By MICHELLE L. PRICE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday fired his embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, after mounting criticism over her leadership of the department, including the handling of the administration’s immigration crackdown and disaster response.

Trump, who said he would nominate in her place Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin, made the announcement on social media on Thursday, two days after Noem faced a grilling on Capitol Hill from GOP members as well as Democrats.

Trump says he’ll make Noem a “Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas,” a new security initiative that he said would focus on the Western Hemisphere.

Noem, took the stage to address a Department of Homeland Security event moments after Trump’s announcement but made no immediate mention of her ouster. Instead, she read from prepared remarks, including reinforcing Trump’s message from the State of the Union last month.

Noem is the first Cabinet secretary to leave during Trump’s second term. Noem’s departure caps a tumultuous tenure overseeing immigration enforcement tactics that have been met with protests and lawsuits.

Noem’s tenure looked increasingly short-lived after hearings in Congress this week where she faced rare but blistering criticism from Republican lawmakers. One particular point of scrutiny was a $220 million ad campaign featuring Noem that encouraged people in the country illegally to leave voluntarily.

Noem told lawmakers that Trump was aware of the campaign in advance, but Trump disputed that in an interview Thursday with Reuters, saying he did not sign off on the ad campaign.

Noem has faced waves of criticism as she’s overseen Trump’s immigration crackdown, especially since the shooting deaths of two protesters in Minneapolis at the hands of immigration enforcement officers. The former South Dakota governor was also criticized over the way her department has spent billions of dollars allocated to it by Congress.

Frustrations over Noem’s execution of the Republican president’s hard-line immigration agenda — particularly her leadership after the shooting deaths of the two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis — as well as her handling of disaster response, paved the way for her downfall. She faced blistering criticism from Democrats, and some Republicans, in Congress hearings this week over those issues and others.

Aside from immigration, Noem also faced criticism — including from Republicans — over the pace of emergency funding approved through the Federal Emergency Management Agency and for the Trump administration’s response to disasters.

Mullin would need to be confirmed by the Senate, but under a federal law governing executive branch vacancies, he would be allowed to serve as an acting Homeland Security secretary as long as his nomination is formally pending.

By LAURIE KELLMAN and FARNOUSH AMIRI

Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Its ballistic missiles. Its proxies. The ruling Islamic theocracy. Israel.

All of the above are part of the Trump administration’s shifting rationale for pummeling Iran and killing its leader without first seeking the buy-in of Congress and U.S. allies. There’s more that’s unclear about the widening war launched by the president and Board of Peace leader — including an exit strategy, a timeline and who President Donald Trump wants to take control of Iran from what he calls the “sick people” who run it now.

What makes the latest U.S.-Iran conflict different from a series of others is that the Trump administration’s own officials do not appear to be clear or uniform on the important questions at hand: Why and why now?

“It’s the standard practice to agree on the rationale before you start and then stick to delivering a consistent messaging,” said David Schenker, a former Trump administration official who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “But that’s a challenge for this administration.”

By Wednesday, the White House was describing the Republican president’s decision to launch Operation Epic Fury as a consideration of past Iranian threats to the U.S. “and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America.” Analysts say that’s unclear.

Here’s a curated selection of the Trump administration’s explanations over the last week as the U.S.-Israel conflict with Iran expanded into a war.

The re-obliteration of Iran’s nuclear program

WHAT THEY SAID after the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran last summer:

— “THE NUCLEAR SITES IN IRAN ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!” — Trump in a June 24, 2025, post on Truth Social.

WHAT THEY SAID after a reported intelligence analysis suggested Iran’s nuclear program had only been set back a few months:

— “That is a false story, and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported.” — Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a June 25, 2025, interview with Politico.

WHAT THEY SAID since the strike that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

— “If we didn’t do what we’re doing right now, you would have had a nuclear war and they would have taken out many countries because, you know what? They’re sick people.” — Trump on Tuesday at the White House.

THE BACKGROUND:

Iran has long insisted its program is peaceful, but the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003.

The current state of the program remains a mystery as officials have not allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency access to the nuclear facilities that were bombed since June. That is according to a confidential report by the watchdog circulated to member states and seen Feb. 27 by The Associated Press.

For its part, Iran has said it has not enriched since June. Satellite photos analyzed by the AP have shown new activity at two of those sites, suggesting Iran was trying to assess and potentially recover material.

Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but it suspended all cooperation after the war with Israel.

Iran’s ballistic missiles

WHAT THEY SAID:

— “Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles, that threaten the United States and our bases in the region, and our partners in the region, and all of our bases in the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain.” — Rubio to reporters on Feb. 25.

— “The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases — both local and overseas — and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America.” — Trump during a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House on Monday.

— Iran “was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions.” — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during the Monday Pentagon briefing.

THE BACKGROUND:

Iran hasn’t acknowledged that it is seeking to build intercontinental ballistic missiles. The country currently has a self-imposed limit on its ballistic missile program, limiting their range to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles). That puts all of the Mideast and some of Eastern Europe in range.

Trump administration officials told congressional staffers in private briefings on Sunday that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the U.S. The administration officials instead acknowledged there was a more general threat from Iran and proxy forces.

“There’s been a lot of reporting that the assessments from the intelligence and military didn’t suggest that there was going to be an Iranian first strike,” said Naysan Rafati, senior Iran analyst at the Washington-based International Crisis Group. “My sense has been that opportunity is at least as much of a significant factor as threats, certainly.”

Israel’s role

WHAT THEY SAID:

— “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. And we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after (Iran) before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” — Rubio to reporters on Monday.

— “Israel was determined to act in its own defense here, with or without American support.” — House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters. If that happened, he added, “exquisite intelligence” by the U.S. indicated that Iran would retaliate against American assets. “If we had waited, the consequences of inaction on our part could have been devastating,” he said.

— “No,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday, when asked if Israel had forced his hand on attacking Iran. “If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

THE BACKGROUND:

There is no sign that Israel was forced into cooperating with the U.S. in the strike.

An Israeli military official, on customary condition of anonymity, on Wednesday described lockstep planning between the U.S. and Israel. Three weeks before the strikes, Israel understood that the operation was pointing toward another confrontation with Iran and sent a team to the Pentagon, the official said. On Friday, the Israeli army deliberately suggested that the military was standing down for the weekend, releasing photos suggesting that staffers and senior commanders were heading home for Shabbat dinner.

The shared information allowed the strikes to be carried out hours later in a surprise daylight attack, people familiar with the operation told the AP over the weekend. The eventual barrage of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran came so quickly that they were nearly simultaneous — with three strikes in three locations hitting within a minute — killing Khamenei and some 40 senior figures, another Israeli military official said Sunday.

During the strikes, the U.S. and Israeli war rooms were synchronized in real time to allow for quick adjustments, the first Israeli military official said Wednesday.

In a televised address, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel had carried out the strikes “in full cooperation” with the U.S.

Trump has been both for and against regime change in Iran. Now what?

WHAT THEY SAID:

— “If Iran shoots and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go.” — Trump on Truth Social on Jan. 2.

— “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” — Trump to Iranians on Truth Social just after the first strikes.

— “This is not a so-called regime change war. But the regime sure did change, and the world is better off for it.” — Hegseth at the Pentagon on Monday.

THE BACKGROUND:

Washington has a long, complicated history with regime change. See Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001, and Venezuela just weeks ago.

And in Iran, the CIA in 1953 helped engineer a coup that toppled Iran’s democratically elected leader and gave near-absolute power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. But as with the shah, who was overthrown in Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, regime change rarely goes as planned.

That’s in part because it’s fundamentally out of Trump’s complete control, as he acknowledged Tuesday.

“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” he told reporters. “Now we have another group. They may be dead also based on reports. So, I guess you have a third wave coming, and pretty soon we’re not going to know anybody.”

Josef Federman and Julia Frankel in Jerusalem contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Mike Johnson and the GOP leadership are calling for Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas to withdraw from his reelection race after he admitted having an affair with a former staff member who later died by suicide.

The Republican leadership announced its decision Thursday, a day after Gonzales acknowledged a relationship that has upturned the political world in his home state and in Washington, and after the House Ethics Committee announced an investigation into his conduct.

“We have encouraged him to address these very serious allegations directly with his constituents and his colleagues,” said Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Whip Tom Emmer, and GOP Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain in a statement.

“In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for reelection.”

Johnson, R-La., has been under enormous pressure from his own GOP lawmakers to take action, and several Republicans have already called for Gonzales to step aside.

Republicans are struggling to maintain their slim majority in the House in the fall midterm elections.

Gonzales, appearing on the “Joe Pags Show” on Wednesday was asked whether he had a relationship with the aide, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles.

Santos-Aviles, 35, died after setting herself on fire in the backyard of her home in Uvalde, Texas. The Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled her death a suicide.

“I made a mistake and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions,” Gonzales said.

The congressman, now in his third term, has said he would not step down in response to the allegations, telling reporters recently that there will be opportunities for all the details and facts to come out.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and PAUL WISEMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some two dozen states challenged President Donald Trump’s new global tariffs on Thursday, filing a lawsuit over import taxes he imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.

The Democratic attorneys general and governors in the lawsuit argue that Trump is overstepping his power with planned 15% tariffs on much of the world.

Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America’s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.

Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15%. They are limited to five months unless extended by Congress.

The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York.

“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit comes a day after a judge ruled t hat companies who paid tariffs under Trump’s old framework should get refunds.

The new suit argues that Trump can’t pivot to Section 122 because it was intended to be used only in specific, limited circumstances — not for sweeping import taxes. It also contends the tariffs will drive up costs for states, businesses and consumers.

Many of those states also successfully sued over Trump’s tariffs imposed under a different law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Four days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs Feb. 20, Trump invoked Section 122 to slap 10% tariffs on foreign goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would raise the levies to the 15% limit this week.

The Democratic states and other critics say the president can’t use Section 122 as a replacement for the defunct tariffs to combat the trade deficit.

The Section 122 provision is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.’’ At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.

Section 122 arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.

Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke the emergency powers act because Section 122 did “not have any obvious application’’ in fighting trade deficits, which it called “conceptually distinct’’ from balance-of-payment issues.

Still, some legal analysts say the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.

“The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,’’ Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.

The specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states’ lawsuit, wrote last year in its own decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn’t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.

Trump does have other legal authorities he can use to impose tariffs, and some have already survived court tests. Duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act are still in place.

Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

By PETER SMITH

On its own, the phrase “Christ is king” sums up a core tenet of the Christian faith, that Jesus is the divine ruler of the universe. Catholics and many Protestants celebrate a Christ the King Sunday each year.

But the ancient proclamation can morph into something political, controversial or even sinister, depending on who says it and how it’s said.

In recent years, “Christ is king” and similar phrases have been chanted at political rallies, posted on social media and proclaimed in speeches by voices on the right.

At times the phrase is used to support the notion of America as a Christian nation or as one that owes its allegiance specifically to the Christian God. Some current Cabinet officials and recent members of Congress have used the phrase in speeches and on social media.

But other times, political activists have paired “Christ is king” with anti-Zionist statements or negative Jewish stereotypes.

The phrase has gained popularity among far-right figures and their followers. Conservative influencer Candace Owens, who shares antisemitic conspiracies, sells branded “Christ is King” coffee mugs and T-shirts.

The controversy connects to a larger schism on the right, with some conservatives pushing back against an increasingly vocal faction whose denunciations of Israel, critics say, often combine with blatant antisemitism. Some of the latter group insist they’re not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist. That itself is a sharp break from what was once a near-consensus of pro-Israel sentiment among Republicans.

But there are times when the use of the phrase “Christ is king” is unquestionably hostile toward Jews, said a 2025 report by the Rutgers University-affiliated Network Contagion Research Institute.

Analyzing social media postings between 2021 and 2024, the institute reported a dramatic increase of the phrase “Christ is king,” often used as a hate meme targeting Jews. The report lamented this deviation from its historical use as a hopeful, sacred affirmation with biblical roots.

“The weaponization or hijacking of ‘Christ is King’ represents a disturbing inversion of its original intent. Rather than sacralizing shared values, extremists have exploited this religious expression to justify hatred,” the report said.

Controversy spotlighted at religious liberty hearing

A recent meeting of the Religious Liberty Commission, a group President Donald Trump created and appointed, put the phrase and related controversies in the spotlight.

At a Feb. 9 hearing focused on antisemitism, a witness, Seth Dillon, spoke of often hearing people use the phrase “Christ is king” followed immediately by a highly contemptuous slur toward Jews.

“This should offend every Christian,” said Dillon, the CEO of the conservative satirical site The Babylon Bee.

Commission member Carrie Prejean Boller repeatedly grilled witnesses about whether opposing Zionism could be construed as anti-Jewish. She said that as a Catholic she opposes Zionism but that this is not antisemitic. She asked Dillon if he thought “saying ‘Christ is king’ is antisemitic.”

Dillon said no and that, as a Christian, he regularly declares that “Christ is my king” — but context matters.

He testified that the phrase has been co-opted by Groypers, alluding to the followers of far-right influencer Nick Fuentes, who has spread antisemitic views.

It’s “using the Lord’s name in an abusive manner,” Dillon said.

Fuentes’ supporters chanted “Christ is king” at the Million MAGA March, a November 2020 rally denying the Republican Trump’s defeat to Democrat Joe Biden in that year’s presidential election.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who chairs the Religious Liberty Commission, announced Prejean Boller’s removal from the panel after the meeting. He asserted that she tried to “hijack” the hearing for her own agenda.

Following the commission meeting, Prejean Boller has posted prolifically on X, denouncing “Zionist supremacists” and repeatedly using the phrase “Christ is King.” She also has denounced the war launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran.

A recent Catholic convert, she said she opposes a popular evangelical view that modern-day Israel exists in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

A religious phrase ‘co-opted by extremist figures’

The commission hearing was hardly the first forum to air controversy over “Christ is king.”

The Network Contagion Research Institute’s 2025 report noted that while many “Christ is king” references on social media are strictly religious, the phrase has been “systematically co-opted by extremist figures.”

The report said Fuentes and other extremists use the phrase as a “white supremacist mantra publicizing their antisemitic beliefs.”

Fuentes has said the Holocaust was exaggerated, and he has denounced “organized Jewry in America.” He has claimed to be in battle with “satanic, globalist elites,” an antisemitic trope.

The religious phrase “Christ is king” is not inherently political, said Brian Kaylor, president and editor-in-chief of Word&Way, a progressive site covering faith and politics.

But that fact provides a “deniability” to those politicizing it, he said.

“We’re at a dangerous point with the phrase ‘Christ is king’ because of the heavy activity and use of it on the far right in very fascist, antisemitic ways,” said Kaylor, a Baptist minister and author of several books on religion and politics. “We’re at the danger of that phrase losing its meaning to where this new antisemitic use is the dominant definition.”

The phrase has also gained popularity in political settings with some on the Catholic and evangelical right who are strongly pro-Israel and have repeatedly denounced antisemitism, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Kaylor said the phrase is often used as “a declaration of Christian nationalism ” asserting that “the nation should be brought under the dictates of Christ.”

A dispute over politics and religion

The controversy has highlighted both religious and political fissures.

The Vatican has diplomatic relations with Israel and has also recognized a state of Palestine. Pope Leo XIV has called for a two-state solution while denouncing antisemitism. During the Israel-Hamas war, popes Francis and Leo denounced the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas and Israel’s massive military response, with Leo demanding a halt to Israel’s “collective punishment” of Gaza’s population.

Other Catholics on the Religious Liberty Commission noted that Jesus and his followers were Jews and that a seminal 1965 Vatican document rejects antisemitism and the blaming of all Jews, including those alive today, for Jesus’ crucifixion.

Patrick, the commission chairman, said the dispute with Prejean Boller reflects “a real problem with a very small group in our Republican Party.” Antisemitism needs to be repudiated or “this is going to destroy our party,” he said on “The Mark Levin Show,” a podcast.

But Prejean Boller has galvanized supporters from a staunchly conservative group called Catholics for Catholics, a lay-led, self-described “militant organization dedicated to the evangelization of this great country.”

It plans to honor Prejean Boller at a March 19 event with a Catholic Champion Award in Washington featuring speakers such as Owens.

Prejean Boller has reposted announcements of the event on X, including one post that shared a Spanish-language statement that translates to “We will not rest until we convert the USA into a Catholic nation.” The post concluded in English with “Christ is King!”

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal panel reviewing President Donald Trump’s plans to build a ballroom at the White House has set April 2 for a final vote on the project, the chairman said as the agency prepared to give additional consideration to the construction plans.

Will Scharf, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission and a top aide to the Republican president, made the announcement Thursday at the start of the panel’s March meeting.

The panel will hear additional details about the project from the White House as well as its own staff, and had been expected to vote on Thursday.

But Scharf announced that the vote was switched to April to give every member of the public who wants to comment a chance to do so. More than 100 people had signed up to comment at Thursday’s meeting, which was being conducted online as a result.

The panel has also been flooded with written comments submitted by more than 35,000 people, according to the commission, with the majority opposed to Trump’s plans to build a 90,000-square-foot (8,360-square-meter) addition where the East Wing of the White House once stood. Trump has said it will cost about $400 million and be paid for with private money. Trump had the East Wing demolished in October.

Scharf said the meeting was being conducted online to ease the public testimony portion, which he said was likely to extend into Friday given the number of people who had signed up to speak.

“They are taking time out of what I presume are busy schedules to join us,” he said. “One way or the other, we are going to make sure that members of the public have the opportunity to be heard on this project.”

Critics of the project have argued that Trump should not have demolished the East Wing until the National Capital Planning Commission and a separate panel, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, had reviewed and voted on his plans. The fine arts panel approved the project last month.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a private, nonprofit group, asked a federal judge to temporarily halt construction until the White House submitted the plans both to federal panels and to Congress for approval, and allowed the public to comment.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected the request last week, and the trust has said it plans to file an amended lawsuit.

By BILL BARROW

Jasmine Crockett on Wednesday conceded the Democratic primary in the Texas Senate race to James Talarico.

The congresswoman called on the party to unify behind the state representative, who clinched the nomination overnight.

“Texas is primed to turn blue and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person,” Crockett said in a statement. “This is about the future of all 30 million Texans and getting America back on track.”

Crockett’s campaign had previously suggested that she would file a lawsuit over voting challenges in the primary. A spokesperson did not immediately respond to a question about those plans.

Talarico will face the winner of the Republican runoff, either Sen. John Cornyn or state Attorney General Ken Paxton.

By STEPHEN GROVES, LISA MASCARO and MARY CLARE JALONICK

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Senate is headed toward a vote Wednesday on President Donald Trump’s decision to embark on a war against Iran, an extraordinary test in Congress for a conflict that has rapidly spread across the Middle East with no clear U.S. exit strategy.

The legislation, known as a war powers resolution, gives lawmakers an opportunity to demand congressional approval before any further attacks are carried out. The Senate resolution and a similar bill being voted on in the House later this week face unlikely paths through the Republican-controlled Congress and would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump even if they were to pass.

Nonetheless, the votes marked a weighty moment for lawmakers. Their decisions on the five-day-old war — which Trump entered without congressional approval — could determine the fates of U.S. military members, countless other lives and the future of the region.

“Wars without clear objectives do not remain small. They get bigger, bloodier, longer and more expensive,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer at a news conference Tuesday. “This is not a necessary war. It’s a war of choice.”

Trump administration scrambles for congressional support

After launching a surprise attack against Iran on Saturday, Trump has scrambled to win support for a conflict that Americans of all political persuasions were already wary of entering. Trump administration officials have been a frequent presence on Capitol Hill this week as they try to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.

“We are not going to put American troops in harm’s way,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in a raucous news conference at the Capitol Tuesday.

But six U.S. military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait.

Trump has also not ruled out deploying U.S. ground troops. He has said he is hoping to end the bombing campaign within a few weeks, but his goals for the war have shifted from regime change to stopping Iran from developing nuclear capabilities to crippling its navy and missile programs.

“I think they are achieving great success with what they’ve done so far,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday, adding that what happens next in the country will be “largely up to the Iranian people.”

Almost all Republican senators were readying to vote Wednesday against the war powers resolution to halt military action, but a number still expressed hesitation at the idea of deploying troops on the ground in Iran.

“I don’t think the American people want to see troops on the ground,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., as he exited a classified briefing Tuesday. He added that Trump administration officials “left open that possibility,” but it wasn’t an option they were emphasizing.

Lawmakers to go on record

The votes in Congress this week represented potentially consequential markers of just where lawmakers stand on the war as they look ahead to midterm elections and the consequences of the conflict.

“Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end-run around the Constitution,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat leading the war powers resolution. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”

Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts that Trump has entered or threatened to enter. This one, however, is different.

Unlike Trump’s military campaigns against alleged drug boats or even Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, the attack on Iran represents an open-ended conflict that is already ricocheting across the region. For Republicans who are used to operating in a political party dominated by Trump and his promises of keeping the U.S. out of foreign entanglements, the moment represented a bit of whiplash.

“War is ugly, it always has been ugly, but we’re taking out a regime that has been trying to attack us for quite some time,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, an Oklahoma Republican.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who has long pushed Trump to engage overseas, argued that the widening conflict represented an opportunity for Arab and European countries to join in the fight against Iran and the militant groups it supports.

“I don’t mind people being on record as to whether or not they think this is a good idea,” he told reporters, but also argued that too much power over the military was ceded to Congress in the War Powers Act, which mandates that presidents must withdraw troops from a conflict within 90 days if there is no congressional authorization.

House vote looms

On the other side of the Capitol, House leaders were also readying for an intense debate over the war followed by a vote Thursday.

“I do believe we have the votes to defeat it, I certainly hope we do,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said after an all-member briefing on Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said he expected a strong showing from Democrats in favor of the war powers resolution.

As lawmakers emerged from a closed-door briefing Tuesday night, Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, implored the Trump administration to “come to Congress” and speak directly to the American people about the rationale for the war.

His voice filled with emotion as he said, “Our young men and women’s lives are on the line.”

By SUMAN NAISHADHAM and JOSEPH WILSON

MADRID (AP) — Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez again criticized the U.S. and Israel’s military actions in Iran, standing firm on Wednesday against trade threats from Washington and warning that the war in the Middle East risked “playing Russian roulette” with millions of lives.

“We are not going to be complicit in something that is bad for the world and is also contrary to our values ​​and interests, just out of fear of reprisals from someone,” Sánchez said in a televised address.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to end U.S. trade with Spain because of Spain’s refusal to allow the U.S. to use joint military bases in the country in its attacks on Iran.

Sánchez has called the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran an “unjustifiable” and “dangerous” military intervention.

It’s not clear how Trump would cut off trade with Spain, which is a member of the European Union. The EU negotiates trade on behalf of all its 27 member states.

On Wednesday, Sánchez expressed concern that the attacks on Iran could lead to another costly military quagmire in the Middle East, similar to the past American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In short, the position of the government of Spain can be summarized in four words,” Sánchez said. “No to the war.”

The EU said Wednesday it would protect its interests and work to stabilize its trade relationship with the U.S, with which it struck a trade deal last year after months of economic uncertainty over Trump’s tariff blitz.

“We stand in full solidarity with all member states and all its citizens and, through our common trade policy, stand ready to act if necessary to safeguard EU interests,” said European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill.

After Spain denied U.S. use of its bases, Trump on Tuesday said “we could use their base if we want,” referencing the Rota and Morón installations in southern Spain that the U.S. and Spain share, but which remain under Spanish command. “We could just fly in and use it,” Trump said. “Nobody’s going to tell us not to use it, but we don’t have to.”

Tuesday’s threats from Washington were just the latest instance of the U.S. president wielding the threat of tariffs or trade embargoes as punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court last month struck down Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs, saying emergency powers do not allow the president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs.

However, Trump maintains that the court allows him to instead impose full-scale embargoes on other nations of his choosing.

Spain has not had any direct contact with the U.S. since Trump’s criticisms, Economy Minister Carlos Cuerpo said Wednesday.

“I want to send a message of calm,” Cuerpo told Spanish radio station Cadena Ser. “Beyond those comments (by Trump), there have not been any more moves (by the U.S.).”

Spain’s main business groups expressed concerns over the U.S. trade threat, calling the U.S. a “key partner from an economic and political standpoint.”

“We trust that our trade relations will ultimately not be affected in any way,” the Spanish business chambers CEOE, CEPYME and ATA said Tuesday.

Last year, Spain’s central bank issued a report that concluded Europe’s fourth-largest economy was relatively cushioned compared to the EU average when it came to exposure to tariffs by Trump.

Spain’s exports and imports with the U.S. accounted for 4.4% of GDP, the Bank of Spain said, while trade with the U.S. for the EU as a whole was 10.1%.

Exports of Spanish goods to the U.S. accounted for 1% of Spain’s GDP, or $18.6 billion, making it Spain’s sixth largest export market for goods, the bank concluded. The Southern European nation’s main exports to the U.S. include pharmaceutical products, olive oil refined gas and electrical transformers, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

Spain’s position on the Iran conflict is the latest flare-up in its relationship with the Trump administration.

Spain was an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and attracted Trump’s ire last year when it backed out of NATO’s pledge to increase defense spending by members to 5% of GDP. At the time, Spain said it could meet its estimated defense needs by spending less — just 2.1% of its GDP — a move that Trump roundly criticized and also threatened with tariffs in response.

Wilson reported from Barcelona. Associated Press journalist Sam McNeil in Brussels contributed to this report.

By KONSTANTIN TOROPIN and REBECCA BOONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — An operations center targeted by an Iranian drone strike that killed six American soldiers on Sunday was located in the heart of a civilian port in Kuwait, miles away from the main Army base, according to satellite images and a U.S. official.

The husband of one of the slain soldiers, who was part of a supply and logistics unit based in Iowa, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the hub was a shipping container-style building and had no defenses.

The development, reported earlier by CNN and CBS News, raises questions about the safety precautions that the U.S. military had in place as it, along with Israel, launched an attack on Iran, which has responded with retaliatory strikes against several countries in the region, including Kuwait. President Donald Trump and top defense leaders say more American casualties are likely.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Monday that the six soldiers were killed in a “tactical operations center” when a projectile made its way past air defenses. A day later, the Pentagon confirmed it was a drone strike in Port Shuaiba when announcing the names of four of the soldiers who were slain.

A satellite image taken Monday and reviewed by the AP showed the main building in the complex destroyed, with a trail of black smoke rising from it. It is located in the heart of Port Shuaiba, a working seaport and industrial area just south of Kuwait City. The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter under active investigation, confirmed the image depicted the location of Sunday’s attack.

The Army base, Camp Arifjan, is more than 10 miles to the south. The operations center was just a little over a mile from some of the piers where merchant ships would offload cargo containers and was surrounded by oil storage tanks, refineries and a power plant.

Joey Amor, husband of Sgt. 1st Class Nicole Amor, said his wife was moved off-base to what he described as a shipping container-style building a week before the Iranian strike. The 39-year-old from White Bear Lake, Minnesota, was one of the soldiers killed in the attack.

“They were dispersing because they were in fear that the base they were on was going to get attacked, and they felt it was safer in smaller groups in separated places,” he said.

After news reports about the operations center emerged, chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the “secure facility was fortified with 6-foot walls.” He said the military has “the most extensive Air Defense umbrella in the world over the Middle East right now and control of the skies is increasing with every wave of airpower.”

Parnell’s office did not respond to questions about what role the walls would have played in defending against a drone attack or what air defenses were present in range of the command center at the port.

Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said “it would be inappropriate to comment given the incident is under investigation.”

Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. Associated Press writer Michael Biesecker contributed to this report.

By Darius Tahir, Lauren Sausser, KFF Health News

It’s the rare policy question that unites Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and the Democratic-led Maryland government against President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California: How should health insurers use AI?

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in Medicare’s experiment using AI in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December executive order seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” whose provisions include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A December poll from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; a January poll from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.) Reporting from ProPublica and other news outlets in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum, said in a press release.

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates tactics such as prior authorization, she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a letter criticizing the bill, AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told KFF Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

©2026 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By GISELA SALOMON, JACK BROOK and SARAH RAZA

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Their family spent years opposing Venezuela’s socialist system.

The government retaliated by sending men to beat the father, a state oil company worker whom it accused of being uncooperative. Other relatives were threatened.

The situation became so untenable that the family fled the country for the United States in 2021 after it obtained refugee status, according to one of the daughters, a 24-year-old clothing salesperson who was interviewed by The Associated Press.

The six siblings and their parents settled in Minnesota in 2023, living peaceful lives until the Trump administration said it was casting new scrutiny on refugees. One priority is those admitted to the U.S. under former President Joe Biden, whom the government accuses of prioritizing quantity over detailed screening and vetting, with an initial focus on 5,600 refugees who settled in Minnesota and are not yet permanent residents, making them particularly vulnerable.

Last month, three masked officers got out of a black SUV with tinted windows outside a St. Paul apartment complex, handcuffed the Venezuelan woman and her mother and told them their legal status was under review, according to the woman, who asked for anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Overturning years of precedent, immigration authorities have arrested or questioned dozens of refugees in Minnesota, attorneys and advocates say, with more detentions likely to come nationwide.

In January, a federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the arrest and detention of refugees in Minnesota while a lawsuit challenging the “revetting” continues. The judge ordered the immediate release of all refugees detained in Minnesota, and those taken to Texas.

Three refugees told The Associated Press that whatever happens, the rounds of inconclusive interviews with immigration authorities well after they thought their status was safe has them questioning their futures in the U.S. and living in constant fear.

The young woman from Venezuela hasn’t returned to her job at a clothing factory. A man who fled persecution in Myanmar won’t walk on the streets of Minneapolis without a letter from his church appealing for immigrants to “be treated humanely.” A Congolese refugee arrested in St. Paul despite her refugee status says “everything that’s happened feels like a movie.”

A change in US treatment of refugees

Welcoming refugees has been a source of bipartisan agreement in the U.S. since Congress passed the Refugee Act with overwhelming support in 1980.

The act helped make refugee applications some of the immigration system’s most heavily scrutinized. Government decisions that someone was persecuted for who they are or what they believe are rarely second-guessed, and revisiting refugee status that’s already been granted is a major blow to legal tradition, advocates say.

“They’ve been heavily vetted and were admitted by the government with approval,” said Beth Oppenheim, chief executive officer of HIAS, a major refugee aid group.

Once a refugee is admitted to the U.S. through the resettlement program, the only way to strip them of their status is to prove that they should never have been admitted, Oppenheim said. That is why the Trump administration is interviewing people again, she said.

Matthew Tragesser, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in a written statement refugees “are REQUIRED to be subject to a full inspection after a year within the United States.”

“This is not novel or discretionary; it is a clear requirement in law,” he wrote.

While it is correct that refugees must apply for green cards one year after admission — a change of status that brings a renewed layer of scrutiny — the administration is breaking with decades of tradition by revisiting initial decisions to admit people as refugees, and then detaining them while they are under review.

“Arresting, detaining, and rescreening refugees are all new changes which will inflict grave harm on vulnerable populations,” said Smita Dazzo, deputy director of U.S. programs at HIAS.

Venezuela to Minnesota to Houston and back

In January, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement took the Venezuelan women to Houston on a flight where migrants were shackled at the wrists and ankles and forbidden from talking. The daughter said she was told she was there for green card interviews and isolated in a cold room with no food, water or anything warm to cover her. She said she refused to sign documents without an attorney present.

“They told us, ‘Your status is worthless. You’re illegal,’” she said. “What we went through is something I wouldn’t wish on anyone … We were supposed to arrive in this country with refugee status, and we thought we would be protected here. But right now, at this moment, it is quite the opposite.”

The women were released after successfully filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court, part of a flood of last-ditch attempts at freedom under a Trump policy denying bond hearings in immigration court. Friends of their attorney drove them back to Minnesota at their own expense. Since then, the younger woman has been too afraid to leave the house.

The pastor who received a letter and went to the interview

Saw Ba Mya James, a 46-year-old ethnic Karen father of three who fled military persecution in Myanmar, arrived in St. Paul last year after obtaining refugee status with help from a local church.

Despite a pending green card application, the Anglican pastor did not attend church for weeks after friends advised him to avoid going outside.

“I was told to stay at home, so I listened, and I prayed to God with my family,” James said.

James received a letter Feb. 2 ordering a “post-admissions refugee reverification” at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services St. Paul field office, according to a copy reviewed by The Associated Press.

During an interview that lasted several hours, an officer pressed James with questions he said he already addressed extensively before being admitted to the U.S. The officer said the review was needed because an inexperienced employee handled James’ initial vetting.

Within two weeks of the interview, James got another letter asking that he and his family provide fingerprints, which his attorney took as a positive sign.

Still, James remains wary of being detained. He faithfully carries his church sponsors’ letter appealing for him and other immigrants to “be treated humanely as fellow image-bearers of God.”

The Congolese refugee arrested arriving at work

A Congolese woman settled in the Twin Cities area in November 2024 with refugee status, working in the hospitality business as the breadwinner for her husband and four children.

She said an immigration officer approached her parked car when she arrived for work at 7 a.m. on Jan. 14 in St. Paul, saying he knew her name and that she was a refugee. After telling her to exit the vehicle to answer questions, he handcuffed her despite her efforts to show a work authorization document and identification.

The woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she fears reprisals, was flown to Houston to be questioned in detail about her experiences in the Congo, Uganda and the United States. She and other refugees refused to sign documents to be sent back to their home countries. She was released Jan. 18 without any ID documents to book a flight to Minneapolis. A manager at her company flew to Houston and drove her 17 hours back home.

“If I told you I’m feeling OK, I’d be lying to you,” she said.

Salomon reported from Miami.

By JOHN HANNA and JUAN LOZANO

HOUSTON (AP) — U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas faced growing calls Tuesday from fellow congressional Republicans to resign over a report of an alleged affair with a former staffer who later died after she set herself on fire.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky joined Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida and Nancy Mace of South Carolina in demanding that Gonzales step down immediately. Mace also announced that she has introduced a resolution to force the House Ethics Commission to publicly release its reports and records of allegations of sexual harassment against members of Congress.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters that he would talk to Gonzales on Tuesday.

Johnson said Monday that the accusations against Gonzales “must be taken seriously,” but he added, “in every case like this, you have to allow the investigation to play out and all the facts to come out.”

“If the accusation of something is going to be the litmus for someone being able to continue to serve in the House, a lot of people would have to resign or be removed or expelled from Congress,” Johnson said.

Gonzales’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday. He said in a social media post last week that he was being blackmailed and then suggested in another post Sunday that he is the target of “coordinated political attacks.”

“During my six years in Congress not a single formal complaint has been levied against my office,” Gonzales said in the Sunday post on X. “IT WONT WORK.”

Gonzales is in a tough race in Texas’ Republican primary on March 3, with early voting underway for more than a week. His main opponent is Brandon Herrera, a gun manufacturer and gun rights influencer who calls himself “the AK Guy” on YouTube, where his channel has nearly 4.2 million subscribers. Gonzales narrowly defeated Herrera by fewer than 400 votes in a runoff in 2024.

President Donald Trump had endorsed Gonzales for reelection in December.

The San Antonio Express-News reported last week that it had obtained text messages in which the former staffer, Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, wrote to a colleague that she had an affair with the lawmaker.

The Associated Press has not independently obtained copies of the messages. An attorney for Adrian Aviles, Santos-Aviles’ husband, has said the husband found out about the affair before his wife’s death.

Regina Ann Santos-Aviles, 35, died in September 2025 after setting herself on fire in the backyard of her Uvalde home. The Bexar County Medical Examiner’s Office later ruled her death as a suicide by self-immolation.

“Where are the other men in the GOP?” Massie asked Tuesday in a post on X in calling for Gonzales to resign, adding that Trump should revoke his endorsement.

Gonzales, whose district stretches from San Antonio to El Paso and runs along the U.S.-Mexico border, has six children with his wife.

His allegation of blackmail is based on an email from the attorney for the staffer’s husband, Robert Barrera, discussing a possible lawsuit against the lawmaker and a potential settlement with a nondisclosure agreement. The email says that the maximum recoverable amount is $300,000.

Barrera has said he was not trying to blackmail Gonzales and called the accusation an attempt by the congressman to look like a political victim.

Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas. Also contributing was Associated Press journalist Kevin Freking in Washington.

By STEVEN SLOAN and STEVE PEOPLES

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says he has a lot to talk about tonight.

He’s returning to Congress to deliver a State of the Union address at a consequential moment in his presidency, with his approval ratings near an all-time low and restive supporters waiting for him to deliver more tangibly on their struggles with the cost of living.

On top of that, the Supreme Court just declared illegal the tariffs that have been central to his second term. And the foreign policy challenges he promised to fix easily now don’t look so simple with another potential military strike against Iran looming.

The narrow Republican majority in Congress that has done little to counter Trump’s expansive vision of power is at risk of falling away after this year’s midterm elections, when their respective self interests may collide.

Here are some questions we’re thinking about heading into the speech.

How awkward will things get with the Supreme Court?

Trump did little to hide his rage last week when the Supreme Court struck down his far-reaching tariff policy. He didn’t just say that the justices who voted against one of his signature issues — including two who he appointed — were wrong in their legal reasoning. He said they were an “embarrassment to their families.”

Now many of those justices are likely to be seated at the front of the House chamber as Trump delivers his address.

Will Trump criticize the justices to their faces? Will he somehow show restraint in keeping his criticism limited to the decision itself?

Trump would not be the first president to use a State of the Union address as a chance to criticize the court. During his 2010 address, President Barack Obama said the Court’s Citizens United decision — which opened the way for millions of dollars in undisclosed political spending — would “open the floodgates for special interests,” prompting Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth “not true.”

Since then, attendance by Supreme Court justices has become more sporadic. Alito began skipping them after the 2010 speech, joining fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who has long argued the speeches are too partisan. By last year, when Trump delivered a special address to Congress, just four members of the Court — Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were in the House chamber.

At the time, Trump greeted the justices warmly, even telling Roberts “thank you again, I won’t forget it.” The comment was interpreted as Trump showing appreciation for the Court’s decision granting broad-based immunity to the presidency. But Trump said on social media he was merely thanking the chief justice for swearing him in.

Regardless, justices who don’t want a televised bashing from the president may decide to steer clear on Tuesday.

How will Democrats respond?

Democrats were still adjusting to Trump’s return to power when he last addressed Congress — and it showed.

During his 2025 joint address, Democrats entered the chamber with signs containing messages ranging from “Save Medicaid” and “Musk Steals” to simply “False.” Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, heckled Trump at one point, prompting his ejection from the chamber.

The signs were widely criticized as contrived and Green’s protest was something of a distraction. For voters who were outraged by Trump’s aggressive use of power during his opening months in office, the scene didn’t offer much confidence that Democrats were in a position to serve as an effective check on the White House.

Democrats are aiming to avoid a repeat of last year’s tumult. Expect fewer signs and possibly fewer Democrats in the chamber at all. Dozens of lawmakers have said they won’t attend the speech, with some planning to attend rival events in Washington.

That may help avoid some of last years theatrics. But it might do little to encourage frustrated voters that Democrats have a coherent, effective message a decade into Trump’s political rise.

And after Democratic governors boycotted a White House dinner with Trump over the weekend, skipping the State of the Union may only reinforce the sense that America’s two main political parties are charting fundamentally different courses.

Abigail Spanberger, Virginia’s newly inaugurated governor, will give the Democrats’ official response to Trump.

How will Trump address affordability and immigration?

Trump will deliver his speech at the outset of a challenging election year for his fellow Republicans, who are holding on to a tenuous grip of Congress. Much of the GOP’s challenge has centered on a sense among voters that the party hasn’t done enough to bring down prices.

The White House insists it is aware of the economic anxiety among voters and is working to address it. But Trump consistently has trouble staying on message. During a trip to Georgia last week that was intended to focus on the economy, the president instead highlighted debunked claims of election fraud and pushed his proposal for voter identification requirements. When he addressed affordability, he said it was a problem created by Democrats that he has now “solved.”

Trump’s tone on immigration could also be notable. Republicans found themselves on defense after two U.S. citizens were killed in Minneapolis last month by federal agents who were conducting an aggressive immigration enforcement operation. While Trump has kept up his hardline rhetoric on undocumented immigrants, his administration has begun to draw down agents in Minneapolis. The president told New York Gov. Kathy Hochul last week that he would direct future immigration enforcement surges where they were wanted.

What does he say about foreign policy?

Trump promised a quick and easy end to conflicts across the globe when he was elected. A year later, Russia’s war in Ukraine continues to rage, there’s a fragile ceasefire in war-torn Gaza and Trump is threatening a major military strike against Iran just eight months after he claimed the U.S. had “obliterated” the nation’s nuclear facilities.

And let’s not forget about his military action in Venezuela less than two months ago in which U.S. forces snatched leader Nicolas Maduro. Trump has said repeatedly that he’s going to run the country.

Trump supporters may cheer his America First rhetoric, but the Republican president is showing far more globalist tendencies one year into his second term.

And the prospect of war with Iran is real. Trump has already built up the largest U.S. military presence in the Middle East in decades. Last week he warned the Iranian regime that “bad things will happen” soon if a nuclear deal is not reached.

How long will he go?

Trump is rarely one to self edit. His speech last year — technically a joint address and not the State of the Union — clocked nearly one hour and 40 minutes. That was the longest speech to a joint session of Congress — and Trump may want to notch another record.

“It’s going to be a long speech because we have so much to talk about,” he said on Monday.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — The Trump administration is suing New Jersey over a state order that prohibits federal immigration agents from making arrests in nonpublic areas of state property, such as correctional facilities and courthouses.

The Justice Department lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Trenton, challenges Gov. Mikie Sherrill ’s Feb. 11 executive order, which also bars the use of state property as a staging or processing area for immigration enforcement.

Sherrill, a Democrat who took office Jan. 20, “insists on harboring criminal offenders from federal law enforcement,” the lawsuit said, accusing her of attempting to obstruct federal law enforcement and thwart President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Sherrill’s executive order “poses an intolerable obstacle” to immigration enforcement and “directly regulates and discriminates” against the federal government, said the lawsuit, which misspelled her name as “Sherill.”

Asked about the lawsuit Tuesday, Sherrill said: “What I think the federal government needs to be focused on right now, instead of attacking states like New Jersey working to keep people safe, is actually training their ICE agents.”

The state’s acting attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, said the Trump administration was “wasting its resources on a pointless legal challenge.” New Jersey will fight the lawsuit and “continue to ensure the safety of our state’s immigrant communities,” she said.

The lawsuit is the latest in the Trump administration’s fight against state and local level restrictions on immigration enforcement.

Last year, the Justice Department sued Minnesota and Colorado, as well as cities including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Denver over so-called sanctuary laws, which are aimed at prohibiting police from cooperating with immigration agents.

Last May, the Trump administration sued four New Jersey cities — Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken — over such policies. That case is pending.

By JOEY CAPPELLETTI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are betting that Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s affordability-focused message, which helped her flip a Republican-held office last November, will resonate with the country when she delivers their party’s response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

The rebuttal gives Democrats a prime opportunity to make their case against Trump and his policies ahead of the midterm elections. Spanberger’s double-digit victory in Virginia last November was viewed by party leaders as validation of a disciplined message centered on lowering costs — one they now want to elevate in campaigns nationwide.

“Virginians and Americans across the country are contending with rising costs, chaos in their communities, and a real fear of what each day might bring,” Spanberger said in a statement. “I look forward to laying out what these Americans expect and deserve — leaders who are working hard to deliver for them.”

Spanberger will deliver the speech from Colonial Williamsburg, a living history museum with restored 18th-century buildings, drawing on the site’s role at the heart of Virginia’s early opposition to British rule and connecting that legacy to the current political moment, according to her team.

She will have will have far less time than the Republican president to deliver her rebuttal. Trump’s speech before Congress last year stretched to an hour and 40 minutes, while Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s Democratic response lasted just over 10 minutes. Spanberger’s speech will be the fifth consecutive response to a president’s address to Congress delivered by a female senator or governor.

Trump on Monday told reporters that his State of the Union is “going to be a long speech, because we have so much to talk about.”

As viewership tends to drop the later the speech runs, the response has become one of the more perilous assignments in politics. Now–Secretary of State Marco Rubio was widely mocked for reaching for a water bottle during the GOP response in 2013. Other rebuttals have quickly faded from memory.

Even with the time disadvantage, Democrats argue the political winds are shifting in their favor. Spanberger’s win in Virginia was followed by other high-profile Democratic victories, including a special election earlier this month in Texas, where a Democrat flipped a reliably Republican state Senate district that Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California will deliver the party’s Spanish language response. Padilla, who in June was forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles as he tried to speak up about immigration raids, said in a statement that there is a better path than the one Trump has offered: “one that lowers costs, safeguards our democracy, and reins in rogue federal agencies.”

Some Democrats are choosing to make their point by skipping Trump’s address. Counterprogramming events are planned, including a “State of the Swamp” featuring Democratic lawmakers alongside state and local leaders and celebrities.

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer picked by judges to serve as the top federal prosecutor for a Virginia office that pursued cases against foes of President Donald Trump was swiftly fired Friday by the Justice Department in the latest clash over the appointments of powerful U.S. attorneys.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the firing of James Hundley on social media shortly after he was unanimously chosen by judges to replace former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. While the law says that the district court may choose U.S. attorneys when an initial appointment expires, the Trump administration has insisted that the power lies only in the hands of the executive branch.

“EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” Blanche said in a post on X.

Hundley, who has handled criminal and civil cases for more than 30 years, didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday evening.

The firing of Hundley is the latest reflection of tumult in one of the Justice Department’s most elite prosecution offices, which since September has been mired in upheaval following the resignation of a veteran prosecutor amid Trump administration pressure to prosecute two of the president’s biggest political foes, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

That prosecutor, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out and swiftly replaced by Halligan, a White House aide who secured indictments against Comey and James but was later deemed by a judge to have been unlawfully appointed. The cases were dismissed, but the Justice Department has appealed that decision.

Halligan resigned from the position last month after judges in the district signaled continued skepticism over the legitimacy of her appointment.

U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in regional Justice Department offices around the country, typically require Senate confirmation but the law does permit attorneys general to make temporary appointments for limited time periods. In several instances, though, the Justice Department has attempted to leave its temporary appointees in place in ways that have invited court challenges and drawn resistance from judges who have found the appointments unlawful.

Last week, a lawyer appointed by judges to be the U.S. attorney for northern New York was fired by the Justice Department after spending less than a day in the job. Judges in the district appointed Kinsella after declining to keep the Trump administration’s pick, John Sarcone, in place after his 120-day term elapsed.

By MARK SHERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s vision of the Supreme Court, in which his three appointees are personally loyal to him, collided with the court’s view of itself Friday when six justices voted to strike down Trump’s signature economic policy — global tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law.

The outcome led Trump to launch an unusually stark personal attack on the justices, with special rancor reserved for the two Trump appointees who defied him.

The case represented a challenge of Trump’s many untested, yet forcefully stated imperatives on everything from trade to immigration policy and the court’s ability to maintain its independence and, at times, act as a check on presidential authority.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country,” Trump said in the White House briefing room several hours after the court issued its decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump said he expected as much from the three Democratic appointees on the court. “But you can’t knock their loyalty,” he said. “It’s one thing you can do with some of our people.”

Asked specifically about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who were part of the majority, Trump said, “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth, the two of them.”

Vice President JD Vance, whose wife, Usha, spent a year as a law clerk to Roberts, echoed the president’s criticism, though he didn’t make it personal. “This is lawlessness from the Court, plain and simple,” Vance wrote on X.

Legal opposition to the tariffs crossed political lines, with a key challenge coming from the libertarian-leaning Liberty Justice Center and support from pro-business groups like the Chamber of Commerce.

Trump has had a checkered history with the court dating back to the start of his first White House term in 2017, though he won his biggest court battle in 2024, a presidential immunity ruling that prevented him from being prosecuted over efforts to undo his 2020 election loss.

In the first year of his second term, he won repeated emergency appeals that allowed him to implement major aspects of his immigration crackdown and other key parts of his agenda.

Presidential criticism of Supreme Court decisions has its own long history. President Thomas Jefferson was critical of the court’s landmark Marbury v. Madison case, which established the concept of judicial review of congressional and executive action. President Franklin Roosevelt, frustrated about decisions he thought blunted parts of the New Deal, talked about older justices as infirm and sought to expand the court, a failed effort.

In 2010, President Barack Obama used his State of the Union speech, with several members of the court in attendance, to take aim at the court’s just-announced Citizens United decision that helped open the floodgates to independent spending in federal elections. Justice Samuel Alito, who hasn’t attended the annual address since, mouthed the words “not true” in response from his seat.

Trump, though, crossed a line in the way he assailed the justices who voted against him, Ed Whelan, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote in an email.

“It’s entirely fine for a president to criticize a Supreme Court ruling that goes against him. But it’s demagogic for President Trump to contend that the justices who voted against him did so because of lack of courage,” Whelan wrote.

Some presidents also have criticized justices they appointed for decisions they’ve made.

Following the seminal Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told friends that appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren had been his biggest mistake, according to biographer Stephen E. Ambrose.

Objecting to a dissenting vote in an antitrust case, President Theodore Roosevelt once allegedly said of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, wounded in action during the Civil War, that he ”could carve out of a banana a judge with more backbone.”

But these remarks were conveyed in private, not at a livestreamed presidential appearance in the White House briefing room.

On a personal level, Trump has had a sometimes tense relationship with Roberts, who has twice issued public rebukes of the president over attacks on federal judges.

Trump didn’t mention Roberts by name on Friday, but he seemed to be assailing the chief justice when he said he lost the case because the justices “want to be politically correct,” “catering to a group of people in D.C.”

Trump used similar language when he criticized Roberts’ vote in 2012 that upheld Obamacare.

Similar to the timing following the Citizens United ruling, the president and some members of the court, dressed in their black robes, are likely to be in the same room Tuesday when Trump delivers his State of the Union address.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once nodded off during a presidential speech in the House of Representatives, attributing her drowsiness to some fine California wine. No justice is likely to be napping Tuesday night.

By MICHAEL PHILLIS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration said Friday it backs a 10-year deadline for most cities and towns to replace their harmful lead pipes, giving notice that it will support a tough rule approved under the Biden administration to reduce lead in drinking water.

The Environmental Protection Agency told a federal appeals court in Washington that it would defend the strongest overhaul of lead-in-water standards in three decades against a court challenge by a utility industry association.

The Trump administration has typically favored rapid deregulation, including reducing or killing rules on air and water pollution. On Friday, for example, it repealed tight limits on mercury and other toxic emissions from coal plants. But the agency has taken a different approach to drinking water.

“After intensive stakeholder involvement, EPA concluded that the only way to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act’s mandate to prevent anticipated adverse health effects ‘to the extent feasible’ is to require replacement of lead service lines,” the agency’s court filing said.

Doing so by a 10-year deadline is feasible, the agency added, supporting a rule that was based in part of the finding that old rules that relied on chemical treatment and monitoring to reduce lead “failed to prevent system-wide lead contamination and widespread adverse health effects.”

The EPA said in August it planned to defend the Biden administration’s aggressive rule, but added that it would also “develop new tools and information to support practical implementation flexibilities and regulatory clarity.” Some environmental activists worried that that meant the EPA was looking to create loopholes.

Lead, a heavy metal once common in products like pipes and paints, is a neurotoxin that can stunt children’s development, lower IQ scores and increase blood pressure in adults. Lead pipes can corrode and contaminate drinking water. The previous Trump administration’s rule had looser standards and did not mandate the replacement of all pipes.

Standards aimed at protecting kids

The Biden administration finalized its lead-in-water overhaul in 2024. It mandated that utilities act to combat lead in water at lower concentrations, with just 10 parts per billion as a trigger, down from 15. If higher levels were found, water systems had to inform their consumers, take immediate action to reduce lead and work to replace lead pipes that are commonly the main source of lead in drinking water.

The Biden administration at the time estimated the stricter standards would protect up to 900,000 infants from having low birth weight and avoid up to 1,500 premature deaths a year from heart disease.

“People power and years of lead-contaminated communities fighting to clean up tap water have made it a third rail to oppose rules to protect our health from the scourge of toxic lead. Maybe only a hidebound water utility trade group is willing to attack this basic public health measure,” said Erik Olson, senior director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, an environmental nonprofit.

The American Water Works Association, a utility industry association, had challenged the rule in court, arguing the EPA lacks authority to regulate the portion of the pipe that’s on private property and therefore cannot require water systems to replace them.

The agency countered on Friday that utilities can be required to replace the entire lead pipe because they have sufficient control over them.

The AWWA also said the 10-year deadline wasn’t feasible, noting it’s hard to find enough labor to do the work and water utilities face other significant infrastructure challenges simultaneously. Water utilities were given three years to prepare before the 10-year timeframe starts and some cities with a lot of lead were given longer.

The agency said they looked closely at data from dozens of water utilities and concluded that the vast majority could replace their lead pipes in 10 years or less.

Replacing decades-old standards

The original lead and copper rule for drinking water was enacted by the EPA more than 30 years ago. The rules have significantly reduced lead in water but have been criticized for letting cities move too slowly when levels rose too high.

Lead pipes are most commonly found in older, industrial parts of the country, including major cities such as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee. The rule also revises the way lead amounts are measured, which could significantly expand the number of communities found violating the rules.

The EPA under President Donald Trump has celebrated deregulation. Officials have sought to slash climate change programs and promote fossil fuel development. On drinking water issues, however, their initial actions have been more nuanced.

In March, for example, the EPA announced plans to partially roll back rules to reduce so-called “forever chemicals” in drinking water — the other major Biden-era tap water protection. That change sought to keep tough limits for some common PFAS, but also proposed scrapping and reconsidering standards for other types and extending deadlines.

PFAS and lead pipes are both costly threats to safe water. There are some federal funds to help communities.

The Biden administration estimated about 9 million lead pipes provide water to homes and businesses in the United States. The Trump administration updated the analysis and now projects there are roughly 4 million lead pipes. Changes in methodology, including assuming that communities that did not submit data did not have lead pipes, resulted in the significant shift. The new estimate does correct odd results from some states — activists said that the agency’s initial assumptions for Florida, for example, seemed far too high.

The EPA did not immediately return a request for comment. The AWWA pointed to their previous court filing when asked for comment.

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.