By ROB GILLIES and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press

NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE, Ontario (AP) — Top diplomats from the Group of Seven industrialized democracies are meeting Ukraine’s foreign minister on Wednesday as Ukraine tries to fend off relentless Russian aerial attacks that have brought rolling blackouts across the country ahead of winter.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will participate in a G7 session on Ukraine and defense cooperation.

Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand is hosting the meeting in southern Ontario as tensions rise between the U.S. and traditional allies like Canada over defense spending, trade and uncertainty over President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan in Gaza and efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he wants to order 25 Patriot air defense systems from the United States. Combined missile and drone strikes on the power grid have coincided with Ukraine’s frantic efforts to hold back a Russian battlefield push aimed at capturing the eastern stronghold of Pokrovsk.

Canada announced additional sanctions on 13 people and 11 entities, including several involved in the development and deployment of Russia’s drone program.

Britain says it will send $17 million to help patch up Ukraine’s energy infrastructure as winter approaches and Russian attacks intensify. The money will go toward repairs to power, heating and water supplies and humanitarian support for Ukrainians.

U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, who made the announcement before the meeting, said Russian President Vladimir Putin “is trying to plunge Ukraine into darkness and the cold as winter approaches” but the British support will help keep the lights and heating on.

Canada recently made a similar announcement.

The two-day meeting in Niagara-on-the-Lake, near the U.S. border, comes after Trump ended trade talks with Canada because the Ontario provincial government ran an anti-tariff advertisement in the U.S. that upset him. That followed a spring of acrimony, since abated, over the Republican president’s insistence that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state.

Anand will have a meeting with Rubio, but she noted that a different minister leads the U.S. trade file. The U.S. president has placed greater priority on addressing his grievances with other nations’ trade policies than on collaboration with G7 allies.

The G7 comprises Canada, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Anand also invited the foreign ministers of Australia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, South Korea, South Africa and Ukraine to the meeting, which began Tuesday.

Putin has tried to justify Russia’s attack on Ukraine by saying it was needed to protect civilians in eastern Ukraine — a false claim the U.S. had predicted he would make as a pretext for his invasion.

By SAFIYAH RIDDLE, Associated Press/Report for America

A federal appeals court will hear arguments Wednesday about whether a spending law passed in July that ended Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood can remain in effect while legal challenges continue.

President Donald Trump’s tax and spending cut bill targets organizations that both provide abortions and receive more than $800,000 a year in Medicaid reimbursements. Planned Parenthood has argued the law violates the Constitution, while anti-abortion activists applauded the legislation.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled that the law could go into effect in September while a lower court considered Planned Parenthood’s claims. A three-judge panel of the appeals court was scheduled to preside over the hearing Wednesday.

In a report released ahead of the hearing, Planned Parenthood said the legislation cost $45 million in September alone as clinics across the country paid for treatment for Medicaid patients out of pocket — a rate that the organization says is unsustainable.

Nearly half of Planned Parenthood’s patients rely on Medicaid for health care aside from abortions, which was already not covered by the federal insurance program that serves millions of low-income and disabled Americans.

Legal fight

Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its member organizations in Massachusetts and Utah, as well as a major medical provider in Maine, filed lawsuits against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in July. The Maine provider has been forced to stop it’s primary care services while its lawsuit works its way through the courts.

In the meantime, seven states — California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Washington — have directed state funds to compensate for lost federal Medicaid reimbursements.

That has covered roughly $200 million of the $700 million that the organization spends annually on Medicaid patients, according to Planned Parenthood.

In light of the shortfall, some clinics will force Medicaid patients to pay out of pocket while others will close altogether, adding to the 20 Planned Parenthood affiliated clinics that have closed since July and the 50 total that have closed since the start of Trump’s second term.

“The consequence is for patients who are going to be forced to make impossible choices between essential services,” Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Abortion at the heart of the debate

Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, said Trump’s legislation is a step in the right direction. Even though federal tax dollars aren’t used for abortions directly, she said taxpayers are contributing to abortion services even if they are morally or religiously opposed since Medicaid reimbursements help organizations that provide them stay afloat.

“To be forced to pay for that is just very objectionable,” Tobias said.

She suggested Planned Parenthood could stop offering abortions if it wanted to keep providing medical care to vulnerable populations.

Planned Parenthood’s president has doubled down on the organization’s commitment to providing abortions.

“The government should not play a role in determining any pregnancy outcomes,” Johnson said.

A range of services hit

Planned Parenthood is the country’s largest abortion provider, but abortions only constituted 4% of all medical services in 2024, according to the organization’s annual report. Testing for sexually transmitted infections and contraception services make up about 80%. The remaining 15% of services are cancer screenings, primary care services and behavioral health services.

Jenna Tosh, CEO of Planned Parenthood California Central Coast, said in an interview that the Medicaid cuts threaten abortion and non-abortion medical care in equal measure. Roughly 70% of patients who use Planned Parenthood California Central Coast rely on Medicaid, she said.

“Many of our patients, we are their primary provider of health care,” Tosh said. “You really start pulling at the thread of the entire health care safety net for the most vulnerable people.”

The story has been corrected to show that the hearing Wednesday is before a judicial panel of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, not before a federal judge.

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The longest government shutdown in history could conclude as soon as Wednesday, Day 43, with almost no one happy with the final result.

Democrats didn’t get the heath insurance provisions they demanded added to the spending deal. And Republicans, who control the levers of power in Washington, didn’t escape blame, according to polls and some state and local elections that went poorly for them.

The fallout of the shutdown landed on millions of Americans, including federal workers who went without paychecks and airline passengers who had their trips delayed or canceled. An interruption in nutrition assistance programs contributed to long lines at food banks and added emotional distress going into the holiday season.

The agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things. All other funding would be extended until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish additional spending bills.

Here’s a look at how the shutdown started and is likely to end:

What led to the shutdown

Democrats made several demands to win their support for a short-term funding bill, but the central one was an extension of an enhanced tax credit that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

The tax credit was boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic response, again through President Joe Biden’s big energy and health care bill, and it’s set to expire at the end of December. Without it, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.

“Never have American families faced a situation where their health care costs are set to double — double in the blink of an eye,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

While Democrats called for negotiations on the matter, Republicans said a funding bill would need to be passed first.

“Republicans are ready to sit down with Democrats just as soon as they stop holding the government hostage to their partisan demands,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said.

Thune eventually promised Democrats a December vote on the tax credit extension to help resolve the standoff, but many Democrats demanded a guaranteed fix, not just a vote that is likely to fail.

Thune’s position was much the same as the one Schumer took back in October 2013, when Republicans unsuccessfully sought to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for funding the government. “Open up all of the government, and then we can have a fruitful discussion,” Schumer said then.

Democratic leaders under pressure

The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term has seen more than 200,000 federal workers leave their job through firings, forced relocations or the Republican administration’s deferred resignation program, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Whole agencies that don’t align with the administration’s priorities have been dismantled. And billions of dollars previously approved by Congress have been frozen or canceled.

Democrats have had to rely on the courts to block some of Trump’s efforts, but they have been unable to do it through legislation. They were also powerless to stop Trump’s big tax cut and immigration crackdown bill that Republicans helped pay for by cutting future spending on safety net programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.

The Democrats’ struggles to blunt the Trump administration’s priorities has prompted calls for the party’s congressional leadership to take a more forceful response.

Schumer experienced that firsthand after announcing in March that he would support moving ahead with a funding bill for the 2025 budget year. There was a protest at his office, calls from progressives that he be primaried in 2028 and suggestions that the Democratic Party would soon be looking for new leaders.

This time around, Schumer demanded that Republicans negotiate with Democrats to get their votes on a spending bill. The Senate rules, he noted, requires bipartisan support to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance a spending bill.

But those negotiations did not occur, at least not with Schumer. Republicans instead worked with a small group of eight Democrats to tee up a short-term bill to fund the government generally at current levels and accused Schumer of catering to the party’s left flank when he refused to go along.

“The Senate Democrats are afraid that the radicals in their party will say that they caved,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at one of his many daily press conferences.

The blame game

The political stakes in the shutdown are huge, which is why leaders in both parties have held nearly daily press briefings to shape public opinion.

Roughly 6 in 10 Americans say Trump and Republicans in Congress have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown, while 54% say the same about Democrats in Congress, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

At least three-quarters of Americans believe each deserves at least a “moderate” share of blame, underscoring that no one was successfully evading responsibility.

Both parties looked to the Nov. 4 elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere for signs of how the shutdown was influencing public opinion. Democrats took comfort in their overwhelming successes. Trump called it a “big factor, negative” for Republicans. But it did not change the GOP’s stance on negotiating. Instead, Trump ramped up calls for Republicans to end the filibuster in the Senate, which would pretty much eliminate the need for the majority party to ever negotiate with the minority.

Damage of the shutdown

The Congressional Budget Office says that the negative impact on the economy will be mostly recovered once the shutdown ends, but not entirely. It estimated the permanent economic loss at about $11 billion for a six-week shutdown.

Beyond the numbers, though, the shutdown created a cascade of troubles for many Americans. Federal workers missed paychecks, causing financial and emotional stress. Travelers had their flights delayed and at times canceled. People who rely on safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program saw their benefits stopped, and Americans throughout the country lined up for meals at food banks.

“This dysfunction is damaging enough to our constituents and economy here at home, but it also sends a dangerous message to the watching world,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. “It demonstrates to our allies that we are an unreliable partner, and it signals to our adversaries that we can’t work together to meet even the most fundamental responsibilities of Congress.”

By LISA MASCARO, AP Congressional Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) — After refusing to convene the U.S. House during the government shutdown, Speaker Mike Johnson is recalling lawmakers back into session — and facing an avalanche of pent-up legislative demands from those who have largely been sidelined from governing.

Hundreds of representatives are preparing to return Wednesday to Washington after a nearly eight-week absence, carrying a torrent of ideas, proposals and frustrations over work that has stalled when the Republican speaker shuttered the House doors nearly two months ago.

First will be a vote to reopen the government. But that’s just the start. With efforts to release the Jeffrey Epstein files and the swearing in of Arizona’s Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, the unfinished business will pose a fresh test to Johnson’s grip on power and put a renewed focus on his leadership.

“It’s extraordinary,” said Matthew Green, a professor at the politics department at The Catholic University of America.

“What Speaker Johnson and Republicans are doing, you have to go back decades to find an example where the House — either chamber — decided not to meet.”

Gaveling in after two months gone

When the House gavels back into session, it will close this remarkable chapter of Johnson’s tenure when he showed himself to be a leader who is quietly, but brazenly, willing to upend institutional norms in pursuit of his broader strategy, even at the risk of diminishing the House itself.

Rather than use the immense powers of the speaker’s office to forcefully steer the debate in Congress, as a coequal branch of the government on par with the executive and the courts, Johnson simply closed up shop — allowing the House to become unusually deferential, particularly to President Donald Trump.

Over these past weeks, the chamber has sidestepped its basic responsibilities, from passing routine legislation to conducting oversight. The silencing of the speaker’s gavel has been both unusual and surprising in a system of government where the founders envisioned the branches would vigorously protect their institutional prerogatives.

“You can see it is pretty empty around here,” Johnson, R-La., said on day three of the shutdown, tour groups no longer crowding the halls.

“When Congress decides to turn off the lights, it shifts the authority to the executive branch. That is how it works,” he said, blaming Democrats, with their fight over health care funds, for the closures.

An empty House as a political strategy

The speaker has defended his decision to shutter the House during what’s now the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. He argued that the chamber, under the GOP majority, had already done its job passing a stopgap funding bill in September. It would be up to the Senate to act, he said.

When the Senate failed over and over to advance the House bill, more than a dozen times, he refused to enter talks with the other leaders on a compromise. Johnson also encouraged Trump to cancel an initial sit-down with the Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries to avoid a broader negotiation while the government was still closed.

Instead, the speaker, whose job is outlined in the Constitution, second in line of succession to the presidency, held held almost daily press conferences on his side of the Capitol, a weekly conference call with GOP lawmakers, and private talks with Trump. He joined the president for Sunday’s NFL Washington Commanders game as the Senate was slogging through a weekend session.

“People say, why aren’t you negotiating with Schumer and Jeffries? I quite literally have nothing to negotiate,” Johnson said at one point.

“As I’ve said time and time again, I don’t have anything to negotiate with,” he said on day 13 of the shutdown. “We did our job. We had that vote.”

And besides he said of the GOP lawmakers, “They are doing some of their best work in the district, helping their constituents navigate this crisis.”

Accidental speaker delivers for Trump

In many ways, Johnson has become a surprisingly effective leader, an accidental speaker who was elected to the job by his colleagues after all others failed to win it. He has now lasted more than two years, longer than many once envisioned.

This year, with Trump’s return to the White House, the speaker has commandeered his slim GOP majority and passed legislation including the president’s so-called “one big beautiful bill” of tax breaks and spending reductions that became law this summer.

Johnson’s shutdown strategy also largely achieved his goal, forcing Senate Democrats to break ranks and approve the funds to reopen government without the extension of health care subsidies they were demanding to help ease the sticker shock of rising insurance premium costs with the Affordable Care Act.

Johnson’s approach is seen as one that manages up — he stays close to Trump and says they speak often — and also hammers down, imposing a rigid control over the day-to-day schedule of the House, and its lawmakers.

Amassing quiet power

Under a House rules change this year, Johnson was able to keep the chamber shuttered indefinitely on his own, without the usual required vote. This year his leadership team has allowed fewer opportunities for amendments on legislation, according to a recent tally. Other changes have curtailed the House’s ability to provide a robust check on the executive branch over Trump’s tariffs and use of war powers.

Johnson’s refusal to swear-in Grijalva is a remarkable flex of the speaker’s power, leading to comparisons with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision not to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, said David Rapallo, an associate professor and director of the Federal Legislation Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. Arizona has sued to seat her.

Marc Short, who headed up the White House’s legislative affairs office during the first Trump administration, said of Johnson, “It’s impressive how he’s held the conference together.”

But said Short, “The legislative branch has abdicated a lot of responsibility to the executive under his watch.”

Tough decisions ahead for the Speaker

As lawmakers make their way back to Washington, the speaker’s power will be tested again as they consider the package to reopen government.

Republicans are certain to have complaints about the bill, which funds much of the federal government through Jan. 30 and keeps certain programs including agriculture, military construction and veterans affairs running through September.

But with House Democratic leaders rejecting the package for having failed to address the health care subsidies, it will be up to Johnson to muscle it through with mostly GOP lawmakers — with hardly any room for defections in the chamber that’s narrowly split.

Jeffries, who has criticized House Republicans for what he called an extended vacation, said, “They’re not going to be able to hide this week when they return.”

By NICHOLAS RICCARDI and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The pardons of dozens of Republicans accused of participating in efforts to overturn the 2020 election are a continuation of President Donald Trump’s attempts to rewrite the history about his election loss.

They come months after Trump’s sweeping grant of clemency to all 1,500-plus people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which was the culmination of the campaign to reverse Trump’s loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Unlike the Jan. 6 pardons, the newer ones will have little legal effect. None of the people on the new pardon list had faced federal prosecution for their actions in 2020. The presidential pardon has no impact on state or civil cases.

But they send a signal to those thinking of denying future elections in Trump’s favor.

Here’s a look at some of the more prominent names who were pardoned:

Rudy Giuliani

The former New York City mayor, who was celebrated as “America’s mayor” after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, played a pivotal role in pushing Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud as the Republican’s personal lawyer in 2020. He has faced a slew of legal woes and financial setbacks for his advocacy of Trump’s false claims, including losing his law license in Washington and New York. He was criminally charged in cases brought by state prosecutors in Georgia and Arizona and pleaded not guilty. Those cases have hit roadblocks but remain unresolved and are not impacted by Trump’s pardon. Giuliani was ordered in 2023 to pay $148 million to two Georgia election workers who sued him over lies he spread about them and a reached a deal in January to resolve the debt and retain some of his property. The amount the women were set to receive was not disclosed. Giuliani has denied wrongdoing and said he was right to challenge an election he believed was tainted by fraud.

Mark Meadows

Trump’s chief of staff during the 2020 election and its aftermath, Meadows was charged in Arizona and Georgia cases and pleaded not guilty in both states. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his effort to move his case in Georgia to federal court, where a pardon would nullify his jeopardy. Meadows has contended his post-election actions were taken in his official capacity as White House chief of staff, though prosecutors and judges have disagreed. Meadows was on the phone when Trump asked Georgia’s secretary of state, Republican Brad Raffensperger, to “find” him enough votes to be declared the winner of the state.

Kenneth Chesebro

Prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, alleged that Chesebro, an attorney, worked with Georgia Republicans at the direction of Trump’s campaign to organize 16 people to sign a certificate falsely claiming that Trump won the state and that they were his “duly elected and qualified” electors. Chesebro pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count in the state case but unsuccessfully tried to withdraw his plea as the massive case against him and 17 others, including Trump, collapsed due to legal issues. Chesebro’s law license in New York state was suspended after his plea.

Jenna Ellis

A prominent conservative media figure and an attorney, Ellis also pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements and writings in the Georgia case. She apologized in court for advising the Trump campaign on how to overturn its loss and was censured and barred from practicing law for three years in her native Colorado for her conduct in 2020.

John Eastman

A prominent conservative law professor, Eastman wrote a key memo outlining the Trump strategy of trying to reverse the president’s election loss by presenting a slate of alternate electors to Congress. Eastman faces charges in a state case filed by Arizona’s Democratic attorney general over that scheme. He was also charged in Fulton County, and the disciplinary board of the California State Bar has recommended he lose his California law license. Eastman has pleaded not guilty in the criminal cases and appealed his license suspension to California’s Supreme Court. He argues he is being punished for simply giving legal advice.

Jeffrey Clark

Clark, as a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration, drafted a letter that said the department was investigating “various irregularities” and had identified “significant concerns” that may have impacted the election in Georgia and other states. Clark wanted the letter sent to Georgia lawmakers, but Justice Department superiors refused. A Washington attorney disciplinary panel in July recommended that he be stripped of his law license, finding he made “intentionally false statements” when he continued to push for the Justice Department to issue the letter after being told by superiors that it contained falsehoods. Clark, who is now overseeing a federal regulatory office in the second Trump administration, said in a post on X on Monday: “I did nothing wrong when I questioned the 2020 election in Georgia.”

Sidney Powell

A lawyer and staunch Trump ally, Powell filed in battleground states a series of lawsuits that were rejected by courts and played a pivotal role in pushing unsubstantiated claims of fraud. Emails and documents obtained through subpoenas in one lawsuit showed Powell was involved in arranging for a computer forensics team to travel to rural Coffee County, about 200 miles (320 kilometers) southeast of Atlanta, to copy data and software from elections equipment there in January 2021. She pleaded guilty in 2023 to reduced charges in the Georgia case, becoming the second defendant to reach a deal with prosecutors. She was initially charged with racketeering and six other counts but ultimately received probation after pleading guilty to six misdemeanors accusing her of conspiring to intentionally interfere with the performance of election duties.

By GERALD IMRAY, Associated Press

CAPE TOWN, South Africa (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump says that his government will boycott the Group of 20 summit this month in South Africa over his claims that a white minority group there is being violently persecuted. Those claims have been widely rejected.

Trump announced Friday on social media that no U.S. government official will attend the Nov. 22-23 summit in Johannesburg “as long as these Human Rights abuses continue.” South Africa’s Black-led government has been a regular target for Trump since he returned to office.

In February, Trump issued an executive order stopping U.S. financial assistance to South Africa, citing its treatment of the Afrikaner white minority. His administration has also prioritized Afrikaners for refugee status in the U.S. and says they will be given most of the 7,500 places available this fiscal year.

The South African government — and some Afrikaners themselves — say Trump’s claims of persecution are baseless.

Descendants of European settlers

Afrikaners are South Africans who are descended mainly from Dutch but also French and German colonial settlers who first came to the country in the 17th century.

Afrikaners were at the heart of the apartheid system of white minority rule from 1948-1994, leading to decades of hostility between them and South Africa’s Black majority. But Afrikaners are not a homogenous group, and some fought against apartheid. There are an estimated 2.7 million Afrikaners in South Africa’s population of 62 million.

Afrikaners are divided over Trump’s claims. Some say they face discrimination, but a group of leading Afrikaner business figures and academics said in an open letter last month that “the narrative that casts Afrikaners as victims of racial persecution in post-apartheid South Africa” is misleading.

Afrikaners’ Dutch-derived language is widely spoken in South Africa and is one of the country’s 12 official languages. Afrikaners are represented in every aspect of society. Afrikaners are some of South Africa’s richest entrepreneurs and some of its most successful sports stars, and also serve in government. Most are largely committed to South Africa’s multiracial democracy.

Trump claims they’re being ‘killed and slaughtered’

Trump asserted that Afrikaners “are being killed and slaughtered, and their land and farms are being illegally confiscated.” The president’s comments are in reference to a relatively small number of attacks on Afrikaner farmers that he and others claim are racially motivated.

Trump has also pointed to a highly contentious law introduced by the South African government that allows land to be appropriated from private owners without compensation. Some Afrikaners fear that law is aimed at removing them from their land in favor of South Africa’s poor Black majority. Many South Africans, including opposition parties, have criticized the law, but it hasn’t led to land confiscations.

Trump first made baseless claims of widespread killing of white South African farmers and land seizures during his first term in response to allegations aired on conservative media personality Tucker Carlson’s former show on Fox News. Trump ordered then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to look into the allegations, but nothing came of any investigation.

South Africa rejects the claims

The South African government said in response to Trump’s social media post that his claims were “not substantiated by fact.” It has said that Trump’s criticism of South Africa over Afrikaners is a result of misinformation because it misses the context that Black farmers and farmworkers are also killed in rural attacks, which make up a tiny percentage of the country’s high violent crime rate.

There were more than 26,000 homicides in South Africa in 2024. Of those, 37 were farm murders, according to an Afrikaner lobby group that tracks them. Experts on rural attacks in South Africa have said the overriding motive for the violent farm invasions is robbery and not race.

Other pressure on South Africa

Trump said it is a “total disgrace” that the G20 summit — a meeting of the leaders of the 19 top rich and developing economies, the European Union and the African Union — is being held in South Africa. He had already said he wouldn’t attend, and Vice President JD Vance was due to go in his place. The U.S. will take on the rotating presidency of the G20 after South Africa.

Trump also said in a speech last week that South Africa should be thrown out of the G20.

Trump’s criticism of Africa’s most developed economy has gone beyond the issue of Afrikaners. His executive order in February said South Africa had taken “aggressive positions towards the United States and its allies,” specifically with its decision to accuse Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza at the United Nations’ top court.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio boycotted a G20 foreign ministers meeting in South Africa in February after deriding the host country’s G20 slogan of “solidarity, equality and sustainability” as “DEI and climate change.”

AP Africa news: https://apnews.com/hub/africa

A federal judge Wednesday ordered the release of video taken during an hourslong deposition given last week by U.S. Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino.

The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Public Media petitioned U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis to release the recordings, which were filed under seal as part of a lawsuit led by the Chicago Headline Club, a nonprofit journalism advocacy organization, and a consortium of other media groups. The journalism organizations allege federal immigration enforcement officials have systematically violated the constitutional rights of protesters and reporters during President Donald Trump’s mass deportation mission, which began in early September and shows no sign of slowing down.

Ellis, who issued a temporary restraining order last month, announced Thursday that she will put longer-term restrictions on federal agents’ use of chemical agents on crowds and provide enhanced protections for protesters and members of the media.

The released videos can be seen in their entirety on the Tribune’s YouTube channel, but here are some of the highlights:

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol in Chicago

Bovino, who is leading Trump’s immigration enforcement effort in the Chicago area, testified that he is leading roughly 220 U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents as part of the so-called Operation Midway Blitz. He said he reports directly to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

‘More than exemplary’

Asked by veteran Chicago civil rights attorney Locke Bowman if he stood by remarks he made to CBS that the use of force at the Broadview ICE facility has been “exemplary,” Bovino at first surprised everyone by saying, “No.”

“The uses of force have been more than exemplary,” Bovino clarified.

In placing longer-term restrictions Thursday, Ellis disagreed.

“The use of force shocks the conscience,” she said.

‘Violent rioters’

During the deposition, Bovino said he had not witnessed his agents using tear gas or pepper-spray balls against protesters in Broadview, but chemical agents were used against “violent rioters” and “assaultive subjects.”

Definition of a protester

When asked to define “protester,”  Bovino said it’s a person “exercising their constitutional rights to speak — to speak their opinion, to speak their mind in a peaceful fashion … in accordance with laws, rules and with the Constitution.”

“We get protesters on both sides of the issue. Sometimes they protest against, say, a Title 8 immigration enforcement mission, tell us they don’t like it, we shouldn’t be there, we need to go home, use very foul language oftentimes,” he said. “And then there’s also protesters on the other side of the issue that say ‘hey, you should be there. We’re glad you’re here. Continue to be here.’ So, I look at those as peaceful individuals exercising their right to, one, be there and, two, speak their mind. It’s freedom of assembly, freedom of speech.”

Bovino then rattled off a list of public actions he said his agents have experienced, actions he uses to draw a distinction between protesters and “violent rioters” or “assaultive subjects”: “Removing masks, kicking agents, grabbing agents’ groins, assisting and abetting prisoners from escaping, shooting fireworks, knifing and slashing tires with weapons, throwing rocks through windows of vehicles to hurt agents and/or detainees.”

‘Not a reportable use of force’

On the video, Bovino is asked about an Oct. 3 arrest he made involving a man protesting outside the Broadview facility. According to the complaint, Bovino ordered a man to move down the street after the man told him, “you love to be on television.” As the man started to move, the complaint states, Bovino “stepped across a barrier,” tackled the man and arrested him.

During the Nov. 4 deposition, Bovino said the arrest “was not a reportable use of force. I placed him under arrest. I didn’t tackle him.”

More about Bovino’s interaction with the protester

Bovino was asked about an encounter with the man, Scott Blackburn, who was protesting at Broadview. The lawyer and Bovino disagreed over whether he used force when he tackled the protester.

“He doesn’t like the fact that you are instructing him to move down,” the lawyer said to Bovino.

Bovino objected to the lawyer’s characterization, saying instead, “That individual is failing to follow instructions to vacate the area.”

The video shows Bovino tackling the protester. But Bovino characterized it a different way.

“I’m imploring Mr. Blackburn, or whoever that individual was, to comply with leaving the area and to comply with instructions,” Bovino said.

Asked if he was “making physical contact,” Bovino said he was. But he denied that it was a use of force, saying it was different than using deadly force or “open-hand strikes.”

But he disputed that he used force against the protester.

“The use of force was against me,” Bovino said.

The judge, however, said she did not believe Bovino’s testimony about force that his agents and he personally inflicted in incidents across the Chicago area.

“In one of the videos, Bovino obviously attacks and tackles the declarant, Mr. Blackburn, to the ground,” Ellis said. “But Mr. Bovino, despite watching this video (in his deposition) says that he never used force.”

Pastor struck in the head

In video taken at a protest outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview, the Rev. David Black walks toward the building and appears to talk with someone on the roof. A fellow demonstrator offers Black a bullhorn, which the Presbyterian pastor appears to ignore.

Seconds later, Black begins dodging pepper-spray projectiles fired at him, as another protester lifts his shirt and dances a jig as if daring someone to shoot at him. Black initially takes a few steps back, then moves forward with his arms outstretched, looking up toward the building and talking.

On the video, pepper-spray balls can be seen striking the ground in front of Black. He is then struck in the right arm by one. He appears to try and turn away before he is struck again, this time in the head.

Other protesters quickly gather around him as he kneels or falls to the ground, the recording shows. Bystanders lift him and help spirit him away.

Struck again

On the video, Black returns to sidewalk in front of the detention center with a megaphone in hand. As he appears to speak to someone on the roof, pepper-spray balls are fired in his direction.

A protester appears to try to shield him with a sign, but it doesn’t work. Black is hit in the head again.

Bovino on the incident with Pastor Black

Bovino was asked about Rev. David Black, a Presbyterian pastor who was shot in the head by a federal agent. He declined to answer the question, which was framed as a hypothetical, saying he was “unable to comment on that use of force.”

Pressed further, Bovino said: “I don’t know what the use of force was here. I can’t make a judgment either way because I don’t know.”

By FATIMA HUSSEIN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Congressional Budget Office on Thursday confirmed it had been hacked, potentially disclosing important government data to malicious actors.

The small government office, with some 275 employees, provides objective, impartial analysis to support lawmakers during the budget process. It is required to produce a cost estimate for nearly every bill approved by a House or Senate committee and will weigh in earlier when asked to do so by lawmakers.

Caitlin Emma, a spokeswoman for the CBO said in a written statement that the agency “has identified the security incident, has taken immediate action to contain it, and has implemented additional monitoring and new security controls to further protect the agency’s systems going forward.”

The Washington Post first wrote the story on the CBO hack, stating that the intrusion was done by a suspected foreign actor, citing four anonymous people familiar with the situation.

The CBO did not confirm whether the data breach was done by a foreign actor.

“The incident is being investigated and work for the Congress continues,” Emma said. “Like other government agencies and private sector entities, CBO occasionally faces threats to its network and continually monitors to address those threats.”

The CBO manages a variety of massive data sources that relate to a multitude of policy issues — from the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans, to the unprecedented implementation of sweeping tariffs on countries around the world, to massive tax and spending cuts passed into law this summer.

By REBECCA SANTANA, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is speeding up the implementation of new rules that would give the agency tasked with protecting federal government facilities greater authority to charge people for a broader array of offenses on or off those properties.

The changes outlining the powers of the Federal Protective Service, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, were put forward in early January under the Biden administration and were slated to take effect on Jan. 1 of next year but instead went into effect Wednesday. The administration said the rules were being changed ahead of time so they could address a “recent surge in violence.”

They come as protests have surged against President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda, especially near buildings associated with immigration enforcement, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices or facilities. They also come as the Trump administration is facing lawsuits in both Chicago and Portland against what critics say is the excessive use of force by federal officers against protesters and others or unjustified attempts to bring in federal forces to protect facilities.

Activists and many political leaders have accused Homeland Security of aggressively suppressing peaceful protests and targeting activists trying to hold them accountable. Critics said the new rules could be used to target protesters.

“DHS is using every tool possible to protect the lives of our law enforcement as they face a surge in violence and lawlessness at many of our federal facilities,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release announcing the sped-up schedule. The release cited a shooting at a Dallas ICE facility, an incident that killed two detainees.

The new rules empower officers from the Federal Protective Service to make arrests and charge people for actions near the federal property, and they include new rules regulating unauthorized use of drones and tampering with digital networks.

The Homeland Security news release gave some examples of conduct that the Federal Protective Service could now charge someone for, both on federal property and off, including wearing a mask while committing a crime, obstructing access to federal property and tampering with government IT systems like card readers.

Spencer Reynolds, a former intelligence and counterintelligence lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security who’s now with the Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank, said Congress gave the Federal Protective Service the ability to work and carry out arrests off of federal property as necessary. But he’s concerned that the new regulations codifying these powers will be used as a way to target protesters.

“I see this as being guidance to go after peaceful protests where they are happening in the vicinity or even not in the vicinity of federal property,” he said.

In a report last year issued by the Brennan Center, Reynolds said the FPS expanded dramatically after Sept. 11 and that’s led to “overreach under political pressure.”

In Chicago, a federal judge overseeing a case alleging federal agents carrying out an immigration crackdown there are using excessive force against journalists and protesters said Thursday that she’s going to restrict federal agents’ use of force to prevent the “chilling of First Amendment rights.” U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis said she didn’t feel federal agents’ use of force was justified and that she didn’t find their “version of events credible.”

In Portland, the Trump administration has argued that protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building have gotten so out of control that it justifies sending in National Guard troops to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur.

U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut Sunday barred the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon, until at least Friday, saying she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.

The Federal Protective Service is tasked with protecting federal properties. The agency used to fall under the U.S. General Services Administration, which is responsible for purchasing and managing federal real estate, but when the Department of Homeland Security was created in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the FPS was transferred to Homeland Security.

RICHMOND, Va. — Democrat Abigail Spanberger won the Virginia governor’s race Tuesday, defeating Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears to give Democrats a key victory heading into the 2026 midterm elections and make history as the first woman ever to lead the commonwealth.

Spanberger’s victory will flip partisan control of the governor’s office when she succeeds outgoing Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.

“We sent a message to every corner of the commonwealth, a message to our neighbors and our fellow Americans across the country,” Spanberger told cheering supporters Tuesday night in Richmond. “We sent a message to the whole word that in 2025, Virginia chose pragmatism over partisanship. We chose our commonwealth over chaos.”

Also Tuesday, Democrat Ghazala F. Hashmi won the race for lieutenant governor and will succeed Earle-Sears, and Democrat Jay Jones defeated Republican incumbent Jason Miyares in the race for attorney general. Jones is set to become the first Black attorney general in Virginia, while Hashmi is the first Muslim woman to win a statewide office in the U.S.

Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA case officer, won by emphasizing economic issues, a strategy that may serve as a model for other Democrats in next year’s elections as they try to break President Donald Trump’s and Republicans’ hold on power in Washington and gain ground in statehouses.

Campaigning, Spanberger often sidestepped the historic potential of her candidacy. In victory, she embraced it.

“Just a few minutes ago, Adam said to our daughters, your mom’s going to be the governor of Virginia. And I can guarantee those words have never been spoken in Virginia ever before,” she said

“It’s a big deal that the girls and the young women I have met along the campaign trail now know with certainty that they can achieve anything.”

Spanberger’s eyes welled up as she told her family she loved them, as her husband and three daughters, standing behind her, wiped tears from their cheeks.

Spanberger was intentional in how she criticized Trump

Throughout the campaign, Spanberger made carefully crafted economic arguments against Trump’s policies, while she spent considerable sums on ads tying Earle-Sears to the president. She campaigned across the state, including in Republican-leaning areas, and in her first appearance as governor-elect she wore a bright red suit.

Yet Spanberger also emphasized her support for abortion rights in the last Southern state that has not enacted new restrictions or bans on the procedure, and she railed against Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, the U.S. government shutdown and their negative impact on a state with several hundred thousand federal employees.

That approach helped corral Democrats’ core supporters while attracting the kinds of swing voters who elected Youngkin four years ago. It also continued a historical trend for Virginia: Since Jimmy Carter won the White House in 1976, Virginia has backed a governor from the opposite party of every first-term president in the following year. This year is a special case, given the gap between Trump’s terms.

Republicans, meanwhile, must grapple again with a battleground loss by an arch-conservative from the president’s party.

Trump never campaigned for Earle-Sears, though he did give her his tepid support. Their uneasy alliance raises questions about the ideal Republican nominee for contested general elections and how the president’s volatile standing with voters might affect GOP candidates next November. The midterm elections will settle statehouse control in dozens of states and determine whether Republicans maintain majorities in Washington for the final years of Trump’s presidency.

Earle-Sears 61, would have become the first Black woman to be elected as a governor in the U.S.

In her concession speech, she said she hoped Spanberger would support policies that unite Virginians.

“My opponent, Abigail, ran as a moderate. If she governs as one, then she will unite us, and she’ll heal our divide and win our support,” Earle-Sears said. “I hope and pray she does.”

Spanberger balanced policy and biography

Spanberger, 46, ran on a pledge to protect Virginia’s economy from the aggressive tactics of Trump’s second administration, which has culled the civil service, levied tariffs and shepherded a reconciliation bill curtailing the state’s already fragile health care system.

Accountant Sherry Kohan, 56, who cast her ballot at the Aurora Hills Library in Arlington, said she used to think of herself as a Republican but hasn’t felt aligned with either party since Trump’s first term. She said her vote for Spanberger was a vote against Trump.

Stephanie Uhl, 38, who also said she voted for Spanberger, had the federal government shutdown on her mind when casting her ballot at the library in Arlington, just across the river from Washington.

Uhl was working without pay for the Defense Department and though she said, “I can afford (it) just fine,” she was bothered “that it affects so many other people.”

Spanberger’s background also figured heavily into her victory. As a former CIA case officer, she noted her public service and national security credentials. And she pitched herself as the mother of daughters educated in Virginia’s public schools and a Capitol Hill veteran who represented a swing district and worked across the aisle.

The pitch helped the Democratic nominee withstand Earle-Sears’ attacks on cultural issues, notably the Republican’s assertion that Spanberger is an extremist on civil rights and health care for transgender people. Spanberger, who consistently argued that local school districts should decide whether transgender students can participate in competitive sports, cast her opponent as the candidate more out of step with the middle of the Virginia electorate.

Her strategy echoed the approach Democrats used to flip U.S. House control in the 2018 midterms, halfway through Trump’s first presidency. Spanberger was among several high-profile women who brought national security or military credentials to campaigns in battleground districts. Another of those women, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, was vying Tuesday to become New Jersey’s Democratic governor.

Together, they were held up as examples of successful mainstream Democrats at a time when the party’s left flank has been ascendent, most notably Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist and the party’s nominee in Tuesday’s New York mayoral contest.

In Congress, Spanberger was a quiet workhorse

When she first got to Washington, Spanberger concentrated on lower-profile issues: bringing broadband to rural areas, fighting drug trafficking and veterans’ services. And she quickly established a reputation for working with colleagues across the political spectrum.

In her new role, she will face tightening economic projections, rising utility costs and growing unemployment — in part because of the Trump administration’s federal contraction. But she could have the advantage of a friendly Legislature if Democrats are able to maintain their majority in the House of Delegates. All 100 seats in that chamber were on the ballot Tuesday, as were other statewide offices, including lieutenant governor and attorney general. The state Senate, also controlled by Democrats, was not on the ballot this year. If Democrats have the so-called trifecta in Richmond, as Republicans do now in Washington, they could enact many policy priorities that lawmakers advanced to Youngkin only for him to veto the bills.

Spanberger won despite a late surprise that threatened Virginia’s Democratic ticket. In October, news reports revealed that Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for attorney general, sent texts in 2022 suggesting the former Republican House speaker get “two bullets to the head.”

Republicans across the U.S., including Trump and Earle-Sears, demanded Jones drop out. He apologized and said he was ashamed of the messages but declined to leave the race.

The controversy dogged Spanberger. She condemned the text messages but stopped short of asking Jones to withdraw from the race, and she notably did not withdraw her endorsement.

“I have denounced political violence, political rhetoric,” Spanberger said in her lone debate with Earle-Sears, “no matter who is leading the charge.”

Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Barrow reported from Atlanta. Helen Wieffering contributed from Arlington, Virginia.

By SEUNG MIN KIM, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is heading to Miami on Wednesday — the anniversary of his reelection to a second term — to speak to a forum of business leaders and global athletes about what he sees as his economic achievements.

His speech to the American Business Forum will be a broad look at his economic agenda and how investments he has secured abroad help U.S. communities, according to a senior White House official. It’s a significant effort from Trump to put a positive spin on the economy at a time when Americans remain uneasy about the state of their finances and the cost of living — and when major campaigns in Tuesday’s election were centered on affordability and the economy.

The AP Voter Poll survey, which included more than 17,000 voters in New Jersey, Virginia, California and New York City, suggested the public was troubled by higher prices and fewer job opportunities despite Trump’s promises to tame inflation and unleash growth.

In his speech, Trump will touch on deregulation, energy independence and oil prices, and affordability, said the White House official, who was granted anonymity to preview the president’s address.

Trump spent five days in Asia last week with stops in Malaysia, Japan and South Korea. He worked to ease trade tensions with Beijing in a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In Tokyo, he promoted several major energy and tech projects for the U.S. that will be funded by Japan.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez said he thinks Trump’s recent travels “have been transformational in his presidency” and said his speech will be a highlight of the forum, which organizers have described as a more accessible version of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, or the Milken Institute Global Conference, which gathers the world’s elite for discussions on the economy.

“This conference not only is creating this incredible collection of people, but it’s also creating them in a particular moment in time,” said Suarez, a Republican.

Trump’s visit also highlights how the Miami area is playing a key role during his second term.

Trump is set to host leaders of the world’s leading rich and developing economies at next year’s Group of 20 summit at his golf club at the nearby city of Doral, despite what critics say is the appearance of impropriety.

Trump’s sons have taken over running the Trump Organization while their father is in the White House, and the president has insisted that his family’s business will not make any money by holding the summit at the golf club.

The city is where Trump wants to locate his future presidential library, which is now facing a legal challenge over whether the plot of land in downtown Miami is being properly transferred. Miami is also one of the U.S. host cities for next year’s World Cup, which Trump has eagerly promoted as the kickoff to several major global sporting events for which the U.S. is playing host. Ensuring the success of the World Cup has been a top priority for the Trump administration.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino, with whom Trump has developed a close friendship, is scheduled to speak at the Miami forum later Wednesday.

TRENTON, N.J. — U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill on Tuesday was elected governor of New Jersey, shoring up Democratic control of a state that has been reliably blue in presidential and Senate contests but had shown signs of shifting rightward in recent years.

Sherrill, a former Navy helicopter pilot and four-term member of Congress, defeated Jack Ciattarelli, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, and quickly cast her victory late Tuesday as a referendum on the Republican president and some of his policies from health care to immigration and the economy.

“We here in New Jersey are bound to fight for a different future for our children,” Sherrill told her supporters gathered to celebrate her victory. “We see how clearly important liberty is. We know that no one in our great state is safe when our neighbors are targeted, ignoring the law and the Constitution.”

Ciattarelli called Sherrill to congratulate her on the results and said he “gave her my very best wishes in hopefully solving New Jersey.”

The start of voting on Tuesday was disrupted after officials in seven counties received e-mailed bomb threats later determined by law enforcement to be unfounded, said the state’s top election official, Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way. A judge granted a one-hour extension at some polling places after Democrats made a request for three schools that received e-mailed bomb threats earlier Tuesday.

Sherrill, 53, offers some reassurance for moderates within the Democratic Party as they navigate the path forward for next year’s midterms. A former prosecutor and military veteran, Sherrill embodies a brand of centrist Democrats who aim to appeal to some conservatives while still aligning with some progressive causes. She campaigned on standing up to Trump and casting blame for voters’ concerns over the economy on his tariffs.

Earlier at Sherrill’s victory party, other Democrats were also framing the results Tuesday as a rebuke to the Trump agenda 10 months into his administration.

“Today we said no to Donald Trump and yes to democracy,” said New Jersey’s Democratic Party chair LeRoy J. Jones Jr. to the people gathered.

She will be New Jersey’s second female governor, after Republican Christine Todd Whitman, who served between 1994 and 2001. Her victory also gives Democrats three straight gubernatorial election wins in New Jersey, the first time in six decades that either major party has achieved a three-peat.

Ciattarelli lost his second straight governor’s election after coming within a few points of defeating incumbent Gov. Phil Murphy four years ago.

New Jersey’s odd-year race for governor, one of just two this year along with Virginia, often hinged on local issues such as property taxes. But the campaign also served as a potential gauge of national sentiment, especially how voters are reacting to the president’s second term and Democrats’ messaging ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In the closing weeks of the campaign, Sherrill lambasted the president’s threat to cancel a project to build new rail tunnels beneath the Hudson River to replace the aging, disintegrating tubes now used by trains headed to and from New York City. She also pledged to order a freeze on electric utility rates, which have recently soared.

Sherrill steps into the governorship role after serving four terms in the U.S. House. She won that post in 2018 during Trump’s first term in office, flipping a longtime GOP-held district in an election that saw Democrats sweep all but one of the state’s 12 House seats.

During her campaign, Sherrill leaned hard into her credentials as a congresswoman and onetime prosecutor as well as her military service. But she also had to defend her Navy service record after a news report that she was not allowed to participate in her 1994 graduation ceremony from the U.S. Naval Academy commencement in connection with an academic cheating scandal at the school.

Sherrill said the punishment was a result of not turning in some classmates, not because she herself had cheated. But she declined to release additional records that the Ciattarelli campaign said would shed more light on the issue.

For her part, she accused Ciattarelli of profiting off the opioid crisis. He is the former owner of a medical publishing company that made continuing education materials for doctors, including some that discussed pain management and opioids. Sherrill called it “propaganda” for drug companies, something Ciattarelli denied.

Sherrill will inherit a state budget that swelled under Murphy, who delivered on promises to fund the public worker pension fund and a K-12 school aid formula after years of neglect under previous governors, by high income taxes on the wealthy. But there are also headwinds that include unfunded promises to continue a property tax relief program begun in the governor’s second term.

Also on the ballot Tuesday were all 80 seats in the Assembly, which Democrats control with a 52-seat majority.

New Jersey hasn’t supported a Republican for U.S. Senate or the White House in decades. The governor’s office, though, has often switched back and forth between the parties. The last time the same party prevailed in a third straight New Jersey election for governor was in 1961, when Richard Hughes won the race to succeed Gov. Robert Meyner. Both were Democrats.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s power to unilaterally impose far-reaching tariffs is coming before the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a pivotal test of executive power with trillion-dollar implications for the global economy.

The Republican administration is trying to defend the tariffs central to Trump’s economic agenda after lower courts ruled the emergency law he invoked doesn’t give him near-limitless power to set and change duties on imports.

The Constitution says Congress has the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argues that in emergency situations the president can regulate importation taxes like tariffs. Trump has called the case one of the most important in the country’s history and said a ruling against him would be “catastrophic” for the economy.

The challengers argue the 1977 emergency-powers law Trump used doesn’t even mention tariffs, and no president before has used it to impose them. A collection of small businesses say the uncertainty is driving them to the brink of bankruptcy.

The case centers on two sets of tariffs. The first came in February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico after Trump declared a national emergency over drug trafficking. The second involves the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries that Trump announced in April.

Multiple lawsuits have been filed over the tariffs, and the court will hear suits filed by Democratic-leaning states and small businesses focused on everything from plumbing supplies to women’s cycling apparel.

Lower courts have struck down the bulk of his tariffs as an illegal use of emergency power, but the nation’s highest court may see it differently.

Trump helped shape the conservative-majority court, naming three of the justices in his first term. The justices have so far been reluctant to check his extraordinary flex of executive power, handing him a series of wins on its emergency docket.

Still, those have been short-term orders — little of Trump’s wide-ranging conservative agenda has been fully argued before the nation’s highest court. That means the outcome could set the tone for wider legal pushback against his policies.

The justices have been skeptical of executive power claims before, such as when then-President Joe Biden tried to forgive $400 billion in student loans under a different law dealing with national emergencies. The Supreme Court found the law didn’t clearly give him the power to enact a program with such a big economic impact, a legal principle known as the major questions doctrine.

The challengers say Trump’s tariffs should get the same treatment, since they’ll have a much greater economic effect, raising some $3 trillion over the next decade. The government, on the other hand, says the tariffs are different because they’re a major part of his approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.

The challengers are also trying to channel the conservative justices’ skepticism about whether the Constitution allows other parts of the government to use powers reserved for Congress, a concept known as the nondelegation doctrine. Trump’s interpretation of the law could mean anyone who can “regulate” can also impose taxes, they say.

The Justice Department counters that legal principle is for governmental agencies, not for the president.

If he eventually loses at the high court, Trump could impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act. The aftermath of a ruling against him also could be complicated, if the government must issue refunds for the tariffs that had collected $195 billion in revenue as of September.

The Trump administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, gives the president authority to regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

By LISA MASCARO and MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government shutdown has entered its 36th day, breaking the record as the longest ever and disrupting the lives of millions of Americans with federal program cuts, flight delays and federal workers nationwide left without paychecks.

President Donald Trump has refused to negotiate with Democrats over their demands to salvage expiring health insurance subsidies until they agree to reopen the government. But skeptical Democrats question whether the Republican president will keep his word, particularly after the administration restricted SNAP food aid, despite court orders to ensure funds are available to prevent hunger.

Trump, whose first term at the White House set the previous government shutdown record, is set to meet early Wednesday for breakfast with GOP senators. But no talks have been scheduled with the Democrats.

“Why is this happening? We’re in a shutdown because our colleagues are unwilling to come to the table to talk about one simple thing: health care premiums,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., in a late evening speech.

“Stop this mess, come to the table, negotiate it,” she said.

With Trump largely on the sidelines, talks have intensified among a loose coalition of centrist senators trying to negotiate an end to the stalemate. Expectations are high that the logjam would break once election results were fully tallied in Tuesday’s off-year races that were widely watched as a gauge of voter sentiment over Trump’s second term in the White House. Democrats swept key contests for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, and New York City mayor, certain to shake up the political assessments.

But earlier in the afternoon, Senate Democrats left an hours-long private meeting stone-faced, with no certain path forward.

“We’re exploring all the options,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said afterward.

Trump sets another shutdown record

Trump’s approach to this shutdown stands in marked contrast to his first term, when the government was partially closed for 35 days over his demands for funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall. At that time, he met publicly and negotiated with congressional leaders, but unable to secure the funds, he relented in 2019.

This time, it’s not just Trump declining to engage in talks. The congressional leaders are at a standoff and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home in September after they approved their own funding bill, refusing further negotiations.

In the meantime, food aid, child care funds and countless other government services are being seriously interrupted and hundreds of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed or expected to come to work without pay.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy predicted there could be chaos in the skies next week if air traffic controllers miss another paycheck. Labor unions put pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said this has been not only the longest shutdown but also “the most severe shutdown on record.”

The Republican leader has urged the Democrats to accept his overtures to vote on the health care issue and keep negotiating a solution once the government reopens, arguing that no one wins politically from the standoff.

“Shutdowns are stupid,” Thune said.

Senators search for potential deal

Central to any endgame will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House, and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington.

First of all, senators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process in Congress can be put back on track.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., along with several Democrats, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Chris Coons of Delaware, are among those working behind the scenes.

“The pace of talks have increased,” said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has been involved in conversations.

Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills where there is already widespread bipartisan agreement to fund various aspects of government, like agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

“I certainly think that three-bill package is primed to do a lot of good things for the American people,” said Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who has also been in talks.

Health care costs skyrocket for millions

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of Americans are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of enhanced federal subsidies, which were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Republicans are reluctant to fund the health care program, also known as Obamacare, without reforms, but negotiating a compromise with Democrats is expected to take time, if a deal can be reached at all.

Thune has promised Democrats at least a vote on their preferred health care proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government. But that’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

The White House says its position remains unchanged and that Democrats must vote to fund the government before talks over health care can begin. White House officials are in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats, according to a senior White House official. The official was granted anonymity to discuss administration strategy.

Trump’s demands to end the filibuster fall flat

The president has been pushing the senators to nuke the filibuster — the Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation — as a way to reopen the government.

The GOP senators have panned Trump’s demands to end the filibuster, in a rare public break with the president. Thune and others argue the Senate rule, while infuriating at times, ensures the minority party can be a check on the administration, which is important when power shifts in Washington.

But in the current Senate, where Republicans hold a slim majority, 53-47, Democrats have been able to block the House-passed bill that would fund the government, having voted more than a dozen times against.

Trump has said that doing away with the filibuster would be one way the Republicans could bypass the Democrats and end the shutdown on their own. Republican senators are trying to avoid that outcome.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking, Stephen Groves, Seung Min Kim and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

By COLLIN BINKLEY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 20 Democrat-led states are challenging a new Trump administration policy designed to block nonprofit and government workers from a student loan cancellation program if federal officials determine their employer has a “substantial illegal purpose.”

The policy is aimed primarily at organizations that work with immigrants and transgender youth.

In the lawsuit filed Monday in Massachusetts, the states argue the Trump administration overstepped its authority when it added new eligibility rules for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The overhaul will worsen job shortages and create instability in state workforces, the suit said.

The legal challenge is being led by New York, Massachusetts, California and Colorado. New York Attorney General Letitia James said the rule is “a political loyalty test disguised as a regulation,” adding that it’s “unjust and unlawful to cut off loan forgiveness for hardworking Americans based on ideology.”

A separate coalition of cities, nonprofits and labor organizations also filed a legal challenge in Massachusetts on Monday. That suit was brought by Boston; Chicago; Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Francisco; Santa Clara, California; and the National Council of Nonprofits.

Responding to the lawsuits, Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said it’s unconscionable that the plaintiffs are standing up for criminal activity.

“This is a commonsense reform that will stop taxpayer dollars from subsidizing organizations involved in terrorism, child trafficking, and transgender procedures that are doing irreversible harm to children,” Kent said in a statement. “The final rule is crystal clear: the Department will enforce it neutrally, without consideration of the employer’s mission, ideology, or the population they serve.”

Another lawsuit challenging the rule is expected to be filed Tuesday on behalf of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights advocacy organization, the American Immigration Council and The Door, a legal group. They’re being represented by the groups Student Defense and Public Citizen.

Congress created the program in 2007 to steer more graduates into lower-paying public sector jobs. It promises to forgive their federal student loans after they make payments for 10 years while working in government jobs or for many nonprofits. More than 1 million Americans have had their loans canceled through the program, including teachers, firefighters, nurses and public defenders.

Under the new policy finalized last week, employers can be removed if they engage in activities including the trafficking or “chemical castration” of children, illegal immigration and supporting terrorist groups. “Chemical castration” is defined as using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty — gender-affirming care common for transgender children or teens.

The education secretary gets the final say in determining whether a group’s work has an illegal purpose, weighing whether the “preponderance of the evidence” leans against them.

In their lawsuit, the states argue that entire state governments, hospitals, schools and nonprofits could unilaterally be ruled ineligible by the secretary. They say Congress granted the benefit to all government workers, with no room for the Education Department to add limits.

The states also object to the department’s reliance on the phrase “substantial illegal purpose,” saying it’s an “overbroad and impermissibly vague term” that is aimed “at chilling activities that are disfavored by this Administration.”

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the policy unlawful and forbid the Education Department from enforcing it.

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By CLAUDIA LAUER, Associated Press

A U.S. Senate investigation has uncovered dozens of credible reports of medical neglect and poor conditions in immigration detention centers nationwide — with detainees denied insulin, left without medical attention for days and forced to compete for clean water — raising scrutiny about how the government oversees its vast detention system.

The report released by Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Democrat from Georgia, is the second in a series of inquiries examining alleged human rights abuses in the immigration detention system. It builds on an August review that detailed mistreatment of children and pregnant women and draws from more than 500 reports of abuse and neglect collected between January and August.

The latest findings document more than 80 credible cases of medical neglect and widespread complaints of inadequate food and water. Senate investigators say that points to systemic failures in federal detention oversight.

The report cites accounts from detainees, attorneys, advocates, news reports and at least one Department of Homeland Security employee, describing delays in medical care that, in some cases, proved life-threatening. One detainee reportedly suffered a heart attack after complaining of chest pain for days without treatment. Others said inhalers and asthma medication were withheld, or that detainees waited weeks for prescriptions to be filled.

A Homeland Security staff member assigned to one detention site told investigators that “ambulances have to come almost every day,” according to the report.

Ossoff said the findings reflect a deeper failure of oversight within federal immigration detention.

“Americans overwhelmingly demand and deserve secure borders. Americans also overwhelmingly oppose the abuse and neglect of detainees,” Ossoff told The Associated Press. “Every human being is entitled to dignity and humane treatment. That is why I have for years investigated and exposed abuses in prisons, jails, and detention centers, and that is why this work will continue.”

The medical reports also detailed how a diabetic detainee went without glucose monitoring or insulin for two days and became delirious before medical attention was given and that it took months for another detainee to receive medication to treat gastrointestinal issues.

Expired milk, foul water, scant food are reported

The Senate investigation also identified persistent complaints about food and water, including evidence drawn from court filings, depositions and interviews. Detainees described meals too small for adults, milk that was sometimes expired, and water that smelled foul or appeared to make children sick. At one Texas facility, a teenager said adults were forced to compete with children for bottles of clean water when staff left out only a few at a time.

The Associated Press asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for comment on the report’s findings multiple times Wednesday and Thursday, but the agency did not provide a response. The Homeland Security Department previously criticized Ossoff’s first report in August, saying the allegations of detainees being abused were false and accusing him of trying to “score political points.”

Attorneys for some of those detained at facilities across the country said they’ve seen some of the issues with medical care and food firsthand.

Stephanie Alvarez-Jones, a Southeast regional attorney for the National Immigration Project, said one of the organization’s clients was denied a prescribed medical device while being detained at Angola’s Camp J facility in Louisiana in the last two months. The man, in his 60s, experienced stroke-like symptoms, including partial paralysis, and was eventually taken to the hospital, where he was transferred to an intensive care unit for several days.

Doctors there prescribed him a walker to help him move during his recovery, but Alvarez-Jones said the detention staff would not let him have it when he first returned and placed him in a segregation cell.

“He still could not walk by himself,” she said. “He still had paralysis on his left side.” She added: “He was not able to get up and get his food, to shower by himself or to use the bathroom without assistance. So he had to lay in soiled bedsheets because he wasn’t able to get up.”

Alvarez-Jones said the guards had insinuated to the man that they believed he was faking his illness. He was eventually given the choice of staying in the segregation cell and being allowed a walker, or returning to the general detainee population. She said he’s been relying on the help of others in the general population to eat and use the bathroom as he recovers.

The Baltimore field office is examined

Amelia Dagen, a senior attorney with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, is working on a lawsuit against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations Baltimore Field Office as well as officials in charge of national immigration enforcement efforts.

Dagen said several of the organization’s clients have had to fight for access to medication at the Baltimore holding facility. Through the lawsuit, she said the government agency had to admit in the court record that it does not have a food vendor to provide three meals a day or any onsite medical staff at the facility that was initially only supposed to hold detainees for about 12 hours.

But since January and the various immigration enforcement actions, it’s much more likely that detainees are held for as much as a week in the Baltimore Hold Room.

“What we started hearing very quickly, maybe in February, was that the food they were being fed three times a day was incredibly inadequate,” Dagen said. “We would hear sometimes it would be a protein bar or sometimes just bread and water. There is very little nutritional value and very little variety. I mean, sometimes it was a military ration component, but just the rice and beans, not a full meal.”

Dagen said the detainees also have to ask for bottles of water and they aren’t always given. The ICE office has taken the stance that the sinks attached to the cell toilets are a continuous supply of water. But Dagen said the detainees complained the sink water has a bad taste.

“This is 100% a problem of their own making,” she said of the authorities. “These hold rooms were not used in this way prior to 2025. They are setting themselves these quotas, removing discretion to release people and trying to arrest numbers of people that are just impractical … fully knowing they don’t have the ability to hold these people.”

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N. human rights chief said Friday that U.S. military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean allegedly carrying illegal drugs from South America are “unacceptable” and must stop.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk called for an investigation into the strikes, in what appeared to mark the first such condemnation of its kind from a United Nations organization.

Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for Türk’s office, relayed his message on Friday at a regular U.N. briefing: “These attacks and their mounting human cost are unacceptable. The U.S. must halt such attacks and take all measures necessary to prevent the extrajudicial killing of people aboard these boats.”

She said Türk believed “airstrikes by the United States of America on boats in the Caribbean and in the Pacific violate international human rights law.”

President Donald Trump has justified the attacks on the boats as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States, but the campaign against drug cartels has been divisive among countries in the region.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday announced the latest U.S. military strike in the campaign, against a boat he said was carrying drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean. All four people aboard were killed. It was the 14th strike since the campaign began in early September, while the death toll has grown to at least 61.

Shamdasani noted the U.S. explanations of the efforts as an anti-drug and counter-terrorism campaign, but said countries have long agreed that the fight against illicit drug trafficking is a law-enforcement matter governed by “careful limits” placed on the use of lethal force.

Intentional use of lethal force is allowed only as a last resort against someone representing “an imminent threat to life,” she said. “Otherwise, it would amount to a violation of the right of life and constitute extrajudicial killings.”

The strikes are taking place “outside the context” of armed conflict or active hostilities, Shamdasani said.

By MARC LEVY, Associated Press

LANCASTER, Pa. (AP) — Democrats and their allied groups are pouring in more money, cutting a fresh television ad with Gov. Josh Shapiro and sending in the national party chairman in the final week of campaigning for a Pennsylvania Supreme Court election, possible signs of concern for a race that could reshape the highest court in the largest presidential battleground.

Spending in the race is on track to exceed $15 million — far surpassing previous spending in what’s called a retention election — as Democrats try to blunt a late-emerging Republican campaign to oust three Democratic justices.

The outcome will have consequences for next year’s midterm election, the 2028 presidential race and the next decade’s congressional redistricting. The nation’s most populous swing state has a politically divided government that has left disputes over election laws and other major issues to the courts in recent years.

At issue in Tuesday’s election is whether the three justices will each serve another term, up to 10 years. They don’t face opponents and are not listed by party affiliation. The ballot merely asks voters to cast a yes-or-no vote.

Retention elections are supposed to be nonpartisan, but Christine Donohue, one of the justices running to remain the bench, said she’s “shocked at the partisan nature” of the election.

“This is extraordinarily unusual,” Donohue said in an interview on Wednesday. “I suppose that’s a sign of the times, though.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has a 5-2 Democratic majority, so an across-the-board loss for Democrats in Tuesday’s election could produce a 2-2 ideological split for two years. Political stalemate could likely prevent their seats from being filled until the next judicial election in 2027, potentially leaving the court unable to decide voting or election-related cases through next year’s midterm elections.

“It could lead to chaos,” Donohue said.

While the spending is far below the more than $100 million spent on a state Supreme Court election in Wisconsin earlier this year, it highlights how important these races have become for both parties because of the role state courts play in deciding redistricting disputes, lawsuits over voting and elections, and setting policy on hot-button issues such as abortion.

Donohue and the other justices up for retention, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht, were spending their final days of the campaign attending Democratic Party rallies and get-out-the-vote efforts. Ken Martin, the Democratic National Committee chairman, traveled across Pennsylvania to headline events on Wednesday and Thursday.

At a Lancaster County Democratic Party meeting Wednesday evening, Martin told a couple hundred people that Republicans were trying to steal power by buying court seats so they can enact right-wing policy through the courts.

“This isn’t just about Pennsylvania,” Martin told the crowd. “Because if they win here, you can bet your bottom dollar they bring this in every single state around the country. … This is about our democracy.”

Democrats and their allies were on course to outspend Republicans by a ratio of as much as 4-to-1 after a blitz of TV ads in the final weeks to counter a wave of Republican flyers and commercials.

The TV ads supporting the justices portray them as defenders of abortion rights, union rights and voting rights. Backing them are labor unions, trial lawyers and Planned Parenthood’s political arm.

While not all spending or financial sources have been disclosed publicly, groups linked to a network that typically spends campaign contributions from Pennsylvania’s richest man, securities billionaire Jeffrey Yass, so far has spent about $2 million, according to figures from AdImpact, which tracks advertising.

Democrats and their allies reported spending more than $7 million in October. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are among left-leaning groups that have increased their spending late in the race as Democrats seek to counter a wave of Republican-aligned TV ads and flyers that launched in September, just before voters began casting mail ballots.

The blitz concerned Democrats. Lancaster County Democratic Party Chairman Tom O’Brien said party members were in “panic mode” as they worried about how the party would respond.

Particularly worrisome to Democrats was Republican messaging urging Democratic voters to “term limit” the justices by voting no. It was packaged with wording meant to convey sentiments typically expressed by Democrats, including “no kings” and “defend democracy.”

Democrats also realized that a major task was educating voters about what a retention election is. O’Brien and others said they are feeling better as canvassers have helped educate voters, and Democratic-aligned flyers and TV ads have flooded the state.

In an October TV ad running in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Shapiro told viewers that the justices “have proven that we can count on them to protect a woman’s access to abortion and birth control, and stand up for all our freedoms.”

Democrats say they are satisfied with their voting-by-mail turnout in the weeks leading up to the final day of voting, but they are continuing their campaign push. On Saturday, Philadelphia labor leaders and Mayor Cherelle Parker will lead a half-day motorcade through the city to promote the justices’ campaigns.

Republicans’ most potent voice, President Donald Trump, has not waded into the election, although his name has occasionally been invoked. A Republican-aligned TV ad says, “On Nov. 4, you can help President Trump to term limit three woke Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices.”

State Republican Party Chairman Greg Rothman suggested that a “no” campaign is only natural.

“Retention shouldn’t be automatic,” he said. “Otherwise, why even have it?”

Rothman said he didn’t know whether the Republican effort would succeed but said voters already cynical about government could be motivated to vote “no.” A state government budget stalemate approaching its fifth month and the federal government shutdown could put voters in a mood to vote against any incumbent.

“Based on the Democratic Party response, and Shapiro cutting ads and all the money that trial lawyers and the national DNC is bringing in, that they must think we’re onto something,” Rothman said.

Follow Marc Levy on X at https://x.com/timelywriter

By STEPHEN GROVES, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate passed a resolution Thursday that would undo many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs around the globe, the latest note of displeasure at his trade tactics in Washington that came just as the president celebrated his negotiations with China as a success.

After a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea, Trump said he would cut tariffs on the Asian economic giant and China would, in turn, purchase 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans annually for the next three years. The Republican president claimed his trade negotiations would secure “prosperity and security to millions of Americans.”

But back in Washington, senators — several from Trump’s Republican Party — have demonstrated their dissent with Trump’s tariff tactics by passing a series of resolutions this week that would nullify the national emergencies that Trump has declared to justify the import taxes. Already this week, the Senate approved resolutions to end tariffs imposed on Brazil and Canada. While the legislative efforts are ultimately doomed, they exposed fault lines in the GOP.

The latest resolution, which would effectively end most of Trump’s tariff policies, passed on a 51-47 vote, with four Republicans joining with all Democrats.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who backed Democrats on the resolutions, credited Trump for decreasing the tariffs on China, but said the result is “still much higher than we’ve had.”

“It still will lead to increased prices,” he said.

The votes were orchestrated by Democrats using a decades-old law that allows Congress to nullify a presidential emergency. But House Republicans have instituted a new rule that allows the leadership to prevent such resolutions from coming up for a vote. Plus, Trump would surely veto legislation that inhibits his power over trade policy, meaning the legislation won’t ultimately take effect.

Democrats can force a vote but not a result

But Democrats have still been able to force the Senate to take up an uncomfortable topic for their Republican colleagues.

“American families are being squeezed by prices going up and up and up,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, in a floor speech. He added that “in many ways, red states in rural areas are being hit the hardest,” and pointed to economic strain being put on farmers and manufacturers.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said that Americans shouldn’t be fooled by Trump’s announcement.

“Donald Trump has folded, leaving American families and farmers and small businesses to deal with the wreckage from his blunders, from his erratic on again off again tariff policies,” said the New York Democrat.

How Republicans see Trump’s trade policy

Overall, there has been little movement among Republicans to oppose Trump’s import taxes publicly. A nearly identical resolution failed in April on a tied vote after Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was absent. On Thursday, McConnell and Paul, as well as Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, voted along with all Democrats to pass the resolution.

Those four Republicans helped advance similar resolutions this week to end the tariffs on Brazil and Canada. Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, also voted in favor of the resolution applying to Brazil, but otherwise, GOP senators have held the line this week behind the president.

“I agree with my colleagues that tariffs should be more targeted to avoid harm to Americans,” said Sen. Mike Crapo, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, in a floor speech. Yet, he added that Trump’s negotiations “are bearing fruit” and praised his announcement that Beijing would allow the export of rare earth elements and start buying American soybeans again.

Republicans representing farm states were especially enthused by the announcement that China would be purchasing 25 million metric tons of soybeans annually, starting with 10 million metric tons for the rest of this year.

Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, said the deal with China “absolutely” justifies Trump’s use of tariff threats to negotiate trade policy with other nations. He called the announcement “huge news” for Kansas farmers, but also acknowledged that they would still probably need financial help as they deal with the strain of losing their biggest customer for soybeans and sorghum.

“It’s not like you can snap your finger and send over $15 billion worth of sorghum and soybeans together overnight,” he said.

China had been the largest purchaser of U.S. soybeans until this year. It purchased almost 27 million metric tons in 2024, so Trump’s negotiated deal only guarantees to return soybean exports to China to less than their previous level.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, called the purchase agreement a “start.”

Asked whether he agreed with Trump’s assessment that his meeting with Xi had been a runaway success, Cramer smiled and said the president “is nothing if not optimistic.”