, Trump v. Barbara, is likely not going to come until the end of the court term, in late June or early July. If the court decides to uphold the executive order, it would go into effect 30 days after the ruling. 

New world, old Constitution

Sauer argued that birthright citizenship should not be applied to children of temporary visitors, such as foreigners who partake in what opponents call “birth tourism.”

Roberts asked Sauer how much of an issue birth tourism is – the idea that foreign visitors specifically travel to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their soon-to-be born children.

“No one knows for sure,” Sauer said, citing media reports that many Chinese tourists travel to the U.S. and give birth. 

However, China does not allow its citizens to have dual citizenship. 

Roberts seemed skeptical that birth tourism should be considered in Sauer’s legal arguments for the purpose of restricting birthright citizenship. He told Sauer that birth tourism “wasn’t an issue in the 19th century.” 

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said. “Where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child as a U.S. citizen.” 

But Roberts shot back, “Well, it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution.”

Other countries

Sauer also argued that the U.S. should fall in line with the citizenship laws of other countries.

“Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations,” he said. “It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship.”

Kavanaugh questioned why the U.S. should worry about the citizenship requirements of other countries. 

“Obviously we try to interpret American law with American precedent based on American history,” Kavanaugh said. “I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point.”

Shortly after oral arguments ended, Trump took to his social media site, Truth Social, where he falsely said the U.S. is the only country to have birthright citizenship. Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico are among several countries that have birthright citizenship.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!” he wrote. 

Trump left Wednesday’s oral arguments after Sauer was finished presenting his argument to the justices, and about a few minutes into arguments from the ACLU’s Wang, according to White House pool reports. Oral arguments lasted for about two-and-a-half hours.

Earlier decision

This is the second time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the justices. 

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court. 

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the ACLU filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said. 

As the United States of America marks its 250th anniversary this year, the relationship between the states and the federal government is approaching a breaking point.

Led by a bellicose president, the executive branch has moved to dominate states, resulting in more than a year of escalating confrontations between the two levels of government.

President Donald Trump has worked quickly: In the first year of his second term, he surged thousands of immigration enforcement agents into a resistant Minneapolis and other cities, with fatal results. He seized control of the National Guard in some states against the will of governors.

His administration is trying to force states to turn over sensitive data on millions of voters ahead of the midterms. And it is blocking states from receiving, and distributing to their residents, billions of federal dollars for child care, public health, housing and a host of other congressionally approved programs.

Political parties have swung in and out of power in Washington for centuries, and recent administrations have increasingly clashed with states run by the other party. This time is different, dozens of sources in and around government told Stateline.

Trump and a coterie of loyal aides have set out to remake the nation in the president’s image. Along the way, retribution and raw power have become the administration’s primary tools to bend recalcitrant states to its will. Grants are pulled, armed force deployed, disaster aid withheld.

The states have repeatedly gone to court, asking the federal judiciary to rein in the executive branch. They have also started testing the bounds of their own authority, such as moving to restrict the actions of federal immigration enforcement agents.

The past year has led to a period of sustained state and federal conflict without parallel in modern U.S. history. The consequences for Americans over time will prove enormous, shaping the very nature of our government.

“This kind of battle between the federal government and the states, we’ve just never seen that before and it makes no sense,” said former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who was elected as a Republican but later helped co-found the centrist Forward Party.

Tensions between the states and the central government are as old as the nation itself. Alexander Hamilton famously favored a strong central government, while James Madison offered the Bill of Rights — including what became the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states and the people those powers not delegated to the federal government.

But current strains are testing the bedrock principles of federalism, the uniquely American system created by the framers of the Constitution of power sharing between Washington, D.C., and the states.

Ahead of the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding on July 4, Stateline is exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the first in an occasional series, The 50 vs. The One, that will examine the current fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

In interviews and public remarks, current and former elected officials at all levels of government, as well as experts on American government, have described the country as approaching a pivot point. Trump’s second term could mark a defining moment for American federalism, one that will be studied in history books alongside Reconstruction, the New Deal and the Civil Rights Movement.

The United States will either continue to adhere to the principles of federalism, they say, or it will take a significant step toward a more powerful central government that sidelines the states.

“We are in a period of challenged federalism,” said Lisa Parshall, a federalism researcher and political science professor at Daemen University near Buffalo, New York. “The fact that we’re here talking about federalism tells you something about the current state of American politics.”

Dramatic changes in a year

Fears of diminishing state authority have animated state officials over the past year. Republican lawmakers in Utah have invested in federalism education and expanded a group to assess state-federal boundaries, for instance.

In July, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, both Democrats, publicly abandoned the nonpartisan National Governors Association, in part because they said the organization was not doing enough to protect states’ rights.

States are “laboratories of democracy,” Kelly said during an interview in February, using a classic civics textbook description. States have traditionally operated with relative freedom to pursue their own agendas and solutions to the challenges they face. In turn, states learn from one another.

“That’s been the beauty of it,” Kelly said. “If that’s to go away, if the federal government were — and they are, at this point — undermining states’ authority and responsibility, I think you end up slowing down the entire country.”

In the same way the three branches of government — the legislative, the executive and the judicial — provide checks and balances on one another, federalism imposes a state check on federal power. The U.S. Constitution, which went into effect in 1789, ensured states would command broad power over local commerce, policing, elections and other matters within their borders.

But Trump has at times raised doubt about whether he will always follow the Constitution and has claimed that he can ignore some of its requirements.

Last spring, Trump replied “I don’t know” when asked whether he needed to uphold the U.S. Constitution in the context of due process for immigrants. In 2022, he said massive election fraud allows parts of the Constitution to be terminated. And after his 2020 election defeat, he urged then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the results, even though the vice president has no constitutional authority to do so.

In February, Trump asserted that “states are just an agent of the federal government” as he called to “nationalize” elections. Under the Constitution, the responsibility of running elections belongs to the states.

Trump’s critics fault the Republican-controlled Congress for failing to challenge his sweeping assertions of executive power. His administration’s efforts to withhold from states billions in dollars appropriated by Congress, for instance, have spurred relatively little outrage among GOP lawmakers.

“What I think we’re seeing now is a whole different system of crushing state and local government,” said U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Missouri Democrat who has been in Congress since 2005. “And bowing down to a new system where we are almost living in a one-person government.”

In response to questions from Stateline, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement: “The Trump Administration faithfully upholds our Constitution and the immortalized American principles of federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”

Trump and his allies have cast the president as a heroic figure capable of smashing through the machinery of government to achieve results on behalf of his voters and at the expense of his enemies. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed … I am your retribution,” he said in 2023.

He has at times taken steps that his supporters argue empower states, including effectively gutting the U.S. Department of Education, which Republicans have long accused of federal overreach. His appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court during his first term helped cement a conservative majority that in 2022 returned the issue of abortion access to the states.

In a statement, the Republican Governors Association told Stateline the current administration trusts governors to run their own states.

“By cutting government bureaucracy and unnecessary red-tape, President Trump is empowering governors to make decisions that best serve their individual states,” wrote Kollin Crompton, an RGA spokesperson.

Scrambled identities

The U.S. Constitution has been gradually amended in ways that have limited state power, most importantly through amendments that abolished slavery, required states to treat their citizens equally under the law, and prohibited states from denying suffrage on the basis of race and sex.

The federal government has also expanded its reach through legislation. President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in the 1960s imposed new economic regulations and created a federal social welfare apparatus that touches nearly every American.

Over time, Democrats broadly came to be seen as the party more comfortable with an active federal government and Republicans as the party seeking a more restrained Washington.

But the Trump era has scrambled those identities.

Trump has shown less respect for traditional conservative ideology, such as limited government and a general deference to the authority of states. Instead, he has taken a maximalist approach to executive power.

His actions have placed Democratic state officials in a position of advancing limits on the federal government, whether through lawsuits or legislation. And they have put Republican supporters of the president at odds with decades of conservative rhetoric.

“I do think that progressives are seeing that federalism — there’s a reason it’s in our constitutional order and it isn’t just something that’s left for conservatives,” said Sean Beienburg, an associate professor at Arizona State University who researches federalism and constitutional law.

In Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Oregon, Trump deployed federalized National Guard troops onto city streets before courts held him back and he withdrew. For a time, active-duty Marines also patrolled Los Angeles, an extraordinary use of the military for domestic purposes.

Oregon Democratic Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who challenged the deployment of the National Guard in his state, said the fight underscores why lawsuits matter in checking Trump’s power.

“People should be shocked that Oregon has filed 55 lawsuits,” Rayfield said in an interview earlier this year. “Their mind should be blown. But their mind should be equally blown at how often we’re winning these cases.”

The Trump administration has won seven court decisions — and lost 58 — so far, according to a New York Times litigation tracker.

Democratic state lawmakers have also searched for ways to restrict federal immigration agents. In California, Democratic Assemblymember Alex Lee has proposed prohibiting state tax breaks for Immigration and Customs Enforcement contractors — a move that could carry national implications because of the size of the state’s economy.

“We also, now, are reasserting what the role of the states and the federal government are,” Lee said.

But among Republicans, Trump has successfully maintained his grip. Many conservative state leaders have supported the president’s most controversial moves, even those criticized as federal overreach.

During President Joe Biden’s term, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott was a staunch proponent of state autonomy and repeatedly challenged the federal government on regulatory issues and its deployment of a state’s National Guard. But Abbott has supported Trump’s expansion of federal powers, going so far as to authorize the deployment of the Texas National Guard to aid immigration enforcement in Illinois and Oregon.

Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Justice, the previous governor of West Virginia, said federalism remains “alive and well” under Trump. He said he was worried about the nation’s trajectory before coming to Washington in 2025.

“We’ve had to change things,” he said. “There’s new things that are going on that no question they’re disrupting folks on the other side of the aisle.”

Still, other Republicans have pushed back on the administration’s escalating hostility toward liberal states.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt sharply criticized the deployment of the National Guard, saying “Oklahomans would lose their mind” if a Democratic-controlled state sent troops to his state during Biden’s presidency. He has warned that the expanding power and spending of the federal government is dangerous no matter which party controls Washington.

“When we have this powerful of a federal government, it should be frightening for everyone,” Stitt said during a February event at The Pew Charitable Trusts in Washington, D.C.

‘States created the Constitution’

As the reach of the federal government ballooned over generations, Democratic and Republican presidents have used federal funding to wield more influence over state and local governments.

Federal dollars account for an increasingly large percentage of state revenues, rising from 22% in 1989 to 36% in 2023, according to Pew, which analyzed census and federal economic data. States received more than $1 trillion in federal grants that year.

Over the years, that largesse has encouraged states to pursue policy agendas favored by the current party in power at the federal level.

But Trump has weaponized federal funds in unprecedented ways, experts say. Bypassing Congress and despite numerous court losses, the White House has held up funding for higher education, transit, housing and infrastructure — particularly for states that displease him.

The administration’s attempts to terminate funding for the $16 billion Gateway rail tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey remain entangled in a lawsuit. New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill said the White House has caused millions in cost overruns and delays, in what she characterized as the most urgent and consequential infrastructure project in the country.

In February, Politico reported Trump told congressional leaders he would release funding for the project in exchange for renaming Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia and Penn Station in New York City in his honor.

Parshall, of Daemen University, noted that more state leaders of both parties are pushing to reassert state-federal boundaries — whether in the areas of agriculture or the future of artificial intelligence.

“Federalism scholars are seeing this as a potentially pivotal moment in federal-state relationships,” she said.

Last August, elected leaders gathered at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Boston, where in 1773 colonists hurled chests of tea into the Boston Harbor in protest of Great Britain’s King George III. At the conference, lawmakers grumbled about a federal government increasingly sidelining states. That organization, representing more than 7,000 state and territory legislators, has consistently urged the Trump administration to respect states’ inherent authority.

In December, a bipartisan group of more than 40 lawmakers from 30 states gathered to discuss federalism issues, unanimously approving a declaration on the importance of states’ ability to legislate independently. That document noted that the Constitution did not create the states, “but rather the states created the Constitution, ratifying a framework in which we would both govern collectively and independently.”

New Hampshire state House Speaker Sherman Packard, a Republican, said state-federal tensions have been mounting for decades. He noted that the major tax and spending law the president signed last summer — often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — both cut federal funding to states and saddled them with new costs and administrative work. But it’s just the latest example of what he views as a federal government overstepping its bounds.

“And it’s getting more and more prolific that they’re taking on and doing things that most of us feel is inappropriate,” Packard said. “If we don’t fix this, we’re going to lose state sovereignty altogether. And that’s just not the way it was set up.”

Reporter David Lightman contributed to this story. Stateline reporters Jonathan Shorman and Kevin Hardy can be reached at jshorman@stateline.org and khardy@stateline.org.

President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Tuesday that attempts to restrict mail-in voting, a White House priority certain to face significant legal challenges.

The order directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security along with the Social Security Administration to compile a list of voting-age American citizens in each state and share it with state election officials. The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service to only send and receive ballots that include tracking barcodes.

Trump’s order represents a major escalation in his effort to assert presidential control over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by the states. Trump last year attempted to unilaterally impose a proof of citizenship requirement to vote in federal elections in an executive order that was blocked in federal court.

The move also reflects a long-held focus by Trump and his allies on noncitizen voters. Studies have shown noncitizen voting is extremely rare.

“I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said.

National database of adult citizens

Homeland Security operates the SAVE system, a powerful computer program that can verify citizenship. 

DHS has previously invited states to run their voter rolls through SAVE, which flags voters as potential noncitizens. Some election officials criticize the system, saying it wrongly identifies U.S. citizens as possibly ineligible.

The U.S. Department of Justice as recently as last week denied any efforts to create a national voter registration list. While the executive order does not explicitly mandate the creation of a voter list, it essentially marks an effort by the White House to create a national database of adult U.S. citizens.

The order requires Homeland Security to enable states to routinely supplement or suggest changes to each state’s citizenship list. Federal officials would also be required to allow individuals to access their own records and update or correct them ahead of elections.

Under the executive order, the postmaster general must propose rules to require all outbound ballot mail to be sent in an envelope that includes a barcode for tracking. The order also requires that states must inform the U.S. Postal Service at least 90 days before federal elections whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail.

“Instead of focusing on lowering the cost of energy, groceries, and health care, Donald Trump is desperately attempting to take over and rig our elections and avoid accountability in November,” U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement shortly after Trump announced the order. “This executive order is a blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power.”

SAVE America Act

Trump has pushed Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require individuals to produce documents, such as a passport or birth certificate, proving their citizenship in order to register to vote. The U.S. Senate is debating the bill, but it appears unlikely to have enough support to overcome a filibuster.

Trump has repeatedly asked Republicans to add three provisions to the bill, including restrictions on mail-in voting, with exceptions for members of the military, people who are ill and those on vacation. 

The president has also previously promised to advance voting restrictions, with or without Congress. Earlier this month, Trump voted by mail in Florida.

The executive order directs the Justice Department and other federal agencies to withhold federal funds from non-compliant states and localities “where such withholding is authorized by law.” 

Tuesday’s order is certain to face legal challenges. The Constitution gives Congress — not the president by executive order — the power to override state election regulations.

Marc Elias, a prominent voting rights litigator, promised to fight the executive order.

“If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will sue,” Elias wrote on social media. “I don’t bluff and I usually win.”

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters praised the order, saying Trump was restoring voter confidence. “Protecting America’s ballot box isn’t optional – it’s the foundation of our republic,” Grunters said.

DOJ lawsuits against states

The Justice Department has sued 29 states and the District of Columbia for copies of their voter rolls that contain sensitive personal information on voters, such as driver’s licenses and partial Social Security numbers. About a dozen states have voluntarily provided the data, but most are fighting the demands in court.

Three federal judges have so far ruled against the Justice Department. The administration is appealing and in court documents has argued that swift court decisions are necessary to ensure the security and fairness of the midterms.

The Trump administration has said the data is necessary to verify only citizens are registered to vote. Last week, a Justice Department lawyer confirmed in court that voter data would be shared with Homeland Security.

“Some may freak out about this, but honestly, this is hilarious,” David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former U.S. Department of Justice Voting Section attorney, wrote on social media about the Trump order. 

“It’s clearly unconstitutional, will be blocked immediately, and the only thing it will accomplish is to make liberal lawyers wealthier. He might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The White House defended skyrocketing gas prices Tuesday as a “short-term disruption” during the ongoing war in Iran, as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the administration will not “foreclose any option” in the conflict, including boots on the ground.

Briefing publicly for the first time since March 19, Hegseth said it will be “the president’s determination alone” when the war objectives are complete and the “upcoming days will be decisive.” Hegseth also said the administration’s negotiations with Iran are “ongoing, they’re active, and, I think, gaining strength.”

Five weeks in, the war continues to rock economies across the globe and at home, where the national average for gasoline hit $4 a gallon for the first time in four years, according to data from AAA.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt released a statement saying that “When Operation Epic Fury is complete, gas prices will plummet back to the multi-year lows American drivers enjoyed before these short-term disruptions.” 

President Donald Trump, she said, “remains committed to fully unleashing American energy dominance, lowering costs, and putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking American families.”

Shortly after the White House issued its statement, Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, posted a link on X to a CNN article about soaring U.S. gas prices, writing “Sad, but this is what happens when your leaders put others ahead of hard-working and ordinary Americans.”

Blockade drives up global prices

Iran’s blockade on U.S. and allied ships at the Strait of Hormuz, a major passage for petroleum and liquid natural gas, has wreaked havoc on global energy markets. As of Tuesday at 12:45 p.m. Eastern, Brent crude oil, the international standard, was trading just over $119 a barrel.

Between 2,000 and 3,000 cargo vessels and oil tankers, along with roughly 20,000 crew, remain stuck in the Persian Gulf, according to the United Nations and open source data, including MarineTraffic. 

Trump claimed during a Cabinet meeting Thursday that Iran has agreed to allow eight to 10 Pakistani oil tankers through. On Sunday, the president said 20. 

According to the Joint Maritime Information Center, only four large tankers transmitting location data had crossed the Hormuz Strait on Friday and Saturday. 

US troops

Hegseth said the White House will not rule out any options, including ground operations, but declined to provide detail at the Pentagon briefing.

“You can’t fight and win a war if you tell your adversary what you are willing to do, or what you are not willing to do — to include boots on the ground. Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we could come at them with boots on the ground. And guess what? There are. So if we needed to, we could execute those options on behalf of the president of the United States and this department, or maybe we don’t have to use them at all. Maybe negotiations work,” Hegseth said. 

Trump told reporters Sunday on Air Force One that negotiations with Iran are happening “directly and indirectly” and are “very good.”

“We’re doing extremely well,” the president said. “But you never know with Iran because we negotiate with them, and then we always have to blow ‘em up.”

Trump has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran’s energy infrastructure, and has set a self-imposed deadline of April 6 to do so if Iran doesn’t meet his demands.

On Monday night, the president posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, a video of a U.S. strike on an ammunition depot in Iran’s central province of Isfahan. 

Spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry Esmaeil Baqaei denied any talks with the United States, according to Iranian state media Tasmin New Agency.

Up to 3,500 U.S. Marines and sailors arrived in the region Saturday, according to U.S. Central Command. The U.S. now reportedly has roughly 50,000 troops in the region — that’s 10,000 up from the usually 40,000 or so peacetime members of the armed forces stationed there. 

Ghalibaf said Sunday an American ground offensive would result in “severe punishment,” according to state media.  

More than 300,000 American troops were in the region during the U.S. ground invasion of Iraq, according to historical data archived by the Council on Foreign Relations.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could reshape the understanding of who is American by birth.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, challenges President Donald Trump’s executive order that redefines citizenship to exclude children born to parents who either do not have legal status, or hold temporary legal visas. 

It has the potential to upend the guarantee of birthright citizenship in effect since a Supreme Court decision in 1898 that extended citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States. There is a small carveout for children born to foreign diplomats. 

The Trump administration petitioned the high court in December after multiple lower courts struck down the executive order, finding it violated the Constitution.

Birthright citizenship has been a longstanding core principle in the United States, where nearly any child — regardless of their parents’ immigration status — born on U.S. soil is automatically granted citizenship. Experts have warned that if birthright citizenship were struck down, it would effectively create a class of millions of stateless people.

But what was once a fringe legal theory has been pushed into the mainstream by the president and his far-right allies, who have sought to redefine who is American. 

They argue the citizenship clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which is the basis for birthright citizenship, was meant to apply to newly freed African American slaves after the Civil War, not to children of immigrants. Most legal scholars and historians disagree with that interpretation. 

The text of the clause is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

After oral arguments are heard on Wednesday, a decision from the Supreme Court is expected before the court’s summer recess begins at the end of the term in late June or early July. 

19th-century case

This is not the first time the Trump administration has brought a birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court. 

Last year, after federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Washington state struck down the president’s executive order, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, but asked the justices to consider the lower courts’ use of universal injunctions, rather than the merits of birthright citizenship.

The justices took up the case, and in a 6-3 vote divided along ideological lines, the use of universal injunctions was curtailed by the conservative wing of the high court. 

After the ruling, immigration advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union filed class action suits, which were successful in blocking the birthright citizenship executive order. The suits argued that future children born in the United States without gaining citizenship constituted a nationwide class.

Cody Wofsy, of the ACLU, is a co-lead attorney in the case and told reporters last week that the Supreme Court already decided the issue of birthright citizenship in 1898.

“The constitutional text is clear, the precedent is clear and the history is clear,” Wofsy said.

The 1898 case, United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, settled the idea that automatic citizenship was granted to children born on U.S. soil, Wofsy said.

Ark, born in San Francisco, was denied entry back into the country after visiting China. Officials at the time argued that because his parents were Chinese citizens in the United States on temporary visas at the time of his birth, and therefore were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., he was not a citizen. He took the issue to the high court and in 1898 the Supreme Court affirmed that children born in the United States were guaranteed citizenship.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer has said that the 1898 case is being misinterpreted, and that it meant to only include children born to parents who were granted authorization to be in the U.S.

“Illegal aliens are not ‘permitted by the United States to reside here,’ and thus their children are excluded from citizenship,” Sauer argued in briefs. 

However, Trump’s executive order would also deny citizenship to children born to parents on temporary visas, such as for work or school. 

Sauer also relies on an 1884 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to John Elk, a Native American man born in Nebraska, who was no longer a member of his tribe and tried to become a naturalized U.S. citizen in order to vote. 

Elk was denied citizenship, because he was not “subject to the jurisdiction of” the U.S. because of his “political allegiance” to his tribe, even though he had renounced his tribal citizenship. Congress extended citizenship to all Native Americans in 1924.

Sauer cites the Elk case in his argument that the citizenship clause does not apply to children born to immigrants on temporary visas or undocumented people and “only to those born of parents with primary allegiance to the United States.” The administration is not arguing that Indigenous people should be denied birthright citizenship.

Torey Dolan, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said Sauer’s argument wrongly conflates Indigenous people with migrants, despite a long U.S. legal tradition of treating them distinctly. 

“American law has always found a way to distinguish Indigenous people from non-Indigenous people in a way that has never been applied to immigrants,” Dolan, an enrolled citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, said. 

She noted that in the Declaration of Independence, which includes the grievances of the colonists, one complaint was how British King George III refused to allow for migration into the colonies in order to occupy land stolen from Indigenous tribes. 

“This conflation of immigrants and Indigenous people, for the sake of this argument, I think, is pretty egregious, and I think it really obfuscates American history and its colonial history in particular,” she said. 

‘Pure chaos’

Legal advocates challenging the executive order are confident they will win at the Supreme Court. 

“President Trump’s executive order is plainly unconstitutional and unlawful, and we’re confident that the Supreme Court will reaffirm existing legal precedent and strike down this executive order once and for all,” Hannah Steinberg, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, told reporters. 

In briefs, the ACLU has also argued that if Trump’s executive order were to go into effect, it would create a stateless class of people. The Migration Policy Institute, a think tank that studies migration, found that the end of birthright citizenship would increase the unauthorized population by an additional 2.7 million by 2045. 

Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship is part of the administration’s broader goal to curtail migration to the U.S., arguing that birthright citizenship is an incentive for unauthorized immigration.

But the idea that people migrate to the U.S. so their children can be born as citizens is not supported by research, Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said.

“People move mainly for opportunity for themselves and their children and also for safety,” she said. “There are many unauthorized immigrants who have come to the United States with their own children, who were born in another country, who won’t be U.S. citizens, and they still come.” 

“I don’t think there’s any evidence that birthright citizenship specifically is an independent pull factor. It’s more the safety, the rule of law and the earnings potential that people see in the United States, and the opportunity to reunite with other families is another major factor,” she continued. 

Ama S. Frimpong, the legal director for the immigrant rights group We Are CASA, told reporters that there are practical questions to how Trump’s executive order would even work. 

“What happens in a household in which there are older children who are born here and now, suddenly they have a new baby who’s born tomorrow, and that baby is not going to have the same rights that their siblings have?” she asked. “Is a baby going to be subject to detention and deportation by their very own government that is meant to protect them because they were born here?” 

That reality of birthright citizenship being stripped, Frimpong said, would be “just pure chaos.”

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican lawmakers’ bill that would have opted Wisconsin into a federal program rewarding taxpayers for contributions to private voucher schools and other educational organizations, saying he objected to the national expansion of private school choice and that public funds should go to public schools.

A provision in the federal tax and spending law signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025 will provide a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 to people who donate to qualifying “scholarship granting organizations.” Donations to organizations are used for educational expenses including tuition and board at private schools, tutoring and books. The provision created the first major federal program to allocate public money towards private school tuition in the form of tax incentives. 

Republican lawmakers, who hold the majority in Wisconsin’s state Legislature, as well as conservative and school choice advocacy groups have advocated for Wisconsin’s participation in the program — highlighting that the funds could be used for costs for public school students, including tutoring, as well as for private school students. However, governors are responsible for opting their states into the program by 2027, meaning they needed to convince Evers, a former state superintendent and public school teacher who had previously expressed skepticism about the program, to opt in. Without Evers’ approval, Wisconsin taxpayers can still reap the benefits of the federal tax credit, but the money they donate will support private school programs in other states.

AB 602 directed Evers to join the program on behalf of Wisconsin. In his veto message, Evers laid out a number of his concerns. 

“This nationwide voucher program has no student achievement metrics, no school accountability measures, no minimum or maximum scholarship size, no certain end date, and no cap on how much the federal government can spend,” Evers said. “Republicans in Washington have given private voucher expansion carte blanche to run roughshod over public education in this country — and a blank check to do so at taxpayer expense, clearly without any regard for whether it actually does what is best for kids.”

Evers also noted that the rulemaking process for the program has not been completed. 

According to an estimate by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the cost of the program could range to as high as $51 billion annually.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 23 states had opted into the program as of January. Those states, mostly led by Republican governors, include Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Louisiana and Texas. In February, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis became the first Democratic governor to opt into the program. Other Democratic governors have remained skeptical. 

Evers said in his veto message that Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to understand the effects of voucher expansion and disputed claims that the federal program would provide sufficient support to public school students.  

“As a former science teacher, principal, superintendent, state superintendent and a son of the state that created the nation’s first-ever private school voucher program, I have spent decades of my life watching the impacts that draining public funds from public schools to fund private voucher school programs instead has had on kids, schools and public education in Wisconsin,” Evers said. 

Wisconsin’s school voucher program — from the number of students and schools that participate to the amount of state money invested — has grown exponentially since its inception in Milwaukee in 1990. Growth is likely to accelerate dramatically in the next few years.  Participation caps, which limit the number of students in each district who can participate, have been lifted by 1% each year since 2017. Next year they will be phased out completely. 

“With each passing school year, public school districts continue to endure capped and prorated state funding, strict revenue limits and the need to go to referenda in many cases just to keep up with inflationary pressures to provide a quality education for their kids,” Evers said. “Even now, the Legislature has simultaneously failed to act on my calls to increase funding for special education to ensure the state meets the targets promised in our bipartisan budget.” 

In the most recent state budget, Wisconsin lawmakers provided increases to payments for the school voucher program, but did not provide any additional funding for general aid for public schools. The state’s investment in the special education reimbursement for public schools was not enough to cover the estimated  42% of costs in the first year of the budget and 45% in the second year. 

With funding from the state not keeping pace with inflation, public school districts have turned increasingly to property taxpayers for additional funding that must be approved by voters.

Next week, there will be 74 referendum requests on April ballots across the state — and the results will shape whether school districts can pay their bills, how much staff get paid and whether schools can open their doors next year. A lawsuit filed in February argues that the state isn’t fulfilling its constitutional duties and the current funding formula needs to be overhauled.

Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek), who coauthored the school donation tax credit bill with Senate President Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), wrote in an email to the Wisconsin Examiner that she was “disappointed, but not surprised” Evers vetoed the bill, saying he misunderstands the purpose of the bill. 

“AB 602 would have allowed Wisconsin students to be eligible for more scholarships to use towards the education style that works best for them, whether that be private school tuition or hiring a tutor outside of school time,” Rodriguez said. “This would have benefited K-12 students in all educational settings. For example, a scholarship could have been created to help low-income families send their 8th grade students on their class field trip to Washington, D.C.” 

“It’s just unfortunate, because opting in would have cost the state nothing, and by not opting in Wisconsin will sit idly by while our residents donate to scholarship granting organizations in other states and receive a federal tax benefit for doing so,” she said. “Sadly, we can’t just wait for a new governor in January.” 

Evers is not running for a third term in office this year, meaning the new governor could be a Republican or a Democrat, but will not take office until Jan. 4, 2027. The deadline for states to opt in to the federal program is Jan. 1, 2027. 

Felzkowski said in a statement that Evers was “putting politics over helping Wisconsin students.”

“Apparently, expanded educational opportunities for students in all schools, whether public, private, homeschool or charter, (at NO cost to the state and without the need for a single new bureaucrat!) makes too much sense for the governor. Wisconsin students and families deserve better,” Felzkowski said.

Evers addressed proponents’ argument that “the program will benefit public school students, families, and schools, too” in his veto message.

“Perhaps I am wrong and maybe it will. Nevertheless, right now, I have no such comfort, and my decades of experience in public education in the state with the first and oldest modern voucher program tell me the opposite will be true,” Evers said. “Therefore, I must veto this bill in its entirety. What’s best for our kids is what’s best for our state, and it remains unclear how this bill will do what’s best for the more than 800,000 Wisconsin public school kids for whom the state has a constitutional obligation to adequately provide and invest in public education.”

Peggy Wirtz-Olsen, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state’s largest teachers union, celebrated the veto in a statement. 

“More than 70 school districts in Wisconsin are going to referendum next week just to have enough money to continue operating because they have been abandoned by the state and federal government,” Wirtz-Olsen said. “Yet the Trump Administration and the Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature think this is a good time to pour tens of billions of dollars into a voucher program that has no standards and no accountability. A veto is the least of what this program deserves.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Several hundred Madison-area Christians gathered at the state Capitol Sunday for the Palm Sunday Path, a faith-based rebuke to the administration and actions of President Donald Trump.

 The procession was organized as a form of resistance to authoritarianism that organizers say Trump has embraced in the White House. 

“We believe that now is not the time for the followers of Jesus to be silent,” the Rev. Will Massey, associate pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Madison, said in a video posted on Facebook about the Palm Sunday Path by the Wisconsin Council of Churches, which sponsored the program in Madison and in other communities across the state.

“Anchored in the Matthew 25 call to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and welcome the stranger, we follow Jesus to the seat of power to witness to Christ’s reign of justice, peace, and shared belonging,” the council states on its website. “Grounded in worship and open to all who long to follow Jesus in the work of healing the world, this gathering proclaims Christ’s power of love, solidarity, compassion, and peace.”

Participants came from congregational, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and other Christian traditions. Many carried green palm tree fronds, evoking the story told in the Christian Bible of Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem the week before his death and being greeted by shouts of praise and appeals for deliverance from his followers as they waved palm tree branches.

In a sermon before the group started their walk around the Capitol, Rev. David Hart of Sherman Avenue United Methodist Church told the participants that Jesus during his lifetime paid attention to and identified with the outcasts of society — the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and those ignored by the ruling powers of Rome, who occupied Israel 2,000 years ago.

In the procession that followed, the group walked all four sides of the Capitol Square, singing on their way, led by musician Sarah Burgess.

The event took place a day after the No Kings protests that mobilized millions of people across the country in opposition to Trump, and leaders and participants of the Palm Sunday Path echoed many of the same sentiments — defending immigrants, calling for the respect for human rights and lifting up marginalized groups.

But some put a different twist on the No Kings message, nodding to the common Christian expression that identifies Jesus as the King for Christian believers.

That was reflected on signs such as one carried by a person in the procession that referred to the gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25, verse 35: “Our king says: I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

More than 10,000 march to Wisconsin State Capitol

Indivisible Madison East estimates that more than 10,000 people came out for the third round of No Kings protests in Wisconsin’s capital city.

Madison protestors met at Brittingham Park, a public park that sits on Monona Bay, around 12:30 p.m. and, led by a group of women in Statue of Liberty costumes, marched more than a mile to the Wisconsin State Capitol. 

Protesters highlight two developments since the last No Kings protest in October: President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally launch a war with Iran and his decision to send federal immigration agents  to the Twin Cities, escalating mass deportation efforts, resulting in the deaths of two American citizens at the hands of federal agents. 

Protesters carried U.S. flags, some of them positioned upside down to signal dire distress. There were many signs critical of the Trump administration. 

Megan McKay, a Madison resident who grew up in the Chicago area, told the Wisconsin Examiner that immigration was the main issue that brought her out to protest for a third time since Trump took office, due to personal experience that has shaped her outlook. She said her father immigrated to the U.S. from Belfast, Northern Ireland when he was “wee” but received a deportation letter in 2019. She said they were lucky to be able to work through the system to allow him to stay.

“We, quote, unquote, look like we’re supposed to be here. We speak English. I feel like it’s completely unacceptable what this current administration is doing,” McKay said. “Our country was founded on immigrants. We are the land of opportunity, and we’ve completely lost sight of that.”

McKay said she thinks more people are having an “aha” moment about Trump, and she is confident there could be a blue wave in this year’s midterm elections. Wisconsin will have critical elections on the ballot for governor, the state Legislature and Congressional seats in November

As protesters marched, they chanted phrases including “One, two, three, four: we don’t want your bloody war! Five, six, seven, eight: stop the killings, stop the hate!” and “No ICE, no bombs, no billionaires.” 

On the steps of the state Capitol, they were met by the Raging Grannies, who sang songs about democracy.

Dane County Circuit Court judge and Rev. Everett Mitchell was the keynote speaker. He told the crowd he was traveling in the Middle East when  the U.S. launched the war against Iran last month. 

“I was scheduled to come home, and then… the bombs started falling on Iran. The drones started going up and the skies over the Gulf were filled with things that were not supposed to be in the sky,” he said.

Mitchell said for several days there was no word from the U.S. government to citizens traveling abroad, and no flights available to leave.

“I wanted you to sit with that idea for a moment that an America that claims to be superior, had left its citizens stuck in a foreign land because they had engaged in the war that nobody voted for,” he said. 

Mitchell said the U.S. bombing of a girl’s school in Iran on Feb. 28, which resulted in the deaths of more than 170 people including young students, felt like “history repeating itself.” He  compared it to the bombing of a Birmingham church by the Ku Klux Klan in 1963, which killed four young Black girls. He said some of the remarks that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made following the attack were stuck in his head. 

“[King] said that the tragic, unspeakable murder of those girls was not the act of a lone bomber, but it was a product of every politician who fed his constituents the stale bread of hatred,” Mitchell said. 

Mitchell read the names of some of the young children who died in the attack including Hana Dehqani, who was 8, and Zahra Bahrami, who was 7. He added that  “every child deserves to have protection,” and he urged the protesters to not let their action end at the protest. 

“The outrage has to become something. The anger has to become something. The sign making, the marching, the protest, it has to become something. It has to become more votes. It has to become more bodies in the street. It has to become voices at the school board and has to become candidates on the ballot who are actually committed to the community that they serve our organization,” Mitchell said. “It has to mean something because they’re asking us to build something that is different in our world.”

 — Baylor Spears

 Thousands fill Milwaukee’s Washington Park bandshell for No Kings protest

No Kings demonstrations took place across the Milwaukee area Saturday, from the inner city to surrounding suburban communities. In Washington Park, a bandshell meant to accommodate 8,000 people was filled up with residents of all ages, races and creeds. Holding homemade signs, with some people clad in costumes, the crowd voiced its collective discontent with the war in Iran and the  policies of the Trump administration.

Near Washington Park, cars jostled for any parking they could find in the surrounding neighborhoods, as curious neighbors watched people stream past. Several local activist groups had established tents and tables, offering free information or the opportunity to join their organizations. Food trucks were parked nearby, and rally organizers encouraged people to grab a bite to eat before a planned two-mile march. Campaign workers for Francesca Hong and Sara Rodriguez, two Democratic hopefuls running in the primary to replace Gov. Tony Evers combed the crowd for potential supporters. 

Local Milwaukee rap artists and bands entertained the crowd before a short line-up of speakers took the stage, blasting the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, the wars in Iran and Gaza, military action against Venezuela, immigration, reproductive access and the rising cost of living.

Marchers filled the streets, forming a long stream that  stretched for block after block. Volunteer street marshals from local activist groups worked in tandem with the Milwaukee Police Department to block off roads and redirect traffic as the march worked its way through  neighborhoods. 

As the marchers passed, drumming and chanting, onlookers cheered. “Say it once and say it twice, we will not put up with ICE!” the protesters yelled in unison. “No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA!” “Raise your voice, take a stand, no war in Iran!” 

The protest march was so large that different sections of the march had separate, simultaneous chants. “From Palestine to Mexico, these border walls have to go!” “From Mexico to the Phillipines, let’s end the U.S. war machine!” “No Kings, no wars, we won’t take it anymore!” Once the massive march returned to Washington Park, it took several minutes for the end of the stream of people to arrive. 

No Kings demonstrations were also organized on Milwaukee’s East Side. The surrounding suburbs of Greenfield and Shorewood also had protests, as did the more conservative communities of Waukesha, Brookfield, and Oconomowoc. 

— Isiah Holmes

3rd Congressional District’s No Kings protests continue to grow 

Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District hugs the state’s border with Minnesota along the Mississippi River from Grant County in the far southwestern corner of the state up to Pierce County in the shadow of the Twin Cities. 

At No Kings protests in La Crosse and Viroqua on Saturday, area residents said they were motivated to raise their voices to support their neighbors in nearby Minnesota who were targeted by a violent immigration crackdown, and to express their displeasure with Republicans — especially Republican U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a vocal ally of President Donald Trump who has represented the district since 2023. 

The campaign to unseat Van Orden in the 3rd CD is a closely watched contest for a swing district seat Democrats might be able to flip as they attempt to win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2026. 

On Saturday in La Crosse and Viroqua, protesters asked about Van Orden responded with eye rolls, name calling and, in one case, a fart noise. While people who came out for the No Kings protests said they were excited for the chance to vote Van Orden out of office this fall, most said they had not yet made a decision about who to support in the district’s Democratic primary. 

In Viroqua, a community focused on art and organic food that has developed into a hippie outpost in the midst of bright red Vernon County, dozens of protesters packed the corners of the busy intersection at Main Street and Decker Street. A brass band played “This Land is Your Land” as  passers-by honked in support. 

Mark Larson, a 28-year U.S. Army veteran, said the large crowd at the Viroqua protest was a reflection of how the community feels about the president. 

“I’m optimistic the Republicans are going to be unseated, we’ll see some change,” he said. “We’ll have someone in Congress who will stand up and say no to the president. Van Orden is a disgrace.” 

Kim, a Viroqua resident who would only give her first name, moved to the area with her husband Bruce from rural Minnesota nearly three years ago to find a more inclusive place to live. 

“Being here is an antidote to despair,” she said of joining other rural residents who came out on a chilly spring morning to air their grievances with the federal government. 

Maggie Van Alstyne, a resident of nearby Westby who arrived at the protest with her face painted green and dressed as the Statue of Liberty, said she’s attended protests on all three No Kings days and feels like they’ve grown each time. 

“It’s awesome people are starting to not be afraid,” she said. “More people are for this cause than against.” 

Van Alstyne complained about the Trump administration reducing people’s freedoms while making things more expensive and lamented the effect Trump’s policies have had on farmers. She said Van Orden, who sits on the House agriculture committee, is a “blowhard” who only “talks from his barstool.” 

In the larger city of La Crosse, hundreds of people lined the streets up and down the intersection of Losey Boulevard and State Road. People flying flags and singing karaoke filled the empty parking lot of a shuttered K Mart store. The honking from supportive motorists was constant. 

Lindsay Fischer, a La Crosse resident originally from the Twin Cities area, said she’d been feeling “hopeless” about her inability to do anything about the Trump administration’s ICE operations in her home town. But the protest Saturday was a way for her to voice her support for her friends and family at home who had been directly involved in resisting federal efforts. 

“We will not let tyrants take over,” she said. 

La Crosse residents Joe and Sue Anglehart said they’d been to every No Kings protest in the community. 

“We need to support citizens’ right to freedom,” Sue said. “Our country is a mess.” 

— Henry Redman

In Dodgeville, defiant cheer, chants and music even when times ‘are more dire’

In the city of Dodgeville, a community of about 4,000 people an hour west of Madison, some 450 people showed up for a three-block march and a two-hour rally. 

There was music and chanting and a poem read by its author, one time Madison police chief turned Episcopal priest David Couper.

“The more noise we make the more we make our elected officials nervous. The more they cannot ignore us,” said rally emcee, Lex Liberatore.

It was Dodgeville’s third No Kings rally. Liberatore is a United Church of Christ pastor in nearby Platteville and a member of the Dodgeville Indivisible chapter. He has helped with the previous Dodgeville No Kings events, but it was his first time on the stage.

“I thought this was a lot more energy than the previous rallies,” he told the Examiner.

The rally itself had a defiantly cheerful tone. A series of folky music performers and bands performed, with playlists that included “Solidarity Forever” and the 1960s song “For What It’s Worth.”

Liberatore told the crowd that after the October 18 No Kings rally, organizers got feedback that they wanted fewer speakers, more music and chants.

His wife, Amy Liberatore, helped lead the chanting. “I never went to boot camp, but I saw ‘An Office and a Gentleman,’” she reassured the audience.

“I don’t know but here’s the thing,” she declared in military cadence count call-and-response style. “We did not elect a king!”

The chants included mockery of Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida resort and home. She namechecked ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her top aide, Cory Lewandowski; nodded to the Epstein files and some of those named in them, particularly Trump

Couper’s contribution was a poem he wrote, he said, in the middle of the night after the killing of Renee Good in Minneapolis. The confessional-style piece spoke of his years training police officers, the history of lynchings and slavery and the violence carried out in the immigration enforcement raids of the last year.

“God is nauseous. He spits us out. I feel the disgust for spiritual cowardice, for those who run from the winnowing fire, those who are neither hot nor cold, but spittle,” Couper read.

The nearly 10-minute long work concluded, “We will overcome this great evil. We will be the people we have always wanted to be. We will be heroes. Let this be true.”

Organizer Myra Enloe said that while the October rally in Dodgeville was nearly twice the size, some attendees had splintered off as surrounding communities  held separate rallies in their towns and villages.

Despite the cheerful atmosphere, “I think the circumstances are more dire,” Enloe told the Examiner after the event was over. “Now we’re at war. And we’ve seen the brutality of, the cruelty of, this administration more clearly.”

The  Indivisible chapter that organized Saturday’s rally in Dodgeville had its roots in Mineral Point, a  one-time mining town south of Dodgeville that is now  a center for artists and artisans.

“There were actually some young women in Mineral Point that invited me to a meeting back in November 24 after Trump won and said, ‘What do we do?’” Enloe recalled.

A retired nurse, Enloe and some friends knew about Indivisible and decided to form a Dodgeville chapter. 

For the first No Kings rally last June, 500 people showed up at the courthouse. “We had billed it as a rural day of defiance, and so I think people from around the whole area” turned out, Enloe said.

Now more groups are forming in surrounding communities such as Spring Green, Platteville, Darlington and Mount Horeb. “All have groups that are organizing and doing more to really raise our voices in defiance of what’s happening nationally,” she said.

The group helped organize a benefit concert at the Mineral Point Opera House to raise $3,000 for the Southwest Community Action Program to use in support of immigrants.

Members are also engaging in voter education.

 “The last election, in 2024, we had 87 million people that didn’t vote,” Enloe said. “So [we’re] trying to make sure that we educate the public about what their choices are in voting, and the importance of voting. And we need everybody to get out there and make their voices heard.”

— Erik Gunn

 

In Green Bay, protesters mourn Alex Pretti

No Kings protesters gathered at St. James Park in Green Bay and began their march on Saturday, with chants including “Minneapolis to Green Bay, immigrants are here to stay” and “up, up with liberation! Down, down with deportation!”

State Representative Amaad Rivera-Wagner (D-Green Bay) noted the city’s connection to Alex Pretti, a high school graduate from the area.

Protesters chanted during a march in the northeast Wisconsin city where Pretti graduated from Green Bay Preble High School long before he was killed by Border Patrol in a highly scrutinized shooting in Minnesota. 

Speakers identifying with organizations including Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the Green Bay Anti-war Committee and the Northeast Wisconsin Democratic Socialists of America, raised concerns on issues ranging from the Iran war to data centers.

“And if we’re serious about this struggle, then we don’t just protest, we organize our workplaces,” a speaker with the Wisconsin Labor Party said. “We don’t just march, we build connections in our neighborhoods at home. And we don’t just resist would-be kings, we replace their power with our own.”

— Andrew Kennard

Large crowds gather in two small communities of northwest Wisconsin

Two small communities in northwest Wisconsin – Spooner in Washburn County and Siren in Burnett County – had large No Kings protests on Saturday.

In both communities, many of the demonstrators were retired people, and several noted that they had participated in other protests against the Trump administration. A few even mentioned they had protested against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crackdown in Minneapolis this winter.

In Spooner, a city of 2,450, more than 300 people gathered at the intersection of Hwys. 63 and 70. A well-known retired WOJB radio morning host and Vietnam War Veteran, Eric Schubring, said he “was deeply troubled” by what he called a “very bad administration.” He was also troubled about the possibility of Trump deploying Marines to the Persian Gulf in the war against Iran.

Nancy Olson of Spooner said she was demonstrating because “the country is in bad shape and we have a president who acts like he has dementia, and he thinks he is above the law, and I’m against the war.”

Jesse Gronning of Shell Lake joined the Spooner crowd as a counter-protester, advocating for the Trump administration. He received some angry looks from others, but he was polite. He said that President Trump “is not a king, not a fascist and not a dictator” but was “operating under constitutional authority.”

Standing near Gronning were Jeff and Lydia Lewis of Minong, who offered a different perspective. “I am here because of the many outrageous (actions) Donald Trump has perpetrated on the American people. I am most angry about this war in Iran, particularly in light of his failure to support Ukraine,” said Lydia. Jeff said he had numerous reasons to be protesting and expressed a desire to see the full Epstein files.

With a sign hanging around her neck that said: “Fascism has arrived. Resist,” Jodi Harold of Sarona said she had participated in at least three other protests in the past and was out on Saturday because “this administration is doing everything wrong.”

In Siren, in a village of a few hundred, more than 200 people gathered for a protest along Hwys. 70 and 35.

Michael Summers held a cartoonish figure of Trump wearing a king’s crown being flushed down a toilet. Summers said he was inspired by so many people coming out in a small community.

A group of retired residents from Voyager Village joined the protest for a variety of reasons. “I’d like to get our democracy back,” said Susan. “I felt the need for some of us to show America that some of us want to preserve democracy,” said Patty.

Gary Thill of Webster was trying to engage passing drivers with a sign reading “Flip Me Off if You Voted for Pedophile.” He counted over 21 who gave him the finger. “I’m here today to voice my frustration with the administration and with all the corruption and with everything the current administration stands for,” said Thill.

— Frank Zufall

WASHINGTON — A host of celebrities outside the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Friday kicked off a weekend of protest against President Donald Trump’s expansion of executive power and his administration’s pressure on freedom of expression — from theater programming in the nation’s capital, to late-night television.

More than a dozen activist performers and creators rallied for Artists United for Our Freedoms, an event organized by the advocacy group Committee for the First Amendment. 

Anti-Vietnam War movement icons Jane Fonda and Joan Baez, actors Billy Porter and Sam Waterson, musicians Maggie Rogers, Crys Matthews and Kristy Lee, and authors Ann Patchett and Bess Kalb were among the lineup who delivered performances and speeches. 

The speakers focused on what they called Trump’s hostility to First Amendment principles, including his Federal Communications Commission pressuring stations to take late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s show off the air. The speakers also said the administration pressured CBS to take Stephen Colbert’s show off the air as a condition for approving a merger related to Paramount, CBS’ parent company. 

Under Trump, the Defense Department also booted reporters it considered unfriendly out of the Pentagon’s media workspace. And the administration is fighting The Associated Press in court over  White House access after the news organization declined to use Trump’s preferred Gulf of America name for the Gulf of Mexico. 

No Kings preview

The event came one day ahead of the third No Kings day, a nationwide protest movement that last drew millions of Americans to the streets in October to rally against a lengthy list of Trump’s actions since beginning his second term.

Fonda, one of the leading members of the Committee for the First Amendment, encouraged the crowd to attend Saturday’s demonstrations.

“Tomorrow we’re gonna see a great example of community building — the No Kings protests. Don’t just go, bring five people,” Fonda said.

The actor and activist revived the committee in late 2025 along with hundreds of artists. Her actor father, Henry Fonda, created the organization during the notorious “Red Scare” in the U.S. during the late 1940s and into 1950s. 

At the time, Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy led a campaign to smear actors, musicians and other public figures based on their political leanings, launching numerous false allegations of Communism.

At Thursday’s event, notable moments included Baez and Rogers performing Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’” and Porter delivering a dramatic reading of artist and athlete Paul Roberson’s 1956 testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

“It’s time to break your silence and stand tall against authoritarianism that is taking a hold and consolidating very fast. We know that when fear strikes, silence spreads, and we cannot let that happen,” Fonda said.

“While the war in Iran is not a focus of the Committee for the First Amendment, I want to say that the First Amendment suffers greatly in times of war as the government works to crush internal dissent,” Fonda added, alluding to the war Trump launched in conjunction with Israel just over one month ago.

Kennedy Center cuts

The two-time Academy Award winner also called out to Kennedy Center employees in the crowd who learned Friday of layoffs. The Washington Post first reported the cultural center shedding employees ahead of its two-year closure for renovations.

The legendary performing arts center, now bearing the name of Trump on its facade, will close for renovations on July 4, the president announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, in February. 

Trump installed himself as chair of the Kennedy Center board shortly after taking office again in 2025.

Country musician and Alabama native Kristy Lee told the crowd she withdrew from performing at the Kennedy Center.

“I’m not gonna lie, I was looking forward to the opportunity. But playing at that center after what happened would cost me my integrity, and that’s worth more than any paycheck,” Lee said.

Media mergers

Several speakers decried the administration’s support for massive media mergers, including between Paramount Global and Skydance Media, owned by David Ellison, son of billionaire Larry Ellison, Oracle CEO and a major Republican Party donor who worked with Trump to gain a large stake in TikTok.

Paramount-Skydance is now on track to take over Warner Bros. Discovery, which currently owns CNN and HBO.

“The Trump regime has sought to quash dissent and demonize the vulnerable, to consolidate the media into the hands of friendly oligarchs. These moves are right out of the authoritarian playbook,” said Jessica Gonzalez, co-CEO of Free Press, a media watchdog advocacy group.

Logan Keith, a No Kings day organizer and national communications coordinator for the advocacy group 50501, told the crowd “We show up, we speak out, we refuse to be silent.”

“We will gather in the millions in cities, towns large and small. … We will declare in one unified voice ‘America has no kings.’”

In response to the rally, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “President Trump is in the process of making the Trump-Kennedy Center the finest performing arts facility in the world for all Americans to enjoy. No one cares what Jane Fonda has to say. Her awful acting has traumatized people enough.”

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Small businesses that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs have been largely left to fend for themselves as they navigate the administration’s refund system.

In Washington, the lawmakers calling for small businesses to be first in line to receive their share of the $166 billion paid in tariffs say that, for the most part, their hands are tied.

“I’m fighting for that to happen, but most of it’s going to end up playing out in court, but it really matters to our small businesses in particular,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.

Baldwin said she met with the owners of a local textile company that laid off staff to afford tariffs on imported fabric — and now they wonder if they’ll get their money back.

In Wisconsin, importers paid $3.5 billion in tariffs from March to December 2025, according to the small business coalition We Pay The Tariffs. More than a dozen Wisconsin companies, including Milwaukee Tool and Kohl’s, have sued the Trump administration for tariff refunds.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is currently updating its duty payment processing system to issue refunds at scale. Officials must review more than 53 million entries filed by importers that include emergency tariff payments.

The development of the CBP system’s new functions to receive, process and refund these duties was mostly complete as of last week, according to court filings.

Once the process is set, it becomes a question of who has the resources and know-how to navigate CBP’s refund system. The Trump administration is requiring business owners to file their own claims.

CBP’s updated system will require importers to file a declaration detailing their payments of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, according to an affidavit filed in trade court earlier this month.

“It’s incumbent on smaller importers to do what they need to do to get their money,” said Chris Duncan, a former CBP attorney who currently works as a tariffs and customs lawyer.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, said that puts small businesses at a disadvantage.

“Small businesses do not have teams of legal and financial experts to submit their forms. Small businesses do not have the time to navigate this convoluted system,” Markey said in a call with business owners last week. “Small businesses need their refunds, and they need them now.”

Markey and 19 other Democratic senators sent a letter to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott on Friday demanding the agency automatically refund IEEPA tariffs through its existing system rather than the updated one.

“There is no principled reason for the Trump administration to conduct the refund process this way,” reads the letter, reviewed by NOTUS. “CBP already has the payment records it needs to issue refunds.”

Markey — along with Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeanne Shaheen — also introduced a bill that would require CBP to issue full tariff refunds with interest and prioritize returning money to small businesses.

Without buy-in from Republicans, however, Democratic senators say it will be up to the local communities to pressure the federal government.

“What is going to be most helpful is to create enough pressure in communities, particularly small communities,” Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said.

Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat who represents the Madison area, expressed concern about the “dysfunction” that could arise from companies trying to navigate the intricacies of the CBP’s refund system and answer to consumers who shouldered price increases.

“Bottom line is, we never should have done illegal tariffs to begin with. Congress should have stood up, as Democrats had asked for, for our constitutional authority around tariffs, and now we’re going to wind up creating all kinds of dysfunction for businesses and individuals,” Pocan said.

Following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down his emergency tariffs in February, Trump said he would continue his tariff agenda using alternative legal authorities and imposed a 15% global tariff, which Congress must vote to extend later this year.

Trump allies in Congress say the president’s tariffs, which are unpopular among voters, are short-term pain for the long-term gain of balancing the U.S.’s trade relationships and attracting foreign investment.

Nevertheless, when asked if tariff refunds should be passed on to consumers, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican who represents suburban and rural areas west of Milwaukee, expressed openness to the idea.

“If it’s something that they could actually draw, like a clear line or a bright line. You know, we had a lot of companies where the tariffs had a direct effect on aluminum out of Canada or textiles out of Vietnam, or — you know, it was all part of the manufacturing process,” Fitzgerald said.

“So I’m not sure how that would shake out either, if it was one element of a larger manufacturing versus, like, a straight retailer who was selling some type of consumer goods.”

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Lawmakers are worried small businesses will get left behind in Trump’s tariff refund system 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.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will sign an order allowing the Department of Homeland Security to pay airport security workers who have gone without a full paycheck since the shutdown began in mid-February. 

The order for Transportation Security Administration workers does not appear to include pay for other federal employees working for DHS, including those at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Secret Service. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection have largely been insulated from the DHS shutdown since Republicans approved tens of billions in additional funding for those two agencies in last year’s “big, beautiful” law. 

“It is not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it! I want to thank our hardworking TSA Agents and also, ICE, for the incredible help they have given us at the Airports,” Trump wrote on social media. “I will not allow the Radical Left Democrats to hold our Country hostage any longer.”

Trump’s decision will give both chambers of Congress, which are controlled by Republicans, a bit of cover to leave for their two-week spring break without actually reaching bipartisan compromise to fund DHS. 

Democrats have held up the department’s funding bill in the Senate to demand new constraints on federal immigration actions after officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota in January. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said shortly after Trump’s announcement that his decision “takes the immediate pressure off” lawmakers to make a deal, but that it’s a “short-term solution.”

Thune said “we’ll see” when asked if negotiations over the DHS funding bill would continue. 

“I’ll have more to say about that here soon,” he said. “But we obviously are going to try and fund as much of the DHS budget as we possibly can.”

Thune hadn’t provided an update as of 10 p.m. Eastern as senators struggled to find a path forward. 

Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said earlier in the evening that talks over funding the department continued with Republicans. 

“There’s an active negotiation going on. I hope they don’t unilaterally decide to walk away. But that’s their decision,” he said. “They ultimately take orders from a higher power.”

Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said around the same time “it’s just not true that we’re not in a negotiation.”

“It may be that one person or the other has lost patience and that would be too bad,” he said. “But we’re still talking.”

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said Trump made the right decision to choose to pay TSA agents as the shutdown drags on. 

“I just got off the phone with the president,” he said. “The president is doing absolutely the right thing. He’s showing leadership.”

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., released a statement saying the administration needs to explain to Congress what funding it plans to divert to pay TSA workers and why it didn’t take the step sooner. 

“If the White House believes they have the authority to pay these workers, then every day for the past 41 days, they have been making a conscious decision not to pay them,” she said. “As the lines got longer, as workers called out, as agents quit or got second jobs, they chose again and again not to pay these workers.”

A senior administration official said the administration plans to use money from Republicans’ signature tax and spending package that was enacted last summer. 

Union reaction

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement that while the union is “grateful” that TSA employees will be paid, lawmakers need to find a deal to fully fund the entire department. 

“These workers and their families cannot wait,” he said. “All DHS workers must be paid immediately.

“Congress needs to continue working to pass a real, bipartisan appropriations deal that funds DHS, pays all DHS workers, and keeps these vital agencies running — even if that means canceling their upcoming vacation.”