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.

By MICHAEL BIESECKER and JESSE BEDAYN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released records show a U.S. citizen was shot and killed in Texas by a federal immigration agent last year during a late-night traffic encounter that was not publicly disclosed by the Department of Homeland Security.

The death of Ruben Ray Martinez, 23, would mark the earliest of at least six deadly shootings by federal officers since the start of a nationwide immigration crackdown in President Donald Trump’s second term. On Friday, DHS said the shooting on South Padre Island last March occurred after the driver intentionally struck an agent.

The shooting involved a Homeland Security Investigations team that was conducting an immigration enforcement operation in conjunction with local police, according to documents obtained by American Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog group based in Washington.

The records are part of a tranche of heavily redacted internal documents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the nonprofit obtained as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Though Martinez’s death on March 15, 2025, was reported by local media outlets at the time, federal and state authorities did not disclose that the shooting involved the team from HSI. In a statement Friday, DHS said the driver who was killed “intentionally ran over a Homeland Security Investigation special agent,” resulting in another agent firing “defensive shots to protect himself, his fellow agents, and the general public.”

The department did not respond to questions about why it had made no media release or other public notification of the officer-involved shooting over the last 11 months.

Martinez’s mother, Rachel Reyes, said her son was just days past his 23rd birthday when he and his best friend drove from San Antonio down to the beach for the weekend to celebrate. South Padre Island, located on the Gulf Coast just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, is a renowned spring break destination that attracts tens of thousands of college-aged partiers each March.

Martinez worked at an Amazon warehouse, liked to play video games and hang out with friends. His mother said he had never had any prior run-ins with law enforcement.

“He was a typical young guy,” Reyes told The Associated Press. “He never really got a chance to go out and experience things. It was his first time getting to go out of town. He was a nice guy, humble guy. And he wasn’t a violent person at all.”

Records show federal agents were assisting police

According to an internal two-page ICE incident report included in the newly disclosed documents, shortly after midnight, HSI officers were assisting South Padre Island police by redirecting traffic through a busy intersection after a vehicle accident with several injuries.

A blue, four-door Ford with a driver and passenger approached the officers, who ordered the driver to stop. The report does not say why. Initially, the driver didn’t respond to commands but did eventually come to a stop, according to the report.

Agents then surrounded the vehicle, telling those inside to get out, but the driver “accelerated forward” and struck an HSI special agent “who wound up on the hood of the vehicle,” the report said. An HSI supervisory special agent standing by the side of the car then fired his weapon multiple times through the open driver’s side window, and the vehicle stopped.

Paramedics already on the scene of the accident quickly provided medical aid and the driver was taken by ambulance to a regional hospital in Brownsville, where he was pronounced dead, according to the report. The passenger, also a U.S. citizen, was taken into custody.

The HSI officer who the report says was struck by the vehicle was treated for an unspecified knee injury at a nearby hospital and released.

The names of the two HSI agents involved in the shooting and the names of the two men in the car were all redacted from the ICE report, but Reyes confirmed the dead driver was her son. She said he was shot three times.

State investigation into shooting is still ‘active’

The report says the Texas Rangers responded to the shooting scene and took the lead as the primary agency investigating the shooting.

Reyes said she first learned her son had been shot by a federal agent, rather than a local police officer, about a week after he was killed. She was contacted by an investigator from the Rangers who she said told her there were videos of the shooting that contradicted the account provided by federal agents. DHS did not immediately respond to an email Friday about the claim that there is video showing a different account.

She said she was told by the investigator that the state report into the shooting was completed in October and that the case would be presented to a grand jury for potential criminal charges.

The Texas Department of Public Safety, which includes the Rangers, said in a statement Friday that the investigation into the shooting is still “active” and declined to offer more information.

Messages left with the office of Cameron County District Attorney Luis V. Saenz, an elected Democrat whose jurisdiction includes South Padre Island, received no response Friday. South Padre Island Police Chief Claudine O’Carroll also did not respond to requests for comment.

Attorneys for the family said Friday they have spent the past year pursuing accountability and transparency.

“It is critical that there is a full and fair investigation into why HSI was present at the scene of a traffic collision and why a federal officer shot and killed a U.S. citizen as he was trying to comply with instructions from the local law enforcement officers directing traffic,” attorneys Charles M. Stam and Alex Stamm said in a statement.

Agents involved were part of a border task force

According to the ICE report, the HSI agents involved in the shooting were part of a maritime border enforcement security task force typically focused on combating transnational criminal organizations at seaports. Over the last year, however, officers from across multiple federal agencies have been reassigned to prioritize immigration enforcement.

In January, Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother in Minneapolis, was killed in the driver’s seat of her SUV by ICE officer Jonathan Ross. Trump administration officials initially attempted to paint Good as a “domestic terrorist” who tried to ram officers with her vehicle before multiple videos emerged of the incident that cast doubt on the government’s narrative.

As in the Good case, experts in police training and tactics questioned why a federal officer apparently positioned himself in front of Martinez’s vehicle.

“You don’t stand in front of the car, you don’t put yourself in harm’s way,” said Geoffrey Alpert, a police use-of-force expert at the University of South Carolina. He added that there’s never a scenario where it’s justified, “because you don’t know whether this person is going to flee, and if he flees, you could be dead.”

Alpert said investigators will likely review any available body camera video or other footage to examine how swiftly Martinez moved the car forward, if he merely took his foot off the break or pressed down hard on the accelerator.

Martinez’s mother said she didn’t believe he would ever intentionally assault a law enforcement officer.

“They didn’t give him a chance,” Reyes said. “It’s so excessive. They could have done anything else besides that. It’s like they shoot first and ask questions later.”

Bedayn reported from Denver.

By RIO YAMAT

The ability of federal safety regulators to oversee airplane maintenance at United Airlines has been hindered by inadequate staffing, high employee turnover and the improper use of virtual inspections instead of on-site reviews in some cases, according to a government watchdog audit released Friday.

The U.S. Transportation Department’s inspector general said the Federal Aviation Administration lacks sufficient staffing and workforce planning to effectively monitor United’s large fleet. Past audits by the government watchdog also highlighted FAA challenges overseeing other airline maintenance programs, including at American Airlines, Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air.

The FAA declined to comment on the findings but referred The Associated Press to a letter it sent the inspector general’s office that was included in the audit report. In it, the FAA said it agreed with most of the recommendations and was taking steps to address them by the end of the year.

“FAA will implement a more systemic approach to strengthen inspector capacity and will take other measures to ensure that staffing levels remain sufficient to meet surveillance requirements,” the letter said.

The recommendations included a reevaluation of staffing rules, an independent workplace survey of inspector workloads and office culture, and improved training on accessing and using United’s safety data — a current gap that the report said currently keeps inspectors from fully evaluating maintenance issues and safety risk trends.

In a statement to AP, United said it works closely with the FAA on a daily basis in addition to employing its own internal safety management system.

“United has long advocated in favor of providing the FAA with the resources it needs for its important work,” the carrier said.

The inspector general’s office said the audit was conducted between May 2024 and December 2025, amid a series of maintenance-linked incidents at United.

It found that the FAA sometimes had its personnel conduct inspections “virtually” when it lacked staffing or funding for travel even though agency policy requires postponing reviews that can’t be done on site. Doing the work remotely can create safety risks because inspectors may miss or misidentify maintenance problems, the reported stated.

“Inspectors we spoke with stated that their front-line managers instructed them to perform inspections virtually rather than postponing inspections,” the report said.

The audit also found that ongoing staffing shortages at the FAA inspection offices tasked with United’s oversight have resulted in fewer inspections being conducted, limited surveillance of the carrier’s maintenance operations and an “overall loss of institutional knowledge.”

In March 2024, passengers had to be evacuated from a United plane that rolled off a runway after landing in Houston. The next day, a United jetliner bound for Japan lost a tire while taking off from San Francisco but later landed safely in Los Angeles.

In December 2025, a United flight experienced an engine failure during takeoff from Dulles International Airport before safely returning to the airport.

Associated Press writer Josh Funk contributed.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The federal government is asking a court to “run roughshod” over the First Amendment after seizing electronic devices from a Washington Post reporter’s Virginia home last month, an attorney for the newspaper argued Friday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter didn’t rule from the bench on the newspaper’s request for an order requiring authorities to return the devices taken from the Virginia home of Post reporter Hannah Natanson. Porter had authorized the search by FBI agents investigating allegations that a Pentagon contractor illegally leaked classified information to Natanson.

Porter said he intends to issue a decision before a follow-up hearing scheduled for March 4.

“I have a pretty good sense of what I’m going to do here,” the magistrate said without elaborating.

Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones was arrested on Jan. 8 and charged with unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents. Perez-Lugones is accused of taking home printouts of classified documents from his workplace and later passing them to Natanson.

Federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive and a Garmin smart watch when they searched Natanson’s home in Alexandria, Virginia, on Jan. 14. Last month, Porter agreed to temporarily bar the government from reviewing any material from Natanson’s devices.

Post attorney Simon Latcovich said the information contained on Natanson’s devices could expose hundreds of confidential sources who routinely provided her with dozens, if not hundreds, of tips every day.

“Since the seizure, those sources have dried up,” he said.

If Porter intends to privately review the material contained on Natanson’s devices before deciding what can be shown to the government, Latcovich asked him to allow attorneys for the Post and the reporter to see it first so they can argue for keeping at least some of it under wraps.

Justice Department attorney Christian Dibblee said the government recognizes that Porter didn’t authorize a “fishing expedition.”

“The government does take that seriously,” he said.

The newspaper’s attorneys accused authorities of violating legal safeguards for journalists and trampling on Natanson’s First Amendment free speech rights.

Justice Department attorneys argued that the government is entitled to keep the seized material because it contains evidence in an ongoing investigation with national security implications.

The case has drawn national attention and scrutiny from press freedom advocates who say it reflects a more aggressive posture by the Justice Department toward leak investigations involving journalists.

“There is a pattern here, your honor, that this is a part of,” Latcovich said.

By HANNAH SCHOENBAUM

An exhibit about nine people enslaved by George Washington must be restored at his former home in Philadelphia after President Donald Trump’s administration took it down last month, a federal judge ruled on Presidents Day, the federal holiday honoring Washington’s legacy.

The city of Philadelphia sued in January after the National Park Service removed the explanatory panels from Independence National Historical Park, the site where George and Martha Washington lived with nine of their slaves in the 1790s, when Philadelphia was briefly the nation’s capital.

The removal came in response to a Trump executive order “restoring truth and sanity to American history” at the nation’s museums, parks and landmarks. It directed the Interior Department to ensure those sites do not display elements that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living.”

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe ruled Monday that all materials must be restored in their original condition while a lawsuit challenging the removal’s legality plays out. She prohibited Trump officials from installing replacements that explain the history differently.

Rufe, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, began her written order with a quote from George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984” and compared the Trump administration to the book’s totalitarian regime called the Ministry of Truth, which revised historical records to align with its own narrative.

“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts,” Rufe wrote. “It does not.”

She had warned Justice Department lawyers during a January hearing that they were making “dangerous” and “horrifying” statements when they said Trump officials can choose which parts of U.S. history to display at National Park Service sites.

The Interior Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling, which came while government offices were closed for the federal holiday.

The judge did not provide a timeline for when the exhibit must be restored. Federal officials can appeal the ruling.

The historical site is among several where the administration has quietly removed content about the history of enslaved people, LGBTQ+ people and Native Americans.

Signage that has disappeared from Grand Canyon National Park said settlers pushed Native American tribes “off their land” for the park to be established and “exploited” the landscape for mining and grazing.

Last week, a rainbow flag was taken down at the Stonewall National Monument, where bar patrons rebelled against a police raid and catalyzed the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. The administration has also removed references to transgender people from its webpage about the monument, despite several trans women of color being key figures in the uprising.

The Philadelphia exhibit, created two decades ago in a partnership between the city and federal officials, included biographical details about each of the nine people enslaved by the Washingtons at the home, including two who escaped.

Among them was Oney Judge, who was born into slavery at the family’s plantation in Mount Vernon, Virginia, and later escaped from their Philadelphia house in 1796. Judge fled north to New Hampshire, a free state, while Washington had her declared a fugitive and published advertisements seeking her return.

Because Judge had escaped from the Philadelphia house, the park service in 2022 supported the site’s inclusion in a national network of Underground Railroad sites where they would teach about abolitionists and escaped slaves. Rufe noted that materials about Judge were among those removed, which she said “conceals crucial information linking the site to the Network to Freedom.”

Only the names of Judge and the other eight enslaved people — Austin, Paris, Hercules, Richmond, Giles, Moll and Joe, who each had a single name, and Christopher Sheels — remained engraved in a cement wall after park service employees took a crowbar to the plaques on Jan. 22.

Hercules also escaped in 1797 after he was brought to Mount Vernon, where the Washingtons had many other slaves. He reached New York City despite being declared a fugitive slave and lived under the name Hercules Posey.

Several local politicians and Black community leaders celebrated the ruling, which came while many were out rallying at the site for its restoration.

State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, a Philadelphia Democrat, said the community prevailed against an attempt by the Trump administration to “whitewash our history.”

“Philadelphians fought back, and I could not be more proud of how we stood together,” he said.

By STEPHEN GROVES and MATT BROWN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dozens of U.S. lawmakers were trying to make their way this weekend to the Munich Security Conference to assure allies of America’s reliability, but burdened with political crises at home, their entrance to the annual gathering of international leaders was more of a limp than a stride.

Some didn’t make the trip at all. House Speaker Mike Johnson canceled an official delegation of roughly two dozen House members who had planned to attend the event, leaving those lawmakers either to find their own way to Germany or send their regrets.

While two bipartisan delegations from the Senate still made the trip, they departed amid bitter fights over how U.S. immigration agents are carrying out President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdowns on illegal immigration, which have included fatal shootings of two people protesting the raids, as well as the Trump administration’s recent failed effort to indict six Democratic lawmakers who produced a video urging U.S. military members not to obey “illegal orders.”

“It is a little bit, you know, depressing to be here with what we have to deal with at home,” Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, who was among those investigated by the Department of Justice, said in a live interview with Politico in Munich.

For over six decades, the annual conference has gathered world leaders in pursuit of cooperation for shared security, with the United State often playing a leading role. But Trump has upended his nation’s posture toward the rest of the world, especially Europe. And while many lawmakers who attended tried to assure European counterparts that the U.S. still wants a seat at the table, it was clear they were still grappling with the rapidly changing political environment at home.

“I expect to have a number of challenging conversations with friends and allies about their concern and alarm about what they’ve seen federal law enforcement under this administration do in Minneapolis and the attempt to indict six of my colleagues and other steps that frankly have more of the hallmarks of authoritarian societies than democracies,” said Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware.

Senate’s bipartisan traditions are slipping

The security forum in recent years has been a reinforcing event for the coalition of nations backing Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s invasion — a cause that once enjoyed strong support from Republicans. But several GOP senators who have participated in years past and hold spots on committees overseeing the U.S. military and foreign affairs decided this year to stay home. The delegations that did attend included significantly more Democrats.

As lawmakers exited Washington on Thursday, Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri ripped Democrats for heading to Munich while the Department of Homeland Security faced a shutdown during an impasse in Congress over funding the agency that oversees immigration enforcement.

“How do you justify getting on a plane and going to Europe when you’re shutting down DHS?” Schmitt told reporters. “They’re making a decision that their travel to Munich to cozy up with the Euros is way more important than funding DHS.”

Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz responded on social media, noting that he and Schmitt had both gone to Munich the year prior and that it “continues to be an important bipartisan trip.”

Still, Schatz also said this year is different in light of the Department of Justice attempting to indict two senators.

“Spare me the high-minded panel discussions and bilats and press availabilities about the United States as the indispensable nation, when we are dispensing with our most sacred constitutional obligations,” he said in a floor speech this week.

Republicans articulate Trump policy

Some Republicans who attended the Munich gathering came not to offer reassurances, but to herald the changing world under under Trump. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby were among the top Trump administration officials participating.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is close to Trump, led one of the delegations of senators. He presented a bullish argument that European security is better off with Trump’s willingness to break up the traditional roles of Western allies. He argued the U.S. needs to keep up pressure on Iran with the goal of toppling the regime, as well as build pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a peace deal.

“We’re here at a crucial moment, folks. If we don’t follow through with what we promised the people of Iran, it will destroy America’s credibility for years to come, it will make this world less safe,” he said.

A new voice from the US

Graham has been a mainstay at Munich and other like conferences for years, yet there was also a new voice from the American side.

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive from New York, made her first trip to the conference to discuss the rise of populism and the shifting role of American power in the world. Her attendance at the conference, she said, was meant to show support for international liberal values.

“We are ready for the next chapter, not to have the world turned to isolation, but to deepen our partnership on greater and increased commitment to integrity to our values,” she said at a roundtable.

Ocasio-Cortez said she identified with voters who had defected from traditional left-of-center parties in Europe and the United States for populist hard-right parties. She said her frustrations with a Democratic Party “that championed special interests, the elite” is what had pushed her to run for office.

“Domestically and globally, there have been many leaders who’ve said ‘We will go back’. And I think we have to recognize that we are in a new day and in a time,” she said, adding “That does not mean that the majority of Americans are ready to walk away from a rules-based order and that we’re ready to walk away from our commitment to democracy.”

Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed to this story.

By DAVID A. LIEB

Virginia voters will get to cast ballots on a congressional redistricting plan benefiting Democrats while a court battle plays out over the legality of the effort.

The Virginia Supreme Court said Friday that a statewide referendum can be held April 21 on whether to authorize mid-decade redistricting, and the court will decide sometime later whether the plan is legal.

Democrats celebrated the green light for the election. But the court’s schedule raises the possibility that it could all be for naught, if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds a lower court ruling that the mid-decade redistricting amendment is invalid.

Virginia Democrats hold six of the state’s 11 U.S. House seats, but they are backing a revised map that could help them win up to 10 seats in this year’s midterm elections. The new districts are a key part of Democrats’ national strategy to try to offset potential Republican gains in several other states that redrew their districts last year at the urging of President Donald Trump.

The Republican president is trying to preserve a narrow GOP majority in the House against political headwinds that typically blow against the party in power in midterm elections.

Before Virginia Democrats can implement new congressional districts, they need voter approval to temporarily set aside a constitutional provision that places redistricting authority with a bipartisan commission and instead grant that power to the General Assembly. Lawmakers endorsed a constitutional amendment allowing their mid-decade redistricting last fall, then passed it again in January as part of a two-step process that requires an intervening election in order for an amendment to be placed on the ballot.

But Tazewell Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. last month struck down the General Assembly’s actions on three grounds. The judge ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session.

Hurley also ruled that the General Assembly’s initial vote for the amendment failed to occur before the public began casting ballots in last year’s general election and thus didn’t count toward the two-step process. And he ruled that the state failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result of those issues, he said, the amendment was invalid and void.

Democrats appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which agreed on Friday to consider the case while stating that a narrowly tailored injunction by the lower court doesn’t prevent the April referendum. The court directed initial briefs to be filed by March 23, with the last round of court filings due April 23. Any oral arguments would be scheduled for later, the court said.

Nationwide, the redistricting battle has resulted so far in nine more seats that Republicans believe they can win in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, and six that Democrats think they can win in California and Utah. Democrats have hoped to make up that three-seat margin in Virginia, though the lower court ruling raised a hurdle to their plans. It’s unclear whether the redistricting efforts in various states ultimately will make any difference in determining control of Congress in the November election.

By SUSAN HAIGH

NORWICH, Conn. (AP) — The U.S. State Department has ordered certain public libraries nationwide to cease processing passport applications, disrupting a long-standing service that librarians say their communities have come to rely on and that has run smoothly for years.

The agency, which regulates U.S. passports, began issuing cease and desist orders to not-for-profit libraries in late fall, informing them they were no longer authorized to participate in the Passport Acceptance Facility program as of Friday.

“We still get calls daily seeking that service,” said Cathleen Special, executive director of the Otis Library in Norwich, Connecticut, where passport services were offered for 18 years but ceased in November after receiving the letter. “Our community was so used to us offering this.”

A State Department spokesperson said the order was given because federal law and regulations “clearly prohibit non-governmental organizations” from collecting and retaining fees for a passport application. Government-run libraries are not impacted.

The spokesperson did not respond to questions as to why it has become an issue now and exactly how many libraries are impacted by the cease and desist order. In a statement, they said, “passport services has over 7,500 acceptance facilities nationwide and the number of libraries found ineligible makes up less than one percent of our total network.”

The American Library Association estimates about 1,400 mostly non-profit public libraries nationwide could potentially be affected, or about 15% of all public libraries, depending on how many offer passport services.

Democratic and Republican members of Congress from Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Maryland are pushing back, sending a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio this month asking him to extend the existing program until Congress finds a permanent solution.

“In a time when demand for passports is surging, libraries are among the most accessible passport acceptance facilities, particularly for working families and rural residents,” the members wrote.

The lawmakers’ letter said people will have to travel long distances, take unpaid time off from work or forgo getting a passport when demand is surging due to Real ID requirements. If Republicans in Congress impose strict new voting rules, citizens could need their passport or birth certificate to register. People fearing immigration agents are also increasingly carrying passports to confirm their citizenship.

They said the change is particularly disruptive to their states, where many public libraries are structured as nonprofit entities. They predicted some libraries, which benefit financially from passport processing fees, will have to lay off staff, cut programs or close their doors if not allowed to continue providing passport services.

Public libraries are organized differently in each state. In Pennsylvania 85% of public libraries are non-profit organizations, versus being a department of a local municipal government. In Maine, it’s 56%; Rhode Island, 54%, New York, 47% and Connecticut, 46%, according to the American Library Association.

Pennsylvania Reps. Madeleine Dean, a Democrat, and John Joyce, a Republican, have proposed bipartisan legislation that would allow 501(c)(3) non-profit public libraries to continue to serve as passport acceptance facilities by amending the Passport Act of 1920. A similar companion bill is pending in the Senate.

Dean, who first learned about the policy change from a library in her district that has provided passport services for 20 years, called the State Department’s interpretation of the law “nonsense.”

In Joyce’s rural, south-central Pennsylvania district, the Marysville-Rye Library is one of only two passport facilities serving the 556-square-mile Perry County, according to the letter to Rubio. Now the county courthouse will be the only remaining option.

The State Department noted that 99% of the U.S. population lives within 20 miles of a designated passport processing location, such as a post office, county clerk’s office or government-run library authorized to accept in-person passport applications.

“Should the removal of an ineligible facility affect passport services, we will work to identify new eligible program partners in the impacted area,” the agency spokesperson said.

But Special said the Norwich post office had often referred people to her library for passports when someone needed service outside regular hours or had children who needed to be watched and entertained while their parent filled out the paperwork. Library staff also assisted applicants with language barriers.

“And now the burden falls on them to do all of it and that’s tough on them,” she said of the post office down the street. “I don’t know how they’re keeping up, to be honest, because it was such a popular service with us.”

By STEPHEN GROVES

WASHINGTON (AP) — Under questioning from Democrats Tuesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that he had met with Jeffrey Epstein twice after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a child, reversing Lutnick’s previous claim that he had cut ties with the late financier after 2005.

Lutnick once again downplayed his relationship with the disgraced financier who was once his neighbor in New York City as he was questioned by Democrats during a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He described their contact as a handful of emails and a pair of meetings that were years apart.

“I did not have any relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with him,” Lutnick told lawmakers.

But Lutnick is facing calls from several lawmakers for his resignation after the release of case files on Epstein contradicted Lutnick’s claims on a podcast last year that he had decided to “never be in the room” with Epstein again after a 2005 tour of Epstein’s home that disturbed Lutnick and his wife.

The commerce secretary said Tuesday that he and his family actually had lunch with Epstein on his private island in 2012 and he had another hour-long engagement at Epstein’s home in 2011. Lutnick, a member of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, is the highest-profile U.S. official to face bipartisan calls for his resignation amid revelations of his ties to Epstein. His acknowledgement comes as lawmakers are grasping for what accountability looks like amid the revelations contained in what’s known as the Epstein files.

In countries like the United Kingdom, the Epstein files have triggered resignations and the stripping of royal privileges, but so far, U.S. officials have not met the same level of retribution.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Democrat who questioned Lutnick, told him, “There’s not an indication that you yourself engaged in any wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein. It’s the fact that you believe that you misled the country and the Congress based on your earlier statements.”

Meanwhile, House members who initiated the legislative effort to force the release of the files are calling for Lutnick to resign. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky called for that over the weekend after emails were released that alluded to the meetings between Lutnick and Epstein.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, joined Massie in pressuring Lutnick out of office on Monday.

“Based on the evidence, he should be out of the Cabinet,” Khanna said.

He added, “It’s not about any particular person. In this country, we have to make a decision. Are we going to allow the rich and powerful people who are friends and (had) no problem doing business and showing up with a pedophile who is raping underage girls, are we just going to allow them to skate?”

By JOEY CAPPELLETTI, STEVE PEOPLES and STEVEN SLOAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Governors Association will no longer hold a formal meeting with President Donald Trump when the group of state leaders meet in Washington later this month after the White House planned to invite only Republicans.

“NGA staff was informed that the White House intends to limit invitations to the annual business meeting, scheduled for February 20, to Republican governors only,” Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who is the chairman of the NGA, said in a Monday letter to fellow governors obtained by The Associated Press. “Because NGA’s mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program.”

The NGA is scheduled to meet in Washington from Feb. 19-21. Representatives for Stitt, the White House and the NGA didn’t immediately comment on the letter.

Brandon Tatum, the NGA’s CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an “important tradition” and said the organization was “disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

The governors group is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. In his letter, Stitt encouraged governors to unite around common goals.

“We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us,” he wrote. “The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America’s governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics.”

Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine’s then-Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, “We’ll see you in court.”

Trump then predicted that Mills’ political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

The back and forth had a lasting impact on last year’s conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.

Peoples reported from New York.

By MARY CLARE JALONICK, KEVIN FREKING and SEUNG MIN KIM

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic leaders say a proposal from the White House is “incomplete and insufficient” as they are demanding new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and threatening a shutdown of the Homeland Security Department.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement late Monday that a White House counterproposal to the list of demands they transmitted over the weekend “included neither details nor legislative text” and does not address “the concerns Americans have about ICE’s lawless conduct.” The White House proposal was not released publicly.

The Democrats’ statement comes as time is running short, with another partial government shutdown threatening to begin Saturday. Among the Democrats’ demands are a requirement for judicial warrants, better identification of DHS officers, new use-of-force standards and a stop to racial profiling. They say such changes are necessary after two protesters were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.

Earlier Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., had expressed optimism about the rare negotiations between Democrats and the White House, saying there was “forward progress.”

Thune said it was a good sign that the two sides were trading papers, and “hopefully they can find some common ground here.”

But coming to an agreement on the charged issue of immigration enforcement will be difficult, especially as rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties were skeptical about finding common ground.

Republicans have balked at the Democrats’ requests and some have demands of their own, including the addition of legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote and restrictions on cities that they say do not do enough to crack down on illegal immigration.

And many Democrats who are furious about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s aggressive crackdown have said they won’t vote for another penny of Homeland Security funding until enforcement is radically scaled back.

“Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward,” Jeffries said earlier Monday. “Period. Full stop.”

Trump deals with Democrats

Congress is trying to renegotiate the DHS spending bill after Trump agreed to a Democratic request that it be separated out from a larger spending measure that became law last week. That package extended Homeland Security funding at current levels only through Feb. 13, creating a brief window for action as the two parties discuss new restrictions on ICE and other federal officers.

Democrats made the demands for new restrictions on ICE and other federal law enforcement after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, and some Republicans suggested that new restrictions were necessary. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

While he agreed to separate the funding, Trump has not publicly responded to the Democrats’ specific demands.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said late last week that the Trump administration is willing to discuss some items on the Democrats’ list, but “others don’t seem like they are grounded in any common sense, and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Democratic demands

Schumer and Jeffries have said they want immigration officers to remove their masks, to show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

Among other demands, Democrats say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests, “improve warrant procedures and standards,” ensure the law is clear that officers cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant and require that before a person can be detained, it’s verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

Republicans have said they support the requirement for DHS officers to have body-worn cameras — language that was in the original DHS bill — but have balked at many of the other Democratic asks.

“Taking the masks off ICE officers and agents, the reason we can’t do that is that it would subject them to great harm, their families at great risk because people are doxing them and targeting them,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday. “We’ve got to talk about things that are reasonable and achievable.”

Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty said on “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats are ”trying to motivate a radical left base.”

“The left has gone completely overboard, and they’re threatening the safety and security of our agents so they cannot do their job,” Hagerty said.

Consequences of a shutdown

In addition to ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the homeland security bill includes funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. If DHS shuts down, Thune said last week, “there’s a very good chance we could see more travel problems” similar to the 43-day government closure last year.

Lawmakers in both parties have suggested they could separate out funding for ICE and Border Patrol and pass the rest of it by Friday. But Thune has been cool to that idea, saying instead that Congress should pass another short-term extension for all of DHS while they negotiate the possible new restrictions.

“If there’s additional time that’s needed, then hopefully Democrats would be amenable to another extension,” Thune said.

Many Democrats are unlikely to vote for another extension. But Republicans could potentially win enough votes in both chambers from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.

“The ball is in the Republicans’ court,” Jeffries said Monday.

Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

By Gavin J. Quinton, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s promises on affordability in 2024 helped propel him to a second term in the White House.

Since then, Trump says, the problem has been solved: He now calls affordability a hoax perpetrated by Democrats. Yet the high cost of living, especially housing, continues to weigh heavily on voters, and has dragged down the president’s approval ratings.

In a poll conducted this month by the New York Times and Siena University, 58% of respondents said they disapprove of the way the president is handling the economy.

How the economy fares in the coming months will play an outsize role in determining whether the Democrats can build on their electoral success in 2025 and seize control of one or both chambers of Congress.

With housing costs so central to voters’ perceptions about the economy, both parties have put forward proposals in recent weeks targeting affordability. Here is a closer look at their competing plans for expanding housing and reining in costs:

How bad is the affordability crisis?

Nationwide, wages have barely crept up over the last decade — rising by 21.24% between 2014 and 2024, according to the Federal Reserve. Over the same period, rent and home sale prices more than doubled, and healthcare and grocery costs rose 71.5% and 37.35%, respectively, according to the Fed.

National home price-to-income ratios are at an all-time high, and coastal states like California and Hawaii are the most extreme examples.

Housing costs in California are about twice the national average, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, which said prices have increased at “historically rapid rates” in recent years. The median California home sold for $877,285 in 2024, according to the California Assn. of Realtors, compared with about $420,000 nationwide, per Federal Reserve economic data.

California needs to add 180,000 housing units annually to keep up with demand, according to the state Department of Housing. So far, California has fallen short of those goals and has just begun to see success in reducing its homeless population, which sat at 116,000 unsheltered people in 2025.

What do the polls say?

More than two-thirds of Americans surveyed in a Gallup poll last month said they felt the economy was getting worse, and 36% expressed approval for the president — the lowest total since his second term began.

The poll found that 47% of U.S. adults now describe current economic conditions as “poor,” up from 40% just a month prior and the highest since Trump took office. Just 21% said economic conditions were either “excellent” or “good,” while 31% described them as “only fair.”

An Associated Press poll found that only 16% of Republicans think Trump has helped “a lot” in fixing cost of living problems.

What have the Democrats proposed?

The party is pushing measures to expand the supply of housing, and cut down on what they call “restrictive” single-family zoning in favor of denser development.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats plan to “supercharge” construction through bills like California Sen. Adam Schiff’s Housing BOOM Act, which he introduced in December.

Schiff said the bill would lower prices by stimulating the development of “millions of affordable homes.” The proposal would expand low-income housing tax credits, set aside funds for rental assistance and homelessness, and provide $10 billion in housing subsidies for “middle-income” workers such as teachers, police officers and firefighters.

The measure has not been heard in committee, and faces long odds in the Republican-controlled body, though Schiff said inaction on the proposal could be used against opponents.

And the Republicans?

A group of 190 House Republicans this month unveiled a successor proposal to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” the sprawling tax and spending plan approved and signed into law by Trump in July.

The Republican Study Committee described the proposal as an affordability package aimed at lowering down payments, enacting mortgage reforms and creating more tax breaks.

Leaders of the group said it would reduce the budget deficit by $1 trillion and could pass with a simple majority.

“This blueprint … locks in President Trump’s deregulatory agenda through the only process Democrats can’t block: reconciliation,” said Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who chairs the group. “We have 11 months of guaranteed majorities. We’re not wasting a single day.”

Though the proposal has not yet been introduced as legislation, Republicans said it would include a mechanism to revoke funding from blue states over rent control and immigration policy, which they calculated would save $48 billion.

President Trump has endorsed a $200-billion mortgage bond stimulus, which he said would drive down mortgage rates and monthly payments. And the White House, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two enterprises that back most U.S. mortgages — continues to push the idea of portable and assumable mortgages.

Trump said the move would allow buyers to keep their existing mortgage rate or enable new homeowners to assume a previous owner’s mortgage.

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, has launched a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over the Fed’s renovation costs, as Trump bashed him over “his never ending quest to keep interest rates high.”

The president also vowed to revoke federal funding to states over a wealth of issues such as child care and immigration policy.

“This is not about any particular policy that they think is harmful,” California Democratic Rep. Laura Friedman said. “This is about Trump’s always trying to find a way to punish blue states.”

Is there any alignment?

The two parties are cooperating on companion measures in the House and Senate.

The bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act seeks to expand housing supply by easing regulatory barriers. It passed the Senate unanimously and has support from the White House, but House Republicans have balked, and it has yet to receive a floor vote.

A bipartisan proposal — the Housing in the 21st Century Act — was approved by the House Financial Services Committee by a 50-1 vote in December. It also has yet to receive a floor vote.

The bill is similar to its twin in the Senate, with Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.) working across the aisle with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). If approved, it would cut permitting times, support manufactured-housing development and expand financing tools for low-income housing developers.

There was also a recent moment of unusual alignment between the president and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who both promised to crack down on corporate home buying.

What do the experts say?

Housing experts recoiled at GOP proposals to bar housing dollars from sanctuary jurisdictions and cities that impose rent control.

“Any conditioning on HUD funding that sets up rules that explicitly carve out blue cities is going to be really catastrophic for California’s larger urban areas,” said David Garcia, deputy director of policy at UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation.

More than 35 cities in California have rent control policies, according to the California Apartment Assn. The state passed its own rent stabilization law in 2019, and lawmakers approved a California sanctuary law in 2017 that prohibits state resources from aiding federal immigration enforcement.

The agenda comes on the heels of a series of HUD spending cuts, including a 30% cap on permanent housing investments and the end of a federal emergency housing voucher program that local homelessness officials estimate would put 14,500 people on the streets.

In Los Angeles County, HUD dollars make up about 28% of homelessness funding.

“It would undermine a lot of the bipartisan efforts that are happening in the House and the Senate to move evidence-backed policy to increase housing supply and stabilize rents and home prices,” Garcia said.

The president’s mortgage directives also prompted skepticism from some experts.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pressed to get into the riskier parts of the mortgage market back in the housing bubble and that was a part of the problem,” said Eric McGhee, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California.

©2026 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By GABRIELA AOUN ANGUEIRA, Associated Press

The Federal Emergency Management Agency will resume staff cuts that were briefly paused during January’s severe winter storm, according to two FEMA managers, stoking concern across the agency over its ability to address disasters with fewer workers.

FEMA at the start of January abruptly stopped renewing employment contracts for a group of staffers known as Cadre of On-Call Response/Recovery, or CORE employees, term-limited hires who can hold senior roles and play an important role in emergency response.

But FEMA then paused the cuts in late January as the nation braced for the gigantic winter storm that was set to impact half the country’s population. FEMA did not say whether that decision was linked to the storm.

The two FEMA team managers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the staffing changes with the media, were told this week that dismissals were going to resume soon but were not given a specific date. It was not clear how many people would be impacted.

FEMA staff told The Associated Press that the policy indiscriminately terminates employees without taking into account the importance of their role or their years of experience. The hundreds of CORE dismissals have wiped out entire teams, or left groups without managers, they said.

“It’s a big impact to our ability to implement and carry out the programs entrusted to us to carry out,” one FEMA manager told The Associated Press.

The officials said it was unclear who at the Department of Homeland Security or FEMA was driving the decision. Managers used to make the case to extend a contract months in advance, they said, but now leaders were often finding out about terminations at the same time as their employee.

DHS and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

There are over 10,000 CORE workers, making up nearly half of FEMA’s workforce. While they are employed on two- and four-year contracts, those terms are “routinely renewed,” one manager said, calling CORE the “primary backbone” for FEMA’s response and recovery work. Many CORE are supervisors and it’s not uncommon for them to have worked at the agency for many years, if not decades.

CORE employees are paid out of FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund and are not subject to as long a hiring process as permanent full-time federal employees. That allows the agency to be more nimble in its hiring and onboard employees more quickly as needs arise. With DHS funded only temporarily because of a battle in Congress over immigration tactics, CORE employees can work and be paid during a government shutdown, so long as the disaster fund still has money.

The administration’s efforts to reduce the workforce come as the Trump administration has been promising reforms for FEMA that it says will reduce waste and shift emergency management responsibilities over to states.

It also comes as DHS faces increasing criticism over how it manages FEMA, including delays in getting disaster funding to states and workforce reductions.

FEMA lost nearly 10% of its workforce between January and June 2025, according to the Government Accountability Office. Concern has grown in recent months among FEMA staff and disaster experts that larger cuts are coming.

A draft report from the Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council included a recommendation to cut the agency’s workforce in half, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the report with media. The council’s final report, due last November, has not been published.

“Based on past disasters, we know that slashing FEMA’s workforce will put Americans at risk, plain and simple,” Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said after introducing a resolution Wednesday condemning FEMA staff cuts.

Last week, a coalition of unions and nonprofits led by the American Federation of Government Employees filed a legal complaint against the Trump Administration over the FEMA reductions.

A CORE employee at FEMA headquarters who asked not to be named for fear of losing their job said that even though FEMA was able to support states during Winter Storm Fern, a year of staff losses could already be felt. There were fewer people available for backup, they said, and staff were burned out from ongoing uncertainty.

By ALEXA ST. JOHN

Energy Star, the program that helps guide consumers to more energy-efficient appliances and electronics, has survived the Trump administration’s plans to cut it.

The program received sufficient support in Congress that it was included in budget legislation signed this week by President Donald Trump.

Environmentalists and advocates called it good news for consumers and the planet, but raised concerns over how the program will be administered under a shrunken Environmental Protection Agency.

But Energy Star is not the only energy efficiency program targeted by Trump.

Here’s what to know about the outlook for that program and others.

What’s Trump got against energy efficiency?

Trump has regularly said efficiency standards for household items and appliances — many strengthened under predecessor Joe Biden’s administration — rob consumers of choice and add unnecessary costs.

His first executive order upon returning to office last year outlined a vision to “unleash American energy.” In it, he emphasized safeguarding “the American people’s freedom to choose” everything from light bulbs to gas stoves to water heaters and shower heads.

At the same time Trump has targeted efficiency, he’s also sought to block renewable energy development such as wind and solar and boosted fossil fuels that contribute to warming, including gas, oil and coal.

What happened with Energy Star?

Energy Star is a voluntary, decades-old EPA-run program that informs consumers about how efficient home appliances and electronics are, including dishwashers, washing machines and more. The idea is to simultaneously reduce emissions and save consumers money on their energy bills.

The Department of Energy develops product testing procedures for Energy Star, while the EPA sets performance levels and ensures the certification label is reliable for consumers. It also applies to new homes, commercial buildings and plants.

EPA says the program has saved 4 billion metric tonnes (4.41 billion tons) of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions since launching in 1992, and can save households an average of $450 annually.

Last May, EPA drafted plans to eliminate Energy Star as part of a broader agency reorganization that targeted air pollution regulation efforts and other critical environmental functions. The agency said the reorganization would deliver “organizational improvements to the personnel structure” to benefit the American people.

Many groups advocated against the potential closure of the program, citing its benefits to consumers.

The legislation Trump signed this week allocated $33 million for the program, slightly more than 2024’s $32.1 million, according to the Congressional Research Service, but it continues the general trend of declining funding for the program over the past decade. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, among many industry groups to advocate for keeping the program in letters sent to Congress, said it was “very pleased” to see the funding continue.

Some concerns remain

Experts say uncertainty around the program likely didn’t impact consumers much over the past year. They note that manufacturers can’t change their product lines overnight.

Amanda Smith, a senior scientist at climate research organization Project Drawdown, said the uncertainty may have had a bigger effect on EPA’s ability to administer the program. She was among experts wondering how staffing cuts may affect EPA’s work.

EPA spokesperson Brigit Hirsch didn’t address a question about that, saying in a statement only that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin “will follow the law as enacted by Congress.”

What other energy efficiency rules are still in limbo?

The Department of Energy has proposed rolling back, weakening or revoking 17 other minimum efficiency standards for energy and water conservation as part of 47 broader deregulatory actions. Those are standards that must be met for the products to be sold legally.

That includes air cleaners, ovens, dehumidifiers, portable air conditioners, washers, dishwashers, faucets and many more items that have been in place and updated over the years.

“These are standards that are quietly saving people money on their utility bills year after year in a way that most consumers never notice,” said Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. “The striking thing is that consumers have a huge array of choices in appliances in the market today. Repealing these standards would simply increase cost. It just doesn’t make sense.”

Changing efficiency measures also drives up energy demand at a time when utilities are already challenged to meet the growing needs of data centers, electrification and more.

While Congress has supported Energy Star and these separate appliance standards, it also has advanced legislation that would give the president new powers to roll back rules.

Manufacturers are likely to continue making efficient consumer appliances, but weakened rules could negatively impact the U.S. marketplace.

“The problem for U.S. manufacturers is that overseas competitors making inefficient products elsewhere could now flood the U.S. market,” deLaski said, noting that would undercut American manufacturers.

Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ast.john@ap.org.

Read more of AP’s climate coverage.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental 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 STEPHEN GROVES

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the House Oversight Committee on Friday requested records related to firms partially owned by the husband of Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, taking the extraordinary step of scrutinizing the spouse of a sitting House member.

Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, released a letter to Timothy Mynett, a former Democratic political consultant who is married to Omar, requesting records related to a pair of companies that had a substantial jump in value between 2023 and 2024, according to financial disclosures filed by the congresswoman.

Comer’s request marked a highly unusual move by the chair of a committee with a history of taking on politically-charged investigations, but almost always focused on government officials outside of Congress. The House Ethics Committee, which is comprised of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans and tries to stay away from political fights, typically handles allegations involving lawmakers and their family members.

Yet since her 2018 election as one of the first Muslim women in the House, Omar has received nearly-nonstop attacks from the right. She has dismissed allegations around her finances as “misleading” and based on conspiracy theories.

A spokesperson for Omar, Jackie Rogers, said in a statement that Comer’s letter was “a political stunt” and part of a campaign “meant to fundraise, not real oversight.”

“This is an attempt to orchestrate a smear campaign against the congresswoman, and it is disgusting that our tax dollars are being used to malign her,” Rogers added.

Comer has also displayed a willingness to push the traditional parameters of the Oversight panel. In a separate investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, he is enforcing subpoenas for depositions from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, marking the first time a former president will be forced to appear before Congress.

In the letter to Mynett on Friday, Comer said, “There are serious public concerns about how your businesses increased so dramatically in value only a year after reporting very limited assets.”

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Omar, but President Donald Trump also said last month that the Department of Justice is looking into her finances.

In response to the president, Omar said on social media that “your support is collapsing and you’re panicking,” adding that “Years of ‘investigations’ have found nothing.”

The scrutiny of Omar’s finances comes from a required financial disclosure statement she filed in May last year. She reported then that two firms tied to her husband, a winery called eStCru and an investment firm called Rose Lake Capital, had risen in value by at least $5.9 million dollars. Lawmakers report assets within ranges of dollar figures, so it was not clear exactly how much the firms had risen in value or what ownership stake Mynett had in them.

Omar has also pointed out that her husband’s reported income from the winery was between $5,000 and $15,000 and none from Rose Lake Capital.

By CLAIRE RUSH, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Lawyers for conservation groups, Native American tribes, and the states of Oregon and Washington returned to court Friday to seek changes to dam operations on the Snake and Columbia Rivers, following the collapse of a landmark agreement with the federal government to help recover critically imperiled salmon runs.

Last year President Donald Trump torpedoed the 2023 deal, in which the Biden administration had promised to spend $1 billion over a decade to help restore salmon while also boosting tribal clean energy projects. The White House called it “radical environmentalism” that could have resulted in the breaching of four controversial dams on the Snake River.

The plaintiffs argue that the way the government operates the dams violates the Endangered Species Act, and over decades of litigation judges have repeatedly ordered changes to help the fish. They’re asking the court to order changes at eight large hydropower dams, including lowering reservoir water levels, which can help fish travel through them faster, and increasing spill, which can help juvenile fish pass over dams instead of through turbines.

In court filings, the federal government called the request a “sweeping scheme to wrest control” of the dams that would compromise the ability to operate them safely and efficiently. Any such court order could also raise rates for utility customers, the government said.

“We’re returning to court because the situation for the salmon and the steelhead in the Columbia River Basin is dire,” said Kristen Boyles, managing attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm representing conservation, clean energy and fishing groups in the litigation. “There are populations that are on the brink of extinction, and this is a species which is the center of Northwest tribal life and identity.”

The lengthy legal battle was revived after Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement last June. The pact with Washington, Oregon and four Native American tribes had allowed for a pause in the litigation.

The plaintiffs, which include the state of Oregon and a coalition of conservation and fishing groups such as the National Wildlife Federation, filed the motion for a preliminary injunction, with Washington state, the Nez Perce Tribe and Yakama Nation supporting it as “friends of the court.” The U.S. District Court in Portland will hear the oral arguments.

The Columbia River Basin, spanning an area roughly the size of Texas, was once the world’s greatest salmon-producing river system, with at least 16 stocks of salmon and steelhead. Today, four are extinct and seven are endangered or threatened. Another iconic but endangered Northwest species, a population of killer whales, also depend on the salmon.

The construction of the first dams on the Columbia River, including the Grand Coulee and Bonneville in the 1930s, provided jobs during the Great Depression as well as hydropower and navigation. They made the town of Lewiston, Idaho, the most inland seaport on the West Coast, and many farmers continue to rely on barges to ship their crops.

Opponents of the proposed dam changes include the Inland Ports and Navigation Group, which said in a statement last year that increasing spill “can disproportionately hurt navigation, resulting in disruptions in the flow of commerce that has a highly destructive impact on our communities and economy.”

However, the dams are also a main culprit behind the decline of salmon, which regional tribes consider part of their cultural and spiritual identity.

Speaking before the hearing, Jeremy Takala of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council said “extinction is not an option.”

“This is very personal to me. It’s very intimate,” he said, describing how his grandfather took him to go fishing. “Every season of lower survival means closed subsistence fisheries, loss of ceremonies and fewer elders able to pass on fishing traditions to the next generation.”

The dams for which changes are being sought are the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose and Lower Granite on the Snake River, and the Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day and McNary on the Columbia.

By REBECCA SANTANA and ELLIOT SPAGAT

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House border czar Tom Homan’s announcement that enforcement in Minnesota was being unified under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement followed months of internal grumbling and infighting among agencies about how to carry out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Since it was created in 2003, ICE has conducted street arrests through “targeted enforcement.” Homan uses that phrase repeatedly to describe narrowly tailored operations with specific, individual targets, in contrast to the broad sweeps that had become more common under Border Patrol direction in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minnesota and elsewhere.

It is unclear how the agency friction may have influenced the leadership shift. But the change shines a light on how the two main agencies behind Trump’s centerpiece deportation agenda have at times clashed over styles and tactics.

The switch comes at a time when support for ICE is sliding, with a growing number of Americans saying the agency has become too aggressive. In Congress, the Department of Homeland Security is increasingly under attack by Democrats who want to rein in immigration enforcement.

While declaring the Twin Cities operation a success, Homan on Wednesday acknowledged that it was imperfect and said consolidating operations under ICE’s enforcement and removal operations unit was an effort toward “making sure we follow the rules.” Trump sent the former acting ICE director to Minnesota last week to de-escalate tensions after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal immigration officers — one with ICE and the other with Customs and Border Protection.

“We made this operation more streamlined and we established a unified chain of command, so everybody knows what everybody’s doing,” Homan said at a news conference in Minneapolis. “In targeted enforcement operations, we go out there. There needs to be a plan.”

Agencies with different missions and approaches

The Border Patrol’s growing role in interior enforcement had fueled tensions within ICE, according to current and former DHS officials. Gregory Bovino, a senior Border Patrol official who was reassigned from Minneapolis last week, embraced a “turn and burn” strategy of lightning-quick street sweeps and heavy shows of force that were designed to rack up arrests but often devolved into chaos.

“Every time you place Border Patrol into interior enforcement the wheels are going to come off,” Darius Reeves, who retired in May as head of ICE’s enforcement and removal operations in Baltimore, said in an interview last year as Bovino’s influence grew.

ICE has also engaged in aggressive tactics that mark a break from the past, especially in Minnesota. An ICE officer fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. Trump administration officials said she tried to run over an officer with her vehicle, an account that state and local officials have rejected. ICE has asserted sweeping power to forcibly enter a person’s home to make arrests without a judge’s warrant, among other controversial tactics.

But ICE’s traditional playbook involves extensive investigation and surveillance before an arrest, often acting quickly and quietly in predawn vehicle stops or outside a home. An ICE official once compared it to watching paint dry.

Bovino, in a November interview, said the two agencies had different but complementary missions and he compared the relationship to a large metropolitan police department. The Border Patrol was akin to beat cops on roving patrols. ICE was more like detectives, doing investigative work.

Asked about the friction, DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said, “There is only page: The President’s page. Everyone’s on the same page.”

“This is one team, and we have one fight to secure the homeland. President Trump has a brilliant, tenacious team led by Secretary (Kristi) Noem to deliver on the American people’s mandate to remove criminal illegal aliens from this country.”

ICE gets blamed for Border Patrol’s tactics, official says

Michael Fisher, chief of the Border Patrol from 2010 to 2015, said last year that his former agency’s tactics were more in line with the Republican administration’s goal of deporting millions of people who entered the United States while Democrat Joe Biden was president.

“How do you deal with trying to arrest hundreds and hundreds of people in a shift?” Fisher said. “ICE agents typically aren’t geared, they don’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training to deal in those environments. The Border Patrol does.”

The Border Patrol’s high-profile raids, including a helicopter landing on the roof of a Chicago apartment building that involved agents rappelling down, rankled ICE officials. A U.S. official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity said at the time that ICE often gets blamed for Border Patrol’s tactics.

Meanwhile, Scott Mechowski, who retired in 2018 as ICE’s deputy field office director for enforcement and removal operations in New York, said separately that the Border Patrol was essentially doing roving operations and blanketing an area to question anyone or everyone about their legal status. He considered that an unwelcome contrast to ICE’s traditionally more targeted approach, based on deep surveillance and investigation of suspects.

“We didn’t just park our cars and walk through Times Square going, ‘OK, everybody. Come over here. You’re next, you’re next.’ We never did that. To me, that’s not the way to do your business,” Mechowski said.

Homan offers a narrower approach

As the Border Patrol’s influence grew last year, the administration reassigned at least half of the field office directors of ICE’s enforcement and removals operations division. Many were replaced by current or retired officials from CBP, the Border Patrol’s parent agency.

Homan’s arrival in Minnesota and his emphasis on “targeted enforcement” mark a subtle but unmistakable shift, at least in tone. He said authorities would arrest people they encounter who are not targets and he reaffirmed Trump’s commitment to mass deportation, but emphasized a narrower approach steeped in investigation.

“When we leave this building, we know who were looking for, where we’re most likely to find them, what their immigration record is, what their criminal history is,” Homan said.

On the ground, the mood has not changed much in Minneapolis since Bovino’s departure and Homan’s consolidation of operations under ICE. Fewer CBP convoys are seen in the Twin Cities area, but with ICE still having a significant presence, tensions remain.

On Thursday, The Associated Press witnessed an ICE officer in an unmarked vehicle tail a car and then pull over its driver, only to appear to realize he was not their target. “You’re good,” they told him, after scanning his face with their phones. They then drove off, leaving the driver baffled and furious.

Associated Press writer Mark Vancleave in Minneapolis contributed to this report.