Ford, GM, and Stellantis stand to save billions under Trump’s emissions rollback.
On the other hand, Tesla could lose more than $1 billion annually in credit revenue.
EPA’s mission to protect health and the environment clashes with its current stance.
The automotive industry never stops changing, but 2025 has been unlike most as Donald Trump’s policies have changed the way automakers are doing business. The elimination of federal tax credits for electric vehicles is a major move on its own. Paired with the removal of penalties for missing fuel economy targets under CAFE regulations, the result is a playing field with entirely new rules.
The immediate winners are the combustion-heavy brands that can now focus on selling trucks and SUVs without financial punishment. On the other side, Tesla, Rivian, and other EV specialists stand to lose billions, not because demand for their cars will collapse, but because a critical source of revenue has been pulled out from under them. At the center of the storm is an Environmental Protection Agency that appears to be working against the mission printed on its own website.
Cash Flow Reversal
Since 2022, GM has spent some $3.5 billion buying regulatory credits, says Bloomberg. Ford and Stellantis have spent billions as well. That cash went to brands like Tesla and Rivian, which had plenty of credits to sell since their cars emit zero emissions. With the end of EV tax credits and CAFE fines for breaking regulations, Ford, GM and Stellantis can pour the money they would’ve spent on credits back into their own piggy bank.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said the policy shift has the “potential to unlock a multibillion-dollar opportunity,” noting that the Blue Oval is already retooling its Oakville, Ontario, plant to build Super Duty pickups instead of EVs.
GM is also cutting back on EV production, opting to overhaul factories for gasoline-fueled models. Stellantis, meanwhile, has gone so far as to revive the thirsty Hemi V8 engine, something previously thought dead in the age of electrification. With all of these changes, death might now be coming for some EV brands.
Trouble Ahead For EV Startups
Not only does the end of tax credits make purchasing an EV less palatable for many, but it also means that brands which used to benefit from selling tax credits now need to readjust to the new reality. Smaller brands, though, might be in big trouble. For example, Slate’s trucklet looks almost pointless with a starting price near $30,000 as the EV tax credit was vital to its success.
Even larger brands like Tesla and Rivian have leaned on the pure profit they’ve gained by selling regulatory credits. That money likely won’t be coming back anytime soon and that’s because the EPA seems willing to do just about anything the Trump Administration deems reasonable.
A Mission Ignored
It states plainly that its mission is “to protect human health and the environment.” Love them or hate them, electric vehicles are probably better at that than combustion cars. In fact, the EPA itself has an entire page dedicated to debunking the myths so many like to perpetuate surrounding them.
Things like “EVs are worse for the climate than gas cars,” “EVs are unreliable,” and “EVs will collapse the power grid.” Furthermore, J.D. Power is one of many sources that indicate that when all costs are considered, EVs are cheaper to buy, maintain, and own long-term when compared to combustion cars.
No one argues that people should be forced into one type of car. Choice matters. The government shouldn’t force anyone into a specific car or truck. But supporting policies that improve human health and the environment is what the EPA literally says it’s supposed to do.
By supporting Trump’s rollback of strict fuel economy standards and regulations, the agency is doing the exact opposite of its own mission statement. It’s clearing the way for automakers to build more polluting vehicles, burn more fuel, and erase billions in total consumer savings. If the EPA won’t uphold its own mission, it seems that nobody will.
Flooding in Wauwatosa after the August 2025 storm. (Photo courtesy of Erol Reyal)
President Donald Trump confirmed Thursday that Wisconsin will get $29.8 million in federal relief funding to support flood damage victims.
Massive storms brought record-breaking flooding in southeast Wisconsin about a month ago. Preliminary damage assessments conducted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Wisconsin Emergency Management had suggested that over 1,500 residential structures were destroyed or sustained major damage and total damage costs estimated at over $33 million across three counties. Damage reports had also indicated over $43 million in public sector damage throughout six counties.
Gov. Tony Evers had officially requested a Presidential Disaster Declaration and FEMA funding during the last week of August. His request included access to FEMA’s Individual Assistance and Public Assistance for Milwaukee, Washington and Waukesha counties, which could help residents get reimbursements for costs from flood damage.
“We had Huge Victories in Wisconsin in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and it is my Honor to deliver BIG for Wisconsinites!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post about approving the FEMA funding.
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson wrote in a post on X that Trump called him to deliver the news of the approval.
“Thank you to President Trump for continuing to deliver BIG TIME for Wisconsinites,” Johnson said. He also thanked U.S. Reps. Bryan Steil and Scott Fitzgerald for helping to lead the push for the assistance.
U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore had also called for the funding.
“It’s been more than a month since disaster hit Wisconsin, and families are hurting. I have been fighting for these funds because Wisconsinites need help and they need it now,” Baldwin said in a statement. “I’ll continue to closely monitor to make sure Wisconsin gets everything we need to be on the road to recovery and the whole-of-government recovery effort does right by all Wisconsinites.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a Sept. 11th observance event in the courtyard of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2025, the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump honored slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk as he remembered the victims of Sept. 11 during a ceremony Thursday in Virginia, and announced he would posthumously award the popular figure the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Kirk, the late co-founder and head of the political advocacy organization Turning Point USA, was fatally shot Wednesday while speaking on a college campus in Utah.
Trump described the attack as a “heinous assassination” and told a crowd gathered at the Pentagon that Kirk, 31, was “a giant of his generation, a champion of liberty and an inspiration to millions and millions of people.”
“We miss him greatly. Yet I have no doubt that Charlie’s voice and the courage he put into the hearts of countless people, especially young people, will live on,” Trump said.
Trump said the ceremony to posthumously award Kirk the highest civilian honor has not yet been scheduled but that he expects “a very big crowd.”
In recalling the deadliest attack on the United States, Trump said the “entire world came crashing down” for loved ones of the 2,977 victims.
“In the quarter of a century since those acts of mass murder, 9/11 family members have felt the weight of missed birthdays and empty bedrooms, journals left unfinished and dreams left unfulfilled,” Trump said. “To every member that still feels a void every day of your lives, the First Lady and I unite with you in sorrow and today, as one nation, we renew our sacred vow that we will never forget September 11, 2001.”
The president delivered remarks following Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who praised Kirk as a “good and faithful servant.”
Hegseth said when faced with the tragic memory of 9/11 he finds hope in the “future of our great nation,” and invoked Kirk.
“The young soldiers who take the oath give me hope. The young cops who wear the badge give me hope. The young firefighters who answer the call give me hope. The young agents who patrol our border give me hope. The life, example, and even death of Christ-follower and American patriot Charlie Kirk give me hope, sheer courage, no matter the arena,” Hegseth said.
Vance in Utah
Vice President JD Vance, who had been scheduled to attend the 24th observance of 9/11 at Ground Zero in New York City, changed his travel plans to visit with Kirk’s family in Utah and fly with his casket to Arizona on Air Force Two, according to multiplemediareports.
Trump did not cancel a scheduled visit to a New York Yankees game Thursday night as part of a 9/11 commemoration.
Vance issued a lengthy statement on social media Wednesday night sharing the story of his friendship with Kirk, including an acknowledgement they were both skeptical of Trump in 2016 before joining the president’s political agenda.
“So much of the success we’ve had in this administration traces directly to Charlie’s ability to organize and convene. He didn’t just help us win in 2024, he helped us staff the entire government,” Vance wrote.
Kirk’s advocacy organization worked with Trump’s 2024 campaign to mobilize young voters in the November election.
On Wednesday, Kirk was on the first of a 15-stop “American Comeback Tour” that was scheduled next week for events at Colorado State University.
The zealous political figure was known for his outreach and events on college campuses. According to Turning Point USA, the organization has started over 1,000 chapters in high schools and 800 on college campuses across the U.S.
Political violence
Kirk’s killing is the latest in a string of politically motivated violence in recent years.
A man fatally shot former Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, and her husband in June. The alleged gunman, Vance Boelter, also shot and injured Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife. Boelter had in his possession several weapons and a list of several Minnesota and federal lawmakers, including some of their home addresses, according to authorities.
During last year’s presidential campaign, a 20-year-old gunman attempted to assassinate Trump during an event in Pennsylvania. Just over two months later, another man attempted to shoot Trump at his golf course in Florida.
In 2022, a man wielding a hammer and zip ties broke into then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s home and fractured the skull of Paul Pelosi, the Democratic leader’s husband.
On Jan. 6, 2021, thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. At least seven people died during or shortly after the attack and approximately 140 police officers were injured by the rioters.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell administers the oath of office to Lisa Cook to serve as a member of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve System during a ceremony at the William McChesney Martin Jr. Building of the Federal Reserve May 23, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration made public Wednesday its plans to appeal a lower court ruling that keeps Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook on the independent central bank’s board, for now.
In a 49-page opinion released late Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb wrote that President Donald Trump “violated the Federal Reserve Act because (Cook’s) purported removal did not comply with the statute’s ‘for cause’ requirement” and that his attempts to remove Cook from the board “deprived her of procedural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”
Trump said in late August that he wanted to remove Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, alleging she falsified some information in a mortgage application.
Cook’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court a few days later, arguing that Trump’s attempts were political and violated her due process rights.
Trump’s targeting of Cook comes amid his pressure campaign on Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates.
Trump, who has been angling for more influence over the central bank, swiftly nominated his adviser Stephen Miran to fill a separate vacancy on the board ahead of the Fed’s meeting next week where members are widely expected to lower rates.
U.S. Senate Republicans advanced Miran’s nomination out of committee Wednesday morning. Miran is the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Ruling seen as affirming Fed independence
Cobb said the case marks the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 111-year history that a president has sought to remove one of its members “for cause.”
The Federal Reserve Act doesn’t actually define what “for cause” entails, but Cobb wrote that reasons for firing under the law “are limited to grounds concerning an official’s behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing statutory duties.
“The ‘for cause’ standard thus does not contemplate removing an individual purely for conduct that occurred before they assumed the position.”
Cook’s attorney’s Abbe David Lowell, of Lowell and Associates, and Norm Eisen, head of the advocacy organization Democracy Defenders Fund, hailed the district court injunction.
“The court’s ruling recognizes and reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Federal Reserve from illegal political interference,” Lowell and Eisen said in a statement Wednesday morning.
“Allowing the president to unlawfully remove Governor Cook on unsubstantiated and vague allegations would endanger the stability of our financial system and undermine the rule of law. Governor Cook will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor member.”
Judge Cobb agreed with their assessment that the president seeking to remove Cook represented irreparable harm and that “the public interest in Federal Reserve independence weighs in favor of Cook’s reinstatement.”
Cobb wrote that she “likely cannot directly ‘enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties’ to require him to reappoint Cook.” So she instead issued a preliminary injunction directing Powell “and the Board of Governors to allow Cook to continue to operate as a member of the Board for the pendency of this litigation.”
Attorneys for the Trump administration notified the district court they plan to appeal Cobb’s preliminary injunction to the the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley launched his campaign for governor Tuesday morning, saying that his story is “Wisconsin’s story” and he wants to work to address the “affordability crisis” that many Wisconsinites are facing.
Crowley had already said he was planning to enter the race just a day after Gov. Tony Evers announced he wouldn’t be running for a third term in 2026. Evers’ decision not to run has created the first open race for governor in 16 years.
In a campaign ad, Crowley, 39, highlighted his difficulties in his childhood and his journey to becoming the youngest and first Black person to serve as Milwaukee county executive.
“I didn’t grow up in the halls of power. I grew up here and here and here,” Crowley said as photos of his previous homes flashed on screen, “Evicted three times as a kid, having to pick up yourself and everything you own off the curb, it’ll break you or it’ll make you.”
The field for the Democratic primary is still shaping up. Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez was the first to launch her campaign, following Evers’ announcement. State Sen. Kelda Roys (D-Madison) has also said she is “very likely” to enter the race. Others considering joining the fray include former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, Attorney General Josh Kaul and state Rep. Francesca Hong (D-Madison).
The primary election is just under a year away.
Crowley said in an interview that Evers has served as a “great, steady, calm strength” that the state has needed over the last decade and he “knew that we were going to need some experienced executive leadership to take over” and someone “who’s going to fight for Wisconsinites all across this state.”
Crowley was elected to be Milwaukee County executive in 2020. He highlighted the fact that he has managed the state’s largest county, including its $1.4 billion budget, guiding it through the COVID-19 pandemic.
Crowley also represented Milwaukee in the state Assembly from 2017 to June of 2020.
“I didn’t want any child to go through that,” he said of his struggles with poverty and eviction in his early life, “so I became a community organizer. I went on to serve in the state Assembly, where I saw what happens when extremists had total control, and I’d had enough,” Crowley says in a new campaign ad. “At 33, I returned home elected to lead the largest county in Wisconsin, helping create thousands of new jobs, cutting our carbon emissions in half, balancing the budget, all while delivering the largest property tax cut in our history and convincing Madison to return more money right back to every local community across the state. But the progress we’ve made isn’t nearly enough.”
Crowley told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview that his experience in the Legislature combined with his executive experience set himself apart from other potential candidates. He said he knew on Day One he “would hit the ground running to be able to move our entire state forward.”
Crowley will have to run and win statewide, something he hasn’t done before, before he can accomplish that.
Asked about challenges Democrats could face in competing statewide in 2026, Crowley said it’s important to recognize people’s frustrations with the Democratic party, especially nationally. He said he has shared the frustrations.
“We haven’t had a cohesive national message that we could get around that would help energize our base and get folks out,” Crowley said.
Crowley noted that his experience isn’t just with the city of Milwaukee — the county itself is made up of 19 municipalities with varying needs.
‘When we talk about the issues that we have focused on — balancing the budget, being able to cut taxes, tackling the opioid epidemic, expanding access to mental health services — these aren’t partisan issues. These aren’t rural or suburban or urban issues. These are issues that are affecting every community,” Crowley said. “My goal is to go and talk to all communities, to let them know that I’m not only willing to listen but am willing to allow those voices on the ground, at the grassroots level, to be able to be part of the solution.”
Crowley said that he has helped deliver for communities outside of Milwaukee County. He takes credit for leading on Act 12, a 2023 bipartisan law that overhauled local government funding in Wisconsin, boosting state payments for communities across the state and provided Milwaukee with the ability to raise its sales tax.
Crowley said that Act 12 was “definitely historic in nature” — providing funding that communities were able to invest in fire and safety, roads, infrastructure and public services — and gave Milwaukee County and other communities a “bit of reprieve,” but it “didn’t fix all our problems.”
“We’ve had a Republican-controlled Legislature for the better of more than 15 years, and so [Evers has] had to work across the aisle, and this is what divided government looks like,” Crowley said when asked if he would’ve done anything different in recent budget negotiations, which left many Democrats dissatisfied. “It’s not the sexiest or the prettiest, but it means that you have to find compromises… I want to make sure that we continue to do what’s right, but also know that there’s more that we can do for working families.”
Crowley said that’s why it’s important that Democrats pick up seats in the state Legislature in 2026 in addition to keeping control of the governor’s office. Democrats are two seats away from flipping the Senate and five seats away from flipping the Assembly. To do so, Crowley said they cannot “continue to defend the status quo.”
“We have to look forward. We have to talk about the new vision of what Wisconsin needs to look like,” Crowley said. “What fully funded public schools really means? What does it mean to support families who are in need of child care across this state, and making sure that they have access not to just affordable housing, but we need attainable housing that is available for folks at all different income levels.”
Crowley said these issues are all at the root of helping address the “affordability crisis.”
“People are getting less even if they are making more money, and they need a little bit of relief,” Crowley said. “They’re struggling — trying to figure out how they’re going to put food on the table, how they’re going to keep up with rent or their mortgage, and I know exactly what that’s like. I had two loving parents, who had their own issues and struggled to put food on the table.”
On education, Crowley noted that Wisconsin used to provide about two-thirds of the funding that school districts needed.
“We at least need to revisit that and figure out how we can get back to that level,” Crowley said.
Child care was one of Evers’ top issues during the most recent state budget negotiations and he secured $110 million in state funding for direct payments to child care providers. That program will sunset in June 2026.
Asked whether he would take a similar approach to funding for child care centers, Crowley said that the state should “look at the public-private partnerships when it comes down to funding anything and everything.”
“As it relates to the services that we’ve provided in Milwaukee County, we can have limited resources, but based off of the partnerships that we have created, we’ve been able to move the needle on many of the programs and services that we offer,” Crowley said. “How do we bring the child care providers into the fold and help them come up with ideas that we need in order to fund them, and I do think that businesses can play a role.”
On affordable housing, Crowley said that the state needs to work to cut down on bureaucracy and “red tape”.
“There’s a lot of bureaucracy, even if the state wanted to invest in both affordable and attainable housing. You have to wait for local approval, and I think both sides of the aisle understand that we can’t wait for the bureaucrats, and we need to cut the red tape with a type of housing that communities are looking for.”
Crowley added that “what works in Milwaukee may not work in La Crosse, may not work in Wausau, may not work in Green Bay” and that he wants to ensure that the state is listening to people in their communities about what is best.
Crowley added that there’s “going to be time for us to talk about specific policies,” but he is planning on using “the next couple of weeks, next couple of months, to hear directly from those who are impacted and see what solutions they want to see brought to the table.”
Crowley added that it would take working with the Legislature to get these things done.
“I absolutely think that one of the things that we have lost in politics is the art of compromise,” Crowley said. “Now, compromising means that you’re finding ways to bring results, and that’s what voters care about. They care about the results, not necessarily the process, but compromising doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re giving up our values to get to a place.”
Crowley said he would commit to having office hours to work with legislators and hear their ideas “no matter what side of the aisle or what letter is behind their name.” He said this type of communication also needs to extend to every community across the state.
“The issues affecting communities — there isn’t a cookie cutter solution to them, and there’s no one size fits all solution to the issues that are affecting all of our communities,” Crowley said.
In his campaign video, Crowley also took aim at President Donald Trump.
“With costs shooting up, we’re all getting less, even if you’re making more. And Donald Trump’s chaos and cruelty means that the Wisconsin that we cherish will perish unless we unite and fight back,” Crowley said.
Trump will likely be a major factor in the race for governor in Wisconsin, especially in the Republican primary where the field is also still taking shape, but all of the candidates who have announced so far have closely aligned themselves with Trump.
Crowley said he doesn’t doubt Trump and other national Republican groups will try to “put their thumb on the scale for their particular candidate.”
“We’re going to run a tight grassroots campaign crisscrossing to every community across this state, letting them know my vision, and I want folks to know whether you’re Democrat, Independent or Republican, there’s a place in this campaign for you, because I’m looking to be the governor for all of us,” Crowley said.
On the Republican side, Whitefish Bay manufacturer Bill Berrien and Washington Co. Executive Josh Schoemann have officially launched their campaigns. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has spoken to President Donald Trump about running according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, has said he plans to announce a decision by the end of the month.
In a statement, Berrien called Crowley’s campaign launch “another career politician” jumping into the race.
“After years of failed leadership from bureaucrats like David Crowley and Tony Evers, Wisconsinites are ready for a builder to take the reins and lead our state to a bright and prosperous future,” Berrien said. “It doesn’t matter who the Democrats nominate — I plan to beat them.”
Crowley said he isn’t worried about “which Republican” he faces in a general election.
“My fear is any Republican who has the potential of winning this race, and that’s why I’m entering this race now, because we have to unify our party. We have to bring new voices to the table. We have to bring independents back into the fold and build a broad coalition that’s not only going to help me become the next governor, but that’s going to help us win the Senate and the Assembly moving forward.”
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can temporarily hold on to $4 billion in foreign aid funding approved by Congress, overturning a lower court’s order and continuing a struggle over who controls the nation’s purse strings.
The one-page ruling from the emergency docket, signed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., came just one day after the administration appealed the lower court’s ruling.
While the original lawsuit over withheld foreign aid began in February and stemmed from an executive order, the Trump administration sent Congress a rescissions request covering some of the spending in late August.
The proposal is part of the formal process laid out in a 1974 law that allows the president to ask lawmakers to cancel previously approved spending.
Congress typically has 45 days to approve, modify, or disagree with a rescissions request. During that time the president can legally freeze the funding and only has to spend it if lawmakers don’t approve the plan.
This particular rescission request, however, was sent to lawmakers within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, creating a dispute that complicated the nature of the original lawsuit.
That maneuver, sometimes called a pocket rescission, is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and several members of Congress, though White House budget director Russ Vought believes it’s within the bounds of the law.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Trump administration’s appeal that the federal district court’s order to spend the funding “requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself.”
“Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients,” he added.
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday doesn’t address whether the justices agree with the administration that it can refuse to spend the billions in foreign aid since it sent the rescissions request close to the end of the fiscal year.
Roberts wrote “that the September 3, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-400 and 1:25-cv-402, is hereby partially stayed for funds that are subject to the President’s August 28, 2025 recission proposal currently pending before Congress pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Friday, September 12th, 2025, by 4 p.m. (EDT).”
National Guard troops, like those President Donald Trump is using to crack down on big-city crime, generally are not trained in law enforcement.
Trump sent National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in August as a crackdown. The Milwaukee police union president said he might ask Trump to send troops to Milwaukee.
D.C. police get 21 modules of criminal procedure training, and Guard members get none, an analysis found.
The Guard’s primary law enforcement training is crowd control, said the analysis’ co-author, Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
U.S. Naval War College professor Lindsay Cohn, a civil-military relations expert, said most Guard members are not trained in law enforcement, but some are spot-trained.
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, head of the Wisconsin National Guard, said Guard members are the “wrong people” to fight crime because they’re not trained police officers.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 29, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s ruling and allow it to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid that was previously approved by Congress.
The case is one of many lawsuits challenging the White House’s efforts to supersede Congress’ spending authority by canceling funding without lawmakers’ explicit approval.
This particular case became more complicated in late August when the Trump administration sent Congress a rescission request, asking lawmakers to cancel billions in foreign aid, including some of the funding subject to this lawsuit.
This “pocket rescission,” as it’s sometimes called, came within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year. Under the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law, they believe that allows them to cancel the funding even if Congress refuses to go along with the proposal.
The move is considered illegal by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and evoked ire from senior lawmakers, including Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine.
“Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse,” Collins wrote in a statement. “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”
Administration sees executive branch ‘at war with itself’
The appeal to the Supreme Court filed Monday urges the justices to let the legislative and executive branches figure out the spending dispute on their own and criticizes a federal district court for ordering the Trump administration to spend the money.
“The injunction requires the Executive Branch to rush to obligate the same $4 billion that the President has just proposed rescinding between now and September 30, and thus puts the Executive Branch at war with itself,” wrote Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Just as the President is pressing for rescission and explaining to Congress that obligating these funds would harm U.S. foreign policy interests, his subordinates are being forced to proceed to identify and even negotiate with potential recipients.”
The pocket rescissions request at the center of this case is separate from the one Trump sent Congress in early June that asked members to eliminate funding for numerous foreign aid accounts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Lawmakers approved that proposal in July after preserving full funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.
Congress has yet to act on the second rescissions request as its leaders look for ways to fund the government ahead of an Oct. 1 shutdown deadline.
Attorneys for the organizations that brought the lawsuit — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council — wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court submitted Monday that they opposed the Trump administration’s request to overturn the lower court’s preliminary injunction.
“USAID and the State Department have been under a duty to obligate these funds since at least March 2024, when Congress enacted the appropriations; they chose not to act sooner,” they wrote. “The government faces no cognizable harm from having to take steps to comply with the law for the short period while this Court considers its stay application.”
U.S. President Donald Trump stands with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon after signing an executive order to reduce the size and scope of the Education Department during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on March 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. The order instructs McMahon to shrink the department, which cannot be dissolved without congressional approval. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s aim to shutter the Education Department faces steep hurdles in Congress, where Republicans’ legislative efforts to abolish the agency remain stalled and appropriators have rejected many of his proposed cuts to education spending.
After campaigning last year on a pledge to shut down the department, Trump came into office promising to follow through, and made some preliminary moves.
He said he wanted Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “put herself out of a job” and signed a sweeping executive order in March calling on her to facilitate the closure of the Education Department to the extent she is permitted to by law.
He won a key victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in July that temporarily cleared the way for the administration to move ahead with mass layoffs at the agency, a plan to dramatically downsize the department outlined in that March executive order and his directive to transfer certain services to other agencies.
Court documents show that the department is planning to bring back more than 260 Office for Civil Rights staff affected by those sweeping layoffs stemming from a separate legal challenge against the administration’s actions earlier this year.
But after a dizzying array of cuts and changes in the months since Trump took office looking to dismantle the agency, the GOP-controlled Congress — the only body that can abolish the 45-year-old department it created — is throwing up roadblocks to elimination.
Bills stalled
For starters, the handful of GOP bills in Congress to close down the department face a difficult path in the Senate, which requires at least 60 senators to advance most legislation.
Republicans hold just 53 Senate seats.
In the House, at least four Republicans — Thomas Massie of Kentucky, David Rouzer of North Carolina, Barry Moore of Alabama and Nathaniel Moran of Texas — have introduced bills this year to eliminate the department. Those bills were referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, which has not voted on any of them.
In a brief interview at the Capitol on Sept. 3, the committee’s chair, Michigan Republican Tim Walberg, said he still intended to eventually dismantle the agency, but had not committed to any particular bill.
“Our intentions are to ultimately dissolve the Department of Education — we know we have to do that in a way that makes sense and so, we’ll take a look at all bills,” Walberg told States Newsroom.
“I can’t say whether they will all come up or not, but we know that, working with the secretary of Education, we’re going to right-size it, and some things we’ll eliminate, other things we’ll shift, as we’ve done already, over to the Department of Labor to take on some workforce areas,” the Michigan Republican said.
The chair acknowledged that there would not be enough votes in the Senate to abolish the agency.
“So what we can do that seems right for our students, for our parents and for our teachers, we’ll do,” Walberg said.
GOP efforts to dismantle the department are also underway in the Senate.
Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, alongside Sens. Jim Banks of Indiana and Tim Sheehy of Montana, reintroduced a measure in April to abolish the agency.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul also reintroduced a bill in March with Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Bernie Moreno of Ohio to shutter the department. The measure is a companion bill to Massie’s legislation.
A spokesperson for Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said the Louisiana Republican is “working with the administration and colleagues on how Congress can best codify the President’s reforms into law,” in a statement to States Newsroom.
The spokesperson noted that “President Trump and Republicans are committed to returning education authority to local communities best equipped to meet the needs of students and families.”
Senate rebuffs Trump spending cuts
The administration’s attempts to dramatically scale back funding for the department in fiscal 2026 have not been met with much enthusiasm by appropriators in the Senate.
The House and Senate Appropriations committees share jurisdiction over the bill to fund the department for the coming fiscal year.
The Senate committee advanced a bipartisan bill in July, which largely rejects Trump’s proposed cuts to education spending and his attempt to dismantle the department.
The bill tightens requirements for the department to have the necessary staffing levels to fulfill its statutory responsibilities and prevents the agency from transferring certain programs to other federal agencies.
The legislation also allocates $79 billion in discretionary funding for the coming fiscal year, roughly the same as the current level, which could be seen as a slap in the face to the administration’s budget request that called for $12 billion in spending cuts at the agency.
House includes deep cuts but keeps Pell spending
Meanwhile, the House Appropriations subcommittee dealing with education spending advanced its spending proposal for the agency on Sept. 2, sending the bill to the broader panel.
The bill aligns much more with the administration’s spending cut priorities and education agenda, calling for $67 billion in discretionary funding at the department.
Part of the bill also reduces funding for Title I grants — which support school districts with high percentages of students who come from low-income families — by $5.2 billion, according to a summary from committee Republicans.
The majority notes that “despite outsized investment, America’s public schools continue to fail children and families.”
But spending proposals in both the House and Senate reject the administration’s request to significantly reduce the maximum award for the Pell Grant, a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college.
Instead, each proposal maintains the maximum award at $7,395.
House and Senate appropriators have several steps to go before they can even reach the negotiating phase on the bill — which also includes spending on other agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services — and get it closer to becoming law.
It’s possible there might not even be a final agreement for months as lawmakers struggle to come to an overall agreement on how much to spend in the coming fiscal year, but the Senate’s bipartisan plan might give that chamber more of an advantage if those negotiations take place.
An aerial of the the Pentagon, May 12, 2021. (Photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brittany A. Chase)
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War.
Just before Trump signed the order in the Oval Office late Friday afternoon, he and Pete Hegseth, the secretary in charge of the department, who stood next to Trump during the signing, said the renaming reflected their intention to return to a more aggressive mindset for the military.
“It’s restoring, as you’ve guided us to, Mr. President, restoring the warrior ethos,” Hegseth said. “The War Department is going to fight decisively, not endless conflicts. It’s going to fight to win, not not to lose. We’re going to go on offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality. Violent effect, not politically correct. We’re going to raise up warriors, not just defenders.”
The text of the order calls “Secretary of War” a “secondary” title for Hegseth. “The Secretary of Defense is authorized the use of this additional secondary title — the Secretary of War — and may be recognized by that title in official correspondence, public communications, ceremonial contexts, and non-statutory documents within the executive branch,” reads the order.
Defense Department history
The Department of War and the Department of the Navy were Cabinet departments from the nation’s founding until 1947, when Congress combined them, along with the Department of the Air Force, into a new National Military Establishment. Congress changed that name to the Defense Department two years later.
Trump said Friday that renaming 76 years ago revealed a “political correctness” in the military that contributed to poorer results on the battlefield. The U.S. has not won a major war since the reorganization, he said.
“We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct or wokey, and we just fight forever and then, we wouldn’t lose, really, we just fight to sort of tie,” he said. “We never wanted to win wars that every one of them we would have won easily with just a couple of little changes or a couple of little edicts.”
Congress to be asked to act
Because the department’s name came from an act of Congress, it’s unclear if Trump has the power to rename it with an executive order.
The president said Friday he didn’t know if it would be necessary for Congress to be involved, but that he would ask lawmakers to approve the change.
“I don’t know, but we’re going to find out,” he said when asked if Congress would codify the renaming. “But I’m not sure they have to … There’s a question as to whether or not they have to, but we’ll put it before Congress.”
Trump added that the cost of replacing signage and other materials associated with the department would be minimal.
The order says: “Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, a recommendation on the actions required to permanently change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War. This recommendation shall include the proposed legislative and executive actions necessary to accomplish this renaming.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the chair of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the department who has often clashed with Trump, including on defense spending, said on social media that the name change was not meaningful without greater financial investment.
“If we call it the Dept. of War, we’d better equip the military to actually prevent and win wars,” the former Senate Republican leader wrote. “Can’t preserve American primacy if we’re unwilling to spend substantially more on our military than Carter or Biden. ‘Peace through strength’ requires investment, not just rebranding.”
Union workers in Rhode Island protest a Trump administration stop-work order at an offshore wind farm under construction in August. Friday's jobs report shows the fewest gains in August since 2010. (Photo by Laura Paton/Rhode Island Current)
The United States added only 22,000 jobs in August, and previously reported gains in June were revised down to a loss of 13,000 jobs in a Bureau of Labor Statistics report issued Friday morning.
The August jobs increase was the lowest for that month since 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession. June’s decrease was the first jobs loss since a December 2020 COVID-19 surge shuttered restaurants and hotels.
A recent Stateline analysis showed that Virginia and New Jersey may be among the states most affected by recent hiring slowdowns, based on surveys and layoff reports, while California and Texas appeared to continue job gains.
Job openings fell to a 10-month low in July, according to a separate government report issued Sept. 3, and there were more unemployed people than jobs available for the first time since 2021.
Last month’s revisions to the jobs report enraged President Donald Trump when they first appeared Aug. 1. The revisions showed the nation had 258,000 fewer jobs than initially reported in May and June.
In response, Trump declared the numbers were wrong, fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics chief, Erika McEntarfer. He offered as a replacement E.J. Antoni, a loyalist who has proposed suspending the jobs report entirely. Trump falsely said in a Truth Social post at the time that the revised jobs numbers were “RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.”
Friday’s report showed August job losses in business and professional services (-17,000), government (-16,000), manufacturing (-12,000), wholesale trade (-11,700) and construction (-7,000), but gains in health care and social assistance (+46,800) and hospitality (+28,000).
The unemployment rate in August ticked up to 4.3%, from 4.2% in July and 4.1% in June. It increased the most for people with less than a high school diploma, up from 5.5% in July to 5.7% in August.
Unemployment ticked up for Black workers (to 7.5% from 7.2%) and Hispanic workers (to 5.3% from 5.0% in July). The rate went down for Asian workers (to 3.6% from 3.9%) and remained the same for white workers at 3.7%.
Editor’s note: This story was updated to add details about changes in industry job numbers and the unemployment rate.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
A man waits for health care at a temporary health clinic in Terre Haute, Ind. President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn could reduce health care options for people in rural areas. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
President Donald Trump’s new tax and spending law will likely force more than half the states to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals that treat Medicaid patients, a change critics warn will be particularly harmful to rural hospitals struggling to stay afloat.
Medicaid, the joint state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, reimburses doctors, hospitals and nursing facilities for treating enrollees. But in many cases, the program doesn’t fully cover the cost of care, straining providers that serve a large share of Medicaid patients.
To help providers cover losses and continue to serve poorer populations, the federal government allows the 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that have contracted with Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) to run their Medicaid programs to direct them to pay providers more — in some cases, as much as commercial plans.
Ultimately, taxpayers cover the costs of these so-called state directed payments — and those costs are growing. As of August 2024, the higher payments were projected to add $110.2 billion per year to Medicaid spending, nearly 60% more than the previous year’s projection.
That higher spending attracted the attention of conservatives on Capitol Hill.
Beginning in 2028, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will cap the payments, forcing state Medicaid programs to reduce reimbursement rates by 10 percentage points each year until they reach either 100% or 110% of what Medicare pays. States that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act would be capped at the lower rate.
The new law will reduce Medicaid spending by $149 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and reduce Medicaid provider payments in as many as 31 states, according to KFF, a health policy research group. A separate analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, another research group, found that Medicaid payments to hospitals would drop by at least 20% in 19 of the 25 states that had publicly available data.
Critics say the change could be disastrous for hospitals, many of them in rural areas, that see a large share of Medicaid patients.
“This is all on top of an already pretty strained financial situation for rural hospitals,” Alexa McKinley Abel, director of government affairs and policy at the National Rural Health Association, a group representing rural health care providers, said in an interview. “We are worried about seeing service line closures at hospitals in an environment where OB-GYN and chemotherapy service lines are already being cut.”
Covering the cost of care
Supporters of the change say the extra payments inflate federal spending on the Medicaid program, giving hospitals “windfall profits.”
“Not only do these programs sidestep the truly needy on Medicaid and favor special interests instead, but all this is financed by growing the federal debt, leading to inflation and higher interest rates for all Americans,” the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that helped draft the bill, stated in a policy brief.
Hospital leaders dispute that. Earlier this year, the American Hospital Association asserted that without the extra payments, Medicaid managed care organizations in 2023 only covered about two-thirds of the actual cost of care.
Cindy Samuelson, senior vice president of the Kansas Hospital Association, said the additional payments are especially critical in a rural state such as Kansas, where some researchers have found that 87% of rural hospitals are in the red. Kansas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid, and like other nonexpansion states, it will have to begin reducing direct payments to 110% of what Medicare pays starting in 2028.
“Over time, commercial payers are paying less and less,” Samuelson said. “Many hospitals in our state are at risk of closure.”
Samuelson said that in rural areas, health care providers see fewer patients, which makes it hard to spread out the cost of care and make up for losses that come from serving underinsured, Medicaid and Medicare patients. One result is that rural hospitals are trimming services. A report published this year by Chartis, a health care consulting firm, found that between 2011 and 2023, nearly 300 rural hospitals across the country stopped offering obstetrics care, and 424 rural hospitals ceased chemotherapy services.
In Hutchinson, Kansas, Benjamin Anderson, CEO of the rural and community-owned Hutchinson Regional Health System, said his hospital barely broke even this year, and lower Medicaid payments will take a toll. The 190-bed hospital serves more than 65,000 people in the central Kansas region, and sees a lot of patients who are struggling with mental health issues and substance use disorders.
When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn't simply about cutting services to the poor. It's threatening services to everyone.
– Benjamin Anderson, CEO of Hutchinson Regional Health System
“We are closely managing our workforce expenses. We’re going to be relying more heavily on philanthropy,” Anderson said, adding that the hospital wouldn’t lay off staff but would reduce the number of workers by not filling open positions.
He said his hospital has some cash reserves that should enable it to keep going, but that many other rural hospitals lack such a cushion.
“When we think about the cuts to Medicaid, it isn’t simply about cutting services to the poor. It’s threatening services to everyone, because in a rural community, we all get care in the same place,” he said. “If we cut out the safety net that’s sustaining these hospitals, everyone’s health care is threatened.”
Searching for answers
Three hours northeast of Hutchinson is the rural town of Holton, where about 3,400 people live. Holton Community Hospital is a 14-bed critical access hospital, meaning that it provides emergency care around the clock for a rural community. For the past two years, it has been struggling, according to Carrie Lutz, the hospital’s CEO.
Lutz said the hospital is not part of a broader health care group, and it relies on philanthropy and local taxes. Due to financial strains, it’s in the process of selling off its home and hospice services to another health care facility. The cap on extra payments will be an additional barrier, she said.
Samuelson said Kansas is applying for money under the five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program, which Congress added to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act amid concerns about its impact on rural hospitals. She expects Kansas to get at least $500 million between 2026 and 2030.
Rural hospitals in Mississippi also hope to tap into those funds. The Mississippi Hospital Association, which is advising state leaders on their application, said it expects Mississippi to get at least $500 million over the next five years.
Like Kansas, Mississippi did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care, a decision that deprived it of additional Medicaid patients and thus extra revenue.
“A few years ago, we had several rural hospitals that were facing some imminent closure challenges, and so our enhanced supplemental payment based on the average commercial rate has been a lifeline,” said Richard Roberson, president and CEO of the Mississippi Hospital Association.
“What we’re concerned about is that when those payments start to decrease, then we’re going to be right back to where we were in 2022, with concerns about rural hospitals again.”
Roberson said Medicaid, with the additional payments, had become “one of the best payers, if not the best payer, for our hospitals over the last two years,” and helped a lot of hospitals stay out of the red.
He said the new rural health care fund is promising, but noted that Mississippi will decide where to spend any money it gets, and some rural hospitals might miss out.
“We want to make sure we’re working with the state to provide sustainable solutions, not one-time fixes,” Roberson said. “The big wild card is the Rural Health Transformation fund and what the state chooses to do with that money.”
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
US authorities have apprehended at least 450 people at a Hyundai EV plant in Georgia.
ICE teamed up with Homeland Security, the FBI, DEA and Atlanta ATF to raid the facility.
Multiple South Korean nationals were detained in the operation at the new $7.6 bn plant.
US immigration authorities have detained at least 450 people in a raid at Hyundai’s new EV plant in Georgia. Atlanta’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives confirmed that it had apprehended hundreds of “unlawful aliens,” but South Korea has expressed concern over reports that 30 of the detained were its country’s nationals.
ATFA Atlanta said it had joined forces with various federal organizations including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to perform the operation on September 4. The search warrant executed cited allegations of “unlawful employment practices and other serious federal crimes,” the Department of Homeland Security said.
“Today @ATFAtlanta joined HSI, FBI, DEA, ICE, GSP and other agencies in a major immigration enforcement operation at the Hyundai mega site battery plant in Bryan County, GA, leading to the apprehension of [around] 450 unlawful aliens, emphasizing our commitment to community safety,” ATFA Atlanta wrote on X.
A High-Profile Target
The raid took place at the $7.6 billion, 3,000-acre EV site opened by Hyundai close to Savannah last year. Agents were focused on the construction zone for the new battery plant that’s scheduled to open in 2026, and Hyundai claims the operation didn’t impact the neighboring EV plant, which currently produces the Ioniq 5 and 9.
Though US authorities haven’t released names or details of the 450 people it detained at the site, Korean media reports that 30 are Korean nationals, something that has alarmed the country’s lawmakers.
Diplomatic Tension
“The economic activities of Korean investment companies and the rights and interests of Korean citizens must not be unfairly infringed upon during US law enforcement operations,” a spokesperson for the country’s foreign ministry said in a statement. South Korea sent diplomats to the site, BBC News reports.
President Trump pledged to deport undocumented migrants in the run-up to his 2024 election victory, but he has also said he welcomed foreign companies to set up manufacturing businesses inside the US, as Hyundai has done.
Atlanta ATF/Hyundai
Today, @ATFAtlanta joined HSI, FBI, DEA, ICE, GSP and other agencies in a major immigration enforcement operation at the Hyundai mega site battery plant in Bryan County, GA, leading to the apprehension of ~450 unlawful aliens, emphasizing our commitment to community safety. #ATFpic.twitter.com/su6raLrLu6
Members of the National Guard stationed outside Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 18, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The District of Columbia’s attorney general sued the Trump administration Thursday over the ongoing presence of National Guard troops in the nation’s capital, arguing the deployment amounts to a military occupation that violates the district’s right to self-rule.
President Donald Trump’s deployment of D.C. National Guard troops and units from states outside the district violates laws against using the military for domestic law enforcement and a 1973 federal law allowing the district to govern itself, D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb wrote in a complaint in federal court in the district.
“No American jurisdiction should be involuntarily subjected to military occupation,” the complaint says, adding that Trump’s “command and control of out-of-state National Guard units when they are in state militia status violates the Constitution and federal law.”
A passenger takes a photo of members of the National Guard in the Union Station Metro station in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 20, 2025. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
The administration’s actions, which Trump has characterized as an attempt to control crime in the city, “flout the Posse Comitatus Act,” a 19th-century law, and other sections of federal law that “enshrine the nation’s foundational prohibition on the participation of military forces in domestic law enforcement absent the most extreme exigencies, such as an invasion or rebellion,” the complaint said.
“Defendants have established a massive, seemingly indefinite law enforcement operation in the District subject to direct military command. The danger that such an operation poses to individual liberty and democratic rule is self-evident,” the complaint said.
Despite a Tuesday morning ruling from a federal judge in California that called Trump’s use of military personnel for law enforcement in Los Angeles illegal, the president has continued to explore further use of Guard units for what he said is crime prevention in other U.S. cities.
The suit asks U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb to block the administration from any further use of National Guard troops for law enforcement and to block states’ National Guard troops from operating in the district.
White House spokespeople did not return a message seeking comment Thursday.
Out-of-state Guard deployments questioned
States with a military presence in the district cited in the suit are Louisiana, South Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi and South Carolina.
Those states’ Republican governors all responded to requests from Trump to send Guard troops, according to the complaint.
But Trump did not federalize any of the state National Guard units patrolling the district, meaning they remain legally under the command of their governors and cannot enter another state or the district without a request from the governor or the mayor of Washington, D.C., according to the suit.
Late last month, Schwalb’s office sent letters to the leaders of states that had deployed troops to the district, asking for information “regarding the factual and legal basis for” their decision to send troops.
Only Tennessee responded, and offered only limited information, the complaint said.
While legally still under their governors’ control, the suit says the out-of-state troops are in practice under the control of Trump and the U.S. Department of Defense.
Police-military separation tested by Trump
As president, Trump does control the D.C. National Guard. But he cannot use its members for domestic law enforcement under the Posse Comitatus Act, the complaint said.
D.C. and out-of-state National Guard troops have been doing just that, the complaint said.
U.S. Marshals, a federal law enforcement agency, has deputized at least some troops in the district. The troops, who are armed with service weapons, have patrolled district streets, including in residential areas, the complaint said.
“These are law enforcement activities,” the suit said.
While the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this year that Trump has broad authority to federalize state National Guard troops — even over a governor’s objection — U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled this week that those troops still may not engage in law enforcement activity.
Trump, who has mused about sending troops to other cities including Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans, is testing the legal limits of the Guard’s ability to assist police forces, University of Houston Law Center Professor Christopher Mirasola said in an interview this week before the District of Columbia suit was filed.
While a bedrock principle of U.S. democracy, the separation of military from law enforcement is governed more by norms than laws, Mirasola said, giving the administration leeway to at least try to stretch what has been considered acceptable.
“The administration is pushing the bounds of every existing legal theory that’s out there for domestic military deployment,” he said. “It’s absolutely corrosive of our democracy, because I think there’s a potential for a real shift in how we think about the military’s role in our domestic affairs.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem arrives for a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 8, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem Wednesday ended temporary protections for more than 250,000 Venezuelans, opening them up to deportation.
Temporary Protected Status for a group of Venezuelans dating from 2021 was set to expire Sept. 10. However, DHS said the designation will end in 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register.
Initially, Venezuelans with TPS were granted protections until October 2026 under the Biden administration, but Noem revoked that extension.
DHS is currently being sued over Noem’s decision to revoke the extension granted under the Biden administration for TPS for two groups of Venezuelans, people who arrived in 2021 and those who arrived in 2023.
DHS has already terminated TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived in 2023, which is still being challenged in courts.
“Given Venezuela’s substantial role in driving irregular migration and the clear magnet effect created by Temporary Protected Status, maintaining or expanding TPS for Venezuelan nationals directly undermines the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure our southern border and manage migration effectively,” a DHS spokesperson said in a statement.
During the last day of President Donald Trump’s first term, he granted deportation protections for that group of Venezuelans who arrived in the U.S. before Jan. 20, 2021, citing unstable conditions with the country’s government.
“The deteriorative condition within Venezuela, which presents an ongoing national security threat to the safety and well-being of the American people, warrants the deferral of the removal of Venezuelan nationals who are present in the United States,” according to Trump’s 2021 proclamation.
After that designation, under the Biden administration in March 2021, then-Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas created a TPS designation for Venezuelans who entered the U.S. before March 9, 2021.
Mayorkas created a second TPS designation, for another group of Venezuelans who arrived in 2023, about 350,000.
TPS is designated when a country is deemed too dangerous for return, due to violence or a major disaster. A national from a country under the TPS designation has to go through vetting and is granted work permits and deportation protections for up to 18 months before having their TPS renewed.
Women who say they were abused by disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein raise their hands as attorney Bradley Edwards speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 3, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — As survivors of abuse inflicted by the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleaded on Capitol Hill Wednesday for the release of investigative files, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie accused House GOP leaders of using “the oldest trick in the swamp” to avoid the issue.
An unusually large crowd gathered outside the U.S. House to hear from the women, who described emotional manipulation and physical coercion, beginning as early as age 14 in some cases, at the hands of Epstein and convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell.
The speakers included family of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who pursued charges against Maxwell and died earlier this year by suicide.
In speech after speech, the victims urged Congress and President Donald Trump to make public what federal authorities uncovered about the reach of Epstein’s abuse, and specifically voiced support for Massie’s bipartisan effort that would bypass House leadership and force the release of volumes of records.
“Congress must choose — will you continue to protect predators, or will you finally protect survivors?” said Lisa Phillips, who was victimized by Epstein on his private Caribbean island and now hosts a podcast about healing after abuse.
The government’s investigation into Epstein’s widespread sexual abuse has dogged and splintered House Republicans since July, when Trump’s administration declared it would not share any further information on the powerful and well-connected financier. Epstein died in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on federal charges of sex trafficking minors.
Epstein surrounded himself with celebrities and politicians, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton.
Trump campaigned on releasing what he and many describe as the “Epstein files,” and for years many of his supporters, including some now in his administration, fixated on conspiracy theories about the scandal.
Discharge petition roils House
“There are real victims to this criminal enterprise, and the perpetrators are being protected because they’re rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C. So today, we’re standing with these survivors,” Massie said at the outdoors press conference.
Massie and House Democrat Ro Khanna of California need just two more Republican signatures on a discharge petition that would trigger the release of the Epstein case file, leapfrogging House leadership.
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
House Speaker Mike Johnson instead urged his party Wednesday to support a symbolic measure approving an already ongoing GOP-led committee probe.
Khanna, and GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, welcomed the victims to Capitol Hill alongside Massie.
“This is the most important fight we can wage here in Congress, fighting for innocent people that never received justice, and the women behind me have never received justice. And do you want to know why? It’s because Jeffrey Epstein somehow was able to walk among the most rich, powerful people,” Greene said.
Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina joined Massie and Greene in signing the petition. All Democrats in the House, which has a 219-212 split, are expected to sign.
Lured by Epstein
With the U.S. Capitol as their backdrop, numerous women shared stories of being lured, some at just 14 years old, by money and opportunities Epstein offered to them.
Annie Farmer said she was 16 when she and her sister were flown to New Mexico to spend a weekend with Epstein and Maxwell, where she said they were assaulted and photographed. Her sister reported their sexual abuse to authorities later that year.
“I am now 46 years old. Thirty years later, we still do not know why that report wasn’t properly investigated, or why Epstein and his associates were allowed to harm hundreds, if not thousands, of other girls and young women.
“We have never been told whether those images were found when they discovered a large amount of child sexual abuse material on his property,” said Farmer, who testified publicly in both cases against Epstein and Maxwell.
Farmer said for many years it felt like Epstein’s abusive behavior was “an open secret” and that his network of powerful friends “chose to look the other way because it benefited them.”
Farmer called for a thorough public review of the government’s findings in the Epstein case.
“At a time with record-high levels of distrust in our institutions and a perception that there are two Americas — one for those with power and privilege and one for everyone else — passing this Epstein transparency bill is one important step that can be taken to prove to Americans that the government does not side with sexual perpetrators,” she said.
Jena-Lisa Jones told the large crowd that Epstein began abusing her when she was 14.
“I know that I was just a little kid, but sometimes I still feel like it is my fault that this happened,” she said.
“If you’re a member of Congress and you’re listening to all of us speak here today, please really listen to us. Please vote for this bill to be passed. Please recognize how important it is for transparency relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, this does not matter.”
Jones then directly appealed to Trump: “Please, President Trump, pass this bill and help us. Make us feel like our voices are finally being heard.”
Trump rebuffs reports on Epstein relationship
Trump’s past relationship with Epstein has been under a microscope since July. The president sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on a 50th birthday card Trump gave to Epstein. The card allegedly featured a cryptic message and a doodle of a naked woman with Trump’s signature mimicking pubic hair.
The Journal also reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president in May that his name appeared in the Epstein case files. The context in which his name appeared is unclear.
Trump has denied the reports.
Trump dismissed questions about releasing the Epstein case files when asked by reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon.
“This is a Democrat hoax that never ends,” Trump said while sitting alongside Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki during their previously planned meeting.
“What they’re trying to do with the Epstein hoax is getting people to talk about that instead of speaking about the tremendous success like ending seven wars. I ended seven wars, nobody’s going to talk about (that) because they’re going to talk about the Epstein whatever,” Trump continued. Trump did not detail specifically which wars.
“I understand that we were subpoenaed to give files, and I understand we’ve given thousands of pages of files, and I know that no matter what you do, it’s going to keep going.”
The GOP-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released roughly 33,000 pages Tuesday night related to the government’s Epstein investigation. But the collection was quickly dismissed by many observers as duplicates and items that were already public.
“I appreciate the efforts of my colleague, James Comer, who’s leading the Oversight Committee,” Massie said of his fellow Kentucky lawmaker. “They may find some information, but they’re allowing the (Department of Justice) to curate all of the information that the DOJ is giving them. If you’ve looked at the pages they’ve released so far, they’re heavily redacted. Some pages are entirely redacted, and 97% of this is already in the public domain.”
Subpoenas issued
Comer’s committee has also subpoenaed testimony from Clinton, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and numerous former Department of Justice officials, from both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Massie told reporters Wednesday that Speaker Johnson urged colleagues not to support the Kentucky Republican’s discharge petition and instead vote for a procedural rule to support the Oversight Committee’s investigation. A committee investigation, however, does not require a floor vote to proceed.
“My message to my colleagues was, ‘Don’t set yourself up.’ Yes, the speaker’s resolution will give you temporary political cover, but there are millions of people watching this,” Massie said.
Members of the House Oversight Committee met with several Epstein victims Tuesday.
Johnson, of Louisiana, said Massie and Khanna’s petition is “moot and unnecessary.”
“The Oversight Committee’s investigation is already ongoing. They’re already producing and putting out there the documents that are covered, the White House is in full compliance. The administration is willfully complying with the subpoenas because they want maximum transparency as well. I talked to the president himself last night, so this is going to be an ongoing effort.”
Jennifer Shutt and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office at the White House on September 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. At left is U.S. Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala. At right are Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump announced Tuesday the U.S. Space Command will permanently relocate to Huntsville, Alabama, vacating its temporary headquarters in Colorado.
The move reverts back to Trump’s plans during his first administration to locate the combatant command in Alabama to oversee Space Force, the military branch he created in 2019.
Space Force headquarters has since operated out of Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs. The command’s location has been a yearslong political fight.
“As you know, this has been going on for a long period of time, and I am thrilled to report that the U.S. Space Command headquarters will move to the beautiful locale of a place called Huntsville, Alabama, forever to be known from this point forward as ‘Rocket City,’” said Trump, flanked by Alabama Republicans in the Oval Office Tuesday afternoon.
“We love Alabama. I only won it by about 47 points. I don’t think that influenced my decision though,” he said. (Trump won Alabama’s nine Electoral College votes in November by 31 percentage points, according to The Associated Press. Former Vice President Kamala Harris won Colorado’s 10 Electoral College votes by 11 percentage points.)
Trump said his plans to root Space Command at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville were “wrongfully obstructed by the Biden administration.”
The Biden administration decided in July 2023 to keep Space Command in Colorado Springs to ensure “peak readiness in the space domain,” according to a Department of Defense Inspector General report released in April 2025. The IG’s report was inconclusive on why the Air Force did not push back on the decision, despite the department’s preference for Alabama.
“Today, we’re moving forward with what we want to do and the place that we want to have this, and this will be there for hopefully hundreds of years,” Trump said. “I will say, I want to thank Colorado. The problem I have with Colorado, one of the big problems, they do mail-in voting. They went to all mail-in voting, so they have automatically crooked elections.”
Since his election loss to Biden in 2020, Trump has repeated unfounded claims about mail-in ballots and their effect on elections.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said the president is “restoring (Space Command) to precisely where it should be.”
“Whoever controls the skies will control the future of warfare, and Mr. President, today you’re ensuring that happens,” Hegseth said.
Alabama Republicans rejoice over Space Command
Alabama’s Republican U.S. Sens. Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt both praised the president as they stood beside him in the Oval Office.
“Mr. President, we are grateful for your leadership on this and restoring Space Command to its rightful home in Huntsville, Alabama,” Britt said, adding the accusation that “obviously the Biden administration chose to make this political.”
Tuberville said the move will save taxpayers $480 million. States Newsroom has not independently verified that figure, and the April IG report did not cite specific relocation costs. He also highlighted the presence of NASA in Huntsville as an advantage.
“I spoke with the president for the last three or four years about this. If I thought it needed to go somewhere else, because (of) the security of our country, I’d be for that. But the best place for Space Command is Huntsville, Alabama, because what we have and what it means to this country is going to be so important,” Tuberville said.
Lawsuit vowed by Colorado AG
But Colorado elected officials aren’t backing down. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, described the decision as “deeply disappointing” for his state and “a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser said in a statement Tuesday that he plans to take the administration to court over the “unlawful” relocation, which he described as “political games.”
“Moving Space Command Headquarters to Alabama is not only wrong for our national defense, but it’s harmful to hundreds of Space Command personnel and their families. These El Paso County residents are our neighbors. They relied on the federal government’s decision to keep Space Command HQ in Colorado Springs — they bought homes for their families, selected schools for their children, and have contributed to the local economy.” Weiser said.
“The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has been preparing in the event the president made such an unlawful decision to move Space Command HQ. If the Trump administration takes this step — I’m prepared to challenge it in court.”
Colorado’s entire bipartisan congressional delegation released a statement Tuesday slamming the relocation announcement.
“Today’s decision to move U.S. Space Command’s headquarters out of Colorado and to Alabama will directly harm our state and the nation. We are united in fighting to reverse this decision. Bottom line—moving Space Command headquarters weakens our national security at the worst possible time,” according to the statement.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media in the Oval Office at the White House on Sept. 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Following days of speculation about his health from users on social media, President Trump made his first public appearance in a week to announce the moving of Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump spoke at length from the Oval Office on Tuesday, proving that he is in fact alive after rumors circulated online over the long holiday weekend that he might have died.
Trump initially said he wasn’t aware of the speculation when asked about his “demise” by a Fox News reporter after the president announced he would move U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado to Alabama.
“Really, I didn’t see that,” Trump said. “You know, I have heard, it’s sort of crazy but last week I did numerous news conferences. All successful. They went very well, like this is going very well. And then I didn’t do any for two days, and they said, ‘There must be something wrong with him.’ Biden wouldn’t do them for months. You wouldn’t see him.”
Trump then said that he had heard about the online speculation of his death, but that he didn’t realize how extensive the rumors were.
“No, I heard that. I get reports,” Trump said. “Now you knew I did an interview that lasted for about an hour and a half with somebody, and everybody saw. That was on one of your competitors. I did numerous shows, and also did a number of truths, long truths. I think, pretty poignant truths. No, I was very active over the weekend.”
Trump added a few moments later: “I didn’t hear that one. That’s pretty serious stuff.”
The rumors that Trump had potentially died began circulating online Friday but began dissipating on Saturday, Sunday and Monday after the group of reporters that follows the president around saw him walk into his golf club in Virginia each of those three days.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency building is seen on May 15, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Democratic attorneys general have updated their complaint against the Trump administration in a lawsuit over whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency can refuse to spend pre-disaster mitigation grants approved by Congress.
The attorneys general wrote in the new filing that FEMA hadn’t made a single award to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program between April 2 and Aug. 25.
“The BRIC program is critically important nationwide. Over the past four years, FEMA has selected nearly 2,000 projects from every corner of the country to receive roughly $4.5 billion in funding,” they wrote. “Due to the unique threats they face, coastal communities have received the largest allocations over the past four years, with California, Louisiana, Texas, New York, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, and Washington leading the way.
“But interior communities rely on BRIC too: Pennsylvania and Utah have received the next largest allocations, and Ohio is not far behind.”
FEMA announced in April that it was “ending” the program and “canceling all BRIC applications from Fiscal Years 2020-2023.”
Members of Congress from both political parties brought up their disagreement with that decision in May during a hearing on FEMA’s budget request and by sending a letter signed by more than 80 lawmakers.
But that didn’t appear to sway the Trump administration to reverse course and allocate the funding that had been approved by Congress.
‘Devastating’ delays in FEMA funding
Democratic attorneys general, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro filed their lawsuit in July and later called on the judge to block the Trump administration from moving money out of the pre-disaster mitigation account.
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Richard G. Stearns, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary ruling in early August preventing FEMA “from spending the funds allocated to BRIC for non-BRIC purposes until the court is able to render a final judgment on the merits.”
The updated 83-page complaint filed Friday argues the two people President Donald Trump has installed as acting FEMA administrator did so unlawfully because they were never formally nominated to run the agency, didn’t receive Senate confirmation and didn’t meet the qualifications laid out in federal law.
It also alleges that unilaterally canceling funding approved by Congress, which holds the power of the purse, violated the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.
“The impact of the shutdown has been devastating. Communities across the country are being forced to delay, scale back, or cancel hundreds of mitigation projects depending on this funding,” they wrote. “Projects that have been in development for years, and in which communities have invested millions of dollars for planning, permitting, and environmental review are now threatened. And in the meantime, Americans across the country face a higher risk of harm from natural disasters.”
Each BRIC grant, the updated complaint notes, “can cover up to 75% of a project’s costs, and the federal share can rise to 90% for small rural communities.”
Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado. Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin filed the suit, along with the Pennsylvania and Kentucky governors.
People in New York City look at a sign informing them that the Statue of Liberty is closed on Oct. 1, 2013 due to a government shutdown. Tensions among lawmakers and President Donald Trump, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown next month higher than it has been for years. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week following an uneventful August recess where little to no progress was made on government funding, even though lawmakers have just weeks left until their shutdown deadline.
Republican leaders will need the support of several Democratic senators to approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1, since lawmakers have once again failed to complete the dozen full-year bills on time.
But what was once a routine bipartisan exercise has taken on heightened stakes, with Democrats and some Republicans increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s unilateral spending decisions.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued severalreports faulting the Trump administration for impounding, or refusing to spend funds approved by Congress, in violation of the law. And dozens of lawsuits have been filed, alleging the administration has acted to supersede Congress’ power of the purse.
The ongoing tension, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown higher than it has been for years.
President Donald Trump said in mid-August he was open to meeting with Democratic leaders once they were back in town to negotiate a government funding deal but minimized the importance of talks.
“Well, I will, I guess, but it’s almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything,” Trump said.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a letter last week urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to quickly begin negotiating a bipartisan stopgap bill.
“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” they wrote. “That is the only viable path forward.”
Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said last week that she wants to keep advancing the full-year spending bills, but that a short-term stopgap would be necessary to give lawmakers enough time.
“We need to avoid a government shutdown, which would be horrendous if that were to occur on October 1,” Collins said, according to remarks provided by her office. “And we also need to avoid having a continuing resolution, by that I mean a stopgap bill that just puts government on automatic pilot for the whole year.
“We’re going to have to have a short-term continuing resolution, but we’re making really good progress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I hope that will continue.”
Another failure
Congress is supposed to complete work on the dozen annual appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year but has failed to do so for decades. This year is no different.
The House and Senate are nowhere near finishing their work on the bills, which provide funding for dozens of departments, including Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.
The bills, which make up about one-third of federal spending, also fund smaller agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and the National Weather Service.
The House has approved two of the dozen bills — Defense and Military Construction-VA. The Senate has passed its Agriculture, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA bills.
The House bills have only been supported by GOP lawmakers, while the Senate’s bills are broadly bipartisan, giving that chamber an upper hand if the two chambers begin conferencing full-year bills later this year.
Without a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on how much to spend on all of the bills, it’s highly unlikely Congress will be able to complete its work before the Oct. 1 deadline.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, speaks at a Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Inside Washington luncheon on Aug. 12, 2025. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
Leaders will instead need to reach agreement on a stopgap spending bill that essentially keeps government funding on autopilot until lawmakers can work out a final deal on the full-year bills.
The calendar doesn’t give Speaker Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader Thune, R-S.D., much time to find compromise with their Democratic counterparts.
Both chambers are in session for three weeks at the beginning of September before breaking for Rosh Hashanah. They’ll return to Capitol Hill on Sept. 29 with less than two days to fund the government or begin a partial shutdown.
Thune said in mid-August at the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Inside Washington luncheon that he expects lawmakers will “have a big fight at the end of September.”
Last shutdown stretched 35 days
It’s been almost seven years since some federal departments and agencies had to navigate a shutdown, when Congress and the first Trump administration were unable to broker a funding deal before a deadline.
A shutdown this year would have substantially more impact than that 35-day debacle since, when that funding lapse began, Congress had approved the Defense, Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA spending bills.
The departments and agencies funded by those laws, including Congress, weren’t affected by the shutdown.
Lawmakers have failed to send any of the full-year bills to Trump so far this year, so every department and agency would need to implement a shutdown plan if Congress doesn’t approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1.
Federal employees who deal with the preservation of life and property as well as national security will likely be deemed exempt and work without pay until the shutdown ends.
Workers who are not considered essential to the federal government’s operations would be furloughed until Congress and the president broker some sort of funding deal.
Both categories of employees receive back pay once the lapse ends, though that doesn’t extend to federal contractors.
On to the stopgap
Congress regularly approves a stopgap spending bill in September to gain more time to complete negotiations on the full-year appropriations bills.
That continuing resolution, as it’s sometimes called, usually lasts until the last Friday in December when both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be in Washington, D.C.
So a September stopgap would likely last until Friday, Dec. 19, assuming the House and Senate can reach an agreement and hold floor votes in the weeks ahead.
Last year, in the lead-up to the presidential election, lawmakers approved a stopgap bill in September that funded the government through mid-December.
Following the Republican sweep of the November elections, GOP leaders opted not to negotiate the full-year bills and used a second stopgap bill to fund the government until March after a raucous 48 hours on Capitol Hill.
Speaker Johnson took a go-it-alone approach on a third stopgap spending bill, leaving Democrats completely out of the negotiations and jamming the Senate with the legislation.
Schumer and several Democrats ultimately helped Republicans get past the 60-vote legislative filibuster, but most voted against actually passing the stopgap.
The dilemma over forcing a shutdown or helping Republicans pass a stopgap bill will resurface for Schumer in the weeks ahead as he tries to navigate another shutdown deadline amid unified GOP control of Washington.
Login
