By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER and PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of anticipation and speculation, President Donald Trump followed through on his reciprocal tariff threats by declaring on Wednesday a 10% baseline tax on imports from all countries and higher tariff rates on dozens of nations that run trade surpluses with the United States.

In announcing the reciprocal tariffs, Trump was fulfilling a key campaign promise by raising U.S. taxes on foreign goods to narrow the gap with the tariffs the White House says other countries unfairly impose on U.S. products.

“Reciprocal means ‘they do it to us and we do it to them,’” the president said from the White House Rose Garden on Wednesday.

Trump’s higher rates would hit foreign entities that sell more goods to the United States than they buy. But economists don’t share Trump’s enthusiasm for tariffs since they’re a tax on importers that usually get passed on to consumers. It’s possible, however, that the reciprocal tariffs could bring other countries to the table and get them to lower their own import taxes.

The Associated Press asked for your questions about reciprocal tariffs. Here are a few of them, along with our answers:

Do U.S.-collected tariffs go into the General Revenue Fund? Can Trump withdraw money from that fund without oversight?

Tariffs are taxes on imports, collected when foreign goods cross the U.S. border by the Customs and Border Protection agency. The money — about $80 billion last year — goes to the U.S. Treasury to help pay the federal government’s expenses. Congress has authority to say how the money will be spent.

Trump — largely supported by Republican lawmakers who control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives — wants to use increased tariff revenue to finance tax cuts that analysts say would disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Specifically, they want to extend tax cuts passed in Trump’s first term and largely set to expire at the end of 2025. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, has found that extending Trump’s tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $4.5 trillion from 2025 to 2034.

Trump wants higher tariffs to help offset the lower tax collections. Another think tank, the Tax Policy Center, has said that extending the 2017 tax cuts would deliver continued tax relief to Americans at all income levels, “but higher-income households would receive a larger benefit.’’

How soon will prices rise as a result of the tariff policy?

It depends on how businesses both in the United States and overseas respond, but consumers could see overall prices rising within a month or two of tariffs being imposed. For some products, such as produce from Mexico, prices could rise much more quickly after the tariffs take effect.

Some U.S. retailers and other importers may eat part of the cost of the tariff, and overseas exporters may reduce their prices to offset the extra duties. But for many businesses, the tariffs Trump announced Wednesday — such as 20% on imports from Europe — will be too large to swallow on their own.

Companies may also use the tariffs as an excuse to raise prices. When Trump slapped duties on washing machines in 2018, studies later showed that retailers raised prices on both washers and dryers, even though there were no new duties on dryers.

A key question in the coming months is whether something similar will happen again. Economists worry that consumers, having just lived through the biggest inflationary spike in four decades, are more accustomed to rising prices than they were before the pandemic.

Yet there are also signs that Americans, put off by the rise in the cost of living, are less willing to accept price increases and will simply cut back on their purchases. That could discourage businesses from raising prices by much.

What is the limit of the executive branch’s power to implement tariffs? Does Congress not play any role?

The U.S. Constitution grants the power to set tariffs to Congress. But over the years, Congress has delegated those powers to the president through several different laws. Those laws specify the circumstances under which the White House can impose tariffs, which are typically limited to cases where imports threaten national security or are severely harming a specific industry.

In the past, presidents generally imposed tariffs only after carrying out public hearings to determine if certain imports met those criteria. Trump followed those steps when imposing tariffs in his first term.

In his second term, however, Trump has sought to use emergency powers set out in a 1977 law to impose tariffs in a more ad hoc fashion. Trump has said, for example, that fentanyl flowing in from Canada and Mexico constitute a national emergency and has used that pretext to impose 25% duties on goods from both countries.

Congress can seek to cancel an emergency that a president declares, and Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, has proposed to do just that regarding Canada. That legislation could pass the Senate but would likely die in the House. Other bills in Congress that would also limit the president’s authority to set tariffs face tough odds for passage as well.

What tariffs are other countries charging on US goods?

U.S. tariffs are generally lower than those charged by other countries. The average U.S. tariff, weighted to reflect goods that are actually traded, is just 2.2% for the United States, versus the European Union’s 2.7%, China’s 3% and India’s 12%, according to the World Trade Organization.

Other countries also tend to do more than the United States to protect their farmers with high tariffs. The U.S. trade-weighted tariff on farm goods, for example, is 4%, compared to the EU’s 8.4%, Japan’s 12.6%, China’s 13.1% and India’s 65%. (The WTO numbers don’t count Trump’s recent flurry of import taxes or tariffs between countries that have entered into their own free trade agreements, such as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that allows many goods to cross North American borders duty free.)

Previous U.S. administrations agreed to the tariffs that Trump now calls unjust. They were the result of a long negotiation between 1986 to 1994 — the so-called Uruguay Round — that ended in a trade pact signed by 123 countries and has formed the basis of the global trading system for nearly four decades.

By STEVE PEOPLES, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — For a day, at least, Democrats across the country have a sense that their comeback against President Donald Trump may have begun.

It wasn’t just about the election results in Wisconsin, where Democratic-backed Judge Susan Crawford won a 10-point victory against Trump and Elon Musk’s favored candidate for the state Supreme Court.

Some Democrats highlighted New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker’s marathon, record-setting 25-hour Senate speech as a rallying point for frustrated voters. Others pointed to congressional Democrats lining up with a handful of House Republican lawmakers to oppose a procedural rule that would have stopped a proposal for new parents in Congress to able to vote by proxy.

The series of victories gave Democratic leaders moments of relief and vindication of their strategy to focus on Trump’s alliances with Musk and other billionaires. That’s even as some party officials warned that it was far too early to draw sweeping conclusions from a series of lower-turnout off-year elections with polls still showing that the party’s brand is deeply unpopular among key groups of voters.

“Elon Musk and Donald Trump are on the ropes,” charged Ken Martin, the newly elected chair of the Democratic National Committee. “We’re just getting started.”

Wisconsin gave Democrats a much-needed win

Democrats have had little to cheer about in the five months since Trump won a decisive victory in November’s presidential election in which he peeled away a significant portion of working-class voters and people of color. And in more recent weeks, the party’s activist base has become increasingly frustrated that Democratic leaders have not done more to stop Trump’s unprecedented push to slash the federal government and the reshape the economy.

Democrats in Washington and in state capitals across the country privately conceded that a bad night, especially in Wisconsin, would have been devastating.

Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, lost to liberal-backed Crawford in a relative blowout, five months after Trump carried Wisconsin by less than 1 point.

And in Florida, Republicans won special elections in two of the most pro-Trump House districts in the country, but both candidates significantly underperformed Trump’s November margins.

“I went to bed last night feeling uplifted and relieved,” Kansas Democratic Party Chair Jeanna Repass said Wednesday.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., predicted further political consequences for Republicans if they don’t resist the sweeping cuts to government services enacted by Musk and Trump.

“In swing districts, if I was a Republican, I would either decide how to stand up for your constituents or find out how to get a discount on adult depends, because one or the other is what you’re going to be needing to do,” Pocan said.

Rebecca Cooke, a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional district, said the election was a clear indication that voters are upset with how Trump and Musk “are messing with their lives.” But she stopped short of projecting confidence in future elections.

“We have work to do to build long term infrastructure in this party and to really build trust back with voters that I think have felt left behind by the Democratic Party,” said Cooke, a 37-year-old waitress who is running against GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden. “I think it takes time to build trust with voters, and it can’t happen overnight, and it can’t happen in just one election.”

Expect more Democratic talking points about Musk

In this week’s successes, Democratic officials believe they have confirmed the effectiveness of their core message heading into the 2026 midterms that Trump and his billionaire allies are working for the rich at the expense of the working class.

Indeed, talking points distributed by the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday reinforced that notion while pointing to what the committee described as “an undeniable trend” after recent lower-profile Democratic victories in Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Minnesota.

“In 2025, Democrats continue to overperform in special elections as voters send a resounding message: They want Democrats to fight for them, and they want the Trump-Musk agenda out of their communities,” the talking points read.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., told the AP Wednesday that the election results showed that the public is “outraged” by chaos and dysfunction coming from the Trump administration. The chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Trump and Republicans in Congress are failing to fix high prices and seeking Medicaid cuts, in addition to supporting tariffs that could worsen inflation for families.

“What we saw yesterday in Florida and Wisconsin was Republicans running scared because the American people are angry and scared about the direction the Trump-Musk agenda is taking us,” she said. “They’re seeing prices go up. They’re seeing more and more the focus is not on them, but on Trump and his wealthy donors.”

More protests are to come

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of voters are expected to attend more than 1,000 so-called “Hands Off!” related protests nationwide focused on Trump and Musk. More than 150 political groups worked together to organize what will almost certainly represent the single biggest day of protest of the second Trump administration.

The Washington event, which will feature Reps. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., already has more than 12,000 RSVPs, according to organizers.

Meanwhile, Booker is planning to attend a series of unrelated public events, including a town hall in New Jersey this weekend.

His office reports receiving 28,000 voicemails since he finished his speech shortly after 8 p.m. on Tuesday. At its peak, the 25-hour address was being streamed by more than 300,000 people across Booker’s social media channels. It earned more than 350 million likes on his newly formed TikTok account.

A spokesperson said that the Democratic senator spent much of Wednesday sleeping.

Associated Press writers Josh Boak and Leah Askarinam in Washington and Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin contributed reporting.

By FATIMA HUSSEIN and PATRICK WHITTLE, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner is facing calls to resign after he issued an order — which was quickly rescinded — that would have required Maine parents to register their newborns for Social Security numbers at a federal office rather than the hospital.

Newly unearthed emails show that the March 5 decision was made as political payback to Maine’s Governor Janet Mills, who has defied the Trump administration’s push to deny federal funding to the state over transgender athletes.

In the email addressed to the agency’s staff, acting commissioner Leland Dudek, said, “no money will go from the public trust to a petulant child.” Staff members warned that terminating the contracts would result in improper payments and the potential for identity theft.

Dudek’s order initially drew widespread condemnation from medical organizations and public officials, who described it as unnecessary and punitive. The practice of allowing parents to register a newborn for a Social Security number at a hospital or other birthing site, called the Enumeration at Birth program, has been common for decades.

Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree, one of two House members from Maine, said Dudek should resign immediately. She characterized Dudek’s actions as retaliation for Mills publicly opposing President Donald Trump.

“If a federal agency can be turned into a political hit squad at the whim of an acting appointee, what checks remain on executive power? Commissioner Dudek’s vindictive actions against Maine represent a fundamental betrayal of public trust that disqualifies him from public service,” Pingree said.

Mills said Wednesday that Social Security is being subjected to “rushed and reckless cuts” and needs leadership that treats it like a public trust. She said that is especially important in Maine, which has a high number of recipients.

“Social Security is not a scheme, as some have said, it’s a covenant between our government and its people. The Social Security Administration’s leadership must act in a manner that reflects this solemn obligation,” Mills said.

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, sent a letter to Dudek on Tuesday, calling for his immediate resignation and a request that he sit for an interview with the committee.

“The American people deserve answers about your activities and communications in the time between President Trump’s February 21, 2025, public threat to Governor Mills and your February 27, 2025, order to cancel the enumeration at birth and electronic death registration contracts with the state of Maine, and about your knowledge that cancelling these contracts would lead to increased waste, fraud, and abuse,” Connolly said in his letter.

Connolly, in a letter on Tuesday, said Democrats on the House oversight committee obtained internal emails from the Social Security Administration that he says shows Dudek cancelled the contracts to retaliate politically against Maine.

A representative from the Social Security Administration did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

Dudek on a March 18th call with reporters to preview the agency’s tighter identity-proofing measures, initially said the cancellation of the Maine contract happened “because I screwed up,” adding that he believed that the contract looked strange. “I made the wrong move there. I should always ask my staff for guidance first, before I cancel something. I’m new at this job.”

He added, “Well, I was upset at the governor’s treatment, and I indicated in email as such, but the actual fact of the matter was it looked like a strange contract.”

“I’m not interested in political retaliation. I’m interested in serving the public.”

Maine has been the subject of federal investigations since Gov. Mills sparked the ire of Trump at a meeting of governors at the White House in February. During the meeting, Trump threatened to pull federal funding from Maine if the state does not comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from sports.

Mills responded: “We’ll see you in court.”

The Trump administration then opened investigations into whether Maine violated the Title IX antidiscrimination law by allowing transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports. The Education Department issued a final warning on Monday that the state could face Justice Department enforcement soon if it doesn’t come into compliance soon.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins also said Wednesday that the department is pausing federal funds for some Maine educational programs because of Title IX noncompliance.

Whittle reported from Scarborough, Maine.

By MEGAN JANETSKY, Associated Press

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The U.S. State Department revoked the visas of members of a Mexican band after they projected the face of a drug cartel boss onto a large screen during a performance in the western state of Jalisco over the weekend.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, who was U.S. ambassador to Mexico during the first Trump administration, said late Tuesday on X that the work and tourism visas of members of Los Alegres del Barranco were revoked.

The visa revocations follow widespread outrage in Mexico over the concert as prosecutors in two states have launched investigations into the projected images, and a larger national reckoning over how to address the rise of a popular musical genre criticized for romanticizing drug cartels.

“I’m a firm believer in freedom of expression, but that doesn’t mean that expression should be free of consequences,” Landau wrote on X. “The last thing we need is a welcome mat for people who extol criminals and terrorists.”

The controversy broke out over the weekend when the face of Nemesio Rubén “El Mencho” Oseguera layered over flames was projected behind the band, originally hailing from Sinaloa, during the concert. Finger pointing ensued among the band, concert producers and the venue.

Oseguera is the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, which has been connected to a ranch authorities say was used to train cartel recruits and possibly dispose of bodies in Jalisco, where searchers found human bone fragments, heaps of clothing and shoes.

The Jalisco cartel is among other criminal groups in Mexico that have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations by the Trump administration.

While the image was met by applause during the concert, Jalisco prosecutors quickly announced they were summoning the band to testify in an investigation into whether they were promoting violence, a crime which could result in a penalty of up to six months in prison. The state of Michoacan also announced an investigation into the Los Alegres del Barranco for projecting the same images during a concert in the city of Uruapan.

Jalisco Gov. Pablo Lemus said that the state would ban musical performances that glorify violence, adding that violators would “face monetary and criminal sanctions.”

“We know that outrage is not enough,” Lemus said. “Of course it’s possible to ban (the music).”

Since, a number of the band’s future shows have been cancelled, one town’s government saying that the show “didn’t have the municipal permissions needed” to carry out the performance.

Pavel Moreno, the band’s accordion player and back-up singer, didn’t respond to questions by fans asking if his visa had been revoked, simply thanking them for support and saying that “everything is fine.”

The band was scheduled to play in Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 4. While the event hasn’t been publicly cancelled, ticket sales websites read: “No tickets available for now on our site” for that date.

The dispute coincides with a larger cultural debate in Mexico as artists like Peso Pluma, Fuerza Regida and Natanael Cano usher in a global renaissance of Mexican regional music, by mixing classic ballads with trap music. In 2023, Peso Pluma beat Taylor Swift out as the most streamed artist on YouTube.

Many of the artists now topping the charts have come under fierce criticism because their lyrics often paint cartel leaders as Robin Hood-esque figures. Others say that the genre, known as “narco corridos”, expresses the harsh realities of many youths across Mexico.

A number of Mexican states have banned public performances of the music in recent years, the most recent being the state of Nayarit in February. Some of the bans have come as famed artists have received death threats from cartels, forcing a number of them to cancel their performances.

Others, including Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum, have sought a less aggressive approach to addressing the genre. Sheinbaum, who has come out against censoring the music, has suggested instead that the Mexican government push forward initiatives that promote Mexican regional music with more socially acceptable lyrics.

The Mexican leader did harden her language on the topic following the Los Alegres del Barranco concert. In her morning news briefing this week, Sheinbaum demanded an investigation into the concert, saying: “You can’t justify violence or criminal groups.”

By AMANDA SEITZ

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. offered no new details Wednesday about his massive restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the day after thousands of layoffs ricocheted through its agencies, hollowing out entire offices around the country in some cases.

Kennedy’s silence is prompting questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike, with a bipartisan request for President Donald Trump’s health secretary to appear before a Senate committee next week to explain the cuts.

As many as 10,000 notices were sent to scientists, senior leaders, doctors, inspectors and others across the department in an effort to cut a quarter of its workforce. The agency itself has offered no specifics on which jobs have been eliminated, with the information instead coming largely from employees who have been dismissed.

“This overhaul is about realigning HHS with its core mission: to stop the chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy said on social media, in his only comments addressing the layoffs so far. “It’s a win-win for taxpayers, and for every American we serve.”

The move, the department has said, is expected to save $1.8 billion from the agency’s $1.7 trillion annual budget — about one-tenth of 1%.

The department has not released final numbers but last week said it planned to eliminate 3,500 jobs from the Food and Drug Administration, 2,400 jobs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and 1,200 from the National Institutes of Health. Public health experts and top Democrats have raised alarms about how the deep cuts — about 25% of the department — will affect food and prescription drug safety, medical research and infectious disease prevention.

Still unclear is why certain jobs were eliminated and others were spared.

As the cuts were underway on Tuesday, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, sent a letter to Kennedy calling him before the Senate’s health committee. In a statement, Cassidy said Kennedy’s appearance is part of his promise to appear quarterly before the committee.

“This will be a good opportunity for him to set the record straight and speak to the goals, structure and benefits of the proposed reorganization,” Cassidy’s statement said.

Rep. Diana Harshbarger, a Republican from Tennessee, said the House’s health subcommittee also has questions about job cuts.

“We’re going to find out what the layoffs were all about — 10,000 — we didn’t know it,” Harshbarger said Wednesday at a health care forum hosted by Politico. “We’re going to find out what the premise was for those layoffs.”

At the same event, special government employee Calley Means, a close adviser to Kennedy who is working at the White House, defended the cuts. He struggled, however, to offer an explanation on how the overhaul will improve Americans’ health. Some of his claims were met with shouts and hisses.

“The system is really on the wrong track,” Means said, later adding that he wants to see more research from the NIH.

Politico’s Dasha Burns pressed Means on how the NIH would conduct more research with fewer employees at the agency, which had fired more than 1,000 NIH scientists and other staff before this week’s layoffs. Trump’s Republican administration has yanked hundreds of NIH grants and delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in continuing or new research funds including for studies of cancer and to keep Alzheimer’s centers around the country running.

Means responded by asking: “Has NIH funding been slashed?”

This story has been corrected to show the savings is about one-tenth of 1%, not about 1%.

Associated Press writer Lauran Neergaard in Washington contributed.

By ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump says executive orders targeting law firms are being issued in the name of national security, with the White House asserting that the firms don’t deserve access to sensitive U.S. government information.

But the firms fear the orders are being written so broadly as to potentially weaken national security by calling into question the status of security clearances of lawyers who, in addition to their legal practice, serve as military reservists and require their clearances to report to duty.

It’s an example of the sweeping and sometimes unintended consequences of White House efforts to reshape civil society, with those affected in some instances not necessarily being the ones who were top of mind when the Trump administration announced the actions in the first place. Military veterans, for instance, have not been spared from Trump’s ongoing slashing of the federal government.

Trump’s law firm executive orders have generally targeted firms that have associations with prosecutors who previously investigated him or employ, or have employed, attorneys he perceives as political adversaries. The orders have consistently imposed the same consequences, including threatening the suspension of all active security clearances held by employees at the singled-out firms.

Security clearances are issued for government workers and contractors who require access to classified national security information as part of their job. The executive branch and its agencies have wide discretion over who does and who does not obtain a clearance.

It’s unclear how many lawyers at the four firms still subject to executive orders — several others have averted them through settlements with the White House — hold security clearances either through their jobs or other work, or whether the Trump administration would move forward with plans to revoke the clearances of military reservists.

A White House spokesman, asked for comment, pointed to the provision of the order that says the clearances are to be suspended “pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest.” The response seemed to suggest that clearances of reservists could potentially be spared.

In the meantime, though, the issue was raised during a court hearing Friday in which a lawyer representing WilmerHale, one of the targeted firms, noted that the firm has within its ranks military reservists who have security clearances. Another firm that’s been subject to an executive order, Perkins Coie, also has said that it employs military reservists.

“I don’t think for a minute the government lawyer is going to come up here and tell you that they actually intended to suspend the reservists’ security clearances,” Paul Clement, a prominent Washington appellate lawyer who is representing WilmerHale, told the judge. “But they’re painting with such a broad brush with this thing, they aren’t distinguishing sheep from goats at all.”

He said Friday that “two of those lawyers have to report for their reserve duty next week. Now, I can’t tell you for sure that they’re going to show up and they’re not going to be able to do their job because their security clearance has been suspended.”

Several firms, including WilmerHale and Perkins Coie, have succeeded in winning court orders temporarily blocking enforcement of certain sections of the executive orders. The security clearance provisions, though, have remained in effect, a reflection of a president’s expansive powers when ordering the suspension or revocation of clearances.

Dan Meyer, a lawyer who specializes in security clearances at the Tully Rinckey law firm — which is not among those targeted in the executive orders — said he assumed the number of attorneys at major law firms is small and that it was possible military reservists might be able to keep their clearances, but it could conceivably require a lengthy adjudication.

“It may be that word will go quietly from the White House, ‘Don’t screw with any of these reservists at these law firms,’” Meyer said.

But, he added, “If the cat wants to claw the mouse, there’s an opportunity to do it.”

By AMANDA SEITZ and MATTHEW PERRONE

WASHINGTON (AP) — As they readied to leave work Monday, some workers at the Food and Drug Administration were told to pack their laptops and prepare for the possibility that they wouldn’t be back, according to an email obtained by The Associated Press.

Nervous employees — roughly 82,000 across the nation’s public health agencies — waited to see whether pink slips would arrive in their inboxes. The mass dismissals have been expected since Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced last week a massive reorganization that will result in 20,000 fewer jobs at the Department of Health and Human Services. About 10,000 will be eliminated through layoffs.

The email sent to some at the FDA said staffers should check their email for a possible notice that their jobs would be eliminated, which would also halt their access to government buildings. An FDA employee shared the email with AP on condition of anonymity, because they weren’t authorized to disclose internal agency matters.

Kennedy has criticized the department he oversees as an inefficient “sprawling bureaucracy” and said the department’s $1.7 trillion yearly budget “has failed to improve the health of Americans.” He plans to streamline operations and fold entire agencies — such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration — into a new Administration for a Healthy America.

On Friday, dozens of federal health employees working to stop infectious diseases from spreading were put on leave.

Several current and former federal officials told The AP that the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy was hollowed out that night. Some employees posted on LinkedIn about the office emptying. And an HIV and public health expert who works directly with the office was emailed a notice saying that all staff had been asked to leave. The expert spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity over fears of losing future work on the issue.

Several of the office’s advisory committees — including the National Vaccine Advisory Committee and others that advise on HIV/AIDs response — have had their meetings canceled.

“It puts a number of important efforts to improve the health of Americans at risk,” said Dr. Robert H. Hopkins Jr., the former chair of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, an advisory committee of the office.

An HHS official said the office is not being closed but that the department is seeking to consolidate the work and reduce redundancies.

Also, as of Monday, a website for the Office of Minority Health was disabled, with an error message saying the page “does not exist.”

Beyond layoffs at federal health agencies, cuts have begun at state and local health departments as a result of an HHS move last week to pull back more than $11 billion in COVID-19-related funds.

Local and state health officials are still assessing the impact, but some health departments have already identified hundreds of jobs that stand to be eliminated because of lost funding, “some of them overnight, some of them are already gone,” said Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive of the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

Associated Press writer Carla K. Johnson in Seattle contributed reporting.

By JANIE HAR

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Monday paused plans by the Trump administration to end temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, a week before they were scheduled to expire.

The order by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco is a relief for 350,000 Venezuelans whose Temporary Protected Status was scheduled to expire April 7. The lawsuit was filed by lawyers for the National TPS Alliance and TPS holders across the country.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has also announced the end of TPS for an estimated 250,000 additional Venezuelans in September.

Chen said in his ruling that the action by Noem “threatens to: inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families, and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity, and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States.”

He said the government had failed to identify any “real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries” and said plaintiffs will likely succeed in showing that Noem’s actions “are unauthorized by law, arbitrary and capricious, and motivated by unconstitutional animus.”

Chen, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said his order applies nationally.

He gave the government one week to file notice of an appeal and the plaintiffs one week to file to pause for 500,000 Haitians whose TPS protections are set to expire in August. Alejandro Mayorkas, the previous secretary, had extended protections for all three cohorts into 2026.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress created TPS, as the law is known, in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife, giving people authorization to live and work in the U.S. in increments of up to 18 months if the Homeland Security secretary deems conditions in their home countries are unsafe for return.

The reversals are a major about-face from immigration policies under former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and come as Republican President Donald Trump and his top aides have ratcheted up attacks on judges who rule against them, with immigration being at the forefront of many disagreements.

At a hearing last Monday, lawyers for TPS holders said that Noem has no authority to cancel the protections and that her actions were motivated in part by racism. They asked the judge to pause Noem’s orders, citing the irreparable harm to TPS holders struggling with fear of deportation and potential separation from family members.

Government lawyers for Noem said that Congress gave the secretary clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program and that the decisions were not subject to judicial review. Plaintiffs have no right to thwart the secretary’s orders from being carried out, they said.

But Chen found the government’s arguments unpersuasive and found that numerous derogatory and false comments by Noem — and by Trump — against Venezuelans as criminals show that racial animus was a motivator in ending protections.

“Acting on the basis of a negative group stereotype and generalizing such stereotype to the entire group is the classic example of racism,” he wrote.

Biden sharply expanded use of TPS and other temporary forms of protection in a strategy to create and expand legal pathways to live in the United States while suspending asylum for those who enter illegally.

Trump has questioned the the impartiality of a federal judge who blocked his plans to deport Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador, levelling his criticism only hours before his administration asked an appeals court to lift the judge’s order.

The administration has also said it was revoking temporary protections for more than 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans who have come to the U.S. since October 2022 through another legal avenue called humanitarian parole, which Biden used more than any other president. Their two-year work permits will expire April 24.

By WILL WEISSERT

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump invited Kid Rock into the Oval Office on Monday and signed an executive order that he says will help curb ticket scalping and bring “commonsense” changes to the way live events are priced.

“Anyone who’s bought a concert ticket in the last decade, maybe 20 years — no matter what your politics are — knows that it’s a conundrum,” said Kid Rock, who wore a red bedazzled suit featuring an American flag motif and a straw fedora.

Designed to stop “price-gouging by middlemen,” the order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to ensure that scalpers offering tickets at higher prices than their face value comply with all Internal Revenue Service rules.

It also orders the Federal Trade Commission to ensure “price transparency at all stages of the ticket-purchase process” and to “take enforcement action to prevent unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive conduct in the secondary ticketing market,” which the Trump administration argues can restore sensibility and order to the ticket market.

Trump said he knows Kid Rock, a longtime supporter whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, as simply “Bob.”

“He’s been a good friend for a long time,” Trump said.

The president said rising fees for concerts and other events have “gotten worse and worse with time.” Kid Rock agreed.

“You can buy a ticket for $100. By the time you check out, it’s $170. You don’t know what you’ve been charged for,” Kid Rock said. “But, more importantly, the bots, you know, they come in, they get all the good tickets to your favorite shows you want to go to, and then they’re relisted immediately for sometimes 400-500% markup.”

The order mostly directs federal agencies to enforce existing laws. Still, it marks a rare instance of policy crossover with the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden, which used the FTC to target “ junk fees,” or levies tacked on at the end of the purchase process that can mask the full price of things like concert tickets, hotel rooms and utility bills.

Under Biden, the Justice Department also sued Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, last year. It accused them of running an illegal monopoly over live events and asked a court to break up the system that squelches competition and drives up prices for fans.

Those companies have a history of clashing with major artists, including Bruce Springsteen and Taylor Swift. whose summer 2022 stadium tour was plagued by difficulty getting tickets.

Country music star Zach Bryan even released a 2022 album titled “All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster.” A representative for Bryan said he had “nothing to add” when asked to comment on Monday’s executive orer.

The Biden administration used such initiatives as a way to protect consumers from rising prices that were already inflated. Trump, meanwhile, campaigned on combating high ticket prices, calling them “very unfortunate.”

Kid Rock, known for hits like “Cowboy” and “Bawitdaba,” called Trump’s order a ”great first step” and said he’d eventually like to see a cap on resale prices on tickets — while quickly adding, “I’m a capitalist.” He also said he’d spoken to Ticketmaster, which he described as “on board” with the change.

The White House says America’s live concert and entertainment industry has a total nationwide economic impact of $132.6 billion and supports 913,000 jobs, “But it has become blighted by unscrupulous middle-men who impose egregious fees on fans with no benefit to artists,” according to a fact sheet it released Monday.

Trump’s order further directs federal officials and the FTC to deliver a report in six months “summarizing actions taken to address the issue of unfair practices in the live concert and entertainment industry and recommend additional regulations or legislation needed to protect consumers in this industry.”

“Ticket scalpers use bots and other unfair means to acquire large quantities of face-value tickets, then re-sell them at an enormous markup on the secondary market, price-gouging consumers and depriving fans of the opportunity to see their favorite artists without incurring extraordinary expenses,” the White House face sheet said.

It also noted that higher prices don’t mean additional profits for artists but instead go “solely to the scalper and the ticketing agency.”

Kid Rock agreed that such markups don’t benefit artists like himself, then chuckled while offering, “I’ll be the first one to say, and I know the president doesn’t like when I say this, but, I’m a little overpaid right now.”

“It’s kind of ridiculous. I would rather be, you know, a hero to working-class people and have them be able to come attend my shows and give them a fair ticket price,” he said. “I can’t control that right now so hopefully this is a step to make that happen.”

Associated Press writer Maria Sherman contributed to this report from New York.

By ALI SWENSON

NEW YORK (AP) — Two election watchdog organizations sued President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday over his executive order seeking to overhaul the nation’s elections through a proof-of-citizenship requirement, new mail ballot deadline restrictions and other sweeping changes.

The lawsuit, filed by the Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks the court to declare the order unconstitutional and stop it from being implemented.

It names three nonprofit voter advocacy organizations as plaintiffs that it alleges are harmed by the order: the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative and the Arizona Students’ Association.

“The president’s executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans,” said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at the D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center. “It is simply not within the president’s authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way.”

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Monday’s lawsuit marks the first major legal challenge to last week’s executive order, which election lawyers have warned may violate the U.S. Constitution and asserts power they say the president does not have over an independent agency. That agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, sets voluntary voting system guidelines and maintains the federal voter registration form.

It comes as Congress is considering codifying a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration into law, and as Trump has promised more actions related to elections in the coming weeks.

The lawsuit draws attention to the Constitution’s “ Elections Clause,” which says states — not the president — get to decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run. That section of the Constitution also gives Congress the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but it doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.

“The Constitution is clear: States set their own rules of the road when it comes to elections, and only Congress has the power to override these laws with respect to federal elections,” said Lang, calling the executive order an “unconstitutional executive overreach.”

The lawsuit also argues the president’s order intrudes on Americans’ right to vote.

Trump, one of the top spreaders of election falsehoods, has argued this executive order will secure the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens. Multiple studies and investigations in individual states have shown that noncitizens casting ballots in federal elections, already a felony, is exceedingly rare.

Monday’s lawsuit against Trump’s elections order could be just the first of many challenges. Other voting rights advocates have said they’re considering legal action, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Democratic attorney Marc Elias. Several Democratic state attorneys general have said they are looking closely at the order and suspect it is illegal.

Meanwhile, Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.

If courts determine the order can stand, the changes Trump is demanding are likely to cause some headaches for both election administrators and voters. State election officials, who already have lost some federal cybersecurity assistance, would have to spend time and money to comply with the order, including potentially buying new voting systems and educating voters of the rules.

The proof-of-citizenship requirement also could cause confusion or voter disenfranchisement because millions of eligible voting-age Americans do not have the proper documents readily available. In Kansas, which had a proof-of-citizenship requirement for three years before it was overturned, the state’s own expert estimated that almost all the roughly 30,000 people who were prevented from registering to vote during the time it was in effect were U.S. citizens who had been eligible.

Monday’s lawsuit is the latest of numerous efforts to fight the flurry of executive actions Trump has taken during the first months of his second term. Federal judges have partially or fully blocked many of them, including efforts to restrict birthright citizenship, ban transgender people from military service and curb diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives among federal contractors and grant recipients.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about the AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By LAURA UNGAR, Associated Press

Federal health officials said Tuesday they are pulling back $11.4 billion in COVID-19-related funds for state and local public health departments and other health organizations throughout the nation.

“The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement.

The statement said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention expects to recover the money beginning 30 days after termination notices, which began being sent out on Monday.

Officials said the money was largely used for COVID-19 testing, vaccination and global projects as well as community health workers responding to COVID and a program established in 2021 to address COVID health disparities among high-risk and underserved patients, including those in minority populations. The move was first reported by NBC News.

Lori Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County & City Health Officials, said much of the funding was set to end soon anyway. “It’s ending in the next six months,” she said. “There’s no reason — why rescind it now? It’s just cruel and unusual behavior.”

In a related move, more than two dozen COVID-related research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health have been canceled. Earlier this month, the Trump administration shut down ordering from covidtest.gov, the site where Americans could have COVID-19 tests delivered to their mailboxes for no charge.

Although the COVID federal public health emergency has ended, the virus is still killing Americans: 458 people per week on average have died from COVID over the past four weeks, according to CDC data.

HHS wouldn’t provide many details about how the federal government expects to recover the money from what it called “impacted recipients.” But HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said in an email: “The $11.4 billion is undisbursed funds remaining.”

Freeman said her understanding is that state health departments already had the COVID money.

“The funding was authorized by Congress, was appropriated by Congress, and it was out the door, basically, into the hands of the grantees” — states, she said, which decide how to distribute it locally.

Some of the COVID money is used to address other public health issues, Freeman added. For example, wastewater surveillance that began during COVID became important for detecting other diseases, too.

“It was being used in significant ways to track flu and patterns of new disease and emerging diseases — and even more recently with the measles outbreak,” Freeman said.

Under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, billions of dollars was allocated for COVID response through legislation, including a COVID relief bill and the American Rescue Plan Act.

At this point, it’s unclear exactly how health departments will be affected by the pullback of funds. But some were starting to look at what it might mean for them. In Washington state, for example, health officials were notified that more than $125 million in COVID-related funding has been immediately terminated. They are “assessing the impact” of the actions, they said.

In Los Angeles County, health officials said they could lose more than $80 million in core funding for vaccinations and other services. “Much of this funding supports disease surveillance, public health lab services, outbreak investigations, infection control activities at healthcare facilities and data transparency,” a department official wrote in an email.

Associated Press reporters Mike Stobbe in New York, JoNel Aleccia in Temecula, California, Carla K. Johnson in Seattle and Amanda Seitz in Washington, D.C. contributed to this story.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By CHEYANNE MUMPHREY and JOCELYN GECKER, Associated Press Education Writers

Until recently, it was a little-known program to help Black and Latino students pursue business degrees.

But in January, conservative strategist Christopher Rufo flagged the program known as The PhD Project in social media posts that caught the attention of Republican politicians. The program is now at the center of a Trump administration campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.

The U.S. Education Department last week said it was investigating dozens of universities for alleged racial discrimination, citing ties to the nonprofit organization. That followed a warning a month earlier that schools could lose federal money over “race-based preferences” in admissions, scholarships or any aspect of student life.

The investigations left some school leaders startled and confused, wondering what prompted the inquiries. Many scrambled to distance themselves from The PhD Project, which has aimed to help diversify the business world and higher education faculty.

The rollout of the investigations highlights the climate of fear and uncertainty in higher education, which President Donald Trump’s administration has begun policing for policies that run afoul of his agenda even as he moves to dismantle the Education Department.

There is a range of nonprofits that work to help minority groups advance in higher education but The PhD Project was not well known before Rufo began posting on X about its work with colleges, said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents.

“It’s not hard to draw some lines between that incident and why 45 institutions that were partners with The PhD Project are getting this investigation announced,” he said.

The 45 colleges under investigation for ties to the organization include public universities such as Arizona State, Ohio State and the University of California, Berkeley, along with private schools like Yale, Cornell, Duke and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Education Department sent letters to the universities informing them its Office for Civil Rights had received a complaint and they were under investigation for allegedly discriminating against students on the basis of race or ethnicity because of a past affiliation with The PhD Project. The letters set a March 31 deadline for information about their relationship with the nonprofit.

In a statement, the PhD Project said it aims to “create a broader talent pipeline” of business leaders. “This year, we have opened our membership application to anyone who shares that vision,” it said.

Public reaction from the universities’ leadership has been minimal and cautious, with most issuing brief statements saying they will cooperate with investigators and refusing further comment.

Colleges may see reason not to push back. The Trump administration has shown willingness to withhold federal funding over issues involving antisemitism allegations, diversity programs and transgender athletes. At Columbia University, under fire for its handling of pro-Palestinian protests, the administration pulled $400 million in federal money and threatened billions more if it does not comply with its demands.

“There is a concern that if one university steps up and fights this then that university will have all of their funding cut,” said Veena Dubal, general counsel for the American Association of University Professors. “They are being hindered not just by fear but a real collective action problem. None of these universities wants to be the next example.”

Some colleges moved swiftly to stop working with The PhD Project.

The University of Kentucky said it severed ties with the nonprofit on Monday. The University of Wyoming said in a statement that its college of business was affiliated with the group to develop its graduate student pipeline, but it plans to discontinue its membership.

The University of Nevada, Las Vegas issued a statement saying three professors participated in the program, but two no longer work at the university and a third was killed in a shooting on campus in 2023. Arizona State said its business school is not financially supporting The PhD Project this year and it told faculty in February the school would not support travel to the nonprofit’s conference.

Similar fallout came in Texas earlier this year, when Rufo began posting on X about the PhD Project.

“Texas A&M is sponsoring a trip to a DEI conference,” Rufo posted on Jan. 13. Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, accused the university of “supporting racial segregation and breaking the law.”

The next day Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbot posted on X that the university “president will soon be gone” unless he immediately “fixed” the matter. Texas A&M responded by withdrawing from the conference, and soon after at least eight other Texas public universities that had participated previously in The PhD Project’s conference also withdrew, the Texas Tribune reported.

Rufo has not responded to a request for comment.

Some of the schools under investigation raised questions about where the complaints against them originated.

Montana State University said it follows all state and federal laws and was “surprised” by the notice it received and “unaware of any complaint made internally with regards to The PhD Project.”

Six other colleges are being investigated for awarding “impermissible race-based scholarships,” the Education Department said. Additionally, the University of Minnesota is being investigated for allegedly operating a program that segregates students on the basis of race.

At the University of California, Berkeley, hundreds gathered Wednesday on the campus known for student protests. But this one was organized by faculty, who stood on the steps of Sproul Hall, known as the birthplace of the free speech movement in the 1960s.

“This is a fight that can be summed up in five words: Academic freedom is under assault,” Ula Taylor, a professor of African American studies, said to the crowd.

In a campus email Monday, Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons did not specifically mention the investigation targeting his school. But he described the federal government’s actions against higher education as a threat to the school’s core values.

“A Berkeley without academic freedom, without freedom of inquiry, without freedom of expression is simply not Berkeley,” Lyons said. “We will stand up for Berkeley’s values and defend them to the very best of our ability.”

Associated Press writer Collin Binkley contributed to this report.

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 MATT BROWN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — For weeks, Democratic lawmakers have met with and mimicked figures they believe may offer them a path back to power in Washington: online influencers and content creators.

Hours before President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress this month, Senate Democrats huddled with a dozen online progressive personalities who have millions of followers. House Democrats were introduced, without staff, to 40 content creators who Democratic leaders said could help them grow their audience online.

An earlier tutorial session in February featured online personalities like the YouTube commentator Brian Tyler Cohen.

The result has been a burst of Democratic online content, including direct-to-camera explainers in parked cars, scripted vertical videos, podcast appearances and livestreams — some topping trending charts online, others drawing mockery from liberal allies and Republicans in Congress.

But while the Democratic Party is largely divided over the path forward after last year’s election losses, party leaders agree that, no matter the message, how they connect with voters in the digital media landscape will be key to a political comeback.

Democrats are aiming to double engagement with digital content

More than a dozen Democratic senators, asked about the party’s digital strategy, pointed to Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey as the architect of their new push.

“We’ve seen tremendous growth of Democratic senators now. They’re engaging in the tools and strategies necessary to elevate their voice in a new, changing media market, where legacy media is not the place that people get their news now,” Booker said. “We’re just weeks into this, but just by making key changes … we’re seeing a massive growth in engagement with the content that our senators are creating, and we’ve only just begun.”

Booker said he’s aiming for Democratic senators to double online engagement with their content over the next year — and early metrics have been noticeable. Democratic senators racked up more than 87 million views on content they published in response to Trump’s joint address to Congress, according to Booker’s office.

But the Democrats’ digital efforts also draw Republican mockery

Not all of that online engagement is positive. After more than two dozen Democratic senators posted identical scripted videos knocking Trump’s speech, saying he should have addressed the cost of living and his support for billionaire adviser Elon Musk, conservatives mocked them as inauthentic and out of touch.

“They are all actors reading a script,” Musk wrote on X, the social media platform he owns.

There’s no doubt that Democrats are playing catch-up. Trump and his fellow Republicans built a digital operation that fed on bombast and celebrity, and it’s a strategy they’ve taken with them to the White House. Official government accounts are new filled with right-wing memes, cinematic videos and pugnacious statements.

The Democratic embrace of influencers has also yielded mixed early results. Democrats were ridiculed online after a food and wellness influencer who attended the House Democrats’ creators event created a “Choose Your Fighter” video collage of Democratic congresswomen for Women’s History Month.

The White House posted a video in response that read “America chose its fighters last November,” and the Pentagon, normally known for being studiously non-partisan, posted a video stating “We chose our fighters a long time ago.”

But Booker and other Democratic leaders don’t consider the sneers to be a downside. Missteps are to be expected, they say, but the path to Americans’ attention will require some discomfort from lawmakers.

“I do think that the caucus as a whole is trying to figure out how we show people that we are real people,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of the congresswomen featured in the viral “Fighter” video. Crockett, whose posts regularly garner millions of views online, said she was used to criticism for her often frank statements and was more interested in combating perceptions that Democrats are “elitist” or “robotic.”

“I didn’t like the jumping, I’m going to be honest, though,” Crockett added about the viral “Choose Your Fighter” video.

Trump prompts a more aggressive digital posture

Democrats adopted a more combative stance online in recent weeks as Trump’s moves to slash the federal workforce drew protests from liberals and pushback at GOP town halls. Top Democratic digital operatives who worked for the 2024 presidential campaign of then-Vice President Kamala Harris have been in high demand, with many Democrats anticipating close 2026 races in which digital strategies may be key.

Some of the most prominent Democrats across the country have been engaging more in new media since the election. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York has touted the party’s message on progressive podcasts over the last month, including from the comedian Jon Stewart and the progressive outlet MeidasTouch. Clips of those videos were also lampooned online but garnered millions of views.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential Democratic presidential contender in 2028, has launched a podcast of his own on which he has welcomed close Trump allies like the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk and former Trump aide Steve Bannon to discuss hot-button political topics.

“We want to make sure we hit the podcasters that normally don’t have Democrats on there,” said Rep. Derek Tran, a Democrat from a competitive California House district. “The ones that are more right-leaning or independent, and be able to address a crowd and an audience that’s not typical for the Democratic base.”

Democrats divide on message vs. messaging

Some House Democrats have expressed frustration that the guidance from Democratic leaders about social media is too vague, while others grumble that leaders are too prescriptive in their approach to messaging on platforms they don’t intuitively understand. Meanwhile, Democratic strategists have cautioned lawmakers that garnering attention online is secondary to the goal of using social media as a tool in specific policy fights and campaigns.

“I think there’s a fine line before we’re being cringe and trying too hard and seeming too thirsty. I think the most important thing in any of this is being as authentic and genuine as we can be,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif.

“When it comes to authenticity, it also means leaning into what makes each of us unique. Like many of my colleagues probably should not be doing ‘get ready with me’ videos. It would look super cringe. But I’m a 36-year-old woman, and I do my makeup all the time, and I watch a lot of makeup tutorial videos, so it makes sense for me to do it,” said Jacobs.

Some Democrats think that the party’s messaging strategy hinges as much on the messengers as the medium it’s communicated on.

“If you know how to talk to people, it doesn’t matter what medium is going to exist,” said Sen. Ruben Gallego, a freshman Democratic senator from Arizona. “You could be the best freaking spokesperson in the world, but if you don’t know how to talk to working-class people, it doesn’t matter if you have the best TikTok following, it’s just not going to translate.”

By MORIAH BALINGIT, CHRIS MEGERIAN and BILL BARROW, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A little more than 23 years ago, Republican President George W. Bush sat at a desk at a high school in Hamilton, Ohio, and signed a law that would vastly expand the role of the Education Department and transform American schooling. On Thursday, his Republican successor, President Donald Trump, signed a very different document — this one an executive order designed to dismantle the department.

For years, as right-wing activists called for eliminating the agency, many Republicans paid lip service to the cause but still voted to fund it. Now Trump, emboldened and unapologetic in his drastic remaking of the federal government, has brushed aside concerns that deterred his predecessors.

Thursday’s announcement follows other aggressive decisions, including the enlistment of billionaire Elon Musk to downsize the federal bureaucracy at startling speed, or the review of scientific findings that are foundational for fighting climate change.

Dismantling the Education Department was always high on Trump’s list. He talked about it repeatedly during his campaign, often to cheers from his supporters, including the conservative group Moms for Liberty.

But despite telegraphing his goals, Trump’s executive order was a stunner, even for a president who thrives on audacity. Margaret Spellings, education secretary under Bush, said she was indeed surprised he was following through on his campaign vow.

For years, Spellings said, talk of about eliminating the department was a way for Republicans to signal their adherence to party orthodoxy, even as they voted to send billions of dollars to support its mission. Much of that money ended up at schools in their own districts, funding extra teachers for impoverished schools, for example. As recently as 2023, 60 House Republicans voted against a bill to close the department.

“It was always a little bit of a wink and a nod deal,” Spellings said. “Donald Trump has called the bluff.”

Trump, in remarks at the White House, said: “People have wanted to do this for many, many years, for many, many decades. And I don’t know, no president ever got around to doing it. But I’m getting around to doing it.”

He held the executive order up for photos while standing next to Education Secretary Linda McMahon. He’s joked that he’ll need to find another job for her once her department is gone.

The executive order is likely to get mired in legal challenges, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle said closing the department can’t move forward without their approval. But Trump, through the Department of Government Efficiency, has already shrunk the department’s imprint, moving to eliminate about half of its staff.

The first talk of eliminating the department came just a year after its formation from President Ronald Reagan, who opposed its efforts to integrate schools. However, calls to get rid of the new department fell out of favor by the end of Reagan’s first term. By the time George W. Bush became president, it was seen as a vehicle to implement his policy vision of a federal government that required states to closely monitor student progress, and hold schools accountable that fell short.

Calls to eliminate the department reemerged with the Tea Party, whose adherents made it a symbol of bloated bureaucracy that usurped power that belonged to local governments.

The most recent push to close the department emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic, when right-leaning parents, infuriated by what they saw as unnecessary school closures, began arguing that the government was indoctrinating their children.

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, was in the White House audience and was recognized by Trump in his remarks. She said the department allowed teacher unions to exert undue influence over schools, a problem that became more apparent while schools were closed and students were learning over Zoom.

“The American people woke up and recognized the fact there were a lot of people that were making decisions that were not in the best interest of their children,” she said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who as a young lawmaker voted for the 1979 bill to create the department, praised Trump’s move and argued the agency has not accomplished its original mission.

“It seemed like a good idea at the time,” Gingrich said of backing Democratic President Jimmy Carter, his fellow Georgian, in a 215-201 vote.

Two generations later, Gingrich argued, “If you take what the scores were then and how much we were spending on education then and compare it now, it’s impossible to escape the reality that it’s been an abject failure.”

For all the talk of overreach, federal law explicitly bars the federal government from telling schools what to teach their students. Day-to-day operations of schools are largely handled by state and local authorities.

And while Trump has talked about eliminating the department, he envisions a more muscular role for the federal government in schools, moving swiftly and aggressively to punish schools that do not fall in line with the administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws.

Early in his administration, he has already taken unprecedented action to sever federal grants from the University of Pennsylvania and from Columbia University over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests.

The executive order to close the department also included language to take federal funding away from schools that promote “diversity, equity and inclusion,” a term that has come to encompass everything from highlighting the achievements of Black Americans to allowing transgender athletes to compete.

Advocates and Democratic strategists have warned that Trump’s efforts could backfire with voters. According to recent polling, six out of ten registered voters oppose the closure of the department.

Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who has worked for multiple presidential campaigns, including Joe Biden’s 2020 victorious effort over Trump, said the president’s moves are a base pleaser likely to backfire for Republicans with the broader electorate.

First and foremost, he said, “education is generally popular with voters” as a priority. Anything that allows Democrats to position themselves as better reflective of those values, he said, works against Trump.

The states whose schools are most reliant on federal dollars include Mississippi, South Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Arkansas and North Carolina — all of which backed Trump. Any disruption in federal funding will hit them hardest.

Spellings said there’s long been a bipartisan consensus that “education is the route to the American dream, and it ought to be afforded to everyone, and the federal role was to level the playing field.”

“If that’s still true, we’re in the process of finding out.”

Sharon Lurye and Linley Sanders contributed.

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.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said late Thursday that he would be meeting with billionaire Elon Musk at the Pentagon Friday to discuss “innovation, efficiencies & smarter production.”

Musk, a top adviser to President Donald Trump, and his Department of Government Efficiency have played an integral role in the administration’s push to dramatically reduce the size of the government. Musk has faced intense blowback from some lawmakers and voters for his chainsaw-wielding approach to laying off workers and slashing programs, although Trump’s supporters have hailed it.

A senior defense official told reporters Tuesday that roughly 50,000 to 60,000 civilian jobs will be cut in the Defense Department.

In a post on Musk’s X platform, Hegseth emphasized that “this is NOT a meeting about ‘top secret China war plans,’” denying a story published by The New York Times late Thursday.

Hegseth is also scheduled to deliver remarks with Trump at the White House Friday morning.

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Military officials are reviewing plans that would cut the number of U.S. troops deployed to the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba to handle detained migrants by as much as half, because there are no detainees there now and the program has stumbled during legal challenges, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said the military’s Southern Command was asked to give Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth a plan that would outline how many troops are actually needed and what additional space may be required if more detainees are sent there.

That plan, said officials, is expected to recommend that a number of the troops be sent home — and one official said the decision could chop the 900 troops there now in half.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the decisions are not yet finalized. Southern Command is preparing options that would address the fact that there have been no migrants transferred to the base since early March, but the administration has warned that future “high-threat” detainees may be sent to the base.

U.S. authorities have transferred at least 290 detainees to Guantanamo since February. But on March 11, the 40 people still housed there were flown off the base to Louisiana.

The base is best known for housing foreigners associated with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but it has a separate facility used for decades to hold migrants intercepted trying to reach the U.S. by sea. That use had been expanded recently to include some of the migrants swept up in President Donald Trump’s broader campaign to secure the southern border.

Trump has said he will send the worst criminal migrants to Guantanamo Bay, but civil rights attorneys say many detainees transferred there don’t have a criminal record and that the administration has exceeded its authority in violation of U.S. immigration law.

A judge recently ruled against immigration and civil rights advocates who sued over the transfers, but it largely hinged on the fact that, at the current time, there were no migrant detainees being held there.

Meanwhile, the 900 troops at the base have little to do. There are roughly 500 Army soldiers, nearly 300 Marines and several dozen sailors and airmen deployed to the base for the detainee program.

Officials said the new Southern Command plan will likely send a significant number home, but they or others may be told to be prepared to deploy if needed. Currently, nearly 800 additional U.S.-based soldiers are already on prepare-to-deploy orders and could be sent to the base quickly if needed.

Civil rights attorneys sued the Trump administration this month to prevent it from transferring 10 migrants detained in the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay, filing statements from men held there who said they were mistreated in conditions that one of them called “a living hell.”

The judge indicated a willingness to revisit the issue if and when the government sends more detainees to Guantanamo. He said he wouldn’t set a timeline for how quickly the government has to tell him of future transfers.

U.S. authorities say they began transferring migrants to Guantanamo Bay with the first military transport flight out of Fort Bliss on Feb. 4. Initial flights transported Venezuelans — a prelude to the transfer of 177 detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Venezuela, with a brief stopover in Honduras.

By TRÂN NGUYỄN

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California faces a $6.2 billion budget gap in the state’s Medicaid services, which could force Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers to reevaluate future coverage for some of the 15 million people who receive health care through the program, including immigrants.

The shortfall comes a year after California launched an ambitious coverage expansion to provide free health care to all low-income adults regardless of their immigration status. That’s costing far more than the state projected.

California also is bracing for major budget hits if Republicans in Congress follow through with a plan to slash billions of dollars in Medicaid and potentially jeopardize coverage for millions of people. California provides free health care to more than a third of its 39 million people.

Here’s what to know about California’s Medicaid gap:

Did expanding coverage to adult immigrants cause the gap?

Partly. California first extended health care benefits to low-income children without legal status in 2015 and later added the benefits for young adults and people over the age of 50. The program was expanded again last year to cover adults ages 26 to 49.

The cost of the recent expansion to cover all low-income adults is $2.7 billion more than the state budgeted because California underestimated the number of people who would sign up for services. California officials said they only had a month of data last year when the state had to produce projections for the budget.

The state hasn’t said how many people have enrolled through the expansion. Last year, the state projected about 700,000 state residents who are living in the U.S. illegally would gain full health coverage to access preventive care and other treatment.

Other factors that are putting pressures on state budgets across the country also played a role in California, state officials said. Those included $540 million in rising pharmacy costs and $1.1 billion from other issues, such as a larger enrollment by older people.

In Illinois, which also expanded coverage in recent years to more low-income residents regardless of immigration status, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker is proposing a $330 million cut to coverage for immigrants ages 42 to 64, citing rising costs.

What is California doing about the shortfall?

Newsom’s administration last week told lawmakers it took out a $3.44 billion loan, the maximum allowed under state law, from the general fund to make payments for this month.

The Department of Health Care Services, which oversees the state’s Medicaid program, this week said it will need an additional $2.8 billion to cover costs already committed through June. That money will need to be approved by the Legislature in April.

The state has proposed ending pandemic-era protections that have prevented it from disenrolling people from Medicaid. Newsom’s administration is also bracing for “significant variability” after President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Will California roll back coverage for immigrants without legal status?

Newsom told reporters this week that rolling back the coverage expansion “is not on my docket.”

Other Democratic leaders, including Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire, also vowed to safeguard benefits for immigrants but acknowledged “tough choices ahead.”

The budget hole has reignited criticism from Republican lawmakers about the expansion.

“Californians should not be forced to shoulder the burden of radical Democrats’ reckless financial mismanagement,” state Sen. Brian Jones said in a social media post this week.

Newsom recently defended the expansion in one of his podcast episodes, adding that making preventive care accessible to all low-income people helps save the state money in the long run.

How will Congress’ plan to cut Medicaid funding affect California?

The $6.2 billion budget gap is “solvable,” lawmakers said this week. But Congress’ threats of a Medicaid funding cut could add further strain.

California would have to cut coverage, limit enrollment or raise taxes to help cover the costs if Congress follows through.

State officials said they’re certain it would upend coverage for millions of people in the state.

Even with the largest state budget in the country at roughly $322 billion, California doesn’t have the capacity to backfill services funded by the federal government, officials said.

More than half the state’s Medicaid funding comes from the federal government. For the next fiscal year, that’s roughly $112.1 billion. Federal funding doesn’t cover costs related to preventive care for immigrants without legal status.

By ZEKE MILLER and ANNIE MA

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has suspended approximately $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania over the participation of a transgender athlete in its swimming program, the White House said Wednesday.

The Ivy League school has been facing an Education Department investigation focusing on in its swimming program. That inquiry was announced last month immediately after President Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls and women’s sports.

But the federal money was suspended in a separate review of discretionary federal money going to universities, the White House said. The money that was paused came from the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services.

A Penn spokesperson said the school had not received any notification or details of the action.

“It is important to note, however, that Penn has always followed NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student participation on athletic teams,” spokesperson Ron Ozio said. “We have been in the past, and remain today, in full compliance with the regulations that apply to not only Penn, but all of our NCAA and Ivy League peer institutions.”

The investigation opened by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights at Penn focuses on Lia Thomas, who swam on the school’s women’s team and was the first openly transgender athlete to win a Division I title in 2022.

The agency also opened reviews of San Jose State University volleyball and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association.

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 MATT BROWN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats have been sniping at each other in public since Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer helped pass a Republican spending bill that prevented a government shutdown. But the divisions in their party hardly began there.

For months, Democrats have been struggling to coalesce behind a political strategy as they confront President Donald Trump and the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. Behind closed doors at party retreats, think tank meetings and strategy sessions, Democrats have been having tense and searching conversations about ideology, policy and messaging as they urgently try to address what went wrong in last year’s election.

“I think we’re in a place internally where we’re having these family discussions and figuring out what the path forward is,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost, a Florida Democrat and, at age 28, the youngest member of Congress.

Democrats grapple with the scale of their challenges

The Democratic Party’s political woes were front and center last week as House Democrats gathered a short drive away from Washington for their annual political retreat.

Frost said Democrats were alarmed by exit polls from November’s presidential election, which found Trump won voters without a college degree and those who made less than $100,000 in annual income. The same data showed Trump also made inroads with communities of color and young voters, traditionally areas of strength for Democrats.

Recent polls underscore the challenge.

Democrats are facing stark dissatisfaction among Americans, including among the party’s base. Only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, versus 54% who held an unfavorable view in a March CNN poll. And about 6 in 10 Democrats said they preferred to see the party work to stop the Republican agenda, compared with about 4 in 10 who preferred Democrats work with Republicans. That represents a stark shift from the outset of Trump’s first term in 2017, when about three-quarters of Democrats said they preferred working with Republicans over stopping the GOP agenda.

“The Democratic brand absolutely needs to change,” said Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat. “We will not win with the status quo.”

Moulton said that Democrats must “be very public about” their reckoning.

“I think we need a high-level message from leadership that, ‘Hey, we got the message of the last election. We heard you voters. You voted us out across the board, and we’re going to change,’” Moulton said.

Democrats agree on some points. They uniformly detest Trump, broadly believe that they have failed to connect with the working-class voters they aim to champion and generally agree on the direction that economic and social policies should trend.

But party leaders are far from united about how to best confront Trump in his second term and about what policies should be emphasized to voters as they do it.

The 2024 election offered little clarity in the progressive vs. moderate debate

Part of the difficulty is that both the Democratic Party’s progressive and moderate wings feel as though the early days of the Trump administration have vindicated at times their differing approaches.

“We are locked out of accessing the levers and buttons of power, of reaching government. Our next milestone, and it is a critical milestone to achieve, is winning the majority in 2026 that is of paramount importance,” said Rep. Brad Schneider of Illinois, chair of the New Democrat Coalition, a bloc of House Democrats that advocates for “pragmatic, effective policies.”

For Schneider, all of the party’s efforts should be focused on winning back the majority, rather than winning the day’s news cycle.

“I’ve said this to my colleagues, and I’ll keep repeating it: We can win moments (that) go viral. We can win arguments here and there. We can even win a day. But if what we’re doing isn’t putting us on the path to win the election next year, we haven’t gotten to where we need to be, and we’re not doing what we need to do,” Schneider said.

More progressive lawmakers make a different case.

“So I think that this is a real opportunity for the Democratic Party to transform — the way we need it to — to be a party of working people,” said Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“I think that we should stop looking at this so much as a left-right fight within our caucus — so many voters don’t even think about it that way — and think of it more as a bottom-up fight where we can unite the vast majority of the country against the small number of people that are screwing them over in their government and their workplaces,” Casar said.

Democrats are already looking ahead to next year’s midterm elections

With Republicans controlling the House by only a handful of seats, Democrats say they are in a strong position to retake the majority — and they aren’t waiting until 2026 to get their campaigns off the ground. The pace, intensity and unpredictability of Trump’s governance have alarmed, frightened and excited voters across the country. In Trump’s blitz, Democrats see an opportunity for pushback.

This week, with the House on recess, the Democratic National Committee launched a “People’s Town Hall” series of national events meant to connect with voters in swing states and districts. The effort follows weeks of town halls hosted by national liberal figures, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota.

The Congressional Black Caucus, meanwhile, plans next month to launch a bus tour of lawmakers to Black communities in congressional districts across the country in a bid to engage voters disenchanted with the party and highlight potentially unpopular decisions by Trump.

And members of Congress have supported the efforts of aligned legal groups like Democracy Forward, which has spearheaded the legal pushback to Trump’s agenda in the judicial system, while liberal organizing groups like Indivisible are coordinating nationwide protests throughout April against the Trump administration.

Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington, chair of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, said House Democrats will focus on “kitchen table issues” in making their pitch to voters. She singled out lowering costs and public safety as key topics.

“That’s why we outperformed the top of the ticket pretty much across the country,” DelBene said, referring to last year’s election results. “So we’ll continue to do that.”

But even as Democrats try to hone their message, some Democrats are stressing the urgency of taking a stand against Trump now, long before votes are cast next November. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, a progressive from Massachusetts, said the party must respond first to “this unprecedented power grab” and “lawless actions” from the Trump administration before debating whether to drop parts of its agenda.

“Who are we? The midterms are around the corner,” Pressley said, “and our most compelling argument will not just be what we stopped but what it is that we seek to advance.”

“What I will say is that I think now is not the time to be moderating our aspirations,” she said.