Andy Kim

'Will it be a Schumer Shutdown?'

Several Democrats echoed a leave-it-to-localities stance Sunday when asked their take on transgender athletes competing in girls' and women's sports.The big picture: Sports participation has become a major flashpoint in the Trump administration's restrictions on the transgender community — one on which some Democrats, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), appear to be tilting right. In a conversation with right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk on Newsom's podcast, "This is Gavin Newsom," the California governor contended that trans athletes competing in girls' and women's sports was "deeply unfair."But Senate Democrats voted unanimously Monday to block a GOP bill that would have banned trans athletes from women's sports in schools.Arguing that trans sports participation should be a state- or local-level decision is an emerging Democratic strategy to counter Republican attacks on their support for trans rights, Axios' Stephen Neukam and Hans Nichols report.Driving the news: Several Democrats, presented with Newsom's comments, said Sunday that rules of sports participation should be determined by local communities and leagues rather than by the federal government. "We want to make sure that these decisions are made by the communities ... by the schools and others that are the ones closest," Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) said on CNN's "State of the Union," adding, "We're talking about a handful ... of athletes around the country." Kim disputed the GOP's attempts to characterize transgender athletes participating in women's and girls' sports as an issue of safety, saying, "It's not about safety and security; it's about politics."Zoom out: Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that her state has a process by which transgender girls can obtain waivers to participate on girls' sports teams.That's only happened twice, she said."So let the local communities, just like everything with school, handle that issue," she said on NBC News' "Meet the Press." She added that "this issue is being sort of brought up in order to make sparks and see sparks fly.""I want all young people to have the experience of playing in sports," Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on ABC's "This Week." "And I want those sports to be fair."He said he's confident that local schools and communities "can make those decisions without the federal government making them for them."Yes, but: Most Democrats stopped short of directly criticizing Newsom or raising an issue with his argument. However, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said he was "perplexed" by Newsom's stance, noting a decade-old California law that allows trans kids to participate in sex-segregated school activities, like sports, based on their gender identity."I believe that that law has worked in California, and I don't think there should be a federal ban, and we should have the state athletic associations ... set the standard so that you balance inclusion with fairness and safety," Khanna said.LGBTQ+ rights and other advocacy groups were quick to strike back against Newsom's comments, with Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson writing in a statement, "When LGBTQ+ lives are under attack, real leaders don't hedge — they fight."Newsom is not the first Democrat to spark concerns from the LGBTQ+ community over his stance on trans athletes' sports participation — during the 2024 campaign cycle, some Dems earned rebuke from advocates over their weak defense of the community on the topic.Catch up quick: Trump signed an executive order last month denying federal funds for schools that allow trans women or girls to compete in athletics based on their gender identity.The NCAA revised its participation policy shortly after to limit competition in women's sports to athletes assigned female at birth only.Trump's order on trans athletes was just one of several sweeping anti-trans actions the administration has taken since Jan. 20 — many of which were promises central to Trump's 2024 campaign. Those actions — such as orders defining "two sexes," threatening funding for youth gender-affirming care and moving to remove trans service members from the military — have sent shockwaves through an already vulnerable community.Go deeper: "See you in court," Maine governor tells Trump after transgender athlete threats

'Shit that ain't true, that's what you just heard'

President Donald Trump’s assault on the federal government, the rule of law, and the Constitution is playing out in plain sight. Fortunately, some lawmakers, judges and citizens are fighting back, but more must be done if Americans want to keep the republic.

Some Democratic senators are now publicly admitting that they made a serious mistake in voting to confirm several of the Cabinet secretaries who are now carrying out President Donald Trump’s destructive agenda.New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim told Migrant Insider this week that he regrets his vote for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and told the outlet he wouldn’t vote for any future Trump nominees.New Jersey Sen. Andy KimSen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said he regrets voting for Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins. “Voting for Collins was a mistake, and I apologize to the veterans of the country,” he told reporters Wednesday“My one vote I cast for a member of the Trump Cabinet was for now-Secretary Rubio. I regret to say I regret that vote, because once installed in office, he is essentially abandoning the positions he took here as United States senator,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland told CNN Feb. 12.The Democratic confessions come a month into Trump’s second term where the Cabinet secretaries in question, along with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, have run roughshod over the federal government. Key agencies and departments like the Department of Defense, USAID, the Treasury, the IRS, and the FAA have seen massive firings, systems disruptions, and a rollback of civil rights protections that were in place for decades.While Trump’s agenda has received an almost unanimous vote of support from his fellow Republicans, Democratic votes have helped to put a bipartisan stamp on the resulting disruption of American life. Trump nominees like Noem, Collins, and former MTV “Real World” star turned Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy all got to their positions with Democratic votes, either directly or through procedural votes.The biggest beneficiary of this bipartisanship was Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose nomination sailed through 99-0 as senators voted en masse for one of their own.Since Trump took office, Democrats have been hearing complaints from their core voters that they are not doing enough to oppose him. Some Democratic leaders have reportedly held closed-door meetings and complained about the criticism.Recent opinion polling has reflected this dissatisfaction. In a SurveyUSA poll taken from Feb. 13 to 16, 41% of respondents said the party was “not standing up enough” to Trump.Democrats have been fumbling in trying to find the right rhetorical response to Trump. In the House, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has brought up concerns over consumer costs and the administration’s failure to address them while introducing inflationary tariffs, but the line of attack has not resonated.By contrast, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, has provoked the ire of the Trump administration by forcefully asserting immigrants’ rights in the face of attempted mass deportation raids. Jeffries reportedly plans to invite guests to Trump’s first congressional address that will rebut his actions and rhetoric.Combined with the Senate admissions, the party may be signaling it is pivoting toward more forceful opposition—a position that the general public seems ready for.Campaign Action

Welcome to At the Races! Each week we bring you news and analysis from the CQ Roll Call campaign team. Know someone who’d like to get this newsletter? They can subscribe here. A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday brought bleak news for congressional Democrats: Just 21 percent of voters approve of the way they are doing [...]The post At the Races: Dems the breaks appeared first on Roll Call.

Beach tags are not just a fee — they’re an investment in the safety, cleanliness and sustainability of our beaches, Cape May Mayor Zack Mullock writes.

Democrats repeatedly grilled McMahon on her willingness to follow orders from Trump or Elon Musk even if they run afoul of congressional mandates.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Linda McMahon told senators she believes it would take an act of Congress to abolish the Education Department, saying the Trump administration wants to “do this right” and craft a plan that senators will support.

In the last three weeks, Donald Trump has wreaked havoc on the American constitutional order. His actions have encroached on Congress' domain, and his administration is ignoring court orders. When the executive branch usurps the powers of the other two branches, that violates the separation of powers and creates the most stark constitutional crisis imaginable. So why won’t anyone say it? Neither the mainstream media nor Democratic elected officials seem capable of calling this what it is. Instead, we have the surreal occurrence of media outlets accurately describing how the administration’s actions violate the Constitution, followed by vague hand-waving about how maybe that means a constitutional crisis will happen at some as-yet-undefined point in the future. Take NBC News’ coverage of the Federal Emergency Management Agency continuing to freeze funding despite not one but two court orders telling them to knock it off. By any measure, the executive branch just straight-up ignoring the authority of the judicial branch is an actual factual constitutional crisis. But NBC twists itself in knots, framing the issue as one about federal employees being caught between Trump’s demands and court orders, saying those officials are “at the ground level of a potential constitutional crisis in which Trump is claiming expansive powers that test traditional limits on the president’s authority and could circumscribe the roles of Congress and the courts.”Besides the clunky hedging—what does it mean to be on the ground level of a potential crisis? Do crises have floors to ascend?—this is a wildly odd framing. It puts the onus for the crisis on the people carrying out Trump’s orders rather than Trump himself. It also frames Trump as chafing against some vague “traditional limits” because the piece is unwilling to speak plainly. Other outlets hedge by misstating what is happening. On Wednesday, the Washington Post talked about the consequences of Trump ignoring court orders but framed that as something that is not yet occurring: “Should the Trump administration begin openly defying court orders, the country could be barreling toward a constitutional crisis, legal experts warn.” The administration is already openly defying court orders. A court literally already said so, with Judge John J. McConnell Jr., a Rhode Island federal court judge, ruling that the administration ignored his previous order and continued to freeze some federal funding. Yes, other presidents have slow-walked implementations of court orders and have publicly complained about rulings, but that’s not what is going on here. Imagine President Joe Biden, who routinely got kicked in the teeth by conservative courts, asserting that courts can’t tell him what to do and threatening the judges themselves. That’s what Trump did on Tuesday, complaining that “it seems hard to believe that a judge could say, ‘We don’t want you to do that.’ So maybe we have to look at the judges. ‘Cause I think that’s a very serious violation.” Vice President JD Vance.That’s been JD Vance’s stance for a while now, even before joining the Trump ticket. He believes the real constitutional crisis is when the Supreme Court steps in and tells the president he can’t do something. After Trump suffered a spate of adverse rulings, Vance took to X to gripe that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” That’s a true statement in that it would be an overreach for the judicial branch to limit the executive branch’s legitimate authority. The issue here is that Trump and Vance don’t believe there are any limits on their authority and that only they define what is “legitimate.” They are so committed to that view that they won’t even respect court rulings that only temporarily pause their efforts while cases proceed. The administration is equally committed to commandeering power that belongs, under the Constitution, only to the legislative branch. Only Congress has the power of the purse or authority over taxing and spending. But Trump and Elon Musk have unilaterally frozen billions of dollars already allocated by Congress, violating the separation of powers. The founders gave this authority to the legislative branch for a reason. It’s the branch of government closest to the people and, therefore, most directly representative of and responsive to the electorate’s wishes. To let the executive branch decide how to spend the government’s money is to place that control in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That’s a thing that Republicans have always railed against, but they seem perfectly happy to let the ultimate unelected bureaucrat, Musk, single-handedly decide where all our taxpayer money goes, even while acknowledging that it is unconstitutional. President Donald Trump listens as Elon Musk speaks in the Oval Office Feb. 11, 2025.Trump has also defied the separation of powers by unilaterally shuttering government agencies created by acts of Congress. The United States Agency for International Development is functionally gone, as is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The executive branch can’t undo acts of Congress via the stroke of a pen or by starving agencies of funding, but that’s what Trump is doing nonetheless. Instead of a five-alarm fire over this in the media, we get euphemisms. Trump and Musk are “flex[ing] their power” and “test[ing] limits.” Elected officials are no better. Even Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, someone not typically given to mealy-mouthed descriptions, could only muster a statement that “[w]e’ve got our toes right on the edge of a constitutional crisis here,” making the constitutional crisis sound vaguely like a surfboard we’re all clinging to. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim told PBS on Tuesday that the administration was “engaged in lawless activity through unilateral executive branch action” but still placed the constitutional crisis in some hypothetical future: “I'm not sure that this executive branch, this administration will follow the law, even when given a court order to do so, given the vice president's statements about how they don't feel like they need to follow through with the orders of these judges. That's deeply alarming. That actually would be a full-blown constitutional crisis then.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote a lengthy letter detailing all the administration’s misdeeds, including firing independent watchdogs, illegally terminating public servants, and suspending entire government programs. At no point did Schumer mention the constitution or separation of powers. Instead, he went on about how Trump’s actions don’t help working families and declared that he is “hopeful the law and our system of justice will prevail.”It all feels reminiscent of Trump’s first term, when the media went to comical lengths to avoid saying Trump was lying. Instead, we got things like “demonstrable falsehoods” and “over-broad boasts.” That persistent failure to grapple with the fact the president outright lied thousands of times, to call it what it was, is what got us here today. The constitutional crisis we’re facing isn’t just about Trump running roughshod over separation of powers. It’s also about the fact that the courts lack adequate enforcement mechanisms when the president refuses to follow the law. Chief Justice John Roberts swears in Trump.Yes, courts could threaten to hold Justice Department attorneys in contempt for the administration’s failure to follow court orders, and they could do the same with high-level officials who are ignoring rulings. But, as Yale Law School professor Cristina Rodríguez, an expert on the separation of powers, explained to the New Yorker, holding officials in contempt is rare, with the Supreme Court having done so only once. Additionally, though contempt sanctions could include fines and imprisonment, Rodríguez noted those are not often used, particularly against government officials, because those officials have potential claims of immunity. And then there’s the broad, unprecedented immunity the conservative majority on the Supreme Court handed to Trump last year. Even if the Roberts court grows a spine and restores some constitutional order, that likely wouldn’t come with any consequences for Trump himself. The constitutional crisis isn’t around the corner. It isn’t barreling toward us. It’s right here, right now, and no one with a microphone or power seems equipped to handle it. Campaign Action

President Donald Trump’s pick for education secretary would be the last in the role if he has his way.

Mr. Trump has long teased the possibility of closing the Department of Education.

Education Secretary-nominee Linda McMahon is the next Cabinet pick of President Trump's to face a showdown with lawmakers — and the first he has told to "put yourself out of a job." McMahon, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m., will be questioned by senators just a week after Trump said he [...]

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., on Sunday indicated that he's open to shutting down the government ahead of a key government funding deadline if the Trump administration continues reshaping the federal government.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz defends President Trump’s plan for a Gaza takeover. Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) talks about Trump’s dismantling of USAID. Poet Amanda Gorman discusses book banning in a Meet the Moment conversation.

In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) criticizes President Trump’s move to dismantle USAID, arguing foreign aid defends U.S. national security interests.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that she is in favor of getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its current form.“I would say, yes, get rid of FEMA the way it exists today,” Noem said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”“We still need the resources and the funds and the finances to go to people that have these types of disasters like Hurricane Helene and the fires in California,” she added.Noem said President Donald Trump “can, and I believe that he will do that evaluation with his team,” adding that he’ll “work with Congress” to make sure it’s “done correctly.”Her remarks come as Trump has explored getting rid of FEMA in the wake of several natural disasters — including Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and devastating California wildfires in the Los Angeles area — that have plagued the U.S. in recent weeks and months.During a visit to North Carolina in January, Trump told reporters, “I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA.”Also while in the state, the president said he favors “probably less FEMA, because FEMA just hasn’t done the job. And we’re looking at the whole concept of FEMA.”On Sunday, asked by CNN to confirm reporting in The Washington Post that Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have been given access to FEMA disaster data, including sensitive personal data about disaster victims, Noem said, “The president has authorized [Musk] to have access.”“We’re working with them at the president’s direction to find what we can do to make our department much more efficient,” Noem said, adding that she “absolutely” feels comfortable with that.Congress2 hours agoSen. Andy Kim says he's open to shutting down gov. if Trump continues dismantling agenciesVenezuelaJan 29Trump administration revokes TPS extension for thousands of VenezuelansNoem also spoke about the Trump administration’s plans to house migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.While the administration currently plans to house violent offenders at Guantanamo, Noem didn’t rule out housing nonviolent offenders at the facility, saying, “We will have some facilities that will be up to the same standards as other detention facilities in the United States. And I don’t think the president is going to tie his hands on what he needs to do to make sure that America is safe.”While the project to build temporary detention facilities at Guantanamo is still ongoing, Noem added that she expects to be able to house up to 30,000 migrants there.Last week, in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Noem dodged several questions about whether women and children would be housed at Guantanamo, not ruling it out.On Sunday, in response to CNN’s questions about whether she’s comfortable with the legality of bringing people from U.S. soil to Guantanamo, Noem said, “I am, and the president is comfortable with that.”She wouldn’t commit to a timeline for detaining people there before they are returned to their home country.This article originally appeared on NBCNews.com. Read more from NBC News:‘We are figuring it out’: Democrats struggle to keep up with Trump’s dizzying paceRussell Vought, CFPB’s new acting head, issues directives to halt portions of bureau activityFederal judge temporarily blocks DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury Department payment systems

In an exclusive interview with Meet the Press, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) weighs whether Democrats should consider a government shutdown to prevent President Trump’s legislative agenda from advancing in Congress.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that she is in favor of getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its current form.“I would say, yes, get rid of FEMA the way it exists today,” Noem said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”“We still need the resources and the funds and the finances to go to people that have these types of disasters like Hurricane Helene and the fires in California,” she added.Noem said President Donald Trump “can, and I believe that he will do that evaluation with his team,” adding that he’ll “work with Congress” to make sure it’s “done correctly.”Her remarks come as Trump has explored getting rid of FEMA in the wake of several natural disasters — including Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and devastating California wildfires in the Los Angeles area — that have plagued the U.S. in recent weeks and months.During a visit to North Carolina in January, Trump told reporters, “I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA.”Also while in the state, the president said he favors “probably less FEMA, because FEMA just hasn’t done the job. And we’re looking at the whole concept of FEMA.”On Sunday, asked by CNN to confirm reporting in The Washington Post that Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have been given access to FEMA disaster data, including sensitive personal data about disaster victims, Noem said, “The president has authorized [Musk] to have access.”“We’re working with them at the president’s direction to find what we can do to make our department much more efficient,” Noem said, adding that she “absolutely” feels comfortable with that.Congress3 hours agoSen. Andy Kim says he's open to shutting down gov. if Trump continues dismantling agenciesVenezuelaJan 29Trump administration revokes TPS extension for thousands of VenezuelansNoem also spoke about the Trump administration’s plans to house migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.While the administration currently plans to house violent offenders at Guantanamo, Noem didn’t rule out housing nonviolent offenders at the facility, saying, “We will have some facilities that will be up to the same standards as other detention facilities in the United States. And I don’t think the president is going to tie his hands on what he needs to do to make sure that America is safe.”While the project to build temporary detention facilities at Guantanamo is still ongoing, Noem added that she expects to be able to house up to 30,000 migrants there.Last week, in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Noem dodged several questions about whether women and children would be housed at Guantanamo, not ruling it out.On Sunday, in response to CNN’s questions about whether she’s comfortable with the legality of bringing people from U.S. soil to Guantanamo, Noem said, “I am, and the president is comfortable with that.”She wouldn’t commit to a timeline for detaining people there before they are returned to their home country.This article originally appeared on NBCNews.com. Read more from NBC News:‘We are figuring it out’: Democrats struggle to keep up with Trump’s dizzying paceRussell Vought, CFPB’s new acting head, issues directives to halt portions of bureau activityFederal judge temporarily blocks DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury Department payment systems

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that she is in favor of getting rid of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its current form.“I would say, yes, get rid of FEMA the way it exists today,” Noem said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”“We still need the resources and the funds and the finances to go to people that have these types of disasters like Hurricane Helene and the fires in California,” she added.Noem said President Donald Trump “can, and I believe that he will do that evaluation with his team,” adding that he’ll “work with Congress” to make sure it’s “done correctly.”Her remarks come as Trump has explored getting rid of FEMA in the wake of several natural disasters — including Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and devastating California wildfires in the Los Angeles area — that have plagued the U.S. in recent weeks and months.During a visit to North Carolina in January, Trump told reporters, “I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of FEMA.”Also while in the state, the president said he favors “probably less FEMA, because FEMA just hasn’t done the job. And we’re looking at the whole concept of FEMA.”On Sunday, asked by CNN to confirm reporting in The Washington Post that Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, have been given access to FEMA disaster data, including sensitive personal data about disaster victims, Noem said, “The president has authorized [Musk] to have access.”“We’re working with them at the president’s direction to find what we can do to make our department much more efficient,” Noem said, adding that she “absolutely” feels comfortable with that.Congress5 hours agoSen. Andy Kim says he's open to shutting down gov. if Trump continues dismantling agenciesVenezuelaJan 29Trump administration revokes TPS extension for thousands of VenezuelansNoem also spoke about the Trump administration’s plans to house migrants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.While the administration currently plans to house violent offenders at Guantanamo, Noem didn’t rule out housing nonviolent offenders at the facility, saying, “We will have some facilities that will be up to the same standards as other detention facilities in the United States. And I don’t think the president is going to tie his hands on what he needs to do to make sure that America is safe.”While the project to build temporary detention facilities at Guantanamo is still ongoing, Noem added that she expects to be able to house up to 30,000 migrants there.Last week, in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” Noem dodged several questions about whether women and children would be housed at Guantanamo, not ruling it out.On Sunday, in response to CNN’s questions about whether she’s comfortable with the legality of bringing people from U.S. soil to Guantanamo, Noem said, “I am, and the president is comfortable with that.”She wouldn’t commit to a timeline for detaining people there before they are returned to their home country.This article originally appeared on NBCNews.com. Read more from NBC News:‘We are figuring it out’: Democrats struggle to keep up with Trump’s dizzying paceRussell Vought, CFPB’s new acting head, issues directives to halt portions of bureau activityFederal judge temporarily blocks DOGE from accessing sensitive Treasury Department payment systems

As Republicans in Congress look for ways to slash spending, some legislators are floating new taxes on college scholarships, an end to student loan repayment plans and a big hike in taxes on university endowments. The ideas affecting higher education are among many in circulation among House committees that are exploring ways to cover the cost of extending and expanding tax cuts passed in President Donald Trump‘s first term. The recommendations are still evolving, and it’s unclear how close any of them will get to being implemented. Regardless, advocates across higher education say they are alarmed to see such proposals gain traction at all with Republicans. “It’s shocking to me because this amount of cuts is not happening in reaction to like a budget crisis, like a recession. This really feels different in the sense that it is not something that there is an external push or a need for. So, it feels more ideological in a way,” said Jessica Thompson, a higher education policy expert with The Institute for College Access and Success.Here is a look at possible federal budget cuts that would affect higher education under the Trump administration:Cutting programs that help students pay off college debtThe U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce has suggested several possible ways to overhaul student loan programs. Some would reduce student access to federal aid for college. On the chopping block potentially are several plans students can opt into to repay their students loans, including the SAVE plan introduced by the Biden administration. That plan doesn’t require borrowers to make payments if they earn less than 225% of the federal poverty line — $32,800 a year for a single person — and prevents interest from adding to balances as long as borrowers make their monthly payments. The SAVE plan was already put on hold after Republicans challenged it. Some plans do not appear to be targeted, including one that caps loan payments based on borrowers’ income level.Congress1 hour agoSen. Andy Kim says he's open to shutting down gov. if Trump continues dismantling agenciesnewsFeb 6Trump's tax cuts are ‘stuck in the mud' as Republicans split over spendingNatural disastersFeb 3Who gets more disaster aid? Republican states. Experts explain that and more about FEMAAnother possible change would give borrowers additional opportunities to recover from defaults. While they currently can rehabilitate their loans just once, allowing them to make a certain number of consecutive payments to get out of default, the proposal would allow them to go through that process twice. The committee projected the new process could save the government millions of dollars but did not spell out how.The timing is uncertain on when any of these proposals could surface. They could be considered as soon as this spring in a process known as budget reconciliation that would allow Republicans to squeeze proposals through Congress purely on party-line votes. That would not be easy in the House, where Republicans hold the majority by just a few seats.An end to tax-free status for scholarshipsScholarships and fellowships have been exempt from taxes as long as they are used for tuition and related expenses. That would change under another proposal that’s up for consideration. The changes could create new financial burdens for students and families, advocates say. “There’s been great progress in bringing down the costs of higher education. Adjusted for inflation, public university tuition is less now than it was ten years ago,” said Craig Lindwarm, senior vice president of governmental affairs with the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities. “But as we look at some of the proposals that are options, many would increase costs on students and families, and I think (the proposals) are heading in the direction that most don’t want to see, which is increasing expenses on students and families.”Increasing taxes on college endowmentsThe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act currently requires some private nonprofit colleges and universities to pay a 1.4% tax on income from their endowments, which raised about $244 million from 58 institutions in 2022. The committee suggests increasing that to a 14% tax and expanding which colleges would have to pay it.Also being considered among hundreds of other ideas in circulation are fines for colleges and universities that violate students’ rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination toward students of shared ancestry. Such investigations often have been resolved through settlements calling for training and policy updates. Title VI is currently what is being used to investigate complaints of antisemitism on college campuses across the U.S. ___Mumphrey reported from Phoenix. AP education writer Collin Binkley in Washington, D.C., 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.

Delaware’s attorney general is part of a coalition that has stopped a freeze of domestic federal spending. But foreign aid is still paused.

Joe Biden in December signed legislation making the raptor the country’s national bird.

President Donald Trump and billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk have moved to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which spent some $30 billion last year on humanitarian, development and security aid to more than 100 countries.

Collins is seen during his confirmation hearing last month.

People speculated about the source of the drone sightings along the East Coast for weeks late last year.

WASHINGTON — Democratic and independent U.S. senators introduced a resolution Monday to condemn President Donald Trump’s clemency for the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, injuring numerous law enforcement officers and sending lawmakers into hiding as they tried to certify the 2020 presidential election results.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York along with Sens. Patty Murray of Washington, Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Andy Kim of New Jersey are leading all Democrat and independent senators who signed the resolution that “disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.” An initial press release did not include Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania as a co-sponsor, but reports on social media indicated he signed on. Fetterman’s office did not immediately confirm.ALSO READ: Top GOPer's ‘most immediate’ priority for new committee includes probing a MAGA conspiracyMurray will seek unanimous consent on the floor to pass the resolution. Only one senator needs to object to stop it from being adopted.Murray said in a statement Monday that she refuses to “allow President Trump to rewrite what happened on January 6th— armed insurrectionists, incited by Trump himself, broke into the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted Capitol Police officers in their attempt to overthrow a free and fair election.”Condemning the pardons and commutations for those who caused cracked ribs, crushed spinal disks and other injuries, “should be the easiest thing in the world,” Murray said.“I hope and expect my Republican colleagues will allow this very simple resolution to pass as a show of support for the officers who put their lives on the line to keep senators safe,” Murray said.Republicans quiet about Jan. 6 pardonsStates Newsroom asked 22 Republican senators how they felt about the pardons and commutations the day after Trump signed the order. Barring a few exceptions, most either refused to answer, said they hadn’t seen Trump’s high-profile order, or spoke only on pardons issued by former President Joe Biden in the hours before he left office.GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally, told NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker” on Sunday that the president’s pardons of violent Jan. 6 defendants were “a mistake because it seems to suggest that’s an OK thing to do.”Trump commuted the prison sentences of 14 of the attack’s ringleaders and members of the paramilitary groups the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. The president granted a “full, complete and unconditional pardon” to all others charged with crimes after the attack.Among the approximately 1,572 defendants, 608 were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement, including 174 charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Of those charged, 172 pleaded guilty to assaulting police — 69 of them pleading guilty to assaulting the officers with some sort of weapon.Investigators found that the rioters brought and improvised numerous types of weapons, including firearms, chemical sprays, tasers, knives, flagpoles and broken furniture.Violent offendersMurray, Schumer, Murphy and Kim highlighted several specific cases of violent offenders pardoned by Trump. Here are a few:Christopher Quaglin, of North Brunswick, New Jersey, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for spraying bear spray directly in the faces of officers, stealing riot shields and striking the officers, grabbing an officer’s neck and tackling him to the ground, and numerous other assaults on law enforcement that day.Tyler Bradley Dykes, of Bluffton, South Carolina, was sentenced to nearly five years in prison for stealing a police riot shield and using it to obstruct and assault officers at multiple locations in the Capitol.Robert Sanford Jr., of Chester, Pennsylvania, was sentenced to just over four years in prison for hitting three officers in the head with a fire extinguisher, among other actions.Robert Scott Palmer, of Largo, Florida, was sentenced to just over five years in prison for throwing a wooden plank at officers and spraying the entire contents of a fire extinguisher at them before throwing it in an attempt to strike them.Prior to leaving office Jan. 20, Biden preemptively pardoned all members of the congressional committee that investigated the attack as well as four police officers who testified before the panel. Trump is on record as recently as December saying the committee members “should go to jail.”

Over the weekend, Democrats and Republicans responded very differently to President Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally grant pardons to more than 1,500 people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 in his name. Republican leaders struggled to defend him:xxYouTube VideoVice President JD Vance appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” and was asked about the pardons handed out to one offender who used a stun gun to electroshock Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone, and another who hit an officer while wearing brass knuckles.“Is violence against a police officer ever justified?” host Margaret Brennan asked.Vance responded, “Violence against a police officer is not justified, but that doesn’t mean that you should have Merrick Garland’s weaponized Department of Justice expose you to an incredibly unfair process.”xxYouTube VideoOn NBC’s “Meet the Press,” longtime Trump ally and booster Sen. Lindsey Graham was more blunt when asked about Trump’s boost to convicted criminals.“Pardoning the people who went into the Capitol and beat up a police officer violently, I think was a mistake, because it seems to suggest that’s an okay thing to do,” Graham admitted.Republicans will face more pressure to answer for Trump’s actions with a resolution that is being introduced by Senate Democrats condemning the pardons. The text of the document says: “Resolved, That the Senate disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.”Nearly every member of the Senate Democratic caucus has signed on sponsoring the resolution, including all of the members in leadership positions. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, who was on the scene as a member of the House during the attack, explained to CBS News why Democrats objected to the pardons.“It gives the stamp of approval now to political violence, saying that if you conduct political violence, and it's in favor of Donald Trump, for the next four years that you'll be okay,” he said.A few days after the pardons were first issued, Trump tried to defend his actions in an interview with Fox News. He lied and claimed the convictions were for “very minor incidents.”xTrump on January 6 insurrectionists who assaulted police: "They were very minor incidents."— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-01-23T02:48:57.376ZContrary to this falsehood, the convictions were given out in response to violence committed in the act of attempting to overturn a presidential election. In the case of pardoned Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio, he was convicted in federal court of seditious conspiracy against the United States.In the hours following the pardons former Capitol Police Officer Aquilino Gonell, who was severely injured in the attack, said in a statement “I feel betrayed. Despite what we all witnessed four years ago, the American people voted [Trump] back in office, and one of the first things that he does is pardon the criminals who nearly took my life. It’s a desecration to our service and the sacrifices made to keep everyone safe.”Yet during the same period where Trump handed out a gift to hundreds of convicted criminals, his administration started a mass deportation anti-immigration initiative that detained a military veteran.In the first week of his presidency, Trump is already showing that under his leadership the innocent will find trouble, while those who commit violence on his behalf will get a pass.Campaign Action

The Trump administration is coming under fire for an immigration raid in New Jersey that detained an American citizen who is also a military veteran.Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided a Newark, New Jersey, business on Thursday. According to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, “one of the detainees is a U.S. military veteran who suffered the indignity of having the legitimacy of his military documentation questioned.”The raid comes just a few days after Donald Trump signed a flurry of anti-migrant executive orders as his administration and congressional Republicans plan to implement a policy of mass deportation. In an interview with longtime Trump admirer Sean Hannity on Fox News, Trump said his policy is focused on migrants who pose a security threat, which can be determined by merely looking at people.“Open borders with people pouring in. Some of whom, I won’t get into it, but you can look at them and you can say, ‘Could be trouble, could be trouble,” Trump said. Trump is a racist who has expressed anti-migrant sentiment for years, largely targeting brown-skinned members of minority groups.Baraka explained this “egregious act is in plain violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” referring to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.“Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized,” he added.New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman described the raid as “unconstitutional” and evidence of “the reality of Trump’s reign of terror.”xToday, ICE carried out an unconstitutional raid in Newark, detaining lawful U.S. citizens, including a veteran who served our country, without a warrant. This is a flagrant violation of New Jersey's laws, our residents' rights, and the Constitution. Full statement below:— Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (@repbonnie.bsky.social) 2025-01-24T00:40:21.806ZIn a joint statement, New Jersey Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim said they were “deeply concerned” about the raid and that they have reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, for answers.“Actions like this one sow fear in all of our communities—and our broken immigration system requires solutions, not fear tactics,” the senators added.Veteran groups previously expressed concern about Trump’s actions against migrants before the New Jersey incident.As part of the administration’s anti-immigration efforts, ICE has been given the power to rapidly deport migrants who are legally in the country, including those granted temporary protected status under the Biden administration.In a letter addressed to Trump, veterans’ groups expressed fear that the crackdown would endanger the safety of interpreters who had helped the military during the war in Afghanistan, as well as their families, now living in America.Trump is implementing the immigration policy he has long touted and Republicans are on board with it, but just a few days in and veterans are already among the people who are in the crosshairs.Daily Kos is ready to hold Trump accountable every step of the way. But we need your help. Give $3 a month to support Daily Kos coverage and news you can do something about.

A New Jersey mayor and other leading Democrats have blasted an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid on a worksite which they say resulted in undocumented residents as well as a U.S. citizen being "detained."

Donald Trump will be surrounded by a very different Washington than he was eight years ago.

The battle over wildfire aid for Los Angeles is quickly evolving into a game of high-stakes chicken. Many Republicans are demanding conditions on any new emergency funding, blaming Democratic leaders in California for exacerbating the crisis. Democrats are rejecting conditions outright, accusing Republicans of exploiting the disaster to score political points. And both sides appear [...]

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Russell Vought downplayed Trump’s moves to strip protections from civil service employees.The post White House Budget Office Nominee Tries to Whitewash Trump’s First Term appeared first on The Intercept.

Former Rep. Sean Duffy sat for an hourslong confirmation hearing as President-elect Donald Trump's pick for Transportation secretary, sitting before Chairman Sen. Ted Cruz and Ranking Member Maria Cantwell.

Democrats and Republicans began honoring former President Jimmy Carter for presidency and humanitarian work shortly after the Carter Center announced his death.

I see it from the families’ perspective, from my teachers’ perspective, and from the business perspective. The system is not working for any of us. Families cannot afford the cost of child care.

Three term Democratic Representative Andy Kim is now New Jersey's newest Senator. He’s been listening to Americans who supported both himself and President-elect Donald Trump. His lessons from those conversations.

Without a definitive explanation for purported drone sightings, idle speculation has filled the void

The Democratic senator posted his own videos of what he thought were drones, but has come to believe were regular aircraft.

The president-elect also called for government transparency in a Monday news conference.

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — A large number of mysterious drones have been reported flying over parts of New Jersey and have been spotted in recent days across the eastern U.S., sparking speculation and concern over where they are coming from...

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been hospitalized after she "sustained an injury" during an official engagement in Luxembourg, according to a spokesman.

'Sometimes they were solid white light, others flashed of red and green,' Sen. Andy Kim said.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been hospitalized after she “sustained an injury” during an official engagement in Luxembourg, according to a spokesman

Details of the injury have not been released

The two legislators resigned from the House on Dec. 8 and begin serving their terms earlier than other newly elected senators.

As California's newest senator, Schiff says he's not going to shy away from familiar territory - opposing President-elect Donald Trump when he feels it necessary. But he's also hoping to be known for bipartisanship, as well.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy appointed Sen.-elect Andy Kim, D-N.J., to the Senate on Sunday, meaning he'll join the upper chamber three weeks early.