Oklahoma Voice

Editor’s note: This is the first of a series of profiles on the seven Republican candidates seeking the party’s nomination for state superintendent. Profiles will run in alphabetical order.

In his fourth campaign for state superintendent, a longtime rural school leader aims to make significant changes to the state’s testing structure and teacher pay scale as Oklahoma’s top education official.

Peggs Public Schools Superintendent John Cox, 62, has spent more than 30 years at the eastern Oklahoma district of 160 students.

Cox, of Hulbert, ran twice as a Democratic candidate for state superintendent in 2014 and 2018 and as a Republican in 2022 and 2026, with his latest campaign promising to “Make Education Great Again.”

Joining him on the Republican ballot in the June 16 primary election are William Crozier, former school district and CareerTech administrator Robert Franklin, state Rep. Toni Hasenbeck, Southern Nazarene University senior research analyst Debra Herlihy, state Sen. Adam Pugh and high school teacher James Taylor. The winner will face one of two Democratic candidates: Jennettie Marshall, a former Tulsa Board of Education member, or retired El Reno Public Schools Superintendent Craig McVay.

Former state Superintendent Ryan Walters, a Republican, put the elected position, which leads the Oklahoma State Department of Education and state Board of Education, under a national spotlight with controversial policies and frequent media appearances before he stepped down on Sept. 30. 

Lindel Fields, who was appointed to finish Walters’ term, kept his promise not to run for the post in the 2026 elections.

Cox said his 40 years of work experience in public schools and expertise in school finance set him apart in the crowded race.

He has advocated for a significant change to Oklahoma’s structure for state testing. 

Rather than having students take state tests for math, reading and science once a year in the spring, he said Oklahoma should switch to a benchmark model where assessments are administered periodically throughout the school year.

Walters called for a similar testing overhaul before he resigned, but Fields scrapped the idea.

Cox said, if elected, he would emphasize phonics-based reading programs and would push for raising public education funding, knowing it “will be my job as state superintendent to show a purpose for that money and why we need it and why we need the increases.”

One of those increases, he said, should raise Oklahoma’s minimum starting teacher salary to $50,000 from $41,601. 

He said he’s supportive of the state’s tax credit program for private-school and homeschool families. Whether school choice options should expand into the realm of religious charter schools, as has been proposed in Oklahoma, is for the courts to decide, he said.

Cox said his goal is to make public schools the No. 1 choice for Oklahoma families, including his own. His school-aged grandchildren currently attend a private school.

“Being a (grandfather) makes you look at things a lot different,” he said. “Knowing are your kids going to be safe and are they going to be learning. Really, those are the two things that I’m campaigning on all across the state is just keeping our kids safe and improving our status, making our education better for our children.”

Oklahoma Voice on Monday released its 2026 primary voter guide to help Oklahomans learn more about the state and federal candidates who will appear on the June 16 partisan primary election ballot. 

The voter guide also includes information about the nonpartisan ballot measure that will appear, which seeks to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2029. While partisan primaries are generally closed to non-affiliated voters, any registered Oklahoman can vote on State Question 832.

The guide is intended to provide voters with one-stop-shop information on all statewide and federal candidates. 

Also, every legislative candidate running in a contested primary was invited to submit a brief description about themselves and their priorities along with a link to their website. 

The guide also provides answers to some basic questions about how to vote in the primary and key deadlines as the June 16 election approaches.

The Republican primary ballot features a crowded U.S. Senate field as five candidates vie to replace former U.S. Senator Markwayne Mullin. The Republican resigned earlier this year to head the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump. 

Eleven candidates are competing to become Oklahoma’s next congressional representative for U.S. House District 1, which is in the Tulsa area. Republican Kevin Hern opted to run for U.S. Senate vacancy and is not seeking another term.

Nine Republicans are seeking to become Oklahoma’s next governor, and six are running for lieutenant governor. Both Gov. Kevin Stitt and Lt. Gov. Matt Pinnell cannot run again due to term limits.

The state superintendent field, meanwhile, is the most crowded in state history with seven Republicans vying to make the General Election ballot. Former state Superintendent Ryan Walters resigned last year to take a job in the private sector. Stitt’s hand-chosen successor, Lindel Fields, is not running for the post. 

Democrats, who currently control no federal or statewide offices in Oklahoma, have contested primaries in the U.S. Senate and several U.S. House races.

Three Democrats are seeking the gubernatorial nomination for governor while two are fighting for state superintendent.

Several incumbent state legislators from both sides of the aisle, including House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, are facing primary challenges. Also, a number of lawmakers are not running again due to term limits. 

The deadline to register to vote is May 22. In-person early voting runs from June 11-13.

Despite its modest population size, Oklahoma had the third highest number of electricity disconnections in the U.S. because of nonpayment in 2024. It fell behind Texas and Florida and leads Tennessee.

A first-of-its-kind federal report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released in April shows Oklahoma had 572,480 electricity disconnections and 52,683 natural gas shutoffs in 2024.

The state led the nation in utility disconnections per its customer base with more than 2% of all consumers experiencing an interruption. That analysis comes from utility watchdog group Energy and Policy Institute (EPI) and the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity.

Oklahomans received more than 3 million final notices for gas and electric past-due bills in 2024. The overwhelming majority were for electricity service.

A spokesperson for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates the state’s utilities, said it does not generally keep disconnection records. Customers occasionally contact the commission after a shutoff, but not always.

The state does not require utilities to report disconnection data. To develop the report, EIA requested data directly from suppliers.

“In the United States, there’s no law that protects a customer from disconnection if they fall behind in their utility bill,” said Shelby Green, research and communications manager for EPI. “Whether they owe 10 cents or they owe $1,000, if your bill is not paid by the shutoff date, the utility has the right under existing rules to perform disconnections.”

There are some protections in place in Oklahoma. The Corporation Commission does not allow utilities to cut off power when the National Weather Service forecasts temperatures below 32 degrees or when the heat index — what the temperature feels like — is expected to be 101 degrees or higher. The commission also has the authority to suspend shutoffs during severe weather or life-threatening situations.

Disconnections also can’t occur within the last two hours of a business day, on a holiday or after noon on Fridays.

Oklahoma’s largest utilities, Oklahoma Gas & Electric and Public Service Company of Oklahoma, offer some financial assistance programs like payment plans and donation-based help.

Although the details explaining Oklahoma’s high disconnection ranking compared to surrounding states is unclear, Green said there is likely a mixture of reasons.

“ I think just the compounding factor of low wages, limited protections, and then, not only high, but regular rate increases is making it harder for people to be able to afford their utility bill and avoid disconnection,” she said.

In 2024, Oklahoma ranked 42 in the nation for total income from wages and other earnings like proprietors’ income, dividends and government benefits. Electricity rates in the state averaged around 9 cents per kilowatt-hour that year, according to EIA.

Inflation, more grid demand from large-scale users like data centers and aging infrastructure investments are some of the reasons states — including Oklahoma — are seeing higher monthly bills. As of February 2026, the average electricity price per kilowatt-hour is 12.89 cents.

The federal report is expected to continue publishing annually, Green said, but there will likely be a two-year data lag.

This article was originally published by StateImpact Oklahoma. StateImpact Oklahoma is a partnership of Oklahoma’s public radio stations which relies on contributions from readers and listeners to fulfill its mission of public service to Oklahoma and beyond.

When the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas’ gerrymandered congressional map to take effect in December, its conservative majority wrote that a lower court had “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign” when it blocked the map more than three months before the election.

Now, the Supreme Court is the one upending elections.

For the past two decades, the Supreme Court has advanced the idea that federal courts should not order major changes close to an election to limit voter confusion. Over time the doctrine, first articulated in the 2006 case Purcell vs. Gonzalez, became known as the Purcell principle. 

But election law experts and one of the court’s liberal justices say the Supreme Court is wielding — or disregarding — the principle unevenly in ways that aid Republicans.

In recent weeks, the Supreme Court has effectively allowed last-minute election changes in Southern states that hold major consequences for what districts voters are assigned to and the future of Black political representation across the region.

These Republican-controlled states are racing to redraw congressional maps to eliminate majority-Black districts, many of which have elected Black Democrats to Congress. The gerrymandering rush has come even with early voting underway in some states.

Wilfred Codrington III, a professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, who has studied the Purcell principle, said limiting voter confusion is common sense. But after that general idea,  the principle “just falls apart” because the Supreme Court has never answered questions raised by the doctrine — like how close to an election is too close.

“The court has not thought through them and it seems like when the court applies them, they’re being applied in partisan ways,” Codrington said, about questions the doctrine raises.

After the high court gutted the federal Voting Rights Act in Callais, a landmark decision on April 29 that found Louisiana’s map unconstitutional, it fast-tracked paperwork so the state could quickly redraw district lines. 

Voting had begun in the state’s congressional primary election, which Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended, discarding 42,000 votes already cast.

A majority of the court voted to immediately certify its decision instead of observing its typical 32-day waiting period. In a blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the justices were disregarding their previous insistence that courts shouldn’t risk assuming political responsibility for a redistricting process that often produces hard feelings.

“There is also the so-called Purcell principle, which we invoked only five months ago to chide a federal district court for ‘improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign,’” Jackson wrote. “The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.”

The conservative justices on May 11 then cleared a path for Alabama to move toward implementing a Republican gerrymander that state lawmakers approved in 2023 but was blocked by a lower court. Their decision came a little more than a week before the state’s primary election. 

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has called an August special primary election for some of the state’s congressional districts.

“The United States Supreme Court’s decision is plain common sense and enables our values to be best represented in Congress,” Ivey said in a statement.

The Supreme Court’s actions this spring stand in stark contrast to its December decision to allow Texas’ gerrymander to take effect. After President Donald Trump urged GOP states to redraw their maps for partisan advantage, Texas was the first state to respond, enacting new lines that could help Republicans pick up five seats.

A three-judge district court panel ruled against the map, finding that it was racially gerrymandered. The Supreme Court paused the panel’s decision, finding that the panel likely made serious errors and that the district court was “causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections” amid the campaign season.

That language echoed the Purcell decision, which found that an appeals court had erred in blocking an Arizona law requiring a photo ID to register to vote. The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion cautioned that court orders affecting elections can cause voter confusion. 

“As an election draws closer, that risk will increase,” the 2006 opinion said.

Nearly 20 years later, the Supreme Court made no mention of Purcell in its Callais opinion, which dropped like a political bomb across the South. Since the decision, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Tennessee have either enacted new maps or are seeking to do so ahead of the November midterm elections.

Mark Johnson, a Kansas City-based lawyer with a long history of working on election litigation, noted that Callais was argued at the Supreme Court twice, first in March 2025 and again in October. The justices then waited a long time before releasing their decision, he said, adding that if they didn’t realize the implications of their ruling they were “asleep at the wheel.”

“That’s why the Callais case is so disturbing, because a Supreme Court that has by and large followed Purcell just acted like it doesn’t exist,” Johnson said.

Several high-profile observers of the Supreme Court have been unsparing in their criticism of the justices’ approach. 

Steve Vladeck, a professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a foremost expert on the court, wrote in an online post that the court’s recent decisions “fatally undermine” the animating purpose of the Purcell principle.

“The Court’s own interventions are now wreaking havoc—and a majority of the justices either don’t think it’s their fault, or don’t care that it is. Either way, they don’t seem to mind the inconsistency—in a context in which it’s having the remarkably coincidental effect of benefiting Republicans,” Vladeck wrote.

Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, wrote on social media that the Supreme Court in Chief Justice John Roberts’ hands “has become a chaos agent in elections.”

Public support for the Supreme Court was dropping prior to Callais. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

In the wake of the decision, Democrats have renewed their calls for court reform. Some have proposed term limits for the justices or expanding the size of the court to dilute its conservative majority. However, major changes are unlikely to become law while the U.S. Senate retains the filibuster and Trump remains in office.

For his part, Roberts has taken pains to paint the court as outside of politics. But at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania in early May, Roberts acknowledged the public thinks the justices are expressing policy preferences rather than interpreting the law.

“I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do,” Roberts said, according to The Associated Press.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another of the court’s conservatives, has drawn a distinction between federal courts ordering last-minute changes to elections and states making changes themselves — suggesting that courts shouldn’t necessarily thwart state legislatures that alter rules and procedures in the run-up to elections.

In a 2020 concurring opinion about a federal judge who had altered Wisconsin’s absentee ballot deadline amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Kavanaugh wrote that it was one thing for state legislatures to change their own election rules “in the late innings” and bear responsibility for unintended consequences.

“It is quite another thing for a federal district court to swoop in and alter carefully considered and democratically enacted state election rules when an election is imminent,” Kavanaugh wrote.

But voting rights advocates say Callais is unleashing a wave of voter confusion as Southern legislatures rush to gerrymander.

Tennessee’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a map May 7 that divides the Memphis area among three congressional districts. The move splits a majority-Black district in Memphis represented by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat. Cohen announced Friday he wouldn’t seek reelection.

The state’s primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.

“This is a year where we’re already in the cycle and they’re going to have to redo everything they’ve already worked on because these districts are completely different,” Matia Powell, executive director of the voting rights group Civic TN, told reporters.

The Tennessee Democratic Party and several Democratic candidates, including state Rep. Justin Pearson, who is running for Cohen’s current seat, have filed a federal lawsuit against the map. They argue the new map will cause “significant voter confusion” and severely burden the right to vote.

Tennessee Republican Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti argues the Democrats have a solution in search of a problem. Tennessee lawmakers have provided more than $3.1 million to implement the new map and that state officials are already working to meet election deadlines, Skrmetti’s office wrote in a Wednesday court filing.

“At bottom, this suit is an invitation to play politics, not law,” Tennessee Senior Assistant Attorney General Zachary Barker wrote in the filing.

U.S. District Court Judge William Campbell, a Trump appointee, on Thursday declined to immediately halt the map.

The Supreme Court has sent states the message that “there are no rules” and that state legislatures are welcome to gerrymander Black representation at any point, said Anna Baldwin, voting rights litigation director at Campaign Legal Center, which has sued over Florida’s recent gerrymander.

And the way the court applies the Purcell principle encourages states to make changes close to elections — because courts are more reluctant to block them.

“The court is creating a perverse incentive structure that ultimately does make it harder for people who are trying to protect voting rights to prevail,” Baldwin said.

In the past two years, a dozen states have either approved new U.S. House maps or are moving toward doing so — a highly unusual mid-decade revamp prompted by President Donald Trump and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling late last month. And the situation isn’t settled yet — even as ballots are being printed and early voting is already underway in some places. Pending litigation could scramble the situation even further.

Redistricting, the process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of U.S. House and state legislative districts, usually takes place every 10 years following the census.

Trump upended that schedule early last year, when he began pressuring state GOP officials to redraw their maps to help Republicans hold onto a slim, five-seat majority in the U.S. House ahead of potentially grim 2026 midterm elections for his party.

The Supreme Court recast the redistricting fight with its ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. That decision all but nullified a provision of the federal Voting Rights Act that required states to draw electoral maps to give racial minority voters the opportunity to elect their chosen candidates.

A total of nine states — Alabama, California, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and Utah — have redrawn their maps since last year. At least three other states — Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — appear likely to follow suit, though Georgia’s new maps would not be in effect for the upcoming midterm elections.

As things currently stand, Republicans are likely to gain up to 17 seats, while Democrats are likely to gain up to six seats.

In the aftermath of the Callais decision, hundreds of protesters have gathered at statehouses in recent weeks, particularly in the South, to decry what they say is a concerted effort to dilute Black voting and governing power. Republicans argue that maps should be “colorblind.” Gerrymandering to benefit one political party over another is legal at the federal level, though some states have their own laws restricting it.

The latest redistricting efforts are changing elections that have already begun. Some candidates must now pivot to races in brand-new districts with just a few weeks until their primaries. They’ve spent money and time reaching people who can no longer vote for them, fighting opponents different from the ones they now face. At least one Tennessee Democratic candidate no longer lives within the new boundaries of the district he’s seeking to represent.

Voters in states such as Alabama will now be asked to turn out for primary elections in both May and August, in addition to the November general election.

Here’s where things stand now.

Alabama

Republicans could gain 1 seat.*

A 2023 court order required Alabama to draw a congressional map with a second majority-Black district. But after the Callais decision last month, Alabama’s Republican state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let them reinstate the old map, which has just one majority-Black, majority-Democratic district and which the court had previously ruled racially discriminatory. The high court quickly agreed.

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has announced new primary elections in August for the affected districts. These will be held in addition to next Tuesday’s statewide primaries for other federal and state offices.

Alabama is also appealing a separate ruling requiring it to redraw two state Senate districts. That case is still ongoing.

California

Democrats likely to gain 3-5 seats.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom last year led the Democratic response to Trump’s call for Republican-led states to redraw their congressional maps.

In November 2025, California voters approved Newsom’s proposal to temporarily override the state’s independent redistricting commission and instead to allow the Democratic-dominated legislature to redraw the maps to create districts more favorable to Democrats. The new map is valid through 2030.

Florida

Republicans likely to gain 1-4 seats.

Last month, the Republican-majority Florida Legislature approved Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new congressional map that could net the GOP up to four new congressional seats.

Both DeSantis and the voting rights organizations suing to block the new map agree it violates parts of the state constitution. But DeSantis argues the constitution’s anti-gerrymandering amendments, which were overwhelmingly adopted by Florida voters in 2010, are invalid, partly due to the Callais ruling.

Missouri

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

Earlier this week, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the state’s gerrymandered 2025 congressional map, handing Republicans a victory. Last summer, Trump pressured Missouri Republicans to help maintain the GOP majority in the U.S. House, so lawmakers met in a special session to draw a map that likely will give them an additional seat by carving off parts of Kansas City into surrounding rural districts.

The new map will be used in Missouri’s August primary, the state Supreme Court ruled this week, because it’s uncertain whether a referendum petition seeking to repeal the map will succeed.

North Carolina

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

At Trump’s behest, North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature redrew the state’s congressional map last fall. It was an effort to make the state’s only competitive district solidly Republican. The maps passed strictly along party lines. The state’s congressional delegation is now likely to be 11 Republicans and three Democrats. North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein is a Democrat, but redistricting isn’t subject to the governor’s veto.

Ohio

Republicans likely to gain up to 2 seats.

Last fall, Ohio Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman publicly rebuffed Trump’s national push to gain more seats in Congress, while state Democrats proposed their own maps. An Ohio redistricting commission eventually approved a new map last October that is likely to yield 12 Republicans and three Democrats, compared with the current 10-5 split. GOP and Democratic lawmakers called it a “compromise.”

That map will be in place for the next six years. But political operatives told the Ohio Capital Journal they expect to see more redistricting efforts in 2030.

Tennessee

Republicans likely to gain 1 seat.

In a chaotic special session earlier this month, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee redrew congressional maps to shatter the state’s only majority-Black, majority-Democratic district. The newly passed map now favors Republicans in all nine Tennessee districts. Hundreds protested at the Tennessee statehouse as House Republicans voted on the new map and House Democrats gathered at the front of the chamber, locking arms in a show of solidarity.

This week, Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, punished his Democratic colleagues for their protests by stripping them of committee and subcommittee appointments. On Friday morning, longtime Democratic U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen announced he would not seek reelection after his district was carved up in the redrawing of the maps.

Texas

Republicans likely to gain 3-5 seats.

The nation’s redistricting battle kicked off in Texas last summer, after Trump pressured the Texas GOP to redraw the state’s congressional map to add up to five more Republican seats. State House Democrats pushed back, fleeing the state temporarily in August to halt the vote. But the map eventually passed after they returned. Civil rights groups sued, saying the new map was racially discriminatory.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court permanently upheld the new map, ensuring it remains in place for the 2026 midterms.

Utah

Democrats likely to gain 1 seat.

In 2018, Utah voters approved an anti-gerrymandering ballot measure that created an independent redistricting process, but Utah’s Republican-dominated legislature repealed and replaced it in 2021. Voters rights groups sued, arguing the resulting new map was a partisan gerrymander.

Eventually, after a multi-year legal battle, a new court-ordered map in 2025 gives Democrats a chance to win one of the state’s four congressional districts. The Utah GOP proposed a ballot initiative this year to ask Utah voters to officially repeal the 2018 anti-gerrymandering law, but it failed last month after thousands of petition signers removed their signatures.

Georgia

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp has refused to pursue redistricting ahead of this year’s elections, which are already underway. But Kemp announced Wednesday that he will call a special session to redraw the state’s political maps for the 2028 elections. Georgia’s congressional delegation currently has nine Republicans and five Democrats.

Louisiana

Republicans could gain 1 seat.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s existing congressional districts as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the state’s congressional primaries to give lawmakers enough time to pass new maps.

This week, in a nearly 10-hour overnight committee hearing, Louisiana lawmakers advanced a bill that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black districts. The new map, if it passes, likely would give Republicans another seat in Congress.

The new map must win approval from both chambers by June 1. Litigation over the decision to delay primaries is ongoing.

South Carolina

Republicans could gain 1 seat.

South Carolina legislators will gather Friday for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional lines just 12 days before early voting opens. Lawmakers have set a deadline of May 26 to pass a new map. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, who previously said the matter was for the legislature to decide, called for the special session under pressure from the White House and state GOP.

The South Carolina GOP’s goal is to pass a bill that would delay U.S. House race primaries until August while keeping other primaries on schedule for June. One proposed map would cut South Carolina’s lone congressional Democrat, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, out of the seat he’s represented since 1992 and create all seven Republican seats.

Mississippi

This week, Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves canceled a special legislative session he’d called to redraw districts for the state’s Supreme Court. Some GOP officials had hoped he’d add congressional redistricting to the agenda. Instead, he said this week, he’s working with Trump and the White House on a plan to redraw Mississippi’s congressional districts and legislative districts in the future. Reeves wants a map that would boot the lone Democrat in Mississippi’s U.S. House delegation, Rep. Bennie Thompson, from his seat.

If that happens, Republicans would likely gain one congressional seat.

Virginia

The Virginia Supreme Court earlier this month struck down a voter-approved redistricting amendment that could have given Democrats a 10-1 advantage in the state’s U.S. House delegation. Virginia voters last month had approved a referendum that would have netted Democrats three or four additional seats. Earlier this week, Virginia Democrats asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive the amendment, in a case that’s ongoing.

Arizona, New Jersey, New York, Washington 

Officials in Arizona, New Jersey, New York and Washington all have suggested drawing new maps following the Callais decision, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Colorado Voting Rights Act, passed last year by the state’s Democratic-majority legislature, will likely prevent the state from embarking on a redistricting effort. The state’s congressional delegation is currently split 4-4 between Democrats and Republicans. But a Democratic-led group is gathering signatures for ballot measures that would allow the state to change its maps ahead of the 2028 election.

*Seat gain predictions from The Cook Political Report.

This story was updated to include the Friday morning announcement by Tennessee Democratic U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen that he will not seek reelection. Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri — Control of the U.S. House may run through a courtroom in Missouri.

In a red brick courthouse across the street from the state Capitol, the seven black-robed judges of the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday morning weighed the fate of a Republican gerrymander aimed at ousting U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a 11-term Democrat from Kansas City.

In the afternoon, they upheld the map.

Its opponents “failed to show the 2025 Map clearly and undoubtedly violates the requirements” of the state constitution, the court ruled hours after holding oral arguments.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s late April decision sharply curtailing the use of race in redistricting, much of the legal fight over gerrymandering is moving to state courts. The decision, Louisiana vs. Callais, gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which limited states’ ability to divide districts where a majority of residents belong to a racial minority group.

Southern Republican states have rushed forward new maps over the past two weeks that take advantage of the landmark opinion, adding to a handful of others, including Missouri, that already drew new lines in recent months at President Donald Trump’s behest before the midterms elections this November. Another wave of gerrymanders across the rest of the country will likely follow next year ahead of the 2028 election.

State supreme courts may have the final word on some of the maps. Even if the maps don’t involve issues decided in Callais, like the challenge in Missouri, many states have constitutional or statutory provisions that curb gerrymandering and limit last-minute changes to elections — providing gerrymandering opponents with grounds to challenge new district boundaries.

With federal redistricting lawsuits increasingly difficult, state laws offer gerrymandering opponents another path. 

Thirty states have some form of a constitutional requirement for free elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And at least 10 state supreme courts have found that state courts can decide cases involving allegations of partisan gerrymandering, according to a 2024 review by the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. 

“I think state courts are primarily going to be the place where future fights around these maps are playing out in a post-Callais landscape,” said Alicia Bannon, director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

The elevated importance of state courts was on full display Friday, when the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated an election in which voters narrowly approved a Democratic map. The decision leaves a new map in California as the party’s only successful response so far to the GOP redistricting onslaught. Democrats have made a longshot request to the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Virginia ruling.

Lawsuits have already been filed in state courts over new maps in Florida and Louisiana. Alabama’s new map could also face a legal challenge in state court, even after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the gerrymander to take effect. 

At stake in these courtroom fights is which party will control the U.S. House over the next two years, earning the power to advance or thwart legislation. While Democrats remain generally favored to retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, Republicans will likely emerge from the gerrymandering war with at least a handful of seats secured.

Suddenly, every state supreme court decision — including over a single seat in Missouri — takes on greater significance.

Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, which is helping challenge the Missouri map, told reporters on Monday that the state’s high court had a “spotlight on” it.

“Is the court going to do what it has done in the past in a nonpartisan way that is faithful to their own precedent,” she asked ahead of the decision. “Or are they going to roll over?”

The Republican-controlled Missouri General Assembly in September approved a map intended to leave the state with just one Democrat in Congress, in the St. Louis area. Kansas City was divided among three districts, splitting apart its Democratic-leaning and racially diverse core. 

The Missouri Supreme Court considered three challenges to the map. Two similar lawsuits argue that some of the congressional districts don’t follow the state constitution’s requirements that districts be as compact as possible.

A third lawsuit argues that the map shouldn’t be in effect for the 2026 election because opponents in December submitted more than 305,000 signatures seeking to force a statewide referendum vote on the lines. In the past, state officials have paused the implementation of measures subject to a referendum until a vote is held, but in this instance they say the new lines are active.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the judges sat almost entirely stone-faced as they listened. Only one judge asked a single question during arguments that stretched for more than an hour, offering no sense of how the court would rule.

“There is no such thing as a perfect map or a perfect district,” Missouri Principal Deputy Solicitor General Kathleen Hunker said.

Jonathan Hawley, an attorney representing Missouri voters who argue the referendum means the map isn’t in effect, said his case will decide whether the people of Missouri “still have a meaningful referendum.”

“The referendum right is the people’s veto,” Hawley said.

The Missouri Supreme Court hours later ruled against both challenges to the maps — allowing the new lines to be used this year.

“Had the drafters intended a referendum petition filing to automatically suspend any act of the General Assembly at issue in the referendum petition, they would have so stated,” the court’s opinion says.

Only two Southern states, Florida and Kentucky, allow courts to decide partisan gerrymandering cases.

Kentucky, which has a Democratic governor, hasn’t taken up redistricting this year. But a Florida Supreme Court decision striking down a new map there would effectively offset Democrats’ loss at the Virginia Supreme Court.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a map passed by the state legislature during a special session on the same day as the Callais decision. The new congressional boundaries are designed to hand Republicans up to four additional seats.

Several voting rights groups have sued, alleging the map violates the Florida Constitution. A 2010 amendment approved by voters prohibits districts drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent.

“Instead of abiding by this law, the Legislature is defying the will of voters and backing a map that was crafted entirely with partisan intent,” Simone Leeper, senior legal counsel for redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. 

The Campaign Legal Center and the UCLA Voting Rights Project have sued jointly over the map.

DeSantis’s office told state lawmakers ahead of this year’s special session that the 2010 amendment requires the state legislature to account for race when drawing districts — and that the provisions regarding race can’t be severed from the rest of the amendment. In effect, DeSantis contends the whole amendment must be thrown out.

The Florida governor’s pitch, coupled with the Callais decision, persuaded GOP lawmakers.

“I have a ton of comfort because the Callais decision came out,” Florida state Rep. Alex Andrade, a Pensacola Republican, said. “I got to read it, and it perfectly summarizes exactly why we could, and should, change our 2022 maps.”

Map opponents’ chance of success at the Florida Supreme Court is unclear. The court as recently as 2015 blocked a congressional map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, but it has moved to the right in the years since. Six of the seven current justices were appointed by DeSantis and the other was appointed by a different Republican governor.

“The composition of the Florida Supreme Court has changed dramatically since that earlier ruling,” Bannon, the Brennan Center expert, said. “So I think there are questions about will the court be as open to those arguments.”

In other Southern states, map opponents are turning to arguments beside partisan gerrymandering.

The Tennessee chapter of the NAACP has sued Republican Gov. Bill Lee and the state General Assembly to block a gerrymander passed last week from taking effect. The organization alleges Lee violated the state constitution in how he called a special session for a new map. 

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, has urged a court to dismiss Lee and the legislature from lawsuit because they don’t conduct elections.

Alabama Democrats and voting rights groups are weighing a legal challenge to a new map that would focus on a 2022 amendment to the state constitution. The amendment requires election law changes to be made at least six months before a general election — a deadline of May 3 this year. Alabama’s redistricting special session began the next day.

In Louisiana, state lawmakers have not yet passed a new map after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s current lines as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the legislature had previously created a second majority-Black district. Lawmakers are expected to advance a map aimed at ousting one of the state’s two Democratic House members, who are both Black.

After the Callais decision, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the state’s congressional primary elections although roughly 42,000 absentee ballots had already been cast. Lawsuits challenging the suspension have been filed in both federal and state court.

In Missouri on Tuesday, lawyers for Republican state officials took the opposite approach, urging the state supreme court to keep the map in place for the 2026 election, even if the judges strike it down. Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, told reporters afterward that preventing the state from using the map now would lead to confusion, even as 12 weeks remain before the primary election.

“It’ll be disarray for the people that have been going to town halls and listening to candidates,” Hoskins said. “It would be disarray for the candidates that are running and going out and meeting voters in their district. And it’d be disarray for the local election authorities and county clerks that have already started instituting” the new map.

Hoskins’ fears turned out to be unfounded, as the court upheld the map.

Cleaver, who is running for reelection, has said that his work ethic or commitment to voters won’t change regardless of his district boundaries. 

“If I have to serve the people who live just outside of Columbia and Jefferson City, then I’ll do that,” he said when he filed to run earlier this year.

Attorneys for the ACLU of Missouri, which supported challenges to the map, said it was unfair to Missouri residents for the state to create a problem and then argue it’s too late to change it. 

At a rally outside the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday, ACLU of Missouri Policy Director Tori Schafer expressed confidence the judges would side with map opponents — hours before they allowed the lines to move forward.

“But let me clear,” Schafer said, “democracy did not begin in a courtroom and it will not be saved in a courtroom.”

Florida Phoenix reporter Mitch Perry contributed to this report.

As Oklahoma House lawmakers blathered on in their ridiculous discussion justifying why children should be allowed to marry, the Garth Brooks’ hit “Unanswered Prayers” flashed through my head.

In the country song, Brooks, an Oklahoma native, croons about a man running into an old high school flame at a football game. He reveals that he had once wanted to be with her “for all time” and had prayed to God to make it happen. But now seeing her all those years later, he realizes they weren’t compatible after all and is thankful that the good Lord didn’t answer his prayers. Because, as he put it, “some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.”

Most Oklahomans likely realize with time that they’re completely different than they were when they were in high school, and it’s a no-brainer to require children to wait until at least 18 before they can legally say “I do.” 

After all, ours is a state whose leaders don’t let children divorce, vote, drink, smoke, serve on a jury, or enter into any contracts. Children often can’t even see a doctor without parental permission.

Yet Oklahoma has long had one of weakest childhood marriage laws in the nation. Our state allows children from birth to 16 to wed adults if there’s a judge crazy enough to sign off on it. We allow 17-year-olds to marry with parental permission.

So like the character in Brooks’ song, I found myself saying a prayer to the good Lord when Republicans began moving a bill through the legislative session that would ban anyone under 18 from marrying — for any reason.

I figured the prayer would be sorely needed because our state leaders have long proven themselves resistant to the findings of reputable social and scientific studies, and women’s rights. 

What a pleasant surprise to find the Senate no longer lives in the 17th century by unanimously advancing it.

But before I could get too comfortable, a plethora of state House Republican lawmakers demanded that we should all hold their beers while they piled out of the crazy clown car en masse.

Parental rights, the Republicans crowed. Babies born out of wedlock, they complained. It amounts to government interference, they lamented. It’s the end of the creation of stable families, they whined. Their best friend’s mother’s sister’s cousin’s dogsitter proved it could work, so it could work for us all, they insisted.

Alas, this may confuse the Neanderthals who dwell in our House chamber and deter them from their mission to continue to allow pedophiles permission to prey on children. But here are some facts about child marriage: 

• Children who marry before 18 suffer higher rates of sexual, physical, emotional and financial abuse.
• Oklahoma is among the states with the highest number of per capita child marriages. 
• Laws enabling child marriage shelter child predators who would otherwise be charged with statutory rape.
• The United Nations classifies all childhood marriages as forced unions.
• And there’s a growing number of Legislatures across the country that have acknowledged that children should not be allowed to marry until they’re 18. 

A study by Unchained at Last, a nonprofit focused on ending forced childhood marriages, found that in the U.S. almost 315,000 marriages involving children as young as 10 — most of them girls married to men — occurred between 2000 and 2021.

Gross.

Thankfully, our children had thoughtful Republican legislators like Reps. Nicole Miller, of Edmond, and Tim Turner, of Kinta, to fight for them. 

Turner pointed to the fact that children who marry are less likely to finish high school. They’re more likely to live in poverty and wind up homeless. (Their children are then more likely to perpetuate that cycle. All have worse health outcomes, which strain state services.)

Miller argued it would not hurt a child to wait until 18 to marry if it saves them from a lifetime of regret or gives them a bit more time to ensure those taking their vows are truly ready.

Despite Miller and Turner’s support, the measure escaped bondage in the House by only a single vote after other Republican legislators — including two vying to become our next lieutenant governor (Justin Humphrey and Brian Hill, we’re looking at you) — voted against the ban.

Then it limped across the finish line after another Republican, Gov. Kevin Stitt, showed his own cowardice by refusing to sign it without explaining why. He let it instead become law without his signature, which is his sign that he doesn’t think a bill will move the state forward.

Sigh. I guess these Republicans don’t want policies in our state that empower children to stay in school, reduce the dependence on our Medicaid system, help promote economic prosperity, enter healthy relationships and leave abusive ones.

Fortunately, starting in November, Oklahoma will become the 17th state to ban childhood marriage. Even without them.

It will give children statewide the chance to learn for themselves that “some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers.”

WASHINGTON — Democrats and advocacy groups urged a quick rejection of President Donald Trump’s latest executive order on compiling citizenship lists and creating traceable mail-in ballots in a federal court hearing Thursday.

Lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic minority leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and interest groups argued that, with the midterm elections less than six months away, there was no time to see how the Trump administration executes the order.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, argued the order had not been put into effect yet and therefore could not be overturned.

The groups are seeking a nationwide preliminary pause on Trump’s late-March order that U.S. citizenship and age data from the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security be provided to states.

The proposal would result in a “maximum amount of confusion” and be a “nightmare for election officials,” said Danielle Lang, who argued on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens. “Waiting will only erode public confidence in elections.”

Thursday’s hearing marked the first courtroom showdown over the executive order. A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general have also sued to block the order. At least five lawsuits have been filed in total.

Trump’s edict also orders the U.S. Postal Service to promulgate a rule that would design special envelopes for mail-in ballots, including a unique barcode. States, which the U.S. Constitution delegates authority over election administration to, have argued the order would restrict mail-in voting.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, had tough questions for both sides. He suggested the Democrats’ and aligned groups’ challenges may be premature because a rule specifying how the order would operate has yet to be written, though he also grasped their argument that the order was inherently unconstitutional. 

“No one knows what’s gonna be in the rule,” Nichols told lawyers for the Democratic groups.

“I think it’s very clear from the EO (executive order) that we know exactly what’s gonna be in the rule,” said Lalitha Madduri, who represented the Democratic groups and congressional leaders.

After back-and-forth, Nichols conceded, “I agree with your point: There can be no rulemaking consistent with the EO that can be lawful.”

Madduri also argued there is “no way to repair that harm” of uncertainty for voters.

Department of Justice senior trial counsel Stephen Pezzi said the plaintiffs have a right to “prepare for the darkest fears,” but, he argued, they can’t win a preliminary injunction based on speculation of error-prone citizenship lists and a postal rule not yet created.

There’s “certainly no irreparable harm,” Pezzi said.

Of the lists of intra-agency government data compiling U.S. citizens and their ages, Pezzi said “it’s not a list of individuals to be targeted. It’s not a list of noncitizens.” He also said it’s “not a concern” of the federal government what states do with the lists, if they even decide to use them.

“No list’s ever going to be perfect,” Pezzi said, adding that “responsible” states would not blindly kick people off voter rolls if their names do not appear on the lists verifying citizenship.

Nichols told Pezzi in the event he denied a preliminary injunction, he would expect information sharing from the government as the case continued.

“Fair enough,” Pezzi said.

“I didn’t hear a commitment,” Nichols warned, prompting agreement from Pezzi.

Nichols said he would soon issue an order and opinion, but did not specify a date. 

“I understand the time pressure here,” he said.

He warned the government to notify him of “anything even approaching a material change” on implementing Trump’s executive order — though he stopped short of issuing an official order requiring updates. But, he said, “it would not be good for the government,” if they do not promptly inform him of new developments.

Democrats and voting rights groups maintain Trump’s order is effectively compiling an illegal national voter list and usurping the state authority over elections. The order’s opponents accuse Trump of trying to unilaterally assert power over elections.

Trump and his aides say the order will help secure the midterm elections this November. While voter fraud is extremely rare, Trump has long promoted false conspiracy theories surrounding his 2020 election loss.

The executive order, signed by Trump on March 31, came amid a broader campaign by the president to influence how elections are run. 

The Justice Department has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia for sensitive voter data that it plans to use to identify potential noncitizen voters. 

Trump has demanded that Congress pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show documents proving their citizenship, though the bill has stalled in the Senate. Last year, Trump signed an executive order to unilaterally impose similar requirements that was blocked in federal court.

“President Trump has tried repeatedly to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage,” Madduri, an attorney at Elias Law Group, wrote in a court filing.

Republican state attorneys general have intervened in the lawsuits on behalf of the Trump administration and have urged federal judges to uphold the executive order. They have cast the order as offering “optional” resources.

Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas intervened in the suit argued Thursday and were represented in the courtroom.  

The states “would like to access this resource so they may verify the accuracy of their own voter-registration lists. This flow of information between federal and state agencies is a common and critical feature of our federal system,” the Republican officials wrote in an April 20 court document.

The order requires lists of voting-age U.S. citizens living in each state to be provided to state officials at least 60 days before each federal election. 

The order does not tell states how to use the data, but it instructs the U.S. attorney general to prioritize investigations into state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters.

The list of citizens will be drawn from naturalization and Social Security records, according to the order. It will also include data from SAVE, a powerful computer program maintained by Homeland Security that verifies citizenship by checking names against information in federal databases. 

The order also directs states, at least 90 days before a federal election, to tell the U.S. Postal Service whether they intend to allow ballots to be sent through the mail. States would then have to submit to USPS a list of voters planning to vote by mail at least 60 days before the election.

Opponents of the order argue that under federal law Trump cannot direct the postmaster general to take any action — on elections or any other matter. The Postal Service is overseen by a Board of Governors and the postmaster general reports to the board. 

Trump’s allies argue that the Constitution grants the president sweeping authority over executive branch agencies and that Congress cannot place agencies, like the Postal Service, beyond the president’s reach.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Another session passed with no agreement on wind turbine setbacks as new language fell flat in the Oklahoma House Thursday before the chambers adjourned sine die. 

The House and Senate put the issue on pause last session after failing to reconcile differing visions from each chamber for wind turbine setback requirements and worked on new language during the interim.

Because no legislation advanced, the wind industry will continue operating in Oklahoma with no restrictions on how far wind turbines must be built from property lines or residences. 

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, presented a revised version of Senate Bill 2 on the final day of session. It passed through the Senate 31-16, but failed in the House with 67 members voting against it. 

The measure would have created residential setbacks, requiring commercial wing turbines be at least 2.5 times their height from residential dwellings and 1.5 times their height from non-participating property lines, according to the bill language. These requirements could be waived with the permission of a property owner and would not apply to projects that have already achieved a certain level of development or progress. 

Paxton said he set out to find a “reasonable” setback requirement and said he worked with both property owners and people from the wind energy industry. 

“There is no perfect on this,” he said Friday. “I’ve said on the floor, ‘This is a bill that really neither side likes, so please vote for it.’ You can’t find that perfect solution because you’re dealing both with property rights of the person whose farm it is and their right to produce income however they want to, versus somebody who lives next door.” 

Lawmakers have struggled to balance economic development with property rights and how much government influence is needed for future wind turbine developments. Outspoken groups of property owners have been vocal about wanting more severe setback requirements while industry voices have said standard setbacks backed by scientific evidence already exist. 

Paxton said he plans to bring back legislation on wind setbacks next session. 

“There was frustration with me from a lot of House members over some of their bills not being heard in the Senate, and I think they took it out on that bill,” he said. “I mean, the fact that they only had 20 ‘yes’ votes in the House probably tells me it was more of a vote against me than it was against the bill. … I will try to bring that back next year, and maybe the water will go under the bridge for long enough that they’ll consider the actual policy.”

The House’s measure was more complex and did not apply unilaterally to the entire state. It applied to certain counties based on population density and wind speeds. It also measured the setbacks in nautical miles rather than by the height of the towers.

Rep. Trey Caldwell, R-Faxon, author of SB2, said on the House floor that he thought the lower chamber’s version was stronger legislation but the Senate language was the only option if the Legislature wanted any industry-wide standardization as it was the last day of the regular session. 

Rep. Jim Shaw, R-Chandler, has been outspoken about wanting strong regulations for the wind industry and increased local control on the issue. He voted against SB2. 

While debating the measure on the House floor, Shaw said the setback distances are “exactly what the wind industry wants” and called the bill settling for “lukewarm crumbs” and deferring to industry over Oklahomans. 

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, voted in favor of SB2 and said at a news conference Thursday the ‘no’ votes were split between people who wanted no setbacks and members who wanted regulations to go further. 

“This is an issue that’s been discussed heavily in my district, and I felt like some protections were better than no protections,” he said. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon took heat Thursday over forthcoming changes to the federal student loan system that will impose new borrowing limits for professional and graduate students.  

Lawmakers took specific aim at stricter loan caps set to be established for students pursuing advanced programs that do not fall under the department’s “professional” classification, such as nursing, teaching and social work. 

Members on both sides of the aisle voiced their criticisms during a hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, where McMahon defended the incoming federal student loan overhaul as well as President Donald Trump’s administration’s separate, ongoing efforts to dismantle the 46-year-old department. 

McMahon emphasized that her department is “not making any kind of a judgment relative to professional degrees” and instead is trying to “bring down the cost” of tuition. 

The secretary pointed to “exorbitant” college costs, noting that “students are burdened with debt.” 

The imminent shifts to the federal student loan system stem from congressional Republicans’ tax and spending cut megabill that Trump signed into law last year. The department this month published the finalized regulations consistent with the law’s directive. Most provisions will take effect July 1.

The regulations eliminate the Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance. 

Graduate student loans will also have a $20,500 annual cap and $100,000 aggregate limit. Professional student loans will have a yearly limit of $50,000 and aggregate cap of $200,000. 

But the programs falling under the department’s “professional” category — and thus eligible for the higher borrowing limit — are limited to pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The agency has also clarified, in an agency fact sheet on the finalized regulations, that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.”

Rep. Jahana Hayes said she was “very concerned” about the department’s “professional” student classifications, noting that these limits “make higher education, especially master’s degree programs, more difficult to afford for nursing, social workers (and) teachers.” 

The Connecticut Democrat clapped back at McMahon’s assertion that the overhaul is about bringing down college costs, saying: “The people who can afford it don’t apply for these programs, the people who can afford it don’t need student loans, the people who come from communities like mine and just want to go back and serve those communities are the ones who are going to be most affected, not the colleges, not the universities, not the board of directors, not the top 1%.”

Rep. Joe Courtney, also a Connecticut Democrat, blasted the regulations’ exclusion of nursing from the “professional” category as “one of the most insulting, tone-deaf messages to 5 million nurses imaginable across the country.” 

Courtney added that the exclusion “will, in fact, raise education costs for critically needed nurses,” and pointed to a petition from the American Nurses Association that received more than 245,000 signatures and urged the department to include nursing programs in its “professional” definition. 

McMahon defended her department’s “professional” classification to the panel, arguing that the agency “looked very, very carefully at the entire nursing profession,” and “95% of the nurses that are in programs do not exceed these caps.” 

The secretary added that “78% of the nurses that are moving for graduate programs do not exceed or come up to these caps.”

Even some Republican members on the panel, whose party championed the “big, beautiful” law that sets forth the student loan overhaul, called into question the new limits.  

Rep. Lisa McClain, chair of the House Republican Conference, asked McMahon “if there’s any way, or you had any thoughts on: Can we explore opening the nurse graduate programs up to expand these caps or lift these caps, because it’s a good return on investment, and we sure do need them?” 

In the GOP’s tax and spending cut law, “one of the things we did was we put the caps on, but we had some carveouts and caveats … and I think this sector of graduate nursing programs was just an unintended consequence, perhaps, that got overlooked,” the Michigan Republican said. 

“And what I’m here to do is really advocate for these programs, because I think they’re extremely important.” 

Bipartisan efforts are underway in Congress to both address the forthcoming loan limits and expand the “professional” student definition. 

Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, introduced a bill in December that would expand the “professional” definition to also include “nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, ministry, social work, audiology, physician assistant, public health, business administration and management, accounting, architecture, secondary education, and special education.” 

Rep. Tim Kennedy of New York brought forth legislation in December with fellow Democratic Reps. Jill Tokuda of Hawaii and Rep. Shomari Figures of Alabama that would ensure graduate and professional students are subject to the same annual and aggregate loan caps. 

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill that would “restore the full loan limits that were narrowed” under the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law. 

In the upper chamber, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat, introduced a companion bill to Torres’ in March, which has drawn more than a dozen co-sponsors.  

Meanwhile, a handful of Democratic lawmakers brought forth a resolution this month that seeks to reverse the forthcoming student loan regulations through the Congressional Review Act, a procedural tool Congress can use to overturn certain actions from federal agencies.

Those lawmakers are: Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Rep. John Mannion of New York, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Alsobrooks. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a resolution Thursday that will prevent lawmakers in that chamber from receiving their paychecks during any government shutdowns that begin after this year’s midterm elections. 

The voice vote on the measure from Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy will not impact members in the House of Representatives since each chamber of Congress is able to set its own rules and procedures. 

The two-page resolution requires the secretary of the Senate to disperse but then hold onto lawmakers paychecks if Congress fails to fund any agency within the federal government on time. 

Kennedy said during a floor speech Wednesday he hoped the resolution would reduce the likelihood of future government shutdowns, following three within the last year. 

“It’s got to stop,” he said. “Shutting down government should not be our default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences.”

Similar to how federal employees receive back pay after a shutdown ends, Kennedy said his resolution would do the same for senators.

“The senator’s salary just would not be available to that senator while we’re in a shutdown but once a shutdown is over you’ll get your money,” he said. 

In order to get the votes to adopt the resolution, Kennedy said he “had to make a few accommodations,” including that it did not apply to the House and wouldn’t take effect before the elections to comply with the 27th Amendment.  

Members of Congress earn $174,000 annually, with those in leadership positions making more. The Constitution allows lawmakers to set their own salaries, which are covered by a permanent, mandatory appropriation. 

Lawmakers and the president, unlike the staff who work for them or those throughout the rest of the federal government, received their salaries during past shutdowns unless they took action to halt their paychecks. 

Several members asked either the House Chief Administrative Officer or the Senate Finance Clerk to hold onto their paychecks during the first shutdown. 

Congress is supposed to pass the dozen annual government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 but hasn’t completed all of its work on time in three decades. 

Lawmakers regularly approve at least one stopgap spending bill to keep federal programs running mostly on autopilot while the House and Senate work to finalize those appropriations bills during the fall, typically sending them to the president sometime in December. 

Policy differences and heightened political tensions, however, led to three shutdowns of varying impact during this fiscal year. 

The first began last October and lasted through Nov. 12 as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to force Republicans to extend enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Lawmakers were able to pass six of the spending bills before a brief partial shutdown took place from Jan. 31 through Feb. 3. The law that ended that funding lapse included five more of the spending bills, leaving Homeland Security as the only department without its annual appropriations bill. 

Democratic demands for constraints on immigration enforcement after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis led to a third shutdown for many of the agencies within DHS. That lasted from Feb. 14 through April 30 when Congress approved their last funding bill without new spending for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to approve $72 billion that would cover three years of immigration enforcement activities. GOP lawmakers can do that without Democratic votes in the Senate as long as they stick to the rules.  

Lawmakers in both chambers have also begun work on the next fiscal year’s batch of 12 government funding bills, though it’s highly unlikely they all become law before the end of September. 

That presents the possibility of yet another government shutdown just weeks before voters head to the polls during November’s midterm elections to decide which political party will control Congress for the next two years. 

Large, immigrant-rich cities saw population fall back between mid-2024 and mid-2025 after nation-leading increases the year before. 

Mid-sized cities led the pack in U.S. Census Bureau estimates to be released May 14. The largest numeric increases for the year were in Charlotte, North Carolina (up 20,731); Fort Worth, Texas (up 19,512); the Dallas suburb of Celina, Texas (up 12,710); and Seattle (up 11,572). 

Charlotte has been emphasizing affordable housing in recent years, including a city-sponsored 72-unit building on the site of a former mall, opening in late 2024. It was designed for older adults, people with incomes from 30% to 80% of the area’s median income, about $82,000 at the time. 

Morgan Dunn, 26, moved to Charlotte in 2024 for a banking job after growing up in California and living in Georgia and Utah. He and his wife are expecting their first child in September, and he said he likes having an affordable house with a half-acre lot where his four dogs can run.

“It’s a great city for the younger generations for the sake of job opportunities combined with the cost of living,” Dunn said in a message to Stateline.

New York City, which led the nation in growth between mid-2023 and mid-2024 with 162,991 more people, fell to dead last in population change — a decrease of 12,196 last year.  

Also near the bottom were Memphis, Tennessee (losing 4,575 people); Los Angeles, down 3,621; St. Louis, down 2,301, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, down 2,290. Like New York City, Los Angeles ranked high the year before with an increase of 24,421, seventh-highest in the nation before falling to third-to-last.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Part of the reason for New York City’s fast-changing population shifts is that population growth was revised up for 2022-2024 to reflect more immigration, especially from asylum seekers, some of whom were bused from Texas. Parts of Queens had some of the largest influxes in the nation from asylum seekers, especially from Ecuador, according to a Stateline analysis. 

But immigration fell off in late 2024 and early 2025 as both the Biden and Trump administrations sought to put a lid on asylum seekers. Between 2024 and 2024 immigration “retreated from recent historical highs to more typical levels experienced before the pandemic,” according to a March report by New York City. Of the city’s five boroughs, only the Bronx and Staten Island gained population. 

“Big-city growth slowed significantly between 2024 and 2025, with some major hubs even seeing small declines,” Matt Erickson, a statistician in the Census Bureau’s Population Division, said in a statement. “In contrast, midsized cities found a ‘Goldilocks zone’ where domestic and international migration, paired with new housing, helped prevent the sluggish growth seen in small towns and larger metropolitan centers.”

In some states smaller cities had the big increases, such as the contrast between New York City’s decline and an increase of 2,933 in suburban Kiryas Joel village, a Hasidic Jewish enclave in Orange County, or New Mexico, where Albuquerque lost population but its suburb Rio Rancho gained 1,972. 

Louisiana’s Baton Rouge gained while New Orleans lost, as did Everett, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb that grew as the city lost population.

Some urban areas did well anyway: Atlanta had the biggest increase in Georgia, as did Chicago in Illinois, Detroit in Michigan, Kansas City in Missouri, and Newark in New Jersey. 

Other milestones: Austin, Texas, became the 12th city with more than a million residents, and Raleigh, North Carolina, became the 39th city of more than 500,000. The South had 11 of the top 12 numeric gains. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday to preserve telehealth access to the abortion drug mifepristone until after the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the merits of the high-stakes federal lawsuit Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued dissenting opinions.

In his dissent, Thomas said the rule violates the Comstock Act, a long unenforced 1873 law that bans the mailing of “obscene” material. During the 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump said he didn’t support using the Comstock Act to stop mail delivery of abortion pills, saying he thought the federal government should have nothing to do with the issue.

Mifepristone’s manufacturer “makes a passing reference to the possibility of lost sales,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “But lost sales in states where abortifacients are generally illegal are not ‘irreparable injuries’ that can justify granting a stay.”

Abortion-rights advocates around the country called the decision a relief after two weeks of uncertainty.

On May 1, the appellate court sided with Louisiana, where state officials sued the FDA in October, arguing that a rule allowing telehealth access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or to treat miscarriage, undermines the state’s abortion ban. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, two manufacturers of mifepristone, filed emergency appeals, leading the Supreme Court to issue a 10-day stay on May 4, extended until today.

“Though today’s decision means that mifepristone remains available through telehealth for now, this fight is not over,” said Dr. Camille A. Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, in an emailed statement. “The chaos and confusion wrought by competing decisions and the revocation and restoration of access on an almost daily basis do real harm to patients and to the clinicians who care for them.”

Abortion opponents decried Thursday’s decision.

“Women deserve better than dangerous abortion drugs sent through the mail without physician oversight or in-person support,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, a major network of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. “A state like Louisiana that values life in its laws should be able to protect its smallest residents as well as their moms.”

The FDA’s approved two-drug regimen via telemedicine is an increasingly common abortion method, especially for people living in parts of the country where abortion is banned or difficult to access.

Last month, a federal district court paused the lawsuit at the request of the FDA until after the completion of a safety review on mifepristone. That review was prompted by non-peer reviewed, anti-abortion research and in spite of the drug’s record of safety and efficacy since 2000. The state appealed to the 5th Circuit.

Due to multiple ongoing efforts to restrict or block mifepristone, abortion providers have told Stateline they are ready to eventually switch to a misoprostol-only method, which researchers have found to be as safe as the two-drug regimen but typically involves more symptoms and is slightly less effective.

National groups have tried to pressure the Trump administration to drop the Biden-era rule allowing telehealth abortion and called for the head of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary for reportedly slow-walking a safety review of the drug until after the midterm elections. Makary resigned on Tuesday, and anti-abortion groups wasted no time in getting Acting Commissioner Kyle Diamantas on the phone.

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose, in a written statement, said she talked to the acting commissioner on Wednesday and that he said he was morally opposed to abortion. “Diamantas told me that reviewing the abortion pill is a top priority for him and the administration,” Rose posted on X.

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins wrote a similar message to supporters in an email on Thursday, saying Diamantas will be the “most pro-life FDA commissioner in American history.”

But many doctors around the country say curbing access to telehealth abortion is likely to cause harm to people in states with bans who may face more barriers to obtaining an abortion without that option.

“Women will be forced to travel long distances — at times hundreds of miles — to access safe, essential health care at a doctor’s office, no longer having the option to receive mifepristone via telemedicine,” wrote Rob Davidson, an emergency physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, in a letter asking the Supreme Court to maintain access to telehealth abortion. The letter was cosigned by more than 2,200 physicians.

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.  Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

OKLAHOMA CITY — An attempt to override a governor’s veto of the Oklahoma Educational Television Authority has failed, putting the state’s public broadcaster on track to close.

The state Senate fell short of the necessary 32 votes for a veto override on Thursday, the final day of the 2026 Legislative Session, with 18 Republicans voting against it. Without it first passing the Senate, the House didn’t have the opportunity to vote on the override.

Senate Bill 1461 would have extended OETA’s existence as a state-funded entity for another five years. Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed the bill on May 5 over objections to the public having to fund TV broadcasting. 

He said advertisers and viewers should support OETA, not taxpayers.

Failing to extend the station’s expiration date means it will have to begin the process of closing on July 1. It will have a year to wind down its operations.

Stitt also vetoed House Bill 3320, which would have permanently encoded the public broadcasting station in state law with no expiration date. Although the House unanimously overrode the veto, the Senate adjourned without considering it.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said lawmakers could have another opportunity next year to extend the broadcaster before its final closure.

“That’ll be conversations that I am certain are going to be held with whomever the next governor is of where their priorities are because legislation could be considered next year,” Hilbert said. “That’s going to be part of the conversation, I’m sure, on the campaign trail as candidates are seeking that office.”

Stitt will be term-limited this year after eight years in office. The state Legislature has twice overridden him on OETA-related vetoes in previous years.

SB 1461’s author, Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, R-Adair, said OETA’s broadcast towers provide critical infrastructure for severe weather warnings, Amber Alerts and Silver Alerts.

“We need to remember (if) the cellular networks (or) broadband goes down, old fashioned broadcasting is still going to be able to reach Oklahoma citizens in all 77 counties,” Bergstrom said on the Senate floor before the failed vote.

OETA, the state’s affiliate of the Public Broadcasting Service, is the eighth-most-watched public TV station in the country, it reported. More than 650,000 viewers watch the station each week. 

OETA did not immediately comment Thursday.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Lawmakers on Thursday left the Capitol ahead of schedule after inking an early budget agreement.

“We got some things done,” said Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle. “Obviously, we’ve had conflicts in session, just like every other Senate has since 1907. It’s just part of the process.”

The Senate ended the second session of the 60th Legislature, followed minutes later by the House.

They had until 5 p.m. May 29 to finish work, but many were anxious to hit the campaign trail for upcoming legislative, statewide, local and Congressional races.

Before they left, lawmakers put state questions on the August and November ballots. Those questions include a proposed cap on the growth of property taxes, which will be decided Nov. 3. They also asked voters to decide on Aug. 25 if it should be a constitutional requirement to present identification at the polls. Currently it’s required by state law.

But efforts to ask voters to make changes to voter-approved Medicaid expansion and the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust failed to gain traction. The Legislature did not approve legislation placing either on a 2026 ballot.

Lawmakers announced on April 1 they had a budget deal, well ahead of when prior agreements have been reached. The fiscal year 2027 budget appropriates $12.8 billion, up slightly from the prior year.

Education issues, particularly early childhood reading, were among the Legislature’s top policy discussions this session.

Lawmakers passed stricter requirements for schools to intervene when early elementary students score below their grade level in reading. The new law requires third graders who score below a basic level on the state reading test and fail a second literacy assessment to repeat the grade, unless they meet narrow criteria for an exemption.

The fiscal year 2028 state budget adds $232 million in new funding for public education, including:

— $100 million to increase minimum teacher salaries by $2,000

— a permanent $50 million fund for school security

— $26 million to support reading instruction in schools

— $7.5 million for math instruction and millions more for literacy-related initiatives.

The $232 million investment tees up a seven-day increase to the minimum length of the school year.

House Bill 3151 will increase the minimum from 166 days to 173 days for districts that design their calendars to meet 1,086 hours of instructional time per year.

The measure will take effect in the 2027-28 school year as long as the state education budget  remains $175 million higher than it is in 2025-26.

The Legislature also implemented a permanent ban on student use of cellphones during the school day.

“We passed the best literacy law in the entire country this year,” said House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow. “That is a great thing to celebrate. We made permanent the cellphone ban from last year. That is a great policy to celebrate.” 

Lawmakers approved a bill that would criminalize the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs.

A plan to construct a privately funded memorial on the Capitol grounds to honor families who lost a loved one in military service secured approval.

While state employees didn’t get a raise, their longevity pay will increase by 50% across all levels of service. Many retirees will receive their first cost-of-living adjustment in six years. 

Lawmakers also sought to safeguard ratepayers from the cost of data centers as more come to Oklahoma amid the increasing use of artificial intelligence. House Bill 2992 was signed by the governor and includes a notification process for large load consumers, like data centers, to comply with. 

House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City, said the data center bill was a “true bipartisan effort.”

“It’s rare that we get to experience those opportunities,” Munson said. “There is just outcry across the state of Oklahoma about data centers and the uncertainty around it and managing resources and making sure that those corporations that are coming into our state, that those costs don’t fall on us.”

A bill extending Oklahoma’s moratorium of new medical marijuana business licenses to 2028 was signed into law.

A second measure to limit the number of medical marijuana grows to 2,550 was amended by the Senate but never obtained approval from the House. 

A proposal from the governor to make the state superintendent a gubernatorial appointee rather than an elected position lacked support. A resolution to put the idea to a vote of the people failed in the Senate.

Senate leaders’ plan to fund education initiatives by repurposing apportionment money supporting teacher pensions received significant pushback and never came to fruition. Other bills to expand the state Board of Education and limit screen time in elementary schools failed.

The Senate put the kibosh on a sports betting deal that was announced in the waning days of session.

It also declined to advance a state question calling for a constitutional convention.

A bill that sought to ban legislators from consuming and possessing alcohol while on duty got a lot of headlines, but no traction. Likewise, bills to license strippers and lower the guardrails on alligator ownership and breeding went nowhere.

Lawmakers also said goodbye to a number of their colleagues who are terming out, running for higher office or decided not to seek another term.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A fundraising committee supporting Democratic candidates for the Oklahoma House and the chair who oversaw it will pay over $37,000 in fines after settling with the state Ethics Commission on Thursday over violations of campaign finance rules.

The Oklahoma House Democratic Campaign Committee and former chair and treasurer Joe Hartman admitted to using improper methods for expenditures, inaccuracies in reporting payments and consulting services, and failure to maintain complete and accurate records, according to the terms of a settlement agreement made public Thursday. 

Hartman is required to pay $32,500 to the State of Oklahoma, starting with a $5,000 payment due by the end of the month. The campaign committee will also pay a $5,000 fine to the state by May 31. 

Hartman did not immediately return a request for comment. He served as chair of the campaign committee until Jan. 30, according to a document provided by the Ethics Commission.

Clay Smith, the current chair and treasurer of the Democratic campaign committee, did not immediately return a request for comment. 

A spokesperson for the Oklahoma Democratic Party was not able to comment by the time of publication. 

As part of the settlement, the Hartman and the Democratic Campaign Committee admitted that: 

• Record keeping and expenditure policies were “substandard” during the 2024 election cycle; 
• Political action committee funds were expended by internet transfers, rather than by debit card or check as required by ethics rules; and,
• Payments for “general consulting services” were made to Joe Hartman without proper invoicing. 

Both also agreed not to contest that the campaign committee accepted “in-kind contributions in the form of free office space without properly reporting said contributions,” according to the settlement. 

Lee Anne Bruce Boone, executive director of the Ethics Commission, said in a statement that the respondents have since adopted “revised record keeping and expenditure policies” to prevent future violations.

She said campaign finance transparency only works when accurate records are maintained and there’s full disclosure of how money is spent and received. 

“The violations addressed in this settlement involved reporting deficiencies, inadequate documentation, and undisclosed or improperly reported financial activity,” she said. “Those requirements are not technicalities — they exist so the public can have confidence in the integrity and transparency of the electoral process.”

The Ethics Commission authorized an investigation in December 2024 and issued a formal notice to the respondents of the allegations being made in March. The settlement was signed by the respondents April 22 and made public by Bruce Boone Thursday. 

• 4:57 pmThis story was updated to correct a description of the Oklahoma House Democratic Campaign Committee.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Tulsa County killer Raymond E. Johnson was executed Thursday at Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

He was pronounced dead at 10:12 a.m. following a lethal injection.

“Justice has been served for Brooke Whitaker and her infant daughter, Kya,” said Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond. “Their lives were taken far too soon because of a heinous act of violence. I pray that Brooke and Kya’s family find some measure of peace today after enduring unimaginable pain and grief for nearly two decades.”

Johnson was sentenced to death for the 2007 murder of Whitaker, 24, and her daughter, Kya, 7 months. Johnson and Whitaker had been in a relationship.

Johnson struck Whitaker in the head several times with a claw hammer before setting her Tulsa home on fire. Three of Whitaker’s other children were not home.

The Pardon and Parole Board in April voted 5-0 against recommending that Gov. Kevin Stitt grant clemency.

Johnson had previously pleaded guilty in Cleveland County to manslaughter for the 1995 shooting death of Clarence Oliver. Johnson served half of a 20-year sentence.

“Raymond Johnson lived a hard life, culminating in the tragic death of two people,” said the Rev. Don Heath, a spokesperson for the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. “He repented and found redemption on death row. The state has desecrated this beautiful spring day by executing a good man and calling it justice.”

Johnson was the second person executed in Oklahoma this year.

WASHINGTON — Officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday the risk of a member of the general public contracting hantavirus remains low despite several passengers on a cruise ship becoming infected with the disease. 

Dr. Brendan Jackson, an epidemiologist and the agency’s team lead in Nebraska, said Americans who were on the MV Hondius cruise ship after others were diagnosed with the illness were flown to the National Quarantine Center at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Healthcare providers at the site have been talking with each passenger about whether they may have been exposed to any of the people with confirmed cases. They’re also monitoring the Americans for fevers or other symptoms. 

“This particular virus has a long incubation period, so the monitoring period is 42 days,” Jackson said. “And the 42 days started with the departure of the ship, so May 11 was day one.” 

Any cruise ship passengers who traveled on commercial flights, leading to possible exposures for others on those planes, left the ship before the infections were diagnosed, he said.  

“The passengers that are being monitored who were on shared flights were separate from the passengers who were on the ship at the time the outbreak was detected. So they had actually left the ship before the outbreak was detected,” Jackson said. 

“All the passengers that were on the ship after that detection phase were transported just several days ago on a private plane directly from the Canary Islands to here in Omaha, Nebraska,” he added. 

CDC officials are working with local and state public health officials to ensure anyone who may have been exposed outside of the cruise ship isolates at home and monitors themselves for symptoms. 

The officials on the call declined to say how many people are being monitored for possible exposure or where they are located in the country, citing privacy concerns.

They also declined to talk about the two cruise ship passengers taken to Emory University Hospital’s Serious Communicable Diseases Unit in Georgia. 

Dr. David Fitter, incident manager for the agency’s hantavirus response, said that unlike the coronavirus pandemic that spread around the world in 2020, hantavirus is not new to public health officials. 

“At this moment I want to emphasize that the risk to the general public is low,” he said. 

In addition to monitoring Americans who were on the cruise ship and anyone they may have come into contact with, CDC officials have been talking frequently with lawmakers.

“We’ve held two Hill briefings and have just completed a call with the governors from the states of repatriated Americans,” Fitter said. “We’ve also held daily calls with state health officials. 

“Our role now is to continue our conversations with each passenger about their potential exposure and work with partners to ensure appropriate monitoring.”

CDC officials have encouraged the people at the Nebraska facility to stay there throughout the quarantine period but there are not currently any state or federal quarantine orders in place.

WASHINGTON — Long-time federal immigration official David Venturella will lead U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency spearheading President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign, according to a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.

Venturella will replace outgoing ICE acting Director Todd Lyons, who last month announced he would leave his position by May 31, the DHS official told States Newsroom on Wednesday. Venturella will also take on the role on an acting basis. ICE has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed director since Trump first took office in 2017.

Venturella will oversee an agency that has come under intense congressional and public scrutiny after federal immigration agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti led to a months-long shutdown of DHS, after Democrats pushed for constraints on federal immigration officers. The shutdown ended last month, and Republicans are moving forward with funding ICE and Customs and Border Protection for the next three years, through a complex legislative process that does not require Democratic votes. 

Venturella worked at DHS during the Obama administration, when he led the Secure Communities program in which local law enforcement shared fingerprints and booking information with federal immigration officials to identify immigrants in the country without legal authorization. The Obama administration eventually ended the program, but Trump revived it in 2017.

Venturella has also worked for the private prison company GEO, which earns billions in government contracts to detain immigrants across the country. He retired from GEO in 2023 after serving as the vice president of client relations.

WASHINGTON — Kevin Warsh will officially take the lead at the Federal Reserve after U.S. senators voted Wednesday to confirm the economist and former central bank governor to replace Chair Jerome Powell.

Senators approved Warsh 54-45 nearly along party lines. Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., broke ranks with his party to join Republicans in support of Warsh’s nomination. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., did not vote.

Warsh, of Florida, takes the helm after President Donald Trump spent most of his second term haranguing and threatening to fire Powell if he did not lower interest rates.

Trump is also tangled in litigation over his firing last summer of Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing whether Trump’s dismissal of Cook exceeded his presidential authority.

Trump’s ire for Powell escalated into a Department of Justice investigation in January that even angered some in Trump’s own party.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who sits on the narrowly divided Senate Committee on Banking, House and Urban Affairs, withheld his support for Warsh’s nomination until the administration dropped its probe into Powell’s handling of a multiyear renovation of the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The U.S. attorney’s office for the District of Columbia scrapped the investigation on April 24, but said the Fed’s inspector general would continue to examine cost overruns. The administration had accused Powell of lying to Congress about the price of renovations.

A federal judge dismissed DOJ’s criminal subpoenas into the Fed and Powell in March, citing in his order “abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair.”

Powell’s term as chair expires Friday. He will stay on as a sitting governor on the central bank’s board.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., criticized Warsh on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday’s vote. Van Hollen said Warsh has done a “180-degree flip” on inflation since his time of arguing for higher interest rates as a Fed board governor during the 2008 financial crisis. The Maryland senator said Warsh is now a “super dove on interest rates.”

“Markets need confidence that monetary policy decisions are being made on the basis of economic evidence, not on the basis of political pressure or convenience,” Van Hollen said.

“That is especially important now, as prices are rising too fast and President Trump is still demanding a big cut in interest rates,” he added.

Inflation data released Tuesday showed a 3.8% increase year over year, the highest jump since 2023.

WASHINGTON — The seventh effort to stop President Donald Trump’s military campaign in Iran until he obtains congressional approval failed Wednesday in the U.S. Senate.

The vote marked the first test for Senate Republicans’ support for a War Powers Resolution after the expiration of the statute’s 60-day period granted to the president for military operations.

The vote failed 49-51, though notably Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, flipped for the first time to support limiting Trump’s unfettered war on Iran. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, for a second time since April 30, voted in favor.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted yes, and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., opposed the measure, as they both have done on previous votes.

Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., did not vote.

House lawmakers are expected to take up a similar War Powers Resolution as soon as Thursday.

The war, which Trump launched on Feb. 28 in conjunction with Israel, cost the lives of 13 American service members. The latest Pentagon figures reveal 404 service members were injured during Operation Epic Fury, the administration’s name for the conflict.

Despite a recent exchange of fire between Iran and the U.S. in the Strait of Hormuz, the administration maintains the operation is over, and claimed a 60-day clock on hostilities paused when the two countries agreed to a ceasefire in April. 

However, Trump told reporters Monday that any ceasefire between the two nations was on “massive life support.”

Iranian leaders have contested the existence of a ceasefire because of an ongoing U.S. Naval blockade on Iran’s ports.

Pentagon officials testified in both chambers of Congress Tuesday that the war to date has cost $29 billion, without accounting for Iran’s drone and missile damage to U.S. military installations in the region.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who sponsored the resolution, said Wednesday morning the Iran war has turned out to be “nothing like” the victory Trump promised.

“Both sides are still engaged in hostilities. And so I don’t accept that the 60-day clock is suspended,” Merkley said.

When asked Wednesday morning whether Republicans were whipping votes ahead of the War Powers Resolution, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that lawmakers should support the president while he’s overseas conducting high-stakes meetings with Chinese officials, including China’s leader Xi Jinping.

“He’s negotiating with the Chinese on a whole range of issues, some of which bear on national security, and I think it would be best if everybody hung together and supported the president,” Thune, R-S.D., said. “But we’ll see. … People have their own minds about some of these issues.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma is now the 17th state in the United States to ban child marriage. 

Senate Bill 504 requires anyone getting married in Oklahoma to be at least 18 years old, with no exceptions. 

The measure became law Wednesday without Gov. Kevin Stitt’s signature and goes into effect Nov. 1. 

State law currently allows minors to get married with the consent of a parent or guardian and children 16 or under can be married with authorization by a court.

The measure repeals all exceptions for minors getting married.

The measure passed through the Senate unanimously. It was met with fierce debate from some House Republicans and passed off the chamber’s floor by one vote. 

The Legislature last session passed a law raising the age of sexual consent to 18, with a “Romeo and Juliet” exception for teens who are close in age. 

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma’s Democratic lawmakers said they don’t know what legislation will be brought up Thursday or what to expect on what could be the final day of the legislative session.  

While lawmakers passed a resolution last week agreeing to sine die by 5 p.m. Thursday, neither the House nor the Senate has yet to post an agenda specifying what legislation they plan to take up. 

House and Senate Republican leaders have been at odds since last week when the upper chamber adjourned early on a deadline week without taking up a number of House bills, effectively killing the legislation. 

Leaders of the two chambers have publicly jabbed at each about their counterparts’ decision making and leadership amid the growing dysfunction. 

The state House’s floor agenda Wednesday noted the chamber would convene at 1:30, but other than the daily prayer, the list of daily activities contained only the word “Waiting…” in large bold underlined font, though it didn’t specify what they were waiting for. 

Neither chamber has taken up any legislation since last week, and House leadership has floated the idea of a special session if business isn’t wrapped up by Thursday.

Democrats criticized the inaction and dysfunction between the two chambers. 

Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, said minority lawmakers have yet to see an agenda or list of bills that could be brought up Thursday. 

Kirt said she expects to work on veto overrides, conference committee reports on final bill language and movement on a Medicaid state question proposal, but the specifics of what legislation will come up are still unclear. 

“Since it’s all happening one day, it’ll probably be pretty hectic,” she said. 

House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City, said despite Oklahomans facing real, everyday affordability issues, Republicans have not kept the focus on what the people need and the Legislature has failed to come up with state solutions. 

“I think bringing us back into special session, costing taxpayers more dollars, to hash out some things that are probably more controversial than actually solving problems for everyday people is probably not worth our time or our money,” she said. “We have plenty of time to get things done now. And it’s too bad that instead of sitting down and negotiating what that looks like, there’s emails and social media posts being sent out when they could be sitting in a room together and figuring out which bills are going to be heard in both chambers.”

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma ratepayer’s energy bills won’t go up because of the energy consumption of data centers under a bill signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt. 

House Bill 2992 requires new data centers to pay for their own infrastructure and the energy they consume. It also requires developers to notify nearby landowners and local officials when acquiring land for such projects. Failure to notify them within 60 days of purchasing land would result in a $1,500 daily fine.

The “Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act” applies to any new data centers, cryptocurrency mining operations and facilities that function for artificial intelligence computing that consume 75 megawatts of power or more.

Stitt said Oklahoma welcomes data centers to grow in Oklahoma “the right way.” 

“This bill makes it clear that when you plug into Oklahoma’s world‑class energy grid, you come to the table as a partner and do your part to cover the costs,” he said in a statement. 

The law will take effect July 1. 

Large-load customers would be required to sign contracts to pay for their infrastructure costs over 10 years. 

“I am proud that Oklahomans will not be forced to subsidize the infrastructure needs of massive data centers and other large-scale energy users while still allowing our state to grow responsibly,” bill author Rep. Brad Boles, R-Marlow, said in a statement.

There are at least 30 data centers in Oklahoma that are currently operating, planned or under construction, according to reporting by News9. 

Senate author Grant Green, R-Wellston, said he has serious concerns as a farmer and rancher about the impacts the growing number of data centers could have on rural Oklahoma. 

“One of my biggest fears is that thousands of acres of prime farmland could be ruined by massive warehouses and industrial sites that drain all the local resources,” Green said in a statement. “I don’t want to see that happen here in Oklahoma.”

WASHINGTON — Several Republican U.S. senators left a closed-door lunch with Secret Service Director Sean Curran on Tuesday saying they still have questions about how the agency would spend an additional $1 billion. 

“I’ve asked for a lot more data,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine. “If there are needs for new training ranges, for example, that should have been in the president’s budget.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, tucked the significant increase into a larger immigration enforcement bill, leading to concerns from some of his GOP colleagues and criticism from Democrats the money will go toward construction of a White House ballroom.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said after the lunch meeting the additional funding is predominantly for regular Secret Service activities, not to support the creation of a new ballroom.  

“The ballroom is being financed privately but the security associated with it represents about 20% of what this request was,” Thune said.

A breakdown of how the new funding would be used by Secret Service, obtained by States Newsroom, showed: 

• $220 million would go to “hardening” the East Wing Modernization Project with additional bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 
• $180 million would go toward construction of a “long overdue” White House visitor screening facility. 
• $175 million would bolster Secret Service training as well as its training facilities. 
• $175 million would help the agency “secure frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
• $150 million would go to the branch of the Secret Service that focuses on drones, aircraft incursions, biological threats and “other emerging threats through investments in state-of-the-art technologies.”
• $100 million for “high-profile national events that require significant planning.”

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott said he wants the Secret Service to share more information. 

“I think the bottom line is, people want to be supportive, right? They want security for the president, but they want more detail,” he said. 

The $1 billion for the Secret Service would be in addition to the $1.17 billion Republicans approved for the agency in their “big, beautiful” law as well as the agency’s annual funding level.

The White House released its budget request in early April, asking lawmakers to approve $3.5 billion for the Secret Service in an annual funding bill, a $36 million increase. 

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he wants “more specifics” from the administration in addition to what lawmakers saw during the lunch. 

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said he’s asked for more information from the Secret Service about its needs. 

“They’re trying to make it very clear that what they’re talking about are the security improvements that should be included if we’re making major reconstruction within the White House itself,” he said. “So I think as more of the information begins to come out, I think people are going to feel a lot more comfortable with what they’re requesting.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said he supported the additional Secret Service funding, arguing that security at the White House can be complex.

“I’m fine with that,” he said. “So long as it’s used for security purposes.”

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she wanted to see a detailed breakdown of where the $1 billion would go before committing to supporting the move.

Grassley, who included the line item for “security adjustments and upgrades” for the East Wing Modernization Project in his panel’s immigration enforcement bill, didn’t share details before the lunch about how he landed on the $1 billion figure. 

“It was just kind of a consensus among all of us,” he said, later adding the agreement was among Senate GOP lawmakers, not with the White House.  

Grassley said he didn’t expect to know before the end of the week whether the Secret Service funding would stay in the $72 billion package that is intended to fund immigration activities for the next three years.

The Judiciary Committee bill and one written by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which will be combined in the coming days, would provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement with $38.175 billion, Customs and Border Protection with $26.02 billion, the secretary of Homeland Security’s office with $5 billion and the Department of Justice with $1.457 billion.

GOP leaders in Congress hope to approve the bill next week, sending it to President Donald Trump before the Memorial Day weekend break.

Senate floor debate on the package includes a marathon amendment voting session that will give Democrats, or even Republicans, the chance to hold up-or-down votes on the additional spending. 

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, said Democrats “will certainly be able to put our colleagues on record” about the additional Secret Service funding. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will “fight this bill tooth and nail.”

“We’ll offer amendments and we’ll force Republicans to vote again and again on one simple question — are you with working families or are you with Trump’s ballroom,” he said. 

Thune said earlier in the day that Republicans “can’t have a lot of hiccups right now” and still send Trump the package before the president’s June 1 deadline.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary on Tuesday became the latest member of President Donald Trump’s administration to leave their post this year. 

“I want to thank Dr. Marty Makary for having done a great job at the FDA. So much was accomplished under his leadership,” Trump wrote on social media. “He was a hard worker, who was respected by all, and will go on to have an outstanding career in Medicine. Kyle Diamantas, a very talented person, will be put in the Acting position.”

Diamantas was working as the deputy commissioner for food, leading the program that focuses on nutrition and food safety.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote in a social media post that Makary “pushed forward critical reforms and helped advance our mission to Make America Healthy Again.”

“I also want to thank Kyle Diamantas for stepping in as Acting Commissioner — his leadership has already delivered remarkable wins on the MAHA food agenda, and I have full confidence in his continued work,” Kennedy added. “We have an outstanding team at FDA, and the work continues without pause. The search for a new Commissioner is already underway, and we will move forward with urgency.”

Makary’s resignation marks the fourth time a senior member of the Trump administration has either left or been forced out during the last few months. 

Kristi Noem was ousted as Homeland Security secretary in early March, moving to a different job as a special envoy. Pam Bondi resigned as attorney general in early April to move back to the private sector. And Lori Chavez-DeRemer stepped down as Labor secretary in late April, following scandals.

The Senate voted to confirm Makary to lead the FDA in March 2025, with Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois as well as Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire supporting him. 

Makary’s decision to leave the FDA comes several months after anti-abortion organizations and some Republicans in Congress called for Trump to fire him over his record on access to medication abortion. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, both released statements in December pressing for the FDA to restrict access to mifepristone. 

“The FDA needs a new commissioner who will immediately reinstate in-person dispensing as it existed under President Trump’s first term and immediately conduct a comprehensive study,” Dannenfelser wrote in a statement at the time. “Commissioner Makary is severely undermining President Trump and Vice President Vance’s pro-life credentials and their position that states should have the right to enact and enforce pro-life protections. Makary must go.”

Missouri U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley sent a letter to Makary the following day urging him to wrap up a review of the current prescribing guidelines for mifepristone. 

Their frustration followed a Bloomberg Law news article that said Makary didn’t want to release the results of the study until after November’s midterm elections, which will determine which political party controls Congress for the next two years.

WASHINGTON — The cost of the Iran war has increased to $29 billion to date, Pentagon officials told lawmakers in both chambers Tuesday.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine and Department of Defense acting comptroller Jules Hurst faced questions from House and Senate appropriators over several hours of testimony on the administration’s Pentagon budget request and the direction of the U.S. operation in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz.

The hearings began just as the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest inflation figures that showed skyrocketing fuel costs drove overall inflation to the highest level since 2023.

Rep. Betty McCollum, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said she remains skeptical of Pentagon spending, as it has lacked “sufficient transparency with gas prices and inflation numbers increasing.”

“The American people just want to afford the basic necessities for everyday life, but this administration is not doing anything to help them with the cost of living crisis,” the Minnesota lawmaker said.

Similarly, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee and serves as the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said “vague generalities are not helping this committee make critical judgments.”

“And the tradeoffs are significant. The deficit is increasing dramatically. We have to be conscious of that. We also have to be conscious (of) helping American families just get by, and inflation just hit 3.8% today,” Reed said.

The latest Consumer Price Index reached 3.8% over one year ago, according to the Department of Labor, up from 3.3% last month.

Fuel and energy costs largely drove the inflation increase, with gasoline up 28.4% compared to last year.

Oil and gas prices have soared since the U.S. joined Israel in launching strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. The protracted conflict has led to a near standstill in the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime passageway off the coast of Iran where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum crossed prior to the war.

Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., questioned the Pentagon’s estimate that the war has cost $29 billion, calling it “suspiciously low.”

When pressed, Hurst said the figure does not include the cost of damage to U.S. military bases in the Middle East. Iran launched retaliatory strikes in March on multiple American installations in the region, including a strike on a base in Kuwait that killed six U.S. troops.

“Your acting comptroller suggested that damage to U.S. facilities was not factored into that figure,” Murray said to Hegseth. “It is clear that there has been extensive damage to American military assets.”

The secretary said he could not divulge details on damage to U.S. assets.

“I think an important point is, considering what the president is undertaking, what is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon? And the fact that this president’s been willing to make a historic and courageous choice to confront that, it comes with cost. And we recognize that,” Hegseth said.

Despite continued tit-for-tat attacks in the Strait of Hormuz, Hegseth told lawmakers that a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran is still in effect.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, asked Hegseth whether he believes President Donald Trump will need congressional authorization to continue military activity against the Islamic Republic.

“It doesn’t appear that hostilities have ended, and so the question to you is whether or not the administration has considered or had intended to seek an authorization of the use of military force from the Congress?” she asked.

Hegseth replied: “Senator, our view is that should the president make the decision to recommence that we would have all the authorities to do so.”

Efforts to pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in Trump’s military operations in Iran have failed multiple times in the the Republican-led Senate and House.

A vote is possible this week in the House on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution.

When Dee Nash started feeling sick, no one could figure out what was wrong. Doctors struggled to explain the hives, stomach pain and anaphylaxis that kept landing her in the emergency room.

It wasn’t until years later, in 2023, that the Guthrie woman was finally diagnosed with alpha-gal syndrome — a potentially life-threatening allergy to mammal products like red meat and dairy.

“If I had known earlier, I probably wouldn’t have gotten it, and I wouldn’t have been sick so many times,” Nash said.

Once considered a rarity, alpha-gal syndrome is becoming more common in Oklahoma, where the tick that causes the illness has thrived. But the exact number of people with the syndrome is unknown because it has never been on the state’s list of reportable diseases.

A new law signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt changes that.

Beginning in November, Oklahoma laboratories and doctors will be required to notify state health authorities of each positive test for a marker of the syndrome. A dozen other states have similar mandatory reporting requirements.

“This is the first step, getting doctors to give the information to the health department so that we have accurate numbers,” Nash said.

Nash and other members of the national Alpha-gal Alliance Action Fund helped advocate for the law. For her, awareness made all the difference. After she was diagnosed, she stopped eating the foods that were making her sick and was prescribed medicine that helps her stay healthy.

Alpha-gal syndrome starts with a bite from a lone star tick, which can transfer trace amounts of the alpha-gal sugar molecule through its saliva. Since alpha-gal isn’t naturally occurring in the human body, the immune system may create antibodies to fight against it. Later, if that person eats red meat or other mammal products containing alpha-gal, their immune system can overreact, triggering an allergic reaction.

It can be difficult to detect alpha-gal syndrome because the allergic reaction can come hours after exposure. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates nearly half a million Americans are affected.

For farmers and ranchers who are in close contact with livestock every day, the allergy can be especially challenging. Some have decided to leave the industry altogether, forced to abandon a livelihood that served their families for generations.

“We have many hunters, farmers and outdoor workers who could experience alpha-gal in our state, and with its growing prevalence across the country, it is important we get an accurate picture of the numbers,” said Rep. Cynthia Roe, R-Lindsay, who helped author the new law. “We also need to identify where cases are occurring in Oklahoma and position ourselves to access any available federal resources to help address it.”

Nash was bitten in her garden in Guthrie. She has a gardening blog where she shares her experience and tells others how to protect themselves against ticks.

“It’s really important to me to help other people who are also diagnosed, who don’t have the resources I have,” she said.

This article was originally published by KOSU.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Raising Oklahoma’s minimum wage will require more robust enforcement at the state level to ensure that businesses are actually paying the higher rates, a report found. 

If voters approve a June ballot measure that gradually raises the minimum wage $15 an hour, the Oklahoma Department of Labor will need to increase the number of wage and hour investigators to hold employers accountable, according to a report from the Workplace Justice Lab at Northwestern University and Rutgers University.

The state agency currently only employs three people to oversee wage enforcement. Each investigator individually oversees enforcement for 32,000 businesses and 430,000 workers, the report found. 

“Our research consistently shows that when the minimum wage rises, violations increase as well,” Jenn Round, a coauthor of the report, said in a statement. “Oklahoma will need to hire more investigators to ensure that workers actually receive the wages SQ 832 promises.”

State Question 832, which will appear on the June 16 primary ballot, asks voters to raise Oklahoma’s minimum wage by $1.50 a year until it reaches $15 in 2029, starting at $10.50 this year. That rate could then continue to increase beginning in 2030 based on the U.S. Department of Labor’s consumer price index

Over 28,000 Oklahomans are already paid below the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour every year, the report found. 

Still, wage losses for Oklahomans amount to about $109 million per year, which totals $1.6 billion over 15 years, the report found. 

Oklahoma’s investigations unit recovered $1.25 million in wages during the 2024 fiscal year, according to the report. 

The average wage of an underpaid Oklahoman is about $5 per hour, according to the report. Of the Oklahomans being paid below the minimum wage, about 30% are working in food service, which is the most likely industry to underpay. 

Oklahoma women are 75% more likely to be paid below the minimum wage than men, the report found. 

Workers without a high school diploma are about twice as likely to be paid below minimum wage, according to the report. 

“These workers are barely scraping by to begin with,” Jake Barnes, the report’s lead author, said in a statement. “It’s very hard to take care of yourself and your family on $7.25. It’s virtually impossible on $5. Unfortunately, our research shows that’s the reality for many workers across the state.”

WASHINGTON — The man who allegedly attacked the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month pleaded not guilty Monday in federal court to four criminal charges, including attempting to assassinate the president of the United States.

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, appeared before U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in Washington, D.C., to be arraigned on charges that he tried to take the president’s life, which carries a possible life sentence, and that he assaulted a U.S. officer, transported a firearm and ammunition across state lines with intent to commit a felony and discharged a deadly weapon during a violent crime.

U.S. Department of Justice officials obtained the indictment on May 5.

Allen’s public defenders delivered the plea to McFadden as they stood on either side of Allen, who wore an orange jumpsuit and shackles and was accompanied by two law enforcement officers.

The arraignment comes just over two weeks after Allen allegedly rushed a U.S. Secret Service security checkpoint and fired a weapon one level above the ballroom where President Donald Trump, numerous Cabinet officials and thousands of other administration officials, journalists and lawmakers were attending the annual event.

Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet officials safely evacuated from the April 25 dinner.

A Secret Service agent, referred to in court documents as V.G., was hit in his protective vest by a bullet, but court documents do not specify who fired the shot. The agent was uninjured.

According to an affidavit signed April 27 by an FBI agent, Officer V.G. fired five rounds from his service weapon in Allen’s direction, but did not hit him.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, who attended the dinner, and government prosecutors argued Allen traveled across the country by train “armed to the teeth” and was willing to “commit a mass shooting inside a room full of the highest ranking officials in the U.S. government,” according to a memo filed prior to the superseding indictment. 

Allen’s federal public defenders argued Pirro and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should recuse themselves from the case to avoid a conflict of interest, as both have “made statements indicating that they were witnesses to events,” according to motion filed Thursday.

“These are individuals alleging they are victims,” defense attorney Eugene Ohm said in court Monday, adding it would be “wholly inappropriate for a victim … to be the individuals who are prosecuting.”

Additionally, Ohm said Blanche “has a very close relationship” with the alleged target of the crime — Trump. Blanche was Trump’s personal defense lawyer prior to the president appointing him to the Department of Justice.

McFadden said the situation would be “very surprising” if either Blanche or Pirro were called to testify at trial, but Ohm said there could be a risk if prosecutors filed additional charges after discovery, the pretrial investigative stage of a prosecution.

Ohm said the defense has not yet been provided with any discovery. 

McFadden gave government prosecutors two weeks to respond to the defense’s request that Pirro and Blanche recuse themselves.

“It would be helpful to have some definitive view” on whether they “see themselves as victims,” McFadden told DOJ prosecutor Charles Jones.

McFadden scheduled the next hearing for June 29, by which time he told prosecutors he “will be hoping we’ve made substantial progress on discovery.”

On paper it makes little sense. Ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, roughly 7,000 miles from the United States, is restricted and gasoline prices in this country soar? 

The strait is the major export route for oil produced by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain and Iran, according to the International Energy Agency. But since Feb. 28, when the Iran war began and the narrow passageway between Oman and Iran became a battleground, U.S. gasoline prices have soared — and the prices of consumer products and services are poised to jump as well. 

Most oil passing through the strait goes to Asian markets, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. And due to greater domestic production, the U.S. is importing less crude oil from the Persian Gulf than it has in 40 years, EIA said in a March analysis.

So why are U.S. consumers paying so much more for gasoline? Globalization.

“Supply disruptions anywhere in the world can also affect prices everywhere in the world because we live in a global market,” explained Jeff Lenard, a vice president of the trade group National Association of Convenience Stores. “Oil and refined products like gasoline are traded on the commodities markets. Places with short supply are willing to pay more for product. That drives up the global price.”

Gas prices are tied to the global supply and demand for crude oil, meaning a disruption to the supply anywhere can have an effect everywhere, said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, which tracks gas prices.

“It’s because the price of oil is based on how much is available in total. Since oil from there is in short supply, the rest of the oil all around the world becomes more expensive,” De Haan said.

A gallon of regular gasoline Monday cost an average of $4.52, according to AAA up from $4.14 a month ago and $3.14 a year ago. Consumer prices overall were up 0.9% in March, and were averaging 3.3% higher over the past year.

While the Middle East oil disruption affects prices throughout the world, retail pump costs can vary dramatically from state to state across the U.S.

California’s average Monday was $6.16, the nation’s highest, AAA reported. Next were Washington, $5.76, and Hawaii, $5.65. The lowest averages were in Oklahoma, $3.95, Mississippi, $3.98 and Arkansas, $4.

The price of crude oil is the biggest part of the price consumers pay at the pump. EIA estimates that it makes up 51% of the retail cost. Distribution and marketing account for 11%, refining costs and profits 20% and federal and state taxes 18%.

That means dramatic changes in the price of crude have a huge impact on retail prices.

 window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

The National Association of Convenience Stores estimates that each dollar the price of oil increases could be 2.4 cents a gallon at the pump.

Brent crude, the world benchmark, was $70.50 the day before the U.S. and Israel struck Iran. Monday morning, it was more than $104.

The $34 a barrel increase since the war began would mean a 82-cent per gallon increase. 

Competition can keep prices from rising too much. No gas station wants to be an outlier projecting much higher prices than the one across the street.

There are other factors impacting gasoline prices, notably taxes that vary from state to state. 

The federal tax on gasoline has been 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993. President Donald Trump said Monday he supports freezing the tax, though he offered no timeline. A suspension would need congressional approval, and Republican leaders have in the past been reluctant to embrace any pause.

While the average state tax is 33.55 cents a gallon, it varies widely. California’s taxes and fees are estimated at 70.9 cents a gallon, the nation’s highest. The lowest tax and fee rate is in Alaska, 9 cents a gallon.

California’s costs are also boosted by other factors, including its tough environmental standards. The state requires a special blend of gasoline that aims to help air quality.

“This fuel burns cleaner but is more expensive to produce because it requires more processing steps and expensive blending components,” EIA said.

Another reason for the higher prices is California’s reliance on in-state refineries. It doesn’t have as much proximity as other states to interstate supply pipelines

About 20% of the world’s oil passed through the strait prior to the war. But reopening the strait would be unlikely to suddenly bring prices down.

“In complex supply chains, a disruption in one critical link, even if only briefly, can cascade through the system, well beyond the initial event,” Pinar Keskinocak, professor at the H. Milton Stewart School of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Georgia Tech, said in an analysis. “As delays persist and compound, interconnected systems often take a long time to recover, rebalance, and return to normal.”

“I don’t expect there to be an open flooding of barrels just leaving the region,” said Jerome Dortmans, co-head of global oil and products trading in Goldman Sachs Global Banking & Markets, in an analysis.

And if the Iran crisis continues and the strait remains restricted, more price pain is probably ahead.

“A prolonged disruption of Middle East oil trade would create oil market conditions for which there is no historical precedent,” said a March report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended a highly anticipated stay blocking an appellate court’s pause on telehealth abortion access until May 14.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approved medication-abortion regimen remains available via telehealth until then, following a week of uncertainty among abortion patients and providers.

“With this critical temporary administrative stay extended, we hope that some of the chaos and confusion inflicted on patients and providers last weekend will be abated,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of abortion-pill manufacturer GenBioPro, one of the defendants in the case, in a statement.

On May 4, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to reinstate the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone that the Biden administration officially lifted in 2023. Over the past week, several doctors groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that cutting off access to mifepristone could harm many women seeking abortions and miscarriage management. Republican attorneys general from 23 states, meanwhile, urged the Supreme Court not to allow providers to send mifepristone through the mail. 

People in states with abortion bans or diminished abortion access continue to depend on abortion providers prescribing FDA’s approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen through telemedicine and sending it to patients by mail.

According to new preliminary findings from the Society of Family Planning, telehealth abortion comprised 28% of all abortions at the end of 2025, an increase from 25% at the end of 2024.

Attorneys representing Louisiana have argued that in addition to undermining a state abortion ban, the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions of medication abortion was flawed.  

University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at the time the Biden-era rule was implemented, said the policy was well considered and based on evidence. 

“The 2023 update was the result of an incredibly careful, deliberate, time-consuming, painstaking process to make sure that they were following what the evidence was,” Bagenstos said. If, the plaintiffs were to prevail, he added, ending telehealth access to mifepristone nationwide would have “really harmful effects on women across the country, as well as really destabilizing effects on the drug approval system.” 

Louisiana’s lawsuit against mifepristone has nationwide implications and could threaten residents in states with abortion access and so-called abortion shield laws, such as Maryland. 

Regardless of what happens in this case, abortion providers told Stateline they are determined to continue providing telehealth abortions, though potentially without mifepristone. Dr. Angel Foster, a telehealth provider in Massachusetts, a shield law state, said in the past week, about 100 patients have requested pills for future use, compared with 34 in the entire month of April. She said constantly changing rules around abortion access followed by sensational news headlines continue to create confusion for people seeking termination or miscarriage management.

“I live and breathe abortion at this point, and I find it can be hard to keep up with the ever-changing legal environment and the way that things are getting framed and phrased,” Foster said. “When you’re a patient and what you see are just the headlines, and you’ve got to figure out what it means for you, it’s really complicated.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the number of Republican attorneys general who asked the Supreme Court to keep mifepristone from being prescribed via telehealth visits. It should be 23. 

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Cameron Hamilton to run the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a former acting chief who was fired in 2025 shortly after he told a congressional panel FEMA should continue to exist.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will likely schedule a hearing in the coming weeks for Hamilton to testify about his goals for the agency as part of the confirmation process. 

The panel will then schedule a vote on whether to send his nomination to the floor, where Hamilton will need to secure approval from a majority of senators before he would become FEMA administrator. 

Taking on that role will be no easy task, especially since Trump has spoken repeatedly during his second administration about reducing the size and scope of the agency. 

“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”

The FEMA review council that Trump created to review the agency submitted its report last week recommending states shoulder more of the cost and responsibility of disaster relief.

The previous disconnect between Trump and Hamilton about whether FEMA should continue led to Hamilton being removed from his role leading the agency last year. 

Hamilton testified before a House panel in May 2025 that he personally did “not believe it is in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

“Having said that, I’m not in a position to make decisions and impact outcomes on whether or not a determination, such as consequential as that, should be made,” he said at the time. “That is a conversation that should be had between the president of the United States and this governing body on identifying the exact ways and methodologies, in which, what is prudent for federal investment, and what is not.”

One day later he was ousted as the senior official performing the duties of the administrator at FEMA.

David Richardson has been the senior official performing the duties of FEMA administrator ever since. He was previously the assistant secretary of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office at the Department of Homeland Security.

Hamilton detailed his time leading FEMA on an episode of the “Disaster Tough” podcast that aired in September, saying he had developed a plan to address that the agency had “become too bureaucratic.”

“I was very clear and poignant that the cause of most of the problems in FEMA is because we keep putting too much crap in FEMA’s rucksack that never should have been there,” he said. 

Hamilton then spoke about the Shelter and Services Program, which provides grant funding to organizations that help to house, feed and assist migrants released by the Department of Homeland Security. 

He argued that isn’t an “emergency management requirement” and that “FEMA has become a functional multi-tool.”

Housing was a “prime example” of where another federal department, like Housing and Urban Development, could take over some of the tasks that FEMA currently handles, he said. 

“I said, we need to aggressively talk to HUD about them having a larger stakehold in that particular missions field because they are more uniquely suited,” he said. 

But Hamilton insisted he was not supportive of plans to completely eliminate the agency. 

“I was not hired to abolish FEMA. That was never a part of the conversation and that’s never something that I would have agreed with,” he said on the podcast. “And I was very clear, I wanted some reform. I wanted to cut wasteful spending. I wanted to downsize the agency. There’s no denying that. And I think most of those things could be done wisely and properly.”

Any offloading of responsibilities from the federal government to states, he said, would include “a gradual phasing out.”

“We needed to give the states some time to see what that entails and to respond accordingly,” he said. “Not just, ‘Hey, the water is now shut off. You’re on your own.’ That’s not wise. That’s not being a good partner.”

Hamilton also discussed what happened before and after he testified in front of a House subcommittee a year ago, including that he was polygraphed in March.

“One of the more difficult things for me to deal with was when my character was being attacked, and when I was being accused of being a liar and a leaker, and I was polygraphed for it,” he said. “DHS requested that I be polygraphed. And they said in their statement, you know, my character, judgment, my stability, my ethics were all in question.” 

Asked by the podcast host if he wanted to put on his “Navy SEAL hat” when that was happening, Hamilton responded, “I wanted to choke some people, that’s for sure.”

Hamilton said he knew that he was about to be fired and that on the day he testified before Congress, officials “notified my security that my access was eliminated. So before the testimony, I knew it was coming, and I knew it was coming weeks in advance.” 

Later in the episode, Hamilton said he knew he would be asked during the hearing about Trump’s comments regarding FEMA and spoke with former FEMA Administrator Pete Gaynor to work through how best to answer the question. 

The two then “came to the agreement” that Hamilton would say, “it’s not in the best interest of the American people.” 

“I cannot get behind this position that abolishing FEMA is the answer,” he said. “There are so many things that we can do before we go that extreme and put the American people at what I believe to be extreme risk unnecessarily.”

OKLAHOMA CITY — After hours of witness testimony and pages of evidence, a struggling Oklahoma City charter school still has not convinced a state board that it should be allowed to stay open for another year.

The Statewide Charter School Board on Monday made the rare vote to terminate the founding charter contract for Proud To Partner Leadership Academy. The board first voted 9-1 to declare there is “clear and convincing evidence” the school violated that contract before agreeing unanimously to proceed toward canceling it.

Board members made their decision after a lengthy and uncommon termination hearing that began April 29 and continued on Monday. A few more procedural steps remain before the school’s charter contract could be canceled officially, after which point its state funding would be cut off.

If the southwest Oklahoma City high school closes, its 100 students will have to return to their home districts or find another educational option for the next academic year. 

The only way to avoid a shutdown is if the school makes “significant changes structurally” in the coming days, said Brian Shellem, who leads the statewide board. He said the board would “extend a hand” to the school and its attorneys to explore options.

Proud To Partner’s superintendent, Dawn Bowles, said the school’s leaders will wait to hear from the state board about what alternatives are available. In the meantime, students are “in limbo of knowing where they will actually be next year,” she said.

“We are still devoted and committed to doing what’s best on behalf of the families that we serve,” Bowles said after the vote.

Throughout the termination hearing, state officials described Proud to Partner, known as PTPLA, as a school in financial and operational disarray since it opened in July 2024. 

Attorneys representing PTPLA said the school was unfairly targeted in a “rush to judgment” and wasn’t given proper due process to address concerns.

“The evidence here will show there’s been a sort of fearmongering, a sort of hysteria, a flame of emotions that were overblown and overindulged,” the school’s attorney, Kwame Mumina, said during the first day of the hearing.

Members of the statewide board’s staff testified that they came away with grave concerns about the school’s academic quality after visiting it.

Statewide Charter School Board executive director Rebecca Wilkinson, who visited PTPLA at least 15 times, said she saw signs of poor engagement of students. She reported seeing students sleeping or sitting in front of computers while not logged into classwork.

“I was concerned that too often students were not able to even tell me the course that they were working in, much less what they were doing,” she said.

Wilkinson said she had further concerns over whether the school’s special education and child nutrition services complied with law and the charter contract. 

PTPLA finances also raised red flags when the school finished its first year with a $250,000 deficit. This school year, three teachers were laid off from the small teaching staff because of a lack of funds.

“This school is spending money it doesn’t have, and that is an issue,” said Thomas Schneider, the board’s attorney and deputy general counsel at the Attorney General’s Office.

Wilkinson initially reported seeing only one teacher providing instruction during a site visit this fall. PTPLA leaders said the report was false and the three laid-off teachers continued working as volunteers. Those teachers have since been rehired on part-time pay.

Multiple members of the board’s staff and Oklahoma State Department of Education officials testified to having difficulty getting PTPLA administrators to respond to issues and to file financial reports on time.

School officials acknowledged they struggled with financial and operational difficulties, but they said it never compromised student learning. They said they were caught off-guard when the statewide board placed PTPLA on a November meeting agenda to discuss deficiencies at the school.

The statewide board in that November meeting ultimately demoted the school to probation.

Sharri Coleman, PTPLA’s school board president, said the state was too quick to punish rather than offer support.

“If we’re all for students, then you as a board, as my authorizer, would help my board to make sure that we are getting the supports that we need so that we can help those students,” Coleman said on the witness stand.

After being placed on probation, PTPLA’s board demanded an apology from the state and contended there was “nothing to fix.” 

Statewide board members became increasingly frustrated over the following months, contending school leaders refused to cooperate fully with state oversight. They finally ran out of patience in January, when they voted to initiate termination proceedings.

Bowles, PTPLA’s superintendent, warned that closing the school would harm the underprivileged students it was designed to serve.

“Most importantly, it will take away an opportunity to provide an education that is aligned to the needs of our Black and brown families in Oklahoma City,” she said during the hearing.

For the charter contract to be canceled, the statewide board must vote again to approve findings of fact from the termination hearing. That vote could take place as soon as next week, Shellem said.

PTPLA then would have 10 days to file an appeal with the board and, if rejected, to take the matter to district court.

Bowles didn’t confirm or reject the idea of challenging the state board in court.

“Right now, we’ll wait to hear from them as to what those next steps are,” she said.

The number of people experiencing homelessness in Oklahoma City decreased for the first time since 2022, city officials reported Thursday.

The data comes from an annual Point in Time Count required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The citywide count began in the early morning on January 23, right before the coldest days of 2026. Volunteers fanned out across the city to locate and survey as many people experiencing homelessness as possible.

In a 24-hour period, service providers counted 1,867 people who were staying in transitional housing, shelters, permanent supportive housing or living without shelter. The total is a 1% decrease from last year, when 1,882 people were counted.

It’s the first recorded decline since Key To Home, the city’s public-private partnership designed to tackle the issue, was established. City officials announced this year’s findings during a public event last week.

“We know that by nearly every measure, from population, jobs, economic development and national recognition, our city is growing in stature,” said Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt. “But with that growth comes a lot of complexity. More people means more demand on the systems that were not always built to scale.”

Holt said city leaders realized the homelessness response system needed improvement, so collaborators spearheaded a new approach. The Key to Home Partnership includes more than 50 philanthropies, government service providers, faith communities and businesses that started working together to prevent homelessness in 2023.

Holt thanked the city council members, service providers and faith leaders in the room for their hard work, attributing success to their long hours and commitment to funding, sometimes expensive, projects.

His appreciation was echoed by Key to Home Partnership Chair Gary Brooks.

“You can see the city’s commitment isn’t just writing a check and a line item on a budget,” he said. “There’s extremely committed leadership all the way through City Hall.”

Despite an overall decrease in the population of people experiencing homelessness, some sub-groups have grown since 2022.

The number of families experiencing homelessness in Oklahoma City increased by 5% between 2025 and 2026. Families are unsheltered groups with at least one minor, and totals have gradually increased over the last four years.

This year, City Care and City Rescue Mission began receiving $2.5 million from Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and his wife, Lauren Sánchez Bezos, to support families navigating homelessness.

Additionally, 167 people counted were experiencing chronic unsheltered homelessness or have been homeless for at least a year, while struggling with a serious mental illness, substance use disorder or physical disability. It’s a 20% uptick from last year’s 139 people who were chronically unsheltered.

Jamie Caves, the Strategy Implementation Manager for Key to Home, said people experiencing unsheltered homelessness are the most vulnerable to violence, untreated illness and premature death.

“In 2022, 35% of everyone experiencing homelessness in our community was living outside on the streets without a roof or safe place to lay their head at night,” she said. When we move the needle in a meaningful and sustained way on unsheltered homelessness, we’re not just affecting a trend line on a paper, we’re changing the conditions and the trajectories of people’s lives.”

In the past two years, Key to Home reports rehousing 513 people living in encampments and closing down 30 encampment sites.

Caves pushed back against the myth that most people experiencing homelessness in Oklahoma City came to the state after they lost their housing. Instead, she said data shows 87% of unsheltered individuals reported that they became homeless in Oklahoma.

“We know that homelessness doesn’t exist in a vacuum,” said assistant city manager LaShawn Thompson. “It intersects with health care, with mental health, with housing affordability and with how our emergency services are used across the city.”

Thompson said the city’s new Mobile Integrated Healthcare program has helped reduce the city’s reliance on emergency rooms by supporting people whose needs are driving repeated calls for help. Partially funded by the state’s share of opioid settlement money, alternative response teams can be dispatched to mental health crises or overdose calls, instead of police officers.

In April, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that applications for the next round of federal funding will be published in June. The department is beginning the shift away from “housing first” policies and will prioritize transitional housing and partnerships between a wide range of providers.

“We’ve been working, planning and looking at how we can arrange resources to ensure that we’re maximizing the available dollars from the federal government,” Caves said.

This article was originally published by KOSU.

OMAHA — Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen tried to assure the public that a “strong” plan is in place to safely handle 16 American passengers of the hantavirus-stricken cruise ship who arrived early Monday to the University of Nebraska Medical Center campus in midtown Omaha.

Of the group brought to Nebraska, 15 who have shown no symptoms of the disease are being monitored in the hotel room-like quarters of a quarantine unit. That unit is the only federally funded facility designed to safely house and observe people who may have been exposed to high-consequence infectious diseases.

Another of the group who had tested positive for the virus, which killed three passengers while they were on the ship, is in a more intensive care appropriate biocontainment unit, also at the UNMC campus. Officials said that person currently was not showing any symptoms, but was handled differently out of an “abundance of caution.” 

Pillen, who was among a slate of federal and state officials speaking at a Monday press conference, called the handoff of passengers from the Canary Islands dock to Nebraska facilities a “highly coordinated effort” that has gone “incredibly smoothly.”

He said it was not the first time the state has been called upon for critical medical situations, referring to the UNMC involvement in Ebola and COVID-19 outbreaks. He tried to allay public concern of spread.

“We’re working diligently to ensure no one leaves this security in an unsecured way at an inappropriate time,” Pillen said. “No one who poses a risk to public health is walking out the front door (to) the streets of Omaha or beyond.”

Admiral Brian Christine, assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, described the virus’ risk to the general public as “very very low” but taken seriously.

“Transparency is the order of the day,” he said.

Previously, UNMC officials said they were expecting all of the Americans that were to disembark from the cruise ship MV Hondius. They believed the number to be 17 at the time, but an 18th had dual citizenship and joined the American group, the officials said.

“UNMC was selected as the U.S. entry point due to its extensive expertise in handling special pathogens and it’s the only national quarantine in the country,” said John Knox, principal deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Two of the 18, a couple that had been traveling together, were transported to an Atlanta facility that also is part of the national emergency response system, he said. Officials said that one of them had been experiencing symptoms of the virus.

Asked why the couple went elsewhere, Dr. Jeffrey Gold, president of the University of Nebraska and others said they wanted to preserve optimal space in the Nebraska Biocontainment Unit, should the need arise for more intense treatment of passengers. The local biocontainment unit has capacity to serve 10 patients but, depending on the circumstances, UNMC authorities said that could be reduced to a few people.

Dr. Angela Hewlett, medical director of the Nebraska Biocontainment Unit, said the people from the cruise ship sent to UNMC were given an opportunity to rest Monday morning before undergoing more questioning that will help in the assessment process. For example, they will be asked how much contact they had with someone who was exposed, to help determine when a typical 42-day incubation period for the virus ends.

Officials said that depending on an assessment and situation at home, a passenger potentially could finish the incubation period away from the UNMC.

Hewlett said the passenger who went to the local biocontainment unit was “doing well.” Dr. Michael Wadman, medical director of the quarantine unit, which has a capacity for about 20, described those in that facility as being  in “good shape” and “good spirits.”

Should someone in the quarantine unit develop symptoms, Hewlett said they would be moved to the biocontainment unit to receive treatment ranging from clinical monitoring to critical care. That unit, activated in 2014 to treat American Ebola patients evacuated from Africa, has a voluntary staff of select nurses, doctors and infectious disease specialists.

Both quarantine and biocontainment units were activated locally in 2020 for the care and management of U.S. citizens from Wuhan, China, and from the Diamond Princess Cruise ship who were exposed to COVID-19.

Officials have said that UNMC and Nebraska Medicine have prepared for situations such as this. The lineup of professionals speaking Monday praised the state and federal cooperation and partnership thus far.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says hantaviruses are a family of diseases that spread to people from rodents through urine, droppings or saliva. It can take up to eight weeks after contact for symptoms to develop.

The Andes virus, which is the variant involved in the ship’s outbreak, can be transmitted through close human-to-human contact, the CDC said. Christine on Monday said that contact requires “prolonged close contact with somebody already symptomatic.”

Hewlett said that while “there are some unknowns,” she noted that the virus is not new.

She said the risk of spread is different, for example, from COVID-19, which was airborne.

Gold said people from UNMC and Nebraska Medicine were honored to have their part in handling the outbreak.

“There is no place in the country that they could be better cared for more safely and more effectively,” he said.

This story was originally produced by Nebraska Examiner, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

LAWRENCE — Kansas Abortion Fund president Sandy Brown wants Kansans to show up in August and repeat their 2022 decision to defeat a constitutional amendment that could upend abortion rights in the state.

Four years ago, voters by a 59-41 margin defeated a proposal to overturn a Kansas Supreme Court ruling that established the right to terminate a pregnancy. This year, the proposal would eliminate the merit-based system for selecting state Supreme Court justices and make them elected positions instead.

Proponents of the amendment, including Senate President Ty Masterson, see it as a way of electing conservative justices who will provide more partisan rulings on issues like abortion and school finance.

“People need to stand up like they did before in 2022 and just ram it down their throats,” Brown said on the Kansas Reflector podcast. “Put up your yard signs, make a donation, get online.”

Brown has led the all-volunteer, Lawrence-based nonprofit for the past 13 years. The Kansas Abortion Fund brings in about $400,000 in grants and donations each year to cover the costs of Kansas women seeking an abortion, regardless of their financial status. In 2025, they served 1,328 individuals — about 27% of the total number of Kansas women who received an abortion.

“They probably wouldn’t know about us, the person who is pregnant and needs help, until they go to the clinic, and we work directly with the clinics,” Brown said.

The organization began in 1996 as a small group of women in Lawrence who had a phone tree and helped women who needed an abortion. For a while, it was known as the Peggy Bowman Second Chance Fund, in honor of a prominent advocate for women’s rights.

Bowman was a lobbyist for George Tiller, the Wichita abortion provider who was murdered in 2009 in his church by an anti-abortion zealot. When Bowman died of heart failure in 2016, her obituary read: “Her condition was undoubtedly aggravated by the catastrophe known as Sam Brownback and Kris Kobach.”

Brown said the work of the Kansas Abortion Fund evolved after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The ruling, just weeks ahead of the Kansas vote in 2022, left decisions about reproductive health care up to individual states. The most recent data from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment shows that three-fourths of the 19,000 women who received an abortion in Kansas in 2024 were from out of state.

The Kansas Abortion Fund only helps in-state patients, but Brown said the organization can connect out-of-state patients with other resources.

Brown said she “wasn’t surprised at all” by the 2022 vote, even though it was an unexpected landslide for most political observers.

“We had the polling and we had the energy behind us,” Brown said. “I wasn’t really surprised. Relieved, yes.”

Kansas voters, she said, are “the salt of the earth, and you start talking about taking precious rights away from us, like bodily autonomy, you know, that’s just going way overboard for us.”

This time, however, she said it is more of a challenge to inform voters about what’s at stake with the Aug. 4 ballot question. She said the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment is complicated.

It reads: “The citizens of Kansas who are qualified electors shall have the right to elect the justices of the supreme court. The rules applicable for such elections and the designation of position numbers shall be provided by law. Justice positions 1, 2 and 3 shall be elected at the general election in November of 2028, justice positions 4 and 5 in November of 2030 and justice positions 6 and 7 in November of 2032, and every six years thereafter, respectively. Any vacancy occurring on the supreme court for an unexpired term shall be filled at the next even-year election for the remainder of such term by election as provided by law.”

The amendment also strikes other parts of the constitution, including a prohibition against justices engaging in political activities.

In simple terms, according to Brown: “It turns our justices into campaigning politicians. It’s terrifying.”

The Marion County Record in December reported that Masterson, the Senate president from Andover who is seeking the GOP nomination for governor, told a Patriots for Liberty group that electing justices would reverse Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights.

“But you can’t go out there and say it because they’ll say that if you elect your Supreme Court, you won’t have any right to abortion anymore,” Masterson said.

He added: “If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools.”

Brown said supporters of the amendment have an advantage when it comes to messaging. If someone asks, “Hey, you want to vote,” most people will say, “Sure,” she said.

But she remains optimistic that voters will understand what’s at stake as the election gets closer.

“I know that Kansans will rise to the occasion, and they will understand that this is about overturning abortion protections,” she said. “This is about electing Supreme Court justices where big money will be thrown in. And we all know what that what that’s going to look like. It’s going to get ugly.”

This story was originally produced by Kansas Reflector, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Advocates and opponents of abortion access say they’re wondering what happens next in a critical telehealth medication case that created chaos and confusion over the past week after an appeals court blocked nationwide access to the drug and, days later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary stay.

Alito’s stay preserves telehealth access until May 11. But it’s unclear what happens next for patients and providers.

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Friday ruling to suspend a federal rule allowing telehealth prescriptions of the drug mifepristone while the lawsuit Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration unfolds. Abortion providers are determined to continue providing the service, though potentially without mifepristone, the drug at the center for the case, which has had a high record of safety and efficacy since 2000.

Anti-abortion advocates have pushed to reverse the 2023 policy, enacted under former Democratic President Joe Biden, that allowed the FDA to drop its requirement that a patient see a provider in person before the medication can be prescribed. One similar national case already failed unanimously before the Supreme Court, but anti-abortion advocates are hoping this time around, with a more tailored approach, they will be successful.

Abortion-rights advocates say they’re prepared for whatever might happen in the courts, with contingency plans and a message that abortion will still be available even if the particular medication — mifepristone — is not.

Has the abortion pill been banned?

No. Mifepristone is still a legally approved FDA drug commonly used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks’ gestation and is used off-label to treat miscarriages.

Is telehealth abortion still legal?

Yes, for now. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s administrative stay that expires on May 11, it is still legal to obtain abortion medication through telemedicine under the FDA’s regulations. Mifepristone is commonly used with a second drug, misoprostol, in medication abortions. The case doesn’t include misoprostol.

Who would be affected if telehealth access is struck down?

According to the Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount report, 27% of all abortions in the first six months of 2025 were obtained through telehealth, adding up to more than 162,000 cases.

Mifepristone is also used for patients experiencing a miscarriage; those patients also would have to visit a provider in person.

The ruling would apply nationwide, meaning that health providers couldn’t prescribe mifepristone without an in-person visit with the patient, even in states with abortion access.

What are the arguments on each side in Louisiana v. FDA?

Louisiana says the Biden-era policy undermines a state law banning abortion, and that the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions was flawed.

The Food and Drug Administration says the state doesn’t have standing to sue, but also notes that it’s taking more time to review the drug’s safety.

Two mifepristone drugmakers, meanwhile, have intervened on the FDA’s side.

What could happen next?

The Supreme Court has many options available moving forward, but a few options are most likely, said Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. The justices could extend the stay when it expires May 11, or the court could make a longer-term ruling.

That could mean sending it back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with or without upholding the initial ruling blocking the 2023 provision while the appeals case proceeds. Or justices could decide to take up the case and bypass the rest of the 5th Circuit appeal.

If it did that, the manufacturer defendants Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro have asked for an expedited process with a decision by June. That seems unlikely, Keith said, but the court has conducted expedited cases related to abortion before, such as the Moyle v. United States case in 2024 related to the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

What will providers do if they can’t use the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol?

Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, said providers have been preparing since 2023 for the possibility of losing access to mifepristone. There have long been plans to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, which is the main method of pregnancy termination across much of the world, she said.

“A lot of providers had created these policies and just needed to dust them off,” Fonteno said.

Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which provides telehealth abortions to patients in all 50 states, said she and her team spent the weekend scrambling to contact patients waiting on medication abortion pills they had ordered before the ruling, and implementing a contingency plan that many abortion providers have been planning for since the lawsuits against mifepristone began in 2023.

That contingency involves pivoting from the FDA-approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen to a misoprostol-only regimen.

Early Monday, Foster said her team was getting ready to ship misoprostol-only packages to patients at 2 p.m., but after the Supreme Court stayed the appeals court’s ruling on Monday morning, she said they were able to switch back to the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.

Foster also said her organization was inundated with requests for pills that people could stockpile — people who didn’t need an abortion but were worried about losing access to the pills. Normally that’s a small fraction of the requests they receive, she said, but on Tuesday, they sent out more than had been sent in the entire month of April.

“Over the last two days, we’ve had a huge increase in the number of people from Louisiana requesting pills, especially pills for future use,” Foster said.

What are the pros and cons of the misoprostol-only regimen?

Dr. Maya Bass, a family physician in New Jersey who also provides abortions in Delaware, said misoprostol-only regimens are still safe and highly effective, but that the regimen has a lower efficacy rate than the combination of the two drugs and comes with potentially more side effects and risks.

Misoprostol-only regimens vary between 85% and 90% effective, while the combination is between 93% and 99% effective. The effective rates are lower as the gestational age increases.

The combination works well, Bass said, because mifepristone stops the hormone that allows the pregnancy to continue and signals to the body that the pregnancy is over. The misoprostol then helps soften the cervix and prompts the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy tissue.

Without that hormonal signal, Bass said, a higher dose of misoprostol is needed to empty the uterus. The usual side effects of nausea, diarrhea, chills and sometimes fevers can be more severe because of the higher dosage. And it may lead to more people needing to seek in-person follow-up care to fully remove all of the pregnancy tissue, which can cause infection if it stays in the uterus.

“A lot of the people who are using telehealth for their medication abortion are not necessarily in places where they can safely access that care,” Bass said. “So it is concerning that we might be relying more on a regimen that means that many more people needing to seek care.”

What are the details of the legal arguments?

Louisiana officials, including Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, argue that the state is harmed by the 2023 telehealth policy because it undermines a state law banning abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions that don’t include rape or incest. The state also challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s process in deciding to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement, saying it was based on flawed or nonexistent data.

The state also said the rule has resulted in $92,000 in Medicaid bills from two women who went to the emergency room because of complications related to mifepristone in 2025. And the state says the rule harmed the other plaintiff in the case, Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich, who said her ex-boyfriend ordered the medication online and pressured her into taking it. That wouldn’t have been possible if the medication had to be dispensed through an in-person visit, the state argues.

“The priority of safety supersedes the priority of access, and that is what ultimately, I believe, needs to be looked at directly,” Sarah Zagorski, senior director of public relations at Americans United for Life, told Stateline on Wednesday. The anti-abortion organization submitted a brief supporting Louisiana’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

The FDA’s response has been to try to dismiss the claims in part on the grounds that Louisiana doesn’t have standing to sue, but agency officials have also said they are in the middle of conducting a safety review of mifepristone and need more time.

GenBioPro and Danco Laboratories, two of the manufacturers of mifepristone, intervened as defendants in the case, which can happen when the party that is sued may not be willing to fully defend the case for various reasons.

The two companies argue that Louisiana does not have proper standing to sue because the state does not prescribe or use mifepristone and is an “unregulated party” as it relates to the 2023 telehealth provision. They also noted that the FDA reviewed 15 studies evaluating medication abortion outcomes for more than 55,000 patients before approving the rule, “all of which supported the safety and effectiveness of dispensing mifepristone by mail, courier, or through pharmacies.”

How does this compare to the 2023 case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA?

Both lawsuits were designed to restrict access to mifepristone. The plaintiffs in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case included a group of anti-abortion doctors who said they would be harmed by having to care for people who took mifepristone. They also argued that the FDA’s approval of the drug was improper.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was involved in that case as well, and determined that the FDA should roll back its decision to ease restrictions on the drug, including the 2023 telehealth rule. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided in June 2024 that the Alliance plaintiffs didn’t have proper standing and sent it back to the lower court.

After that ruling, the attorneys general of Missouri, Idaho and Kansas stepped in as plaintiffs, and the case was transferred to Missouri’s U.S. district court, where it’s still pending.

The Louisiana case is more limited because it would strike down one provision of mifepristone regulation, noted Jenna Hudson, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. The Alliance plaintiffs sought to revoke the drug’s approval altogether.

Stateline reporters Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org and Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.  

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Ty Wooten didn’t realize the weight of answering his first 911 call — until more than a decade later.

A woman had dialed 911 to report that her husband had shot himself in front of her and their 7-year-old son, on the family’s living room couch. It was Wooten’s first call as a dispatcher.

“I wasn’t prepared for that, and I didn’t quite realize how difficult that call was for me for several years,” said Wooten, who has worked in the 911 industry for more than 30 years, both taking calls and managing dispatch centers.

He is now director of government affairs for the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, an industry group that helps set standards for emergency dispatch centers.

Wooten pushed the experience aside. It wasn’t until about 15 years later, while swapping stories with colleagues, that the details came rushing back — triggering a spiral of anxiety, panic attacks and depression that would take time to fully confront.

“I had taken that experience and kind of put it in the corner of my mind, and built a wall around it so I wouldn’t think about it again,” Wooten said.

Wooten’s experience reflects a broader reality for first responders, who are routinely exposed to traumatic events but often lack the space — or support — to process them.

Across the country, state and local officials are increasingly looking for ways to change that, expanding mental health resources and testing new approaches aimed at reducing stigma and improving access to care for 911 dispatchers, police officers, firefighters, paramedics and emergency medical technicians.

Research suggests that first responders face higher rates of trauma-related mental health challenges than the general public, with repeated exposure increasing the risk of post-traumatic stress, depression and anxiety. That strain has also been linked to burnout, and to higher rates of substance use and suicidal ideation.

Some policing experts say untreated trauma and stigma around mental health don’t just harm police officers — they can also ripple outward, influencing split-second decisions on the street and the quality of encounters with the public.

“It’s not just a personal and individual tragedy. It’s also potentially going to have a direct consequence for how officers treat those they encounter on duty,” said Heidi Bonner, a criminal justice and criminology professor at East Carolina University.

At the same time, rising health care costs and concerns about affordability have made access to mental health services more difficult for many nationwide. Some communities are already experimenting with new approaches for first responders.

In Brevard County, Florida, some first responders now have access to therapy dogs, peer-to-peer counseling and confidential hotlines. Florida state officials last year also announced they were developing a more coordinated, statewide mental health program for first responders.

In Virginia, Henrico County firefighters gained access to a new app that allows them to seek mental health support anonymously. They are one of the first departments in the country to use the platform. Some experts say anonymity can help reduce barriers tied to stigma and fear of professional consequences.

Even as awareness grows, many first responders still don’t seek help — a gap that policymakers and local agencies are increasingly trying to address.

“You’re going to see something horrible, and the expectation is, ‘Yeah, that’s what we do — you just got to deal with it,’” said Alanna Badgley, a paramedic in New York. Badgley also is the EMS external affairs coordinator for the International Association of EMTs and Paramedics.

“Bringing up if you were feeling some kind of way might have been seen as a sign of weakness, or that you weren’t cut out for the job, so a lot of people would kind of hide it,” she said, describing what the culture was like when she started in emergency medicine in 2010.

She added that there’s now a growing recognition that first responders need to be honest about their mental health and seek support early and often.

You’re going to see something horrible, and the expectation is, ‘Yeah, that’s what we do — you just got to deal with it.’

– Alanna Badgley, paramedic in New York state

Many agencies or departments offer employee assistance programs, or EAPs, which provide confidential counseling and support services for employees dealing with personal or work-related stress, but some first responders may hesitate to use them.

“A lot of first responders worry about the potential for their employer to know what’s going on if they go through their EAP,” Badgley said.

A 2025 survey by the National Emergency Number Association found that nearly 70% of telecommunicators reported feeling stress before every shift, with fatigue and anxiety among the most common symptoms.

In recent years, states and municipalities say they’re focusing on reducing barriers to care, including affordability.

“We will pay whatever it takes for someone to get help,” said Tom Synan, the police chief of the Newtown Police Department in Ohio. Synan also is a speaker with the nonprofit Law Enforcement Action Partnership.

“I think that’s what’s going to help first responders have long careers, better home life and better service to the community,” he added.

In New York, state officials launched an online training program in March to help mental health professionals better understand and support first responders, with a focus on responder culture and barriers to care.

New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in January signed into law a measure that provides employment protections for first responders diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, barring retaliation and guaranteeing they can return to their jobs once cleared. The law is already in effect.

In Nebraska, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen in April signed into law a bill that shields peer support conversations from being used in court or disciplinary proceedings.

Minnesota legislators are considering a proposal to allow first responders to access donated mental health services, including counseling and peer support, without violating state gift laws.

And in Missouri, lawmakers have advanced legislation to study alternative therapies, including the psychoactive compounds psilocybin and ibogaine, for treating conditions such as depression, substance use and post-traumatic stress, with first responders and military veterans eligible to participate in supervised studies.

Other states have taken similar steps in recent years. Last year, Ohio lawmakers approved $40 million for a PTSD treatment fund, while Texas is developing a statewide peer support network for firefighters and EMS personnel.

Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Utah and Washington have enacted laws to protect the confidentiality of peer support counseling. Lawmakers in Vermont are considering similar legislation this year that would ensure conversations in peer support groups remain confidential for first responders.

Still, advocates say access alone does not guarantee use — particularly when providers may not fully understand the realities of the job.

“The trauma is so unique,” Badgley said. “It’s hard to feel comfortable confiding in somebody who just really isn’t trauma informed, or doesn’t understand the first responder mentality.”

Some first responders say the mental health strain of the job goes beyond exposure to traumatic calls. It’s often shaped just as much by internal and external pressures, including workplace dynamics, public expectations, staffing shortages and required overtime, and stressors from life outside the job.

The combination can leave first responders struggling to process their stress.

“When you feel helpless — and you’re the person who helps — who do you go to?” said Synan, the Newtown police chief.

Synan said his department has worked to create space for those conversations, holding debriefs after difficult calls and encouraging officers to talk through what they experienced without pressure or judgment.

When now-retired firefighter Frank Leto joined the New York City Fire Department in 1983, mental health support barely existed.

“The mental health support at that point was probably drinks after work,” he said.

The expectation was to absorb whatever you saw and move on — until, as Leto put it, “You just stuffed it down until it started taking things from you: your family, your relationships, your health, eventually your job.”

That code of silence began to break after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

“There was really no option for the fire department to not address the mental health needs of our firefighters and their families,” Leto said.

He moved off the line to help expand the department’s counseling unit and its early peer support efforts, but their first major idea — embedding clinicians in the hardest-hit firehouses — “was an utter failure.” Firefighters rarely spoke to those experts, and the clinicians were overwhelmed by the scale and immediacy of the trauma.

The breakthrough came when the department stopped trying to import help from the outside and instead formalized what had long existed informally. Training firefighters to support one another created a trusted buffer between the rank-and-file and clinical care, and over time that model “became part of the fabric of the department,” he said.

The International Association of Fire Fighters, a labor union, recognized how powerful that shift was and helped fund the work in New York City.

Today, Leto, who is a member of the IAFF Disaster Response To-Go Team, estimated that roughly 15,000 IAFF members have been trained in peer support — a sign that, in a culture slow to change, attitudes around mental health are beginning to shift.

But that progress has been uneven, and many departments — across fire, law enforcement, emergency medical services and 911 dispatch — are still working to build systems in which seeking support is normalized and accessible.

“Looking at mental and physical and overall well-being is not one answer with one solution,” said Wooten, the former 911 dispatcher. “These are all things that have to be worked at collectively and multifaceted to make sure that we can hopefully create an opportunity to fix some of these larger systemic problems.”

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at awatford@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

As President Donald Trump tries to assert power over U.S. elections, he has raged on social media, cajoled Republican lawmakers and unleashed the Department of Justice on his political enemies.

What has he accomplished with all that effort? Not a lot.

Six months before the November midterm elections, the Trump administration’s quest to exercise authority over the contests and impose sweeping restrictions on voters has proved largely unsuccessful. The aggressive campaign — separate from Trump’s more effective foray into redistricting fights — has been stymied by the courts, rebuffed by many state election officials and opposed by key Republican senators.

“I think there’s many out there who are worried about the constant drumbeat of what the administration is trying to do and what they might do in the future. I hear this from voters, I hear this from election officials,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research.

“And what I see is that there is a vast chasm between wanting to do something and trying to do something and actually successfully doing it.”

Much could change between now and November, of course. 

Facing likely Republican losses in the midterms, election experts warn that Trump could lash out with increasingly brazen attempts to control elections. Or that the Justice Department will conduct more raids targeting election officials, like the FBI seizure of ballots from the 2020 presidential election from Fulton County, Georgia.

Democrats remain braced for federal election interference, especially the prospect of Trump deploying immigration enforcement agents or the military at polling locations — an action prohibited under federal law that some administration aides have nevertheless refused to flatly rule out.

But Trump’s record of achievement up to this point is poor.

The SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship, is stalled in the U.S. Senate despite Trump’s repeated demands for its passage. Federal courts blocked an executive order Trump signed last year that sought to impose a proof-of-citizenship rule unilaterally.

The Justice Department hasn’t secured a single court victory in the 30 lawsuits it’s filed to force states and the District of Columbia to turn over sensitive personal data on voters. A bipartisan group of state secretaries of state is fighting the Trump administration in court — only 13 Republican states have provided the information.

And an executive order signed in March that would limit voting by mail faces five federal lawsuits, with an initial courtroom showdown set for Thursday in Washington, D.C. Federal agencies have yet to finalize plans to implement the directive, which election law experts call illegal and unconstitutional.

“America’s Elections are Rigged, Stolen, and a Laughingstock all over the World. We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a Country any longer,” Trump posted on Truth Social in late April.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told States Newsroom that Trump is committed “to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters.” 

Jackson named several federal laws that she said provide the Justice Department oversight over states’ election administration. She also noted Trump’s support for the SAVE America Act.

“Anyone breaking the law will be held accountable,” Jackson said in an email.

Trump has placed the nation’s electoral system under immense stress before. 

After the 2020 election, the president and his allies worked to overturn the results, with Trump leaning on then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Electoral College votes. The effort failed but it led to a mob storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and disrupting Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory.

Today, the system is holding but under strain. An analysis released Thursday by Issue One, a pro-democracy group, likened American elections to a resilient patient with a strong immune system. Yet the Trump administration, rather than boosting the body’s immunity, acts like a virus, it said.

“America’s election system’s immune system is not breaking, but it is actively fighting against the virus of democratic backsliding,” the analysis reads.

The group identified three safeguards it says are in critical condition: Congress, internal checks within the executive branch and the information ecosystem. 

Election officials have watched with particular concern as the Justice Department probes the 2020 election. Trump has long falsely asserted that the election was stolen and in January 2021 pressured the Georgia secretary of state to find him enough votes to overturn his loss in that state.

After the FBI obtained a warrant to seize 2020 election ballots from Fulton County, which encompasses Atlanta, in January 2026, the DOJ last month sent a subpoena for information on the county’s election workers. The subpoena demands the names, positions, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of election workers and poll volunteers who worked the 2020 general election.

Fulton County is fighting the subpoena in court. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the FBI doesn’t have to give the ballots back to the county, though he noted the seizure “was certainly not perfect.”

The Justice Department has also obtained a grand jury subpoena for election records in Arizona and demanded 2024 ballots from Wayne County, Michigan, which includes Detroit. And the FBI recently interviewed a Wisconsin election official about the 2020 election, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Local leaders have promised that they won’t bend to pressure from the Trump administration.

“This whole thing is designed to harass, intimidate and chill participation in our election process,” Fulton County Board of Commissioners Chair Robb Pitts, a Democrat, said in a video statement. “It’s not going to work, it’s not going to happen.”

Some states are pursuing additional safeguards against federal election interference. 

For example, New Mexico lawmakers passed a bill that makes intentionally obstructing polling places a felony and prohibits the military or any armed federal personnel from polling locations.

The legislative push, concentrated in Democratic states, comes as Trump administration officials have sidestepped direct questions about whether troops or federal agents could be deployed to the polls.

“It’s yet another gotcha hypothetical,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a recent U.S. Senate hearing.

The Connecticut General Assembly passed legislation May 6 that imposes a 250-foot buffer zone around election sites where warrantless arrests and searches, use of force and ID checks by state or federal officers, including immigration agents, are banned. The measure also bans masked or concealed identities near polling places, among other provisions.

Connecticut state Rep. Matt Blumenthal, a Democrat who chairs the state House Government Administration & Elections Committee, said that if nothing happens during this fall’s elections, “I’ll say, ‘Good, it worked.’” 

The goal of the bill isn’t to create confrontations between Connecticut law enforcement and federal forces, but to deter intimidation in the first place, he said.

“We have a responsibility to protect all of our residents, but especially our voters, related to our elections — to prevent these sorts of tools of threat and intimidation and terror from being used to shape our political life,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

Connecticut state Sen. Rob Sampson, a Republican, said that he wouldn’t support abuse from the federal government. But Democrats, he said, were spinning a false narrative of voter intimidation for political purposes and attempting to distract from weaknesses in election security.

“In the last few years, I don’t always trust the results,” Sampson said on the Senate floor. “Now, some people will go out there and say, ‘Oh, you’re an election denier.’ I’m not saying that there’s tens of thousands of faulty or erroneous or fraudulent votes. I’m just saying that there’s definitely some.”

Trump and Republicans in Congress say major action is needed to boost election confidence. 

At Trump’s urging, the U.S. House passed the SAVE America Act in February. In addition to requiring voters to show documents such as a passport or birth certificate that prove citizenship, the legislation also imposes ID requirements at the polls and would require states to bolster efforts to clean voter registration lists.

Polling suggests Americans support at least some of the bill’s provisions. A Politico poll conducted in April found 52% of Americans support requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, while 18% oppose. 

Democrats, election administration experts and some Republicans say the proposal would lead to chaos. Its provisions would take effect immediately, upending voting requirements potentially months or weeks before elections. Married women and others who have last names that don’t match their birth certificates could face additional obstacles registering to vote.

The SAVE America Act hasn’t advanced in the U.S. Senate. Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican and major proponent of the bill, attempted to add the measure onto a budget bill in April, but the Senate rejected it, 48-50.

“This doesn’t mean Trump and his allies in Congress will stop,” Héctor Sánchez Barba, president and CEO of Mi Familia Vota, a Latino voting rights group, said in a statement.

The Senate has since moved off the SAVE America Act and would need to hold a procedural vote to return to it. Whether that happens is in doubt, but Kennedy indicated to Punchbowl News that he intends to force another amendment vote later this month. His office didn’t respond to an email from States Newsroom seeking confirmation.

Without the SAVE America Act, Trump’s options to legally restrict voting are limited. 

Trump signed an executive order in March attempting to limit the U.S. Postal Service’s delivery of ballots through the mail. The order also directs the Department of Homeland Security to create “state citizenship lists” that include the names of voting-age citizens in each state — effectively creating a national voter list.

But the order has come under legal attack from Democratic groups, a coalition of Democratic states and multiple voting rights organizations. Its opponents are hopeful that federal judges will soon block the directive like they did a March 2025 order that included a proof-of-citizenship requirement.

“I don’t have confidence that the Trump administration or Donald Trump will refrain from trying to interfere with our elections,” Blumenthal said. “But I have great confidence that the American people will stand up against it.”

WASHINGTON — The federal student loan system is set to see a dramatic overhaul beginning this summer, and critics warn it likely will make loans more expensive and difficult to obtain for borrowers — driving them to private lenders or altering their plans for higher education.

Among the major changes are new loan limits for graduate and professional students, a restructured repayment system where new borrowers will have only two plans to choose from and the elimination of a key loan program for graduate and professional students that allowed for unlimited borrowing.

The provisions — most of which will take effect July 1 — stem from congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last year. 

The U.S. Department of Education finalized regulations, published May 1, that implement sweeping changes outlined in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law. The department received more than 80,000 public comments before the rule was finalized. 

Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said that “at a high level,” the reforms center on “lowering the cost of college, simplifying student loan repayment and restoring accountability to the federal student lending system,” during an April 30 call with reporters regarding the new regulations. 

The average federal student loan debt balance stands at $39,547, according to the Education Data Initiative.

As July 1 approaches, here’s a closer look at some of the biggest changes coming to the federal student loan system: 

The Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, will soon be eliminated under the package and unavailable for new borrowers.

“If you are currently borrowing Grad PLUS loans, so you borrowed Grad PLUS loans before July 1, you will be allowed to continue using Grad PLUS until you finish your program, or until three years have expired, basically whichever is sooner,” said Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

“Current students are grandfathered in — it will only be new graduate students, as of this fall, after July 1, who will be subject to the new loan limits,” Cooper said. 

The package also sets forth new annual and aggregate loan limits for graduate and professional students, along with parents who take out federal student loans for dependent undergraduate students. 

Graduate student loans will be capped at $20,500 annually, with a $100,000 aggregate limit. 

Parent PLUS borrowers will have an annual cap of $20,000 and an aggregate cap of $65,000 per dependent. 

Professional student loans will have a $50,000 annual limit and an aggregate cap of $200,000. 

The programs that fall within the department’s “professional” category and are subject to that larger loan cap include: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The department clarified in a fact sheet on the finalized regulations that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.” 

The agency has received immense pushback from groups representing people in fields that do not fall under the department’s definition and will thus be subject to lower annual and lifetime borrowing caps. 

In another major shift, the regulations replace prior repayment options with two new plans — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — both of which will launch July 1.

RAP is an income-based repayment plan that “waives unpaid interest for borrowers who make on-time payments that do not fully cover accruing interest,” per the department’s fact sheet. 

Balances under the plan will also “decline with each on-time payment, as unpaid interest is fully waived and the Department then reduces principal by an amount equal to the borrower’s payment, up to $50,” per the agency. 

The Tiered Standard plan offers fixed monthly payments, ranging from a 10-year to 25-year period, depending on the outstanding principal balance of the borrower. 

“The upshot is that loan repayment is going to get a lot more expensive for almost everyone, and for some people, it’s going to get significantly more expensive, and the transition is also going to be difficult for a lot of people to manage,” Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, told States Newsroom.

Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education, said she thinks “there will be a lot of students who will have to turn to the private loan market, who otherwise would have been able to cover their costs through the (Grad PLUS) program.”

Victoria Jackson, assistant director of higher education policy at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said that with the new loan limits and “drastic cuts to aid availability” in the regulations, “you would really hope that it would come with other, more affordable and better forms of financial aid.” 

“And what they’ve done is just created this vacuum that right now can really only be filled with private loans, which are costlier and riskier for students, or students are just not going to go,” Jackson said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to eliminate the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Zampini noted that, when it comes to the incoming student loan regulations, she does not have confidence in the Education Department’s “ability at this moment to successfully manage the transition without a lot of issues, as far as servicing and as far as account tracking and plan enrollment and things like that.” 

Jackson, of EdTrust, said that “by weakening the federal financial aid system, I think there’s a weakening of our higher education system and making it more difficult for low-income students, students of color and other marginalized students to access graduate education.”

She added that “people who complete those degrees tend to have more financial security in the future — they earn more over their lifetimes and, on markers of financial success and opportunity, do better.” 

“I think this is one prong of a plan of undermining our overall higher education system.” 

If any Oklahoman decided to play hooky from work for three weeks, they’d be fired. 

If we decided to ignore the state’s compulsory education laws and let our kids accumulate three weeks of unexcused absences, we’d wind up in truancy court, facing fines or even imprisonment. 

So why, then, do House members think it’s acceptable to allow one of their own to miss over 300 votes and accumulate three weeks of unexcused absences?

And why, when legislators are so obsessed with regulating our actions and like to claim that they’re good stewards of our tax dollars, are they OK with allowing a colleague to bilk the good taxpayers of Oklahoma?

For the past three weeks they have been allowing Democratic state Rep. John Waldron to operate with impunity after he has apparently been AWOL from the Legislature and indicated to House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson that he doesn’t plan to return to the Capitol.

Rather than enforce a House rule that prohibits unexcused absences and expel him for this dereliction of duty, his colleagues on both sides of the aisle are enabling him to continue to collect on his $47,500 salary and benefits.

How is that fair? 

Coincidentally (or not), Waldron’s sudden inability to make it to work coincided with his announcement that he plans to resign from office effective Oct. 1. Legislative records show Waldron submitted his resignation letter April 16, which is also the final day he voted for legislation on the House floor.

At the time of his resignation, Waldron faced accusations of sexually harassing a subordinate. 

Nonprofit media outlet NonDoc reported that while serving as head of the state Democratic Party, Waldron used artificial intelligence to create a GIF of himself and a potential candidate for office kissing, and that he then sent the image to the woman.

Waldron swiftly resigned from his position as party chair, but rather than publicly demand that he resign from his House seat, legislators kept the purported harassment quiet for months, which emboldened Waldron to file for office again. Only after public outcry did Waldron resign from his legislative seat and suspend his reelection campaign.

But now as an apparent goodbye gift, lawmakers have given Waldron a golden parachute by inexplicably allowing him to make his resignation effective Oct. 1. 

And then when he’s not shown up to finish the job he promised to do, they haven’t publicly done anything to hold him accountable.

Munson says there’s no mechanism to force a legislator to resign earlier than they want to.

But out of sight, out of mind. Right?

Wrong.

There’s a giant computerized vote board in the front of the House that tells clearly who is at work doing their job. In addition to changing color to show who is voting for and against measures, it also tells Oklahomans which legislators have an excused absence from work that day. Lawmakers that have obtained permission to be out have their name written in yellow on the House vote board and have a letter “A” by it.

Those who are absent without leave or miss votes remain white. Waldron’s name hasn’t changed color for weeks now.

Like the rest of us, lawmakers sometimes have valid reasons why they need to miss work. 

For instance, one Republican state representative was diagnosed with cancer and needed live-saving surgery and treatment. But to his credit, he came back as soon as he was able to cast votes on behalf of his constituents. Another was excused for several days recently because he had a death in the family.

Serious illness and bereavement are legitimate reasons.

Hiding at home to escape embarrassing public scrutiny is not. 

When Republican House Speaker Kyle Hilbert was asked about Waldron’s prolonged absence, he metaphorically shrugged.

“Ultimately, the reason I know that he’s not voting is because you guys (the media) keep talking about it,” Hilbert said. “I really don’t spend a lot of my days thinking about John Waldron, except every Thursday when we talk about it.” 

Yeah. There’s a reason “you guys” are talking about it, and why he should be thinking a lot about John Waldron. 

To spell it out clearly: It’s because it’s outrageous and unfair that legislators are holding one of their own to lower expectations than they’d expect of their own constituents.

I’d bet you a week’s pay that legislators would be unsympathetic if one of their constituents came to them angry that they were fired after they skipped work without permission for days on end to go golfing. Or if a constituent was referred to truancy court because it was too much work to get their kid to school.

Waldron did not respond to questions from an Oklahoma Voice reporter when his absences had reached two weeks.

Someone in House leadership should be keeping track of attendance, particularly since the lower chamber has an internal rule that prohibits members from being absent without leave.

When a reporter pointed out this rule mandating attendance, Hilbert bizarrely said it’s voters’ responsibility to enforce it and hold lawmakers like Waldron accountable.

Voters don’t create those rules. The chambers do. It’s not voters’ job to enforce those. It’s the job of those that create them, the legislators.

In the House, voters’ chance to hold legislators “accountable” at the ballot box comes once every two years. In the Senate, it’s once every four.

Constituents deserve to have someone actively representing them.

And if they don’t, then lawmakers need to be brave enough to police themselves and demand that their colleagues show up.

If legislators don’t know what’s an acceptable time to miss, maybe they need a set number of days they can be off, like the rest of us, barring, of course bereavement, or some massive issue that would be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act.

If everyone refused to show up for days on end, we’d have a nonfunctional government or society.

And if someone suddenly refuses to come to work for no good reason, then perhaps you give them a warning.

If that doesn’t work, then expel them so voters can find someone who will.

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court crippled the federal Voting Rights Act, NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson addressed a virtual gathering for the group’s members and supporters where he ranked the landmark decision alongside the court’s most infamous cases.

Dred Scott excluded Black people from American citizenship ahead of the Civil War. Plessy blessed policies of racial segregation in 1896. And now there was Callais. 

The opinion will “probably go down in the history book as one of three of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of this nation,” Johnson said.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana vs. Callais on April 29 cleared states to split apart, for political gain, congressional districts where a majority of residents belong to minority groups. The court’s conservative majority said Louisiana lawmakers acted unconstitutionally when they intentionally created the state’s second majority-Black district, which the justices found unnecessary.

A week after its release, the decision is roiling politics across the South as states move at a rapid pace to recast the political landscape that has taken progressives by surprise. 

Republicans, triumphant over their victory at the court, are rushing fresh gerrymanders through Southern statehouses in time for the November midterm elections in an effort to strengthen their party’s control over the region’s U.S. House delegations. They’re acting at lightning speed, over loud protests, and have nullified votes by suspending ongoing elections.

Democrats, especially Black residents, are furious with both the court and GOP politicians, who they believe are poised to wipe away decades of Black political progress in the region. The new maps that seek to oust Black members of Congress and prevent the election of Democrats in the future recall a Jim Crow past of literacy tests and poll taxes, they say.

“We refuse to let you kill us by killing our vote,” Eliza Jane Franklin, a resident of rural Barbour County, Alabama, told a state House hearing Tuesday.

The Alabama Legislature is moving to authorize a special primary election using a congressional map currently blocked in federal court, if a district court or, ultimately, the Supreme Court allows the state to move forward. At least one of the state’s two Black members of the U.S. House would be vulnerable.

In Louisiana, the governor has suspended the state’s primary elections for the U.S. House, setting aside some 42,000 votes that were already cast. Republican lawmakers will begin advancing a new gerrymander in a matter of days, aiming to force out at least one of the state’s two Black House members.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a new map into law Monday that aims to hand his party up to four additional U.S. House seats. State lawmakers approved the map hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. The map has already drawn multiple legal challenges.

The South Carolina Legislature is weighing whether to redraw maps. And Tennessee lawmakers want to gerrymander a Memphis district currently held by U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, a white Democrat who represents the state’s only majority-Black district. 

“The Supreme Court has opined that redistricting, like the judicial system, should be color-blind,” Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said in a statement Thursday unveiling a plan to divide the Memphis area among three congressional seats.

More states, in the South and elsewhere, are expected to pursue new maps over the next two years. Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp ruled out a special session this year, for example, but supports redistricting before the 2028 election. 

The current moment represents an extraordinary time in America, said Rebekah Caruthers, president and CEO of Fair Elections Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group. But she also called it a reversion “back to America.”

Many thought the presence of Black, Hispanic and Asian American elected officials somehow meant racial discrimination no longer existed, she said.

“And unfortunately, that is a misread of American history,” Caruthers said. “And perhaps it is a retelling of American history for those who want to gloss over America’s very sordid past, especially when it comes to voting rights.”

The scramble by a handful of Southern states to redraw districts comes as Republicans grasp for any scintilla of advantage ahead of the midterm elections in November. 

A U.S. House under Democratic control would spell the end of much of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda, produce a wave of investigations into his administration and potentially lead to a vote to impeach him in the House, though the Senate would almost certainly acquit him.

“This is all about Donald Trump wanting to avoid hard questions and oversight hearings about his actions,” Cohen said at a news conference in Memphis.

Seth McKee, a political science professor at Oklahoma State University who has studied Southern politics, said Republicans are attempting to “staunch the bleeding” ahead of unfavorable midterm elections.

“The desperation of this Republican Party, it’s off the charts,” McKee said.

Prior to Callais, Trump had already urged Republicans to redraw congressional maps for partisan advantage — a process that typically occurs once a decade after the census. 

Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas enacted more GOP-friendly maps, while Democrats struck back in California and Virginia. In Utah, Republicans want to block a court-ordered map that’s more favorable to Democrats.

Republican primary voters have given their approval to that approach. On Tuesday, five Trump-endorsed state legislative candidates in Indiana defeated GOP incumbents who had defied the president to block a gerrymander in the state last year.

But until now the Voting Rights Act limited how far that gerrymandering push could extend.

For decades, Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act helped protect majority-minority districts from gerrymandering and ensured voters could elect Black candidates to Congress in Southern states following the end of state laws that blocked Black citizens from voting. The Callais opinion guts Section 2 by curtailing the consideration of race when drawing legislative maps.

Republicans have praised the decision and many have been clear that they believe the opinion opens up a path to securing additional GOP seats. Trump has endorsed disregarding primary elections that have already been held so that states can pass new maps — which he predicts can net Republicans an additional 20 seats this fall.

“We cannot allow there to be an Election that is conducted unconstitutionally simply for the ‘convenience’ of State Legislatures,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If they have to vote twice, so be it.”

Over the past week, some Republicans have cast majority-minority districts previously protected by the Voting Rights Act as racist because they were drawn with attention paid to the racial makeup of the map. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, a Missouri Republican, wrote on X that there are “no more excuses for keeping racist maps,” for example, and called for their immediate removal.

Other GOP leaders have centered their case for quick action on political power. Like Trump, they have explicitly invoked control of the U.S. House as a reason to gerrymander. While Republicans have the House, their margin of control is razor thin: 217 to 212, with one independent and five vacancies. Even a modest Democratic wave in November will likely sweep away GOP control.

Alabama Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger Jr. and House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter said in a joint statement that the state’s lawmakers have a responsibility to offer Alabama a “fighting chance” to elect seven Republican U.S. representatives. Two of the state’s seven districts are held by Democrats.

“Control of the U.S. House of Representatives could come down to just a handful of seats, and when the dust settles, the people of Alabama will know that their Legislature stood firm, acted decisively, and did everything within its power to fight for fair representation,” Gudger and Ledbetter said.

Alabama Republicans want to use a map passed by lawmakers in 2023 that federal courts blocked from taking effect. Alabama’s current map was drawn by a court-appointed special master.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, asked a federal district court Tuesday for an order that would let the state move forward with the gerrymander.

In Louisiana, Republicans obtained special permission from the Supreme Court to quickly move forward on a new gerrymander after the justices struck down its current map in the Callais decision.

Absentee voting was already underway in Louisiana before Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended congressional primary elections set for May 16. Votes already cast for U.S. House candidates won’t count, Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry, no relation, has said.

Louisiana state lawmakers are set to begin work on a new map this month that will likely break apart a New Orleans district held by U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Black Democrat who has fought with the governor.

“The Court’s decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent of the decision to quickly finalize Callais.

Still, Democrats and other opponents of the gerrymandering effort across the South are turning to the courts. Lawsuits have also been filed challenging the suspension of Louisiana’s congressional primaries and Florida’s new map also faces court challenges.

A petition filed in Louisiana state court by Elias Law Group, a major Democrat-aligned voting rights litigation firm, alleges the governor’s decision to halt the congressional primary is unlawful and unprecedented. Only the state legislature has the power to set the state’s election schedule, the petition argues.

“Governors do not get to cancel elections by executive fiat, least of all elections that are already underway, with ballots in voters’ hands and votes already cast,” Lali Madduri, a partner at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.

Regardless of how the legal challenges play out, Democrats say the Callais decision and the ongoing fallout from the decision underscore the need for massive voter turnout in the November election. A large Democratic turnout that results in a significant Democratic majority in the U.S. House would serve as a rebuke to Trump’s gerrymandering campaign, they say.

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina’s sole congressional Democrat, said during the NAACP virtual meeting that a Democratic House could pass voting rights legislation. 

“I would hope we could do that because I really think that’s our only hope legislatively,” Clyburn said.

Democrats have long called for the passage of a bill to restore preclearance, a major element of the Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court paused in 2013, which required states and local governments with a history of racial discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes. 

But the measure would face a certain filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Even if Democrats broke a filibuster, Trump would likely veto it. 

In effect, Democrats’ most realistic opportunity to enact major voting rights legislation relies on regaining control of the White House and Congress and ending the filibuster — a set of conditions that’s out of reach until at least 2029.

In the meantime, more Democrats are calling for aggressive gerrymandering of blue states as a way to punch back. U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Joseph Morelle, both New York Democrats, on Monday announced an initiative to encourage their state to redraw congressional districts ahead of the 2028 election.

Gerrymandering New York would be an intensive effort, likely requiring voters to repeal or suspend anti-gerrymandering provisions in the state constitution. But voters in California and Virginia have previously endorsed Democratic gerrymanders.

“This is just the beginning,” Jeffries said in a statement. “Across the nation, we will sue, we will redraw and we will win.”

OKLAHOMA CITY — Tensions between legislative leaders spilled out into the open this week, culminating in a House leader on Friday warning lawmakers could end up in a special session.

A Friday afternoon email from Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, to House members indicated anger with Senate leadership has been growing for weeks. Frustrations from the House became public once the Senate spent two days this week, including a crucial deadline day, adjourned rather than voting, which killed multiple House bills.

“Depending on the actions of Senate leadership in the coming days, we may have to contemplate the scenario of working with the Governor for the possibility of bringing us back into session for the purpose of passing necessary policies that are good for the state,” Hilbert wrote in the email, which Oklahoma Voice obtained.

Senate President Pro Tem Lonne Paxton, R-Tuttle, fired back Friday morning on what he called “inflammatory and false” criticism leveled at his chamber.

Responding to scrutiny over the Senate’s early adjournment this week, Paxton said senators have spent more time on their chamber’s floor reviewing bills than the House over the past month and a half.  

He said the Senate has done so without having to work late into the night like the House has, and he contended House leaders wasted legislative days earlier in session by leaving the state for a golf trip.

“I would say the Senate’s worked smarter, harder and longer, and the stats prove that,” Paxton told news reporters.

The Senate will hear no more House bills for the rest of session, which is expected to end Thursday, but it will consider certain resolutions, Senate bills with newly inserted House language and veto overrides, he said.

House and Senate leaders agreed on Monday to work through Thursday this week, Hilbert’s email states.

But, Paxton abruptly adjourned the Senate’s floor session on Wednesday four minutes after it was meant to begin. Paxton at the time said there wasn’t a sufficient quorum of senators in the room and gave no clear date to return. 

Senate leadership decided Wednesday morning the chamber already had heard all necessary House bills and could adjourn, Paxton said during his Friday news conference. He estimated the Senate could work one to three more days next week before the end of session.

The early adjournment brought multiple House bills to a dead end without passing the Senate by a deadline Thursday. 

House lawmakers already were frustrated that certain priority bills, including legislation affecting the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust and immigrant access to welfare programs, had not been heard in the Senate, according to Hilbert’s email.

To salvage some of the lost legislation, House lawmakers relied on a maneuver known as “shucking” bills. They deleted the contents of bills that had already passed the Senate and added the text of House legislation that senators had not given a hearing.

The amended bills now return to the Senate, where they’re still eligible for votes.

One of those “shucked” bills, Senate Joint Resolution 50, now includes a proposed state question that could make major changes to Oklahoma’s Medicaid expansion program, a top priority of Republican leaders this session. 

“The only way prior to sine die to put a state question on the ballot on Medicaid was for us to shuck a bill,” Hilbert said. “We did not call and ask (the Senate’s) permission. They didn’t call and ask our permission before they made the decision not to work the rest of this week.”

Paxton said the Senate will consider hearing the shucked bills.

While senators wrapped up for the week, the House had a marathon of votes Wednesday that stretched through the afternoon and lasted until after 11 p.m. House lawmakers then returned for more votes Thursday morning.

Late-night legislating isn’t what’s best for Oklahomans, Paxton said.

“I don’t know how that is a positive thing for Oklahoma when people that are deciding laws that affect everyday lives are bleary and weary,” he said. “The Senate, we do our best to avoid that.”

House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City, agreed that carrying on until almost midnight is not “a healthy way for us to govern.” It’s a result of a breakdown in the working relationship between House and Senate Republicans, she told reporters Thursday.

There’s plenty of time left for the Legislature to finish its work, Munson said, but legislative leaders are aiming to finish session two weeks early. 

Primary elections are approaching next month in a major campaign year.

“I think about working people,” said Munson, a Democratic candidate for governor. “While some folks on the other side are puffing their chest about working so hard throughout the evening, the working mom who’s getting off of her night shift could care less if the Oklahoma House of Representatives or senators are working. They want policies that are actually going to improve their lives for themselves and their children.”

A multicounty grand jury revealed it’s been investigating the early release of a drunk driver from prison.

In a report released Thursday, the grand jury said although it found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, it did find multiple issues with the early release GPS Program. It also found evidence of political favoritism toward the offender, a close friend of Gov. Kevin Stitt.

Stitt denied any political favoritism occurred and called the grand jury report “political gossip.”

In 2023, Sara Polston was driving in Norman with a blood alcohol level nearly twice the legal limit. While traveling 66 mph in a 25 mph zone, she crashed into another car, grievously injuring a 20-year-old woman.

Late last year, Polston was sentenced to eight years in prison and seven years on probation.

But after just 73 days in prison, she was released as part of an electronic monitoring program that uses GPS to track offenders.

“This rank political favoritism, particularly on a crime that nearly took the life of a 20-year-old young woman, is indefensible,” the report says.

The grand jury has spent months figuring out how and why that happened, as first reported in The Oklahoman.

They found that Stitt called the interim director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to discuss other matters, but brought up Polston’s pre-sentence investigation process. Stitt knows Polston and her husband, Rod, who is an attorney and owns a tax firm in Norman.

After the call, DOC superiors notified other employees of the call and specifically instructed them to “ensure Polston was treated with respect and made to feel comfortable,” according to the grand jury report.

“The (DOC officer assigned to conduct Polston’s pre-sentence investigation) was not explicitly instructed to be lenient in his sentencing recommendation to the court,” the report said. “However, he believed that the message carried an implication that he was to be lenient. He felt that the wrong decision could cost him his job.”

While Polston was in the Cleveland County Jail, then-Sheriff Chris Amason — who has since resigned after pleading no contest to a charge of embezzlement — offered her “unprecedented” accommodations. She moved cells multiple times for comfort, noise levels, and access to a television. She was given a tablet. Her husband was allowed to bring her Chick-fil-A. Amason told investigators he wanted to “do them (the Polstons) a solid.”

In phone calls while she was in jail, Rod and Sara Polston discussed a figure they called “The Guy” or “Our Buddy” who was working on the “P word,” presumably pardon or parole, for Sara.

“However the ‘P word’ must first go through the Pardon and Parole Board before ‘The Guy’ approves it and the process is not like the President of the United States,” reads a description of one phone call in the grand jury report. “Rod Polston states ‘The Guy’ was checking to see if the Pardon and Parole board serves ‘at his pleasure’ to determine if he can tell the Board what to do.”

The grand jury concluded that “The Guy/Buddy/Friend” was a code name Stitt. He and Rod Polston played football together at Norman High School, according to Stitt, and are members of the same college fraternity. According to the report, the Polstons have contributed nearly $30,000 to Stitt’s campaigns. Stitt explicitly told the Cleveland County District Attorney he is “a close personal friend” of the Polstons.

Polston was transferred from jail to prison in early December. By February 19, she was home.

She was assigned to the Department of Corrections’ GPS Program, which is available to non-violent offenders with sentences shorter than 10 years. The DOC has not seemed to count parole toward that sentence length.

During the approval process for Polston’s assignment to the GPS Program, DOC officials did not contact the victim or her family. Stitt again called the interim DOC director to check whether Polston’s GPS release had been approved.

The grand jury said Stitt’s calls to the interim director were “on behalf of the Polstons.”

Stitt does not characterize the calls that way. In an interview with News 9 Friday morning, Stitt called the grand jury report “political gossip” from Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

“I did zero favors for this inmate,” Stitt said. “When I found out that she was going on an ankle monitor, I called to say, ‘This is weird. Are you sure this is right?’”

Stitt said multiple times in the interview that his “heart goes out to the victim.”

DOC officials did not contact the victim, Micaela Borrego, or her family while considering Polston’s approval for the GPS Program. When the Borregos learned of her impending release, they worked with the Cleveland County District Attorney’s Office to advocate against it.

The report finds state laws are not specific enough on eligibility requirements for the GPS Program and afford too much discretion to DOC administrators who do not receive adequate training on conflicts of interest.

“Several DOC executives claimed their hands were tied by statute and policy in approving Polston’s early release, however, all affirmed that the GPS Program is discretionary and that they possessed the ability to deny Polston’s application at the time,” the report says.

Since Polston’s release, Oklahoma lawmakers have passed Senate Bill 137, which makes anyone convicted of causing great bodily injury while DUI ineligible for the GPS Program.

Stitt said he supported that measure. When News9 reporter Anna Denison pointed out that the measure became law without the governor’s signature, Stitt said he vetoes more bills than any other governor in the country and “purposefully made sure that went into law.”

The grand jury found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But it found “systematic failures” allowed for Polston’s release.

This article was originally published by KOSU.

OKLAHOMA CITY – A plan to ask voters to give lawmakers access to restricted funds earmarked to improve health appears to be dead.

President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said the Senate does not support House Joint Resolution 1077, which would have allowed lawmakers to spend $1 billion of public funds that voters locked in the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund.

“I don’t see that going anywhere,” said Paxton, the measure’s author.

In April, a Senate panel advanced the measure, but it has yet to be heard in the upper chamber. 

The measure pending in the Senate was drastically amended in committee from the version sent over by the House. The House wanted to eliminate TSET’s board of directors and divert some of the settlement funding to pay for college scholarships.

Paxton’s measure would have asked voters to let lawmakers divert $1 billion from the $2.2 billion TSET corpus into an account that lawmakers could spend down.

The TSET fund contains monies paid to the state following a settlement agreement with tobacco companies. 

The earnings from the fund’s investments are used to improve health outcomes, such as reducing smoking, vaping and obesity and to prevent cancer.

Voters in 2000 created a constitutional lockbox to prevent lawmakers from accessing the money, unless they first obtain permission from voters.

Prior legislative efforts to ask voters to make changes to TSET have failed. Voters in 2020 also soundly rejected a legislative plan that would have allowed lawmakers to divert funding to pay for the state’s Medicaid program.

Last month, Julie Bisbee resigned as head of TSET. She said she was not pressured to resign and had accomplished her goals at the agency.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said Bisbee’s resignation creates the ability to talk about the future of TSET.

“I do think a lot of the disagreements between the Legislature and TSET board was a lot of miscommunication and where the previous director insisted on not sharing things with the board at the time, and that should have happened,” Hilbert said.

Past disagreements between TSET and the Legislature could have been avoided with better communication, he said.

Last session, lawmakers asked TSET for $50 million to help fund a new University of Oklahoma pediatric heart hospital.

The funds were not immediately made available. TSET officials said at the time that they had a grant application process, and the Legislature’s request would be considered with the other proposals.

The Legislature then passed a bill, House Bill 2783, that would have allowed the TSET board of directors to be removed “at the pleasure” of the appointing authority and limit terms of service to no more than seven years.

Critics said the measure was unconstitutional and threatened the independence of the board, which was created in the state constitution. 

TSET sued, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court  nullified it.

Lawmakers could still consider other legislation involving TSET in the final days of session. 

They have until May 29 to sine die though they’ve indicated they plan to wrap up session by May 14.  

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, along with attorneys general from 21 other states, is asking the United States Supreme Court to require mifepristone not be sent through the mail. 

This comes after several flip-flops in mifepristone access, a medication that is used in conjunction with misoprostol to end a pregnancy before the 70-day mark, according to the Mayo Clinic. It can also be used to control high blood sugar in people who have Type 2 diabetes, the Mayo Clinic says. 

The FDA first allowed mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth in 2021 and the decision became permanent in 2023.  

On May 1, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the 2023 U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule that allowed mifepristone to be dispensed without an in-person visit with a physician, Maryland Matters reported. 

Unpacking the fight over telehealth access to abortion medication

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily suspended the 5th Circuit decision so each side could file briefs with the court. 

“Rather than respect these States’ efforts to protect prenatal life, the federal government has often undermined them,” the brief Coleman joined said. 

It criticized the Biden administration for expanding access and “efforts to both maintain and expand access to mifepristone, including via telehealth prescription, which in turn facilitates the shipment of chemical abortion drugs across state lines—from proabortion States into those where abortion is more tightly regulated.” 

The Society of Family Planning says most abortions are obtained in person but telehealth accounts for about 27%. 

In a Friday statement, Colemand said “We’re asking the Supreme Court to recognize that Kentucky has the ability to protect the health and safety of our citizens.”

Tamarra Wieder, the Kentucky state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, criticized the move as “a scare tactic and a waste of taxpayer dollars to push an anti-abortion agenda.”

“Attempts to block medication abortion have never been about the health and wellbeing of Kentuckians – not now, not ever,” Wieder said in a Friday night statement.

“Kentucky already has one of the most extreme and oppressive abortion bans in the country, and somehow, it’s not enough for AG Coleman. This sham lawsuit is about fear and control. He is so extreme he is trying in another lawsuit to stop people from even talking about abortion, period,” she said. “Kentuckians are fed up. We will never stop fighting for a future where every person in Kentucky can access the care they need and make decisions about their own bodies, lives, and futures.”

Others who signed the brief are attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

This story was updated. 

This story was originally produced by Kentucky Lantern, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — State governments should shoulder more of the cost and responsibility for natural disaster recovery, according to a report released Thursday by the Federal Emergency Management Agency review council.

The board, created by President Donald Trump last year, called on Congress and the administration to make several major changes, including offloading the National Flood Insurance Program to the private insurance market. 

Robert Fenton, regional administrator for FEMA Region 9 and a member of the review council, said the flood insurance program is “financially unstable” and in considerable debt. 

“We came away with a number of recommendations that we want to put forward — primarily that focuses on a shift from a federally managed flood insurance program back to the private sector and allowing the private sector to take on a bigger role within the market,” he said. “And I think that’s going to help because it puts the states, who are statutorily responsible for regulating insurance, back into a critical role.”

Fenton said the review council recommended lawmakers create a program to transfer NFIP policies, which he noted are a requirement for many homeowners, to the private sector.

But there will be some extra work to do on the 5% of NFIP policies he said are categorized as “repetitive loss” and are “responsible for 30% to 40% of the payouts that we do through our flood insurance program.” 

“So leveraging our other programs, like our mitigation program,” Fenton said. “How do we buy out those homes and move them out of those risk areas? Or how do we build the infrastructure around them to better protect them and have those not be areas that have repetitive damage?”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson wrote in a statement that Trump “looks forward to reviewing the recommendations put forth by the FEMA Review Council.”

“The President remains committed to getting resources to communities in need while also working with states to ensure they invest in their own resilience before disaster strikes, making response less urgent and recovery less prolonged,” Jackson added. 

Trump has said throughout his second term that he wants to change how the federal government approaches natural disaster management and recovery.

“We want to wean off of FEMA and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said in June. “We’re moving it back to the states so the governors can handle it. That’s why they’re governors. Now, if they can’t handle it, they shouldn’t be governor.”

Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, said one of the review council’s main recommendations is “to equip state, local, tribal, territories to lead disaster response with the federal government in a supporting role, not a supplanting role.”

“We want FEMA to set the standard and then encourage creation of standards and then adoption of standards at the state, local, tribal, territorial level,” he said. 

Guthrie said during the public meeting where review council members outlined the recommendations in their 75-page report that “federal assistance should only be reserved for truly significant events that exceed state, local, tribal, territorial capacity and capability.”

The federal government, he said, needs to update the methodology it uses to determine when a natural disaster or other major event has overwhelmed a community’s ability to recover. 

“Many, many states are going to say, ‘I hit a million dollars, I can request the threshold,’ regardless if it’s actually broken the back of that local or state government,” Guthrie said. “They’re going to do it because they can. And again, that’s what we’re talking about. We need to realign that.”

Former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant said “nothing can be more important than empowering the states to take on this responsibility,” though he added that individuals need to prepare for natural disasters as well. 

“I remember as a child when people had their own fallout shelters in their backyards,” he said. “If they didn’t, they knew where the closest fallout shelter was. We took responsibility for food and water and to be able to respond to those disasters.”

Fenton said the review council believes FEMA’s post-disaster mitigation program should be turned over to state governments. 

“Let the state manage this program by providing them the resources and an architecture that will ensure that priorities are naturally aligned and that some of the complexities of environmental review and some of the other reviews are done locally,” he said.  

Guthrie said FEMA should also look for ways to speed up federal assistance by making it less complex for people whose homes are deemed uninhabitable following a disaster. The federal government should also allow state, local, territorial, or tribal governments to have more of a say on emergency housing. 

“Let’s get back to some common-sense, state-managed solutions,” he said. 

Another suggestion from the board calls on the administration and lawmakers to better integrate private sector, faith-based and nonprofit organizations that regularly play a role in natural disaster response and recovery. 

“(The) private sector is responsible for so much in disasters, and they own so much of the infrastructure or key capabilities that we depend on,” Fenton said. “And so we need to be able to leverage those retailers, those small businesses and we need to give them a way to integrate with these events.” 

Many of the recommendations from the review council will need to run through Congress, where work overhauling FEMA began last year. 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 57-3 in September to approve a bill that would make several changes to the FEMA, including removing it from the Department of Homeland Security and making the agency its own Cabinet-level department. 

The legislation would create one application for federal natural disaster assistance from FEMA, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration. 

It would also give local and state governments more flexibility in deciding which types of emergency housing best meet the needs of their residents following different natural disasters.

House Republican leaders have yet to bring the bipartisan bill to the floor for a vote. 

On a call organized by disaster relief advocacy group Organizing Resilience, disaster survivors said the council did well at identifying problems with the current infrastructure, but that the recommendations appeared to come up short.

“Our concern for disaster survivors is that some of the recommended changes may not reflect what the council heard from survivors about what they need,” Maddie Sloan, the director of disaster recovery at the social justice nonprofit Texas Appleseed, said on the call shortly after the report was published.

FEMA would be unable to act on many of the recommendations on its own without congressional approval, Sloan said, while many of the “transformative actions” the agency has taken over the past 18 months have significantly weakened disaster response.

The changes shifted responsibility from the federal agency to states, tribes, local government and individuals, she said. Thursday’s recommendations would only worsen that problem.

“Survivors absolutely want a more streamlined system, and they need help to get to them faster,” Sloan said. “But these recommendations, particularly around individual assistance, in fact slash the help that’s available to individual survivors.”

One such change, allowing only relief for survivors whose homes are uninhabitable, means that costs related to auto repair or replacement, medical care or funerals cannot be covered, Sloan said.

Shifting responsibility to state and local governments, without any federal guarantee of repayment, would leave more survivors without access to critical funds, Sloan and other panelists said.

Michael McLemore, an organizer in St. Louis and a survivor of the tornado there last year, said the federal response was marked by “abdicating responsibility, playing political games and shifting the burdens of states and … cities.”

It took the agency nearly eight months to even start obligating funds, leaving the city to shoulder the cost in the meantime, McLemore said.

The panel called for passage of the bipartisan FEMA bill, sponsored by Missouri Republican Sam Graves and Washington Democrat Rick Larsen, along with 68 other cosponsors, that would take FEMA out of DHS management and reestablish it as an independent agency.

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for the Trump administration argued before a federal appeals court Thursday the Pentagon should be able to reprimand Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly for reminding members of the military they can refuse illegal orders, and for criticizing the Defense Department. 

Lawyers from the Justice Department told the three-judge panel that even though Kelly, a retired Navy captain, is no longer on active duty and has no commanding officer, they believe he is still subject to disciplinary action and limited First Amendment rights. 

John Bailey, an attorney in the DOJ’s civil rights division, said a “pattern of statements and conduct” showed Kelly intended to “counsel disobedience” within the armed forces. That led to a censure letter and attempts by the Defense Department to downgrade his retirement rank and pay. 

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attempts to punish Kelly, he said, weren’t solely based on the senator’s appearance alongside other Democrats in the “Don’t Give up the Ship” video.

Bailey said comments Kelly made during a press conference and in television news interviews about the deployment of National Guard troops to various cities and strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean also played a role. 

Bailey told the judges that if Kelly or another of the roughly 2 million retired service members wanted to make similar statements, they were “free” to separate from the military and resign their commissions. He said the Trump administration was not seeking to apply the same restrictions on free speech to the 17 million veterans who have been discharged and no longer have any connection to the military. 

But, Bailey also told the judges that “context matters” and an instructor at the Naval Academy or West Point wouldn’t be in the wrong to tell service members they aren’t required to follow illegal orders.  

The question before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which will rule in the coming weeks, is on whether a preliminary injunction granted to Kelly can stay in place while the case proceeds, or whether it should be overturned.

The attorney representing Kelly said during oral arguments a district court judge ruled correctly earlier this year when he granted the preliminary injunction that allows Kelly to keep his retirement rank and pay while the case moves through the court system. 

Benjamin C. Mizer, a partner at the Arnold & Palmer law firm, said that Kelly “did not counsel disobedience to lawful orders.” 

He also said subjecting a retired service member who is also a lawmaker to the jurisdiction of the president as commander-in-chief would create an issue with the separation of powers. 

Kelly said outside the courthouse after 90 minutes of oral arguments the Trump administration’s attempts to limit the free speech rights of retired service members was “absurd” and “an outrageous violation of our constitutional rights.”

“One of our most fundamental rights is the right to speak out about the government,” Kelly said. “It’s the right that guarantees all others and it’s how we hold our government accountable.”

Kelly said the voices and experiences of retired service members are especially important after President Donald Trump started a war with Iran. 

“Who better to speak out and share their perspective than the people who served — retired military members who understand the risks and sacrifice of sending brave Americans into combat, who understand how to use combat power, but also understand its limitations,” he said. “And also who have seen the mistakes of past administrations that thought wars could be fast and simple, only to get bogged down for years or for decades.”

Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990; Cornelia T.L. Pillard, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013; and Florence Y. Pan, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022, make up the three-judge panel that will rule on the appeal.  

The case began earlier this year after Hegseth started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay for appearing in a 90-second video alongside other Democratic lawmakers. 

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said in the video published in November. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

The video also featured Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander. 

A censure letter from Hegseth released in January alleged Kelly’s comments in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court heard arguments in early February over whether to grant Kelly a preliminary injunction, which he did later that month. 

“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights!”

The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

One Sunday in May, mamas are celebrated. We receive cards, flowers, and social media tributes. But for many Black, Brown, and Indigenous mothers and birthing people, the day reminds us that we are still recovering, still searching for answers, still managing pain, grief, or trauma. Before we can celebrate being a mom, we have to survive postpartum.

Over 80 percent of maternal deaths in the United States are preventable, many occurring after delivery. Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than White women. Unlike our counterparts, the postpartum period—the fourth trimester—is shaped by dismissal, delayed care, preventable complications, medical racism, and a lack of meaningful support after leaving the hospital.

This week, leading up to Mother’s Day, is National Postpartum Awareness Week for Black, Indigenous People of Color. Created by the ARIAH Foundation, the Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation and Dr. Shalon’s Maternal Action Project, all founded by mothers who have lost their daughters to preventable maternal mortality.

The growing national movement started with one question.

In 2021, during a virtual midwives panel for Black Maternal Health Week, someone asked, “What about postpartum? That’s when we’re losing people.”

The chat blew up. Stories poured in about what people had experienced, what they had survived, what they had lost. It turns out we feel most in danger, isolated, and dismissed after our babies arrive, in a period we talk about the least.

Over the next year and a half, mothers, birth workers, advocates, and researchers worked together—and in 2023, National Postpartum Awareness Week for Black, Indigenous People of Color launched. Now in its fourth year, the week before Mother’s Day is reserved for the fourth trimester and the crisis we endure.

A crisis we know firsthand. One of us lost a daughter, Shamony, shortly after giving birth to her second child from a preventable birth-related pulmonary embolism. Before her passing, she and her partner Omari repeatedly called nursing and delivery and went to the hospital three times within two weeks to get answers.

The other experienced how threadbare the safety net is during the fourth trimester when Medicaid coverage ended the day after giving birth to her first child. Medicaid laws have since changed, but the way our system treats us hasn’t. Hospitals are sending people home with a newborn and stitches, blood loss, hormonal shifts, and the weight of caring for another human being, with discharge instructions that feel like: you’ll probably be fine.

Even Dr. Janell Green Smith, a midwife who dedicated her life to preventing Black maternal mortality, became part of the very crisis she was fighting. As a midwife who showed up for other mamas, she couldn’t have a midwife by her side when it was her turn—insurance wouldn’t cover it.

The system doesn’t listen to Black, Indigenous, people of color. And when we talk about maternal health, we stop at mortality. But survival alone is not the measure of care. Mothers are walking around with near-death experiences that never make headlines. They carry trauma from births that could have gone differently.

It doesn’t stop with medical trauma. Poverty spikes just before and after giving birth, when income drops, and you’re scrambling to pay for diapers, rent or mortgage, food, gas, and more.

Postpartum does not end at six weeks. It does not end at a checkup.

So, what does it look like to do this differently?

It starts with community.

At the ARIAH Foundation, that has meant building spaces that bring together mothers, doulas, midwives, researchers, artists, young public health professionals, and elders who have carried this work for decades. Through national tours, gatherings, and trainings, we are building an understanding of care that is clinical, cultural, and communal.

Mothering Justice carries that commitment into its policy work. Our work starts with listening. Through policy brunches and community convenings, we bring together mothers, birth workers, and advocates, not to tell them what should matter, but to ask them what does. And the answer, again and again, is postpartum care.

We can’t wait for systems to catch up to what we already know. That means being intentional about how we show up for the mothers in our lives, and how we build the kinds of support systems that allow families to survive and heal.

National Postpartum Awareness Week for Black, Indigenous People of Color exists to create clarity and community. To name what has been ignored. To honor those we have lost. And to create space to discover something better for those who are still here, and those still to come.

Awareness is how this movement began.

Momentum is what we are building.

Change is what we are demanding. In the name of Shamony, for the women who are here but barely, and for our elders who carried traumatic birth stories without ever being given the language—or the space—to tell them.

This week is for you.

This story was originally produced by Michigan Advance, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Gov. Kevin Stitt has vetoed a continuation of Oklahoma’s state-funded TV station, contending taxpayer dollars shouldn’t subsidize public broadcasting.

The Oklahoma Educational Television Authority would reach its sunset date July 1 and have a year to wind down its operations, if the governor’s veto is not overridden or counteracted with other legislation. Senate Bill 1461, which Stitt vetoed, would have extended OETA’s existence to July 2031.

State lawmakers overrode a similar veto from Stitt in 2023 and another in 2022 that would have affected the station’s funding. With the state Senate adjourning with no clear return date, it’s uncertain whether both chambers of the Legislature will coordinate a veto override this time.

Stitt also vetoed a bill that would make OETA a permanent fixture in state law with no sunset date. House lawmakers unanimously overrode him on Thursday, but the Senate would have to take similar action soon to complete the override. The legislative session is expected to end May 14.

If lawmakers don’t approve an override before the end of session, they could vote when they reconvene next year to extend OETA, House Speaker Kyle Hilbert said Thursday.

Hilbert, R-Bristow, said the governor’s veto wasn’t a surprise. Stitt has opposed multiple bills that would otherwise extend the legal expiration date of Oklahoma governing boards and commissions.

“The governor’s had a lot of vetoes of sunset bills,” he said. “This has been an ongoing policy disagreement between the Legislature and the governor for the past couple of years.”

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, plans to review each veto and put them through the proper vetting process before making any decisions, a spokesperson for Paxton said.

A state budget that Stitt signed into law appropriates $2.84 million for OETA for the 2027 fiscal year.

Funding a TV station “is not a core function of state government,” though OETA’s programming might be worthwhile for viewers, Stitt wrote in his veto message.

The Republican said his veto aligns with President Donald Trump’s effort to cut off taxpayer funding of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. Congress approved Trump’s request to rescind federal support for NPR, PBS and their local affiliates.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has since shut down, but public TV and radio stations continue to broadcast across the country, including in Oklahoma, by relying on other revenue sources. OETA has said it isn’t dependent on CPB funding to remain on the air.

“President Trump has shown that ending guaranteed taxpayer subsidies for public broadcasting is not the crisis its defenders claim it to be,” Stitt wrote in his veto message. “Oklahoma should follow his lead by letting viewers and advertisers fund OETA, not Oklahoma taxpayers.”

The last time Stitt vetoed the public TV station, he objected to pro-LGBTQ+ content on OETA programs, claiming it “overly sexualizes our kids.”

OETA’s state funding supports not only educational TV programs, but also infrastructure delivering emergency alerts and public safety communications, executive director Shawn Black said.

The station, viewable in all parts of the state, counts 650,000 weekly viewers. It also issues severe weather warnings, AMBER alerts and other emergency messages.

“OETA appreciates the thoughtful consideration and bipartisan support shown throughout this process by members of the Oklahoma Legislature,” Black said. “For nearly 70 years, OETA has been a tremendous public-private partnership that serves all of Oklahoma.”

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin warned Stitt’s veto would “effectively destroy public television in our state.”

“There is no finer example of public-private partnership in our state than OETA, which delivers symmetric and indispensable news, information and educational programming to communities across Oklahoma, all while providing a significant boost to Oklahoma’s public safety network through use of their extensive tower matrix,” Hoskin said.

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma House wasted no time overriding a veto of a measure requiring the governor to give notice to a successor when he is out of the state.

The same day Gov. Kevin Stitt vetoed their bill, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to override him.

House Bill 4434 would have required the governor or person serving as acting governor to electronically notify the next officer in the line of succession. It has an exception for emergencies.

It was set to take effect Jan. 11, 2027, after Stitt finishes his final term.

The measure requires the governor to give 24-hour notice before leaving the state and to include departure return dates and times.

Stitt’s veto message said the measure would impose “impractical” requirements on the governor.

“The advances in transportation and communication technology since 1907 ensure that the Governor is the Governor regardless of where he is,” Stitt’s veto message said. “It’s unreasonable to assume that the Governor would no longer be the Governor just because he crossed state lines.”

The line of succession includes the lieutenant governor, then the Senate president pro tem and then the House speaker.

State law bars the governor from conducting state business while out-of-state.

Leaders of the House and Senate have both complained that they have not been given notice they were the acting governor when Stitt has been out of state.

“I’m literally brushing my teeth and get this random text message from somebody, and that is how I found out I was governor,” House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said in March.

Hilbert and Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, are the authors of the measure.

The House overrode the veto on Wednesday by a vote of 86-4.

The Senate has not yet considered the veto override, but the measure passed the chamber on April 29 by a vote of 41-3, a veto-proof margin.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed into law a bill that criminalizes the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs.

House Bill 1168 would make it a felony to provide abortion-inducing drugs, such as misoprostol and methotrexate, to women knowing they are seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

It includes a fine not to exceed $100,000 and, 10 years in prison, or both.

It does not apply to drugs used to treat an ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous miscarriage.

The measure takes effect 90 days after lawmakers end the legislative session, according to Senate staff.

The measure could result in a parent going to jail for helping a daughter end a pregnancy, said Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproduction Rights.

“This is a disgusting attempt to scare Oklahomans out of seeking abortion care and scare parents, friends, and doctors away from helping them,” Chowdhry said.

A spokesperson for the group said Thursday that they couldn’t disclose whether they were considering suing to challenge the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s new law.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has successfully challenged several Oklahoma laws seeking to impose additional restrictions on abortions prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion.

Oklahoma already has a near-total ban on abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, said the bill was political and designed to be used as a talking point on the campaign trail.

“We had a lot of speeches that were campaign prep speeches,” she said of the debate on the bill.

The measure also does not have an enforcement mechanism, said Kirt, who voted against it.

Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader, R-Piedmont, and Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, are the authors of the measure. 

They could not immediately be reached for comment.  

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma’s commissioner of health could also temporarily lead the state’s mental health department under a bill advanced by the House Wednesday night. 

Lawmakers advanced Senate Bill 1572 would allow Health Commissioner Keith Reed to also temporarily lead the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services.

Rear Adm. Gregory Slavonic has led the mental health agency in an interim capacity since June, but plans to resign when the Legislature ends session. 

Reed, who would also continue to lead the state Department of Health, would be required to conduct a feasibility study and provide a report by March 1 on consolidating some of the administrative duties, programs and finances of the Mental Health Department with the state Department of Health. 

Rep. Preston Stinson, R-Edmond, said this ensures continuity for department leadership until a permanent mental health executive is appointed by the next governor. Oklahoma voters will select the state’s next governor in November, and that person will take office in January. Gov. Kevin Stitt cannot run again due to term limits.

Stinson said there is currently no plan for increasing the compensation of the health commissioner serving in dual roles. 

Oklahoma law prohibits dual-officeholding, but the bill would make an exception in this case until March 1 when the feasibility study is complete or when the new governor appoints someone. 

Legislation calling for the study surfaced after state health officials at a press conference asked the Legislature to move some of the Mental Health Department’s services and responsibilities to other agencies, like the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and the state Health Department. 

The measure passed through the House with a vote of 86-5 and it returns to the Senate with amended language. 

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma House lawmakers narrowly voted to send legislation banning child marriage to the governor. 

Senate Bill 504, which now heads to Gov. Kevin Stitt, would set the minimum age for marriages in Oklahoma at 18 and remove all exceptions in current law that allow for minors to be married with parental consent. State law currently allows minors to get married with the consent of a parent or guardian. Children 16 or under can be married with authorization by a court. 

While the measure passed unanimously through the Senate, it was met with fierce opposition and debate in the House where it passed by a single vote Wednesday night with a vote of 51-36. 

House author Rep. Nicole Miller, R-Edmond, said this measure will strengthen the institution of marriage by ensuring those entering a binding contract are ready for it. 

“The marriages that are going to make it, waiting three to six months, they’re going to make it anyway and that is what we want,” Miller said. “We’re worried about the ones that aren’t going to, and what we don’t want to do is put someone in a lifelong, consequential position because of some of those earlier decisions.”

Miller said Oklahoma currently has differing laws on age of consent and marriage which has created a double standard. 

The Legislature last session passed a law raising the age of sexual consent to 18, with a “Romeo and Juliet” exception for teens who are close in age. 

Some House Republicans though argued the measure amounted to government interference, prevented the formation of stable families and would allow babies to be born out of wedlock. 

While he doesn’t recommend getting married under the age of 18, Rep. Jim Olsen, R-Roland, said it should remain an option. 

“How confident is your view that it is always wrong, 100% of the time for 17-year-olds to get married,” Olsen asked of the bill author. 

“How confident are you that it’s always right,” Miller responded.

Rep. Tim Turner, R-Kinta, said children who marry are more likely to drop out of school, live in poverty and be homeless, so this measure strengthens marriage and families rather than attacking it. 

“The system allows children to enter in one of the most serious legal contracts of their lives before they’re even old enough to vote,” he said. “Before they can’t serve on a jury, purchase beer or sign most binding agreements.”

Oklahoma is currently one of four states that has no minimum age for marriage, Turner said. Other states include California, Mississippi and New Mexico.

“I know lots of people (and) I have people in my family that were married at 16 and 17, and guess what? They remained married until they’re dead,” said Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane. “So are you saying that they should have not had the opportunity to marry?”

Rep. Michelle McCane, D-Tulsa, said minors who marry aren’t legally allowed to seek a divorce or stay at a domestic violence shelter. McCane said she gave birth at 15 and she would have had a “very different lived experience” if her mother had let her marry the person she “picked in eighth grade.” 

“I don’t know about you all, but please think back to who you picked in eighth, ninth, 10th grade, and I think many of you would be very disappointed to be saddled with that person for the rest of your life,” McCane said.

McCane said at 16, she tried to go to the pediatrician but was not allowed to be seen until her mother came to give permission despite being able to bring her own daughter a month earlier. 

“So we’re going to say that a child can seek a marriage and get married – a lifetime commitment that they cannot get out of until they’re 18 – but we won’t allow them to see the doctor on their own,” she said. “We won’t allow them to buy a house on their own. We won’t allow them to finance a car on their own, because we know that they are children, that they’re still developing, that they need more time (and) experience in the world to make these types of decisions.”

The Alabama Legislature on Wednesday passed legislation that could set new primary dates for the state amid protests within the Statehouse and flooding that led the Alabama Senate to quickly pass its bill before a mass evacuation of the building. 

HB 1, sponsored by Speaker Pro Tempore Chris Pringle, R-Mobile, would allow for a new special election if the U.S. Supreme Court lifts an injunction preventing the state from redrawing congressional maps before 2030. SB 1, sponsored by Sen. Chris Elliott, R-Josephine, affects two Montgomery-area Senate districts.

The legislation drew sharp criticism from Democrats, who said the bills aimed to reduce Black political representation in the Legislature. 

“This body continues to find more ways to make voting more difficult, more ways to suppress the vote and more ways to dilute the power of the Black vote,” said Rep. Adline Clarke, D-Mobile. “Make no mistake, that’s what HB 1 would do, and it’s a tragic step backwards for Black Alabama voters. But we’ve been here before and we will not give up this fight.” 

The legislation will only take effect if federal courts respond favorably to a flurry of cases filed by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall seeking to reverse federal court rulings in 2023 and 2025 that found congressional and legislative maps approved by the Legislature violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and discriminated against Black voters. The rulings led to new court-ordered maps.

The U.S. Supreme Court last week weakened Section 2 in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais. However, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the ruling did not apply to Allen v. Milligan, the 2023 case that led to congressional redistricting. 

House members debated for five hours over the measure. The Senate late Wednesday appeared to be heading for a similarly lengthy debate. But a storm that put Montgomery under an hour-long tornado watch led to flooding in the building, which prompted an abrupt end of debate and a vote on the bill. 

Water burst into the first floor of the building around 5 p.m. and flooded the area around the Statehouse. Staff and lawmakers’ cars swam in the lowered parking deck behind the Statehouse. There was water pouring in from the sides of glass doors into the hallway of the first floor. 

Wednesday was one day short of the 17th anniversary of the 2009 flood of the Statehouse that led to lawmakers’ last regular business in the Old Chambers in the Alabama State Capitol.

The Senate continued debate despite the storm, but adjourned shortly after the fire alarm sounded. 

“I got a feeling this is to be continued. So freeze whatever the time is, this is to be continued. We’re gonna have to probably get out of here,” said Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham.

HB 1 passed on a 75-29 party-line vote. Rep. Rhett Marques, R-Enterprise and a candidate for Congress, abstained from the vote; he later told al.com that he wanted a map that created seven Republican districts. 

“This bill simply creates a mechanism to hold special primary elections in certain congressional districts should the federal courts relieve us of the federal injunction against us,” said Pringle before debate began. 

Twenty-seven of the House’s 29 Democrats spoke against the bill during the debate. No speakers apart from Pringle spoke on its behalf.

However, exchanges got tense. While Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, spoke about Alabama’s history of Black voter suppression and segregation, House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter, R-Rainsville, said she was not staying relevant to the bill.”

“The Speaker gaveled me down, no differently than when he gaveled down one of my other colleagues when we began to get into race and when we began to get into history,” she told reporters on Wednesday . “We cannot stand here today without speaking about history, without talking about slavery, without talking about the assassination of (Dr. Martin Luther) King (Jr.).”

Ledbetter also gaveled down Rep. Barbara Drummond, D-Mobile, during debate when things got heated between her and Pringle.

“It is time that we stop standing on the past and move into the future. I am tired of the doors that were closed that are just now cracking open,” she said.

Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa said the state’s loss in Allen v. Milligan was “bad lawyering.”

“Essentially Alabama’s on four years of probation, and instead of honoring that four years of probation, we’re in this session trying to go on a bender,” he said. “And there will be consequences to that, because to my estimation and many others, we are in contempt because we said we weren’t going to do anything like this.” 

Democrats also mentioned a comment made by Marshall on Tuesday where he argued that Black voters can be adequately represented by the Republican Party.

“That’s the equivalent of saying that Black people should be led and governed by a master from slavery days,” Givan said.

Rep. Prince Chestnut, D-Selma, used the final 10 minutes of debate to question why Republicans didn’t speak up for the bill, alluding to Rep. Kenneth Paschal, R-Pelham, the House’s single Black Republican.

“This bill produces such a racial gerrymander, that not even the lone Black Republican serving in this body will hit his speaker light to come down to the well and defend it,” he said.

A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with Paschal, who voted for the bill. After the House adjourned, House Democrats said they are planning to file a motion in Allen v. Milligan alleging the passing of HB 1 is a violation of the court’s ruling.

Before the Senate convened, about 30 protestors gathered in the hallway outside the chamber. Senate security attempted to contain them, and Alabama State Troopers eventually joined. No force was used. 

The protestors chanted that lawmakers are trying to take away Black representation, and that they would not move. 

“We know you want us to leave, but we shall not be moved. Just like a tree, planted by the waters, we shall not be moved,” they sang. “This is the people’s house. We built this house. This is our house.”

SB 1 would affect State Senate Districts 25 and 26, which are currently represented by Sens. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road, and Kirk Hatcher, D-Montgomery, respectively. Both senators have swapped districts for the 2026 election due to a court-altered map that was put in place in November. 

Marshall and Secretary of State Wes Allen on Monday morning filed an emergency motion to vacate or stay district court injunctions blocking the use of state Senate maps the Legislature passed in 2021. The court has given plaintiffs until Thursday at 5 p.m. to respond to the state’s motion, with no further reply from the state allowed. 

“This legislation sets up a special election to be held in the effective districts, only if the courts lift the injunction on the maps, duly enacted by this Alabama Legislature, which we anticipate happening soon,” Elliott said. “Alabama deserves to vote using their own maps in our upcoming primary.”

Soon after debate on the Senate floor began, a tornado warning for Montgomery County blared from every phone in the chamber. The Senate continued debate. 

Sen. Robert Stewart, D-Selma, said that the bill would decrease voter turnout in Black voters and referenced a 2025 study by the Brennan Center for Justice. 

“There are real world consequences, gentleman from Baldwin County, for changing election rules. Districts are being challenged in court. This bill could not have come at a more inopportune time. There is uncertainty around representation and compressed election timeline,” Stewart said. 

The study showed that the voter turnout gap between Black and white voters hit a 16-year high in 2024. It found that if eligible non-white voters had turned out to vote in 2024 at the same rate as their white counterparts, there would have been 200,000 more ballots cast.

Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove, offered an amendment that she first offered in committee on Tuesday, which would change a required special election to an optional special election. 

“The law and order party is sticking their middle finger up to the Supreme Court. ‘We don’t have to adhere to your ruling that says we won’t do another district until 2030. We’re Alabama Republicans. We can do what we want to do,’” Coleman said. 

The amendment failed 8-25. 

Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, also offered an amendment that she offered in committee, which requires the Secretary of State to publish notice of the new election dates and polling locations. 

“Giving voters notice of the date of an uncommon upcoming political election is essential because elections are only legitimate when citizens have a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate, adequate notice, protects constitutional rights, strengthens democracy and helps ensure public confidence in the outcome,” Figures said. “It protects the fundamental right to vote.”

The amendment failed 8-26, despite Elliott saying on Tuesday that he was open to the amendment. 

“Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you members of the Senate for once again, showing me who you really are. God bless you, anyway,” Figures said after the vote. 

The bill does not allow for a runoff election, which Elliott has said there is not time for. Hatcher, who currently has two Democratic challengers, offered the same amendment he did in committee, which would allow for a primary runoff election.

“Whether it’s a seat that I sit in, or anyone else in this chamber or this building, I’d like for them to be able to fairly, find some fairness in the process itself,” Hatcher said.

The amendment failed 8-26. 

As debate and rain continued, the building flooded on the first floor. 

Senate President Pro Tem Garlan Gudger, R-Cullman, motioned to recess at the call of the chair, meaning the Senate could return at any time. Less than a minute later, Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth called lawmakers back in. Smitherman had not left the lectern. 

“Can I continue or what?” Smitherman asked.

“You still have the mic,” Ainsworth said.

The fire alarm continued to blare as a cloture petition, which would limit debate to 20 minutes, was delivered to the clerk. Smitherman yielded to Elliott, who motioned for a final vote. Lawmakers voted as they were evacuating the chamber. Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Atmore, stood at the doors of the chamber, making sure members voted before they left. 

The bill passed 26-7. The House Ways and Means General Fund Committee will hold a public hearing on the bill at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday. 

Lawmakers, staff and the public filed down the only staircase on the west side of the building. Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, previously called the building a “fire trap” because of the lack of accessible staircases. Outside, there was no apparent fire, but a smell of gas.

This story was originally produced by Alabama Reflector, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

Interim U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday that federal prosecutors intend to pursue terrorism charges against members of American street gangs as an extension of President Donald Trump’s move last year to designate foreign drug cartels as terrorist organizations. 

Blanche told attendees at the 2026 Border Security Expo in Phoenix that federal prosecutors intend to use the foreign terrorist organization designation against more than just transnational criminal organizations. Specifically, he said DOJ is planning to use it against street gangs based in the United States and “lump them in” with international drug cartels. 

The targets of that new designation will be “local street gangs that are either around a housing project or a city block” that are only loosely affiliated with larger street gangs like the Bloods, the Crips or the Latin Kings. Those local gangs, Blanche said, are “doing just as much damage” as the interstate gangs but aren’t facing harsh enough criminal penalties for violence and drug dealing.

“So, what we are trying to do is lump them in with the FTOs, the foreign terrorist organization,” he said. “If a (local) Blood sect is getting its cocaine one step removed from an FTO, we can charge them with being part of a foreign terrorist organization with just a little bit of investigative work.”

That designation allows for further cooperation between local and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as the military. And it comes with enhanced criminal penalties and sentencing.

“So, if you wanna be a member of a gang or an individual selling cocaine in Charlotte, North Carolina, enjoy yourself. But if we catch you and you have a gun, then you’re probably going to disappear to Ohio for the next 20 years,” Blanche said. “And that is the message I hope these clowns hear… It is a goal to also link those gangs to FTOs or declare them (domestic terror organizations).” 

Blanche, who previously worked as a private attorney for Trump, has taken on the role of attorney general after the resignation of Pam Bondi. Before that, he was one of Bondi’s top deputies; during his time at DOJ, he has been aggressive on issues surrounding immigration, including ordering the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after he and three Democrats attempted to conduct an unscheduled oversight visit at a detention facility. 

He applauded the administration for designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, which he said has allowed the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies more leeway and tools when going after drug traffickers. He also celebrated the deadly military strikes against boats in the Caribbean Sea.

“We were treating these guys like ordinary criminals and not like the terrorists they are,” Blanche said of the designation. 

“For the first time in our history, we are treating them like terrorists and we are blowing them up,” Blanche added. The arguably illegal boat strikes conducted by the Trump administration have resulted in the deaths of at least 170 people. 

He also boasted about the work DOJ has done to enact Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

“We had every agent available working on illegal immigration and Title 8 authorities,” Blanche said of the past year, adding that agents from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Marshals have been working on immigration efforts. 

According to reporting by The Intercept, a quarter of the FBI’s staff has been redirected from pursuing criminals to helping enforce civil violations of federal immigration law. 

Blanche said that DOJ has been prosecuting a large number of immigration-related cases, claiming that a “district in Texas” has seen more than 20,000 in the past year. 

And he said that prosecutors will pursue cases against “rioters” who “touch” law enforcement. Likewise, he said, any undocumented immigrants who do will face prosecution, adding that DOJ will make sure that “no one can touch you without the full wrath of the federal government.” 

Much like Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan on Tuesday, Blanche also shot sharp criticism at so-called “sanctuary cities” that seek to be zones where federal immigration authorities are disallowed from conducting their work. 

“Sanctuary cities are the most disgusting thing that has happened in this country,” Blanche said, adding that DOJ has been looking into pulling federal funding but worries about how it would adversely impact local law enforcement. “Lawsuits take time, and we don’t have time, so that is frustrating.” 

Meanwhile, on the expo floor, vendors on Wednesday continued to hawk their wares to local law enforcement, members of the military and federal law enforcement. 

One booth in particular attracted a number of bystanders. 

The VirTra law enforcement simulator allowed any attendee to participate in a number of real world scenarios in order to train law enforcement on how to respond. Gunshot sound effects from the simulator could be heard all across the expo floor. 

On Wednesday, the Mirror watched as one man participated in a training of Customs and Border Protection agents on a city street as protesters yelled at them. The man held a modified pepper ball gun that he shot at the screen. 

CBP and ICE agents have been documented using pepper ball guns against protesters in cities where immigration crackdowns have occurred, in one case shooting a Chicago pastor in the head.

This story was originally produced by Arizona Mirror, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahomans could vote in November on a state question seeking to make major changes to the Medicaid expansion program if a new proposal unveiled this week gains traction. 

The latest legislative effort, House Joint Resolution 1067, would ask general election voters to approve a single ballot measure to both remove Medicaid expansion from the state Constitution and allow the Legislature to decline to cover the cost of the program if the federal match drops below its current rate of 90%. 

Republican lawmakers previously proposed splitting the issues into two different state questions, which would have appeared on two different election dates, but the Senate was unable to garner enough support to qualify Medicaid changes for the August ballot. 

“We were sitting here with two similar proposals to the voters of Oklahoma to be on the November ballot,” said Rep. Ryan Eaves, R-Atoka, the House bill author. “I don’t think anybody wants that, that doesn’t make sense.”

Potential state questions on Medicaid expansion have been stuck in limbo over what election date they should appear, but Eaves said the latest plan combines the original concepts behind HJR1067 and House Bill 4440 into one measure. 

The Legislature cannot alter Medicaid expansion without first obtaining voter approval because it’s enshrined in the Oklahoma Constitution. 

Against the wishes of many legislators, voters in 2020 approved expanding the state’s Medicaid program to provide healthcare access to over 200,000 working, lower-income Oklahomans.

Lawmakers have repeatedly said the state cannot afford the rising cost of Medicaid expansion unless changes are made to the program. They want permission to make adjustments to it. 

Under HJR1067’s new language, the state would be required to provide healthcare services to low-income Oklahomans and “for medical services at healthcare facilities for which the State receives a match of 100% pursuant to federal law.”

Eaves said this new language would cover Indigenous populations and was the result of negotiations with Oklahoma tribes. 

Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. and the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes have spoken out in support of preserving Medicaid expansion. 

While Eaves said he’s personally not a fan of having “two different sets of rules,” he said he is not concerned about challenges to the constitutionality of the measure, including whether it violates the state’s prohibition against measures that contain more than one subject or because it carves out a special population, such as tribal members. 

The Oklahoma Constitution contains a single-subject rule. It forbids lawmakers from combining unrelated topics into legislation or ballot measures. 

The state Constitution also bars the creation of “special laws” that give special or preferential treatment to people based on race, ethnicity or origin.

This is a “strictly financial” issue and the Oklahoma Legislature’s hands are tied because Medicaid expansion is enshrined in the state Constitution, Eaves said. 

“I’m from Oklahoma, I know how important Medicaid is, both to the people and our rural hospitals,” Eaves said. “However, we’re five or six years into Medicaid expansion, being told it was going to do all these great things for us, and it hasn’t. We have not seen health outcomes increase.”

Republican leaders were pushing to place one Medicaid state question on the Aug. 25 primary runoff ballot, but failed to garner the two-thirds support needed due to a rare moment of unity between Senate Democrats and far-right Republicans in the Freedom Caucus. 

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said the plan is to move forward with a single Medicaid state question and he hopes the new language will go before the House. 

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said he assumes the chambers will come to an agreement in order to place the question on the November ballot, and the Senate is looking at the proposed language. 

The Senate adjourned Wednesday morning without taking up any legislation and plans to return next week before the wrapping up session on May 14, about two weeks earlier than constitutionally required. 

OKLAHOMA CITY – Two media outlets on Wednesday sued the Oklahoma Department of Corrections for violating the state’s open records act by failing to provide information about a Watonga immigration detention center.

The suit, brought by nonprofit media outlets Oklahoma Voice and the Frontier, alleges the state agency failed to provide an unredacted contract it signed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement concerning the resumption of operations of the 2,160-bed Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga. 

CoreCivic, a private prison company, operates the facility, which houses ICE detainees. 

The state receives a monthly administrative fee of about $833,333 to monitor contract compliance and for other administrative functions, according to a partially redacted record released by the Department of Corrections. The lawsuit alleges that the record detailing the administrative fee references an Intergovernmental Service Agreement, and the Department of Corrections refuses to provide any portion of it.

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections can’t comment on pending litigation, said Kay Thompson, a spokeswoman.  

A DOC attorney previously said that the agency was not required to release the intergovernmental agreement “if such release would disclose information that ICE — the other contracting party — would deem confidential” under the federal Freedom of Information Act, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in Oklahoma County District Court.

The news outlets are seeking a declaration that the documents are public records, an order releasing the contract and attorneys fees.

“DOC may not defer its obligations under the open records act to ICE,” said Leslie Briggs, an attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which is jointly representing the media outlets.

The DOC has an independent duty to produce the information according to state law, Briggs said.

“We intend to ensure the press and the public have access to records detailing the operation of any immigration facility operating in this state,” Briggs said.

By Naisha Roy/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — Dozens of people gathered on a sandy lot in front of the White House construction zone Tuesday evening, carrying posters peppered with monarch butterflies and unfurling massive banners reading “Set kids free.”

The butterflies symbolized immigrants without legal status, as the protesters called to abolish all detention facilities in the United States as part of a “Close the Camps” vigil and protest organized by the Coalition to End Family and Child Detention.

“Migration is beautiful,” said Anat Shenker-Osorio, a communications manager for advocacy groups that helped organize the event. “People move, and that should be celebrated.”

Many of the protesters were from Texas, rallying against the conditions in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Dilley Immigration Processing Center south of San Antonio. 

Over the last few months, several advocacy group reports and lawsuits have alleged the facility lacks potable drinking water, healthcare, adequate food and clean clothing for detainees, many of whom are children.

“Families are reporting worms and mold in the food that’s making children ill,” said Trudy Taylor Smith, a policy administrator for the Children’s Defense Fund in Texas who was at the protest. “They are reporting a lack of access to clean drinking water. The tap smells foul. It’s making children sick, and yet if people want to avoid the tap and access clean water, they have to pay their own money to buy bottled water from the commissary.”

Dilley is the larger of two facilities in the country that hold immigrant families with children. Both had been shuttered for nearly four years, until the Trump administration reopened them in early 2025. 

Since then, children at the Dilley detention center reported feeling “sadness and depression,” in handwritten letters to ProPublica news reporters. They also wrote about losing their appetites and missing home. 

On the same day as the protest, a delegation of congressional Democrats led by Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, visited the Dilley facility and urged the Department of Homeland Security to release all families detained there. The delegation included Reps. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas; Christian Menefee, D-Texas; Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz.; Henry Cuellar, D-Texas; Mark Takano, D-Calif.; and Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.

“The kids, as you can imagine, were distraught. They were sobbing most of the time that we were with them,” Castro said after the inspection. “When it comes to the Dilley detention center, it’s one horror after another and one abuse after another.”

The Trump administration has denied the reports of mistreatment in Dilley, saying in a press release that all detainees have access to educational resources, infant care packages and regular medical screenings. “In most cases, this is the best healthcare illegal aliens have received in their entire lives,” the release reads.

Dianne Garcia, a pastor at San Antonio’s Roca de Refugio Church, led the protest with a moment of silence in honor of those detained and deported. so far. Garcia has seen 18 people in her community detained, including several single mothers sent to Dilley with their children.

“I knew a 3-year-old. He used to be the most gregarious kid,” she said. “Now he’s afraid all the time, always by his mother’s side.”

About 1 in 3 Texan children have an immigrant parent, per the Migration Policy Institute. 

The Austin school district lost over 3,000 students this year, partly because parents feared sending their kids to school amid immigration sweeps.  

“When children don’t feel safe to go to school, when enrollment drops, that means teachers are laid off, that means they lose funding,” Taylor Smith said.

Despite this, the Trump administration has announced plans to expand holding areas for children. 

Many demonstrators spoke out against a proposed detention center in Alexandria, Louisiana, set to be a “short-term facility,” where migrant families and unaccompanied children would be held for three to five days. 

Trump administration officials have said the facility will only temporarily house people who have agreed to “self-deport,” or leave the country voluntarily.

The detention facility’s construction was sited inside the Alexandria International Airport complex, across from the tarmac. U.S. officials deport hundreds of immigrants without legal status every day on ICE-contracted planes from this airport. 

Already, an investigation by The Guardian found the former military facility to be heavily contaminated with PFAS, toxic “forever chemicals” directly linked to cancer and other diseases. 

The protest organizers hoped to prevent more detention centers, and abolish the ones that already exist. Some attendees were former detainees, like Sulma Franco, who came to the United States in 2009 from Guatemala and was immediately sent to a facility by the Border Patrol. She called the detention center where she was held a hielera, or icebox, referencing the frigid temperature. 

“Being in a detention center is the same thing as being in a cage or being in jail,” she said, in an interview conducted in Spanish. “I believe the solution isn’t improvement; the solution is to close them permanently.”

Shenker-Osorio, the communications manager, said part of the protest’s goal was to maintain pressure on the White House and shift the rhetoric around how detention is discussed. 

Instead of “facilities,” for example, some of those at the event specifically chose to use the word “camps,” referencing the similarity in conditions to Nazi concentration camps. 

The coalition has a policy working group that communicates with Congress, with the ultimate aim of passing legislation banning family detention.

“This isn’t a difficult moral question,” Taylor Smith said. “Children don’t belong in cages.”

Medill News Service articles are reported and written by graduate student journalists in the Washington program of the Medill School at Northwestern University.

• 4:29 pmThis report has been clarified as to who was making comparisons with concentration camps.

WASHINGTON — Voters, including those within the Make America Healthy Again movement, say the rising cost of healthcare is a significant concern that will have an impact on whom they support in November’s midterm elections, according to a poll released Wednesday by KFF. 

Sixty-one percent of respondents to the survey, which asked how important several health-related issues were, said the price of healthcare will have a major impact on which party they support as control of Congress hangs in the balance.

Among MAHA voters, who are predominantly Republicans but also include independents and some Democrats, 42% said cost is their top issue heading into the elections. 

“While the issue of health costs is more salient for Democratic voters than for Republicans, larger shares across partisans say health costs will have a major impact on their voting decisions than say the same about vaccine policy or food safety,” the survey said. 

Seventy-two percent of Democrats, 63% of independents and 47% of Republicans said the cost of healthcare will have a major impact on which party’s candidate they vote for. 

Vaccine policy came in next, with 57% of Democrats, 46% of independents and 32% of Republicans surveyed saying it will have a major impact on their choice. 

Issues related to food safety came in third after 43% of Democrats, 40% of independents and 38% of Republicans responded that it will have a major impact on their choice of candidate.  

For MAHA voters, twice as many listed health costs as their first priority than the next issue: restricting the use of certain chemical additives in food, which was a key concern for 21%.

Ten percent were interested in politicians who will reevaluate vaccine approvals, 8% want lawmakers to limit corporate interest in food and 8% want Congress to limit the use of pesticides in agriculture. Eleven percent said none of those or had no answer. 

The survey showed that a significant majority of Americans across the political spectrum believe the government hasn’t done enough to address chemical additives in food or pesticide use in agriculture, two core demands of MAHA supporters.  

“The public perception that there is not enough regulation may be rooted in broader skepticism toward the industries themselves,” the survey said. “Most U.S. adults do not trust pharmaceutical companies, food and beverage companies, or agricultural companies to act in the public’s best interest.”

Doctors and healthcare providers were the most trusted source of information at 70%, followed by agriculture companies at 40%, food and beverage companies at 25% and pharmaceutical companies at 21%. 

Seventy-five percent of those polled said the government hasn’t done enough to regulate chemicals in food, while 65% said it should do more to regulate pesticides in agriculture. 

The poll of 1,343 U.S. adults took place from April 14 to April 19. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points for the full sample and 6 percentage points for MAHA supporters.

WASHINGTON — The alleged White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooter was indicted by a grand jury Tuesday on four federal charges, including attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump and assaulting an officer or employee of the United States with a deadly weapon.

The three-page indictment alleges 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen, of California, “knowingly and by means and use of a deadly and dangerous weapon” forcibly assaulted, intimidated or interfered with an unidentified U.S. Secret Service agent who was hit with one bullet in his protective vest while working a security checkpoint outside the annual dinner. The agent was uninjured.

The indictment does not specify whether Allen fired the shot that hit the agent.

Allen was also indicted on transporting a firearm over state lines with intent to commit a felony, and using, brandishing or discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. 

The indictment specifies Allen transported a 12-gauge pump action shotgun with 45 rounds of ammunition, and a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol with 55 rounds of ammunition.

Government prosecutors in a court filing prior to the indictment alleged Allen also had on him “two knives, four daggers, multiple sheaths, multiple holsters, needle nose pliers, (and) wire cutters.”

The Department of Justice initially charged Allen on three of the grand jury indictment counts, with the exception of assaulting a federal officer or employee.

Allen is scheduled to be arraigned in federal district court Monday in Washington, D.C.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president.

Allen allegedly rushed a security checkpoint one level above the Washington Hilton ballroom on April 25 where Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet officials were among thousands of journalists, government officials and celebrities attending the black-tie event that dates back a century.

Shortly before he ran through a magnetometer, with a long gun in hand, at 8:40 p.m., Allen sent an email to friends and family explaining he intended to target “administration officials … prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the ballroom. 

The Secret Service agent, whose vest protected him from gunfire, is referred to in court filings as V.G. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters April 27 that a ballistics investigation had not yet been completed, and would not answer whether Allen fired the bullet that hit the agent.

V.G. fired five rounds from his service weapon in Allen’s direction, but did not hit the suspect who fell to the ground and sustained minor injuries, according to a signed affidavit from law enforcement filed in court April 27.

Trump publicly shared photos on his social media platform Truth Social the day following the dinner of a shirtless and handcuffed Allen face down on the hotel carpet Saturday night.

WASHINGTON — Get off the train at Union Station, walk outside and gasp at that iconic view of the Capitol dome in front of you. 

Cross the street and the first thing you run into is a construction site surrounding walled-off Columbus Circle. On the wall is a huge poster of President Donald Trump wearing a hard hat (and a coat and tie).

“Thank you, PRESIDENT TRUMP,” the sign says.

That’s just the start of what a tourist will encounter as they sightsee in the heart of the nation’s capital. Or these days, the nation’s capital as brought to you by Donald Trump.

The Trump reminders are all over. Walk the tourist walk from the Capitol down and around Pennsylvania Avenue, past the White House and on to the Lincoln Memorial and it’s clear who’s in charge.

Whether or not this is affecting tourism is unclear. Destination DC, a nonprofit organization that markets the area as a global tourist destination, doesn’t keep month-to-month data. It found in 2024, before the Trump boom, a record 27.2 million people visited the city.

“Tourists who are pro-Trump will be drawn to his eponymous sites. Those who oppose him will not. Most tourists will pay no attention to his projects but will enjoy all the historic and exciting venues and exhibits in Washington,” said Barbara Perry, professor in Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center 

She said Trump’s propensity to “destroy, rebuild, construct, and name numerous sites and institutions for himself is most unusual.”

Trump detailed his plans in a March, 2025, executive order, “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.”

“Its highways, boulevards, and parks should be clean, well-kept, and pleasant,” he said of the nation’s capital. “Its monuments, museums, and buildings should reflect and inspire awe and appreciation for our Nation’s strength, greatness, and heritage. Our citizens deserve nothing less.” 

Previous incumbent presidents’ pictures were usually confined to 8-by-10 portraits hanging in post offices or deep inside other federal buildings, as they were careful not to splatter their names and likenesses so publicly.

“Typical presidents want to avoid looking arrogant by honoring themselves while in office or even after—except for their presidential libraries, starting with FDR. They usually feel humbled if a Navy ship, for example, is named for them while they are extant: Bush I and Ford come to mind,” Perry said of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford.

Both served in the Navy and saw combat in the South Pacific.

Democrats are furious about the Trump makeover. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, calls Trump’s actions “narcissism” and is pushing the “Stop Executive Renaming for Vanity and Ego Act.”

“Donald Trump doesn’t get to slap his name on any public institution he chooses. We don’t have kings or dictators in America, and this legislation stops him or any future sitting president from creating monuments to glorify themselves,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill is likely to go nowhere in the Republican-run Congress.

So for now, tourists can stroll around the Mall and see how Trump has tried to transform the nation’s capital.

Starting at the Capitol and heading south down Constitution Avenue until it splits off to Pennsylvania Avenue, here goes:

Status: Installed at Judiciary Square, about four blocks from the Capitol.

Details: “The only public sculpture in DC to commemorate a Confederate general,” says the DC Historic Sites team website. Pike was a slave owner and a senior officer in the Confederate Army.

The memorial was “toppled and burned on Juneteenth of 2020, as protests continued across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd,” the website says. Floyd was a Black man killed by a white policeman in Minneapolis, sparking protests around the country.

Last year, the Trump administration had the Pike statue restored and placed at its present location. 

The action was part of an executive order Trump issued in March 2025. He ordered a review of memorials or statues that had been “removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.” 

The order also affected the Smithsonian Institution, which Trump said “has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.” 

Status: Huge banners with Trump’s face hang from the Judiciary and Labor Departments.

Details: “American Workers First” says the Labor banner, with Trump’s vastly enlarged face atop the saying. Another banner features President Theodore Roosevelt. 

The banners, which cover almost three stories of the building, are visible from both heavily-trafficked Constitution and Pennsylvania avenues.

About six blocks away, on Pennsylvania Avenue at the Justice Department — which a few years ago investigated Trump for possible crimes — there’s a new, three-story banner where he looks down at the street atop the saying “Make American Safe Again.”

When the Labor banner went up, then-Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer told Trump about it at a Cabinet meeting, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

“Mr. President, I invite you to see your big, beautiful face on a banner in front of the Department of Labor because you are really the transformational president of the American worker,” she told him.

Bonus sighting: As you walk along Pennsylvania Avenue, don’t miss another “Thank You, President Trump” banner hanging on a construction wall across from the National Gallery of Art near 4th Street.

Status: Walk up Pennsylvania Avenue starting at the 1500 block and you’ll see the White House East Wing is gone. It’s a rubble-laden construction site now, where Trump is trying to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom with a military installation underneath. The project is to be privately funded, though Senate Republicans are seeking $1 billion for security in an immigration bill.

Details: The project is embroiled in a still-evolving legal battle. The April 25 assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman threatened the president and top officials, may be changing minds.

Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Montana,  last month introduced legislation to authorize the ballroom. “A President of any party should be able to host events in a secure area without attendees worrying about their safety. This is common sense. Let’s get it done,” he tweeted.

Last week, Justice sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. “This (ballroom) project will ensure that events like the horrific attack on Saturday night do not happen again,” it argued.

Status: Keep walking toward Constitution Avenue. You’ll see the Reflecting Pool between the World War II Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial. Renovations are underway and expected to be completed by July 4. The pool is being cleaned and painted blue.

Details: The pool has often been criticized for being dirty and leaking. 

Trump’s effort is going a step farther than others who have launched renovation and cleaning projects. He said the project will cost $2 million, far less than other recent refurbishing efforts, according to his TruthSocial website.

“It was filthy dirty and it leaked like a sieve for many years,” Trump said in a video posted to the site. 

He’s having it painted “swimming pool blue,” a color that appalls many preservationists.  

Details: The city’s premier cultural center is about a 20-minute walk away. Perhaps no Trump change has provoked more outrage among his Washington critics than his renaming of the capital’s cultural center.

He said during a visit to the center in March 2025 that “it needs a lot of work,” adding it should have better seats and more “Broadway hits.”

The president overhauled its governance, creating a board that named him the center’s chairman, changed programming to suit his tastes, and announced the center would close this summer for two years for renovations.

Status: While the center’s board renamed the site the Trump-Kennedy Center, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, an ex officio member of the board, has taken legal action in federal court seeking to stop the name change, saying only Congress can do so. The case is pending.

Details: Trump wants to build a 250 foot arch — taller than the nearby Lincoln Memorial and the tallest in the world — at the traffic circle at the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery on the Virginia side of the Potomac River. The circle leads to the Memorial Bridge across the Potomac, connecting to the Lincoln Memorial.

Status: The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, packed with Trump appointees, approved the arch’s concept design in April. 

The arch, the commission said in its approval letter, “would contribute positively to the honorific landscape of Washington, D.C., for many generations.” It requested more information for the next phase, including plans for better pedestrian access and sculptures.

Court battles await, notably from a group of Vietnam veterans and others. 

They say the arch would distort the clear view from the cemetery to the Lincoln Memorial, as well as disrupt the symbolism of the bridge, designed to join the North and South.

Go away from the main tourist routes and there’s yet more evidence of the Trump rebranding. The United States National Institute of Peace is now the Donald J. Trump National Institute of Peace. The change is meant “to reflect the greatest dealmaker in our nation’s history,” said a State Department tweet.

Then there’s what tourists won’t see.

“Visitors who take the garden tour of the White House this spring will miss the beautiful Rose Garden outside the West Wing and the Jackie Kennedy Garden outside the East Wing, of blessed memory,” said Perry. “Both gardens, planned by the Kennedys, plus the East Wing itself have been obliterated by the incumbent.” 

The Rose Garden, the White House says, “was turned into a patio with roses lining the perimeter, developing a space dedicated to hospitality and entertaining. Today, the Rose Garden is used to host many guests of the president for events and dinners.” 

While the East Potomac Golf Course isn’t right on the main tourist route, it’s just off to the side on an island not far from the Jefferson Memorial, with a view of the Washington Monument. The Trump administration has reportedly wanted to close and then revamp the historic site. Preservationists and local folks are furious.

Reports say he wants to convert it to a championship golf course — one that some think will make it an exclusive club, instead of the current affordable public setup that’s popular with locals. NOTUS wrote that the National Park Service is scheduled to start landscaping.

The links currently have two nine-hole courses, an 18-hole par 72 course, miniature golf, a driving range and a restaurant. 

The D.C. Preservation League and two local residents Sunday asked a District Court judge to halt any Trump project. 

“Trump is taking a public park away from the American people while spending their hard-earned taxpayer dollars to build a private, elite club from which he’d personally profit,” Democracy Defenders Fund Executive Chair Norm Eisen said in a statement.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on Monday did not stop the project, saying reports about the course’s overhaul did not provide enough evidence for her to act, but she warned that if she sees that certain renovations are underway she could reconsider.

National Mall Superintendent Kevin Griess said Monday there were no plans to begin renovation work but a safety assessment was underway, The Associated Press reported.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma’s school cellphone ban will become permanent beginning next school year. 

Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed House Bill 1276 into law, making the state’s previously established yearlong ban permanent. 

Lawmakers said they decided to make the bell-to-bell ban permanent after hearing positive feedback from teachers and parents. 

The law, which takes effect July 1, bars students from using cellphones and non-school-issued electronic devices, such as smart watches and tablets, during the school day. Exceptions are allowed for devices used to monitor health issues and in cases of emergency.

Each school district’s board will be required to adopt its own policy for prohibiting cellphone use, including disciplinary measures for violations. 

Without the measure becoming law, the current cellphone ban for the 2025-26 school year would have become optional for school districts. 

OKLAHOMA CITY — In an effort to increase transparency, Oklahoma’s governor has signed into law a measure that would require state agencies to make public documents that explain how agencies interpret policies.

Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed the Guidance Transparency Act, requiring state agencies to make available online and in person agency statements, memoranda, bulletins and other non-legally binding materials that communicate policies and rules and explain how those are being interpreted.

Rep. Rob Hall, R-Tulsa, said the Senate Bill 1433, which takes effect Nov. 1, makes Oklahoma the first state to guarantee public access to “guidance documents,” which he said will help Oklahomans better understand how government agencies operate.

“By requiring these documents to be accessible, we’re creating more transparency and helping the public better understand how decisions are made and which government agency documents are legally binding,” he said in a statement.

Sen. Micheal Bergstrom, R-Adair, said in a statement the legislation was needed to correct “internal processes” that have allowed some agencies to “act without enough transparency.” He did not elaborate.

The law also requires that the Office of Administrative Rules publish the documents in a searchable, centralized location.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans released a roughly $70 billion spending package Monday night that will keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol operating for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term without any of the new constraints Democrats have demanded.

The legislation also includes $1 billion “to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features.”

Trump, who had the East Wing of the White House bulldozed to make way for his $300 or $400 million ballroom project, had said it would be funded by private donors and not taxpayers. White House officials have said the ballroom is critical for national security when top officials are gathered, following an April 25 incident in which a gunman opened fire at a dinner at the Washington Hilton attended by Trump.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement the panel “is taking action to help provide certainty for federal law enforcement and safer streets for American families.” 

“We will work to ensure this critical funding gets signed into law without unnecessary delay,” he added. 

Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said in a statement the package shows “Republicans are ignoring the needs of middle-class America and instead funneling money into Trump’s ballroom and throwing billions at two lawless agencies.”

He noted the Department of Homeland Security has more than $100 billion from Republicans’ signature tax and spending cuts package it hasn’t spent. 

“Throughout this process, Democrats will continue to show the American people that we are for bringing down costs, making it easier to get ahead, and building an economy where families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share,” Merkley said. “It is clear that the country has had enough of the Republican ‘families lose, billionaires win’ agenda.”

The package’s release follows a record-setting shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began after the two parties were unable to reach a compromise on new guardrails for immigration operations after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

The Judiciary Committee’s bill includes $30.725 billion for ICE, $3.47 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $1.457 billion for the Department of Justice.

The bill from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs allocates $19.1 billion for CBP to hire Border Patrol staff and $7.45 billion for ICE to hire Homeland Security Investigations agents.

CPB will receive an additional $3.45 billion to purchase new technology “to combat the entry or exit of illicit narcotics at ports of entry,” to upgrade border surveillance technology and to conduct initial screenings of unaccompanied children. 

Another $2.5 billion would go to the Homeland Security secretary for any additional border security needs. 

All of the funding would last through Sept. 30, 2029.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a statement the panel plans to vote later this month to advance the bill. 

“Senate Democrats refuse to vote for a single dollar to secure our borders or enforce our immigration laws, even against the most violent illegal aliens,” Paul said. 

Republicans plan to pass the bill using the same complex budget reconciliation process they used last year to enact their “big, beautiful” law that provided DHS with $170 billion. 

GOP lawmakers voted last month to approve the budget resolution that unlocks the process that comes with many rules and restrictions but avoids the need to get 60 votes in the Senate to end debate. 

Senate Republican leaders chose to separate funding for ICE and Border Patrol from the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill after the two political parties made little progress toward restrictions on immigration agents. 

The stalemate led to a 76-day shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security, which ended in late April after the House sent Trump the annual funding bill the Senate had approved a month earlier.

Federal agencies say they have yet to take steps to implement President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting voting by mail, as the Department of Justice fights a Democrat-led lawsuit against it.

The Justice Department late Friday filed documents asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit and to not block the executive order on a preliminary basis because the order hasn’t been implemented. The filings marked the Trump administration’s first effort to defend the order in court.

The March 31 order directs the creation of state citizenship lists and restricts how ballots can be sent through the mail, instructions that Democrats and election experts have called unconstitutional and illegal. It comes as Trump has seized on the specter of noncitizen voting, an extremely rare phenomenon, to demand sweeping voting restrictions.

In its Friday filing, the Justice Department sought to persuade Judge Carl J. Nichols in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia that a legal challenge is premature.

“If and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order” then a lawsuit can be brought, Stephen Pezzi, a senior trial counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, wrote in a court filing.

Nichols has scheduled a hearing for May 14.

The DOJ’s argument relies on statements by key federal officials that the agencies affected by the order — the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Postal Service — are still deliberating over how to carry out Trump’s directive. In declarations filed in court on Friday, officials at all three agencies say final decisions haven’t been made.

“As the Postal Service is still in the deliberation phase of determining how to implement the Executive Order, we have not yet published a proposed rule, nor have we reached any final decisions about the substance of a proposed rule,” Steven Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, wrote.

The executive order directs the postmaster general, who leads the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would block states from sending ballots through the mail except to voters on lists provided by the state to the Postal Service. 

The order also instructs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age U.S. citizens in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. Democrats allege the Trump administration is building an unauthorized national voter list, despite the U.S. Constitution giving states the responsibility of running federal elections.

Michael Mayhew, deputy associate director of the Immigration Records and Identity Services Directorate within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, wrote in a declaration that the agency “has not yet begun preparation” of state citizenship lists. USCIS is a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

At the Social Security Administration, Jessica Burns MacBride, head of program policy and data exchange, wrote that the agency hasn’t made any final decisions “about its role” in implementing the executive order.

The order’s opponents are especially watching the Postal Service’s response, since it is an independent corporation overseen by its Board of Governors — not the White House.

Democrats and experts on postal law say Trump has no authority to order the postmaster general to take any action. The Board of Governors hires and fires the postmaster general, and board members serve seven-year terms, helping insulate them from political pressure.

Last month, 37 Democratic U.S. senators signed a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner and the Board of Governors urging the Postal Service to not implement the executive order. The senators pointed out the president has no authority to regulate federal elections or the Postal Service.

“Like the President, the Postal Service has no authority to regulate the manner of voting in federal elections, nor who is eligible to vote by mail in such elections,” the letter says.

The Postal Service is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed by Democratic groups and leaders in Congress. 

The Justice Department, which is representing the Postal Service, sidestepped questions about the president’s authority in Friday’s court filing. It called arguments about Trump’s authority over the Postal Service an “abstract legal question” that can’t be resolved before the agency takes action.

Still, Monteith appeared to nod to concerns within the Postal Service over the order’s legality while avoiding specifics.

“I am aware that deliberations are currently ongoing within the Postal Service regarding the implementation of the Executive Order,” Monteith wrote, adding that the deliberations include “legal considerations” regarding the order.

The executive order faces at least five lawsuits, including a challenge brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general led by California’s Rob Bonta. The Justice Department has not yet filed court documents defending the order in that case.

For their part, Republican attorneys general — led by Catherine Hanaway of Missouri — are defending the executive order. Their position, if adopted by courts, would give Trump sweeping control over the Postal Service.

In a May 1 court filing, the GOP attorneys general argue those challenging the executive order are unlikely to succeed in showing that Trump cannot direct the Postal Service to propose a rule. They say that federal law doesn’t specifically prohibit the president from ordering the postmaster general to put forward rules on mail ballots — and it’s unconstitutional if it does.

“The Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President,” The Republican coalition says, articulating a view commonly called the unitary executive theory: the idea that Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

The Republican states involved also include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Democrats and many constitutional law experts reject the unitary executive theory, though it has gained support among Trump-aligned Republicans as the White House seeks greater control over independent agencies.

If the U.S. Supreme Court eventually greenlights Trump’s efforts to control the Postal Service and other independent agencies, it would mark a “tremendous” change in how the federal government operates, James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law, said in an interview last month.

“What you’re basically talking about is redesigning the U.S. government,” Campbell said.

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma House and Senate could end session as early as Thursday, according to a resolution the lower chamber adopted Monday afternoon.

The House approved the resolution to adjourn on Thursday, but can reconvene at the call of the chair until May 14. The Senate has not yet adopted the resolution, but is in agreement with it, a Senate spokesperson said.

This will give the lower chamber time to come back for any potential veto overrides, a House spokesperson said. 

Both chambers will automatically sine die at 5 p.m. May 14 if they do not reconvene next week.

Lawmakers have been poised to end the session early after reaching a budget deal by April 1, which is earlier than normal. They also moved quickly to approve the $12.8 billion budget for the upcoming fiscal year.  

Lawmakers must be provided 24 hours notice before reconvening to a call of the chair. 

The Legislature is constitutionally required to sine die by May 29, which is the last Friday of the month. 

OKLAHOMA CITY — Cash payments to Oklahoma’s state and local governments must be rounded to the nearest nickel under a bill pending approval from the governor. 

House lawmakers unanimously sent House Bill 3075 to Gov. Kevin Stitt which establishes how cash transactions will be handled as the penny continues to be phased out.

President Donald Trump in 2025 moved to stop minting the penny, citing high production costs. The decision has created penny shortages nationwide, and various state Legislatures, including Oklahoma’s, have since worked to establish guidelines for how to handle cash transactions without the coin. 

Transactions of 1 cent or 2 cents will be rounded down to zero. Transactions between 3 cents and 7 cents are rounded to a nickel. Finally, transactions of 8 cents to 9 cents are rounded to a dime. 

The rounding requirements only apply to cash transactions, not check, debit card, credit card, or other forms of electronic/digital payments. It also does not apply to private businesses.

If signed into law, the “Oklahoma Common Cents Act” would go into effect Nov. 1. Political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, would have until July 1, 2027 to adopt the measure unless otherwise directed by the U.S. Congress. 

OKLAHOMA CITY – The fate of a passenger rail service between Oklahoma and Texas is once again in jeopardy.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation requested $2.5 million more to operate the Heartland Flyer, but the Legislature did not allocate any money in the upcoming fiscal year budget to pay for the Amtrak passenger rail service, said Jared Schwennesen, the ODOT’s multi-modal division manager.

In addition, the Texas Department of Transportation notified Amtrak that it also won’t pay for rail service operations either, Schwennesen said.

His comments were made Monday during a meeting of the Oklahoma Transportation Commission.

“We estimate the existing funding balances are sufficient to support operations through the end of the calendar year,” Schwennesen said.

The agency continues to explore opportunities to continue the train, which runs between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, beyond 2026, he said.

“If we can find a way to partner with Texas and keep the Flyer operating through another fiscal year, we will absolutely do that,” said Transportation Secretary Tim Gatz. “We’re committed to that operation to the extent we can.”

Last year, the service was set to end after the Texas Department of Transportation did not receive the funding to continue the 206-mile route.

But the North Central Texas Council of Governments Regional Transportation Council voted to provide $3.5 million to keep it running.

Staff at the North Central Texas Council of Governments is considering “bringing an item” to the Regional Transportation Council for consideration, said Brian Wilson, a spokesperson.

The passenger rail service has been operating between the states  since 1999.

OKLAHOMA CITY – A bill to increase the minimum teacher salary schedule is headed to the governor despite concerns that lawmakers may not have allocated enough funding to pay for it.

Senate Bill 201 increases the minimum teacher salary schedule by $2,000.

“Just to further clarify that the teacher pay raise is going to certified classroom teachers as defined in statute,” said Sen. Adam Pugh, R-Edmond, the author.

Sen. Mary Boren, D-Norman, said the hike should not be considered a pay raise for all teachers because many districts already pay above the minimum salary schedule.

“There are districts that may be paying teachers $4,000, $5,000 above the minimum pay increase and would like to lower class sizes and may use the increase in funding for schools to lower class sizes,” Boren said.

She said it was necessary to increase the minimum salary schedule for the state to be competitive.

Some district leaders have raised concerns about whether the $100 million lawmakers budgeted will cover the full expense. Increasing teacher pay also grows teacher retirement expenses and payroll taxes. They have said they’ll likely have to find money to make up the difference, particularly if they already compensate above the minimum.

The measure passed Monday by a vote of 47-0 and heads to Gov. Kevin Stitt.

WASHINGTON — Americans saw prices at the pump sharply rise in recent days as the nationwide average cost for a gallon of regular gas shot up 38 cents over the past week, according to GasBuddy.

The motor club AAA clocked the average price of regular gas at $4.46 per gallon and diesel at $5.64, as Iran and the U.S. remain at a stalemate over opening the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed through prior to the war.

“Gasoline prices rose in every state over the last week, with some of the most significant and fastest increases concentrated in the Great Lakes, where states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois saw sharp spikes, while Wisconsin experienced more modest gains,” Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, said in a statement Monday. 

“At the same time, diesel prices surged to new records in parts of the region, with some areas touching the $6-per-gallon mark,” he added.

De Haan said refinery outages drove prices up, but other factors like Middle East oil output and President Donald Trump’s plan to free oil tankers stuck in the Persian Gulf could help.

“However, with so many moving pieces, the outlook remains highly fluid, and while some localized relief may emerge, broader price volatility is likely to persist in the near term,” he said.

Trump’s approval ratings, particularly on everyday costs, are sinking. About two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, and 66% disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war, according to a Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll published Sunday. 

Trump’s overall disapproval of 62% was the highest the survey recorded since he first took office in 2017.

The nationwide average for a gallon of regular gas was $4.10 one month ago. Last year at this time, it was $3.16, according to AAA.

Brent crude oil, the international standard, jumped to $114.90 a barrel Monday, the second-highest price jump since Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022.

During a small business summit at the White House on Monday, Trump said the war “is working out very nicely.”

“They thought that energy would be at $300 right, $300 a barrel. And it’s like at 100 and I think going down,” Trump said, incorrectly describing the current trend in prices. “And I see it going down very substantially when this is over.”

Trump on Sunday announced “Project Freedom,” an operation to guide cargo ships and oil tankers through the strait with the guidance of the U.S. Navy.

The “humanitarian gesture,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, is “merely meant to free up people, companies, and Countries that have done absolutely nothing wrong — They are victims of circumstance.”

Some 20,000 merchant ship crew members have been stranded in the Persian Gulf during the ongoing war, according to United Nations estimates at the end of March.

Trump threatened that Iran would “be dealt with forcefully” if they interfered with the operation.

As of Monday, U.S. Central Command said two U.S.-flagged merchant ships had been escorted through the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps disputed the claim as “baseless and completely false,” according to a statement reported by Iranian state media.

“Any other maritime movements that contradict the stated principles of the IRGC Navy will face serious risks, and any violating vessels will be forcefully stopped,” the statement read.

The IRGC also claimed to have hit two U.S. military vessels in the strait Monday, a claim categorically denied by U.S. Central Command.

U.S. Central Command’s Admiral Brad Cooper told reporters on a press call Monday that the IRGC launched multiple cruise missiles and drones at merchant ships that “we are protecting.” 

“We have defeated each and every one of those threats through the clinical application of defensive munitions,” he told reporters. 

U.S. Apache and Seahawk helicopters sank six small Iranian boats Monday, according to Cooper.

The United Arab Emirates defense ministry reported Monday it was intercepting Iranian missiles and drones over various parts of the country. Iran’s air strikes on its U.S. ally neighbors have largely quieted in recent weeks.

U.K. Maritime Trade Organization, which reports on security conditions, has kept the strait’s regional threat level as “critical.”

Trump said Saturday he was reviewing a new deal from Iran to end the war. Talks have failed since the U.S. and Iran announced a tenuous ceasefire on April 7.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A bank with ties to Oklahoma’s governor is not involved in a state employee debit card program, the state treasurer and the financial institution’s leaders said.

Treasurer Todd Russ said in a statement that the state maintains a contract with Conduent, a corporation providing business services, and its banking partner, Fifth Third Bank, which recently acquired Comerica.

Despite a lawsuit filed last week that purports otherwise, Russ said the contract is not connected to a bank with ties to Gov. Kevin Stitt. In 2000, Stitt founded Gateway mortgage company, and it later merged with a bank, creating Gateway First Bank.

“Gateway First Bank does not issue cards for Conduent or the Way2Go program,” said Jennifer Jones, a spokesperson for Gateway First Bank.

She said neither the bank nor its subsidiaries participate in the program, which allows state employees to have their pay deposited onto debit cards.

Oklahomans for Transparency in Government sued Russ last week, alleging that his office was refusing to release contracts related to the Way2Go program, which is operated by Conduent. Oklahoma law requires state employees utilize direct deposit, but if they do not have a bank account, they can obtain a Way2Go debit card instead. 

The group’s lawyer, Richard Labarthe, said he filed the lawsuit because the Treasurer’s Office refused to release contracts pertaining to the program.

Because the Treasurer’s Office refused to comply with the Open Records Act, Labarthe said at the time that there was no way to know if the program had connections with Stitt. But Labarthe said a “whistleblower” told them that parts of Conduent’s contract were “assigned or sublet” to either the bank or a subsidiary of Gateway First, which prompted both the lawsuit and records request.

Russ said all state agencies utilizing the debit card program are required to use the existing contract with Conduent, and must not use an” alternative banking provider.”

He said his office “remains committed to transparency and has offered to meet with Labrathe’s office to provide information and answer questions without the need for legal action or press conferences.”

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on an appeals court ruling from Friday that was blocking remote access to an abortion drug, restoring access until at least May 11.

The administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, pauses Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling blocked a 2023 rule adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowing mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be prescribed without an in-person visit with a health care provider and also allowed it to be mailed to recipients in states with abortion bans.

“The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and law will win in the end,” said Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. 

Thirteen states have near-total abortion bans, including Louisiana. Murrill sued the FDA in October, saying the rule undermines the state’s laws and causes financial harm because the state paid $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications related to mifepristone. 

In the years since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate abortion access, telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication have become increasingly popular, with more than 27% of all abortions provided that way in 2025, according to data from the Society of Family Planning.

“While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.”

The case could follow a similar pattern to one that played out in 2023, after U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling that would have revoked access to the abortion drug mifepristone altogether. 

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened shortly after that ruling and kept mifepristone available while the case proceeded in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which eventually decided that more restrictions were warranted, but not pulling the drug’s approval. The Supreme Court officially took the case several months later, and unanimously ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs suing the FDA did not have standing, keeping access to mifepristone intact.

Responses from the attorneys in the latest case are expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by Thursday, according to Alito’s order.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

One of the main methods of obtaining abortion medication for those living in states with bans is now blocked nationwide, after a federal appeals court decision issued Friday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule from 2023 that allowed mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be dispensed without an in-person visit with a health provider. 

In the years since, states with abortion access have increased their telemedicine offerings to prescribe the medication remotely and send it through the mail. Many of those states also enacted shield laws to prevent officials from states with abortion bans from prosecuting or investigating their providers — meaning many patients have been able to receive the medication across state lines.

Louisiana judge preserves telehealth abortion access provision for now, puts case on hold

The block will remain in effect as the lower court case proceeds, but the FDA could file an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

More than 27% of all abortions were provided through telehealth appointments in the first six months of 2025, according to the Society of Family Planning, a research and advocacy group that publishes a report called #WeCount. Nearly 15,000 abortions per month were provided under shield laws during that same time frame, according to the report.

Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill sued the FDA in October, seeking to strike down the 2023 provision, and the lower court declined to do so in early April. U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph said then that the stay was premature while the FDA completed a safety review of mifepristone, but allowed state officials the opportunity to re-file the motion after that review was complete. The state appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” Friday’s decision said.

There were no dissenting opinions among Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan and Kurt D. Engelhardt, both appointees of Republican President Donald Trump.

Without access to telemedicine and the opportunity to receive the medication through the mail, people in 13 states with near-total abortion bans may have to travel to another state to get an abortion.

There is a misoprostol-only abortion pill protocol that some providers can use, but it is slightly less effective and requires a higher dosage, which can increase side effects.

“Reinstating in-person dispensing requirements would force people to travel farther, take more time off work, and absorb costs that are simply too high. For people living in states already hostile to abortion access, many of which are home to Black women and families, this is not health care,” said Regina Davis-Moss, CEO of advocacy group In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, in a statement. 

Murrill said in a statement on Friday that former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration facilitated “illegal mail-order abortion pills.”

Nearly 1 in 4 people seeking abortions out of state chose Illinois. Here’s why.

“Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Murrill said, crediting the advocacy legal organization that helped in the case.

The court also found Friday that the 2023 rule injures Louisiana by causing it to spend Medicaid funds for emergency care for women harmed by using the drug. The state identified $92,000 paid by Medicaid for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications “caused by out-of-state mifepristone.”

Numerous studies have shown mifepristone is safe to use, with very low complication rates. A combined review of 10 years’ worth of studies between 2005 and 2015 found that severe outcomes requiring blood transfusion and hospitalization occurred in less than 1% of cases.

“We are alarmed by this court’s decision to ignore the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents. We are reviewing the court’s order in detail,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of GenBioPro, one of the main manufacturers of mifepristone, in a statement. “We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to make mifepristone available and accessible to as many people as possible in the country, regardless of anti-abortion special interests trying to undermine patients’ access.”

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

After the U.S. Supreme Court severely weakened the federal Voting Rights Act in an April 29 decision, a furious U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries condemned what he called an “illegitimate” conservative majority on the court.

“This isn’t even the Roberts Court,” Jeffries said, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts. “It’s the Trump Court.”

Democrats are renewing their calls to overhaul the Supreme Court in the wake of the court’s decision, which empowers states to gerrymander congressional maps in ways that will break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to other minority groups. 

The momentous opinion overturned the reasoning behind decades of court cases that relied on the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a law born of efforts to stamp out Jim Crow voting laws in the South, to protect these majority-minority districts.

For years, critics of the court, where conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority, have pushed for changes. Those efforts often center on expanding the size of the court to dilute the influence of the majority or imposing term limits on the justices, though other ideas, like narrowing the kinds of cases the court can consider, have also been discussed.

But the April 29 decision seems to be the last straw for some Democrats and progressives, though they are unlikely to be able to force any of the changes on their wishlist — at least for a long time. 

After rulings in recent years that ended the federal right to an abortion and handed President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, they are fed up with a court they view as unmoored from the law and ruling based on politics.

“We cannot protect voting rights, civil rights or the environment as long as we have a Supreme Court majority that is captured by MAGA authoritarians,” Doug Lindner, senior director of judiciary and democracy at the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, told reporters on Thursday. “We need to take back our Supreme Court.”

Any effort to impose significant changes at the court will encounter stiff Republican opposition. GOP lawmakers have praised the court’s latest decision and some see long-serving Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as conservative icons. Unless Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate or eliminate the filibuster, Congress is highly unlikely to pass a major overhaul.

Republicans have denounced past proposals to change the court. After President Joe Biden proposed 18-year terms for justices and other changes in July 2024, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said the plan “would tilt the balance of power and erode not only the rule of law, but the American people’s faith in our system of justice.”

Supreme Court reform has long percolated as an issue among Democrats and progressives, but picked up steam during the 2020 presidential primary campaign. 

The court’s ideological makeup had already moved toward conservatives after Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on key decisions, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative. Republicans then cemented a firm 6-3 majority on the court in the fall of 2020 after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal, died and was replaced by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Campaigning for president, then-candidate Biden voiced support for a presidential commission that would study court reform. After winning election, Biden named a blue ribbon panel of law professors, former judges and other lawyers, which issued a final report in December 2021.

The commission’s report stopped short of endorsing structural changes. It took no position on expanding the size of the court from nine members, citing “profound disagreement” among commission members over the idea. The commission also adopted no stance on term limits for justices.

The report was essentially put on a shelf — Biden made no serious effort to advance a court overhaul, though he later proposed some reforms after ending his campaign for reelection.

Americans’ view of the Supreme Court has been falling. An August 2025 Pew Research Center survey found 48% of Americans hold a favorable view of the court, a 22-percentage point drop from August 2020.

A survey released in September 2025 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 69% support for term limits but only 31% support for expanding the size of the court.

Eric J. Segall, a law professor at Georgia State University and the executive director of the Emmet J. Bondurant Center for Constitutional Law, Practice and Democracy, said past courts would have been responsive to the prospect of legislation, but the current court isn’t swayed by public opinion.

In some cases the court tries to preserve its legitimacy by giving the other side a win, Segall said, but in general the court’s decisions since 2018, when Kennedy retired, can be explained by viewing the court as a subset of the Republican Party.

“This court is defined by the Republican Party,” he said.

Segall has called for dividing the court evenly between conservative and liberal appointees. An evenly-split court would encourage greater compromise among the justices, he contends. He also supports expanding the court and term limits if possible. But he bluntly predicted court reform wouldn’t happen in his lifetime.

“If Democrats have the power to do it, they won’t do it,” Segall said.

Jeffries, who will likely become U.S. House speaker if Democrats retake the chamber in the November midterm elections, said this week that “everything was on the table” in terms of the Supreme Court.

“In the new Congress, we’re going to have to do something about this Supreme Court,” Jeffries told the MeidasTouch Network.

Rep. John Rose, a Tennessee Republican, said on social media that Jeffries’ comments show that Democrats are preparing to “nuke the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court the second they’re back in power.”

Trump and some Republicans in Congress, convinced Democrats will end the filibuster to pass priorities like Supreme Court reform, want Republicans to end the filibuster first and enact a host of conservative priorities before the party potentially loses control of the Senate following the November elections.

But even if Democrats end the filibuster, the party faces a steep climb to changing the court unless it retakes control of Congress and the White House. That means any major overhaul almost certainly wouldn’t become law until at least 2029.

Trump has had a turbulent relationship with the court but would be virtually certain to veto legislation remaking it while he remains in office.

While the justices have protected Trump and future presidents from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their presidential duties, they struck down his sweeping worldwide tariffs as illegal, dealing a major blow to one of his signature policies. They also refused to hear legal challenges that sought to overturn Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Still, Trump scoffed on Thursday at Democratic hopes to remake the court in the future. He accused the party of wanting 21 justices on the court (Democratic-sponsored plans in recent years have called for 13 or 15 justices). He also called Jeffries’ comments a “dangerous statement.”

“Hakeem Jeffries said the Supreme Court is illegitimate,” Trump said Thursday. “That’s a rough statement.”

What the heck were leaders of the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association thinking when they proudly announced they had chosen only men to serve on a powerful new committee to review the governing body’s rules?

Do they think we still live in 1911, when the body was first created and women weren’t even constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote?

Because the alternative is that the leaders of this body have apparently been hanging out in the men’s locker rooms imbibing so much testosterone-fueled Kool Aid that it has addled their brains and made them forget that women can lead too.

I’m beginning to get a sense of why lawmakers are so fed up with the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, better known as the OSSAA, and why Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt called for the group to be abolished during his State of the State address in February.

OSSAA supporters say the body is a scapegoat for making difficult regulatory oversight decisions. But critics say it is an archaic board that metaphorically lives in the Stone Age and is failing to evolve with the times.

The fact that this body could not even bother to appoint a single woman to serve on their latest committee is only going to add fuel to that latter argument, because I’m not the only one who has taken notice.

Here’s a news flash: These days, tens of thousands of women and girls compete in sports, band, speech and all sorts of other high school activities that this association is entrusted to govern.

Interest in women’s sports is growing in a big way. The WNBA has seen its attendance numbers explode. The value of National Women’s Soccer League teams is up.

Oklahoma City is home to a professional women’s softball team, the Spark. Our state capital also hosts the College Softball World Series annually, and will welcome Olympic softball in 2028.

After years of being forced to use equipment designed for men, now there’s even a booming industry that sells items such as shoes and bicycles to address the unique needs of athletic women.

In the sporting world, women are no longer an afterthought.

That’s why it’s so puzzling that the OSSAA apparently doesn’t believe women deserve to have representation on this new, 15-member committee that will meet once a month between May and December to, as The Oklahoman put it, “analyze rules and pitch changes” to the entity’s 15-member board of directors.

The membership list of that board of directors, coincidentally, is also predominantly male. An internet search shows just two women serving on it.

This is not an inconsequential nonprofit.

The OSSAA’s survival is intertwined with that of the 482 public and private schools that make up its membership. It also operates on a budget of about $8 million, which is largely paid for by playoff ticket sales.

The nonprofit was founded over a century ago to bring fairness to high school sports and serve as the regulatory body not just for sporting competitions, but also nonsporting contests like band, drama and debate. 

It determines scheduling, trains over 11,000 judges and referees, enforces regulations and — more controversially of late — has the high-stakes responsibility of determining whether students are eligible to compete after transferring schools and ensuring no recruiting violations have occurred.

The Oklahoman first reported in April that the OSSAA was creating a committee to dig into the body’s 24 rules and was “accepting nominations” from all its members, but most particularly looking for athletic directors, principals and superintendents.

It took just days for OSSAA to announce that it had wrapped its search.That zest for manliness picked, of course, all men from a crop of school superintendents, assistant superintendents, athletic directors, assistant athletic directors.

Besides women, also noticeably missing from its ranks: leaders of nonsport competitions, in the fine arts or drama, not to mention debate teachers or band directors. 

“We know this group of people who work with students every day will be able to truly understand the impact of these rules, find gaps and improve them for the betterment of our students and teams,” said David Jackson, OSSAA’s executive director, who is also a man.

He told Fox 23 News that they received over 150 applications and “selected 15 who bring a wide range of ideas and perspectives from across the state.”

I find it hard to believe that there was not a woman as equally qualified as these men out of over 150 applicants.

Jackson also told The Oklahoman that OSSAA wants everyone to “know these decisions were made with students and families in mind.”

Which students? Just boys?

Look, diversity matters.

Women bring different perspectives and lived experiences. They’re traditionally the primary caregivers for children, make up the majority of educators, and when one parent has to give up their career, they’re the de facto stay-at-home parent.

In general, studies have found that women typically hold fewer leadership positions and are less likely to apply for employment and other career advancement opportunities if they don’t meet every single requirement. That’s due in part to perpetuating gender stereotypes (like perhaps the perception that sports are for men).

Plus, women’s sports are generally given second shrift to men’s. Just look at FBI Director Kash Patel’s decision to celebrate the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team’s gold medal victory. Just days before he was nowhere to be found when the women also took home gold.

OSSAA should be doing everything they can to build girl’s sports, not tear them down. 

One can’t help but wonder why – when already under the legislative microscope – OSSAA seems hellbent on inflicting more self-harm. Do they actually want to go the way of the dodo?

Because even if this lack of diversity was an accidental oversight, it raises some serious questions about why nobody internally noticed it or was emboldened to flag it.

And it raises some confounding questions about what OSSAA wants to be. 

Do they think women deserve a voice in their decisionmaking?

And if they do, who is going to have the gonads to hit pause on this debacle? Who among them will demonstrate the intestinal fortitude needed to insist OSSAA head back to the drawing board and actually conduct a search to find women who are ready to speak up?

Republican lawmakers and candidates across the country have escalated their anti-Islam rhetoric in recent months, a strategy aimed at energizing voters by claiming without evidence that Muslim culture and religious tenets threaten American political values.

Political observers say Republicans are seizing on anti-Islamic sentiment to gin up enthusiasm among their voters as they head into the 2026 midterm elections. It’s been a successful campaign strategy in the past.

Aggressive enforcement tactics have soured many Americans on hard-line immigration policies, once a winning issue for conservatives, and GOP victories on abortion and transgender rights have blunted the electoral power of those issues.

Instead, GOP candidates in some of the highest-profile political races in the country are putting Islam and the nebulous threat of Shariah at the center of their campaigns.

Shariah is a religious code derived from the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad that addresses moral, spiritual and daily life for Muslims. But the term has become shorthand, in some conservative circles, for anything having to do with Islam or with Islamic extremism.

Critics say conservative politicians have made Muslims a political bogeyman in their fight to hang onto power. Muslims say the rhetoric misrepresents their values and endangers their communities.

“I worry this will harm freedom, which is the very value some of these politicians are claiming to protect,” said Mustafa Akyol, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. Akyol is Muslim, and his research focuses on public policy and Islam.

“To think that American Muslims, which make 1% of the whole population, can enforce Shariah or force it on other people, that’s a very exaggerated claim.”

Up and down the ballot, Republicans have spent about $12 million since last year on ads that negatively mention Islam, Muslims or Shariah, according to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm.

I worry this will harm freedom, which is the very value some of these politicians are claiming to protect.

– Mustafa Akyol, senior fellow at the Cato Institute

Former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell, now running for Alabama attorney general, recently released a campaign ad inviting supporters of “radical Islam” to “Allah Akbar your butt all the way back to the Middle East.”

In Georgia, Republican state Sen. Greg Dolezal, a candidate for lieutenant governor, released an AI-generated campaign ad last month depicting Muslim people invading a suburban neighborhood. In a post on X sharing the video, he described Muslims as “invaders who would rather pillage our generosity than assimilate.”

Officials in Alabama and Oklahoma have quashed efforts by Muslim groups to expand into larger facilities after those proposed developments attracted the attention and ire of conservative politicians. And Florida’s Republican-dominated legislature this year enacted laws allowing a handful of state officials to designate certain groups as domestic terrorist organizations.

At the federal level, incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn released a $1.6 million political ad earlier this year that claims “radical Islam is a bloodthirsty ideology” and says “Shariah law has no place in American courts or communities.”

There’s even a Sharia-Free America Caucus in Congress, launched last December by Republican Texas Reps. Keith Self and Chip Roy. It currently has more than 60 members spanning 25 states, according to Self. He called it “a noble cause to save Western Civilization and fight back against the threat of Sharia” in a January press release.

Akyol, of the Cato Institute, likens the furor to the American panic over communism in the 1950s that culminated in Wisconsin Republican Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s efforts to root out communist infiltration in the U.S. government and other spheres of power.

Those efforts “led to the crackdown on public freedoms in America like civil liberties, freedom of speech,” Akyol said. “Luckily that ended, but this seems like a McCarthyism 2.0 era where the issue now is not communism, but Islam.”

Republicans say they’re responding to voter concerns and trying to preempt the possibility that religious or foreign political codes might creep into the U.S. legal system, jeopardizing free speech or due process.

Oklahoma state Sen. David Bullard is working with fellow Republican state legislators on a constitutional amendment that would bar courts and municipalities in Oklahoma from using any foreign law or religious code that would undermine the U.S. or Oklahoma constitutions. Similar efforts have been made this year in Arkansas, Missouri and other states.

Bullard said he’s heard from constituents who are concerned about a growing threat of other cultures “trying to forcefully usurp” American culture.

“Those are definitely Eastern ideas that don’t mix with Western culture, and the Constitution is created wholeheartedly on that Western culture concept,” he told Stateline.

He notes that his amendment doesn’t mention Shariah and does not single out Muslims.

Conservatives have been pushing similar state legislation for more than a decade. Since 2010, at least nine states have enacted laws aimed at preventing courts from enforcing foreign legal codes, including a 2014 constitutional amendment in Alabama.

When asked about examples of the kinds of instances he’s trying to prevent, Bullard cited a 2009 case in New Jersey in which a judge refused to give a woman a protective order after her husband repeatedly assaulted her, saying the husband was acting on his religious interpretation of Shariah. The ruling was overturned the following year.

“I think more and more people in Oklahoma are calling on us to protect them from that,” he said.

But even the most vocal proponents of anti-Shariah measures have struggled to explain how it could replace the American legal system or why more laws are needed to curb it. The establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution already prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another, or forcing adherence to a religious code.

Standing at a podium with a sign emblazoned with a line through the words “Sharia Law,” Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis conceded during a news conference earlier this month that there isn’t an immediate threat of Shariah becoming the basis for Florida law.

“Of course that won’t happen any time soon,” DeSantis said. “But the more that we’re able to do to protect against that, I think, is going to benefit Floridians for many, many years.”

The Islamic Academy of Alabama has operated as a K-12 private school near Birmingham for nearly three decades. But in December, local leaders of a nearby suburb denied the school’s request to relocate to a larger facility there. Alabama U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican who’s running for governor and who has railed against Islam on the Senate floor and social media, called for the school to move out of Alabama.

School officials declined Stateline’s interview request but said they remain focused on supporting the education, well-being and safety of their students and community. They’ve dropped their current relocation plans.

In Oklahoma, Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond — who is running for governor — elevated a proposed expansion by the Islamic Society of Tulsa into a political issue when he announced an investigation into its funding. City leaders later denied the society’s application; Muslim leaders responded by hosting a community open house at their Tulsa mosque to connect with the community and promote a better understanding of their faith.

And in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is challenging Cornyn for the GOP nomination in the state’s Senate race, sued over the proposed development of a large Muslim-centric community north of Dallas. He called it a “radical plot to destroy hundreds of acres of beautiful Texas land and line their own pockets” and claimed it was unlawfully reserved only for Muslims.

Although the group initially advertised that sales would be limited to certain people, representatives for the development have since said it is open to anyone.

While some lawmakers have made a distinction in their rhetoric between extremism and the Islamic faith, others have made sweeping, derogatory claims that denigrate and stereotype all Muslims.

Tuberville of Alabama has said: “Islam is not a religion. It’s a cult.” U.S. Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee has said, “Muslims don’t belong in American society.” U.S. Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican who’s cosponsoring an anti-Shariah bill in Congress, posted on X in February: “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

While politicians have invoked fears of extremism in their public comments, Akyol said American Muslims are the ones who are most worried.

“If the people who govern your state define you like that, what may come next?” he said. “Maybe a legal step against you, or some fanatic who really believes in that can take his machine gun and attack you.”

Much of the Islamophobic messaging has gone unchecked by other conservatives, a marked departure from previous leadership. In 2001, a few days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, then-President George W. Bush visited a mosque in Washington, D.C., and met with Muslim community leaders, declaring “Islam is peace” and condemning retaliation against Muslim Americans.

Earlier this month, DeSantis signed a Republican-sponsored bill into law that allows a few state officials to label certain groups “domestic terrorist organizations.” The new law also bans Florida courts from enforcing religious laws and bars state funds from going to schools affiliated with groups designated as terrorist organizations. It does not specifically mention a religion, but cites Shariah as an example of the kind of religious laws it covers.

“You can have these groups that may not be waging physical war-type jihad,” DeSantis said earlier this month. He warned groups could wage “stealth” or “financial” attacks.

“To me, that’s still jihad and we’ve got to stop it, and this bill provides the structure to be able to do it.”

Critics say such laws also have the potential to harm any organization that finds itself at odds with a current administration.

“That is the danger of these laws, because they are specifically designed to silence political dissent,” said Wilfredo Ruiz, communications director at the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national Muslim civil rights group. CAIR was one of two groups labeled as terrorist organizations by an executive order DeSantis issued in December.

The Biden administration criticized CAIR for statements made by its leadership after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in Israel, but the group denies that it supports terrorism.

CAIR Florida sued over DeSantis’ order, arguing it violated the group’s First Amendment right to free speech. In March, a federal judge blocked the order.

Ruiz said his organization has the resources to continue challenging such laws in court. But he said he worries about smaller groups, including those that aren’t Muslim but might be at risk of being declared a “terrorist group” by whoever is currently in power in Florida.

“Having that executive power with the capacity to name you a terrorist organization before you have been even accused criminally, much less convicted, this is an openly unconstitutional proposal.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act could upend American politics and trigger a new rush to redraw congressional districts.

The opinion released on Wednesday, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, holds sweeping consequences for how states and local governments draw district lines at all levels of government, from Congress to school boards. 

Louisiana, whose congressional map is at the center of the case, may even suspend an upcoming primary election so state lawmakers can pass a new map. Other states are also weighing new gerrymanders, either this year or before the 2028 election. 

Gerrymandering refers to drawing political maps for the purpose of gaining some form of unfair advantage — whether partisan or racial or to help or hurt an incumbent or candidate.

Following the decision, Democrats are calling for Congress to pass new federal voting rights legislation, but President Donald Trump would likely veto it. Others are urging more radical changes, including expanding the size of the Supreme Court.

As the nation responds to the decision, here’s a States Newsroom look at the decision, what it means and what could happen next.

After the 2020 census, the Louisiana Legislature passed a congressional map that included one district where a majority of residents are Black. About a third of the state’s population is Black.

States typically draw new congressional lines once a decade following the census, though several states have pushed through new maps this year after Trump called on Republicans to maximize their political advantage heading into the midterm elections this November.

Black voters challenged the Louisiana map and an appeals court ordered lawmakers to pass a new map. The legislature in 2024 approved a map that includes a second district where a majority of residents are Black, also called a majority-minority district.

In response, a group of white voters sued over the new map, claiming it violated the U.S. Constitution and was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law and the 15th Amendment prohibits denying the right to vote on the basis of race.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Phillip Callais, hence the case’s name. The New York Times reported last year that Callais is a veteran who lives near Baton Rouge. 

The Supreme Court held its first oral argument on the case in March 2025. But instead of issuing a decision later that spring, the court held a second round of oral argument in October. 

At that time, comments by the conservative justices strongly suggested the court was interested in weakening the federal Voting Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act, or VRA, is a 1965 federal law passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson.

The law was designed to stop racial discrimination in voting and combat Jim Crow laws like literacy tests that Southern states used to prevent Black people from voting.

It contains several sections but the Supreme Court decision in Callais dealt with Section 2. That section prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race and other characteristics. In 1982, Congress expanded Section 2 to ban voting practices that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not the law was intended to discriminate.

Section 2 has acted as a ban on racial gerrymandering, or the practice of drawing districts to minimize the political influence of minority voters. Over time, that’s led to the creation of numerous majority-minority congressional districts.

Many of these majority-minority districts are located in Republican-controlled Southern states  but are held by Democrats. In the past, if states drew new maps to spread minority voters across several districts, they could face challenges in federal court under Section 2.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 

The court found that because the Voting Rights Act didn’t require Louisiana to create a second majority-minority district, the state didn’t have a compelling reason to consider race when drawing its map.

Under the court’s reasoning, Section 2 only applies when evidence supports a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. In other words, lawmakers only violate Section 2 when they draw districts with the purpose of affording minority voters less opportunity because of their race.

The court’s majority opinion says “none of the historical evidence presented by plaintiffs came close to showing an objective likelihood that the State’s challenged map was the result of intentional racial discrimination.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by all of the court’s conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neal Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The court’s three liberal justices — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

The decision empowers states to gerrymander in ways that break apart districts where a majority of residents are Black, Hispanic or belong to another minority group.

In 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts would no longer take cases about partisan gerrymandering. That’s where states draw maps to help a political party.

Because many majority-minority districts in the South are held by Democrats, the Callais decision gives Republican states the power to break apart these districts if they can show they are doing so for a partisan purpose.

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Kagan wrote in a dissent.

In the short term, the decision means several Black Democrats in the U.S. House may lose their seats if states pass new maps either this year before the November midterm elections or before the 2028 election. At least one projection has pegged the potential losses as high as 19 seats.

The loss of even a few Black representatives would constitute the largest drop in Black representation in Congress since Reconstruction following the Civil War, according to an NPR analysis. 

In the long term, minority voters will have a more difficult time electing their preferred candidates if they are moved into majority-white districts. The decision also applies to state legislative districts, meaning the number of Black state lawmakers may drop as well.

Not nearly as much.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But Kagan and other critics of the opinion say the protections once extended by Section 2 are effectively dead.

To block a map under Section 2, challengers will now have to show states intentionally discriminated against minority voters, a very difficult standard when states can say they drew maps for partisan advantage.

In a series of decisions during the past 13 years, the Supreme Court has also weakened other elements of the Voting Rights Act.

In 2013, the court effectively blocked preclearance, another major portion of the law contained in Section 5. Preclearance required states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain federal permission before making voting changes.

Preclearance applied to most Southern states and a handful of others. The justices didn’t strike down preclearance, but ruled that the criteria used to determine whether governments should be subject to preclearance was unconstitutional.

The law required districts that had voting tests in place in 1964 and had less than 50% turnout in the 1964 presidential election as eligible for preclearance. The court found that the criteria no longer made sense and were outdated. 

In theory, Congress could pass new criteria that would restore preclearance.

Republicans in Southern states are pushing for new maps that could hand their party more seats in the November elections — but also oust Black Democratic members of Congress.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, announced on Thursday that the state’s primary election, set for mid-May, would be paused. The suspension will give time for state lawmakers to redraw the state’s congressional map to eliminate the state’s second majority-minority district.

“We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward,” Landry said in a statement.

Florida lawmakers passed a new map hours after the court’s decision that could provide Republicans with up to four additional seats. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had introduced the map earlier in the week and had cited Callais in urging lawmakers to act.

In Tennessee, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican running for governor, called on state lawmakers to pass a new map. Prominent Republicans in Georgia said the state should pass a new map.

Not all Republicans are pushing for immediate action. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey said that while she supports the Supreme Court’s decision, the state wasn’t in a position to hold a special session to redistrict.

Democrats have condemned the Supreme Court’s opinion and say lawmakers and the public should fight back.

Many Democrats say Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named after civil rights activist and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who died in 2020. The legislation would set new criteria for preclearance, seeking to restore the practice after the Supreme Court stopped it in 2013.

The U.S. House passed the measure in 2021, but it didn’t advance through the Senate. 

Enacting the measure remains extremely difficult. If Democrats retake control of Congress in the November elections, Trump would almost certainly veto the measure. Republicans in the U.S. Senate would also likely block the bill, unless Democrats eliminate the filibuster.

Democrats are also weighing a new round of gerrymanders in blue states. While most attention has focused on Southern Republican states, Democrats can now also engage in racial vote dilution in states like California to secure additional U.S. House seats.

Some Democrats and opponents of the Supreme Court’s decision are pushing for other responses. 

They include expanding the size of the court from nine justices to dilute its conservative majority, implementing term limits for justices, banning mid-decade redistricting or requiring states to use independent commissions to draw congressional maps.

“We must continue to fight for a democracy in which every vote counts, and in which every vote holds equal power, starting by banning mid-decade gerrymanders nationwide and establishing fair redistricting criteria,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said in a statement.

But those changes would require federal legislation, giving Republicans the opportunity to stop the proposals through filibusters in the Senate or by Trump’s veto.

By Zara Norman/Medill News Service

WASHINGTON — John Bailey said he’s saved tens of thousands of dollars over the last decade by relying on a generic prescription to lower his cholesterol.

The 68-year-old from central Texas was able to get a generic because the patent on a brand-name medication expired. He and many other Americans worried that a case the U.S. Supreme Court heard April 29 could restrict access to generic drugs more broadly.

“It’s probably going to make a difference in how much we pay,” Bailey said while sightseeing near the court.

The case, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., will decide whether generic drug manufacturer Hikma infringed on a cardiovascular medication patented by Amarin when it marketed an unpatented use.

That practice, known as “skinny labeling,” is a key pathway that brings cheaper generic drugs to market sooner. The Journal of the American Medical Association found skinny labels were used by 43% of generics from 2015 to 2019. 

Should justices affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2024 ruling for Amarin, experts warned it could have a chilling effect on the generic industry writ large, which would seriously hike up drug costs.

“It would mean that the monopoly prices of prescription drugs that are currently being paid right now have no end to them,” Charles Duan, a patent lawyer who wrote a “friend-of-the-court” brief in favor of Hikma, told Medill News Service in an interview ahead of oral arguments.

For consumers, higher prices would be untenable. Six in 10 US adults are already worried about the affordability of their prescription drugs, per a March Kaiser Family Foundation poll. Drug prices fall with an increasing number of generic competitors, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

The case deals with an issue that policymakers have debated for decades: whether federal policy should encourage drug companies to develop new products by giving them monopoly control for a certain number of years, or seek to make drugs more affordable by shortening the monopoly window.

Amarin argued to the court  that the case hinges on a narrow regulatory matter that would have neither a bearing on skinny labels, nor on the 1984 law that established a framework for cheaper drug manufacturing.

Tegan Berry, a spokesperson for Amarin, said in an email drugmakers would lose their business purpose for research if the company loses the case.

“The broad safe harbor Hikma seeks for skinny labels will eviscerate financial incentives for research into new uses for existing drug treatments,” Berry wrote. 

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed wary of how a finding for Amarin could impact the industry writ large. Kavanaugh in particular emphasized that the 1984 law balanced innovation with affordability, and ensured the skinny label pathway was codified.

Kavanaugh cited a brief written for Hikma by former U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who was one of that statute’s principal authors, saying the Federal Circuit’s decision threatened to “undermine” the generic pharmaceutical industry.

The brief “points out, you know, generics have saved $3.4 trillion over the past 10 years, but the Federal Circuit’s decision leaves generic drug companies in the dark about what might expose them to liability,” Kavanaugh said while questioning Michael Huston, the attorney representing Amarin. “That’s going to have some serious implications market-wide.”

The concern for generic manufacturers is the threat of infringement lawsuits will force them to wait until patents expire to bring drugs to market, rather than trying sooner with one unpatented use.

“Generic companies won’t choose that pathway if, at best, it means paying millions in legal fees and, at worst, a massive damages award,” Charles Klein, the attorney representing Hikma, said during arguments.

“The risk of liability and what it could do to a generic, I would think, would be pretty significant,” Jackson said while questioning Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart.

Some experts were concerned that a decision for Amarin could impact other generic products, not just pharmaceuticals.

“Drugs are obviously sort of the poster child here, because they’re so expensive and people are very concerned about drug prices,” Duan said. “But this is not a case that’s specific about drugs. In that sense, it’s really a case about whether or not generic products can exist.”

Generic products can seriously save consumers. Store-brand foods cost up to 40% less than name brand items at Wegman’s and Stop & Shop, a 2022 CNET study found. Any savings go a long way — food prices rose 2.7% from March 2025 to 2026, according to the Bureau of Labor.

Justices are not expected to issue a decision in the case until near the of their term in early July, either to dismiss Amarin’s complaint or send it back to trial court in Delaware. 

Already, Stewart warned the court, generic manufacturers will have a “substantial disincentive” for entering the market and are holding off now pending the court’s decision.

“This is a real test for how we want to balance innovation versus affordability in this country,” John Murphy, CEO of the advocacy group Association for Accessible Medicines, said. “We need to make sure that balance is more appropriately favored for consumers.”

Massachusetts and Rhode Island are considering dropping GLP-1 drugs for obesity treatment from their Medicaid programs, continuing a trend of states that have stopped coverage of these expensive medications. 

Thirteen state Medicaid programs are covering GLP-1 drugs for the treatment of obesity this year, down from 16 last year. 

Medicaid programs in California, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and South Carolina have eliminated coverage of the drugs for weight loss, because the expense strained state budgets. 

In Massachusetts, the governor’s proposed fiscal 2028 budget would not fund the state’s Medicaid program, MassHealth, to cover GLP-1 medications for weight loss alone, though the state would continue covering the drugs for diabetes and other conditions. The legislature is still debating the state budget. 

Rhode Island’s governor also has proposed removing GLP-1 coverage from the state’s Medicaid program for weight loss treatment. 

North Carolina reinstated such coverage in mid-December after having dropped it in October. 

Medicaid programs in Delaware, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin also cover the drugs for obesity treatment, according to KFF, a health policy research group. 

But some states, such as Michigan, have restricted eligibility for these medications to morbidly obesity patients rather than those who are overweight or obese. The move is expected to save the state an estimated $240 million. 

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Louisiana are debating whether to allow Medicaid to cover GLP-1s for obesity treatment if enrollees have another chronic condition, or comorbidity, such as prediabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease.  

The medications generally have been too expensive for people without insurance. In February, one of the largest producers of these drugs, Novo Nordisk, announced it would reduce their list prices to $675 per month in 2027. 

Gross spending on Medicaid prescriptions for GLP-1s — for diabetes as well as for weight loss — has increased from around $1 billion in 2019 to almost $9 billion in 2024 as demand for these drugs has risen, according to KFF. 

At the same time almost 40% of adults and a quarter of children with Medicaid have obesity and may benefit from having access to the drugs, according to KFF. 

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

President Donald Trump on Thursday moved to capitalize on a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakening the federal Voting Rights Act as he urged one governor to gerrymander his state and praised another for suspending an approaching primary.

The court’s decision on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as unconstitutional and empowered other Republican states to break apart districts where most residents are Black for a partisan advantage.

The opinion could reinvigorate Trump’s push for states to redraw their maps to give Republicans an edge in the November midterm elections. The president’s party typically performs poorly in the midterms and Trump’s approval has fallen in polls, making Democrats hopeful they can retake the U.S. House.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and state Attorney General Liz Murrill announced on Thursday that the state’s congressional primary election, set for mid-May, would be suspended. The pause gives state lawmakers time to draw a new map aimed at ousting at least one, if not two, Black Democrats.

Trump thanked Landry on his social media platform, Truth Social, for “moving so quickly to fix the Unconstitutionality” of the state’s map. In a separate post, Trump wrote that he had spoken with Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee, who faces calls to immediately gerrymander the state.

“I had a very good conversation with Governor Bill Lee, of Tennessee, this morning, wherein he stated that he would work hard to correct the unconstitutional flaw in the Congressional Maps of the Great State of Tennessee,” Trump wrote.

A spokesperson for Lee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Historically, states draw new maps once a decade after each census but eight states have now broken that norm after Trump urged Republicans to gerrymander. 

Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah have drawn fresh GOP-leaning maps, as well as Florida, whose legislature approved a gerrymander hours after the Supreme Court’s decision. California and Virginia have enacted new maps favorable to Democrats. 

Before Wednesday, the redistricting war was essentially a wash. But the court’s decision gives Republicans more options to gain the upper hand this year, if states can move quickly. 

Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and Tennessee are among the red states with upcoming primaries where lawmakers could theoretically still act. In some states — like Georgia and Tennessee — top Republicans haven’t ruled out action. In others, like Alabama and Georgia, GOP leaders have ruled out or played down the possibility of action this year.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, urged states to gerrymander their maps before the midterm elections.

“I think all states that have unconstitutional maps should look at that very carefully and I think they should do it before the midterms,” Johnson told CNN on Thursday. 

Democrats have also floated the possibility of additional gerrymanders — whether this year or ahead of the 2028 election. 

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on social media after the court’s decision that she would work with the legislature to change the state’s redistricting process. New York currently uses a commission system to draw maps, limiting opportunities for partisan gerrymandering.

At a news conference hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, suggested she would support additional Democratic gerrymanders.

“It values partisan politics over discrimination,” Sewell said of the court’s decision. “It’s really, really, really — I mean, it takes us back. So to the extent it’s urging, it’s inviting red states to totally take away all of the Democratic seats and be totally red, it also encourages blue states to do exactly the same.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed a bill Thursday that will fund almost every agency in the Department of Homeland Security for the next five months, ending the shutdown that began in mid-February. 

The House approved the bill, which doesn’t include additional spending on Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, on a voice vote earlier in the day.

The DHS shutdown, the third funding lapse in the last year, stalled paychecks for federal employees throughout much of the department, including those at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. 

Trump enacting the DHS appropriations bill finally marks an end to the annual government funding process that was supposed to be wrapped up before the end of September. 

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during brief floor debate it was “about damn time” Republican leaders brought the bill to the floor. 

DeLauro said that “from the outset” Democrats wanted to negotiate with Republicans to address “armed, masked agents marauding our streets and terrorizing people in our communities.”

“It has been the Republicans (who) have been intransigent and not willing to do that,” she said. “But there we go. Today we’re going to do it. It could have been done 76 days ago. I’ll take it today.” 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy said separating out funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS funding bill “is offensive to the men and women who serve” in those agencies. 

“While we are all unified in funding the rest of DHS, we are absolutely horrified that we are blowing up the appropriations process to target those brave men and women who are doing the Lord’s work to keep us safe from cartels, from dangerous actors and from illegal aliens across the streets of America that have been endangering the American people,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to fund ICE and the Border Patrol for the rest of Trump’s term without negotiating any new guardrails on immigration agents. 

Instead of completing the dozen annual government funding bills before their Oct. 1 deadline, lawmakers’ stark differences over funding and policy led to a trio of shutdowns that stalled paychecks for federal employees and wreaked havoc on hundreds of programs. 

The first shutdown, which affected much of the federal government, lasted 43 days as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to extend the enhanced tax credits for people who purchase their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

A partial shutdown lasting four days ended in early February when lawmakers approved a stopgap spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security alongside the remaining full-year appropriations bills for other departments. 

But lawmakers failed to reach a bipartisan agreement to place constraints on federal immigration agents before the temporary funding bill for DHS expired on Feb. 14, leading to a third shutdown for the department.  

Senate Democrats demanded several restrictions on immigration agents after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. While Republicans control both chambers of Congress, most bills cannot move through the Senate without the support of at least 60 lawmakers. 

After nearly six weeks, Senate Republican leaders agreed to remove funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol from the DHS appropriations bill, unanimously sending it to the House for approval in late March.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said at the time a plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to provide three years of funding for ICE and Border Patrol wasn’t acceptable. He refused to put the Senate-passed bill on the House floor for a vote. 

The Senate tried again in early April, sending an identical bill to the House, which Johnson declined to schedule a vote on until Thursday. 

The House vote on the DHS appropriations bill happened less than a day after Republicans in that chamber voted to adopt the budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process. Republican senators approved the tax and spending blueprint earlier this month. 

Congress’ budget resolution isn’t a bill and doesn’t need to go to the president for his signature in order to take effect. It doesn’t actually fund anything, but is designed to help lawmakers plan tax and spending policy for the next decade. 

GOP lawmakers intend to use the reconciliation process the budget resolution provides to approve a bill in the coming weeks that will provide up to $140 billion for ICE and Border Patrol. That avoids the need to place any new constraints on federal immigration officers in order to get Democrats’ votes to limit Senate debate. 

Members of Congress will, however, still need to find agreement on funding for the rest of government ahead of the next fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1. 

Another impasse will mean another shutdown, just weeks before the November midterm elections. 

In Oklahoma, an average of 2 to 3 people die by suicide every day. 

This rate is more than 1.5 times the national average and has increased by almost 150% since 2000.  Overall, as reported by the Oklahoma Voice last year, our state’s soaring suicide rates place us in the top 10 nationally.

For Native Americans in Oklahoma, these rates had long been even more concerning. As recently as 2021, Indigenous Americans suicide rates were more than twice the national average.  

But the suicide and self-inflicted death rates among Native Americans have since been on a sharp decline thanks to concentrated efforts by tribal members and governments. 

Tribal nations around the country and in our state are providing holistic approaches that college campuses might utilize to help to address this growing mental health crisis for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. 

A study by the Healthy Minds Project found that 14% of college students have experienced suicidal ideations in the past year. Addressing suicide with these students is critical because of the many risk factors that university students face. For instance, a recent study of more than 10,000 students found that the most frequent risk factors for suicide are depression, anxiety, stress, academic commitments, lack of opportunities, low income and race. 

As someone who has been working in education for more than a quarter of a century, I am interested in how our colleges and universities might help to address Oklahoma’s soaringly high suicide rates.

Higher education in Oklahoma is in a unique position to help identify and respond to our students who are struggling with mental health.

Tribes, both in our state and nationally, might provide helpful interventions to address the many risk factors.

Some tribes, such as the White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona, work with local leaders to develop suicide prevention programs that help youth and young adults to grow holistically in their local culture and history, spirituality, self-esteem, health and fitness, discipline, and communication. In addition to these prevention programs, this tribe also uses community-based interventions such as public suicide awareness campaigns, biannual prevention walks, prevention conferences, and data monitoring and response systems. 

Overall, these interventions have been shown to reduce suicide rates in their community. As documented over a decade, the suicide death rate among 15- to 24-year-olds dropped by 30% while the national death rate during this same time period remained relatively stable. 

More locally, many tribes in Oklahoma offer suicide-focused behavioral health support. In addition, research has been conducted for more than a decade using positive psychology to help reduce suicidal ideations among Oklahoma Native American college students.

Another promising approach that tribes are using, which our campuses can readily integrate, are digital mental health interventions. These interventions include such as telehealth sessions with a licensed therapist, self-paced suicide prevention modules, and messages that are automatically sent to student’s phones.

They hold promise because there are high levels of internet use among students experiencing suicidal ideations. Those suffering from suicidal ideations are more likely to seek support via these modalities.

These digital mental health interventions have been shown to significantly reduce suicidal ideations, with there being a 40% improvement for participants using these interventions. These digital interventions are also more accessible for today’s college students.

Other possibilities include supporting ongoing funding for the mental health crisis hotline 988 as well as for national mental health organizations such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which almost lost funding earlier this year.

Collectively, Oklahoma’s higher education system can work to stem the rising tide of suicide in our state. By following the lead of our tribal nations, our colleges and universities are in a unique position to help address this growing crisis.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Saying the state’s second experiment with managed care is “failing to deliver on its promises,” the state’s chief law enforcement officer has asked for an audit of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said the state’s Medicaid agency is failing to hold accountable three companies accountable administering the state’s managed care Medicaid program. 

“Providers are reducing staff,” Drummond wrote in a letter to State Auditor and Inspector Cindy Byrd. “Patients are being denied essential care. Out-of-state corporations are controlling access to critical services without accountability, provider and patient complaints are increasing and OHCA leadership highlights the MCO’s (managed care organizations) numbers to deny that these problems persist.”

In 2023, Oklahoma switched from a fee-for service model to a privatized health care model after Gov. Kevin Stitt said it would help reduce costs and provide better quality care.

Providers across the state have reported payment delays, barriers to claims processing and incorrect or inconsistent reimbursement, Drummond said.

The agency has failed to provide complete and substantive responses to his inquiries, Drummond said.

He asked Byrd to also look into the denial of claims for medically necessary and life sustaining equipment.

“The Oklahoma Health Care Authority is committed to transparency and accountability in all that we do,” said Rebecca Sheppard, an OHCA spokesperson. “We are aware of the Attorney General’s request and will cooperate fully with any review process.”

The agency requested about $500 million in additional funds for the current fiscal year, an amount which surprised lawmakers.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said thus far, transitioning to managed care hasn’t seemed to manage costs, and legislators will be watching to see if that changes in the next few months.

“The managed care companies need to figure it out and get it right before we come back to the next session, because if they don’t, legislators are going to be calling to turn back the clock on managed care,” Hilbert said.

Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said he “absolutely” supports the audit.

“This is a huge, major change in how we administer healthcare,” Paxton said.

The Oklahoma State Medical Association said it supported Drummond’s audit request.

President Julie Strebel said before adopting managed care, the state had one of the lowest Medicaid administrative costs in the nation — at 4% — and physicians were paid quickly and without frequent denials. 

“Today, the insurance companies are taking up to 15% of taxpayer dollars to pay for less care, deny more claims and delay physician payments for months,” she said.

Meanwhile, the Senate on Thursday approved Stitt’s October appointment of Clayton Bullard as administrator of the Oklahoma Health Care Authority and as Cabinet Secretary of Health and Mental Health.

OKLAHOMA CITY — After two years of reviewing evidence, hearing testimony and enduring lengthy delays, an Oklahoma County judge has decided the major embezzlement and racketeering case against the co-founders of Epic Charter School can continue to trial.

The decision from Special Judge Jason Glidewell on Thursday brought an unusually delayed preliminary hearing to its final conclusion. Glidewell determined prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office have established sufficient probable cause to bring most of the charges to trial against David Chaney and Benjamin Harris.

The judge dismissed two counts against Chaney and one against Harris while allowing most of the case’s key charges to proceed.

“Mr. Chaney is encouraged by the fact that two charges against him were dismissed today,” his attorney, Gary Wood, said afterward. “The state failed on two charges, and they will fail at trial on the remaining charges that are pending against him.”

Harris and his attorneys left the courtroom without speaking to news reporters.

Attorney General Gentner Drummond praised the judge’s decision.

“This is a decisive ruling, and the defendants should take note: their attempts to escape accountability have failed,” Drummond said in a statement. “We will not be deterred. The facts will come out, and justice will be served.”

Chaney, 47, and Harris, 50, were charged in 2022 with a litany of financial crimes and racketeering. Prosecutors allege the co-founders engineered a complex scheme at Epic to pocket millions of taxpayer dollars intended for students.

Chaney and Harris deny any wrongdoing. Their attorneys said they followed proper business practices transparently described in public contracts with the virtual charter school.

Their business model and the public charter school were a success, their attorneys said. Epic, founded in 2011, grew into the largest public school district in Oklahoma during the COVID-19 pandemic, as families flocked to online learning. It remains the state’s third-largest district.

But questions over the school’s financial practices placed Epic and its co-founders at the center of criminal investigations, state auditing and heightened public scrutiny for years. The school cut ties with Harris and Chaney in 2021.

A third defendant in the case, Epic’s former Chief Financial Officer Josh Brock, testified in the preliminary hearing against the co-founders as part of a plea agreement to avoid prison. Brock agreed to cooperate with the prosecution, pay restitution and spend 15 years on probation as a convicted felon.

Brock testified that he and Harris designed invoices with false itemized expenses so they could skirt state law and justify the millions of dollars Epic paid their business. 

Their company not only profited from a management fee for running the charter school, but it also controlled Epic’s Learning Fund account, investigators said. The school used the Learning Fund to cover the costs of each student’s curriculum, learning technology and extracurricular activities.

Prosecutors failed to establish probable cause that Chaney participated in developing the false invoices, Glidewell said, so the judge dismissed a charge against him of using a computer to commit fraud.

Of the 10 counts of embezzlement against Harris and Chaney, Glidewell dismissed one — a charge of illegally sending $100,000 from the Learning Fund to Panola Public Schools, a struggling rural district the co-founders had been hired to manage. 

Brock testified that he sent the $100,000 from the Learning Fund account, instead of their company’s operating account, by mistake and later rectified the error.

The judge said “there was not a concerted effort to rob the Learning Fund” in this instance.

However, Glidewell decided probable cause exists for other charges of misusing the Learning Fund. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation alleged the co-founders and Brock used Learning Fund money for personal expenses, political donations and to refill their private company’s operating account.

The co-founders contend they owned the Learning Fund bank account and all the money kept within it and therefore could not embezzle it.

The judge said he declined to dismiss the charges because the public school entrusted that money to the co-founders’ company to be spent on student needs. The Learning Fund’s purpose “does not change based on where the money is deposited,” he said during the hearing. 

“The account was theirs; the money was not,” Glidewell wrote in his court order.

The judge heard five days of witness testimony in March 2024 and three more days in February. Procedural disputes caused almost two years of delays in between.

The conclusion of the preliminary hearing, though a milestone, is an early step in the criminal case. A trial or another resolution still could be years away.

The case now advances to District Judge Lydia Y. Green, Glidewell’s superior who would preside over the trial if the proceedings ever got that far.

Chaney and Harris are expected to appear at an arraignment June 24, four years after they were first charged and arrested, to potentially enter their first plea.

• 5:15 pmEditor's Note: This story has been updated to include a statement from Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

OKLAHOMA CITY — The leader of the Oklahoma House said Thursday that voters should be the ones to hold a state representative who hasn’t voted in two weeks accountable.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said it’s up to the voters of House District 77 to hold Rep. John Waldron, D-Tulsa, accountable at the ballot box for not coming to the Capitol and missing votes on over 100 pieces of legislation.

“Ultimately, the reason I know that he’s not voting is because you guys (the media) keep talking about it,” Hilbert said. “I really don’t spend a lot of my days thinking about John Waldron, except every Thursday when we talk about it.” 

Waldron announced April 16 that he was resigning from office, but it wouldn’t be effective until Oct. 1. 

April 16 is also the last date Waldron voted on the House floor, legislative records show.

Waldron will continue collecting paychecks as a representative until his resignation goes into effect this fall. State lawmakers earn $47,500 annually. Waldron also announced that he is suspending his reelection campaign.

Waldron’s resignation came after he told nonprofit media outlet NonDoc that he used artificial intelligence to make a GIF of him and a potential election candidate kissing and then sent the image to the woman while serving as chair of Oklahoma’s Democratic Party. Waldron stepped down as chair of the Democratic Party in December, but continued to serve in the state House. 

Waldron did not return messages seeking comment Thursday.

While the House rules state that no member shall be absent from session without leave, Hilbert said it should be voters who hold Waldron accountable. 

“The Constitution is very clear about how members are elected to this body, and they’re ultimately accountable to the voters and the voters of his district,” he said. “His name is on the ballot, and they have the chance for accountability this summer when they choose who they want to represent them.” 

Hilbert said his office hasn’t received a copy of Waldron’s resignation and he has yet to be presented with evidence of wrongdoing. He has repeatedly said he knew nothing about Waldron’s transgressions until it was reported by media outlets. 

Waldron previously filed for reelection and faces one primary challenger in his district. In his resignation letter, he said he will not assume the office even if elected. 

House Minority Leader Cyndi Munson, D-Oklahoma City, said to her knowledge, Waldron does not intend to return to the Capitol to finish out the last weeks of session. 

She previously said the House Democratic Caucus had asked Waldron to step down from his House seat and not run for reelection. 

While she said members of her caucus have questioned Waldron’s choice to resign effective Oct. 1, no one can force him to resign earlier, and it’s the date he proposed. 

She said she doesn’t know if Waldron’s constituents have been contacting his office, but he needs to face the people he represents. 

“There are members who have missed for all sorts of reasons, that aren’t here for a period of days, and action hasn’t been taken,” Munson said. “And I don’t know what actions can be taken, but there is a responsibility to your constituents, and I think that he has to answer to them.” 

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Senate on Thursday sent to the governor a bill that would criminalize the use of abortion-inducing drugs.

House Bill 1168 would make it a felony to provide abortion-inducing drugs, such as misoprostol and methotrexate, to women knowing she is seeking to terminate a pregnancy. 

It includes a fine not to exceed $100,000 and or 10 years in prison.

It does not apply to drugs used to treat an ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous miscarriage.

The bill, a carryover from last session, was added to the Senate agenda at the last minute. Senators spent nearly one hour and 40 minutes discussing and debating the bill and abortion, which brought more than one senator to tears.

Supporters argued it was necessary to save the unborn and reduce abortions forced on women by sex traffickers.

“This drug you’ve taken as prescribed is designed to murder an unborn child,” said Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, the author.

He said women have used abortion-inducing drugs to end five million pregnancies, Bullard said.

“The abortion pill doesn’t just kill a baby,” Bullard said. “It doesn’t just decimate a mother. It kills generations of wonder.” 

Mifepristone has been used by more than five million people since the FDA first approved it and is proven to be 99% safe, said Sen. Regina Goodwin, D-Tulsa.

“For all the men folks that are standing here talking about what women need to do with their bodies, understand this,” Goodwin said. “We’ve got some other medication out there, right, that we might want to evaluate. Maybe we want to criminalize it, and for those that have erectile dysfunction, maybe that is what is causing some of the pregnancies.”

Critics also said the bill would be difficult to enforce. 

An analysis published in March by the Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on sexual and reproductive health, found that medication abortions were used 65% of the time in clinician-provided procedures. The group also noted that many women are utilizing virtual visits to receive abortion-related care.

Oklahoma already has a near-total ban on abortions, except to save the life of the mother.

Similar bills have resulted in reduction in health care professionals, such as gynecologists, willing to practice in Oklahoma, creating long waiting periods, they said.

Senate Minority Leader Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, said the bill was a political statement to be used in campaigning, noting that it had been on hold for a year, was tossed onto the agenda in haste and has no enforcement mechanism.

“This bill risks creating confusion and fear among patients and providers alike,” said Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City. “When doctors hesitate, when pharmacists question, when patients delay care, that is when outcomes worsen.”

Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, voted against the bill because it did not go far enough, calling a “piecemeal” and “incremental” approach.

“This is weak,” he said.

Sen. Lisa Standridge, R-Norman, said the medications keep sex traffickers in business, exploit women and don’t provide choice.

The measure passed by a vote of 37-10. 

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry suspended the May 16 primary elections for Louisiana’s six U.S. House seats Thursday, the day after the U.S. Supreme Court declared the state’s existing congressional map unconstitutional.

“Allowing elections to proceed under an unconstitutional map would undermine the integrity of our system and violate the rights of our voters,” Landry said in a written statement. “This executive order ensures we uphold the rule of law while giving the Legislature the time it needs to pass a fair and lawful congressional map.”

Absentee voting in the U.S. House races had already begun, and early voting was scheduled to start Saturday. But postponing the election allows Landry and the Louisiana Legislature to pass a new map that eliminates one or both of Louisiana’s two majority-Black congressional districts. 

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s existing congressional map  Wednesday when it ruled that lawmakers had relied too heavily on the race of voters to draw the district lines. Specifically, the court challenged the legality of an additional majority-Black congressional district held by U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat from Baton Rouge, that spans from Baton Rouge to Shreveport.

The U.S. House elections this week are canceled. But all the other contests on the May 16 ballot will continue as scheduled, including those for U.S. Senate, Louisiana Supreme Court, Public Service Commission, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and five constitutional amendments. 

Secretary of State Nancy Landry has said that the U.S. House races will remain on voters’ ballots in May, but any votes cast in those races will not be counted. 

Democrats have already started filing legal challenges to the governor’s decision that aim to put the House elections back on their previous schedule.

Lindsay Garcia, a Democratic candidate in the 5th Congressional District, filed a lawsuit Thursday in the U.S. Middle District Court of Louisiana asking for an emergency order blocking Landry’s election suspension. 

Black plaintiffs from the 2022 congressional redistricting lawsuit Robinson v. Ardoin have also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to wait to issue its certified judgment until after the 2026 midterms and allow the current map be used during this cycle. This typically happens about a month after the opinion is released.

Landry’s order pushes the primary elections to July 15 unless the Legislature determines a new date. 

Assuming the elections remain suspended, the Louisiana Legislature will have to revert to the old “jungle” primary election system for the U.S. House races, Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, said in an interview Thursday. The state had been expected to use the new semi-closed partisan primary for these contests. 

Under the semi-closed process, U.S. House candidates were running in Democratic-only and Republican-only elections, where voters could only cast ballots in the Democratic or Republican primary but not both.

Given the compressed timeline, however, the congressional elections will now likely be held through the jungle primary, where candidates of all parties run against each other in an initial contest. That system is both cheaper and less complicated to execute.

“Under the best of circumstances, the election cycle is going to be confusing,” Henry said. “But we are going to move forward with what we have to do.” 

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, a Black Democrat from New Orleans, faces a primary challenger and could be affected by both the Supreme Court ruling and the governor’s decision to move the primary dates.

He said the cancellation of the primaries will have a “chilling effect” on voters such as military veterans who have already cast their ballots. The governor and Attorney General Liz Murrill argue moving the election is necessary because the court’s ruling prohibits them from using the invalidated map. 

At least one national election expert said Louisiana isn’t required to stop the elections because of the Supreme Court ruling.

Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, an organization that advocates for voting rights across the country, disagreed with Murrill and Landry’s legal assessment that the primaries can’t be held using the current congressional map. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday does not throw out Louisiana’s existing congressional districts for the current cycle. A previous Supreme Court decision, Purcell v. Gonzales from 2006, prevents courts from ordering states to make major ballot changes too close to an election and would apply in this case, he said.

Louisiana had previously used maps for congressional elections after they were ruled unconstitutional in 2022 and 2024 on the basis of the court’s Purcell ruling.

But at a press conference Wednesday, Murrill acknowledged the legal precedent set by the Purcell case, pointing out that courts would be prohibited from ordering the state to do anything.

“The Purcell principle is a principle that says that courts, particularly federal courts, should not be monkeying with state election dates when it’s too close to an election, but it doesn’t stop the legislature from acting,” Murrill said. “So that’s a restriction on the authority of courts, not legislatures.” 

Lawyers for the NAACP and other organizations argued the Supreme Court was doing just that by striking down the maps after some votes had already been cast. 

“Enjoining the primary after ballots have already been cast would cause chaos in the election process and leave voters and candidates hopelessly confused, in clear violation of the principles this court articulated in Purcell and subsequent decisions,” they argued in a filing today with the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Former Republican Secretary of State Jay Dardenne said he believed the governor and secretary of state’s plan was legal but unprecedented. 

“I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this where, where you’ve got a Supreme Court ruling rendered, literally, a couple of days before voting starts,” Dardenne said. “So I think it’s probably an acceptable response to the reality of voting in a district that has been declared unconstitutional.” 

“It seems to me that there’s sufficient time to have another election before then,” Dardenne added.

Reporter Julie O’Donoghue contributed to this report. 

This story was originally produced by Louisiana Illuminator, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted their budget resolution Wednesday night, clearing the way for the party to pass a bill in the coming weeks that will provide tens of billions in additional funding for immigration enforcement. 

The 215-211 party-line vote unlocks the complicated budget reconciliation process that will allow the GOP to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term in office. California independent Rep. Kevin Kiley, formerly a Republican, voted “present.”

The budget resolution was approved by the Senate earlier this month and does not need Trump’s signature.

When combined with a separate Senate-passed bill, which Speaker Mike Johnson has so far refused to put on the House floor for a vote, the two measures are expected to eventually end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that began in mid-February. 

House Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., said during floor debate that lawmakers should place constraints on immigration agents after they shot and killed two U.S. citizens earlier this year in Minneapolis. 

“I think the vast majority of the American people agree with me that we need to have a secure border, but that we cannot have any agency of our government carrying out killings on our streets,” he said. 

Republicans removed ICE and Border Patrol funding from the annual DHS appropriations bill after negotiators were unable to broker agreement with Democrats to place new guardrails on immigration activities.

Placing funding for those two agencies in a reconciliation bill allows Republicans to move the measure through the Senate without securing 60 votes to end debate, which would require bipartisanship. 

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said the shutdown isn’t “just about the inconvenience of long lines at airports.” 

“This is an unprecedented national security and public safety crisis. And this is the moment we take the keys from the kids and we say no more of this nonsense,” he added.  

DHS includes the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Secret Service and Transportation Security Administration. 

Arrington used his debate time to criticize Democrats for demanding constraints on immigration agents, arguing federal officers shouldn’t have to secure a judicial warrant to enter someone’s home to detain a person in the country without proper documentation.

“There is not a Democrat or Republican former commander-in-chief that would ever find that acceptable,” he said. 

Democrats also called for federal immigration agents to: 

• Wear body cameras.
• Only wear masks to conceal their identities in “extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
• Not undertake roving patrols.
• Not detain people in certain locations, like houses of worship, schools, or polling places.
• Not engage in racial profiling.
• Not detain or deport American citizens. 

The GOP used the reconciliation process last year to enact its “big, beautiful” law, which included an additional $170 billion for immigration and deportation enforcement. 

The reconciliation bill Republicans hope to approve in the next month can cost up to $140 billion, according to the instructions in the budget resolution. But GOP lawmakers expect the price tag to come in around $70 billion.

The additional funding is significantly higher than the $10 billion allocation for ICE and the $18.3 billion for Customs and Border Protection that Congress was on track to approve earlier this year. About $550 million of the CBP total was for the Border Patrol. 

White House officials have repeatedly urged lawmakers to quickly approve the reconciliation bill that has yet to be released and for House Republicans to clear the Senate-passed DHS appropriations bill for Trump’s signature. 

The Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to lawmakers this week notifying them the administration is running out of money to pay DHS employees during the shutdown. 

“If this funding is exhausted, the Administration will be unable to pay all DHS personnel beginning in May, which will once again unleash havoc on air travel, leave critical law enforcement officers—including our brave Secret Service agents—and the Coast Guard without paychecks, and jeopardize national security,” it says. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision gutting the federal Voting Rights Act sent Black Democrats in the U.S. House reeling on Wednesday, as they confronted a new reality where Republicans could gerrymander some of them out of office and limit the ability of Black voters to elect candidates in the future.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus vowed to fight the court’s decision. They demanded fresh votes on federal voting rights legislation that has languished for several years and urged voters to turn out in the November election.

But facing a Republican-controlled Congress for at least the rest of the year and a Republican White House for at least the next two-and-a-half years, the prospect of major new voting rights legislation becoming law appears slim in the near term.

“It will pave the way for the greatest reduction in representation for Black and minority voters since the years following Reconstruction,” Rep. Terri Sewell, an Alabama Democrat, said of the court’s decision, referring to the post-Civil War period in the South.

Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 U.S. House seats nationally directly because of the Supreme Court’s decision, according to a projection by Fair Fight Action, a Georgia-based progressive voting rights group, and the Black Voters Matter Fund, which advocates on behalf of Black voters. 

As of Aug. 4, 2025, Congress included 61 Black members of the House, including two delegates, and five senators, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because it unnecessarily created a second district where a majority of residents are Black.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act had previously limited states from using maps that dilute the voting power of minority citizens. Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court’s three liberal justices, wrote in a dissent that the decision would now allow states to dilute the voting power of minority voters without legal consequences.

Republicans welcomed the decision, with many saying race should play no role in redistricting. President Donald Trump, informed about the ruling by reporters and told that it would help Republicans, exclaimed, “I love it.”

Florida lawmakers approved a new map within hours of the opinion. The proposal, offered by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this week, seeks to secure four additional House seats for Republicans. DeSantis had invoked the court’s decision, even before it was released, to push lawmakers to pass the new map.

GOP candidates and officials in other states urged state lawmakers to move quickly to redraw maps, even with primary elections approaching. Even if only a small number of states enact fresh gerrymanders this year, the Supreme Court decision will likely trigger another, bigger wave of redistricting over the next two years ahead of the 2028 election.

“The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement.

Rep. Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, in a statement said the decision “restores fairness, strengthens confidence in our elections, and ensures every voter is treated equally under the law.”

The Supreme Court in 2019 allowed states to redraw maps for political advantage, ruling that federal courts would no longer adjudicate partisan gerrymandering cases. That previous decision, combined with Wednesday’s opinion, offers states a wide berth to draw maps that limit the voting power of minorities if they’re sold as politically necessary.

Sewell represents a district that includes Selma, where the civil rights activist and future U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., along with other marchers, was beaten by state troopers in 1965 while walking across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in an episode called Bloody Sunday. 

The beatings helped spur Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act later that year — the same law the Supreme Court weakened on Wednesday.

“The court just gave states permission to use partisan gerrymandering as a wholesale excuse to deny Black and minority voters a voice in our democracy,” Sewell said.

In Missouri, the Republican-controlled legislature earlier this year passed a map intended to oust Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Democrat who was Kansas City’s first Black mayor. The state Supreme Court is weighing a legal challenge that could keep the map from taking effect before the November election.

On Wednesday, Cleaver in a statement called the opinion “deeply disrespectful of the generations of African Americans and civil rights advocates who gave their freedom, their blood, and even their lives to make it possible.” 

Former President Barack Obama condemned the decision as another example of how a majority of the current Supreme Court seems intent on “abandoning its vital role” in ensuring equal participation in American democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach.

“The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome,” Obama said in a statement. “But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.

Several Democrats said Congress should pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a Democratic-sponsored measure that seeks to restore preclearance — a requirement that states with a history of discrimination obtain federal approval before making voting changes. The Supreme Court effectively halted preclearance in 2013.

The House, under Democratic control, passed the legislation in 2021 but it stalled in the Senate. Democrats could likely pass the bill again if they retake the House in November but would face a likely filibuster again in the Senate. Even if they managed to pass the bill, Trump would be virtually certain to veto it.

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat whose district was ruled an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, sought to place the court’s decision in a broader, historical context. 

Recalling Louisiana’s Jim Crow past, he said the state used to require individuals to recite the Constitution’s preamble before registering to vote.

“If you tell me I’ve got to jump a certain height, I could probably do that. Tell me I’ve got to run a certain distance, I could probably do that, too. But if you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can’t do nothing about that — I need some help from my government,” Fields said, adding that’s why Congress needs to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the Supreme Court’s conservative majority “illegitimate” and said the opinion was unacceptable but not unexpected. 

While acknowledging the decision represents a setback, America has an opportunity to mount a comeback in the upcoming election, he said.

Jeffries, who is set to become speaker if Democrats retake the House in November, said one of the chamber’s first actions would be to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

“So we can end the era of voter suppression in America once and for all,” Jeffries said.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report

OKLAHOMA CITY — A $2,000 teacher salary increase advancing through the Legislature has raised concerns among school district leaders of whether state funding will support its total cost.

The Oklahoma House approved the teacher pay raise, outlined in Senate Bill 201, by a vote of 92-1 on Tuesday, more than a month after receiving the bill from the Senate. The legislation, which returns to the Senate for final review, would add $2,000 to the state-mandated minimum salaries for Oklahoma teachers and certified school employees. 

Although lawmakers budgeted $100 million for the pay raise, some district leaders said their schools likely will have to pay out of pocket to cover the full expense, especially if they already pay above the minimum salary schedule for teachers.

The $100 million allocation is part of a $232 million package of added funding budgeted for public education.

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said the extra money should be sufficient for districts to raise their teachers’ salaries, regardless of whether they pay at or above state minimums.

“If districts are on the formula and pay above the minimum now with existing funding, they can pay them $2,000 more with nearly a quarter billion in new public education funding, $100 million of which is specifically dedicated for teacher pay,” Hilbert said in a statement.

Districts already paying above the state minimum wouldn’t be legally obligated to provide a full $2,000 increase. But, teachers in those districts still should push for a $2,000 raise, Hilbert and other legislative leaders have said.

The extra state funding coming to Midwest City-Del City Public Schools would cover just under 80%, or $232,000 short, of the cost to increase the district’s teacher salaries by $2,000, Superintendent Rick Cobb said. 

Raising a teacher’s salary by $2,000 comes at a true cost of $2,500 when factoring in added teacher retirement expenses and higher payroll taxes, he said. 

Although the district already pays well above the state minimum, Cobb said “I don’t think our teachers are going to accept us not giving them a $2,000 raise when we go into negotiations.”

“I know one of your questions is going to be about whether (lawmakers are) fully funding the raise, and in our case, they’re not,” he said. “So, I think that needs to be part of the conversation, too, is that our teachers are going to expect a $2,000 raise. Our teachers are making less than the cost of living increase that inflation is bringing into their lives. So, without an infusion into the salary schedule, their buying power is less and less every year.”

As district leaders put together a budget for the next fiscal year, Cobb said Mid-Del schools still are going to try to make a $2,000 raise work.

“I’m not sure exactly how right now, but we’re going to try,” he said.

The small northeastern Oklahoma district of Peggs pays at the state minimum but completely covers teachers’ retirement contributions, saving each educator $3,000 to $4,000, Superintendent John Cox said. Teachers in the rural district also “wear many hats” and are compensated for fulfilling multiple roles.

Cox, also a Republican candidate running for state superintendent, said he expects Peggs would have to pay a small amount out of pocket to cover the total cost of the $2,000 raise when considering retirement and fringe benefits. 

The bigger challenge, he said, is affording the rising payroll while operational expenses, like bus diesel and maintenance, also increase year over year.

The state budget doesn’t raise funding for schools’ operational costs, even though lawmakers are considering lengthening the minimum school year in 2027-28.

“There’s a definite balancing act,” Cox said. “We’re required to pay the teacher pay raise. Then what do you do with operational costs and what do you forgo to be able to pay those teacher pay raises? What in the maintenance area and in the operational costs do you cut to be able to make those pay raises?”

State lawmakers touted the pay increase as the latest of multiple steps in improving Oklahoma teacher salary levels. The Legislature last approved teacher raises in 2018, 2019 and 2023.

Oklahoma’s current average teacher salary is fourth among all bordering states and second in the region when factoring in cost of living, according to state Department of Education data. The average starting salary for teachers in the state is still ranked toward the bottom of the region, even when considering cost of living, the agency reported.

The state’s largest teacher union, the Oklahoma Education Association, said it is “grateful to lawmakers for making another investment into competitive teacher pay.”

“Even if districts already pay above the minimum, we hope that they will use the funding that will be provided by the state to give all teachers the full $2,000 raise,” the organization said in a statement Wednesday. “They deserve it.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated on May 4 at 12:15 p.m. to correct misinformation about which bank operates the Way2Go Card program.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A government transparency nonprofit sued the Oklahoma Treasurer’s Office Wednesday alleging the treasurer failed to release copies of contracts related to a program processing state employee pay.

Oklahomans for Transparency in Government, represented by attorney Richard Labarthe, filed the lawsuit in Oklahoma County District Court and alleged that state Treasurer Todd Russ did not respond or recognize an open records request made March 16 for the state’s contract for the “Way2Go Card” program and related communications. 

Russ said in a statement that two status reports have been provided and the request was “overly broad.” His office reached out to the Attorney General’s Office for guidance weeks ago, he said.

“As written, the request is overly broad and encompasses thousands of records,” he said in a statement. “Based on its language, the Office is unable to identify with reasonable specificity the records being sought. The hours required to fulfill the request are likely in the hundreds, as documents must be reviewed for personal identification, information and other sensitive material requiring redaction under the law.”

Russ said his office “takes openness and transparency very seriously.”

The Treasurer’s Office partnered with Conduent, a corporation providing business services, for the program to give state employees the option to have their pay deposited directly onto the Way2Go debit cards rather than a bank account, the lawsuit claims. 

The lawsuit requests that the Treasurer’s Office be required to release the requested documents and cover attorney fees and costs. 

Labarthe said Oklahomans for Transparency in Government filed the requests after a “whistleblower” reported to them in February that parts of the Conduent Way2Go contract were “assigned or sublet” to Gateway Bank or a related entity. 

Gateway was founded as a mortgage company in 2000 by Gov. Kevin Stitt and eventually merged with a bank.

A spokesperson for Gateway First Bank said May 4 that neither the bank nor any of its subsidiaries are involved with the Way2Go program. The state Treasurer’s Office also confirmed that its contract is with Conduent and Fifth Third Bank, not Gateway First Bank.

The Governor’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment as of publication April 29. 

The requested records included contracts and any relevant amendments or extensions, subcontract agreements, correspondence and communications related to the contract and documentation of payments to Conduent and any subcontractors. 

“If we’re dead wrong about our underlying theory and Gateway Bank or no affiliate of Gateway or the governor is involved, then we’ll happily dismiss and go home,” Labarthe said. “But there’s no way of knowing that right now, and we can’t have this kind of stonewalling by people at the highest levels of state government. It’s completely inappropriate.”

Labarthe said the Treasurer’s Office has been contacted three times, but the group has received no response. 

He said the open records request was also made to the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the Office of Management and Enterprise Services, but was directed back to the Treasurer’s Office. 

Rep. Jared Deck, D-Norman, who supports the litigation, said the Treasurer’s Office should provide documentation and acknowledgement of the open records request.

“We don’t have any communication, not even a simple acknowledgement of this request,” he said. “Just goes to show that we have a systemic problem here. This is not a simple email got lost in your junk box. This is a problem that goes up a chain and it needs to be resolved, and we need answers. The public deserves that.”

• 5:33 pmEditor's note: This story was updated to include a statement from state Treasurer Todd Russ.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised Wednesday to uphold the Trump administration’s efforts to end temporary legal protections for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

The decision could also affect several other lawsuits related to what is known as Temporary Protected Status that are pending in lower courts. The suits challenge the Trump administration’s procedures to terminate country protections, which have sharply raised deportation risks for more than 1 million immigrants. 

So far, the Trump administration has ended TPS destinations for 13 countries, out of 17 that were active at the start of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that federal courts, under the law, cannot review the executive branch’s decision to end or extend a TPS designation.

“They challenge the very kind of foreign policy-laden judgments that are traditionally entrusted to the political branches,” Sauer said of TPS recipients who are suing to remain in the United States. 

But two lawyers, Ahilan Arulanantham, representing Syrians, and Geoffrey Pipoly, representing Haitians, argued that their clients could challenge a lack of proper procedure that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took in ending those TPS designations. 

That would include not undertaking a review of country conditions before making a determination, the lawyers said.

Most of the questioning came from the three liberal justices, who grilled Sauer and pressed him on Trump’s racist remarks disparaging Haitians.

The conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 majority, asked Sauer only a handful of questions, and seemed skeptical of Arulanantham and Pipoly’s argument, signaling that they may already agree with the Trump administration’s position that the courts cannot review TPS terminations. 

A decision is not expected until June or early July. Both cases would go back to the lower courts to continue on the merits argument. 

But if the Supreme Court agrees with the Trump administration, then TPS holders from Haiti and Syria could be subject to deportation. 

The effort to end TPS designation is part of President Donald Trump’s broader effort to curtail immigration and strip legal status for people, creating thousands of newly unauthorized immigrants in order to subject them to his mass deportation drive.

TPS is a humanitarian program that Congress created in 1990 to allow for temporary protections for nationals who hail from countries deemed too dangerous to return to due to violence, disasters or other extreme circumstances. 

TPS holders must go through vetting to be approved for work permits and legal protections. Each renewal lasts from six to 12 to 18 months. 

Those determinations are up to the Department of Homeland Security secretary, who typically consults with the State Department to evaluate country conditions and determine if the status needs to be extended. Decisions would depend upon whether conditions are still unsafe for a migrant’s return.

Sauer argued that the courts cannot review that final decision, including procedural ones that lead up to it. 

Arulanantham contended that position is a “double edged sword.” Another administration could easily come in and a new DHS secretary could theoretically use TPS to give legal status to immigrants in the country unlawfully, and that decision would not be subject to review by the courts, Arulanantham said.

The TPS holders before the Supreme Court argue that Noem did not consult with the appropriate agencies, such as the State Department, before deciding to end TPS designation. They say she did not follow proper procedure — but they are not challenging that a decision to terminate a country can be reviewed. 

Arulanantham said with Syria, if Noem had reviewed the State Department’s report, which advises people not to travel to the country because of armed conflict, and still decided against renewing protections, that decision is not reviewable. 

“What is reviewable is whether she actually asks anything and gets any information about country conditions,” he said. 

Sauer said that legal argument was “meritless,” because the TPS “statute does not micromanage the degree of consultation with other agencies.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Arulanantham why a challenge to the review of how a TPS termination is ended would even matter.

“If it’s just kind of a box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect, when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” she asked.

Arulanantham said it’s “because Congress … and the millions of people who live with TPS, have some faith in government, and they believe that if there is consultation, the decisions will be better.”

He said, “Our view is that even if it comes back like a box-checking exercise, people will at least know that somebody talked to somebody else.”

Pipoly argued that the ending of TPS for Haiti was based on racial animosity toward Haitians, pointing to the president’s own words where he referred to the Caribbean island as a “shithole.” 

“The true reason for the termination is the president’s racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians in particular,” he said. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer about those comments from Trump. 

“We have a president saying at one point that Haiti is a ‘filthy, dirty and disgusting s-hole country,’ I’m quoting him, and where he complained that the United States takes people from such countries, instead of people from Norway, Sweden or Denmark,” she said. “I don’t see how that one statement is not a prime example of … showing that a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Sauer argued that none of those statements “mentions race or relates to race,” and instead the president was referring to “problems like crime, poverty, welfare dependence.”

In the lower court that blocked the Trump administration from ending TPS for Haiti, federal Judge Ana Reyes found that there was racial animosity in the government’s decision to end the humanitarian protections. 

This is not the first time Trump has tried to end TPS for Haiti — he did so in his first administration in 2018, but was blocked by the courts.

The day before Wednesday’s oral arguments, a handful of Democratic lawmakers gathered with domestic care advocates outside the U.S. Capitol to stress the importance of TPS workers. More than 20,000 Haitians work in healthcare, according to the immigration advocacy group FWD.us.

“At this moment, over 1 million people are at risk of being removed from their homes, separated from their families, having their lives uprooted because of Trump’s cruel and unlawful attempt to terminate their temporary protected status,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley said during the Tuesday press conference. 

Pressley said that thousands of TPS holders serve as essential workers, including one recipient from Haiti who took care of the congresswoman’s mother, who died from cancer.

“It was Haitian nurses who prayed over my mother, who sang songs to my mother, who oiled her scalp lovingly and braided her hair,” Pressley said. “Everyone who calls this country home benefits from TPS, and stands to be harmed by this termination.”

Pressley has led the bipartisan push in the House to approve a measure that would extend TPS for Haiti up to three years. 

Ten Republicans, including one independent who caucuses with the GOP, joined Democrats in approving the bill earlier this month. 

While it passed in the House, the legislation would need 60 votes in the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans. Additionally, if Congress managed to pass the bill, it would likely be rejected by Trump. 

“We are demanding the Supreme Court uphold the law, save lives and protect our communities,” Pressley said. “To send vulnerable families to countries like Haiti, Venezuela and Syria that are enduring horrific humanitarian crises is unconscionable, shameful, unlawful and preventable.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve was one step closer to the job Wednesday after North Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis cast the deciding vote to advance Kevin Warsh’s nomination to the full Senate.

Lawmakers on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs voted 13-11 along party lines to move Warsh to the next step.

The potential turnover at the top of the Fed, which sets monetary policy, comes as Americans see higher costs hit their pocketbooks, particularly soaring prices at the gas pump, as the U.S.-Iran conflict disrupts worldwide energy supplies.

Tillis had withheld his support until the Trump administration announced Friday it would drop what the senator described as a “bogus” investigation of current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

“It’s no secret that the reason that Mr. Warsh’s nomination could have been held up is because of my concern with the investigation. I want to thank the Department of Justice for the assurances that they gave me,” Tillis, R-N.C., said following the panel’s brief morning session that lasted just under 15 minutes.

“The fact of the matter is, this was based on two minutes of testimony. It was not criminal,” Tillis said of the DOJ’s probe into Powell’s June 2025 testimony to Congress on a major $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters.

The committee vote comes after Trump’s sustained verbal attacks on Powell over several months, including numerous public threats to fire the Fed leader if he did not agree to lower interest rates. `

A federal judge last month blocked the administration’s subpoenas to probe the Fed and Powell, citing “a mountain of evidence” that Trump was using the investigation to force Powell’s hand.

The Fed was scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to deliver its latest decision on interest rates, possibly the last under Powell, whose term expires May 15.

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, said the vote brings Trump “one step closer to completing his illegal attempt to seize control of the Fed and to artificially juice the economy.” 

Inflation and affordability are emerging as major issues ahead of the 2026 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., said his constituents in Georgia and beyond “deserve to know that the Fed is on their side, maximizing their chances to keep a good paying job and keeping their lives affordable, not on the side of the president’s poll numbers or his political concerns as we approach the midterm.”

“Fed independence is not theoretical. It matters to the everyday lives of working families,” Warnock said.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken between April 24-27, 61% of Americans think the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. 

When asked about the costs and benefits of the war in Iran, only a quarter of respondents said they agreed the U.S. military operation was worth it, according to the Ipsos poll.

Americans have watched fuel prices climb in March and April after Iran retaliated against the U.S.-Israeli attacks by choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime passageway where, prior to the war, one-fifth of the world’s petroleum passed.

The average price across the U.S. for a gallon of regular gas reached $4.23 Wednesday, not only the highest price point since the U.S. launched operations in Iran on Feb. 28, but also the highest since July 2022, according to GasBuddy.  

Prior to the war, a gallon of regular hadn’t topped $3 all year.

A return to normal, free flow in the strait — which was about 140 vessels per day pre-war — appears out of reach at the moment, as Trump announced last weekend his negotiators pulled back again on attending talks in Islamabad.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sidestepped a question Wednesday regarding how much longer the war might last, asked by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., before the House Armed Services Committee.

During the same hearing however, the Pentagon’s Jules Hurst III, acting undersecretary of war who oversees finances, did reveal the war had so far cost the U.S. $25 billion.

While the Fed’s inflation target is 2%, data released at the beginning of April showed prices for all items rose 3.3% over a year ago. The jump was largely driven by a 21% spike in fuel prices from February to March.

The Fed’s so-called “dual mandate” is to maximize employment and stabilize prices. The Fed primarily loosens or tightens the economy by adjusting interest rates — lowering them if the economy lags and inflation is too low, and raising them when inflation becomes too high.

Warren and Warnock also noted Trump’s ousting in August of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, appointed to the board by former President Joe Biden. The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether Trump exceeded his authority in firing Cook.

Warnock said he was dissatisfied with Warsh’s written responses to additional questions sent after his April 21 nomination hearing before the committee.

“I asked, quote: ‘If President Trump, or any future president, attempts to unlawfully fire you without cause, would you leave the Federal Reserve?’ His response, quote: ‘I will not answer hypothetical questions of this nature,’” Warnock recounted.

“Well, this isn’t a hypothetical question. In fact, the president attempted to fire Governor Cook this in the past year, and the president has repeatedly mused about firing Chair Powell because he won’t bend to his interest rate demands — doing so as recently as two weeks ago,” Warnock said, referring to Trump’s comments during an April 15 Fox Business interview. 

Asked Wednesday afternoon if he thinks Warsh will persuade the Fed’s board of governors to lower interest rates, Trump told reporters, “They should because it’s a good time to lower them. We’re the most prime country anywhere in the world.”

Powell also faced questions Wednesday afternoon.

When asked whether he expects Warsh will remain independent of Trump, Powell said, “He testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, and I’ll take him at his word.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

The suspect in the attack at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night was prepared for a mass casualty event, prosecutors said in a document filed in federal court early Wednesday.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and three assistants in her office signed a memorandum asking a judge to keep 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen detained as he awaits trial. They said his “actions were premeditated, violent, and calculated to cause death,” and he sought to “express his political opinions through violence.”

“Had the defendant achieved his intended outcome, he would have brought about one of the darkest days in American history,” they wrote. “The defendant traveled across the country with the explicit aim to kill the President of the United States.”

A detention hearing is set for Thursday. Allen is charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump, as well as interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the Washington Hilton ballroom.

The document lists a host of weapons, ammunition and other supplies Allen had in his possession at the time of his arrest.

He had a “12-gauge pumpaction shotgun with one spent cartridge in the barrel and eight unfired cartridges in the magazine tube,” the document reads. He carried additional ammunition in a Velcro strapped to his body and in a separate pouch, the prosecutors said. 

He also carried a fully loaded .38 caliber pistol with two additional magazines. 

The document also shows a mirror selfie Allen appears to have taken in his hotel room just before the planned attack. He is fully armed and outfitted in the photo.

The White House Correspondents’ Dinner, dating back more than 100 years, is an annual black-tie event, often attended by the president, that hosts more than 2,000 journalists, administration officials and other guests at the Washington Hilton. 

President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and members of the Cabinet attended Saturday’s dinner, along with many members of Congress. 

Allen, who traveled by train from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., prior to the attack, sent a note just prior to attempting to rush the Capital Hilton ballroom, brandishing a gun. 

He did not name Trump but said, “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.”

Prosecutors argued his intent was to inflict mass harm and disrupt the government.

“Had the defendant successfully made it into the ballroom, he not only could have killed or injured dozens of people, but he could have destabilized the entire federal government, given the number of high-ranking government officials present,” the Department of Justice said. “The defendant sought to express his political opinions through violence. The Court should consider the identities of the defendant’s intended victims and the significant roles they play in governing this country to assess the nature of the charged offenses.”

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s existing congressional map Wednesday as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in a ruling that may have implications for core tenets of the Voting Rights Act.

“Allowing race to play any part in government decision-making represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context,” Justice Samuel Alito, who was appointed to the court in 2005 by President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority opinion. “Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the state’s use of race-based redistricting here. The state’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

Read the opinion below. 

The three liberal leaning justices dissented from the majority opinion, adopted on a 6-3 vote along ideological lines. They accused the majority of dismantling Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting laws or procedures that purposefully discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group.

Political leaders have previously indicated the decision will not affect the 2026 midterm elections as Louisiana is already too late in the electoral process to adopt new maps, though Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told reporters Wednesday the legislature still has time. That would come with significant complications, as early voting for the May 16 congressional party primaries begins Saturday.

Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry, who oversees statewide elections, issued a statement saying lawyers within her agency were analyzing the opinion. She noted that justices remanded the case back to the federal court in Louisiana’s Western District, leaving her limited in what she can save about active litigation.

Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, has followed the case since its inception. His progressive organization that follows redistricting issues throughout the country.

“While the Supreme Court didn’t declare Section 2 unconstitutional and left it in place, it modified what you have to do to win a Section 2 case in ways that will make it much harder or impossible for voters of color to use,” Li said.

U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, D-New Orleans, blasted the ruling in a statement. 

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is a devastating blow to the promise of equal representation in our democracy,” Carter said. “This ruling is about far more than lines on a map — it’s about whether Black Louisianians will have a meaningful opportunity to make their voices heard.” 

“For decades, the Court’s majority has steadily chipped away at the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The consequences of this decision are immediate and severe: the hard-fought progress that led to the creation of two majority-Black congressional districts in Louisiana is now in jeopardy,” Carter added. 

Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed to the court in 2010 by President Barack Obama wrote “the court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”

Right-leaning justices on the court had previously expressed interest in limiting or banning the consideration of race in the redistricting process. 

The case in question, Callais v. Louisiana, challenges the legality of a second majority-Black congressional district that the Louisiana Legislature, with a Republican majority, drew in 2024. Lawmakers configured that map in response to a federal court ruling over a version of the districts created in 2022 that directed the state to enhance minority voting power based on the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana has six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, but only one favored a Black candidate before 2024 in a state where nearly a third of the population is Black. 

The new district created in 2024 is currently held by U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields, D-Baton Rouge. 

“If you tell me I have to be white to serve in Congress from Louisiana, I can’t do nothing about that,” Fields said in a press conference after the ruling.

While the ruling does not invalidate the Voting Rights Act, it does undermine a legal tool minority voters have used for decades to challenge election maps they believe unfairly dilutes their voting power by requiring Section 2 challengers to take state’s political goals into consideration. 

In the 2024 special legislative session in which lawmakers adopted the existing map, state Sen. Glenn Womack, R-Harrisonburg, said his primary goal was to provide political protection to U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Benton, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, and Rep. Julia Letlow, R-Start, the delegation’s sole woman member. 

Li, the Brennan Center’s redistricting attorney, said drawing a majority Black district that voted for Letlow, a conservative Republican who is currently running for U.S. Senate with President Trump’s endorsement, would be impossible. 

“When you look at everything they do cumulatively [in the opinion] it makes [Section2] functionally unusable,” Li said.

The Callais case was originally slated to be decided in 2025. But in a rare move, the court scheduled a second round of arguments, posing a new question for parties to answer: Did the Louisiana Legislature’s creation of a second majority-Black district violate the 14th or 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution? 

​The 14th Amendment, in part, covers representation in Congress, and the 15th Amendment prevents citizens from being denied the right to vote based on their race.

After the court posed new questions, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who had previously defended the 2024 map, effectively switched sides and argued against the consideration of race in the redistricting process. 

“The Supreme Court has ended Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map,” Murrill said in a statement after Wednesday’s ruling. “That was always unconstitutional — and this is a seismic decision reaffirming equal protection under our nation’s laws.” 

Murrill said she would continue working with the legislature and Gov. Jeff Landry to provide guidance as Louisiana works on adopting its next map. 

Louisiana Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, and House Speaker Phillip DeVillier, R-Eunice, said they are meeting with state leaders to determine next steps in a statement. Sen. Caleb Kleinpeter, R-Port Allen, who chairs the senate committee that oversees redistricting, separately sent the same statement.

There are several redistricting bills filed that could be considered this session, though lawmakers would be in a time crunch to craft amendments to the bills and get them through the entire legislative process before the session ends June 1. Lawmakers would also have the option to approve new maps next year. 

Other states are also expected to move quickly to take advantage of the ruling, both to recraft their congressional seats but also to take advantage of the court’s new interpretation on race to potentially narrow minority representation across state legislatures, judiciaries and other elected bodies. 

A projection by Fair Fight Action, a progressive voting rights group based in Georgia, found that Republicans could ultimately secure up to 19 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives nationally because of the ruling. At the state legislative level, Republicans could gain up to 200 seats. 

This is a developing story

This story was originally produced by Louisiana Illuminator, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

While the idea of a special tax on millionaires is hotly debated across the country, Maine state Rep. Cheryl Golek characterized her state’s new tax as a modest and reasonable step toward fairness.

That’s because, she said, working- and middle-class households in Maine — including teachers, firefighters and nurses — are paying effective state income tax rates similar to or higher than those of the highest earners.

“Those who benefit the most from our economy do so because of the people, infrastructure and communities that support that success,” said Golek, a Democrat. “Asking for a small additional contribution from the wealthiest in our state is a reasonable and widely supported step toward a fairer system.”

The legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Mills this month will add a 2% tax to households whose income exceeds $1 million per year.

Maine and Washington, which enacted its own law last month, are among the latest Democratic-led states to ask for more tax dollars from the rich as national wealth inequality widens and states face heightened budget pressures. They follow the lead of other states including New Jersey and Massachusetts that have implemented specific taxes for the rich.

The idea is gaining traction as lawmakers in at least a dozen states, including Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Virginia, have proposed new taxes for the wealthiest taxpayers. In California, advocates this week announced they gathered enough signatures for a ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on billionaires. But these proposals often stir yearslong battles.

The taxes can take different forms — taxing annual incomes above a certain threshold or taxing capital assets, including high-value stocks and real estate. Earlier this month, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, proposed a new pied-à-terre tax for homes valued above $5 million when owners have a separate primary residence outside of New York City.

In neighboring New Jersey, those earning over $1 million per year face an income tax top rate of 10.75% in addition to a so-called mansion tax on the sales of high-value homes.

Proponents say these moves can help balance state tax structures that are tilted against lower earners. The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy says the tax systems of 40 states favor the wealthiest earners. But opponents argue that these measures levy new taxes on business owners, dissuading local investment and encouraging rich residents to move away — especially risky during a time when many other states are slashing taxes.

“When the outlook of our population growth is stagnant and we should be attracting people to Maine, it puts a disincentive to people to call Maine home,” Patrick Woodcock, president and CEO of the Maine State Chamber of Commerce, said during a news conference ahead of the state House vote on the tax.

The rising push to tax the wealthy in liberal states comes as some red states are moving to more regressive tax systems, which put a higher burden on lower earners.

“You increasingly have two poles where you have a larger number of states with fairly low income taxes and a smaller but still significant number of states that have doubled down on high rates, particularly high rates on high earners,” said Jared Walczak, senior fellow at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation.

He said increasing income taxes pushes wealthy people and employers to low-tax states. Even if individuals don’t directly move because of taxes, they follow businesses to other states, he said.

And some progressives are wary of going too far: California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is opposing the ballot initiative that would impose a one-time 5% tax on those whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. Hochul, who pushed for the new tax on second homes in New York City, has warned that more tax increases on the millionaires and billionaires could hollow out a crucial portion of the state’s tax base.

Walczak said only a handful of in-demand places can afford to impose higher taxes for the same reason that people pay higher rents.

“It’s worth it to a lot of people,” he said. “People are willing to pay very high rent, but there’s a limit. In the same way, they’re willing to pay higher taxes to live in New York, but there is a limit.”

The gap between the rich and poor has been widening for decades.

Wealth for the bottom fifth of American households has barely moved in recent decades, while the top 0.1% have seen their wealth increase by nearly $40 million each, according to an analysis by the anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam America.

Between 1980 and 2022, the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled, while the share going to the bottom 50% fell by a third, Oxfam reported.

Recent federal policy changes have only exacerbated the need for progressive state tax changes, said Amber Wallin, executive director of the State Revenue Alliance, which is lobbying for higher taxes for the wealthy across multiple states.

President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending bill, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed funds for safety net programs including food stamps and Medicaid. At the same time, it provided tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy.

“So we know millions will lose access to healthcare, millions will lose food assistance, and states all across the country will see funding cuts for key programs,” she said. “We know that people power a strong economy, not tax cuts for the wealthy, and when the rich pay their fair share of taxes, we all benefit.”

Since Massachusetts voters in 2022 approved a 4% surtax on annual incomes above $1 million, that Fair Share Amendment has provided the commonwealth with $6 billion in transportation and education funding.

But Jim Stergios, executive director at the libertarian-leaning Pioneer Institute, said it’s not just the ultra-wealthy who are paying that tax. People who record a one-time sale of a business or a home can face the tax even if they’re not earning over $1 million every year, he said.

He said the tax is pushing residents out of the state and dampening business investment. Federal data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows Massachusetts lost more than 33,000 residents to other states last year, though Democratic Gov. Maura Healy noted the overall population did increase because of foreign immigration. Stergios noted lawmakers are still facing challenges balancing the state budget even with the new revenue.

“So over the long term, it’s not going to have a salutary effect,” he said. “We’re going to continue to have budget problems. We do have budget problems even with this.”

Proponents and opponents of the state’s millionaire’s tax have touted recent IRS data in their arguments: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a total of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, the first year of the new tax, Bloomberg reported. Yet the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more fell after the tax was implemented.

“There’s no real evidence of millionaire out-migration. I’m sure there’s some isolated anecdotes, but the actual data don’t show it,” said Phineas Baxandall, director of research and policy analysis at the left-leaning Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

He said one piece of evidence that the wealthy remain in Massachusetts are the proceeds of the tax itself, which are funding major priorities including free community college and expanding childcare subsidies for thousands.

“Massachusetts is rightfully fearful of the federal cuts that are happening,” Baxandall said, “but we’ve been able to still move forward with real, transformational investments.”

Though interest in raising taxes on the rich is growing across the country, the idea faces considerable skepticism and often requires years of organizing.

In March, Michigan advocates announced they would suspend their campaign to put on the statewide ballot a 5% tax on individual incomes over $500,000 and joint incomes over $1 million.

“We always knew that we were going to face strong headwinds from billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share,” Rachelle Crow-Hercher, president of the Invest in MI Kids steering committee, said in a statement to Michigan Advance. That coalition plans to eye the 2028 election cycle instead, she said.

Last week, Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch announced he would drop a push for a new millionaire’s tax as Democrats came up short of the necessary supermajority needed to put the issue on this fall’s ballot.

Welch believes the issue will come before lawmakers again, but after missing a key legislative deadline it won’t be eligible for a statewide vote until 2028. He said it remains popular among voters. Lawmakers proposed using proceeds of a new tax for schools and property tax relief.

“I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more,” he said. “To those who much is given, much is required.”

I believe that we should tax the rich and the rich should pay more. To those who much is given, much is required.

– Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch

Meanwhile, the newly enacted Washington tax faces a lengthy, though expected, court challenge.

The legislation signed last month by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson imposes a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million a year. Opponents argue that income is property and thus must be taxed uniformly because of state constitutional requirements.

In addition to the constitutional concerns, Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh said the new law opens the door for lawmakers to eventually expand income taxes to more households — not just the rich. Instead of raising revenue, he said Democratic lawmakers should focus on cutting spending, noting the state operations budget has more than doubled in the past decade.

“The problem is not the financing mechanism of the state’s operations,” he said. “It’s the rate at which far-left advocates in the legislature have been increasing state government spending in the state. It’s ridiculous.”

To Democratic state Sen. Noel Frame, the legislation brings the state’s regressive tax code more in line with Washington’s progressive politics. With no statewide income tax, sales and property taxes leave lower income earners to cover more of the cost of state services, making Washington’s one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems.

“For all the things that we do that are good, big, bold economic policy — to have the tax code that we have is just an embarrassment, and it’s completely out of line with our values as a state,” Frame said.

Like the push for a $15 minimum wage started in liberal cities and states, Frame expects the millionaire tax movement will spread into more conservative areas.

Already, some conservative states, including Idaho, Indiana and Florida, have made moves to reject some of last year’s federal tax changes that benefit corporations and the wealthy.

“The people are demanding better,” Frame said. “And the more that people understand the deep connection of tax policy to income and wealth inequality, the more engaged they become.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — King Charles III did not name President Donald Trump Tuesday when he acknowledged before a joint session of Congress the transatlantic tension between the United States and the United Kingdom, but stressed “America’s words carry weight and meaning” as he reflected on decades of diplomatic ties.

The monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland told lawmakers that from “bitter division” 250 years ago, the two nations “forged a friendship that has grown into one of the most consequential alliances in human history.”

“I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth and across the world,” he said.

Charles is the first British king to address a joint session of Congress, and only the second monarch to do so after his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, spoke before lawmakers in 1991.

Charles was received with loud unanimous applause from both sides of the aisle — a notable difference from the usual one-party enthusiasm during the president’s annual State of the Union address.

He punctuated his roughly 27-minute speech with laugh lines, including a quip that 250 years for America is “just the other day” for the British.

To whoops and cheers, Charles nodded to the “bold and imaginative rebels with a cause” who declared independence but also “carried forward” the ideals of the Magna Carta, a 13th-century document outlining the protection of rights and property from the monarch.

Both sides of the aisle stood applauding in unison as the king cited U.S. Supreme Court cases that laid the “foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.”

But the king also delivered his speech against the ominous backdrop of a breakdown of American support for Ukraine and an ongoing war in Iran, initiated by the United States and Israel, that has disrupted energy supply in the United Kingdom and around the world.

The conflicts “pose immense challenges for the international community and whose impact is felt in communities the length and breadth of our own country,” he said. 

As the king was still speaking on Capitol Hill, the White House shared on social media a photo of Charles and Trump together under the heading “TWO KINGS” and a crown emoji.

U.S.-U.K. relations have frayed as a result of Trump’s recurrent attacks on British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to not join offensive operations targeting Iran.

Trump paused his scathing online screeds against the British government during the king’s first full day of his state visit, which included a 21-gun salute and ceremonial flyover after Charles and Queen Camilla arrived on the White House South Lawn. 

Shortly before Charles addressed Congress, Trump took aim on his Truth Social platform at another European leader, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, accusing him of thinking “it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about!”  

Just over one month into the U.S. campaign in Iran, Trump, on Truth Social, told the U.K. and other allied partners to “Go get your own oil!”  from the blockaded Strait of Hormuz. 

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,” he wrote.

Two weeks earlier, Trump attacked NATO allies, telling reporters in the Oval Office, “I’ve long said that, you know, I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us. So … this was a great test, because we don’t need them, but they should have been there.”

Charles recounted in his speech to Congress how the only time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, invoked Article 5 was to defend the United States following the Sept. 11, 2001 attack.

The king and Camilla are scheduled to visit the 9/11 Memorial in New York City on Wednesday.

“We stood with you then, and we stand with you now in solemn remembrance of a day that shall never be forgotten,” Charles said.

Just under 460 British troops died fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.

The king’s trip to the U.S. also comes after the high-profile release of millions of records related to the disgraced hedge fund manager and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who had ties to Charles’ brother, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. 

Mountbatten-Windsor settled outside of court in 2022 with the late Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre, who accused Epstein and the former British prince of trafficking her for sex.

Mountbatten-Windsor has been stripped of his royal title of prince and is under investigation in Britain for allegedly sharing confidential government information with Epstein, which came to light in the publicly released files.

The king acknowledged victims of sexual abuse in his speech, according to a palace aide, when he remarked to lawmakers, “In both of our countries, it is the very fact of our vibrant, diverse and free societies that gives us our collective strength, including to support victims of some of the ills that, so tragically, exist in both our societies today.”

Answering questions about the king’s address, the palace aide told reporters traveling with Charles, “It was certainly in (his majesty’s) mind to acknowledge victims of abuse, so they are naturally incorporated in this line.”

Sky Roberts, Giuffre’s brother who has become an activist following his sister’s death last year, was on Capitol Hill Tuesday for a roundtable about Epstein victims ahead of Charles’ visit.

Roberts and the king did not meet.

Charles, a vocal advocate for the environment, is also scheduled to visit Shenandoah National Park in Virginia Thursday to view America’s “extraordinary natural splendor.” The king emphasized to lawmakers the need for a collaborative effort to fight climate change.

“Even as we celebrate the beauty that surrounds us, our generation must decide how to address the collapse of critical natural systems, which threatens far more than the harmony and essential diversity of nature,” he said. 

“We ignore at our peril the fact that these natural systems, in other words nature’s own economy, provide the foundation for our prosperity and our national security,” he said.

Charles also celebrated the shared financial economy between the United States and U.K., highlighting $430 billion in annual trade. Just over a year ago, Trump began a new tariff regime on British goods, and imports from many other trading partners.

Trump and first lady Melania Trump welcomed the king and queen on the White House South Lawn Monday morning for a ceremony full of pomp and circumstance, including a review of the troops, a distinguished honor for a visiting head of state.

During brief and mostly scripted remarks, Trump highlighted a tree planted on the White House grounds by Elizabeth II in 1991. Trump described the tree as a “living symbol” of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“In the centuries since we won our independence, Americans have had no closer friends than the British. We share that same root. We speak the same language, we hold the same values, and together our warriors have defended the same extraordinary civilization under twin banners of red, white and blue,” Trump said.

Trump and Charles met in a closed-door Oval Office bilateral meeting following the ceremony. 

The first lady and the queen met with American schoolchildren at the White House tennis pavilion, where the students donned Meta Quest headsets to view several U.K. landmarks, including Stonehenge and Buckingham Palace. The event was part of the first lady’s effort to promote technology in education, according to the White House.

Charles and Camilla are scheduled to attend a state dinner at the White House East Room Tuesday night before heading to New York City Wednesday.

The king and queen are scheduled to visit the small town of Front Royal, Virginia, Thursday, as well as meet Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in Shenandoah National Park, according to the British embassy.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A proposal that could make the state’s top education office an appointee of the governor, rather than an elected position, has failed in the state Senate.

House Joint Resolution 1055, which would put the idea to a vote of the people, failed to receive a Senate committee hearing before a deadline last week, despite calls from Gov. Kevin Stitt for a state question on the matter.

“After hearing feedback from Oklahomans across the state on how our State Superintendent of Public Instruction should be selected, I chose not to advance House Joint Resolution 1055 this session,” the resolution’s author, Senate Majority Floor Leader Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville, said. “The people of the state of Oklahoma have made it clear that they prefer to keep the state superintendent an elected position.”

The Governor’s Office did not return a request for comment Tuesday.

Stitt, in his last year in office, has urged the Legislature for months to put a statewide question on the ballot that would ask voters whether to make the state superintendent a governor-appointed position. He said there’s been “misalignment” between him and past state superintendents because their positions are separately elected.

Stitt had the rare opportunity to appoint someone to the post after former state Superintendent Ryan Walters resigned with 15 months left in his four-year term. The governor chose Lindel Fields for the role. 

When appointing Fields, Stitt made his first call for the office to become a permanent gubernatorial appointee. He renewed that call in his State of the State Address and again last week before signing a landmark reading bill into law.

“I think we need to take politics out of the education space, and that’s why I’m a proponent to have the next governor appoint the education superintendent,” Stitt said at the bill signing ceremony.

Not all Oklahomans share the governor’s enthusiasm for the idea. 

A recent poll of more than 1,100 state residents by the Oklahoma Center for Education Policy found 62% of respondents opposed making the state superintendent a governor-appointed position. Only 26% favored it, according to the poll by the University of Oklahoma-based policy center.

A resolution to put the proposal on statewide ballots faced bipartisan opposition but still passed the state House 63-33 in March.

It was then assigned to the Senate Rules Committee but never received a hearing, despite the committee’s leader, Daniels, being one of the resolution’s authors. A deadline to advance through the committee stage came and went Thursday with no vote on HJR 1055, bringing the proposal to a dead end.

Legislative leaders initially said they were supportive of the state superintendent becoming an appointed role, as long as the House speaker and Senate president pro tem had the opportunity to appoint members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education.

State law allows the governor to appoint all members of the powerful state board except for the elected superintendent. Lawmakers advanced House Bill 3327, a measure to expand the board with legislative appointees, in tandem with HJR 1055.

But by last week’s deadline, HB 3327 had passed through the Senate Rules Committee while its fellow resolution on the state superintendent had not. One is able to advance without the other.

The state superintendent office will appear on primary and General Election ballots this year. Nine candidates across two parties are running for the post.

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wants to make changes to a Senate-passed bill that would end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, a move that will further delay funding and prolong the stalemate that began in mid-February. 

The holdup could again interrupt paychecks for workers at the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency, both of which are part of DHS. Huge backups in airline security lines resulted in March when TSA officers went without pay for weeks until the administration scrambled to reprogram funds.

Johnson, R-La., has chosen not to negotiate potential tweaks in the funding bill with Senate Democrats, who will be needed to advance it if the House makes alterations.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a Tuesday afternoon press conference the bill that’s stalled in the House doesn’t “need tweaks.” 

“They’re just stuck. So they come up with, ‘We need some technical changes,’” he said. “Hold up national security for technical changes? It’s absurd. They can pass the bill right now.” 

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said during a brief interview she was “flabbergasted” by Johnson’s comments.

She added during the press conference she has “no idea what technical changes they’re looking at.”

The Senate unanimously passed a bill to fund the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security in late March and again in early April. Johnson hasn’t put it to the House floor for a vote, blocking it from becoming law. 

The legislation doesn’t include funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol, a compromise negotiated after Republicans and Democrats were unable to broker agreement on guardrails for immigration enforcement operations. 

Republicans plan to provide upwards of $70 billion in additional spending for ICE and Border Patrol in a party-line budget reconciliation bill they hope to pass in the coming weeks. 

Johnson said last week he believes the “sequencing is important” on when each of the two bills becomes law. But time is running out for the tens of thousands of federal workers, who are about to miss out on their paychecks once again. 

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement the executive order President Donald Trump signed earlier this month to pay all DHS employees despite the funding lapse can only stretch so far. 

“That money is dried up if I continue down this path the first week of May,” Mullin said. “My pay roll through DHS is just over 1.6 billion dollars every 2 weeks so the money is going extremely fast and once that happens there is no emergency funds after that.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he’s working with House GOP leaders to “massage” the DHS funding bill in hopes it will become law sometime soon. 

“I’m very sympathetic,” he said. “We talked last night and he’s got to manage his challenges there. We have to manage our challenges here. But one way or the other, we’ve got to get these agencies funded.”

The disconnect between House Republicans and their Senate GOP counterparts on when to fund DHS is just one of several challenges party leaders are attempting to address this week. 

“We’re trying as best we can to coordinate strategy with the House. But, you know, it’s a unique situation. We’ve got very narrow margins and people with real strong opinions,” Thune said. “So it’s going to take, obviously, I think, the heavy involvement of the White House to bust some of these things loose. But we’re trying as best we can to ensure that we can get all of these issues across the finish line and ultimately on the president’s desk.”

Republican leaders will need the support of their own members as well as at least some Democrats in order to get major legislation, including the DHS funding bill, to Trump. 

But as of midday Tuesday, it didn’t appear they’d looped in key negotiators on possible changes to the Senate-passed spending bill. 

Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt, chairwoman of the subcommittee in charge of funding DHS, said she didn’t know what changes House GOP leaders wanted to make. 

“I am not aware. I just know that we need to find a pathway forward,” she said. “And nobody should be leaving here, or certainly flying off to (congressional delegation trips), until we do.” 

Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to leave on Thursday for a week-long break. 

Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, ranking member on the DHS funding panel, said House Republicans hadn’t reached out to him or his staff. 

“I don’t know why he’s making this more complicated than it needs to be,” he said. “Our bill, which passed the Senate 100 to zero, would pass the House easily.”

The U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday obtained a second grand jury indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, long a target of President Donald Trump’s anger for overseeing an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Comey related to a photo he posted on social media of seashells arranged to read “86 47.” Comey took the photo while vacationing in North Carolina last year. The indictment alleges that Comey threatened to harm the president and that he used interstate commerce to transmit the threat when he posted the photo.

An arrest warrant was also issued for Comey. The indictment alleges that a “reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances” would interpret the seashell photo as a serious expression of intent to harm Trump.

Trump supporters have interpreted the photo as a threat against the president, since “86” is a slang term for removing something and “47” could be seen as a reference to Trump as the 47th president. Comey has said the photo wasn’t intended as a call to violence and deleted the post.

“While this case is unique and this indictment stands out because of the name of the defendant, his alleged conduct is the same kind of conduct that we will never tolerate and that we will always investigate and regularly prosecute,” acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a Justice Department news conference.

In a video posted online after the indictment, Comey said he was “still innocent” and wasn’t afraid. 

“Well, they’re back,” he says at the start of the video.

“It’s really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be,” Comey said. “The good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith.”

A federal grand jury in Virginia indicted Comey in September, accusing him of lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding. The allegations relate to his testimony in 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign. The indictment came days before the statute of limitations ran out.

Comey pleaded not guilty before a federal judge dismissed the case in November, finding the prosecutor in the case had been illegally appointed. The judge also dismissed a separate case against Democratic New York Attorney General Letita James.

The new indictment marked another escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to prosecute Comey and other political enemies. Last week, the Justice Department obtained an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that has long angered conservatives. 

Hours before the Justice Department announced the indictment, a federal judge in New York ruled that a wrongful termination lawsuit brought by Comey’s daughter, former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, could proceed. Maurene Comey claims she was improperly fired from the Justice Department because of her father or for political reasons.

The new prosecution also comes as Blanche, a personal defense attorney for Trump, leads the Justice Department following the departure of Pam Bondi. Trump has not yet nominated a permanent attorney general.

The Tuesday indictment was signed by Matthew Petracca, an assistant U.S. attorney in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

“This is a ridiculous indictment against James Comey. The Department of Justice will lose in court, again,” U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat, wrote on social media.

At the news conference, Blanche fielded skeptical questions from reporters about how the case came together and why the criminal case wasn’t brought until nearly a year after the post. He refused to discuss evidence in the case, saying that would be unfair to Comey and prosecutors.

“You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America,” Blanche said. “That’s not my decision, that’s Congress’ decision.”

OKLAHOMA CITY – Four months after Dawn Woody married her husband, he was killed in a bombing in Saudi Arabia.

Airman 1st Class Joshua Woody, 20, was among 19 U.S. Air Force personnel killed and nearly 500 people injured when a truck bomb was detonated on June 25, 1996 near the Khobar Tower housing complex where coalition forces resided.

He had been due to return home from his deployment the next day.

On Tuesday, Woody’s widow, Dawn, celebrated Gov. Kevin Stitt’s decision to sign House Bill 4486, which would make the state the 10th in the country to erect a Gold Star Families Monument on Capitol grounds using private funds raised by the Woody Williams Foundation.

The organization, which serves families, whose spouse, parent, child, or sibling was killed while serving in the military, has already paid for three other such monuments in the state.

Joshua Woody, who was not related to the foundation, would have loved the idea of having a space for Gold Star family members, said Dawn Woody, 53, a Pryor native who is a retired U.S. Secret Service agent now living in Lavonia, Ga.

Joshua Woody, a California native, is buried in Florida, she said.

Some family members don’t have a place to go to remember a loved one while others must travel long distances, she said.

“I think that people could come there and be comforted,” she said.

It would also serve as a place of comfort for service members who live with survivor’s guilt and be a source of education for kids to learn about the military and Gold Star Families, she said.

Families began using the gold star during World War I to symbolize that they had lost a family member in the conflict.

Sen. Kelly Hines, R-Oklahoma City, the Senate author, said he lost soldiers he commanded in the military and had to talk to their survivors about why their loved ones didn’t come home.

“It is the least we can do to honor those families,” said Hines, a retired U.S. Army colonel.

Rep. Tammy Townley, R-Ardmore, the House author, said the monument will be near the arch, which is currently under construction on the south grounds of the Capitol. 

The arch honors the 45th Division of the Oklahoma National Guard.

Katie Howard, director of operations for memorial monuments at the Woody Williams Foundation, said there are 154 monuments across the country, including nine on capitol grounds, and nearly 50 pending.

The specific timeline and installation details for Oklahoma’s Capitol monument are still being discussed, Howard said.

Oklahoma has similar monuments in Lawton, Shawnee, and Owasso. Others are pending in Tulsa and the southwest Oklahoma town of Blair, according to the Woody Williams Foundation website.

The costs range from $48,000 to $60,000 per monument, Howard said.

Each is constructed in black granite and features a cutout of a silhouette of a service member saluting. The monuments contain four panels which are inscribed on both sides.

Even though her husband died nearly three decades ago, Dawn Woody said she vividly remembers the first time she met Joshua Woody, describing it as similar to a “cheesy movie.”

She was wearing a Kermit the Frog T-shirt and cutoff shorts when she met Joshua Woody at a 1995 pool party in Miami, Okla. 

“I wasn’t planning on meeting anyone,” she said.

Their eyes locked from across the room and then a conversation started, she said.

He was stationed in Texas at the time and came to Oklahoma to visit friends, she said.

She said Joshua Woody, whom his friends called “Woody,” was super funny, a kind soul and athletic.

He carried the poem “Success,” by Ralph Waldo Emmerson, in his pocket. The poem describes what it means to succeed in life, including leaving the world better.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A permanent ban on student use of cellphones in public schools is on its way to the governor’s desk.

The state House passed the measure, House Bill 1276, 83-7 on Tuesday. The Senate resurrected the 2025 bill, amended it and passed it April 15.

The bill would make permanent Oklahoma’s yearlong prohibition on students using cellphones and other non-school-issued electronic devices during the school day. Positive feedback from educators and parents have led lawmakers to deem the “bell-to-bell” cellphone ban a success.

“Making this ban permanent I think will tremendously improve the academic focus in our classrooms for years to come,” the bill’s House author, Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, said.

Oklahoma’s current statewide school cellphone ban will become optional for districts after the 2025-26 academic year without further action to make it permanent.

The state is one of 20 that bans use of wireless communication devices in classrooms for the entire instructional day.

Some Oklahoma districts have prohibited cellphone use for years. Lawmakers passed the statewide ban with the goal of implementing a universal policy to reduce classroom distractions.

“This legislation is one of the most meaningful bills written during my time in the House,” House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, said. “I’ve heard from both parents and teachers who are grateful for this reform. Hallways are loud again, students are playing Uno at lunch, and they’re actually interacting with one another. This legislation permanently allows kids to be kids, and our teachers to teach in our classrooms.”

The U.S. Supreme Court could be ready to overturn a Missouri state court verdict that favored a man who sued the manufacturer of the popular herbicide Roundup for lacking any warning that the product carried a risk of cancer after oral arguments in the case Monday.

The arguments focused on whether states could enforce their own labeling requirements of pesticides, or whether federal law preempted any deviation among states. Members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority emphasized the need for uniformity across the country.

The U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case in favor of Monsanto, the Missouri-based company that manufactures Roundup and has been owned since 2018 by German pharmaceutical company Bayer. The company faces thousands of lawsuits claiming exposure to Roundup increased a risk of cancer and that the company failed to warn consumers when it reasonably should have known of the risk.

Monsanto denies that the product causes cancer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has consistently agreed.

John Durnell, a St. Louis resident, sued the company in 2019 claiming that exposure to Roundup over two decades led to his developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A Missouri trial court awarded him $1.25 million, and appeals courts affirmed the ruling.

But the Supreme Court, which is the first federal court to hear the case, seemed inclined to protect federal supremacy. The EPA, which regulates labeling requirements for herbicides, does not require the kind of warning the Missouri jury said was appropriate.

Federal law typically trumps state law, which Monsanto and the Justice Department emphasized Monday. Industry groups across the economy tend to support federal supremacy because it saves companies from complying with 50 separate regulatory schemes across states.

An exchange between Ashley Keller, the attorney for Durnell, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump appointed in his first term, may hold the key to the court’s ultimate ruling.

Keller argued that Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which governs herbicide use, did not include a clause to expressly say that the federal law would preempt any state claims.

There was no issue of a difference between state and federal law, Keller said. Instead, a particular jury decided a single case based on unique facts, he continued. Different juries in other cases may have decided differently.

But Kavanaugh seemed not to accept that argument. He rephrased a similar question several times, and, even as Keller objected, appeared to dismiss the idea that the Missouri verdict was compatible with a national standard.

“You think it’s uniformity when each state can require different things?” he asked.

Keller rejected that framing. 

“The label’s illegal in one state and legal in another state,” Kavanaugh responded. “That’s uniformity?” 

Keller said he didn’t agree with that premise either, saying the label is not illegal based on the state but based on the facts presented at trial and the jury’s interpretation.

“The label subjects you to liability in one state and does not subject you to liability in another state,” Kavanaugh continued. “Is that uniformity?”

“I don’t think it’s state by state,” Keller said. “I think it’s jury by jury.”

Paul Clement, a well-known conservative appeals lawyer, represented Monsanto in the case, and described Keller’s argument as chaotic. It would not just open up separate regulatory regimes in each state in the country, but subject manufacturers to liability based on the makeup of any particular batch of citizens on a state court jury.

“It’s worse than 50 states,” he said. “It’s every jury is a new day.” 

A host of agencies in countries across the globe have all done studies on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, Clement said.

“It’s probably the most, like, studied herbicide in the history of man, and they’ve all reached the conclusion based on more data and the kind of expert analysis they can do that there isn’t a risk here,” he said. “You shouldn’t let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment.”

The court’s liberal justices spent more time questioning why states shouldn’t be allowed to enforce stricter regulations.

Justice Elena Kagan asked Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris, who argued on behalf of the federal government in favor of throwing out the verdict against Monsanto, if she agreed with Clement’s argument.

Harris said she largely agreed, noting that 50 states setting up separate regulations on labeling pesticides would cause confusion.

But Kagan asked why uniformity should be a higher goal than safety, saying a certain state government might have a better understanding than the EPA.

“It does undermine uniformity, I appreciate that,” Kagan said. “On the other hand, if it turns out that they (state regulators) were right, it might have been good if they had an opportunity to do something to call this danger to the attention of the people while the federal government was going through its process.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also pointed out that the EPA only registers herbicides once every 15 years, meaning that states might have better information than the EPA, especially later in that cycle.

“Lots of things can happen in science in terms of developments about the product,” she told Clement. “So if the product can become misbranded because of new information, I guess I’m just wondering why you think that you couldn’t have a situation where it would be perfectly rational for either the EPA or the states to bring to the attention of that manufacturer this new information and process a claim related to it.”

OKLAHOMA CITY — A new law heralded by Oklahoma Republicans as a method to grow the state’s housing supply appears remarkably similar to a ballot measure that voters soundly rejected less than two years ago, critics say.

State Rep. Andy Fugate, D-Oklahoma City, said Gov. Kevin Stitt’s decision to sign Senate Bill 2060, allowing for the creation of public infrastructure districts, ignores the will of the voters, who rebuffed a similar state question. The 2024 state question, which was rejected by 62% of voters, would have given developers the ability to levy debt against property owners. 

“I think it’s disappointing to see the Legislature once again ignore the will of the people, the people who clearly said ‘no.’ And the Legislature said that doesn’t matter,” Fugate said. 

Supporters though say while there are similarities between the new law and the failed state question, the two have different financing structures. 

The BUILD Act, which takes effect Nov. 1, allows local governments, such as city councils or county commissioners, to approve the creation of public infrastructure districts for residential or commercial development purposes. All property owners in the district must agree to its creation, which initially could be just the developer. 

As the property is developed and residents buy into the district, they will be required to pay an assessment to pay for the cost of the infrastructure district. The local government would create a governance system for the district, like a board of trustees, which would eventually transition to be made up of homeowners. 

Voters in November 2024 voted down State Question 833 that would have made changes to the state Constitution by allowing for the creation of public infrastructure districts to pay for things like sidewalks, water lines, sewers and roadways. Much like the new law, property owners would have been able to create one of these districts and sell bonds backed by property taxes to pay for the improvements.

The BUILD Act expands on existing statute and is not a constitutional change. 

Fugate, who voted against the measure, said he’s frustrated that lawmakers are circumventing the will of Oklahoma voters and allowing the creation of “public infrastructure” that isn’t actually public.

He said “savvy developers” don’t need help from the state, the Legislature or the taxpayers of Oklahoma to build the “next high-end gated community.” 

“In a nutshell, you can, under the provisions of the bill, create a state-sanctioned homeowners association which has this incredible ability to spend money and force people to pay for it all in the name of public infrastructure,” he said. “But that public infrastructure includes things like a library within a gated community or a golf course within a gated community, which is very clearly not what people think of as public infrastructure.”

Fugate said he’s concerned that people who have to pay more to live in those districts may reject local bond issues in an effort to decrease their cost of living.

“Their kids, oftentimes, especially in these gated communities, are not attending the public schools, so there’s no reason for them to impose property taxes on themselves for things that they won’t feel the benefit of,” he said.

Rep. Mark Lawson, R-Sapulpa, who authored the bill, said those who don’t like the BUILD Act don’t have to live in these districts. 

Housing is a need across the state, and with that comes a need for more commercial properties, he said. This legislation is a way to encourage development across Oklahoma, Lawson said. 

“What we’re doing here is very specific that it’s only the people inside of (a district), the rest of the city doesn’t pay for this” he said. “I think what is in this bill is much more prescriptive of what the state question would have been. But I just think there was a lot of misinformation that was put out about what the state question did, and I saw a lot of the same concerns that were founded on bad information about what the BUILD Act does.”

The creation of the districts is overseen by people elected at the local level who know what their communities need, Lawson said. 

“There’s no way that these things can run afoul unless a current city council says, ‘Oh, yeah, go do whatever you want,’” he said. “The thing is, city councils can do that today, they don’t need the BUILD Act to do that. It changes nothing about how our cities are governed, how our local counties are governed.”

Sen. John Haste, R-Broken Arrow, was the author of both the BUILD Act and the resolution that put State Question 833 on the ballot in 2024. He said the financing structure of the BUILD Act is entirely different from the state question and does not deal with property tax revenue. 

“It also doesn’t take away anything from cities or counties, because if it’s within a city, it has to be approved by (the) city council,” he said. “If it’s an unincorporated area, it has to be approved by the county commissioners. So the financing will be paid for by the developers and the individuals within this area.” 

People who are looking to buy a house or open a business in a district will be notified that they’ll have to pay a certain amount to cover the cost of the bond, Haste said. The BUILD Act will not count against a city or county’s bond capacity, he said. 

“If it’s an existing area where it’s already been built out, let’s say they want to bond for some new water, new sidewalks, whatever infrastructure,” he said. “Then 100% of the surface owners, so if you have a house or business there, have to agree to it. Even one person can say no, it cannot happen.” 

Haste said the Governor’s Office had reached out to him to carry this legislation. 

“I think at the end of the day, it’s so simple that some people think there’s got to be a catch and there’s not,” Haste said. “Because, again, there’s checks and balances all the way through.”

Stitt has been among the law’s most ardent supporters. He signed the bill earlier this month after the House approved the measure 54-40 and the Senate passed it 29-14.

“States like Texas, Florida, and Utah have used similar tools to support rapid, high-quality growth, and they’ve seen real results,” Stitt said in a statement. “The difference is that we’ve taken what works and built a better model for Oklahoma that protects taxpayers, strengthens local control, and helps us stay a top destination for families and businesses.”

A spokesperson for Stitt did not answer specific questions about concerns that the BUILD Act is too similar to State Question 833.

The Oklahoma Municipal League, a group representing Oklahoma’s local governments, was involved in drafting the language of the BUILD Act and celebrated it becoming law. 

The act allows local jurisdictions across the state to create housing while allowing the “burden of infrastructure costs to be paid by builders and investors while maintaining local control,” the group said in a news release.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Sen. Adam Pugh will remain on the state superintendent election ballot despite a second effort to remove him.

The state’s highest court on Monday declined to overturn an Oklahoma State Election Board decision to uphold Pugh’s candidacy. One of his Republican primary election opponents, Rep. Toni Hasenbeck, asked the Election Board and the state Supreme Court to disqualify him.

Seven of the Oklahoma Supreme Court justices concurred while Chief Justice Dustin P. Rowe and Vice Chief Justice Dana Kuehn dissented. The Court order didn’t include the justices’ reasoning.

The office of state superintendent leads the Oklahoma State Department of Education and the Oklahoma State Board of Education. Seven Republicans and two Democrats are running for the office this year.

“I’m grateful for the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision and appreciate the court’s careful consideration of this matter,” Pugh, R-Edmond, said in a statement Monday. “I’m glad this political distraction has been put to rest so we can stay focused on what really matters. I’m going to keep traveling Oklahoma, listening to parents, and sharing my vision for strong leadership that improves education outcomes, puts students first, supports teachers, and empowers families.”

Hasenbeck, R-Elgin, contended Pugh is ineligible to run for state superintendent because his Senate term overlaps with the vote and implementation of a salary increase for the superintendent position. Her attorneys said this would violate an anti-corruption provision in the Oklahoma Constitution meant to prevent state officials from improperly profiting from public office.

The Statewide Official Compensation Commission, rather than the Legislature, voted in November to raise the superintendent’s annual pay from $124,373 to $175,000. The commission exempted any sitting state lawmaker from receiving the higher salary, should any legislator be elected to the position. 

The raise will take effect after this year’s November General Election. 

Hasenbeck’s House term overlapped with the commission’s vote to increase the superintendent’s salary, but her term will end shortly before the raise is implemented. For this reason, her attorney said she wouldn’t be subject to the same disqualification as Pugh, whose Senate term continues through 2028.

Pugh didn’t vote on the pay raise and won’t benefit from it if he wins this year’s superintendent election, his attorneys told the state Election Board.

The board heard arguments from both candidates’ lawyers during a hearing April 16 and voted unanimously to reject Hasenbeck’s candidacy challenge against Pugh. 

Hasenbeck then appealed to the state Supreme Court. The justices declined to take up the case after a Court referee heard a presentation from both sides.

Hasenbeck said she was accused during the referee hearing of “challenging the ‘status quo’ by bringing this case before the Court.”

“To this statement, I agree,” she said in a statement Monday. “Senator Adam Pugh is the ‘status quo’ candidate, part of the same system which has failed this state for decades and led us to be ranked 50th in education. If you want someone who will challenge the status quo while respecting the Oklahoma Constitution, I am your candidate.”

Along with Pugh and Hasenbeck, Peggs Public Schools Superintendent John Cox, former Tulsa Technology Center administrator and state board official Robert Franklin, teacher and pastor James Taylor, Southern Nazarene University senior research analyst Debra Herlihy and William Crozier are running for the Republican nomination in the June 16 primary election.

Former El Reno Public Schools Superintendent Craig McVay and former Tulsa Board of Education member Jennettie Marshall will face off in the Democratic primary.

If no candidate earns more than 50% of the primary vote, the top two vote earners will continue to an Aug. 25 runoff election. The General Election is Nov. 3.

WASHINGTON — The California man said by federal prosecutors to have opened fire just outside the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, where President Donald Trump was in attendance alongside Cabinet members and lawmakers, was charged Monday with attempting to assassinate the president, administration officials said.

The 31-year-old identified by authorities as Cole Tomas Allen was also arraigned in Washington, D.C., federal court on charges of interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

He faces up to life in prison if convicted of attempting to kill the president. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet members all safely evacuated the Washington Hilton ballroom.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said, “There will be additional charges as this investigation continues to unfold.”

“But make no mistake, this was an attempted assassination of the president of the United States, with the defendant making clear what his intent was, and that intent was to bring down as many of the high-ranking Cabinet officials as he could,” Pirro said at a Monday afternoon press conference with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Allen was not charged with assault on a federal officer, as Pirro had said Saturday night he would be.

One Secret Service agent was shot in the chest but was protected by a bulletproof vest. Blanche said that particular agent had fired five times at Allen. The suspect was not hit but fell to the ground and scraped his knee, according to Blanche and Pirro.

Blanche would not elaborate further on ballistics, including details about a shot Allen allegedly fired.

“All the evidence is being examined very carefully and expeditiously, and we’ll know more soon,” Blanche said.

The federal prosecutors’ complaint is sealed. 

According to a signed affidavit, Allen made a reservation for the Washington Hilton on April 3, for the dates of April 24-26. He left Los Angeles on April 23 and traveled by train to Washington, D.C., via Chicago, according to the court filing, which also includes what investigators and Trump have described as a “manifesto.”  

Allen arrived at the Washington Hilton around 3 p.m. Eastern Friday, a day ahead of the high-profile correspondents’ dinner that annually draws administration officials, lawmakers, celebrities and often the president himself. 

Trump, opting to skip the event in previous years, was attending the dinner for the first time. Vice President JD Vance and many of Trump’s Cabinet members were in attendance, as was House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. — several in the presidential line of succession. 

According to the affidavit, at 8:40 p.m. Allen “approached and ran through the magnetometer holding a long gun” at a security checkpoint on the hotel’s Terrace level leading to the Concourse level, where the dinner was ongoing.

“As he did so, U.S. Secret Service personnel assigned to the checkpoint heard a loud gunshot. U.S. Secret Service Officer V.G. was shot once in the chest; Officer V.G. was wearing a ballistic vest at the time. Officer V.G. drew his service weapon and fired multiple times at ALLEN, who fell to the ground and suffered minor injuries but was not shot. ALLEN was subsequently arrested,” according to the affidavit.

Allen was carrying a 12-gauge pump action shotgun and a .38 caliber pistol, according to the court document. Pirro also said the suspect had on him “at least three knives and all kinds of paraphernalia.”

When pressed by a journalist on how investigators know that Trump was Allen’s primary target, Blanche said he could not share details. 

“We’re a day-and-a-half into the investigation. As we talked about earlier, we were able to get multiple devices from various locations, the hotel room and also where he lived in California. We have started that process. There’s nothing more that would be appropriate to share at this time, until we have thoroughly gone through it, which we’re doing,” Blanche said.

Trump publicly shared photos of the man identified as Allen, shirtless and handcuffed on the hotel floor, Sunday night.

During Monday’s press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described Saturday’s incident as an attempt on Trump’s life, and she denounced political violence while blaming Democrats and the left for “fueling” it. 

“This political violence stems from a systemic demonization of him and his supporters by commentators, yes, by elected members of the Democrat Party and even some in the media,” Leavitt said.

“Those who constantly falsely label and slander the president as a fascist, as a threat to democracy and compare him to Hitler to score political points, are fueling this kind of violence,” she said. 

Blanche also decried critics for “calling the president horrible names for no reason and without evidence, without proof.” 

Republican party campaigners also delivered a similar message Monday, implicating Democrats’ “reckless, inflammatory rhetoric against President Trump and Republicans.” The committee’s chair, Joe Gruters, also accused Democrats in a statement released Monday of not speaking out against the attack.

Trump routinely namecalls and ridicules his political foes and the press on his social media platform, Truth Social, and in speeches. In a post Friday, the president called Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries a “Low IQ individual who is not smart enough to be ‘running’ the Democrat Party.”

Upon the death in March of former FBI director and decorated combat veteran Robert Mueller, Trump wrote on social media, “Good, I’m glad he’s dead.”

During a November press gaggle on Air Force One, Trump told a female reporter from Bloomberg, “Quiet, Piggy,” as she asked a question.

Leavitt also blamed Democrats for the monthslong shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security, under which the Secret Service operates.

“This is a national emergency, and every member of Congress needs to put their country over party and get the Department of Homeland Security funded,” Leavitt said. The shutdown occurred after Democrats insisted on new guardrails for federal immigration agents following the deadly shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota.

Leavitt said Trump “continues to have trust in the Secret Service” and “was satisfied with the response.” 

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles will convene a meeting with top DHS leadership, members of the Secret Service and White House operations officials “to ensure safety and the security of the president,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt also advocated for the president’s proposed ballroom construction, calling it “critical for our national security” during large events where several officials and lawmakers in line for the presidency gather together.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation legally challenged the construction of the ballroom, for which Trump demolished the East Wing in October. 

Blanche shared a letter on social media Sunday urging the trust to drop its lawsuit by 9 a.m. Eastern on Monday and blaming it for putting “the lives of the president, his family and his staff at great risk.”

The organization responded in a letter that it would not drop the case.

The Trust’s President and CEO Carol Quillen said in a statement the organization is “grateful” to law enforcement for keeping Trump and all guests safe over the weekend.

“We are not planning to voluntarily dismiss our lawsuit, which endangers no one and which respectfully asks the administration to follow the law. Ballroom construction is continuing unabated until June 5th at the earliest because the injunction is on hold,” Quillen said in a statement provided to States Newsroom.

“We have always acknowledged the utility of a larger meeting space at the White House. Building it lawfully requires the approval of Congress, which the administration could seek at any time.”

OKLAHOMA CITY – A measure to curb the growth of some property taxes is headed to the November general election ballot.

But the Oklahoma Senate failed to secure the 32 votes needed to put Senate Joint Resolution 39 on the Aug. 25 ballot, so voters will decide the issue on Nov. 3, which has the highest turnout. 

Republican legislative leaders have been attempting to put state questions on the Aug. 25 ballot, citing concerns about voter fatigue when those who go to the polls are also asked to pick candidates for statewide, legislative and local races. But efforts to put those items on the lowest turnout election ballot  have faced push back from Democrats and members of the far-right flank of the Republican caucus. 

The resolution would lower the maximum a property value can increase from 5% to 4% for commercial properties and from 3% to 1.75% for primary residences and agricultural land.

The state question would also lower the senior property tax freeze from 3% to 1.75% . The taxable fair cash value of a primary residence for those 65 years old and older is locked in for those who meet income requirements.

The measure also has smaller caps for low-income seniors based on their county’s median income.

Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, questioned  how schools, sheriffs’ offices and emergency responders will keep up with the rising cost of servi

ces when one of their main sources of revenue is being severely restricted. She also said the measure discriminates against new homeowners and creates a disincentive for younger families to buy a new home.

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said the measure would limit the increases, but those entities could still pass bonds to pay for needs.

Paxton said once the property is sold, it gets reassessed. Those funds would probably easily cover the costs, Paxton said.

Sen. Kendal Sacchieri, R-Blanchard, said the measure didn’t provide enough relief and was a “slap in the face” to residents in her district. She said more could have been done if additional voices were brought to the table.

Sen. Lisa Standridge, R-Norman, also thought the measure did not provide enough relief, adding that lawmakers still had time to work on it before session must end in late May.

“We have a constituency who has worked hard, lived the American dream, and they’re wanting that Christmas bonus,” Standridge said. “They’re wanting some acknowledgement, and this bill just enrolls them in the Jelly of the Month Club.”

Paxton said some thought the bill didn’t go far enough while others thought it went too far. “So, I guess it’s a pretty good bill,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to allow law enforcement to continue seeking warrants for the location history of cellphones near crime scenes, even as the justices wrestled with how far the government must go to protect Americans’ privacy.

Some of the justices appeared to be searching for a middle ground during oral arguments in a case out of Virginia challenging what is known as a geofence warrant that was used to catch a bank robber. Several justices asked skeptical questions of both sides, though no one voiced explicit support for prohibiting such warrants altogether.

As smartphones have become ubiquitous, along with apps that track users’ movements, the high court is once again wading into how the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, applies in the digital era. The justices’ decision, of tremendous interest to state attorneys general, will shape how easy or difficult it is for investigators to sweep up location data.

Over the past two decades, geofence warrants have become a major tool of law enforcement. At a basic level, they allow police to identify phones within a geographic area for a certain period of time. 

The data can be tremendously valuable to investigators, offering a way to develop suspects in crimes where their identities aren’t otherwise known. Underscoring their importance, a broad bipartisan coalition of states has urged the justices to uphold the warrants.

But civil liberties advocates say geofence warrants ensnare people in digital dragnets, handing the government data on anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They argue that accessing data on anyone within a certain area — the geofence — amounts to a general warrant prohibited by the Constitution.

Summing up the high court’s uncertainty in Monday’s arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett told U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin, who was arguing in favor of law enforcement access to location data, that while he had described his opponent’s position as maximalist, “there’s a risk of the government’s position being maximalist the other way.”

“I was just going to say this seems very complicated from the user’s point of view, frankly,” Barrett said at a different portion of the argument.

The case before the Supreme Court, Chatrie v. United States, arises from a 2019 robbery of a federal credit union in Midlothian, Virginia. Okello Chatrie was convicted of armed robbery after surveillance footage showed the robber using a cellphone. A detective then obtained a geofence warrant directed at Google for devices within 150 meters of the credit union within an hour of the robbery.

Google initially provided anonymized data in response to the warrant. The detective then requested and received additional location data on nine users. Finally, the detective received de-anonymized information on three users, without obtaining an additional warrant.

While Google has since changed the way it stores location history data to limit geofence warrants, other apps and tech firms collect the data. Lawyers for Chatrie argue that geofence warrants open the door to the authorities requesting information on everyone at a sensitive location — perhaps an abortion clinic or a political convention — at a particular time.

“The warrant authorized the government to direct Google to search every single person’s account to find those people who were within the geofence. That is a general warrant,” Adam Unikowsky, a lawyer for Chatrie, told the court.

The Supreme Court’s last major decision on 4th Amendment rights and phones came in 2018, when the justices ruled that law enforcement generally needs a warrant for location data derived from when phones connect to a cell site. That data is generated by just having a cellphone, and the justices found that a phone is now a basic element of participating in society.

By contrast, the Trump administration argues location history data isn’t protected by the 4th Amendment because users voluntarily share it with Google and other tech firms by turning on location tracking on their phones. Because the information was turned over with their consent, users have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

“Petitioner here is asking for an unprecedented transformation of the 4th Amendment into an impregnable fortress around records of his public movements that he affirmatively consented to allow Google to create, maintain and use,” Feigin said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s three liberal justices, argued that if the government can access location data without a warrant because Chatrie consented to sharing it with Google, then the government could obtain all sorts of other data shared with the company, such as photos and calendar entries.

“If this is consent, that means the government can seek those documents for any reason, not just the commission of a crime — or no reason, correct?” Sotomayor said.

“Correct. It would not be a search, so no search warrant would be required,” Unikowsky replied.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have filed a court brief arguing that geofence warrants can be more precise than many traditional investigative methods when supported by probable cause and appropriately tailored. In the brief, they urged the justices not to prohibit geofence warrants altogether.

State attorneys general across the political spectrum signed on to the brief. They include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Geofence warrants can generate critical leads when the perpetrators of crimes are otherwise unknown, they wrote. When suspects are unknown but the suspected wrongdoing is linked to a specific place and time, location data provides one of the narrowest available tools for finding leads, the brief argues.

“This Court should make clear that the Constitution does not categorically ban those investigative methods,” the states’ brief reads.

In a court brief, Google said geofence warrants result in invasive searches that are overbroad. Geofence searches, by their nature, have a high risk of sometimes sweeping in thousands of innocent users, the company said.

Even small geographic areas covering short periods of time can include hundreds of thousands of people, Google argued. Geofence parameters set by law enforcement often cover more ground than the location of the crime, with private homes, apartments, government buildings, hotels, places of worship and busy roads all included.

Lawyers for Google wrote that the company takes no position on whether the warrant in the Chatrie case complies with the 4th Amendment.

“But Google firmly believes that, based on the private nature of Location History data, law enforcement was required to obtain a warrant to access that data,” the brief says.

Orin Kerr, a Stanford Law School professor and one of the nation’s foremost experts on the 4th Amendment, predicted after the oral argument that the justices would likely rule that geofence warrants can be constitutionally drafted. 

However, he was uncertain whether the court would rule on whether the geofence search that identified Chatrie’s phone was a search under the 4th Amendment.

“They’ll probably say that geofence warrants have to be limited in time and space,” Kerr wrote on social media.

While federal efforts to strengthen victim compensation are underway, states play a critical role in determining whether survivors of gun violence can actually access that support, according to a new report from Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun research and advocacy organization. 

Access to victim compensation varies widely by state, with nearly 30% of applications denied nationwide in 2024, according to federal data from the Department of Justice’s Office of Victims of Crime. Incomplete paperwork is the most common reason, but strict eligibility rules, short filing deadlines and requirements that the crimes be reported to law enforcement also prevent many survivors from receiving aid, the report found.

Each year, tens of thousands of people survive shootings in the United States, often facing lasting injuries, trauma and financial strain. State-run crime victim compensation programs, which are primarily funded through the federal Victims of Crime Act, or VOCA, are designed to help cover costs such as medical care, lost wages and funeral expenses.

But the Everytown for Gun Safety report highlighted significant disparities in how those programs operate. Average payouts, denial rates and eligibility rules differ across states, shaping whether survivors can successfully access support.

In some states, claims can be denied based on a victim’s prior criminal record or their perceived role in the incident — practices the report says can disproportionately affect Black applicants and rely on subjective or biased judgments.

The analysis also pointed to administrative hurdles, including complex applications, limited staffing and slow processing times. A lack of awareness of these programs further limits access, especially for people who do not report crimes to police. Federal crime data suggests that nearly half of violent crimes are not reported to police. 

New laws in New York, which went into effect late last year, made changes that the report’s authors cite as examples of how states can improve access. The laws expanded the time victims have to apply for assistance, increased reimbursement caps for funeral expenses and reduced reliance on police reports to verify claims.

Several states this year, including Alabama, California, Idaho and Minnesota, are considering legislation aimed at supporting crime victims. Some of the legislation would  extend application deadlines and provide mental health services for young survivors of gun violence.

In 2024, victim compensation programs paid out about $405 million across nearly 219,000 claims nationwide, according to federal data cited in the report.

Funding for those programs has fluctuated over the past decade. The federal crime victims fund, which is financed through criminal fines and penalties imposed by the feds, dropped sharply from about $13 billion in 2017 to roughly $1 billion by 2023, leading to cuts to state programs and service providers. Congress has taken steps to stabilize funding in recent years, but funding has continued to fluctuate.

The Trump administration last year also froze or canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from the federal Department of Justice, including an estimated $50 million for victim services.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday will hear oral arguments on the Trump administration’s efforts to strip temporary legal status from 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians, a move that could open them up to deportation.

The case has the potential to have an impact on multiple lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to end protections for more than 1.3 million immigrants from all over the globe with Temporary Protected Status, granted because they hail from countries deemed too dangerous for return. 

The effort to end TPS designation is part of President Donald Trump’s broader efforts to curtail immigration and strip legal status for people, opening them up to his mass deportation drive. 

“The decision will have the capacity to impact everyone with TPS,” José Palma, a coordinator for the National TPS Alliance, told reporters. 

Palma is a TPS recipient from El Salvador.

At the start of the second Trump administration there were 17 countries with a TPS designation. Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the status for 13 countries — Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.  

Noem argued that she determined the countries no longer met the threshold for TPS and that the designation was not in the interest of the United States.

The moves sparked multiple lawsuits from immigration advocates and TPS recipients. Lower courts have mostly blocked the terminations from taking effect, but it’s still resulted in loss of work authorizations, healthcare and deportations of some people with temporary status, Palma said.

In the TPS Haiti and Syria case before the justices, which was consolidated from two separate cases, lawyers argue that DHS did not follow proper government procedures in revoking the status. 

They also contend that the termination of a country destination was predetermined and motivated by racism, especially the targeting of Black immigrants such as Haitians. 

“The most damning evidence is President Trump’s own words, his own actions,” Sejal Zota, one of the attorneys on the Haiti TPS case, told reporters during a briefing. “During his last campaign, he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants were eating the pets of the people in Springfield (Ohio). And days later, after the pets comment, he promised to revoke Haiti’s TPS and send them back to their country.”

Even after the justices rule, the outcome of the cases is not final because both cases were in preliminary stages at the district court level before the Trump administration took the two cases to the Supreme Court, skirting the typical appeals courts. 

A ruling is expected in late June or early July, and then both cases would go back to the lower courts to continue on the merits argument. However, the practical effect, if the Supreme Court finds in favor of the government, would be that Haitians and Syrians would be potentially subject to deportation. 

Congress created TPS in 1990 and instructed the attorney general to consult with appropriate agencies, such as the State Department, to designate a country that is too unsafe to return to due to war, major disasters or other extraordinary circumstances. 

When Congress created DHS in 2002 – in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack – that authority was transferred over to the secretary of Homeland Security. 

A designation lasts six,12 or 18 months, and each recipient has to undergo a background check in order to remain in the U.S. and have valid work permits. Congress did not place any limits on how many times a country can be renewed for TPS, citing the potential for long-term conflicts like civil war.

Zota, one of the attorneys on the TPS case for Haiti, said the Trump administration has “attempted to reverse-engineer the facts to justify its politically … motivated decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS.”

She said the State Department has warned people not to travel to Haiti due to gang violence, kidnappings, terrorist activity and civil unrest. 

The State Department advises people if they still plan to travel to Haiti to make sure to leave dental records and DNA in case their family needs to identify their remains. 

“Our own government has conceded the peril there,” Zota said. 

Haiti was first given a TPS designation after the devastating 2010 earthquake. The designation was renewed multiple times due to the disaster and then again after Haiti’s president was assassinated by gangs in 2021, leading to further destabilization, violence and food shortages. 

Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney arguing on behalf of TPS holders from Syria, said one of the questions the justices will be presented with is whether the courts have any role in making sure that the federal government complies with making TPS decisions, such as making sure that the country determinations are made in coordination with relevant agencies. 

He added that the Trump administration is not coordinating with the State Department to evaluate country conditions, which he argues is not following proper administrative procedure.

“You’ll hear a lot of talk in the Supreme Court argument about whether we’re challenging a determination with respect to TPS decisions, and that’s because there’s a provision of the TPS statute which says there’s no judicial review of any determination with respect to a termination of TPS,” Arulanantham said to reporters.

Arulanantham is also the co-director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law.

He said that the Trump administration is arguing about that TPS statue and whether the courts have any say.

“We think it means that the courts are not allowed to second-guess decisions about whether countries are safe,” he said. “The government thinks it means that … the courts aren’t allowed to look at any of this and that any decision they make, any rule that they set for TPS, is immune from review entirely.”

In briefs to the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the lower courts should not interfere with the DHS secretary’s decision.

Arulanantham said there’s a “huge amount” at stake in the Trump administration’s argument about review of TPS designations. 

“If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review at all,” he said. “They can do it for reasons that are completely arbitrary.”

This is not the first time a TPS case has appeared before the justices during the second Trump administration. 

The high court twice allowed the Trump administration to remove TPS for more than 300,000 of the 600,000 Venezuelans in the program. Because those decisions were made on an emergency basis, the justices did not give any legal reasoning before sending the cases back to the lower courts. 

Federal judges have often cited the lack of opinion from the high court when issuing a ruling to block the Trump administration from ending TPS designation from other countries. 

Wednesday’s oral arguments will be the first time the justices will hear a TPS case and give a decision on their ruling about the Trump administration’s move to revoke protections. 

An appeals court on Friday struck down the Trump administration’s closing of United States borders to asylum-seekers. 

An executive order by President Donald Trump on Inauguration Day last year, and later guidance to turn asylum-seekers around without a court hearing, are “unlawful” and “cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum,” according to the ruling by a panel of the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advocates sued and said the administration’s action violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the right to seek asylum based on fears of persecution.

Trump’s proclamation on Jan. 20, 2025, said “the sheer number of aliens entering the United States has overwhelmed the system and rendered many of the INA’s provisions ineffective,” and that  “an invasion is ongoing at the southern border, which requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.”

The executive order, along with later guidance, required anyone crossing the border without permission to be turned around or quickly deported without a court date. As of March, about 2.7 million people had been released at the border with immigration court cases in recent years, according to a Stateline analysis. 

Those numbers peaked at more than 100,000 a month at times in 2023 during the Biden administration, and dropped quickly to a few hundred a month after Trump’s 2025 order. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, blamed the ruling on politics and called it “unsurprising.” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice would seek further review of the decision. “We are sure we will be vindicated,” she wrote in an emailed statement to The Associated Press.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The alleged shooter at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington, D.C., wrote a “manifesto” ahead of his planned attack, President Donald Trump said in a Sunday morning interview on Fox News and later in the day on the CBS show “60 Minutes.”

Meanwhile, Trump and MAGA allies online said security flaws exposed by the incident prove the need for a new secure ballroom at the White House. Trump, first lady Melania Trump and Cabinet officials were safely evacuated from the Washington Hilton after shots were fired by a suspect said by officials to be armed with a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives.

Multiple news reports Sunday identified the suspected shooter as 31-year-old Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California, and The Associated Press said he is a tutor and amateur video game developer. The White House has not released that information publicly and spokespeople did not return a message Sunday.

Fox News Host Jacqui Heinrich used the name in her interview with Trump, who did not use it himself but did not correct Heinrich when she named Allen and called the manifesto “anti-Trump” and “anti-Christian.”

Trump said the document revealed a “hatred” for Christianity.

“The guy is a sick guy,” he said. “When you read his manifesto, he hates Christians. That’s one thing for sure: He hates Christians.”

The New York Post published what the outlet said was the full text of the manifesto, which sought to reconcile the attack with Christian teachings, rather than mock the religion itself. The document was also referenced in the CBS interview, with host Norah O’Donnell saying it characterized members of the administration as targets.

The document lays out a series of objections to a planned attack and the writer’s rebuttals.

“Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek,” Allen wrote, according to the New York Post. 

“Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed,” he continued. “I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.”

Noting this was what he characterized as the third assassination attempt of Trump in less than two years, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on social media that a Trump trademark is a calm demeanor under pressure.

“I’ve spent a lot of time with him over the past several years, and he is at his strongest in times of crisis and turmoil,” the Louisiana Republican wrote. “It is a primary reason why his time in office is so historic. Adding to that history, he has now survived a third assassination attempt.”

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday on news shows that the gunman appeared to be targeting administration officials but did not say it was specifically Trump. The White House put out a statement with the headline, “President Trump Stands Fearless After Third Assassination Attempt.”

Blanche also said he expects the suspect to be arraigned in D.C. federal court on Monday. Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, said Saturday night the man would be charged with using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon. 

The suspect traveled from Los Angeles to Washington by train, switching trains in Chicago, Blanche said in a Sunday morning interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.” That mode of travel would have allowed him to transport the weapons that officials said were found on him across the country without facing a security check, unlike an air flight.

Blanche said he did not think any additional laws to increase security on trains were needed.

The shooter was staying at the Washington Hilton, the longtime site for the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, for days before the attack, Blanche said. 

At the time of the interview, Allen was not cooperating with the investigation, Blanche said.

Asked if there was any foreign connection to the planned attack, Blanche said many details of the shooter’s plans were yet unknown.

“We’re still looking into motivation, and that’s something that hopefully we’ll learn over the next couple of days,” Blanche said. “We do believe, based upon just a very preliminary start to understanding what happened, that he was targeting members of the administration. We don’t have specifics beyond that.”

Blanche added that the law enforcement agent injured by a shot to his bulletproof vest Saturday night was doing well and had received a call from Trump.

“The president spoke with him last night,” Blanche said. “He was in great spirits. He apparently didn’t really even want to go to the hospital, although he was certainly injured.”

Trump, a host of right-wing influencers and at least one Democratic member of Congress called for the construction of a new ballroom for the White House in response to the incident.

“What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure Ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE,” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social, Sunday morning. 

“This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House,” he continued. “It cannot be built fast enough! While beautiful, it has every highest level security feature there is plus, there are no rooms sitting on top for unsecured people to pour in, and is inside the gates of the most secure building in the World.”

The initial White House announcement of the ballroom, in July, emphasized space needs for large events and gave only a passing mention to security updates, saying the Secret Service would provide them.

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat who is among the senators who most commonly cross party lines, posted on social media Sunday that a new ballroom was a necessity, calling on opponents to drop their “TDS,” or Trump Derangement Syndrome, a name to describe people who oppose anything Trump does.

“That venue wasn’t built to accommodate an event with the line of succession for the U.S. government,” Fetterman wrote. “After witnessing last night, drop the TDS and build the White House ballroom for events exactly like these.”

Montana Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Sheehy said he would propose a bill to expedite the construction of the White House ballroom.

“This week I will introduce and seek unanimous consent for legislation providing express approval for construction of a Presidential ballroom,” he wrote on X. “It is an embarrassment to the strongest nation on earth that we cannot host gatherings in our nation’s capital, including ones attended by our President, without the threat of violence and attempted assassinations.”

And Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who is a leader among the caucus’ far-right members, said ballroom construction should be included in an upcoming funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

“Any consideration of DHS reconciliation instructions this week & beyond should provide for construction of a secure ballroom on White House grounds – in addition to other concerns,” he wrote.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Minimum daily recess time is about to double in Oklahoma elementary schools.

A newly enacted law will require 40 minutes of recess per day, up from 20 minutes, for public school students in kindergarten through fifth grade. It will take effect for the 2026-27 school year.

Children cheered from the state House gallery last week when lawmakers voted 86-1 in favor of the recess measure, Senate Bill 1481. Gov. Kevin Stitt signed the bill into law on Wednesday.

The law allows recess to be divided into two 20-minute periods, if districts choose to do so. 

It also prohibits schools from revoking recess to discipline students.

The bill’s author, Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore, said extra time for play could help young children expend pent-up energy, allowing them to better focus during class.

“Moving your bodies around, getting the blood flowing helps you lock in and focus more on your academic work,” Seifried said. “So, I think it really just was a beautiful dovetail into our work in removing cellphones and then also trying to increase literacy and numeracy.”

Seifried and Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, both authors of the recess bill, wrote legislation last year that barred students from using cellphones at school — a yearlong ban they’re now trying to make permanent.

This year, a major focus for state lawmakers has been adding funding and stricter requirements for reading and math instruction in public schools, with the goal of improving Oklahoma’s poor education rankings.

Seifried described recess as another essential function connected to young students’ academic success. Revoking it to punish antsy or distracting classroom behavior creates a “self-perpetuating cycle,” she said. 

“Parents of any 5-, 6-, 7-year old boy will know that they move around a lot,” she said. “Sometimes they’ll get in trouble, and then recess is revoked.

“If you take recess away, it just keeps going, and so that was really important for me to make sure you can’t take it away as a form of discipline.”

Some districts, like Deer Creek Public Schools, already provide 40 minutes of recess while others offer above the state-required minimum of 20 minutes. 

Although the new law won’t cause any scheduling adjustments in Deer Creek, a district of 8,100 students in northwest Oklahoma City and Edmond, Superintendent Jason Perez still expressed reservations about legislators requiring the change.

“The broader concern, however, is the continued tendency to add to the academic day without making corresponding reductions elsewhere,” Perez said.

The law is likely to impact elementary schedules in Edmond Public Schools, the state’s fourth-largest district. Edmond elementary schools currently require a minimum of 25 minutes of recess per day.

Spokesperson Jeff Bardach said the district doesn’t have any specifics yet on how it will adjust for the new recess requirement.

“Recess is an essential component of the elementary experience that fosters a lot of social development and physical well-being,” Bardach said. “However, the heart of our mission remains academic excellence; therefore, we strive to strike a balance that honors the need for play without encroaching on the instructional minutes required for student growth and achievement.”

It seems like the Oklahoma House has adopted a new theme song based on the 2021 hit Disney animated movie “Encanto.”

Penned by Lin-manuel Miranda, the song “We Don’t Talk about Bruno” explains why everyone hates Bruno, a man “gifted” with the ability to accurately prophesize the future. Nobody in his family and village likes hearing the truth about fish dying, growing guts and going bald, so poor Bruno is shunned for telling the truth.

Holding a grudge against Bruno for simply telling the truth has always seemed pretty stupid, but Oklahoma House Republicans have decided to show us that life can indeed imitate art.

Turns out our thin-skinned legislators have gotten their panties in a wad over the prognosticizing of Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., who is vowing to protect Medicaid expansion from their meddling. Hoskin rightfully used his platform to make sure the state House and Senate heard the inconvenient truth that messing around with Medicaid expansion will harm his tribe and others who live in his region. 

Rather than thanking him, House lawmakers decided to blacklist Hoskin. That means they banned him from ever speaking to their full chamber again. 

I can’t recall them ever doing something similar to any other leader.

So, I’m pretty sure House GOP members are sitting in caucus happily belting out an out-of-tune version of “We Don’t Talk about Chuck.” It would go a bit like this:

“We don’t talk about Chuck no, no, no. We don’t talk about Chuck, but

It was a normal House meeting day, and there were no clouds in the sky (no clouds allowed)

Then Chuck Hoskin walks in with a mischievous grin, (ominous thundering rumbling close by)

Chuck says it looks like their Medicaid plan will cause pain

The truth made House leaders go insane

So now they’re forcing poor Chuck to forever abstain (from addressing the House, yes, yes, yes)

Because obviously our fate is sealed when Chuck’s prophecy is read.”

For the record, Chuck (Hoskin) is the elected head of a sovereign government based in Tahlequah, not a prognosticator, though anybody with 10 brain cells can predict dire consequences when you eliminate health care access for 250,000 people in Oklahoma and can understand why he and other tribal leaders would fight to protect it.

For years, the Cherokee Nation’s leaders have addressed both legislative chambers about politically fraught issues, including the plight of missing and murdered Indigenous people and the need for a nonjudgmental approach to treating drug addiction.

Those topics are apparently suitable for discussion in the people’s house, but taking what Republican House Speaker Kyle Hilbert considers a “political position” defending Medicaid expansion is a bridge too far.

Hilbert said Hoskin was a guest when he spoke to Oklahoma lawmakers earlier this month, and that defending expansion was not an appropriate topic to take up on the House floor.

Hilbert also had the bizarre gall to pen a letter to Hoskin the day after his floor speech telling Hoskin that it was “quite inappropriate and contrary to our House Rules for an invited guest to delve into political matters.”

“I was particularly concerned with the tone and tenor of the speech, which was in direct contrast to the public position of an overwhelming majority of the members of the House of Representatives,” Hilbert wrote.

Then, he told members of the Capitol press corp that Hoskin wasn’t going to be allowed back in a speaking capacity. 

You know, because the House doesn’t want to talk about Chuck, no, no, no.

Make this make sense: You can’t talk about politics… in the building where politicians go to work?

I didn’t hear a single Republican immediately push back against Hilbert’s position, which is unfortunate because there are certain things in life that naturally go together.

Peanut butter and jelly. Thunder and lightning. Day and night. Gin and tonic. Just to name a few.

Politics and the state Capitol used to be part of those pairings. What else are you supposed to talk about when you meet with legislators?

Your neighbor’s exercise habits? The widening crack in your driveway? That time you wasted watching paint dry?

These days you can’t safely discuss the weather without discussing climate change. You can’t have conversations about high school and college sports without it devolving who and how collegiate and high school sports should be governed.

Yet over the course of a recent week, House Republicans took a political position against China by allowing a member of a Taiwanese delegation to address their chamber. They also waded into the politicized NCAA mess by inviting the Oklahoma State University’s new coach to speak on the House floor.

Castigating the chief of one of the largest tribes in the U.S. for talking politics sure seems hypocritical. And, it could make the House appear racist to the rest of the world. 

After all, the head of an overwhelmingly white and male governing body took the unusual step of specifically castigating the beliefs of a Native American leader.

This, by the way, is a leader who represents the interests of 480,000 Cherokee citizens, the majority of whom are also represented by House legislators. Hoskin may be a registered Democrat, but the role of Cherokee chief is nonpartisan.

But I guess Hoskin’s message reminded  lawmakers of something they like to pretend to forget: Voters on both sides of the aisle wanted to expand Medicaid and did so against the urging of legislators.

Expanding Medicaid has had a $162 million impact on Hoskin’s tribe’s health care system and a $222 million impact on the overall northeastern Oklahoma economy. It also led to at least 1,400 jobs, primarily in rural areas, Hoskin said.

So yeah, people are pretty worried about lawmakers’ efforts to try to make it easier for future Legislatures to undo the voters’ will. Legislators want to first remove this guarantee from the state Constitution and then permit lawmakers to stop covering Medicaid expansion if the federal match drops below 90%.

I sense that those concerns have largely fallen on deaf ears in our House. Judging by Hilbert’s letter, his GOP caucus apparently lives in an echo chamber where members justify their decisionmaking because they’re simply following the herd.

Sometimes sheep need to hear inconvenient truths. So, my hat’s off to Hoskin for using his power wisely to make sure lawmakers understand this is not a popular decision.

This exactly is why we should talk about Chucks and Brunos, yes, yes yes.

Nearly one-fifth of Americans relied on drinking water systems with elevated and potentially dangerous levels of nitrate in recent years, according to a new study released Thursday.

The nonprofit Environmental Working Group examined test data collected by water systems across the country between 2021 and 2023, the most recent data available. 

Water systems serving more than 3 million people exceeded the federal safety limit of 10 milligrams per liter over the three years, the research and advocacy organization found.

The analysis also found that thousands of water systems serving more than 62 million people reported nitrate levels above 3 milligrams per liter at least once during those years, which indicates human-caused drinking-water contamination. 

Researchers are increasingly questioning whether the federal threshold should be lowered as more studies find links between even low levels of nitrate consumption and cancer and birth defects. Federal law limits nitrate levels in drinking water because of its association with blue-baby syndrome. 

Nitrate is a natural component of soil, but has become a growing problem for drinking water systems because of crop farming’s use of nitrogen fertilizers and runoff of nitrogen-rich manure from livestock operations.

States with big agricultural industries recorded more reports of elevated nitrate levels. In fact, the report found that 64% of all water systems that recorded nitrate levels at or above the legal limit were in just five states: California, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. 

But Anne Schechinger, the organization’s senior director of agriculture and climate research who authored the report, said the issue affects urban and rural areas alike.

“A lot of people have this idea that this issue is just a rural issue for small towns near farms. But we found with this analysis that that is not just the case,” she told Stateline. “Based on how watersheds work, you can live very far from a farm and still be drinking water contaminated with nitrate.”

The analysis relies on public records obtained from public drinking water systems in every state except New Hampshire, where data was not provided, she said. In addition to its report, the Environmental Working Group created a map showing community water systems with elevated nitrate levels across the country.

Elevated nitrate levels have befuddled water providers across the country for years. Not only are they expensive to remove from drinking water supplies, but nitrate levels can fluctuate with the seasons as heavy rains can quickly push remnants of fertilizer or manure into streams and rivers. 

Iowa’s largest water provider last year asked residents to refrain from watering lawns, filling pools and washing cars as its nitrate removal system struggled to keep up with elevated levels. 

Des Moines is home to one of the largest nitrate removal systems in the world, which costs about $16,000 per day to operate, officials said. Smaller communities that rely on groundwater have been forced to dig deeper wells, Schechinger said.

Climate change is further fueling the problem: Agriculture is a major driver of greenhouse gas emission. The heavy rainfalls and prolonged droughts from more extreme weather worsen nitrate runoff into lakes, rivers and groundwater. 

“We know those climate conditions are going to make this problem worse,” Schechinger said. “And that’s likely to cost us all more and also (raise) more concerns for our health.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Oklahoma Voice, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

President Donald Trump safely evacuated the White House Correspondents Dinner at a hotel in Washington, D.C., on Saturday night after shots were fired by an alleged lone gunman.

About two hours after the shots were fired, Trump, still wearing his tuxedo, addressed a roomful of reporters also in formalwear at the White House briefing room. Trump said one officer had been shot in the attack, but was saved by “a very good bulletproof vest.”

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser said at a separate press availability that the officer and the suspect had been transported to local hospitals. 

The suspect was armed with a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives, Washington Metropolitan Police interim Chief Jeffery Carroll said. As of Saturday night, investigators believed the suspect acted alone, though a full investigation was underway, Carroll said.

He would be prosecuted on two charges, using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said. He would be arraigned in federal court Monday, she added. 

No other casualties were reported, and the U.S. Capitol Police said all members of Congress in attendance were unharmed. The high-profile press dinner intended to honor the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel, often dubbed “nerd prom,” attracts about 2,600 attendees who pay $480 each for tickets.

The suspected shooter, who law enforcement said was a guest at the hotel, was a man from California who charged “a security checkpoint armed with multiple weapons,” from about 50 yards away, Trump said. 

He posted a photo on his social media platform of what appeared to be the suspect, lying shirtless flat on the floor. Some news media identified the individual but States Newsroom cannot yet confirm those reports.

Anthony Guglielmi, a Secret Service spokesman, said in a statement on social media the incident occurred near the main magnetometer screening area at the dinner.

“He was running full-blast,” Trump said. 

Federal law enforcement on Saturday night was pursuing warrants to search the man’s home, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at the briefing with Trump.

Asked if he believed he was the target of the attack, Trump said, “I guess.” 

Trump said he’d been targeted, now apparently in a third assassination attempt in two years, because of his impactful record as president.

“It comes with the territory,” he said. “You take a look at what’s happened to some of our greatest presidents, and it doesn’t happen to people that don’t do anything,” he said.  

In a social media post before briefing reporters, Trump said he was in “perfect condition.”

At the White House briefing room podium, Trump praised the law enforcement response and committed to rescheduling the event in the next 30 days. The dinner, an annual celebration of the White House press corps, is “dedicated to freedom of speech,” he said.

“And we’ll make it bigger and better and even nicer,” he said. “I just want to thank everybody that was involved. I also want to thank the press, the media. You’ve been very responsible in your coverage, I will say. I’ve been seeing what’s been out.”

An initial press pool report from the hotel after the shooting occurred, sent at 8:39 p.m. Eastern, said “There was several loud bangs and the Secret Service with guns drawn rushed the pool out of the room. (The) Secret Service pushed us back screaming ‘Shots fired.’”

Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News said on social media shortly after 9 p.m. Eastern that she was behind the podium with other guests, “in a hold,” and Trump was still down the hall and did not want to leave.

Trump himself confirmed that in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social. 

“Quite an evening in D.C. Secret Service and Law Enforcement did a fantastic job,” he wrote. “They acted quickly and bravely. The shooter has been apprehended, and I have recommended that we ‘LET THE SHOW GO ON’ but, will entirely be guided by Law Enforcement. They will make a decision shortly. Regardless of that decision, the evening will be much different than planned, and we’ll just, plain, have to do it again. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Frightened reporters seated at tables in the Hilton ballroom dove for the floor. Cabinet members and White House officials were hustled out of the room.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said on air that he heard “a really loud blasting away” and the next thing he knew he was being pushed to the floor by police. “I was just a few feet away from the gunman, and it was a really scary moment,” Blitzer said.

The annual formal dinner is hosted by an organization made up of journalists who cover the White House. Trump’s invitation to the event had been controversial given his frequent personal attacks on reporters and the news media in general.

The Hilton was also the site of another attack on a president when on the afternoon of March 30, 1981, gunman John Hinckley Jr. shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan while he was leaving the hotel. Reagan recovered after a stay in the hospital. Reagan’s press secretary, James Brady, also was wounded, as were police officer Thomas Delahanty and Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy.

Details of the shooter’s motive and plan Saturday were not immediately clear. Trump said the public would know much more about him in the coming days.

Trump was injured in an assassination attempt during a campaign stop in Butler, Pennsylvania, on July 13, 2024. Another suspected assassin was arrested near Trump’s home in Florida on Sept. 15 of that year.

Jonathan Shorman contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting would shatter decades of U.S. Postal Service independence intended to shield it from partisan politics, postal experts and attorneys say.

Postal experts said Trump ordering the postmaster general to take any action — let alone on a matter as sensitive as elections — violates guardrails in federal law against presidential control of the mail. Multiple people with deep knowledge of Postal Service history said they couldn’t recall a similar order in the agency’s modern era.

“For the president to direct the postmaster general to do anything, including handling these ballots, is contrary to the statutes, contrary to law,” said James Campbell Jr., an attorney in the Washington, D.C., area who consults on postal law.

The order, signed March 31, attracted swift condemnation as an unconstitutional attempt by Trump to control state-run elections. If it stands, the directive would also represent a White House power grab over the Postal Service, which remains a key part of American life and business.

Trump’s order directs the postmaster general, who acts as the Postal Service’s CEO, to set out rules that would require states to notify the Postal Service if they intend to send ballots through the mail during federal elections. States that want to use the mail would be required to provide lists of mail voters to the Postal Service, which would be prohibited from delivering ballots to individuals not on a list.

A Board of Governors leads the Postal Service, and holds the power to hire and fire the postmaster general. No more than five of the nine governors may belong to the same political party. 

While presidents nominate the governors and the Senate confirms them, they serve seven-year terms. The length, in theory, insulates them from political pressure.

S. David Fineman, a Philadelphia attorney nominated to the Board of Governors by President Bill Clinton who served as its chairman from 2003 to 2005, said he had never heard of the White House or a president directing the postmaster general to take certain actions. He called the executive order highly unusual.

“The postmaster general serves at the pleasure of the board,” Fineman said.

The board currently has only four members, all appointed by President Joe Biden, and five vacancies. Trump has sent four nominations to the U.S. Senate this year. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has not scheduled confirmation hearings for the nominees.

Trump has expressed interest in having more control over the mail. 

Last year, he floated the possibility of merging the Postal Service with the Commerce Department, a move that would require approval by Congress. The Washington Post reported in February 2025 that Trump was expected to try to fire the Board of Governors and take control of the Postal Service.

The Trump administration takes a dim view of independent agencies. Many allies of the president subscribe to the unitary executive theory, the idea that the U.S. Constitution grants the president full power over the entirety of the executive branch — meaning Congress cannot constitutionally create agencies that exist outside of White House control.

Trump has moved to assert authority over a number of independent and quasi-independent agencies since taking office, most notably the Federal Reserve. The Department of Justice is investigating cost overruns on a Federal Reserve construction project, widely seen as a pretext to target Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman whose interest rate policy has angered Trump.

The Postal Service is under tremendous financial pressure — potentially making it more vulnerable to proposals to bring it under White House control. Mail volume peaked in 2006 at 213 billion pieces that year. The Postal Service today handles 109 billion pieces annually.

The current postmaster general, David Steiner, told a U.S. House committee last month that the Postal Service will run out of cash within a year without changes to its prices and operations. The Postal Service is generally funded through stamps and other forms of user revenue, not by tax dollars.

Steiner emphasized the independent nature of the Postal Service throughout his prepared testimony. He has laid out a number of options to improve the Postal Service’s financial stability, including changes to pension funding and raising its borrowing limit from $15 billion, a level that’s remained unchanged since 1992.

“It is important to remember that we face these challenges as a self-financed, independent establishment of the Executive Branch,” Steiner wrote.

Congress approved sweeping legislation in 1970 reorganizing the U.S. Post Office Department into the U.S. Postal Service, an independent corporation. Before that, the postmaster general was a Cabinet-level position nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Trump’s order marks “a dramatic shift away from the intent of the 1970 legislation to insulate the Postal Service from interference,” Joseph M. Adelman, a history professor at Framingham State University in Massachusetts who has researched mail history, said.

The White House didn’t directly answer States Newsroom’s questions about Trump’s views on the independence of the Postal Service or the legal justification for the executive order.

“Election integrity has always been a top priority for President Trump, and the American people sent him back to the White House because they overwhelmingly supported his commonsense election integrity agenda,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

“The President will do everything in his power to lawfully defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them.”

Jackson also called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to prove their citizenship when registering. 

The Postal Service didn’t answer questions about how it plans to respond to the order. A USPS spokesperson said only that the Postal Service was reviewing it. 

Steiner has indicated he’s awaiting a court decision on how to proceed. 

“If a court says that’s not what the law means, we’ll follow that,” Steiner told The New York Times after the executive order was signed. “And so from our perspective, we don’t get involved in policy or law, we just follow the law.”

The order on mail ballots faces at least five lawsuits. The Democratic National Committee, top Democrats in Congress and Democratic state officials have all sued. The legal challenges emphasize the Postal Service’s independence in federal law.

The lawsuit filed by the DNC, top Democratic lawmakers and other Democratic campaign groups, asserts the Postal Service is structured to operate independently of partisan politics. The complaint calls the Postal Service “indispensable” to voting by mail, noting that it delivered more than 222 million pieces of ballot mail in 2024, including nearly 100 million general election ballots.

A dozen Republican state attorneys general filed motions in court this week seeking to defend the executive order from the Democratic legal challenges. The motions call the order an example of cooperative federalism to provide states with optional resources to help protect their elections.

The GOP officials argue the Democrats lack standing to challenge the Postal Service provisions of the order and that their objections are premature because the Postal Service hasn’t finalized any new rules on mail ballots.

The order “simply directs” the Postal Service “to initiate rulemaking—it does not regulate the States directly and it does not directly inhibit anyone’s voting rights,” a court filing by the state attorneys general says.

The states involved in the Republican-led defense of the order include Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas.

Mail-in voting surged in 2020’s general election amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when 43% of voters cast their votes by mail. The percentage of voters mailing their ballots has fallen from that peak but remains above pre-pandemic levels. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

During the 2024 election, 584,463 mail ballots returned by voters were rejected by election officials — 1.2% of returned mail ballots. About 18% of those ballots were rejected because they didn’t arrive on time.

American Postal Workers Union President Jonathan Smith said in a statement that the Postal Service doesn’t block mailers from sending letters or refuse to deliver letters because of the identity of the sender. Postal workers take extraordinary measures to ensure ballots reach their destinations promptly and securely, he said.

“Postal workers take the sanctity of the mail seriously, and every process and policy of the Postal Service ensures that mail is accepted, processed, and delivered, no matter who sent it or where it is going,” Smith said.

On Monday, more than 100 U.S. House Democrats sent a letter to Trump demanding he refrain from future actions that undermine the Postal Service’s independence and calling on him to rescind the executive order. The letter says the order sets “a dangerous precedent for political interference” in postal service operations.

Senate Democrats followed up with a letter to Steiner and the USPS Board of Governors on Tuesday, urging the Postal Service to not implement the order. The letter, signed by 37 senators, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, calls the Postal Service’s independence a “hallmark” of its operations.

“The Postal Service doesn’t care which politicians you may support,” Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said on the Senate floor last week. “Its only priority is to deliver the mail to every community in the country.”

“The president is now trying to corrupt this mission,” Peters, the top Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees USPS, said. “If the president is successful in forcing the Postal Service to play a role in running elections, he will completely erode the trust of this storied institution.” 

ENID – Residents in Enid and other Oklahoma communities on Friday were picking through rubble after at least six  tornadoes swept through parts of the state.

About 40 homes were either damaged or destroyed in Enid and Garfield County after an EF4 tornado was on the ground for about 9 miles Thursday night, emergency officials reported Friday afternoon.

No one was killed and 10 non-life threatening injuries were reported from the tornado, which struck Enid, a city of about 51,300 residents, located about 85 miles north of Oklahoma City.

Gov. Kevin Stitt, who toured the damage on Friday afternoon along with U.S. Sen. James Lankford and others, said Vance Air Force Base, which trains fighter pilots, was also hit by the tornado. Air Force personnel will have to inspect all of its planes, which were repositioned before the tornado hit. The base also had some of its fences knocked down and some of its runway lighting system were damaged, Stitt said. The base has deployed security to patrol the perimeter until repairs to the fencing can be made, he said.

The tornado missed all of the base’s housing, he said.

State lawmakers, who represent the Enid area, said there were reports that the base also sustained damage to perimeter structures and there were downed power lines. 

The base did not respond to requests for comment. A Pentagon spokesperson on Friday referred comment to the base.

Bill Waltz, who lived in the Gray Ridge Estates neighborhood just east of Vance Air Force Base, said he and his wife have lived in the neighborhood for six years and their daughter lives next door. He said he was standing outside watching the storm when his wife urged him to get into their storm cellar where they waited out the tornado.

His and his daughter’s homes were both destroyed after sustaining a direct hit from the tornado, but the important thing is they’re all alive, he said. The tornado also destroyed more than a dozen other homes in their subdivision.

He said their grandson helped the couple out of the cellar after the storm because they had become trapped inside.

Waltz said he and his wife had bought a new car the day before the storm. It is now totaled with only 8 miles on it.

Stitt issued a disaster declaration for Garfield and Kay counties.

In Kay County, which the National Weather Service confirmed was hit by at least an EF1 tornado, emergency managers reported power outages and damaged barns in Blackwell and Braman.

The Enid tornado was classified as an EF4, with winds starting at about 170 mph, said NWS spokesman Rick Smith. 

Stitt said he was thankful there was no loss of life, and said residents should not take severe weather warnings for granted.

Officials asked that the impacted areas be avoided as damage assessments, debris cleanup and power restoration efforts were ongoing.

The Department of Emergency Management asked that residents impacted by the storms report damages to homes and businesses at damage.ok.gov to better coordinate response and recovery efforts.

Markwayne Mullin, U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary, said that his prayers were with everyone impacted by the tornadoes.

“As an Oklahoman, I know how resilient our communities are, but I also know the heartbreak these events can bring,” Mullin wrote in a social media post. Mullin most recently served as Oklahoma’s junior U.S. senator.

He said a FEMA team, including the acting regional administrator, were on the ground working closely with Oklahoma officials to “assess needs and support recovery.”

He said the storms are the beginning of a multi-day severe weather pattern that is expected to impact the Southern Plains and lower Mississippi Valley. 

An American Red Cross shelter was set up at Enid’s Chisholm Trail Expo Center. One family stayed the night, said Karvin Vega, community disaster specialist for Northern Oklahoma.

Vega said he went to a neighborhood on the south side of the city that was impacted by the tornadoes Friday morning.

“There were several families sifting through the remains,” he said. “Most of them stayed in hotels, but they’re just kind of trying to gather what’s left.”

Several restaurants have agreed to feed the first responders and victims, he said.

Enid Mayor David Mason said the outpouring of support has been remarkable.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Two bills requiring immigration checks when applying for various welfare programs will not advance in the Oklahoma Senate amid concerns they could negatively impact pregnant women. 

House Bills 4422 and 4423 would require state agencies to verify the immigration status of applicants to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid. 

Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said he agreed with the concept of the legislation to ensure taxpayer dollars benefit U.S. citizens, but was concerned with the details of the bills. He is the primary Senate author for both bills. 

The Department of Human Services and Health Care Authority would be tasked with verifying immigration status of applicants to the programs with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlements system. If any applicants were found to not be lawfully in the U.S., the state agency would report them to the Oklahoma Attorney General whose office would review the cases and report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

“This bill, I think, puts in jeopardy the health of some unborn children because they happen to be being carried by an illegal in the state of Oklahoma,” Paxton said. “Whether that baby is being carried by an American citizen or not, to me it’s still a baby. … I think the legislation, the way it is, would have scared people away from the services that are available to make sure that mother is able to take care of herself and be healthy, to make sure that baby is healthy.”

Paxton said he wants to work with House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, the original author of the bills, to find a solution for the legislation. He said he’s fielded concerns from a bipartisan group of lawmakers on the legislation. 

Hilbert previously said the legislation was a request from the White House. 

He said he was “very disappointed” by the decision to not have the legislation heard in Senate committees. At the beginning of session, he said these were some of his priority pieces of legislation for the year. 

He said he is hopeful the Senate will still take up the measure before the end of session, but said there were “no discussions” 

“I don’t believe they should have any changes,” he said. “Personally, I think they’re great bills as we pass in the house. And if there are concerns, I’d love to hear about them.” 

Hilbert said he addressed concerns about the legislation by amending the bills to ensure children that are American citizens can receive benefits. 

The language for both bills originally included a requirement that adults applying for benefits for a child would also have their immigration status verified. Critics said this would deter noncitizens with children who are American citizens from seeking benefits.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is looking to eliminate funding in fiscal 2027 for the agency that serves as the primary federal funding source for libraries and museums nationwide.

But congressional appropriators — who rebuffed similar efforts to gut the agency in fiscal 2026 — expressed little enthusiasm for the proposed cut in interviews with States Newsroom. Groups representing museums and libraries across the country also blasted the president’s proposal. 

The administration is requesting $6 million in fiscal 2027 for the agency, known as the Institute of Museum and Library Services, “for necessary expenses to carry out (its) closure.”

U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, noted that her panel did not agree to the same Trump request in fiscal 2026 to eliminate funding for the agency. 

“I personally have always been a fan of libraries, and it does a lot for local communities,” said Capito, a West Virginia Republican whose panel writes the annual bill to fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

“So, that’s what he does, he proposes, and then we look at it and make our own decisions,” she said. 

The spending package signed into law by Trump in February provides roughly $292 million for the agency this fiscal year — a sharp rejection of Trump’s efforts. 

Capito said that though her committee will consider the president’s fiscal 2027 request, “if you look at what we did last year, it shows that we kind of rejected that premise.” 

Rep. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican and chair of the corresponding Appropriations subcommittee in the House, appeared noncommittal about pursuing Trump’s fiscal 2027 request to gut the agency.

In response to States Newsroom’s request for a phone interview, Aderholt provided a written statement. 

“We are reviewing the request from the Administration and the requests from every member of the House,” Aderholt said, adding that “this is a member-driven process, and we look forward to working with our colleagues in putting together a strong bill for the American taxpayers.” 

The agency was created by Congress in 1996 and has a mission to “advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”

The administration has taken major steps to try to dismantle the agency, including through a March 2025 executive order. 

However, Trump’s Department of Justice reached a settlement earlier in April with the American Library Association — the nation’s largest library association — and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — the country’s largest union of cultural workers — that protects the agency and guarantees it will continue issuing grants and program operations. 

In another setback for the administration, the DOJ dropped its appeal this month in a case brought by 21 attorneys general, who challenged the administration’s efforts to dismantle the agency and had secured a major court victory in November. 

Meanwhile, leading Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations panels dealing with the agency’s spending were quick to lambaste Trump’s proposal in interviews with States Newsroom. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee and a Wisconsin Democrat, described the agency as “such an incredibly valuable entity” and vowed to fight “tooth and nail” to protect it. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the full House Appropriations Committee and the spending subcommittee with jurisdiction over the agency, said the administration’s request is “just neanderthal.”

The Connecticut Democrat said “we’ll work to restore like we try to do every time,” while adding that Trump’s request indicates that “the barbarians are at the door.” 

Leading library and museum organizations fiercely opposed Trump’s request and called on Congress to reject the proposal. 

In a statement, Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, said Trump’s “continued attack” on the agency in the budget request and the March 2025 executive order to shutter it “shows the extent to which the administration is tone deaf to the needs of millions of Americans who rely on libraries every day: older adults and veterans who use library telehealth spaces; unemployed people who use library resources to find a new job or learn new skills; families who count on story time; and students and faculty who do research in school and academic libraries.”

John Chrastka, founder and executive director of EveryLibrary, said Trump’s proposal is “a direct threat to the infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on every day,” in a statement. 

Chrastka, whose organization is dedicated to building support for libraries, said “libraries are not optional,” but instead represent “essential public resources that support literacy, workforce development, and community connection in every state.”

The American Alliance of Museums blasted the proposal as “misguided and out of step with the American public and Congress,” noting that similar efforts in fiscal 2026 and prior budget cycles to yank funding for the agency were rejected due to “strong bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress and sustained advocacy from the museum community.” 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services declined to comment on Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republican leaders Tuesday defended the secretive process used in that chamber to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, though they did confirm referring a complaint made against Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego to the Ethics Committee.

“At the beginning, we always start very, very privately to protect members because we don’t want to facilitate frivolous accusations,” said Senate Ethics Committee Chairman James Lankford, R-Okla. “We want to facilitate accurate accusations. And actually work through to be able to hold each other to account.”

The comments came just a few hours after Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he would lead the effort on that side of the Capitol to improve the process for filing an ethics complaint, especially those that have to do with sexual harassment.  

“You may know this, I have two daughters who work on Capitol Hill on committee staff. (This is) very serious to me. I’m a father. I’m not just the speaker of the House,” he said. “For that very reason we have to protect women and anyone who feels like there is any inappropriate behavior whatsoever. So if there are ways to tighten the rules, suggestions, we’re seeking that from all members. We’re open to that.”

Johnson said he hoped that any votes to change House rules would be bipartisan, if not unanimously adopted. He also reflected on a long history of misconduct by members of Congress. 

“There’s always been untoward activity among political figures. I mean going back to time immemorial. There’s always been marital infidelity. There’s always been despicable behaviors,” he said. “It occurs to us that it may not have been exposed and as transparent as it is today because of the very active press corps and 24-hour news cycle and smartphones and everything being recorded.”

Discussions around whether to keep ethics rules and investigations as they are now or overhaul the process began last week after California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales both resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations. 

Florida Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick then resigned Tuesday just before the House Ethics Committee could recommend what repercussions she should face after the panel found her guilty on more than two dozen violations. 

Swalwell’s resignation may not be the end of that scandal, however. 

Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna wrote in a social media post on April 15 that it “seems like the Senate has its own trash to take out. @LeaderJohnThune You need to look into the allegations against one of your Senators, it’s very disturbing. My chief will be contacting your chief.”

Her comments apparently referred to Arizona’s Gallego, who was friends with Swalwell, but has sought to distance himself from the former congressman since news of the allegations by multiple women broke earlier this month. 

Thune said during Tuesday’s press conference that “specific matter” has been referred to the Senate Ethics Committee and that he didn’t “know the particulars of the allegation.”

“The Ethics Committee in the Senate is designed to ensure that this institution and its members conduct themselves in a way befitting of the office and that we’re doing things in an ethical manner,” Thune said.  

Gallego’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

Lankford said Senate Ethics Committee members are “extremely serious about taking on allegations, especially allegations like sexual harassment, all the different things that are out there … But we do function in a quiet manner.”

The committee, he said, gets “hundreds of different allegations” that its members then work through to determine if they should proceed. 

“As you know, in the political world that we live in, a lot of allegations come to us that they’re unfounded at the end of it,” Lankford said. 

The Senate Ethics Committee, he said, is unlikely to move to a model similar to that of the House Ethics Committee, which releases statements when it begins investigations into members, sometimes detailing the allegations. 

“There’s a lot more public that comes out on it and they find out at the end of it that it becomes the theater of the allegation,” Lankford said. “So it facilitates more allegations because it creates more theater.”

The Senate panel hasn’t published a press release since August 2024 and its two-page report for 2025 disclosed the committee dismissed 160 of 181 alleged violations due to “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” or because “they failed to provide sufficient facts as to any material violation of the Senate rules beyond mere allegation or assertion.”

The annual report adds the Senate panel issued zero “private or public letters of admonition” and had no “matters resulting in a disciplinary sanction.”

The last time the committee issued a public letter was in March 2023, after South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham solicited “campaign contributions in a federal building” for Georgia senatorial candidate Herschel Walker. 

Lankford later expanded during the afternoon press conference on his belief that some ethics allegations are more political than genuine. 

“Our focus is all folks have to be heard on this but we live in a political world. In a political world if every ethics charge goes out there, everyone then grabs that ethics charge, uses it in a campaign and says ‘There’s been an ethics charge out there, the Ethics Committee is talking about it.’ And suddenly it becomes drama and facilitates more things coming at us,” he said. “We want to take seriously every victim, every accusation. But we also understand the environment that we work in.”

OKLAHOMA CITY — A statewide council on Native American education could be discontinued unless the state Legislature reverses a governor’s veto.

Gov. Kevin Stitt on Monday vetoed House Bill 3006, legislation that would extend the existence of the Oklahoma Advisory Council on Indian Education by another five years. State lawmakers overrode a similar veto from Stitt in 2023 and continued the Native education council until July 1 of this year.

The 18-seat council, founded in 2010, gives recommendations to the Oklahoma State Department of Education about issues and goals affecting Native American students’ schooling and about the teaching of tribal history. 

In his veto message, Stitt said the council “does not appear to have functioned as an active or effective body” and hasn’t operated with proper transparency. 

The governor noted publicly available records indicate it met only six times in the past five years and twice in the past three, though it’s meant to meet quarterly. 

The state Education Department, which facilitates the council’s meetings, said the body has met seven times since late 2023. The agency provided agendas for each of the meetings. 

None of the agendas given to Oklahoma Voice were otherwise publicly viewable online, though the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act requires agendas to be posted on the public body’s website. 

Few of the council’s meeting notices have been posted, either, with the Oklahoma Secretary of State’s Office, another task state law requires.

The Education Department’s executive director of American Indian Education, Jackie White, organizes the council’s meetings as the state superintendent’s designee to the board.

Under former state Superintendent Ryan Walters’ administration, White and her staff had limited access to the Education Department’s website to post updates on council meetings, she said in a message through the agency’s communications staff. That access was restored after state Superintendent Lindel Fields succeeded Walters in October, she said.

The council last met on Jan. 21 and is scheduled to meet again on June 17. A public notice is listed with the Secretary of State for the January meeting, but the January agenda is not visible on the council’s webpage.

The council at times struggled to have the necessary majority of members present to hold a public board meeting, White said, especially when it had multiple vacant seats that state leaders had not yet filled with appointees.

Its 18 seats include representatives from seven tribal nations, four tribal education departments, school districts, colleges, and other education- and Indigenous-focused groups.

The council’s chair, Cherokee Nation Chief of Staff Corey Bunch, said the governor’s veto is “disappointing,” given Oklahoma is among the states with the highest percentage of Native American students.

More than 150,000 Oklahoma students are Native American, making up 15% of the state’s total student population, according to Education Department data from the 2024-25 school year. 

The advisory council “truly gave a voice” to Native students while meeting regularly with the state superintendent at no cost of operation, Bunch said.

“Cooperation and collaboration, in my mind, are always the best path forward and we hope other measures keep the advisory council in place,” he said in a statement.

The council advocates that Native American students receive an effective and high-quality public education, said Mary Wildcat, who represents the Osage Nation on the board.

“OACIE’s members include representatives from various tribal nations and education experts across Oklahoma,” said Wildcat, also the director of the Osage Nation Department of Education. “Their collective knowledge and experience offer valuable insights that enhance public education, ultimately strengthening the entire state of Oklahoma.”

Stitt called the board’s purpose “largely redundant.” He said it overlaps with work being done at the Education Department’s Office of American Indian Education.

“If the goal is smaller, more accountable government, there is no reason to keep extending a dormant, redundant advisory council that lacks transparency,” his veto message states. “It should instead be eliminated.”

Stitt, who has feuded with tribal leaders throughout his two terms in office, used to appoint half of the council. The Legislature stripped him of all but one appointee in 2023, citing tribal leaders’ complaints that Stitt left seats vacant on the council for years. Lawmakers gave control of Stitt’s other eight appointments to the House speaker and Senate president pro tem.

Even after the change, a lack of appointments by legislative leaders hindered the board from meeting for several more months. It was able to begin meeting more regularly in November 2023.

Osage Nation Principal Chief Geoffrey Standing Bear described the board as “a bridge between tribal and state organizations on education matters.” He said both sides, including the governor, would agree that state-tribal communication “needs to continue and be more active.”

“In my view, Oklahoma should be proud of its diversity, and everyone needs to work more closely together, especially when it comes to educating children,” Standing Bear said in a statement.

Members of the House and Senate voted with overwhelming bipartisan support to extend the council for another five years. 

House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, and Senate President Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton, R-Tuttle, said Thursday it hasn’t been decided yet whether their chambers will pursue a veto override.

House Bill 3320 presents another option to continue the council. The legislation would remove the sunset date for several state boards, including the Native American education council, which would allow them to exist indefinitely.

State law gives public boards and councils a year after their termination date to cease their affairs.

Medicinal marijuana products that are legal at the state level will see looser federal regulation under an order the U.S. Department of Justice published Thursday, while a process that could remove the drug in all forms from the federal list of the most dangerous drugs is set to begin in late June.

The order, signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, shifts many marijuana products from Schedule I — the Drug Enforcement Administration’s list of drugs with the greatest potential for abuse and least legitimate use — to Schedule III. 

That will open the door to greater research and provide an effective tax break for businesses that sell medicinal marijuana that is legal under state law.

The move follows President Donald Trump’s executive order last year directing the DOJ to move toward rescheduling.

“The Department of Justice is delivering on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options,” Blanche said in a statement. “This rescheduling action allows for research on the safety and efficacy of this substance, ultimately providing patients with better care and doctors with more reliable information.”

The order applies to state-licensed medical marijuana products in the states that allow medicinal use of the drug.

The move means those businesses can deduct business expenses from their federal taxes and researchers have access to state-legal products. As a Schedule I drug, only cannabis grown in a federal facility could be studied, severely limiting the supply available to researchers.

The DEA also scheduled a hearing on broader reclassification to begin June 29 and end no later than July 15. That hearing will explore the possibility of rescheduling marijuana products that could include recreational use.

The order likely has no immediate impact on the difficulty marijuana businesses have had accessing the banking system. Institutions that lend to even state-legal businesses could be prosecuted on federal money laundering charges for offering banking services to businesses that violate federal drug laws.

Moving a limited number of products from Schedule I, which includes drugs such as heroin and cocaine, to Schedule III, which includes highly regulated prescription drugs such as acetaminophen with codeine, does not satisfy advocates who have called for complete legalization. 

But it does represent a major shift in the federal government’s official position on cannabis, several pro-legalization groups said.

“It’s historic because the federal government, historically, has denied the existence of medical cannabis, even as a concept,” Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the advocacy group the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said in an interview. 

The federal government was in recent memory “outright hostile” to medicinal marijuana, Armentano added. The order “finally acknowledges and recognizes not only the legitimacy of marijuana as a medicine, but also the legitimacy of these state programs, and it is trying now to integrate these state programs into our own existing federal regulatory schemes.”

Forty states and the District of Columbia allow medicinal marijuana.

Jasmine Johnson, CEO of Florida-based cannabis company GŪD Essence, wrote in an email that the federal government’s acknowledgement of cannabis’ legitimate medical value was the most important part of the order. 

“That shift alone helps move the industry out of decades of stigma and opens the door for expanded research, more institutional participation, and a more rational regulatory framework,” she wrote.

Recreational use will see no immediate changes from the order. In the 24 states in which recreational use, also called adult use, is legal, businesses that sell both medicinal and recreational products may experience confusion.

Chuck Smith, the CEO of Colorado Leads, an industry group, said in a statement that for Colorado cannabis businesses, “the immediate effects of this order are significant but relatively narrow.”

“Hybrid businesses should expect a transitional period in which federally covered medical activity and federally non-covered adult-use activity may be treated differently for registration, tax, and compliance purposes,” Smith said.

Such businesses would likely not see a tax benefit “when it comes to producing and selling, arguably, the products that consist of the majority of their business,” Armentano said.

Ryan Hunter, the chief revenue officer for Colorado-based marijuana company Spherex, called the DOJ order “a very silly announcement,” noting that it created a third regulatory category of a single plant species.

“Though this is all the same plant,” hemp and medical marijuana “are now considered Schedule III substances under the Controlled Substances Act (similar to Tylenol + Codeine),” while non-medical use is still considered Schedule I, he wrote in a statement. “My mind boggles at these arbitrary and artificial distinctions, but here we are.”

Johnson, the Florida CEO, said she expected regulators to eventually merge how they treat different uses of the drug.

“The distinction between medicinal and recreational use has always been more regulatory than practical. From an operator’s standpoint, the same plant, supply chain, and compliance standards exist regardless of how it’s categorized,” she wrote. 

“Over time, we’ll likely see a continued shift toward a more unified framework that reflects how consumers actually engage with cannabis, rather than maintaining rigid distinctions that complicate operations.”

OKLAHOMA CITY – A legislative panel on Thursday passed a measure asking voters to let lawmakers access $1 billion in public funding that voters have stored in a lockbox out of their reach.

The Senate Rules Committee passed House Joint Resolution 1077 that would ask voters to transfer $1 billion from the $2.2 billion Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust Fund corpus to an account that lawmakers could spend down.

Lawmakers said they want to invest the $1 billion independent of TSET’s existing governing board oversight and spend the earnings to improve health and educational outcomes.

The TSET fund contains monies paid to the state following the master settlement agreement with tobacco companies. The earnings from the fund’s investments are used to improve health outcomes, such as reducing smoking, vaping, and obesity and to prevent cancer.

Voters in 2000 created a constitutional lockbox to prevent lawmakers from accessing those dollars. Prior legislative efforts to ask voters to make changes to the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust have failed.

The measure seeks to put the state question on the Aug. 25 primary runoff ballot, which has the lowest voter turnout. All voters would be able to vote on the measure.

“This is simply asking the voters if they would like to split this fund up so some of it can be used by the Legislature to help out in their communities,” said Senate Pro Tem Lonnie Paxton.

Paxton, R-Tuttle, the author, said proceeds from the new fund could be used for things such as providing grants to rural hospitals to pay off debt.

“The population elects us to represent them,” Paxton said. “And sometimes the elected population also has ideas on where this money would be very well spent in our communities.”

Sen. Carri Hicks, D-Oklahoma City, said the measure is a fundamental shift from an independent public health model to a legislatively controlled funding stream.

Sen. Mary Boren, D-Norman, said powerful people didn’t like it when TSET recently told lawmakers to go through its grant application process to fund a legislative project.

“And so here we are today to try to create a politically influenced, hyperpartisan, politically divisive pot of money that can be used for deal making at the Capitol,” Boren said.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville, said the issue was not about politics, adding that sometimes lawmakers have different priorities and perspectives that could also improve health outcomes.

In the past, lawmakers have asked TSET to partner with them, and TSET declined, Daniels said.

The measure, which passed by a vote of 14-4,  heads to the full Senate.

OKLAHOMA CITY – The head of the Oklahoma Republican Party is under pressure to either withdraw her endorsement in a Congressional race or resign.

Four former leaders of the state GOP say the current chair, Charity Linch, inappropriately used her position to endorse Jackson Lahmeyer in the race for the open seat in Oklahoma’s First Congressional District.

Nathan Dahm, A.J. Ferate, Pam Pollard and Gary Jones wrote in a statement that the state GOP has a decades-long custom for sitting chairs to stay out of primary elections for open seats to let voters pick the nominee.

Eleven Republicans are seeking the open Tulsa area seat.

Linch decided to endorse Lahmeyer after prior pledges not to do so, the former party leaders said.

“We object to the use of her office and official letterhead to put her thumb on the scale of this, or any other race,” the statement said. “And while none of the undersigned completely agree on policy or leadership of the Party, we are united in our request that Ms. Linch withdraw her endorsement or resign.”

In a social media post earlier this week, Lahmeyer, pastor of Sheridan Church in Tulsa, said Linch had endorsed him. His post included a letter that Linch allegedly wrote to President Donald Trump and signed by her as state chairman.

In a social media post Thursday, Linch did not deny she had endorsed Lahmeyer. She wrote that “when Oklahoma overwhelmingly elected me to be their Chairwoman, I did not agree to lose my voice.”

GOP party leaders are elected by delegates and are not a statewide election ballot. 

“There are always going to be those who try to silence our voices,” she wrote. “I will not silence the voices of those that disagree with me, either.”

Linch said Oklahoma is a place where Republicans hold statewide office, and the winner is decided in the primaries. Party rules do not prohibit her from endorsing, she said.

“Our nation is fighting the onslaught of communist ideology, and we need strong voices who will stand against this at every level of our government,” she wrote.

It was not clear from her post what ‘communist ideology’ she was referring to. Linch did not respond by deadline to calls seeking comment.

Lahmeyer is founder of Pastors for Trump. In 2022, he made a failed bid for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Sen. James Lankford.

Lahmeyer could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Jones, who headed the party from 2003 to 2009, said it was permissible for Linch to endorse as an individual, but not to use party resources to do so.

Pollard, who headed the GOP from 2015 to 2019, said use of party resources to endorse in an open seat has never been done before.

She said some candidates have called her about the endorsement and were very upset. She questioned whether party resources would be used by Linch in an effort to get Lahmeyer elected.

State Rep. Mark Tedford, R-Tulsa, is among the 11 candidates seeking the congressional office. He said he was “shocked” to learn about the endorsement, adding that Linch did not reach out to him in advance.

The seat became open when U.S. Rep. Kevin Hern decided to run for the U.S. Senate to replace Markwayne Mullin. Trump appointed Mullin as Homeland Security Secretary.

The Republican primary is June 16. The runoff primary is Aug. 25. The general election is Nov. 3.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans approved a budget resolution early Thursday intended to speed the way for billions for immigration enforcement, sending the measure to the House, where GOP lawmakers in that chamber need to adopt it to unlock the reconciliation process. 

The 50-48 vote followed a marathon amendment voting session that Democrats used to highlight policy differences on cost-of-living issues and stalled federal emergency relief dollars for states. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul were the two Republicans to vote against approving the measure. Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Mark Warner, D-Va., did not vote.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said just before the vote-a-rama began that Democrats would put Republicans on the record about the soaring cost of living and the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. 

“America will see even more clearly tonight where the Republicans are — not on the side of lowering costs, but on the side of masked agents occupying our streets,” he said. 

Republicans plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process, which avoids the need for Democratic support in the Senate, to provide between $70 billion and $140 billion in additional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol.

The money is supposed to cover those agencies for the next three years, avoiding the need for Republicans to negotiate constraints on immigration activities with Democrats, who have been calling for guardrails since federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

When combined with the Senate-passed bill that funds the vast majority of the Department of Homeland Security for the current fiscal year, the two pieces of legislation are expected to end the ongoing shutdown at that department, which began in mid-February. 

Senators ultimately debated 16 amendments, 12 offered by Democrats and four proposed by Republicans. The only one adopted was from South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, which senators approved on a 98-0 vote. 

The proposal would create a reserve fund to bolster federal immigration agents’ ability to detain and deport adults who entered the country without proper documentation and were then convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor.

“Everybody in this body should be for this,” Graham said. “These people need to be caught, put in jail, or kicked out of our country.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said he supported the amendment because “under current law, undocumented immigrants who are convicted of rape, murder, or sexual abuse of a minor are subject to mandatory detention and deportation.” 

“What we object to is what is happening in the streets of Minneapolis and Chicago,” he added.

Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy tried but was ultimately unable to convince his colleagues to add a new set of instructions to the budget resolution that would have allowed the Rules & Administration Committee to write a voter identification law. 

Kennedy said he wanted that bill to have three provisions. 

“Require that in federal elections, you have to be an American citizen to vote and provide for the provisions to enforce that. Number two, it would require that in federal elections, you have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote, and it would provide provisions to enforce that,” he said. “Number three, it further instructs the Rules Committee that we’re going to go back to having an Election Day and not an election month, and it instructs the Rules Committee to provide the provisions to enforce that.”

California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla, the ranking member of the rules panel, opposed the amendment during debate, saying he couldn’t believe lawmakers were once again experiencing a “partisan attempt to rush through what I refer to as a solution in search of a problem.”

“Despite the president’s claims, there is zero evidence of massive voter fraud across the country, which is the premise of these proposals,” he said. “So not only is it a solution in search of a problem, to paraphrase a wise man, this measure is all foam and no beer.”

Padilla added that a provision in Kennedy’s amendment would have required states to count ballots within 36 hours of an election, a new mandate he said could cause considerable problems for larger states with millions of voters. 

“It’s unfortunate elections administration has been turned into a partisan issue,” he said. “I actually ask our colleagues to protect the early voters, not just in my state but in yours. Protect vote-by-mail opportunities, not just in my state but in yours. Let’s protect women who are married and change their name and their right to vote, not just in my state but in yours.”

Senators did not agree to waive a point of order against Kennedy’s amendment on a 48-50 vote. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Murkowski and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted with Democrats. 

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley tried unsuccessfully to create a pathway to extend the one-year prohibition on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood that the GOP included in its “big, beautiful” law. That funding ban expires on July 4. 

Hawley didn’t speak about abortion access during debate but focused his criticism of the organization on gender-affirming health care services for transgender youth. 

“Under no circumstance should Medicaid money dedicated to the poor and the needy be used for transgender surgeries and treatments for minor children,” he said. “It is a moral outrage. This body has a duty to stand against it.”

Planned Parenthood’s website states the organization provides surgery referrals as well as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and “transition support.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden argued the amendment represented “Republicans’ latest attempt to strip women of the health care they need and depend on so that they can go score some political points.” 

Senators didn’t agree to waive a point of order against the amendment, which would have allowed it to move forward, by a vote of 50-48. Collins and Murkowski voted with Democrats. 

Senators rejected an amendment from Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley that would have addressed the rising cost of housing after he invoked comments President Donald Trump made during his State of the Union address. 

“We have an opportunity tonight to send a message that we agree with the president, that we have a challenge in home ownership, because home ownership is dying,” Merkley said. “And one of the factors is private equity buying up the homes.” 

Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno spoke out against adopting the amendment, saying lawmakers have already addressed it in a bipartisan way. 

“I obviously urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because we’ve already passed it,” he said. We’ve already solved this problem. In fact, congratulations to all of us. 89 to 10. We banned institutional ownership of single-family homes. I think that’s fantastic.”

The Senate voted in March to approve a bill designed to increase the country’s housing supply, according to reporting from NPR. But since the House has approved a bill of its own, the two chambers will need to work out their differences before any housing bill becomes law. 

Senators did not agree to adopt Merkley’s amendment following a 46-52 party-line vote. 

California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff proposed an amendment that would have addressed stalled funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which he said is “holding more than $3 billion in disaster relief funding for California.”

“But as we debate this budget resolution, I know our state of California is not alone,” he said. “North Carolina is waiting on millions in relief designated for Hurricane Helene in 2024. Kentucky saw landslides and flooding just weeks after Los Angeles County burned. Florida and the Gulf Coast have also been battered. Texas communities under siege from last year’s floods have still not seen the federal relief their communities need and deserve.”

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford opposed the amendment, saying that while he agrees FEMA funds need to get to communities, the best way to do that is for the House to pass the annual funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which the Senate already approved. 

House GOP leaders are holding on to that bill instead of putting it on the floor as they wait for the reconciliation process to play out. That Senate-passed DHS bill funds FEMA and all of the agencies that make up the department except ICE and Border Patrol. 

“Our challenge has been, we’ve been in a government shutdown on DHS now for two months,” Lankford said. “We’ve got to be able to get those funds released. That means we’ve got to get DHS funding completely done for all of DHS. We have FEMA employees that are being paid but they don’t have program dollars that they can actually release.”

The Senate rejected the amendment following a 49-49 vote. Collins, Florida Sen. Ashley Moody and Murkowski voted with Democrats. 

The race by each party to redraw U.S. House districts in their favor could be headed for a draw after Tuesday’s big win for Democrats in Virginia, though major shifts are still possible before crucial midterm elections in November.

Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment that clears the path for the state’s legislature, controlled by Democrats, to redraw congressional district lines to benefit Democrats in 10 of the commonwealth’s 11 U.S. House districts. 

That could net the party four new seats in Virginia, though state court cases challenging the proposal are still to be decided.

Former U.S. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Florida Democrat who now leads the Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University, said the results showed a dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump and the nation’s capital in general.

“It sends a clear message to the administration, to the White House, to Washington, D.C., that they’re not happy with the status quo, with the policies that are coming out of Washington, that they want to see a change,” she said in an interview Wednesday.

After 10 months of bitter back-and-forth that began with Trump urging Texas Republicans to revise their congressional map to help gain seats in the House, neither party has netted a significant advantage.

But the tit-for-tat may have a lasting harmful effect on U.S. democracy, experts said.

If Virginia’s proposal goes into effect, Democrats would be favored in one more House district nationwide than they had been in 2024, according to the nonpartisan election research organization Ballotpedia.

Further changes, including the Florida Legislature potentially redrawing its House map and a U.S. Supreme Court decision to gut the federal Voting Rights Act’s protection of majority-Black districts in Southern states, could tilt the advantage back to the GOP. 

Republicans narrowly control the chamber now, 217-212, with one independent and five vacancies after Georgia Democrat David Scott died Wednesday. 

The president’s party typically loses House seats in midterm elections, and Trump’s sagging poll numbers and the results of special elections do not suggest anything different this year.

Elected Democrats largely framed the Virginia results as a win for free and fair elections.

“Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a President who claims he is ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress,” Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, wrote on X.

But the entire cycle could deepen political polarization, leading to less compromise and policymaking in Congress and ceding power to the executive branch, Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communication & Public Policy at Northwestern University, said Wednesday.

“There were some quotes today from some leading Democrats about how you can’t bring a knife to a gunfight, and this is the only way to, like, save democracy, and sort of rationalizing it,” he said. “It’s still bad for democracy long term… It means that Congress, long term, is even more polarized and ineffectual.”

Mucarsel-Powell, who represented one of the country’s few competitive House districts, also said redistricting would make legislating more difficult.

“Redistricting doesn’t necessarily help the country overall,” she said. “As we continue to become more polarized, I think that having these maps being redrawn to favor one or the other party is just going to deepen the polarization. I think it makes it more difficult for members to be able to reach consensus. I’ve seen it, right? When you represent a solid red or a solid blue district, there’s really no incentive to compromise.”

Republicans, from Trump on down, complained Wednesday that the result was unfair because it could give Democrats 91% of the U.S. House seats in a state where the party’s most recent presidential candidate gained only 52% of the vote.

In a post to his social media site Wednesday afternoon, Trump said the result was illegitimate — repeating, without evidence, his frequent assertion in elections he has lost that mail ballots were fraudulent — and called for courts to “fix” the result.

“A RIGGED ELECTION TOOK PLACE LAST NIGHT IN THE GREAT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA!” Trump wrote. “All day long Republicans were winning, the Spirit was unbelievable, until the very end when, of course, there was a massive ‘Mail In Ballot Drop!’ Where have I heard that before — And the Democrats eked out another Crooked Victory!”

But the proposed Virginia map would only even the playing field after Trump initiated a rare mid-decade redistricting cycle last year by asking Texas officials to redraw the state’s districts. 

Texas’ new map could net Republicans five more House seats. But its creation kicked off an arms race that included California drawing five new Democratic-leaning districts, effectively neutralizing Texas’ move. 

Legislatures in Missouri and North Carolina then voluntarily redrew their maps, while an Ohio constitutional amendment and a Utah Supreme Court decision led to new district lines in those states.

Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary under Republican President George W. Bush, bemoaned the Virginia results but called them a self-inflicted wound. States should stick to redistricting once a decade after a census, he said, blasting the GOP strategy to attempt mid-decade redistricting in some states.

“The GOP will now lose net seats across the country. If you’re going to pick a fight, at least win it. The other side will always fight back,” he wrote. “All this was foreseeable and avoidable. We should not have started this fight.” 

Fleischer linked to a post he’d written in August criticizing the GOP effort in Texas as that state geared up for a vote on the new map. “Mid-census change” was not the way to win more seats in the House, he’d said.

National Democrats celebrated.

“House Democrats have crushed Donald Trump’s national gerrymandering scheme,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York wrote on social media Tuesday night. “Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”

Two more decisions could further alter the landscape for U.S. House races before November.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last year in a case challenging a Voting Rights Act provision that has been interpreted to require majority-Black districts in Southern states equal to their population. Louisiana is challenging a lower court ruling that threw out a map in which only one of the state’s six districts was majority-Black, though Black people make up about one-third of the state’s population.

Depending on the scope and timing of the conservative court’s ruling, several safe Democratic seats in the South could be in jeopardy.

And in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called the state legislature into a special session, scheduled to begin next week, to consider a redistricting effort and other issues.

Florida Republicans have not fully endorsed a redistricting push, which could ultimately make some incumbents’ districts less reliably red. Gerrymandering relies on spreading a party’s voters across more districts, making some individual races more difficult, especially in a potential wave election year.

“Republicans are pushing back, saying that it’s going to actually lessen the power that they have in some of these districts,” Mucarsel-Powell said. “Because if you have (a district favoring Republicans by five points), with all the overperformance that we’ve seen, including here in the state of Florida, it’s very likely going to favor the Democrats.”

Jeffries in a Wednesday morning news conference practically dared Florida Republicans to dilute their U.S. House districts, comparing the effort to the Texas map that he said was not as Republican as they thought and calling the entire GOP effort a “dummymander” that would backfire.

“F around and find out,” Jeffries said. “If they go down the road of a DeSantis dummymander, the Florida Republicans are going to find themselves in the same situation as Texas Republicans, who are on the run right now.” 

“The Republicans are dummymandering their way into the minority before a single vote is cast,” he added. “They started this war, and we’re going to finish it.”

WASHINGTON — Nearly all Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee failed to show up for a Wednesday hearing convened by Democrats to highlight President Donald Trump’s aggressive tactics in his mass deportation campaign that have ensnared U.S. citizens. 

It marked a rare full committee hearing that Democrats were allowed to conduct because of Minority Day in the House. 

Democrats used the opportunity to call witnesses who are U.S. citizens and were harmed, in some cases shot, by federal immigration officers. Lawmakers also focused on two U.S. citizens killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. 

Following the deadly shootings in January, Democrats refused to approve any more funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, which has led to a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security since mid-February.  

“Under President Trump, ICE and CBP have killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in cold blood, and shot, beat, harassed, arrested, or locked up countless more innocent people,” the top Democrat on the committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said. “Congress cannot stand idly by while Americans are hurt and killed by their own government.”

Democrats also invited Trump officials tasked with crafting and carrying out the president’s immigration agenda: White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, the border czar. 

Neither Miller nor Homan showed up. The White House did not answer questions from States Newsroom regarding Miller or Homan’s absence from the hearing. 

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson blamed Democrats for keeping “the Department of Homeland Security shuttered, not caring about vital services – like TSA, FEMA, and ICE – going unfunded.” 

“Instead of lying about President Trump’s extremely successful deportation operations of criminal illegal aliens, House Democrats should fully reopen the Department of Homeland Security and stop putting illegal aliens before American citizens,”Jackson said.

The chair of the committee, Andrew Garbarino, called Wednesday’s hearing “a distraction from the fact that DHS has been shut down for over 65 days and the security impacts of that (are) real.”

Garbarino, a New York Republican, and the other GOP lawmakers on the committee did not ask any of the witnesses any questions. 

The Americans harmed by federal immigration officials include:

• Marimar Martinez, a Chicago preschool worker whom Border Patrol officers shot five times.
• Rev. David Black, whom ICE officials shot in the face with pepper-ball rounds while he protested outside an Illinois detention facility.
• George Retes Jr., an Army veteran in California whom immigration agents apprehended on his way to work, tear-gassed and kept detained for three days.
• Ryan Ecklund, a real estate agent in Minnesota whom federal agents detained after he filmed them while at a grocery store. 

Martinez has appeared in the past before Congress in unofficial Democratic events to share her story about how on Oct. 4, she was shot five times by Border Patrol agent Charles Exum. 

DHS shared her photo online, falsely claimed she rammed into Border Patrol with her car and labeled her a domestic terrorist. The Trump administration tried to indict her on federal charges, but eventually dismissed the case against her.

“On Friday I was teaching the young children at the Montessori school and we were singing and dancing and getting ready for spooky season preparing fall activities to do the following week and on Saturday my own government was calling me a ‘domestic terrorist’ and I was in a federal detention center with bullet holes all over my body,” she told the committee. “There were times where I did not believe this was all real and then I would touch my bullet wounds and knew it was certainly real.”

She said she was concerned other people would be shot and killed by federal immigration agents, as Pretti and Good were.

“It’s bound to happen sooner or later if we don’t hold these agents accountable for their actions,” she said.

Following the two deadly shootings by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, the leaders of ICE and CBP appeared before the Senate and House committees that have jurisdiction over DHS. 

While there, CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott and ICE acting head Todd Lyons refused to apologize to the families of Good and Pretti. Lyons has announced he will resign at the end of May, saying he wants to spend more time with his family. 

The aggressive immigration deportation campaign in Minneapolis, which has a high Somalian refugee population, also spurred calls from Republicans to push then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign. She stepped down last month after Senate Republicans grilled her over an ad campaign and slow response to providing disaster relief. 

The president tapped former Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin to steer the department. The Senate last month confirmed Mullin. 

One of the witnesses, Retes, said his goal is for Congress to pass legislation in order to hold federal immigration agents accountable.

“Federal officials are basically impossible to sue,” Retes said. “Federal agents basically have immunity.” 

He added that he wants Congress to do something, and expressed his frustration that “change doesn’t move fast enough.” 

Ecklund criticized federal agents within DHS, and pointed out the irony of the department’s unofficial slogan of going after “the worst of the worst” in conducting immigration enforcement. 

“‘Your best’ and the ‘best of DHS’ is the least that the American public deserve,” he said. “You have not given us your best.”

Martinez said agents are not held accountable. 

“I’ve been through hell and back,” she said. “These agents — Charles Exum — have not even been held accountable for their actions.” 

She added that she doesn’t even know if Exum is still working for CBP.

Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green asked Martinez if she would feel comfortable showing lawmakers where she was shot. She agreed and rolled up her sleeve, showing a dark scar on her upper arm, and pulled up her pants to show another wound across her upper thigh. 

“It’s hard to manage all this, to even process what happened,” she said. “Being shot for protecting your community. I want the world to see my pain, my trauma. This is not something to joke about. This is my life.”

Green thanked her and told her that “you deserve justice.” 

Black told the committee that he was “horrified by the radical evil being perpetrated by my government.”

He said he was outside a detention facility in Chicago and was in the middle of praying when he was shot by federal agents with pepper balls. 

“I am outraged by the blasphemy of those who support brutal ICE and CBP tactics yet call themselves Christians,” he said. “They make a mockery of the sacrifice of God’s love on behalf of the world. 

“Yet instead of living into Christ’s rich promise of a Kingdom of peace, freedom, and prosperity, many of those calling themselves Christian are blindly supporting institutions like ICE and CBP, even as they dominate, coerce, and terrorize American communities,” he continued. 

The only path forward, he argued to lawmakers, is to dismantle ICE and CBP, and redirect that funding to “support programs that feed the hungry, sate the thirsty, welcome strangers, clothe the naked, and care for the sick — for in the words of Jesus, ‘just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’”

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Senate on Wednesday sent Gov. Kevin Stitt a bill that would increase longevity pay for state employees.

Senate Bill 169, by Sen. Chuck Hall, R-Perry, would increase longevity pay by 50% across all years of service.

Longevity pay is an annual lump sum full-time employees receive based on years of service. Supporters say it is used to attract and retain state employees.

Payments start at $250 a year for state employees with the least longevity and grow to $2,000 for those who have worked for the state for at least 20 years.

Oklahoma has between 31,000 and 32,000 state employees.

The fiscal impact is expected to fluctuate, but increasing the pay is expected to cost $15.2 million in fiscal year 2027, and $16.4 million in budget year 2028, according to a legislative fiscal analysis.

The measure passed the Senate by a vote of 37-8 with no debate. 

According to a recent report, state employees are paid 48.05% below market.

Overall, most state employees have not received a pay raise since 2019.

House Bill 2958, which called for a 9% state employee pay raise at a cost of $174 million, failed to make it through the legislative process. 

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Senate on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have legalized sports betting.

After it fell four votes short of passing, Sen. Bill Coleman, R-Ponca City, the author, said he might seek another vote on House Bill 1047 after working for years to gain consensus on a bill that would allow Oklahomans to legally wager on sporting outcomes.

The measure would have allowed tribes to offer retail and mobile sports betting on tribal lands, remitting 8% of earnings to the state, Coleman said.

Mobile sports betting operators could also enter partnerships with the tribes to offer mobile sports betting on non-tribal lands, Coleman said.

Sports betting is already in Oklahoma through the prediction market and is operating illegally, Coleman said. 

The state doesn’t get a dime out of it, and it is an unregulated industry, Coleman said.

His measure is estimated to bring in between $15 million and $18 million annually in additional revenue to the state.

Part of the proceeds would go into a fund used to globally promote the Oklahoma City Thunder, the state’s NBA team.

It would allow the tribes and the state to supplement existing gaming compacts, where the tribes pay the state an exclusivity fee to operate Class III electronic games and nonhouse-banked card games. 

In fiscal year 2025, Oklahoma collected more than $221 million in exclusivity fees, a 5% increase over the prior year, according to the Oklahoma Gaming Compliance Unit Annual Report.

Thirty-nine states and Washington, D.C., have some form of legalized sports betting, according to Senate staff.

Critics of legalizing sports betting said they were concerned about the impact gambling has on low-income Oklahomans, young men and families.

“This bill doesn’t simply legalize a harmless activity,” said Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin. “It institutionalizes a vice and then asks the state to profit from it. That is a fundamental ethical problem.”

When the state sanctions gambling, it becomes a participant in a “moral hazard,” Deevers said.

Sen. Brian Guthrie, R-Bixby, said online sports betting is the fastest growing addiction and is destroying young men in their 20s.

“Gambling addiction is increasing across our United States, and the last thing I want to do is support that,” Guthrie said.

States that have expanded gambling have seen a rise in financial and family problems, said Sen. Darcy Jech, R-Kingfisher.

“It’s been disproportionate on the most economically precarious households,” Jech said. “Gambling has proven to foster addictive behaviors, a rise in credit card defaults, mortgage delinquencies.”