A bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed legislation that would require the Internal Revenue Service to provide more details to taxpayers when automatically correcting a tax return. 

According to the IRS, the agency can automatically fix a return due to a simple math error, or if a form is forgotten. 

"The IRS will correct the math error while processing the tax return and notify the taxpayer by mail. The agency will send a letter requesting any missing forms or schedules," the IRS said. 

However, the lawmakers, who include two Republicans and two Democrats, say the IRS needs to be clearer when explaining why they made these changes. The lawmakers say the bill would have greater benefit to non-English speaking and low-income Americans. 

“Filing your taxes can get confusing — and sometimes, mistakes happen,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts. “And when they do, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to decipher confusing, intimidating, and financially-impactful letters from the IRS. It’s time to improve procedures and notices that correct these errors so that hardworking Americans can get the money they’re entitled to and get back to their daily lives.” 

SEE MORE: What happens if you missed the deadline to file your taxes?

The IRS MATH Act would require the IRS to identify the line item the IRS is changing, explain the reason for the change and clearly list the taxpayer’s required response date. The time to challenge the IRS' correction would remain 60 days. 

"The IRS is confusing enough,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisina. “If there’s a mistake on a tax return, the IRS needs to explain it in plain English and there must be clear lines of communication. Taxpayers should have every opportunity to keep their hard-earned income.”

The bill has not yet been assigned to committee. 

Donald Trump lost a bid Thursday to pause a string of lawsuits accusing him of inciting the U.S. Capitol attack, while the former president fights his 2020 election interference criminal case in Washington.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington denied defense lawyers' request to put the civil cases seeking to hold Trump responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on hold while the criminal case accusing him of conspiring to overturn his election defeat to President Joe Biden plays out.

It’s the latest legal setback for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose trial in a separate criminal case related to hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign began this week with jury selection in New York.

SEE MORE: 12 jurors have been seated in Donald Trump's hush money trial

The lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 seek civil damages for harm they say they suffered during the attack, which aimed to stop Congress' certification of President Biden's victory.

Trump has claimed he can’t be sued over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured, arguing that his words during a rally before the storming of the Capitol addressed “matters of public concern” and fell within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

Washington's federal appeals court ruled in December that the lawsuits can move forward, rejecting Trump's sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability. The court, however, said Trump can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

SEE MORE: Supreme Court hears debate over charges against Trump, Jan. 6 rioters

In court papers filed last month, Trump's lawyers told the judge that “basic fairness to criminal defendants” warrants pausing the civil cases until after the 2020 election criminal case is resolved. They argued that allowing the lawsuits to proceed could force Trump to “prematurely telegraph" his defense strategies in the criminal case.

Mehta, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said the public has an interest in the prompt resolution of the civil lawsuits in addition to the criminal case. And the judge said “appropriate safeguards” can be put in place to allow for the lawsuits to advance without infringing on Trump's Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next week on Trump’s claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution in the election interference case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The ruling will determine whether Trump will have to stand trial in the case accusing him of a sprawling conspiracy to stay in power after Americans voted him out of office.

Twelve jurors and six alternates have been selected for former President Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York.

After four days of jury selection, Judge Juan Merchan informed the jurors that they should be prepared for opening statements to begin on Monday.

As Merchan wrapped up jury selection on Friday, a man outside the courtroom set himself on fire. The New York Police Department said the man appeared to be motivated by conspiracy theories unrelated to the Trump trial. After people gathered in the area helped put the fire out, the man was taken to a hospital, where he is reportedly in critical condition. 

SEE MORE: Kennedy family endorses Biden in show of dissent for RFK Jr. campaign

The fire outside the courtroom was just part of an emotional day at the Manhattan courthouse. 

Several potential alternate jurors became emotional as they answered questions Friday. One potential alternate juror broke down in tears, saying, "I'm so nervous and anxious." That juror was dismissed. Another potential alternate juror asked to be excused after hearing the questions, saying she's not sure she can be impartial.

The jury selection process has encountered a couple notable speed bumps. Thursday started with seven jurors, but two of the seven were dismissed.

One juror raised concerns that they could no longer remain impartial after their identity became known. This prompted Merchan to redact employment information on jurors' questionnaires as he asked the media to refrain from reporting on a juror's place of work.

A second juror was dismissed after prosecutors found that the person may have been arrested in the past for removing political advertisements. Prosecutors claimed that the juror may have lied on the questionnaire when asked if they had ever been arrested.

Trump faces 34 felony counts in a New York court for falsifying business records related to payments to cover up alleged extramarital affairs. 

Trump has lamented that the trial is "very unfair," criticizing the judge for continuing to impose a gag order that prohibits him from talking about certain individuals tied to the trial. 

"What's happening here with the judicial system is an outrage," Trump said as he left the courthouse Friday. 

The daughter of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said on Thursday she was suspended from Barnard College after "standing in solidarity with Palestinians facing a genocide."

In a message written on X, Isra Hirsi wrote that she had just received a notification that she was one of three students who were suspended by the university that is both an independently incorporated educational institution and an official college of Columbia University, according to the university's website. 

Hirsi said on X that she is a member of the student organization Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine and an organizer with Apartheid Divest, and said she had not received any disciplinary warnings for the three years she has attended the university. 

Earlier on Thursday campus authorities at Columbia University were instructed to remove an encampment that had formed on its property on the Morningside Heights campus in Manhattan before dawn on Wednesday, with people protesting in support of Palestinians amid the latest Israel-Hamas war. 

The students demanded that the university divest from corporate financial interests with ties to Israel. The protests came just a day after Columbia University's President Nemat Shafik stood firm in her testimony on Capitol Hill regarding the university's response to antisemitism and what phrases used by activists would be considered harassment.

SEE MORE: Police detain pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Columbia University

Hirsi wrote on Thursday, "those of us in Gaza Solidarity Encampment will not be intimidated. we will stand resolute until our demands are met. our demands include divestment from companies complicit in genocide."

It did not appear as of Thursday evening that U.S. Rep. Omar had released a public statement on the matter on social media or through official channels. 

Columbia University said in a notice that "all university students participating in the encampment" were notified that they would be suspended, and said the participants were trespassing after the university's president ordered that they be removed. 

Police officers were seen in riot gear putting individuals in the back of detention vehicles, with some protesters wearing keffiyehs in a show of solidarity with Palestinians. Dozens were arrested and at least 50 tents were removed from Columbia University property, the New York Times reported. 

In a pinned message on her X page, Rep. Omar wrote on Oct. 7, "We need to call for deescalation and ceasefire. I will keep advocating for peace and justice throughout the Middle East."

The Republican-majority House of Representatives could vote on a $95 billion package for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific as early as Saturday. It is the same amount that was requested by the Biden administration months ago — and that package now has the president's support. 

How did we get here?

Weeks ago, the Senate passed a foreign aid package that would have helped Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and Pacific allies, and provided humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

And for weeks on the House of Representatives side, there were questions as to whether or not that bill would ever come up for a vote. 

Within the last several days, we finally got direction from Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who said the House would vote on the different issues individually.

The White House has since backed the proposal.

But each of the bills still has to get out of the House Rules Committee, which has led to new tensions on Capitol Hill.

A number of conservatives do not want a Ukraine bill passed in the House until serious border changes are made.

"The Republican speaker is hinging his entire ability to stay speaker on sending 60 more billion dollars to Ukraine," said Georgia's Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. "I can't think of a worse betrayal ever to happen in United States history."

"I think that [Johnson] views the Ukraine issue very differently than when we do. We're worried about America's border. He seems to be more worried about Ukraine," said Florida's Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz. "I think a motion to vacate is something that could put the conference in peril. And [Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert] and I — we're working to avoid that. Our goal is to avoid a motion to vacate."

SEE MORE: House's Ukraine, Israel aid package gains Biden's support

The future of Johnson's speakership

A big question remains: If Speaker Johnson allows these bills to pass in the House in the coming days, could they jeopardize his role?

Some Democrats have hinted that they would support Johnson in continued speakership if he were able to pass new aid bills — but Democratic leaders including New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have warned the party not to commit support until they see more concrete legislative results.

Saturday will mark 25 years since Columbine High School, just outside Denver, Colorado, became synonymous with a national tragedy. Twelve students and one teacher were killed in a mass shooting that gripped the nation. 

Tom Mouser, who lost his son Daniel in the massacre, appeared at the U.S. Capitol this week to remind lawmakers in Washington that there is more work to be done to prevent school shootings. 

Data compiled by Education Week found that there were 38 school shootings in the U.S. that resulted in injuries or deaths in 2023. 

"I came here this week to remind the nation of the lives that were lost," he said. 

The Biden administration recently announced a new rule that would close the so-called gun show loophole, which for years did not require background checks in some transactions outside of gun stores.

"It took 25 years to get here," Mouser said. "We cannot wait another 25 years to get significant gun safety legislation."

SEE MORE: New Biden administration rule aims to end gun show 'loophole'

Any serious debate about additional gun reform at the national level is not expected to happen until after the November election — at the earliest.

Reforms are happening, however, at the state level. In New York, there is even an active debate over how frequently lockdown drills should happen and how the drills should be conducted. 

New York state law requires four lockdown drills a year, one of the highest mandates in the country. New York Assemblywoman Jo Ann Simon told Scripps News that she believes the number is too high. 

"There has been more trauma caused to children because of the lockdown drills they are forced to practice," she said. "Sometimes there is somebody who is role-playing an intruder. There had been one where they played sounds of guns going off."

As lawmakers navigate the issues, Mouser wants them to think of the victims.

"It's important for people to know that for the people who lived through gun violence, the story is never over," he said. 

More than a dozen members of the Kennedy family endorsed President Joe Biden Thursday in a strong show of opposition toward the campaign of their relative Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The independent candidate's kin have been vocal about their political differences with him in the past, but the group had yet to make such a formal declaration of dissent as they did at the president's campaign event in Philadelphia. 

RFK Jr.'s siblings were among those who showed their support for the Democratic front-runner, whom Kerry Kennedy — RFK Jr.'s sister, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's daughter and former President John F. Kennedy's niece — called her "hero."

"We want to make crystal clear our feeling that the best way forward for America is to reelect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to four more years," Kerry Kennedy said at the campaign event. "President Biden has been a champion for all the rights and freedoms that my father and uncle stood for. That's why nearly every single grandchild of Joe and Rose Kennedy supports Joe Biden." 

SEE MORE: RFK Jr. apologizes to Kennedy family for Super Bowl ad he promoted

RFK Jr. began as a Democratic challenger to President Biden before transitioning to run as an independent. This may be why the third-party candidate has been seen as more of an opponent of the incumbent than the Republican front-runner former President Donald Trump, who has recently said he'd vote for "RFK Jr. every single time over Biden" if he were a Democrat.

Neither President Biden nor Kerry Kennedy mentioned RFK Jr. during the event Thursday. The latter even suggested her relative didn't have a chance in the race, stating "there are only two candidates with any chance of winning the presidency," while the president focused his remarks on his GOP competitor.

"Donald Trump's vision is one of anger, hate, revenge and retribution. He embraces the insurrectionists of January the 6th. He's running on it," the president said during his third consecutive day of appearances in Pennsylvania. "Look, your family, the Kennedy family, has endured such violence. Denying Jan. 6 and whitewashing what happened is absolutely outrageous."

Meanwhile, RFK Jr. said his family's public stand falls in line with "family tradition" of being politically active.

"We are divided in our opinions but united in our love for each other," he wrote in a post on X. "My campaign, which many of my family members are working on and supportive of, is about healing America — healing our economy, our chronic disease crisis, our middle class, our environment and our standing in the world as a peaceful nation."

I hear some of my family will be endorsing President Biden today. I am pleased they are politically active — it’s a family tradition. We are divided in our opinions but united in our love for each other.

I hold this as a possibility for America too. Can we disagree without…

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) April 18, 2024

The latest polling data from Decision Desk HQ, which Scripps News uses to track polling results, and The Hill shows RFK Jr. polling about 7% while Trump and President Biden sit around 42% each. This trajectory has placed the longshot candidate in a position as a potential spoiler come Election Day, now under seven months away.

Iran's attack against Israel over the weekend has spurred a flurry of bipartisan legislative action in Congress, uniting lawmakers against the country even as the risk of a larger regional war looms.

Several measures introduced and passed in the House and Senate seek to both publicly condemn Iran and punish the Islamic Republic financially. Lawmakers have denounced Iran's actions, which came in response to a suspected Israeli strike weeks earlier on an Iranian consular building in Syria that killed two Iranian generals.

“The world is on fire, and history will judge us for our action,” said Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, during a news conference Tuesday.

The swift, bipartisan condemnation of Iran has put on sharp display the durability of American support for Israel, even amid growing partisan division over how the country is handling its more than six-month war with Hamas.

The House passed nearly a dozen bills by Wednesday that would, among other things, issue a slate of new sanctions and other financial restrictions against Iran and its leaders. Other legislation looks to prevent current Iranian officials sanctioned from evading those penalties and urge the European Union to “expeditiously” designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization as the U.S. has already done.

On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday advanced five bills, including ones that targeted Iran for its human rights record and would require sanctions on ports and refineries that receive and process Iranian oil.

“Iran’s direct attack on Israel this week underscores the need to further cut off the Iranian regime’s key revenue streams,” Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said in a statement. "I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this bill — which has already passed the House — so that we can send it to President Biden’s desk immediately.”

SEE MORE: What key recent events led to Iran's assault on Israel?

A number of the bills had passed the House weeks before Hamas' deadly attack on Israel in October but have been stalled in the Senate committee. An Israeli offensive in Gaza has since caused widespread devastation and killed over 33,000 people, according to local health officials. Israel's conduct of the war has revealed the depth of unease among U.S. lawmakers as concerns over the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza have caused even some of President Joe Biden's closest allies to threaten conditioning future aid to Israel.

Congressional Democrats have been reluctant to challenge President Biden's handling of the ongoing conflict and related regional tensions that have taken shape, mindful that criticism could further weaken President Biden in his reelection campaign against former President Donald Trump.

But the attack on Saturday has proven to consolidate public support for the Biden administration's quick response as it ordered U.S. forces to help Israel down “nearly all” the 300 drones and missiles that were headed its way.

It also comes as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., released legislation Wednesday that would provide $95 billion in aid collectively to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. The aid package had been held up for months over Republican opposition to continuing wartime funding for Ukraine as it battles Russia. Iran's attack on Israel added urgency to Johnson's plans to bring the issue to the floor for a vote.

While the measures targeting Iran have received overwhelming support — with the series of House bills mostly passing with at least 300 votes — there has been a quiet but growing dissent among progressive Democratic lawmakers in both chambers, who warn that legislative efforts could risk further escalation in the Middle East.

“Following last weekend’s unprecedented response by Iran to Israel’s attack on its consulate, the Republican Majority is explicitly leveraging a series of bills to further escalate tensions in the Middle East," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a statement Tuesday. “This is a blatant attempt to distract from their own incompetence.”

The strike on Saturday marked the first time Iran has launched a direct military assault on Israel despite decades of enmity dating back to the country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution. Israel has vowed to retaliate against Iran, risking further expanding the shadow war between the two foes into a direct conflict.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, condemned Iran's attack in a statement but called on his colleagues to respond cautiously. He warned that further U.S. action against Iran could lead to a dangerous escalation that could drag America into a war in the Middle East.

“Cooler heads must now prevail to ensure peace in the region and security for Israel,” Sanders said.

SEE MORE: Netanyahu says Israel will decide how to respond to Iran's attack

Twelve jurors have been selected for Donald Trump's New York hush money trial. 

Earlier in Thursday's proceedings, there were some speed bumps in jury selection as Judge Juan Merchan dismissed two of the seven jurors previously seated. Despite this, eventually, a total of 12 jurors were seated, including seven men and five women. While one alternate juror was also seated, the court is still in need of five additional alternate jurors, who are expected to be selected on Friday. 

Jurors' names will be kept confidential. 

Juror No. 2 was dismissed after she called the court expressing concerns about whether she could be fair and impartial. 

She said that she “definitely has concerns now," including about what has been reported about her publicly. She said friends, colleagues and family told her that she had been identified as a potential juror. The identities of jurors are supposed to remain confidential. 

But some details, such as the woman's occupation, were known publicly. 

Merchan said that the case lost a good juror, which had Josh Steinglass, a member of the prosecution, asking whether jurors should be required to provide job info. Trump's legal team objected to the suggestion. 

Merchan said he agreed with Trump's defense that prospective jurors' information is important. He directed the press not to report answers given by potential jurors. 

On jurors' questionnaires, they are asked about their current and previous employers. Those answers will be redacted, Merchan said. 

Later Thursday morning, Merchan dismissed juror No. 4 after questions arose over answers provided about whether they or anyone close to them had ever been arrested. Steinglass said that prosecutors discovered an article stating that the juror was arrested for "tearing down political advertisements." They also discovered that the juror's wife was previously involved in a corruption inquiry. 

The decision to dismiss the juror came after a lengthy discussion between prosecutors, Trump's defense and Merchan. 

SEE MORE: 1 in 3 Americans think Trump acted illegally in hush money case

The jury consists of people of varying ages and socioeconomic statuses. Two of the jurors have law degrees, one is a teacher, and another is a recent college graduate who now works for Disney. Another works in sales. 

On Thursday, 96 jurors were brought in for questioning. Of those, 48 were immediately excused because they said they could not be fair. An additional nine potential jurors were dismissed for other reasons. 

The jurors' questionnaire included questions about whether they or a relative have worked for Trump, supported groups such as QAnon and Proud Boys, follow Trump on social media, donated to his campaign or attended a Trump rally.  

Meanwhile, the defense wanted to know who the first three witnesses are for the prosecution, but the district attorney says that while sharing that information is a courtesy they usually extend, they don't trust the former president to not share the witness list, even when the defense has stated that he won't. Merchan agreed with the district attorney and denied the request to share that information with Trump. 

Trump faces 34 felony counts in a New York court for falsifying business records. 

Following the proceedings on Thursday, Trump spoke to journalists outside the court and continued his rhetoric that the trial is "very unfair" and that the case is "ridiculous." 

The courtroom was closed on Wednesday, giving Trump a day off from the trial. He spent Wednesday meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda. According to a readout from the Trump campaign, the two discussed defense spending among NATO nations and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The trial is expected to start Monday with opening statements, but there will be half-days on Monday and Tuesday for Passover.

Arizona House Republicans have blocked another attempt to vote on the repeal of the Civil War-era abortion ban in the state.

On Wednesday, the House voted and blocked the motion by a 30-30 roll call. The same thing happened last week.

SEE MORE: Chile's Decades-Old Abortion Ban Might Finally Be Lifted

"Extremist Republicans in the Legislature have failed again to do the right thing. In just one week living under this new reality, women, doctors, and health care providers have already begun to feel the devastating effects of living under a total abortion ban. We cannot go on like this," Gov. Katie Hobbs said moments after the failed vote. 

She said, "I will continue to call on the legislature to do its job and repeal this law. In the meantime, I remain committed to protecting the freedoms of every single Arizonan, and I am working to make sure women are able to access the care they need."

On April 9, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a Civil War-era abortion ban.

"To date, our legislature has never affirmatively created a right to, or independently authorized, elective abortion," the court's opinion read.

The 4-2 ruling makes nearly all abortions in Arizona illegal, with the exception of cases in which the procedure is needed to save the mother's life. It also supersedes a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, which was passed into law in 2022, before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade.

After the constitutional right to an abortion was overturned, Arizona still had a law on the books from 1864 that banned nearly all abortions, including in cases of rape or incest.

Republicans attempted to revive the Civil War-era legislation but faced opposition from abortion-rights advocates, including Planned Parenthood Arizona, which was a plaintiff in this case.

This story was originally published by Scripps News Phoenix. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers who are transferred from one job to another against their will to pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law, even when they are not demoted or docked pay.

Workers only have to show that the transfer resulted in some, but not necessarily significant, harm to prove their claims, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

The justices unanimously revived a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by a St. Louis police sergeant after she was forcibly transferred, but retained her rank and pay.

Sgt. Jaytonya Muldrow had worked for nine years in a plainclothes position in the department's intelligence division before a new commander reassigned her to a uniformed position in which she supervised patrol officers. The new commander wanted a male officer in the intelligence job and sometimes called Muldrow "Mrs." instead of "sergeant," Kagan wrote.

Muldrow sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. Lower courts had dismissed Muldrow's claim, concluding that she had not suffered a significant job disadvantage.

"Today, we disapprove that approach," Kagan wrote. "Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test."

SEE MORE: Women making gains in the workforce, but gender gap still exists

Kagan noted that many cases will come out differently under the lower bar the Supreme Court adopted Wednesday. She pointed to cases in which people lost discrimination suits, including those of an engineer whose new job site was a 14-by-22-foot wind tunnel, a shipping worker reassigned to exclusively nighttime work and a school principal who was forced into a new administrative role that was not based in a school.

Although the outcome was unanimous, Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas each wrote separate opinions noting some level of disagreement with the majority's rationale in ruling for Muldrow.

Madeline Meth, a lawyer for Muldrow, said her client will be thrilled with the outcome. Meth, who teaches at Boston University's law school, said the decision is a big win for workers because the court made "clear that employers can't decide the who, what, when, where and why of a job based on race and gender."

The decision revives Muldrow's lawsuit, which now returns to lower courts. Muldrow contends that, because of sex discrimination, she was moved to a less prestigious job, which was primarily administrative and often required weekend work, and she lost her take-home city car.

"If those allegations are proved," Kagan wrote, "she was left worse off several times over."

The case is Muldrow v. St.Louis, 22-193.

President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he strongly supports a proposal from House Speaker Mike Johnson to provide aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Republican Speaker Johnson, facing a choice between losing his job and funding Ukraine, notified lawmakers earlier that he would forge ahead for votes on the package later this week. Shortly after Johnson released the funding proposals, President Biden offered his support for the package.

"The House must pass the package this week, and the Senate should quickly follow," the Democratic president said. "I will sign this into law immediately to send a message to the world: We stand with our friends, and we won't let Iran or Russia succeed."

After agonizing over how to proceed on the package for days, Johnson notified GOP lawmakers Wednesday that he would push to hold votes on three funding packages for Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific, as well as several other foreign policy proposals in a fourth bill.

Johnson is proposing that economic assistance for Kyiv be structured as forgivable loans, along with greater oversight on military funding, but the decision to support Ukraine at all has angered populist conservatives in the House and given new energy to a threat to remove him from the speaker's office.

The bills "will fund America's national security interests and allies in Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and Ukraine," Johnson wrote in a text message to members, which was shared by two Republican lawmakers.

The votes on the package are expected Saturday evening, Johnson said. But he faces a treacherous path to get there.

The speaker will need Democratic support on the procedural maneuvers to advance his complex plan of holding separate votes on each of the aid packages.

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, said in a statement that the three funding proposals for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan "mirror" a $95 billion foreign aid package that the Senate passed in February.

Crucial to Democratic support, the House proposal kept intact roughly $9 billion in humanitarian aid for civilians in Gaza and other conflict zones.

Meanwhile, the threat to oust Johnson from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican of Georgia, gained support this week. One other Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, said he was joining Greene and called for Johnson to resign. Other GOP lawmakers have openly complained about Johnson's leadership.

"You are seriously out of step with Republicans by continuing to pass bills dependent on Democrats," Greene wrote on the social platform X. "Everyone sees through this."

SEE MORE: Speaker Mike Johnson says he will push for aid to Israel and Ukraine

In an effort to satisfy conservatives, Johnson said he would hold a separate vote on a border security package that contains most of a bill that was already passed by House Republicans last year. That bill has already been rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate, and conservatives quickly denounced the plan to hold a separate vote on it as insufficient. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas called the strategy a "complete failure."

The ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus posted on X that Johnson had was "surrendering the last opportunity we have to combat the border crisis."

As part of the foreign aid push, Johnson also said House members would have an opportunity to vote on a raft of foreign policy proposals, including allowing the U.S. to seize frozen Russian central bank assets, placing sanctions on Iran, Russia and China, and potentially banning the video app TikTok if its China-based owner doesn't sell its stake.

The precarious effort to pass the foreign aid comes as lawmakers who are focused on national security warn that the House must act after waiting for nearly two months for Johnson to bring up the foreign aid.

In the House Intelligence Committee, the Republican chairman, Rep. Mike Turner, and top Democrat, Rep. Jim Himes, issued a joint statement Tuesday saying that they had been informed in a classified briefing that there was a "critical need" to provide funding for Ukraine this week.

"The United States must stand against Putin's war of aggression now as Ukraine's situation on the ground is critical," the lawmakers said in a statement.

In a separate hearing on Wednesday, Pentagon leaders testified that Ukraine and Israel both desperately need military weapons.

"We're already seeing things on the battlefield begin to shift a bit in Russia's favor," said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The House's version of the aid bill pushes the Biden administration to provide long-range ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile Systems) to Ukraine, which could be used to target Russian supply lines.

The U.S. has resisted sending those weapons out of concerns Moscow would consider them escalatory, since they could reach deeper into Russia and Russian-held territory. The House legislation would also allow the president to decline to send the ATACMS if it is against national security interests, but Congress would have to be notified.

The House bill would also redouble the oversight of aid and equipment sent to Kyiv, including in-person monitoring requirements.

Still, there was a growing acknowledgment in Washington that Johnson could soon be out of the speaker's office.

"This is a chance to do the right thing," Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, said this week. "If you pay for it, you'll be known in history as the man who did the right thing even though it cost him a job."

Two years ago, Democrats repeatedly and forcefully warned Republicans and Gov. Ron DeSantis that a new law making it easier to challenge school books was so broadly worded that it would create havoc across the state.

Now they can say, “I told you so."

DeSantis backtracked on the 2022 law on Tuesday when he signed a bill narrowing its focus. He blamed liberal activists for abusing the law, not the citizens whose objections to certain books account for the majority of book removals from school libraries and classrooms.

“The idea that someone can use the parents rights and the curriculum transparency to start objecting to every single book to try to make a mockery of this is just wrong,” DeSantis said the day before the bill signing. “That’s performative. That’s political.”

Coincidentally, PEN America, a group that fights book bans, issued a report Tuesday saying Florida is responsible for 72% of the books that have been pulled from the nation's schools in the first half of the current school year.

The organization said liberal activists are not the ones who should be blamed for abusing the law.

“The majority of books that we see being removed are books that talk about LBTQ+ identities, that include characters of color, that talk about race and racism, that include depictions of sexual experiences in the most broadest interpretation of that understanding,” said Kasey Meehan, PEN America's Freedom to Read program director.

SEE MORE: Book bans in schools reach record high, report finds

Those challenges are being made by conservative individuals and groups such as Moms for Liberty, Meehan said.

The original law allowed any person — parent or not, district resident or not — to challenge books as often as they wanted. Once challenged, a book has to be pulled from shelves until the school district resolves the complaint. The new law limits people who don't have students in a school district to one challenge per month.

The PEN America report says Florida is responsible for 3,135 of the 4,349 school book bans in the United States so far this school year. Just this week in conservative Clay County, one person challenged 40 books, Meehan said.

Before dropping out of the Republican presidential primary, DeSantis campaigned heavily on his education platform, including the law giving people more power to challenge books.

“It’s just a big mess that DeSantis created and now he’s trying to disown it, but I don’t know if he’ll be able to distance himself from this because he campaigned on it so hard,” said House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell.

It's not the only example of the tough-talking governor having to make adjustments to ideology he championed while seeking the White House.

He also has made concessions in the settlement of several lawsuits involving the state and Walt Disney World. The dispute between them erupted in 2022 after the company spoke out against a DeSantis-backed law that opponents dubbed “Don't Say Gay.” The law bans classroom lessons on gender identity and sexual orientation.

The Associated Press asked DeSantis' office for examples of liberal activists abusing the law and it provided one: Chaz Stevens, a South Florida resident who has often lampooned government. Stevens raised challenges in dozens of school districts over the Bible, dictionaries and thesauruses.

The change to the law “ensures that book challenges are limited for individuals, like Chaz, who do not have children with access to the school district’s materials," DeSantis spokeswoman Julia Friedland said in an email. She didn't reply to follow-up emails requesting more examples.

Stevens, who 11 years ago made national news when he installed a Festivus pole made out of beer cans across from a nativity scene displayed in the Capitol, was delighted DeSantis' office singled him out.

The Senate voted Wednesday to declare both articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas "unconstitutional," therefore concluding the trial.

Shortly after Senate President Pro-Tem Sen. Patty Murray swore in the senators as jurors, the Senate swiftly proceeded to vote on the impeachment articles. In a 51-48 decision, the Senate deemed the first article, "Willful and Systemic Refusal to Comply with the Law," as unconstitutional. Subsequently, with a vote of 51-49, the Senate declared the second article, "Breach of Public Trust," unconstitutional as well.

Following both votes, the Senate continued to vote along party lines (51-49) to adjourn the impeachment trial despite Republican objections.

"Today’s decision by the Senate to reject House Republicans’ baseless attacks on Secretary Mayorkas proves definitively that there was no evidence or Constitutional grounds to justify impeachment," said DHS spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg in a statement following the votes. "It’s time for Congressional Republicans to support the Department’s vital mission instead of wasting time playing political games and standing in the way of commonsense, bipartisan border reforms.”

In February, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to impeach Mayorkas, accusing him of failing to comply with federal immigration laws and secure the border, as House Republicans sought to hold him accountable for the influx of migrants at the southern border.

The articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate on Tuesday, effectively starting the trial. 

But just like expected, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer moved to dismiss this trial very swiftly.

Given the Democrats' majority in the U.S. Senate and the requirement of 67 senators to vote for conviction in an impeachment trial, it's no surprise that Mayorkas was not found guilty or removed from office.

In a joint statement with other Republican party leaders, House Speaker Mike Johnson scolded Senate Democrats or not holding a full trial. 

"The American people will hold Senate Democrats accountable for this shameful display," the statement says.

SEE MORE: House GOP walks articles of impeachment against Mayorkas to Senate

A new poll released by the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago indicates that more than 1 in 3 Americans believe former President Donald Trump acted illegally amid allegations that he falsified business records to cover up a relationship with a woman who said he had an affair with her.

According to the poll, 35% said he acted illegally, while an additional 31% said he acted immorally but not illegally. The poll found that 14% of Americans think he did nothing wrong. 

The results showed a strong partisan divide. Among Democrats, 62% believe he acted illegally, while just 6% of Republicans think he did. Just 2% of Democrats think Trump did nothing wrong, while 28% of Republicans agreed. 

Out of the four criminal cases Trump is involved in, the New York hush money case seems to be the least convincing, based on the AP-NORC's poll. 

SEE MORE: First 7 jurors selected in Trump's hush money trial

In the case involving classified documents being found in Trump's Florida residence, 47% believe Trump acted illegally. The same percentage of Americans also believe Trump acted illegally in his alleged attempt to overturn the election results in Georgia. 

The poll also showed 45% of Americans believe Trump violated the law in his alleged efforts to thwart the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

The poll showed that 50% of Americans think Trump would be unfit for office if convicted of a crime. 

Of those who think Trump did not commit any crimes, 80% believe he would still be fit for office. 

The surveys come as numerous national polls of a tight race between Trump and President Joe Biden in this year's presidential election. 

Trump faces 34 felony counts in a New York court for falsifying business records. Jury selection in that case began Monday.

A voting technology company targeted by bogus fraud claims related to the 2020 presidential election settled a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against a conservative news outlet.

The settlement between Florida-based Smartmatic and One America News Network is the latest development in a larger legal pushback by voting equipment companies that became ensnared in wild conspiracy theories falsely claiming they had flipped votes and cost former President Donald Trump reelection.

In a statement, the company said it had "resolved its litigation with OANN through a confidential settlement.” The dismissal of its lawsuit was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia. Chip Babcock, a Houston-based attorney representing the news outlet, confirmed the case had been resolved but said he was unable to disclose any of the settlement terms.

Smartmatic was an odd target for the conspiracy theorists because use of its voting technology and software was so limited. It was used only in Los Angeles County, a Democratic stronghold in a state that was not a presidential battleground and where Trump did not contest his loss.

SEE MORE: Former Pres. Trump wanted to seize voting machines after election

But the company has for years also provided voting services in Venezuela, and that created a springboard for phony claims that a foreign company was involved in a vast conspiracy to flip the election from Trump to Democrat Joe Biden. Smartmatic also has active lawsuits against Fox News and the conservative outlet Newsmax over similar complaints. Fox has said it had a First Amendment right to air claims about an election that were being promoted by prominent figures.

Last year, on the eve of a trial, Fox News agreed to pay $787 million to settle a defamation lawsuit filed by a much larger voting technology company, Dominion Voting Systems, which claimed the network and its hosts spread false claims that its equipment helped rig the election against Trump. Dominion has other defamation lawsuits that remain active, including one against One America News Network.

The conspiracy theories relating to voting equipment and software are among the lies about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election won by Biden. Numerous reviews, audits and recounts in the presidential swing states where Trump contested his loss have affirmed Biden's victory, and there has been no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is facing federal and state charges related to his attempts to overturn the results.

President Joe Biden touted support for union workers while promising American ownership of U.S. Steel and potential higher tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum, during an economy-focused blitz through the battleground state of Pennsylvania. 

President Biden, who calls himself the most pro-union president in American history, reaffirmed support for domestic ownership of U.S. Steel as it faces potential acquisition by Nippon Steel. He made remarks Wednesday at the Pittsburgh headquarters of United Steelworkers, a group that has endorsed him.  

“American-owned, American-operated by American Union steelworkers, the best in the world. And it's, that's going to happen, I promise you,” President Biden said of the deal under review. 

While the administration seeks to protect workers and industry, President Biden also called for the tripling of tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum imports pending the findings of the United States Trade Representative’s Section 301 review. He directed work with Mexico to prevent tariff evasion and announced the United States Trade Representative will investigate China’s trade practices in shipbuilding, following a petition from labor groups including the USW.  

“Chinese steel companies produce a lot more steel than China needs and end up dumping extra steel on the global markets at unfairly low prices. And the prices are unfairly low because China's steel companies don't need to worry about making a profit because the Chinese government has subsidized them so heavily. They're not competing, they're cheating. And we've seen the damage here in America,” President Biden said.  

SEE MORE: Biden's 2025 budget plan details vision for potential second term

The actions come as President Biden has sought to stabilize relations with China. The president said he was not concerned new tariffs would hurt his relationship with PRC president Xi Jinping.  

Navigating policy and politics, President Biden underscored the steps to compete with China as he highlighted his broader economic agenda aimed at boosting American manufacturing and jobs, while drawing a deeper contrast to former President Donald Trump.  

“Taken together, these are strategic and targeted actions that are going to protect American workers and ensure fair competition. Meanwhile, my predecessor and the MAGA Republicans want across-the-board tariffs on all imports from all countries that could badly hurt American consumers,” President Biden said.  

The stop in Pittsburgh marks a continuation of President Biden’s three-stop swing through Pennsylvania, a state where the campaign has touted early investment and attention while former President Donald Trump spent time in a New York courtroom the same week in a case centered on alleged hush money payments. The Biden-Harris Campaign also rolled out a six figure ad blitz framing President Biden as pro-labor. 

“Since taking office, Joe Biden has caved to China and left American workers behind. Now, after four years of failure, he’s following President Trump’s lead on tariffs. Americans deserve leadership, not lip service — and it’s clear that we need President Trump back in office to deliver stronger trade deals that put America First,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley. 

But President Biden, touting a higher GDP and lower trade deficit with China, said Trump “simply doesn’t get it."  

President Biden made clear he was seeking fair competition, not conflict, with China.  

“There are many points in which the U.S. and China have friction in the commercial space, whether it's around overcapacity, or around the high tech transfer of knowledge that might end up supporting China's military or data security,"  said Scott Kennedy, senior adviser and trustee chair in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "These are all being evaluated. I think that the U.S. needs to pursue a balanced approach. There is not a one-size-fits-all to all of these. And there is value to the U.S. from having a commercial relationship with China. But it would be better if it was a much fairer relationship. And I think that's what the Biden administration is trying to achieve here."

While the Biden administration has worked to share a positive economic message, President Biden has also faced concerns regarding inflation. A senior administration official maintained the actions would not increase inflation and were not about elections, noting that imports of steel from China make up about 0.6% of U.S. steel demand.  

“I think the overall effect will be relatively small. U.S. imports of steel and aluminum from China have dropped in the wake of the tariffs that were put in place during the Trump administration," Kennedy said. "And they don't account for a large share of overall U.S. imports. And so I do think there are probably going to be some importers that do use these products, who are going to complain, and they will point to the likelihood of higher prices in these areas, and perhaps access to certain types of steel and aluminum, which have been important for them. But I think from a macroeconomic perspective, the effect is going to be almost negligible from the perspective of folks like you and me."

President Biden is next expected in Philadelphia.  

SEE MORE: Biden welcomes Japan's prime minister in show of unity to China

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a decorated veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in a protracted fight with the government over 12 months of G.I. Bill educational benefits.

The court ruled 7-2 that the Department of Veterans Affairs improperly calculated the educational benefits for James Rudisill, a retired Army captain who lives in northern Virginia.

Rudisill, who's now an FBI agent, is in a category of veterans who earned credit under two versions of the G.I. Bill. One version applied to people who served before the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. Congress passed new legislation after Sept. 11.

But Rudisill served both before and after the attack, including tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Each program gives veterans 36 months of benefits, and there's a 48-month cap. Rudisill thought he had 10 months of benefits remaining under the old program, plus another year in the new system. But the VA denied the additional year.

Rudisill said the decision forced him to give up his plan to attend Yale Divinity School, be ordained as an Episcopal priest and reenter the Army as a chaplain.

His lawyers said the decision could affect roughly 1.7 million veterans, but the VA disputed that the number is “anything close” to 1.7 million, noting that his lawyers didn't identify any other cases that presented the same issue.

SEE MORE: Supreme Court hears debate over charges against Trump, Jan. 6 rioters

On the eve of a vote on union representation at Volkswagen's Tennessee factory, Gov. Bill Lee and five other southern governors are telling workers that voting for a union will put jobs in jeopardy.

About 4,300 workers at VW's plant in Chattanooga will start voting Wednesday on representation by the United Auto Workers union. Vote totals are expected to be tabulated Friday night by the National Labor Relations Board.

The union election is the first test of the UAW's efforts to organize nonunion auto factories nationwide following its success winning big raises last fall after going on strike against Detroit automakers Ford, General Motors and Jeep maker Stellantis.

The governors said in a statement Tuesday that they have worked to bring good-paying jobs to their states.

“We are seeing in the fallout of the Detroit Three strike with those automakers rethinking investments and cutting jobs,” the statement said. “Putting businesses in our states in that position is the last thing we want to do.”

Lee said in a statement that Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have signed on to the statement. The offices of Abbott, Ivey, Kemp and Reeves confirmed their involvement, and McMaster posted the statement on his website.

The governors said they want to continue to grow manufacturing in their states, but a successful union drive will “stop this growth in its tracks, to the detriment of American workers.”

The UAW declined comment.

SEE MORE: UAW endorses Biden as field narrows in 2024 race for the White House

After a series of strikes against Detroit automakers last year, UAW President Shawn Fain said it would simultaneously target more than a dozen nonunion auto plants including those run by Tesla, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Honda, and others.

The drive covers nearly 150,000 workers at factories largely in the South, where the union thus far has had little success in recruiting new members.

Earlier this month a majority of workers at a Mercedes-Benz plant near Tuscaloosa, Alabama, filed papers with the NLRB to vote on UAW representation.

The UAW pacts with Detroit automakers include 25% pay raises by the time the contracts end in April of 2028. With cost-of-living increases, workers will see about 33% in raises for a top assembly wage of $42 per hour, or more than $87,000 per year, plus thousands in annual profit sharing.

VW said Tuesday that its workers can make over $60,000 per year not including an 8% attendance bonus. The company says it pays above the median household income in the area.

Volkswagen has said it respects the workers’ right to a democratic process and to determine who should represent their interests. “We will fully support an NLRB vote so every team member has a chance to vote in privacy in this important decision,” the company said.

Some workers at the VW plant, who make Atlas SUVs and ID.4 electric vehicles, said they want more of a say in schedules, benefits, pay and more.

The union has come close to representing workers at the VW plant in two previous elections. In 2014 and 2019, workers narrowly rejected a factorywide union under the UAW.

SEE MORE: Why is union support so important in politics?

The first seven jurors in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan hush money trial were selected Tuesday.

Potential jurors were required to fill out a questionnaire and answer live questions from the judge and attorneys on the second day of the trial.

The first wave of potential jury members was drawn from some 100 people.

SEE MORE: Prospective jurors face questions on first day of Trump's NY trial

Besides all living in New York, the jurors selected so far are men and women of varying ages and from varying backgrounds: A sales worker, a social media marketer, a corporate law attorney, an IT consultant, a school worker, a recent college graduate who works for Disney and a civil litigator.

Eleven additional jurors will be selected: Five more to fill out the jury, and six backup jurors.

Earlier in the day, several potential jurors were dismissed after they said they could not be impartial in the case or that they had schedule conflicts. One juror was excused after showing symptoms of illness.

Once a jury is selected, prosecutors and Trump's defense can begin presenting evidence and calling witnesses. 

The former president is accused of falsifying internal business records and of making payments to porn actor Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal, and to a doorman at Trump Tower.

He has pleaded not guilty to the 34 felony counts.

House Republicans have officially walked articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over to the Senate.

In a rare move in February, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to impeach Mayorkas. House Republicans said this was their way of holding him responsible for the influx of migrants at the southern border. With the delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate, the House has forced the beginning of a trial, with proceedings to start on Wednesday.

The two articles of impeachment accuse Mayorkas of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust.”

“Despite warnings from fellow Republicans that this baseless impeachment effort ‘distorts the Constitution,’ House Republicans continue to ignore the facts and undermine the Constitution by wasting even more time on this sham impeachment in the Senate," said a DHS spokesperson in a statement. "Secretary Mayorkas spent months helping a bipartisan group of Senators craft a tough but fair bill that would give DHS the tools necessary to meet today’s border security challenges, but the same House Republicans playing political games with this impeachment chose to block that bipartisan compromise."

SEE MORE: What to expect from the impeachment trial of Alejandro Mayorkas

The expectation is that Mayorkas won't be convicted — far from it. Conviction requires the support of 67 senators, but Democrats hold a majority with 51 votes in the Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated in the past that he wants the issue resolved as quickly as possible.

"We're going to try and resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements," said Schumer last week.  "As I said in the past, it's absurd and there are no charges in the House complaint that rise to the level of impeachment."

Schumer announced Tuesday that under impeachment rules, senators will be sworn in as jurors at 1:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday. Sen. Patty Murray, serving as the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, will swear in senators and preside, then senators will then summon Mayorkas to inform him of the charges and request a written response. What happens after that will be up to Schumer to decide.

This impeachment is notable because it's the first time in American history that a sitting member of the president's cabinet is undergoing an impeachment trial. While there have been impeachments of cabinet members in the past, this is the first such trial of a cabinet member still in office. Such a trial almost took place in 1876, but Secretary of War William Belknap resigned before the House of Representatives voted on impeachment. 

Additional reporting by The Associated Press.

After pandemic-era changes to Medicaid were dropped last year, nearly 20 million Americans were removed from the program, KFF reported in a new survey.

According to KFF, 23% of those who were dropped by Medicaid remain uninsured. The survey found that 47% were able to re-enroll in the health care program, while another 28% were able to find insurance elsewhere. 

Prior to last year's changes, according to Medicaid, 82.5 million Americans used the program. Low-income families, qualified pregnant women, children, and individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income are automatically eligible for Medicaid. 

Depending on the state, those making less than 133% of the federal poverty level could also be eligible for the program.

SEE MORE: Pennsylvania claimed $551M in Medicaid funds improperly, audit finds

For several years following the pandemic's start, states were prohibited from kicking anyone off Medicaid. After the federal government ended the COVID-19 emergency last year, states could purge ineligible people starting April 1, 2023. Inevitably, many who were eligible temporarily lost coverage. 

Of those former Medicaid recipients no longer insured, 36% said they are still trying to get re-enrolled into Medicaid, according to KFF's survey. Another 54% say they are uninsured due to the high cost of insurance. 

KFF also suggested many were unprepared to come off Medicaid. Over half of those surveyed who lost coverage said they heard little or nothing about changes to Medicaid prior to being removed from the system. 

The survey found that 58% of people enrolled in Medicaid before last year's deadline faced at least one problem with re-enrolling. 

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is back on the bench after an unexplained one-day absence.

Thomas, 75, was in his usual seat, to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts as the court met to hear arguments in a case about the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

Thomas has ignored calls from some progressive groups to step aside from cases involving Jan. 6 because his wife, Ginni, attended then-President Donald Trump's rally near the White House before protesters descended on the Capitol. Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist, also texted senior Trump administration officials in the weeks after the election offering support and reiterating her belief that there was widespread fraud in the election.

On Monday, Roberts announced Thomas' absence, without providing an explanation. Justices sometimes miss court, but participate remotely. Thomas did not take part in Monday's arguments.

He was hospitalized two years ago with an infection, causing him to miss several court sessions. He took part in the cases then, too.

Thomas is the longest serving of the current justices, joining the Supreme Court in 1991.

SEE MORE: Supreme Court hears debate over charges against Trump, Jan. 6 rioters

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether federal prosecutors went too far in bringing obstruction charges against hundreds of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Former President Donald Trump faces the same charge for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020.

The justices heard arguments over the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding in the case of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump. Fischer is one of 330 people facing that charge, which stems from a law passed in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago.

It was not clear after more than 90 minutes of arguments precisely where the court would land, although conservative justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appeared most likely to side with Fischer, while liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor seemed more favorable to the Justice Department's position.

The former president and presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination is facing two charges in a separate case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington that could be knocked out with a favorable ruling from the nation’s highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in that case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.

Smith has argued separately in the immunity case that the obstruction charges against Trump are valid no matter how the court decides Fischer's case. The first former U.S. president under indictment, Trump is on trial on hush money charges in New York and also has been charged with election interference in Georgia and with mishandling classified documents in Florida.

SEE MORE: Trump pledges to free Jan. 6 'hostages' if elected

On Tuesday, some of the conservative justices said the law was so broad that it could be used against even peaceful protests and also questioned why the Justice Department has not brought charges under the provision in other violent protests.

Gorsuch appeared to be drawing on actual events when he asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether people could be charged with obstructing an official proceeding if they rose in protest inside the courtroom, heckled the president at the State of the Union or pulled a fire alarm in the Capitol complex to delay a vote in Congress.

Alito, suggesting the government's reading of the law is too broad, asked whether the charge could be applied to people who disrupted the day's court session by shouting “Keep the January 6 insurrectionists in jail or ”Free the January 6 patriots."

He hastened to add, “What happened on Jan. 6 was very, very serious and I'm not equating this with that.”

The high court case focuses on whether the anti-obstruction provision of a law that was enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp. can be used against Jan. 6 defendants.

Lawyers for Fischer, the former North Cornwall Township police officer, argue that the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation. Until the Capitol riot, lawyer Jeffrey Green told the court on Fischer's behalf, the provision “had never been used to prosecute anything other than evidence tampering.”

But Prelogar, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the other side is reading the law too narrowly, arguing it serves as a “classic catchall” designed to deal with the obstruction of an official proceeding. She said Fischer joined a “violent mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent the peaceful transition of power.”

The obstruction charge is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the violent insurrection. It carries a maximum prison term of 20 years, but Prelogar said the average term imposed so far is about two years.

SEE MORE: Viewer Spotlight: How we continue to cover the Capitol insurrection

Roughly 170 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal is pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. They include Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

While it’s not important to the Supreme Court case, the two sides present starkly differing accounts of Fischer’s actions on Jan. 6. Fischer's lawyers say he “was not part of the mob” that forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate chambers, noting that he entered the Capitol after Congress had recessed. The weight of the crowd pushed Fischer into a line of police inside, they said in a court filing.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia are among 23 Republican members of Congress who say the administration's use of the obstruction charge “presents an intolerable risk of politicized prosecutions. Only a clear rebuke from this Court will stop the madness.”

The Justice Department says Fischer can be heard on a video yelling “Charge!” before he pushed through a crowd and “crashed into the police line.” Prosecutors also cite text messages Fischer sent before Jan. 6 saying things might turn violent and social media posts after the riot in which he wrote, “we pushed police back about 25 feet.”

More than 1,350 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial.

SEE MORE: Capitol riot defendants face incentives for pleas in Jan. 6 probe

Former President Donald Trump's New York hush money trial resumed on Tuesday with multiple jurors claiming they could not be impartial after initially saying they could be. After 96 prospective jurors were brought in Monday for questioning on the first day of the trial, only about three dozen remained in the jury pool at the end of the day. 

Trump faces 34 felony counts in a New York court for falsifying business records. 

The initial 96 potential jurors are among a potential 500 prospective jurors who could be considered for the trial. The goal is to find 12 jurors and six alternates who are fair and impartial. So far, no jurors have been seated.

On Monday, more than half of the 96 prospective jurors raised their hands when asked if they would not be fair and impartial. Those jurors were immediately released. 

On Tuesday, most potential jurors said they could remain impartial, with several stating that "no one is above the law." Several jurors, however, could not give a firm commitment as to whether they could be fair. Another juror was dismissed after telling the court his child has an upcoming wedding. 

Potential jurors were questioned by Judge Juan Merchan. They answered questions about their employment, what they do in their spare time, and where they get their news. The juror's questionnaire also included questions about whether they or a relative have worked for Trump, supported groups such as QAnon and Proud Boys, follow Trump on social media, donated to his campaign or attended a Trump rally. 

Prosecutors and the district's attorney office also posed questions to potential jurors on Tuesday. Prosecutors wanted to know if the burden of proof should be higher for a former president and whether someone could be held responsible for other people's crimes. 

Trump's attorneys wanted to know potential jurors' opinions on Trump unrelated to the case. 

SEE MORE: Manhattan court needs jurors for its criminal case against Trump

Before jurors were brought in on Monday, the two sides went over numerous motions, including whether Trump violated a gag order with social media posts he made involving the case. Prosecutors asked Merchan to impose a $3,000 fine on Trump. That motion will be considered during a hearing next week. 

"We know that from various posts he had made,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said, according to a pool report of the hearing.  “We think it is important for the court to remind Mr. Trump is a criminal defendant."

Trump attorney Todd Blanche said that Trump did not violate the gag order and that he was "responding to salacious, repeated, vehement attacks by these witnesses." 

Once a jury is selected, prosecutors and Trump's defense can begin presenting evidence and calling witnesses. 

Prosecutor Alvin Bragg said in a court filing that Trump tried to conceal an "illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election." Bragg has alleged that Trump falsified records in an effort to prevent damaging stories from emerging during the 2016 presidential campaign. Bragg says Trump falsified records to hide payments to attorney Michael Cohen for him to pay Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal and former doorman Dino Sajudin. 

Bragg says business records relating to the payments were falsified in order to disguise the conduct. 

Nikki Haley might not be in the running to be the next president anymore, but her new gig makes it clear she's not leaving the political world just yet.

Just a few weeks after dropping out of the 2024 race, the former South Carolina governor has announced she's joining the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank, as its Walter P. Stern Chair.

Haley is the fourth person from former President Donald Trump's administration to join the Hudson Institute. She served as Trump's ambassador to the United Nations — during which the Hudson Institute gave her its global leadership award — before becoming his last standing rival in the GOP primary. 

SEE MORE: Nikki Haley suspends Republican presidential campaign

After she suspended her campaign, rumors swirled that Haley was still a contender to be Trump's vice presidential pick, but the pair's bitter quarrels on the campaign trail — and the fact that he, as of late last month, has yet to reach out to her — make that idea pretty unlikely.

It's unclear what Haley's exact responsibilities will be for the Hudson Institute or whether the gig is full-time and paid. However, the group is known for its focus on defense and international policy, which are two familiar areas Haley stressed during her presidential campaign.

She often emphasized the need for international alliances with Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan while Trump stressed an "America first" plan. Haley seemed to point to this difference in a comment on her new role, shared in a statement from the Hudson Institute.

"When our policymakers fail to call out our enemies or acknowledge the importance of our alliances, the world is less safe. That is why Hudson's work is so critical," Haley said. "They believe the American people should have the facts and policymakers should have the solutions to support a secure, free and prosperous future."

When our policymakers fail to call out our enemies or acknowledge the importance of our alliances, the world is less safe. That is why @HudsonInstitute’s work is so critical. They believe the American people should have the facts and policymakers should have the solutions to… pic.twitter.com/7B5dIlzQQx

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) April 15, 2024

The Hudson Institute touted Haley's emphasis on their main focuses in its statement, saying she's a "proven, effective" leader in both foreign and domestic policy.

"In an era of worldwide political upheaval, she has remained a steadfast defender of freedom and an effective advocate for American security and prosperity," Hudson President and CEO John P. Walters said.

Sarah May Stern, the Institute's board of trustees chair and Walter P. Stern's daughter, said it's "fitting" that Haley would be taking on the title under her father's namesake, as he was known for playing a key role in building the organization to its current standing as a well-known political body.

"[Haley] is a courageous and insightful policymaker and these qualities are vital in making Hudson the powerhouse policy organization it is today, and I am extremely proud that she has joined the Institute," Sarah May Stern said.

Other notable members of the Hudson Institute include former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and former Attorney General William Barr of the Trump administration. Former Vice President Dan Quayle and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger were also part of the organization.

The Supreme Court is allowing Idaho to enforce its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth while lawsuits over the law proceed, reversing lower courts.

The justices' order Monday allows the state to put in place a 2023 law that subjects physicians to up to 10 years in prison if they provide hormones, puberty blockers or other gender-affirming care to people under age 18. Under the court’s order, the two transgender teens who sued to challenge the law still will be able to obtain care.

The court's three liberal justices would have kept the law on hold. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that it would have been better to let the case proceed “unfettered by our intervention.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch of the conservative majority wrote that it is “a welcome development” that the court is reining in an overly broad lower court order.

A federal judge in Idaho had blocked the law in its entirety after determining that it was necessary to do so to protect the teens, who are identified under pseudonyms in court papers.

Lawyers for the teens wrote in court papers that the teens' “gender dysphoria has been dramatically alleviated as a result of puberty blockers and estrogen therapy.”

SEE MORE: Vatican condemns gender-affirming surgery, surrogacy and gender theory

Opponents of the law have said it will likely increase suicide rates among teens. The law’s backers have said it is necessary to “protect children” from medical or surgical treatments for gender dysphoria, though there’s little indication that gender-affirming surgeries are being performed on transgender youth in Idaho.

Gender-affirming care for youth is supported by every major medical organization, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association.

Medical professionals define gender dysphoria as severe psychological distress experienced by those whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth.

The action comes as the justices also may soon consider whether to take up bans in Kentucky and Tennessee that an appeals court allowed to be enforced in the midst of legal fights.

At least 23 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, and most of those states face lawsuits. A federal judge struck down Arkansas’ ban as unconstitutional. Montana’s ban also is temporarily on hold.

The states that have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Anthony Kern, a Republican state senator in Arizona, has drawn widespread backlash after he led a prayer group on the Senate floor. 

A video taken by an anonymous attendee shows Kern in a group, speaking in tongues as they pray over the state seal.

The moment has led to discussions about what role religion should play in the government. 

Scripps News political analyst Steve Schmidt offered his take in this week's 2-Minute Warning.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a lawsuit to go forward against a Black Lives Matter activist who led a protest in Louisiana in which a police officer was injured. Civil rights groups and free speech advocates have warned that the suit threatens the right to protest.

The justices rejected an appeal from DeRay Mckesson in a case that stems from a 2016 protest over the police killing of a Black man in Baton Rouge.

At an earlier stage of the case, the high court noted that the issue was "fraught with implications for First Amendment rights."

The justices did not explain their action Monday, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a brief opinion that said lower courts should not read too much into it.

SEE MORE: 10 years of Black Lives Matter: Where does the movement stand today?

The court's "denial today expresses no view about the merits of Mckesson's claim,'' Sotomayor wrote.

At the protest in Baton Rouge, the officer was hit by a "rock-like" object thrown by an unidentified protester, but he sued Mckesson in his role as the protest organizer.

A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in 2017, but a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the officer should be able to argue that Mckesson didn't exercise reasonable care in leading protesters onto a highway, setting up a police confrontation in which the officer, identified in court papers only as John Doe, was injured.

In dissent, Judge Don Willett wrote, "He deserves justice. Unquestionably, Officer Doe can sue the rock-thrower. But I disagree that he can sue Mckesson as the protest leader."

If allowed to stand, the decision to allow the suit to proceed would discourage people from protesting, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote, representing Mckesson.

"Given the prospect that some individual protest participant might engage in law-breaking, only the most intrepid citizens would exercise their rights if doing so risked personal liability for third-parties' wrongdoing," the ACLU told the court.

Lawyers for the officer had urged the court to turn away the appeal, noting that the protest illegally blocked the highway and that Mckesson did nothing to dissuade the violence that took place.

Colorado's Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms.

House Bill 1292 was passed Sunday with a 35-27 vote along party lines. It now heads to the state Senate, where it is expected to face challenges.

The bill would allow lawmakers to define the term "assault weapon" and ban such weapons from being manufactured, sold, imported, purchased or transferred in the state of Colorado. It would also prohibit people from possessing rapid-fire trigger activators, which increase the speed at which a gun fires. 

Those in violation of the ban could be fined $250,000 for the first offense and $500,000 for any subsequent violations.

SEE MORE: Colorado lawmaker leaves loaded pistol in state Capitol bathroom

However, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis — a Democrat — has already expressed skepticism about the ban. A similar bill was rejected by Democrats last year after lawmakers feared breaking promises they'd already made to constituents about gun rights and government overreach. 

Republican state Rep. Matt Soper opposes the bill and told Scripps News Denver that it violates Coloradans' Second Amendment rights. 

“I can tell you from rural Colorado, the one thing that people hold most dear would be their property, and firearms are right there with it,” Soper said. “Firearms are very symbolic of our way of life, of who we are.” 

State Rep. Richard Holtorf, also a Republican, said he doesn't imagine many sheriff's offices in the state will acknowledge or enforce the bill if it is passed into law. The County Sheriffs of Colorado has already expressed opposition to the bill. 

“You need to understand that in the 64 counties, I would opine that about 47 of them will never, ever because of those to the Constitution enforce this statute,” Holtorf said. 

If  HB1292 does gain approval from the state Senate, Colorado could become the 11th state to pass prohibitions on semiautomatic guns.

Day one of former President Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial wrapped up on Monday, as 96 potential jurors all responded to a list of 42 questions. However, the selection process was not finalized, and proceedings are set to resume on Tuesday.

Trump faces 34 felony counts in a New York court for falsifying business records. 

With Trump in the courtroom, prosecutors alleged that the former president violated an April 1 gag order not to make salacious comments about the Judge Juan Merchan's family on social media. They requested that Trump be fined a total of $3,000 for the alleged violations. 

"We know that from various posts he had made,” prosecutor Christopher Conroy said, according to a pool report of the hearing.  “We think it is important for the court to remind Mr. Trump is a criminal defendant."

Trump attorney Todd Blanche said that Trump did not violate the gag order and that he was "responding to salacious, repeated, vehement attacks by these witnesses." 

Merchan said he will hear arguments over whether Trump violated the gag order on April 24. The judge is giving Trump's attorneys until Friday to formally respond to Conroy's allegations.

Before entering the courtroom Monday morning, Trump told reporters that this is a "political persecution."

“This is an assault on America, nothing like this has ever happened before, there’s never been anything like it," he said. 

Trump sat at the defense table flipping through documents as the sides discussed the jury questionnaire. 

Prosecutor Alvin Bragg said in a court filing that Trump tried to conceal an "illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election." Bragg has alleged that Trump falsified records in an effort to prevent damaging stories from emerging during the 2016 presidential campaign. Bragg says Trump falsified records to hide payments to attorney Michael Cohen for him to pay Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal and former doorman Dino Sajudin. 

Bragg says business records relating to the payments were falsified in order to disguise the conduct. 

Prosecutors say the Trump Organization paid Cohen in monthly installments and a year-end bonus check. 

The charges Trump faces in New York are considered a Class E felony, the lowest among felony counts in New York. The charges are arguably the least serious among the four criminal cases Trump faces.

Trump has tried to delay this trial numerous times. On Monday, Merchan denied a motion from Trump's team to recuse himself. 

SEE MORE: Trump set to begin criminal trial, first ever in the US

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

Selecting a jury could pose a challenge, given that Trump is a prominent political figure seeking the presidency this November. 

The jury pool will consist of over 500 prospective jurors, Merchan said, in a process that could take up to two weeks. The first prospective jurors were questioned about things like where they get their news and their feelings about Trump. They were also questioned about whether they or a relative have worked for Trump, supported groups such as QAnon and Proud Boys, follow Trump on social media, donated to his campaign or attended a Trump rally. 

In a February hearing, prosecutors and Trump's defense spent hours debating on questions to pose to the jury pool. 

Merchan said questions to jurors should be about whether someone can be fair and impartial, adding that if jurors are eliminated based on their political parties, then the two sides will run out of jurors to strike. They will need to find 12 jurors and six alternates to serve. 

Once a jury is selected, prosecutors and Trump's defense can begin presenting evidence and calling witnesses. 

There is still a question regarding when opening statements will actually begin, and they may be delayed until May, which could force the former president to miss his son's high school graduation. 

Trump's legal team requested permission from the judge for him to attend Barron Trump's mid-May graduation during the trial. But the judge couldn't commit to the date, citing uncertainty about the trial's duration.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Sunday he will try to advance wartime aid for Israel this week as he attempts the difficult task of winning House approval for a national security package that also includes funding for Ukraine and allies in Asia.

Johnson, R-La., is already under immense political pressure from his fellow GOP lawmakers as he tries to stretch between the Republican Party's divided support for helping Kyiv defend itself from Moscow's invasion. The Republican speaker has sat for two months on a $95 billion supplemental package that would send support to the U.S. allies, as well as provide humanitarian aid for civilians in Ukraine and Gaza and funding to replenish U.S. weapons provided to Taiwan.

The attack by Iran on Israel early Sunday further ratcheted up the pressure on Johnson, but also gave him an opportunity to underscore the urgency of approving the funding.

Johnson told Fox News Channel's "Sunday Morning Futures" that he and Republicans "understand the necessity of standing with Israel" and he would try this week to advance the aid.

"The details of that package are being put together right now," he said. "We're looking at the options and all these supplemental issues."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer at a news conference also said that President Biden held a phone call Sunday with the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, including Johnson. The New York Democrat said there was consensus "among all the leaders that we had to help Israel and help Ukraine, and now hopefully we can work that out and get this done next week."

"It's vital for the future of Ukraine, for Israel and the West," Schumer said.

Johnson has also "made it clear" to fellow House Republicans that he will this week push to package together the aid for Israel, Ukraine and allies in Asia and pass it through the House, said GOP Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The speaker has expressed support for legislation that would structure some of the funding for Kyiv as loans, pave the way for the U.S. to tap frozen Russian central bank assets and include other policy changes. Johnson has pushed for the Biden administration to lift a pause on approvals for Liquefied Natural Gas exports and at times has also demanded policy changes at the U.S. border with Mexico.

But currently, the only package with wide bipartisan support in Congress is the Senate-passed bill that includes roughly $60 billion for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby called on the speaker to put that package "on the floor as soon as possible."

"We didn't need any reminders in terms of what's going on in Ukraine," Kirby said on NBC. "But last night certainly underscores significantly the threat that Israel faces in a very, very tough neighborhood."

As Johnson searches for a way to advance the funding for Ukraine, he has been in conversations with both the White House and former president Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

SEE MORE: Rep. Jason Crow talks Ukraine, backing Speaker Johnson on 'The Race'

With his job under threat, Johnson traveled to Florida on Friday for an event with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club. Trump expressed support for Johnson and said he had a "very good relationship" with him.

"He and I are 100% united on these big agenda items," Johnson said. "When you talk about aid to Ukraine, he's introduced the loan-lease concept which is a really important one and I think has a lot of consensus."

But Trump, with his "America First" agenda, has inspired many Republicans to push for a more isolationist stance. Support for Ukraine has steadily eroded in the roughly two years since the war began, and a cause that once enjoyed wide support has become one of Johnson's toughest problems.

When he returns to Washington on Monday, Johnson also will be facing a contingent of conservatives already angry with how he has led the House in maintaining much of the status quo both on government spending and more recently, a U.S. government surveillance tool.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a right-wing Republican from Georgia, has called for Johnson's ouster. She departed the Capitol on Friday telling reporters that support for her effort was growing. And as Johnson on Sunday readied to advance the aid, Greene said on X that it was "antisemitic to make Israeli aid contingent" on aid for Ukraine.

While no other Republicans have openly joined Greene in calling to oust Johnson, a growing number of hardline conservatives are openly disparaging Johnson and defying his leadership.

Meanwhile, senior GOP lawmakers who support aid to Ukraine are growing frustrated with the months-long wait to bring it to the House floor. Kyiv's troops have been running low on ammunition and Russia is becoming emboldened as it looks to gain ground in a spring and summer offensive. A massive missile and drone attack destroyed one of Ukraine's largest power plants and damaged others last week.

"What happened in Israel last night happens in Ukraine every night," said Rep. Michael McCaul, the Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The divided dynamic has forced Johnson to try to stitch together a package that has some policy wins for Republicans while also keeping Democrats on board. Democrats, however, have repeatedly called on the speaker to put the $95 billion package passed by the Senate in February on the floor.

Although progressive Democrats have resisted supporting the aid to Israel over concerns it would support its campaign into Gaza that has killed thousands of civilians, most House Democrats have gotten behind supporting the Senate package.

"The reason why the Senate bill is the only bill is because of the urgency," Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said last week. "We pass the Senate bill, it goes straight to the president's desk and you start getting the aid to Ukraine immediately. That's the only option."

Many Democrats also have signaled they would likely be willing to help Johnson defeat an effort to remove him from the speaker's office if he puts the Senate bill on the floor.

"I'm one of those who would save him if we can do Israel, Taiwan, Ukraine and some reasonable border security," said Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat.

President Joe Biden convened the Group of Seven advanced democracies on Sunday to coordinate a rebuke to Iran for its unprecedented and largely unsuccessful aerial attack on Israel and to prevent a wider regional escalation.

The United States assisted Israel in shooting down dozens of drones and missiles fired by Tehran in what was the first time that Iran has launched a direct military assault on Israel. Israeli authorities said 99% of the inbound weapons were shot down without causing any significant damage.

"At my direction, to support the defense of Israel, the U.S. military moved aircraft and ballistic missile defense destroyers to the region over the course of the past week," Biden said in a statement late Saturday. "Thanks to these deployments and the extraordinary skill of our servicemembers, we helped Israel take down nearly all of the incoming drones and missiles."

SEE MORE: US shoots down Iran-launched attack drones, Biden pledges 'support'

Read President Joe Biden's full statement:

Biden, in a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that night, urged that Israel claim victory for its defense prowess as the president aimed to dissuade America's closest Mideast ally from a larger retaliatory strike against Iran. Biden, according to a senior administration official, told Netanyahu that the U.S. would not participate in any offensive action against Iran. The official was not authorized to publicly discuss the private conversation and spoke on condition of anonymity.

"I told him that Israel demonstrated a remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks -– sending a clear message to its foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel," Biden said in his statement.

The G7 meeting, Biden said, is intended "to coordinate a united diplomatic response to Iran's brazen attack."

The effort to encourage Israel to show restraint mirrored ongoing American efforts to curtail Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza, which is now in its seventh month, and to do more to protect civilian lives in the territory.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, criticized the White House for "leaking it to the press" that Biden told Netanyahu to take the win and not retaliate.

Rubio told CNN's "State of the Union" that it was "part of the White House's efforts to appease" people calling for a cease-fire in Gaza.

President Joe Biden has won both the Wyoming and Alaska primaries moving him further towards claiming the Democratic party nomination in the race for reelection to the White House, state election officials announced on Saturday. 

DDHQ reported that both the Alaska Democratic Party and the Wyoming Democratic county parties said President Biden won those state primaries based on results election officials provided. 

SEE MORE: Trump challenges Biden to debate after dodging GOP rivals

President Biden had essentially nabbed the Democratic nomination with his Georgia primary win on March 12, the Associated Press reported. It is very likely that the current president will face former President Donald Trump, a Republican, in November. 

As Scripps News reported, the Supreme Court ruled that states can't disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot. President Biden, 81, has sought support as he prepares to face former President Trump once again in the 2024 race for the White House. 

The primary wins in Alaska and Wyoming — two very sparsely populated U.S. states — will play a very small role in general election voting.

On this edition of “Inside the Race Weekend,” Politico National Reporter Elena Schneider joined Scripps News Congressional Correspondent Nate Reed and Scripps News White House Correspondent Haley Bull to discuss how the ruling on abortion access in Arizona will affect the presidential election. 

Schneider highlighted how President Joe Biden is historically uncomfortable addressing the issue of abortion head on and often avoids using the word. 

Bull explained the balancing act former President Donald Trump is performing when discussing abortion on his campaign trail. 

Reed discussed the role of Congress when it comes to this issue.

SEE MORE: Inside the Race: GOP fundraising in March, issues impacting campaigns

President Joe Biden returned to Washington on Saturday to consult with his national security team about events in the Middle East as tensions in the region elevate even further amid threats from Iran. 

On Saturday Israel's military said Iran had launched drones toward Israel that were expected to arrive within hours of their launch. 

Earlier this week Israel's foreign minister made strong statements warning that his country would strike Iran directly if the Islamic Republic attacked its territory. 

President Biden was on a weekend trip to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware when he returned to the White House Saturday afternoon. 

The White House later released a statement acknowledging "airborne strikes" against Israel were started, and said the president's national security team members were in constant contact with Israeli officials. 

The White House said Saturday afternoon "this attack is likely to unfold over a number of hours." 

The statement said, "President Biden has been clear: our support for Israel's security is ironclad. The United States will stand with the people of Israel and support their defense against these threats from Iran."

The president was seen boarding Marine One after leaving Gordons Pond in Rehoboth Beach, headed back to Washington. His motorcade was seen later arriving in Washington to head back to the White House. 

SEE MORE: Hunter Biden's bid to dismiss gun case rejected by judge

Israel Katz said in a post on X in both Farsi and Hebrew, "If Iran attacks from its territory, Israel will respond and attack in Iran."

Gallant said, "we are determined to take any measures required to defend the citizens of the State of Israel."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "We appreciate the U.S. standing alongside Israel, as well as the support of Britain, France and many other countries. We have determined a clear principle: Whoever harms us, we will harm them. We will defend ourselves against any threat and will do so level-headedly and with determination."

The statement said Israel has "added new capabilities — on land, in the air, at sea" in its "intelligence directorate, within the State of Israel and together with" partners "led by the United States."

On Saturday commandos from Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard were seen in video boarding a ship from a helicopter. The vessel was an Israeli-affiliated container ship near the Strait of Hormuz. Commandos seized the vessel Saturday, the Associated Press reported. 

Iran vowed to retaliate after Israel attacked its embassy compound in Damascus, Syria last week. 

President Biden told reporters on Friday he expected a possible attack on Israel to happen "sooner rather than later." 

Tensions have been high in the Middle East since the conflict between Israel and Hamas flared up after the Oct. 7 terror attacks in Israel. 

In late January President Biden vowed to respond after three American troops were killed and dozens were injured in a drone strike in Jordan near the Syrian border. 

Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, a Democrat who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Scripps News’ "The Race" this weekend to talk Ukraine aid and the fight to pass aid in the House of Representatives.

Crow discussed the need for additional assistance with moderator Joe St. George.

“The situation is very dire in Ukraine,” Crow said. “We are starting to see the impact on the battlefield.” 

“This is not a charity bill,” Crow added. “This is for American national security.” 

St. George asked if a Ukraine vote is expected this coming week.

“I just don’t know what is going on in the mind of Speaker Johnson,” Crow said.

“I’ve heard his intent is to put a bill on the floor next week."

St. George asked if Crow was worried about corruption, as a number of conservatives have expressed concern about the $100 billion plus in American taxpayer dollars that has already been given to Ukraine. The Senate-passed bill would give an additional $60 billion to Ukraine.

“There is no evidence of any large-scale diversion or misuse of this aid,” Crow said.

A major political question facing Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is whether putting a bill to help Ukraine on the floor might cost him the gavel. A number of Republicans have said that any new aid to Ukraine could result in another speaker fight.

St. George asked Crow if he would be willing to vote for Johnson as Speaker if he agreed to put aid to Ukraine on the floor.

“I am not going to answer a hypothetical unless Speaker Johnson comes and asks that,” Crow said.

As far as whether Crow and other Democrats would accept changes to the bill to make it a loan to Ukraine as opposed to outright aid to Ukraine, Crow said that the House should take the Senate bill up first.

“If they aren’t willing to do this, then yes we have to look at what we can negotiate and what we are able to do,” Crow said.

SEE MORE: Japanese PM Fumio Kishida urges unity in address to US Congress

A significant number of educators in the U.S. — about 1 in 4 — said they have experienced their school going on a gun-related lockdown in the last year, according to data published online by the Pew Research Center this week. 

School shootings are at record levels. Education Week said the overall number of school shooting incidents in 2023 was the second-highest for any year since the organization began tracking them in 2018. 

According to the CNN school shootings database — which Pew used in its published findings — by early March, 2024 had seen at least 16 school shootings. 2023 saw 82 shootings, and 79 were recorded for 2022. There were 73 in 2021, and during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 there were still 22 shootings. Just 7% of teachers surveyed by Pew in the latest study data said they were not worried at all about a shooting happening at their school, even with statistical data at such a high level in recent years. 

Meanwhile, 31% of teachers said they were not "too worried" about a shooting occurring at their school, Pew said. 

SEE MORE: Pandemic changed older adults' fears, social lives, data finds

The findings showed that around a quarter of teachers — around 23% — said they had experienced a lockdown during the 2022-2023 school year, either because of an actual firearm on campus or because of the suspicion that a firearm was present and presenting some danger. 

Pew found that high school teachers were most likely to report having experienced a gun-related lockdown, while 22% of middle school teachers and 16% of elementary school teachers reported the same situation for their grade levels. The survey data found that around 4 in 10 teachers — just around 39% — reported believing their school had done a fair to poor job in terms of providing training and resources needed to handle a possible active shooter. 

Just 30% of those surveyed said their school performed at an excellent level when it came to providing resources and knowledge to deal with an active shooter. 

Just around 13% of teachers said they believed allowing educators and administrators to be armed in schools would be "extremely or very effective at preventing school shootings." Around 7 in 10 teachers reported believing carrying a gun would be "not too or not at all effective" in preventing school shootings. 

Pew found that most parents — 63% — believed that improving mental health screenings and mental health treatment would be the only strategy that would turn out to be "extremely or very effective at preventing" a shooting at their child's school. 

A federal judge in Delaware refused Friday to throw out a federal gun case against Hunter Biden, rejecting the president's son's claim that he is being prosecuted for political purposes as well as other arguments.

U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika's ruling increases the prospect that Biden could face trial in the case as early as June, in the midst of his father’s reelection campaign. His efforts to scuttle the other criminal case he faces in California involving tax allegations have also failed.

Norieka denied several defense requests to dismiss the case that charges Biden with lying about his drug use in October 2018 on a form to buy a gun that he kept for about 11 days.

His lawyers had argued the case was politically motivated and asserted that an immunity provision from an original plea deal that fell apart still holds. They had also challenged the appointment of Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel to lead the prosecution.

Noreika, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, has not yet ruled on a challenge to the constitutionality of the gun charges.

Biden has pleaded not guilty. A representative for his legal team didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The president's son has acknowledged struggling with an addiction to crack cocaine during that period in 2018, but his lawyers have said he didn't break the law and another nonviolent, first-time offender would not have been charged.

SEE MORE: In visit to Arizona, VP Harris rebukes Trump on abortion

The yearslong investigation had looked ready to wrap up with a plea deal last year, but the agreement imploded after a judge raised questions about it. Biden was subsequently indicted.

Under the deal, he would have gotten a plea deal in which he would have gotten two years’ probation after pleading guilty to misdemeanor tax charges. He also would have avoided prosecution on the gun charge if he stayed out of trouble. He was subsequently indicted.

Hunter Biden's attorneys have argued that prosecutors bowed to political pressure to indict the president’s son amid heavy criticism of the plea deal from Trump and other Republicans.

Prosecutors countered the evidence against him was "overwhelming," including cocaine residue found in the pouch where he stored his gun, and noted that charges had been filed during the presidency of his father, Joe Biden.

Norieka said in her ruling that Biden's team provided "nothing concrete" to support a conclusion that anyone actually influenced the special counsel's team.

"The pressure campaign from Congressional Republicans may have occurred around the time that Special Counsel decided to move forward with indictment instead of pretrial diversion, but the Court has been given nothing credible to suggest that the conduct of those lawmakers (or anyone else) had any impact on Special Counsel," the judge wrote. "It is all speculation."

Hunter Biden faces separate tax counts in Los Angeles alleging he failed to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes over three years while living an “extravagant lifestyle” during his days of using drugs. The judge overseeing that case knocked down eight motions to dismiss those charges earlier this month. That trial is scheduled to begin in June.

It seems New York City leaders have again concluded that they can't kill enough rat lives to solve their problem, so why not try to nip the issue at the bud instead?

The metropolis' city council introduced a bill Thursday that would establish a "rat contraceptive" pilot program (yes, those two words are really right next to each other).

The program would require the state's Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene alongside Sanitation to deploy pellet-like contraceptives in two designated "rat mitigation zones," each stretching at least 10 city blocks. Then each month for a year, the DOHMH will have to inspect the areas to tally "all rat signs" and report the findings to the mayor and council speaker.

Councilmember Shaun Abreu, the bill's prime sponsor, says the "humane alternative to rodenticides" is more effective at reducing the number of rats in the city and is safer for other animals. It's a particular issue after Flaco, an owl who escaped the Central Park Zoo, died in part due to ingesting too much rat poison. 

SEE MORE: Flaco, the iconic New York City owl, had rat poison in his system

"Flaco deserved a city that doesn't poison its own wildlife," Abreu said in a post on X announcing the legislation, which is nicknamed "Flaco's Law."

It's the latest attempt New York City has made to control its bustling rat population. Besides poison, they've tried traps, keeping trash in containers, a "rat czar" and even "rat academies" to teach about rodent mitigation. 

But even though the introduction of contraceptives might sound like a wild addition, it's not the first time the city's tried it. Last year, the city tried using the same contraception method but in liquid form in Bryant Park, and it failed. Abreu told Gothamist the pellet form is more successful and that the other program was too short.

If Abreu's pilot program is successful, providing enough contraceptives to the entire rat population in the city might prove another obstacle according to Loretta Mayer, a scientist working with Abreu who created the contraceptive, per The New York Times. But she told the outlet the cost is low; it'd just be a matter of production.

Former President Donald Trump is set to begin jury selection Monday in his first  criminal trial, and the first Americans have seen of a former commander in chief. The indictment includes 34 criminal counts detailing 11 invoices by Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, and dozens of allegedly false business records.

They consist of payments that happened during the 2016 election to allegedly silence stories from a doorman from Trump Tower, former playmate Karen McDougal, and adult film star Stormy Daniels. These payments all occurred before voters went to the polls.

The crux of the case centers around the more than $400,000 Michael Cohen received as repayment during Trump's first year in the Oval Office. 

The alleged hush money payments were listed in the Trump ledger as a "legal retainer," something prosecutors say was done to hide the expenses.

"What they're going to try to establish is that he was trying to be deceptive in how he put that in his checkbook register, as opposed to just kind of generally putting in their legal expense," said former federal prosecutor Andrew Cherkasky.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. initially declined to bring charges against Trump, but when Alvin Bragg assumed office, he picked the case back up. Both Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen could testify during the six-week trial.

But the former President isn't heading into Monday's trial date without a fight. He's made numerous failed attempts to get the case dismissed, including as recently as Wednesday.

"We want delays," he said back in February. "I'm running for election. How can you run for election when you're sitting in a courthouse in Manhattan all day long?"

SEE MORE: Manhattan court needs jurors for its criminal case against Trump

Trump's team has also made multiple efforts to push Judge Juan Merchan to recuse himself because of his daughter's involvement with Democratic politics. Merchan has denied the requests, saying he will be able to be impartial. He sought insight from a judge panel last summer which also approved the move.

"That gives the judge a good basis to remain on the case. It doesn't, though, extinguish the concern of the defense," Cherkasky explained. "And so no matter how many times the judge assures a defense team that they can be fair and neutral, obviously, that defense team, if they think that things are not going their way or if they think that the judge is acting in an unfair manner, may continue to come back to that."

Trump has not taken the decision well. He's continually posted on his Truth Social accounts criticizing the judge, his family, the district attorney and others. Merchan responded by imposing a partial gag order. Cherkasky says that could have an impact during the sentencing phase should he be found guilty.

"If he makes the judge mad enough, if he is wild enough in his antics in the courtroom or in the way in which he portrays himself if he were to testify in this case — if he is particularly indignant, a judge does have some room with a conviction like this to order some amount of jail time," Cherkasky said.

Cherkasky added that there is at least one last potential delay tactic left: Trump could fire his entire defense team as late as the morning of the trial. He'd tell the judge he's lost confidence in his team. That would give him time to find new counsel and have them prepare.

"I'm sure the judge would feign some degree of frustration over, and probably the prosecutors as well. But that is not something that there is much wiggle room in the law on if he chooses to do it," he added.

Cherkasky says despite the fact that there are nine times more Democratic voters than Republicans in Manhattan, he doesn't believe it's a slam dunk case for Bragg's team.

The Republican-led Tennessee Legislature has overwhelmingly voted to send GOP Gov. Bill Lee a proposal that would ban marriage between first cousins.

The House cast a 75-2 vote Thursday on the bill after the Senate previously approved it without any opposition.

But a particularly vocal opponent, Republican Rep. Gino Bulso, took up most of the debate time, as he argued for an amendment to allow first-cousin marriages if the couple first seeks counseling from a genetic counselor.

In a previous committee hearing on the bill, Bulso lightheartedly shared a story about how his grandparents were first cousins who came to the U.S. from Italy in the 1920s, then traveled from Ohio to Tennessee to get married. He and other lawmakers laughed, and Bulso voted for the bill in that committee.

Then during Thursday's floor debate, the socially conservative attorney argued that the risk of married cousins having a child with birth defects does not exist for gay couples. He contended there is no compelling government interest to ban same-sex cousins from getting married, saying that would run afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court's gay-marriage decision.

He also couched his argument by saying that he thought the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage was "grievously wrong." Bulso has supported legislation aimed at the LGBTQ+ community. That includes a bill he is sponsoring that would largely ban displaying Pride flags in public school classrooms, which civil liberties advocates have contended runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

"The question is, is there a public health issue with a male marrying a male first cousin?" Bulso said. "And I think the answer is no."

Ultimately, lawmakers voted down Bulso's amendment and approved the ban proposed by Democratic Rep. Darren Jernigan.

"I hope it's safe to say that in 2024, we can close this loophole," Jernigan said.

Jernigan said a 1960 attorney general's opinion determined that an 1820s Tennessee law restricting some marriages among relatives does not prevent first cousins from marrying. He responded to Bulso that there was no violation to the gay marriage ruling in his bill.

Republican Rep. Monty Fritts was the other lawmaker to vote against the bill.

SEE MORE: Ciara learns she's related to Derek Jeter after surprising DNA test

Of the 1.4 million adults who live in Manhattan, a dozen are soon to become the first Americans to sit in judgment of a former president charged with a crime.

Jury selection is set to start Monday in former President Donald Trump's hush money case — the first trial among four criminal prosecutions of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The proceedings present a historic challenge for the court, the lawyers and the everyday citizens who find themselves in the jury pool.

“There is no question that picking a jury in a case involving someone as familiar to everyone as former President Trump poses unique problems,” one of the trial prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, said during a hearing.

Those problems include finding people who can be impartial about one of the most polarizing figures in American life and detecting any bias among prospective jurors without invading the privacy of the ballot box.

There's also the risk that people may try to game their way onto the jury to serve a personal agenda. Or they may be reluctant to decide a case against a politician who has used his social media megaphone to tear into court decisions that go against him and has tens of millions of fervent supporters.

Still, if jury selection will be tricky, it's not impossible, says John Jay College of Criminal Justice psychology professor Margaret Bull Kovera.

"There are people who will look at the law, look at the evidence that’s shown and make a decision," says Kovera, whose research includes the psychology of juries. “And the job of the judge and the attorneys right now is to figure out who those people are.”

Trump has pleaded not guilty to fudging his company’s books as part of an effort to conceal payments made to hide claims of extramarital sex during his 2016 campaign. He denies the encounters and contends the case is a legally bogus, politically engineered effort to sabotage his current run.

He will go on trial in a criminal court system where juries have decided cases against a roster of famous names, including mob boss John Gotti, disgraced film mogul Harvey Weinstein and Trump's own company.

Over the last year, writer E. Jean Carroll's sex assault and defamation civil suits against Trump went before juries in a nearby federal courthouse. New York state's fraud lawsuit against the ex-president and his company went to trial without a jury last fall in a state court next door.

But the hush-money case, which carries the possibility of up to four years in prison if he's convicted, raises the stakes.

Trump lived for decades in Manhattan, where he first made his name as a swaggering real estate developer with a flair for publicity. As Steinglass put it, “There is no chance that we’re going to find a single juror that doesn’t have a view” of Trump.

But the question isn't whether a prospective juror does or doesn't like Trump or anyone else in the case, Judge Juan M. Merchan wrote in a filing Monday. Rather, he said, it's whether the person can “set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law."

SEE MORE: Judge denies Trump bid to dismiss classified documents prosecution

The process of choosing a jury begins when Merchan fills his New Deal-era courtroom with prospective jurors, giving them a brief description of the case and other basics. Then the judge will excuse any people who indicate by a show of hands that they can’t serve or can’t be fair and impartial, he wrote.

Those who remain will be called in groups into the jury box — by number, as their names won't be made public — to answer 42 questions, some with multiple parts.

Some are standard inquiries about prospective jurors' backgrounds. But the two sides have vigorously debated what, if anything, prospective jurors should be asked about their political activities and opinions.

Merchan emphasized that he won’t let the lawyers ask about jurors’ voting choices, political contributions or party registration.

But the approved questionnaire asks, for example, whether someone has “political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions” that might “slant your approach to this case." Another query probes whether prospective jurors support any of a half-dozen far-right or far-left groups, have attended Trump or anti-Trump rallies, and have worked or volunteered for Trump or for organizations that criticize him.

Potential jurors also will be quizzed about any “strong opinions or firmly held beliefs” about Trump or his candidacy that would cloud their ability to be fair, any feelings about how Trump is being treated in the case and any “strong opinions” on whether ex-presidents can be charged in state courts.

The process of choosing 12 jurors and six alternates can be chesslike, as the opposing sides try to game out whom they want and whom their adversaries want. They must also weigh which prospective jurors they can challenge as unable to serve or be impartial and when it’s worth using one of their limited chances to rule someone out without giving a reason.

“A lot of times you make assumptions, and arguably stereotypes, about people that aren't true, so it’s important to listen to what they say” in court and, if possible, online, says Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a University of Dayton law professor who studies juries.

In prominent cases, courts and attorneys watch out for “stealth jurors," people trying to be chosen because they want to steer the verdict, profit off the experience or have other private motives.

Conversely, some people might want to avoid the attention that comes with a case against a famous person. To try to address that, Merchan decided to shield the jurors' names from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their respective legal teams.

The six jurors and three alternates in each of Carroll’s federal civil cases against Trump were driven to and from court through an underground garage, and their names were withheld from the public, Carroll, Trump, their attorneys and even the judge.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, says that if she were involved in the hush-money case, she would ask the court to do everything possible to ensure that jurors stay anonymous and don’t fear being singled out online or in the media.

“The main concern, given the world we live in, has to be the potential for juror intimidation,” Kaplan said.

Jurors were chosen within hours for both trials of Carroll's claims, which Trump denies. Carroll's lawyers later tried midtrial to boot a juror who had mentioned listening to a conservative podcaster who criticized Carroll's case. The judge privately queried the juror, who insisted he could be fair and impartial.

He remained on the panel, which unanimously found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million. Eight months later, the second jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.5 million for defamation.

Colorado state Rep. Don Wilson left a loaded 9mm handgun in a bathroom at the state Capitol on Tuesday.

The Colorado State Patrol said it received a report on Tuesday night about a gun left on a shelf in a bathroom. The agency said the gun was unsupervised for more than 20 minutes before cleaning staff discovered it.

The gun was located after 9 p.m. The Colorado capitol building closes to the public at 7 p.m.

According to Colorado State Police, no laws were broken and no one will be charged in the incident.

Wilson, a Republican, released a statement on Wednesday.

"I want to be clear I take full and complete accountability for the incident. I made a mistake and am very sorry," Wilson said. "I take firearm safety very seriously. This is a humbling experience and I will reaffirm my commitment to responsible handling procedures."

Democratic House Speaker Julie McCluskie warned that “this incident created a dangerous situation.”

The Colorado Senate is currently considering a bill, introduced in February, that would expand bans on carrying firearms into certain public spaces, including the state Capitol, state government buildings, schools and courthouses. Violation would be considered a misdemeanor punishable by $1,000 fine or jail time not to exceed one year.

SEE MORE: New Biden administration rule aims to end gun show 'loophole'

Vice President Kamala Harris directly blamed former President Donald Trump for an abortion ban in Arizona during a campaign stop in Tucson Friday.  

The Biden-Harris campaign has sought to underscore the stakes of reproductive rights with the 2024 election, and draw a sharp contrast between President Biden and former President Donald Trump.  

The Arizona Supreme Court's decision to allow a Civil War-era abortion ban to take effect put the issue front and center in the Southwestern swing state.  

"Donald Trump is the architect of this health care crisis," Harris said. "That is not a fact, by the way, that he hides. In fact he brags about it. Just this week he said that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for overturning Roe. Proudly responsible for the pain and suffering of millions of women and families. Proudly responsible that he took your freedoms."

“Here’s what a second Trump term looks like: more bans, more suffering, less freedom. But we are not going to let that happen,” Harris said.

Harris has taken a prominent role in sharing both the campaign and the White House’s message on the issue.  

Harris late last week made clear that the focus of this visit would be on reproductive rights, a pivot from an initial focus on student debt, according to a source familiar with the vice president's plans.  

She visited Arizona last month as part of a reproductive freedoms tour that took her to several battleground states, after touring colleges.  

Harris has taken part in more than 80 official engagements since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. That includes meetings with state legislators and conversations with impacted patients and reproductive rights groups, as well as providers. She shared concerns over the potential impacts of the overturn of Roe on IVF and contraception going back to 2022, as courts now grapple with rulings on mifepristone and IVF.  

Trump, who touts the overturn of Roe v. Wade and his appointment of the Supreme Court justices who facilitated it, has recently said that Arizona went too far, while sharing a view that he supports states' rights.  

“So now the Governor and the Arizona Legislature must use HEART, COMMON SENSE, and ACT IMMEDIATELY, to remedy what has happened. Remember, it is now up to the States and the Good Will of those that represent THE PEOPLE,” Trump wrote on Truth Social hours ahead of Harris’ stop.  

Trump has also said he would not sign a federal abortion ban if he were reelected. 

SEE MORE: How will Arizona's near-total ban on abortion be enforced?

The Biden-Harris campaign, however, is launching a new media investment in Arizona focused on abortion rights, underscoring Trump’s record. The message notably features a direct-to-camera message from President Biden, who promises to “fight like hell” for reproductive freedom. The ad is expected to target younger, female, and Latino voters. 

Democrats see abortion as an issue that could sway independent and moderate voters.  

Biden narrowly won Arizona in 2020, but has trailed Trump in recent polls. The campaign hopes abortion will be a motivating factor to change the polls.

Biden-Harris 2024 campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez wrote in a memo on Monday, “Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, voters have turned out time and again to defend reproductive freedom.” She added, “Headed into the 2024 election, President Biden and Vice President Harris remain on the right side of voters when it comes to fighting back against extreme MAGA bans — including in the key states that will determine this election.” 

In Tucson, Harris spoke in front of state leaders, leaders of reproductive rights groups, patients and providers. Her remarks were livestreamed to supporters on a campaign-organizing call. Second gentleman Douglas Emhoff was expected to hold a conversation with allied young men on the sidelines of the event.  

Harris is also expected to focus on reproductive rights on the campaign trail when in Nevada next week, according to a campaign official.  

A record number of prescription drugs are in short supply in the United States.

A total of 323 active drugs are experiencing a shortage, according to statistics from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

The organization said this is the highest number of shortages since they started tracking in 2001. The previous record was 320 shortages in 2014.

The CEO of the organization, Paul Abramowitz, wrote a response to the shortage in a blog post this week saying, “Much work remains to be done at the federal level to fix the root causes of drug shortages.”

So what drugs are affected?

@scrippsnews Have you been impacted by any drug shortages? According to statistics from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 323 active drugs are experiencing a shortage — the highest number of shortages since tracking began in 2001. The previous record was 320 shortages in 2014. #drugshortage #pharmacy #healthtok ♬ original sound - Scripps News

The report shows certain basic lifesaving products are in short supply, including oxytocin and pain and sedation medications.

ADHD medications as well as certain chemotherapy drugs are also in short supply.

The ASHP said some of the reasons behind all of these drug shortages include supply-and-demand issues, manufacturing problems, and business decisions.

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services outlined possible suggestions to help prevent drug shortages.

One of the recommendations included collaboration with the private sector to implement two programs: a Manufacturer Resiliency Assessment Program and a Hospital Resilient Supply Program. The HHS believes these initiatives could create more transparency in the market.

SEE MORE: More local pharmacies expected to disappear in 2024

Congress is facing another deadline. This time, lawmakers are trying to reauthorize an intelligence capability that advocates call an "essential tool in the war on terror."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, has been around since 1978. Section 702 of FISA was enacted after 9/11 with the goal of making it easier for the government to monitor foreign threats around the world.

The National Security Agency says section 702 is "the most significant tool in the NSA collection arsenal for the detection, identification, and disruption of terrorist threats." In 2022, it was used to collect the electronic communications, like emails, phone calls and texts, of nearly 250,000 foreigners.

"The information goes into the president's intelligence daily briefing. About 65% of that material comes from 702 collections. The idea that we would let that expire would be the height of national security irresponsibility," explained Sen. Mark Warner, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But data on Americans is inadvertently collected alongside the foreign targets. The government says protocols exist to protect Americans' privacy. But some argue those rules aren't enough and they want to see more reforms.

"Every agency that receives Section 702 data routinely searches through the data for the express purpose of finding and reviewing Americans' communications. The FBI conducted 200,000 of these backdoor searches in 2022 alone," said Elizabeth Goitein, the senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Some lawmakers want to leave the program as it is. Others want new procedures and rules to better protect Americans' privacy. That debate is what's slowing down reauthorization.

One reform considered, but voted down in the House of Representatives, would have required U.S. law enforcement agencies to get a warrant before searching data collected by Section 702.

"The only reason that the government was able to get these communications in the first instance without a warrant was by certifying that it was targeting only foreigners overseas. So if that premise shifts, and if the government is now trying to locate and find an American's communications, it should have to go back and get the warrant that it skipped at the front end," said Goitein. 

FBI Director Christoper Wray opposed the warrant requirement, saying it would slow down the agency's ability to disrupt terrorist and cybersecurity threats. Sen. Warner agrees, saying, "Those who either want to kill this legislation or cripple it with this warrant requirement, I think are just dead wrong."

Congress has until April 19 to reauthorize Section 702 surveillance and ensure the program can continue without disruptions. The House passed the reauthorization on Friday. It's now up to the Senate to meet the deadline. 

SEE MORE: House votes to reauthorize FISA spy program amid political pushback

The House of Representatives passed the reauthorization a national security surveillance tool.

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is running up against an April 19 deadline for reauthorization after lawmakers punted its renewal at the end 2023. 

The intelligence authority has received bipartisan scrutiny by lawmakers who have sought reforms. The authority allows targeted intelligence collection of non-Americans outside the U.S. and does not allow targeting of a U.S.citizen. However, it can incidentally include information concerning a U.S. person in contact with a non-American.

The House voted 273 to 147 on Friday to approve the reauthorization, sending it to the Senate. 

While the administration is supportive of a reauthorization bill, it is strongly opposed an amendment that would have required a warrant to query U.S. persons communication in the database. The amendment, which ultimately failed, brought some Republicans and progressive lawmakers together over the opposition to warrantless searches.  

The administration warned the amendment "would prohibit U.S. officials from reviewing critical information that the Intelligence Community has already lawfully collected, with exceptions that are exceedingly narrow and unworkable in practice."

FBI Director Christopher Wray said it was “crunch time,” warning lawmakers Wednesday, “failure to reauthorize 702 or gutting it with some kind of warrant requirement would be dangerous and put American lives at risk." 

SEE MORE: FBI director warns of potential terrorist attack against US

The reauthorization comes amid multiple global conflicts, including Russia’s war in Ukraine, Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and tensions in the Middle East.  

The timing also coincides with a “viable threat” from Iran which the administration has said it is watching “very closely.”  

While national security spokesman John Kirby would not comment on the use of 702 in monitoring that “potential attack,” he did emphasize during a press briefing it is “critical for all threats.” 

"It helped us uncover Russian atrocities in Ukraine, including the forced relocation to Russia of Ukrainian children, and attacks on Ukrainian refugees. And they've helped us disrupt an assassination plot on U.S. soil against a dissident by a hostile foreign power, which helps save the life of the intended victim,” Kirby said. “So, it is vital to our ability to defend ourselves, defend the American people.” 

The reauthorization has become entangled in Republican infighting in the House as Speaker Mike Johnson has navigated holding on to his seat amidst a razor-thin majority and challenges from members of the House Freedom Caucus and several conservative holdouts. An effort to bring the reauthorization bill to the floor Wednesday failed, though later passed along party lines on Friday. 

During debate on the House floor Friday, conservatives and progressives alike pushed for amendments which would require the U.S. Government to seek a warrant before conducting searches of American citizens’ data online. 

“We cannot pass this bill without additional protections,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal rallied Friday, adding, “We cannot pass this bill without requiring intelligence agencies to ensure that Americans privacy rights are upheld at every turn.” 

SEE MORE: Want to be a CIA security guard? Try to pass this physical test first

There is concern within the administration that “ultimately it’s not right to the country and our protecting of the American people to have critical national security lapse in that,” a senior administration official said.  

“I would assume that come April 19 a lot of these actors would think to themselves, OK, well, now I can talk to whomever I want however I want and the Americans are basically blind,” said Emily Harding, the director of the intelligence national security and technology program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

The warrant requirement could have been problematic given the time it would require when hours matters, explained Harding.  

Harding noted many of the searches are looking for a victim of a crime and “…the other piece is that it is in fact a US person that somehow involved in a plot against the United States. The way that you're going to find out about that to begin with is by looking at the collection, you're not going to have enough information upfront to get that warrant ahead of time, you don't know what you don't know yet.” 

While the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved a one year extension, officials do not see that as changing the urgency of passing reauthorization before the deadline. Though certifications would remain, a senior administration official warned that others may not share the view, and companies may challenge It in court.  

Harding said national security lawyers "feel very confident that the April 19 extension will hold up in court, when you talk to them about pushing that out for the entire year, it's like they can see the potential judicial challenges coming down the pike and they just really don't want to have to go there. They feel like they are on OK national security grounds by pursuing that one year extension, but it could be heavily litigated by those who oppose the program.” 

"I can't imagine working in today's counterterrorism environment without FISA Section 702, and I don't know how we would replace it if it were gone. Our number one mission is to protect the United States homeland from a diverse array of threats, and speed is of the essence to fulfill this mission,” said Christy Abizaid, director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

A board of intelligence advisers warned failure to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act could be “one of the worst intelligence failures of our time,” while also recommending more limits on the FBI’s use of the intelligence database and more oversight in a report released last year.  

Don Beyer's car dealerships were among the first in the U.S. to set up a website. As a U.S. representative, the Virginia Democrat leads a bipartisan group focused on promoting fusion energy. He reads books about geometry for fun.

So when questions about regulating artificial intelligence emerged, the 73-year-old Beyer took what for him seemed like an obvious step, enrolling at George Mason University to get a master’s degree in machine learning. In an era when lawmakers and Supreme Court justices sometimes concede they don't understand emerging technology, Beyer's journey is an outlier, but it highlights a broader effort by members of Congress to educate themselves about artificial intelligence as they consider laws that would shape its development.

Frightening to some, thrilling to others, baffling to many: Artificial intelligence has been called a transformative technology, a threat to democracy or even an existential risk for humanity. It will fall to members of Congress to figure out how to regulate the industry in a way that encourages its potential benefits while mitigating the worst risks.

But first they have to understand what AI is, and what it isn't.

“I tend to be an AI optimist,” Beyer told The Associated Press following a recent afternoon class on George Mason's campus in suburban Virginia. "We can't even imagine how different our lives will be in five years, 10 years, 20 years, because of AI. ... There won’t be robots with red eyes coming after us any time soon. But there are other deeper existential risks that we need to pay attention to.”

SEE MORE: Congress plans to tackle AI in 2024 in 'bite-sized' pieces

Risks like massive job losses in industries made obsolete by AI, programs that retrieve biased or inaccurate results, or deepfake images, video and audio that could be leveraged for political disinformation, scams or sexual exploitation. On the other side of the equation, onerous regulations could stymie innovation, leaving the U.S. at a disadvantage as other nations look to harness the power of AI.

Striking the right balance will require input not only from tech companies but also from the industry's critics, as well as from the industries that AI may transform. While many Americans may have formed their ideas about AI from science fiction movies like “The Terminator” or “The Matrix,” it's important that lawmakers have a clear-eyed understanding of the technology, said Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and the chairman of the House's AI Task Force.

When lawmakers have questions about AI, Obernolte is one of the people they seek out. He studied engineering and applied science at the California Institute of Technology and earned an M.S. in artificial intelligence at UCLA. The California Republican also started his own video game company. Obernolte said he's been “very pleasantly impressed” with how seriously his colleagues on both sides of the aisle are taking their responsibility to understand AI.

That shouldn't be surprising, Obernolte said. After all, lawmakers regularly vote on bills that touch on complicated legal, financial, health and scientific subjects. If you think computers are complicated, check out the rules governing Medicaid and Medicare.

SEE MORE: Artificial intelligence introduces new ethical issues to newsgathering

Keeping up with the pace of technology has challenged Congress since the steam engine and the cotton gin transformed the nation's industrial and agricultural sectors. Nuclear power and weaponry is another example of a highly technical subject that lawmakers have had to contend with in recent decades, according to Kenneth Lowande, a University of Michigan political scientist who has studied expertise and how it relates to policy-making in Congress.

Federal lawmakers have created several offices — the Library of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, etc. — to provide resources and specialized input when necessary. They also rely on staff with specific expertise on subject topics, including technology.

Then there's another, more informal form of education that many members of Congress receive.

"They have interest groups and lobbyists banging down their door to give them briefings,” Lowande said.

Beyer said he's had a lifelong interest in computers and that when AI emerged as a topic of public interest he wanted to know more. A lot more. Almost all of his fellow students are decades younger; most don't seem that fazed when they discover their classmate is a congressman, Beyer said.

He said the classes, which he fits in around his busy congressional schedule — are already paying off. He's learned about the development of AI and the challenges facing the field. He said it's helped him understand the challenges — biases, unreliable data — and the possibilities, like improved cancer diagnoses and more efficient supply chains.

SEE MORE: The next front in the AI wars: The courtroom

Beyer is also learning how to write computer code.

“I’m finding that learning to code — which is thinking in this sort of mathematical, algorithmic step-by-step, is helping me think differently about a lot of other things — how you put together an office, how you work a piece of legislation," Beyer said.

While a computer science degree isn't required, it's imperative that lawmakers understand AI's implications for the economy, national defense, health care, education, personal privacy and intellectual property rights, according to Chris Pierson, CEO of the cybersecurity firm BlackCloak.

“AI is not good or bad,” said Pierson, who formerly worked in Washington for the Department of Homeland Security. “It's how you use it.”

The work of safeguarding AI has already begun, though it's the executive branch leading the way so far. Last month, the White House unveiled new rules that require federal agencies to show their use of AI isn't harming the public. Under an executive order issued last year, AI developers must provide information on the safety of their products.

When it comes to more substantive action, America is playing catchup to the European Union, which recently enacted the world's first significant rules governing the development and use of AI. The rules prohibit some uses — routine AI-enabled facial recognition by law enforcement, for one — while requiring other programs to submit information about safety and public risks. The landmark law is expected to serve as a blueprint for other nations as they contemplate their own AI laws.

As Congress begins that process, the focus must be on “mitigating potential harm,” said Obernolte, who said he's optimistic that lawmakers from both parties can find common ground on ways to prevent the worst AI risks.

“Nothing substantive is going to get done that isn’t bipartisan,” he said.

To help guide the conversation lawmakers created a new AI task force (Obernolte is co-chairman), as well as an AI Caucus made up of lawmakers with a particular expertise or interest in the topic. They've invited experts to brief lawmakers on the technology and its impacts — and not just computer scientists and tech gurus either, but also representatives from different sectors that see their own risks and rewards in AI.

Rep. Anna Eshoo is the Democratic chairwoman of the caucus. She represents part of California's Silicon Valley and recently introduced legislation that would require tech companies and social media platforms like Meta, Google or TikTok to identify and label AI-generated deepfakes to ensure the public isn't misled. She said the caucus has already proved its worth as a “safe place” place where lawmakers can ask questions, share resources and begin to craft consensus.

“There isn’t a bad or silly question," she said. “You have to understand something before you can accept or reject it.”

The Biden administration is canceling student loans for another 206,000 borrowers as part of a new repayment plan that offers a faster route to forgiveness.

The Education Department announced the latest round of cancellations Friday in an update on the progress of its SAVE Plan. More people are becoming eligible for student loan cancellation as they hit 10 years of payments, a new finish line for some loans that’s a decade sooner than what borrowers faced in the past.

Casting a shadow over the cancellations, however, are two new lawsuits challenging the plan's legality. Two groups of Republican-led states, fronted by Kansas and Missouri, recently filed federal suits arguing that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in creating the repayment option.

“From day one of my Administration, I promised to fight to ensure higher education is a ticket to the middle class, not a barrier to opportunity,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “I will never stop working to cancel student debt — no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stop us.”

With the latest action, the Education Department has now approved cancellation for about 360,000 borrowers through the new repayment plan, totaling $4.8 billion.

The SAVE Plan is an updated version of a federal repayment plan that has been offered for decades, but with more generous terms.

Congress created the first income-driven repayment option in the 1990s for people struggling to afford payments on standard plans. It capped monthly payments to a percentage of their incomes and canceled any unpaid debt after 25 years. Similar plans were added later, offering cancellation in as little as 20 years.

"He's using the law as he found it when he came into office to try to make the student loan system work for people, and it's having effect," said Pierce.

Arguing that today's borrowers need even more help, the Biden administration merged most of those plans into a single repayment option with more lenient terms.

The SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) Plan allows more borrowers to pay nothing until their income rise above certain limits. It also lowers payments more than past plans, eliminates interest growth and cancels unpaid debt in as little as 10 years.

Biden announced the plan in 2022 alongside his broader proposal for a one-time cancellation of up to $20,000 for more than 40 million people. While the one-time cancellation was struck down by the Supreme Court, the SAVE Plan moved forward and initially escaped legal scrutiny.

SEE MORE: Biden promotes new 'life-changing' student loan relief plan

The repayment plan opened for enrollment last fall, with certain provisions scheduled to be phased in later this year. The faster path to cancellation was among those slated to start this summer, but the Biden administration fast-tracked that benefit early this year, announcing forgiveness for 153,000 borrowers who had hit 10 years of payments.

Almost 8 million Americans have enrolled in the plan, including 4.5 million who pay nothing because they have lower incomes.

In a call with reporters, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said the plan provides relief and prevents borrowers from falling behind on their loans.

“Now they have some money back in their pockets, instead of a bill that too often competed with basic needs like groceries and health care,” he said.

"For borrowers that took out $13,000 or less, they get their debt cancelled in 11 years. For people that took out $14,000 or yet less, they get their debt cancelled in 12 years and that goes on all the way up to 20," said Mike Pierce, executive director for the Student Borrower Protection Center.

The Biden administration says it's designed to help those who need it most. Counterintuitively, those with smaller student loan balances tend to struggle more. It’s driven by millions of Americans who take out student loans but don’t finish degrees, leaving them with the downside of debt without the upside of a higher income.

In two separate lawsuits, Republican attorneys general in 18 states are pushing to have the plan tossed and to halt any further cancellation. They say the SAVE Plan goes beyond President Biden’s authority and makes it harder for states to recruit employees. They say the plan undermines a separate cancellation program that encourages careers in public service.

It’s unclear what the suits could mean for loans that have already been canceled. A court document filed by Kansas' attorney general says it's “unrealistic to think that any loan forgiveness that occurs during this litigation will ever be clawed back.”

The lawsuits don't directly address the question, and the attorneys general didn't immediately respond to an Associated Press request.

The Education Department says Congress gave the agency power to define the terms of income-driven payment plans in 1993, and that authority has been used in the past.

Along with the repayment plan, President Biden is trying again at a one-time student loan cancellation. In a visit to Wisconsin on Monday, he highlighted a proposal to reduce or cancel loans for more than 30 million borrowers in five categories.

It aims to help borrowers with larges sums of unpaid interest, those with older loans, those who attended low-value programs, and those who face other hardships preventing them from repaying student loans. It would also cancel loans for people who are eligible for other forgiveness programs but haven't applied.

The Biden administration says it will accelerate parts of the proposal, with plans to start waiving unpaid interest for millions of borrowers starting this fall. Conservative opponents have threatened to challenge that plan, too.

On Friday the administration also said it's canceling loans for 65,000 borrowers who are enrolled in older income-driven repayment plans and hit the finish line for forgiveness. It also announced cancellation for another 5,000 borrowers through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Through a variety of programs, the Biden administration says it has now provided loan relief to 4.3 million people, totaling $153 billion.

The abortion law up for debate in Iowa bans most abortions after a heartbeat can be detected, usually at about six weeks, before most women know they are pregnant. There are exceptions for rape, incest, saving the life of the mother and life-threatening fetal abnormalities. 

Gov. Kim Reynolds signed it into law last July, and abortion rights advocates immediately filed suit. This week, Iowa lawmakers approved the rules to enforce the ban, to take effect April 24.

The state Supreme Court's hearing Thursday was to determine whether enforcement should be allowed while the larger legal battle over the law continues. Peter Im, the staff attorney for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said, "It is emphatically this court's role and duty to say ... how the Iowa constitution protects individual rights, how it protects bodily autonomy and how it protects Iowans' rights to exercise dominion over their own bodies." 

Iowa's Solicitor General Eric Wessen argued, "They're seeking a carve out to treat abortion rights differently than other rights."

For now, abortion is legal in Iowa up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. The court is expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks.

Iowa's abortion battle comes as shouting erupted in Arizona's state house Wednesday after Republican leaders shut down discussion on repealing that state's 1864 law criminalizing abortion. Arizona's Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for that law to be enforced. 

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs said the state's voters will be able to vote on a ballot measure this November that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution.

SEE MORE: Tensions rise as Arizona lawmakers debate abortion ban

Authorities in Idaho say the killing of a suspected home invader by an 85-year-old woman, who says she was woken up by the intruder, has been deemed justifiable homicide by a state prosecuting attorney. 

The office for Idaho Prosecutor Ryan Jolley said in a statement that video, photographs, information collected from search warrants and witness statements led his office to determine that Christine Jenneiahn was justified and acted within the law when she shot and killed 39-year-old Derek Condon. 

Jenneiahn told police Condon made entry into her home in eastern Idaho's Bingham County as she slept. She said he woke her up shining a flashlight and pointing a gun at her while wearing a "military jacket" at around 2 a.m. on the morning of March 13, the state's prosecuting office said. 

Authorities said the only other person in Jenneiahn's home lawfully at that time was her disabled son David. 

SEE MORE: Paramedics using ketamine on patients | Scripps News Investigates

Jolley's office said Condon placed Jenneiahn in handcuffs and led her into the living room, where he handcuffed her to a wooden chair. Detectives noticed what appeared to be blood on her pillow and the floor in her room, and Jenneiahn said Condon had struck her in the head while she was awake, but couldn't immediately recall exactly when, authorities said in a report. 

When Condon asked Jenneiahn where in the home she kept her valuables, she said she didn't have much, and he held a gun to her head, she told police. She eventually told him she had two safes in a lower part of the home. 

According to prosecutors, Condon began rummaging through Jenneiahn's home while she was in handcuffs and discovered that her son David was in the home. At some point while Condon was looking for valuables, Jenneiahn was able to drag herself and the chair she was handcuffed to into her room to retrieve her revolver from under her pillow, authorities said. 

She then went back into the living room and hid the firearm between an armrest and a cushion and waited for Condon, prosecutors said. She told detectives that during all of this time Condon threatened to kill her multiple times. When Condon reentered the room with Jenneiahn, that is when she says she fired multiple shots striking him at least twice with gunfire as Condon returned fire.

Jenneiahn was struck multiple times in various areas of her body by Condon's return gunfire, prosecutors said. 

Police said Jenneiahn remained on the floor wounded and in handcuffs for around 10 hours before she was able to call 911 when her son came upstairs and gave her a phone. Police said they later discovered a broken window at the back of Jenneiahn's home with tools at the scene that indicated how Condon likely made entry into the residence. 

Investigators found a lock-picking set, a car key, a handcuff key and a bag with items stolen from the home on Condon. 

Authorities praised Jenneiahn for her "heroism, fortitude" and "will to live." They plan to honor her in the future.

"We wish her well in her recovery and look forward to finding a way to honor her at a later date," the Bingham County Sheriff's Office wrote in a Facebook post.

Scripps News has reached out to the sheriff's office for more information on the extent of her injuries and is waiting to hear back.

Bingham County includes the town of Blackfoot, where Condon is from. The town of 37,000 has a radius of just 15 miles. The area had just four robberies in 2021 and 2022, and 39 instances of stolen property in those same years, according to state records. From that same time period, there is just one homicide on record.

Idaho's legal code states that "no person" in the state "shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting" themselves, prosecutors noted in their report. 

The Biden administration announced Thursday morning that the Department of Justice has finalized a new rule that requires many gun sellers offering firearms at gun shows or online to obtain a license and conduct background checks. 

The new rule is set to be enforceable in 30 days. 

Current rules require licensed gun dealers to perform criminal background checks on purchasers, but private sales have long been exempted. The new rule intends to require those who sell guns to earn a profit to obtain a license and register.

The White House said that if a person is repetitively selling guns of the same or similar make and model within one year of their purchase, they are supposed to become a licensed dealer. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would be tasked with enforcing the new rule.

The Biden administration said the rule closes the gun show "loophole."

"If you are conducting business that in a brick-and-mortar store would require you to become a licensed dealer, you have to become a licensed dealer and run background checks," the White House said. "It does not matter whether you are dealing firearms at a gun show, online, in your home, in the trunk of a car, at a flea market, or anywhere else — you must obtain a license and run background checks results. Evidence that a person placed ads online or reserved a table at a gun show shows that the person is intending to profit from the sale."

SEE MORE: Should teachers be armed? The Tennessee Senate says yes

The Biden administration estimates that there are 20,000 unlicensed dealers who would be affected by the new rule. Officials cited an Everytown for Gun Safety study that claimed that about 1 in 9 prospective gun show and online buyers would fail a background check.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” said Attorney General Merrick Garland. “This regulation is a historic step in the Justice Department’s fight against gun violence. It will save lives.”

It is unclear what, if any, legal challenges the new rule may face. The National Rifle Association has not yet issued a reaction to the White House's announcement, but has opposed similar efforts in the past. 

"NRA opposes expansion of the background check system, because criminals easily get guns by other means and because expanding the background check requirement would be a step toward transforming the background check system into a national gun registry," the NRA said. 

Everytown for Gun Safety says 21 states already have laws that require background checks on all gun show purchases. 

The Arizona Legislature devolved into shouts of “Shame! Shame!” on Wednesday as Republican lawmakers quickly shut down discussion on a proposed repeal of the state's newly revived 1864 law that criminalizes abortion throughout pregnancy unless a woman’s life is at risk.

The state Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for enforcement of the pre-statehood law. Arizona abortion providers vowed Wednesday to continue service until they're forced to stop, possibly within weeks.

State legislators convened as pressure mounted from Democrats and some Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, for them to intervene.

House Democrats and at least one Republican tried to open discussion on a repeal of the 1864 abortion ban, which holds no exceptions for rape or incest. GOP leaders, who command the majority, cut it off twice and quickly adjourned for the week. Outraged Democrats erupted in finger-waving chants of “Shame! Shame!”

SEE MORE: Trump says Arizona's abortion ban goes too far

Republican state Rep. Teresa Martinez, of Casa Grande, said there was no reason to rush the debate. She accused Democrats of “screaming at us and engaging in extremist and insurrectionist behavior on the House floor.” The GOP-led Senate briefly convened without debate on abortion.

“We are navigating an extremely complex, emotional and important area of law and policy," said Martinez, the GOP House whip. "In my opinion, removing healthy babies from healthy mothers is not health care nor reproductive care. Pregnancy is not an illness. It should be celebrated. It is an abortion that terminates life.”

Democratic legislators seized on national interest in the state's abortion ban.

“We’ve got the eyes of the world watching Arizona right now,” said Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, of Tucson. “We know that the Supreme Court decision yesterday is extreme. And we know that should the 1864 ban on abortion remain a law in Arizona, people will die.”

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs called inaction on the proposed repeal unconscionable.

“Radical legislators protected a Civil War-era total abortion ban that jails doctors, strips women of our bodily autonomy and puts our lives at risk,” she said.

SEE MORE: How will Arizona's near-total ban on abortion be enforced?

Three Republican legislators openly oppose the ban, including state Rep. Matt Gress, of Phoenix, who made a motion Wednesday to repeal the law. In a statement, he said the near-total ban “is not reflective of the values of the vast majority of our electorate, regardless of political affiliation. ... This issue transcends all.”

According to AP VoteCast, 6 out of 10 Arizona voters in the 2022 midterm elections said they would favor guaranteeing legal abortion nationwide. The state recorded 11,530 abortions in 2022, the last data available, according to Arizona's Department of Health Services.

At Camelback Family Planning in Phoenix, where about one-fourth of Arizona abortions are performed, registered nurse Ashleigh Feiring said abortion services were still available and that staff hope emergency legislation will avoid interruptions or closure.

“Our plan is to stay open as long as possible,” Feiring said. “Our clinic has been shut down twice in the last four years, but we’ve always resumed service.”

At the same time, anti-abortion groups including SBA Pro-Life America urged Arizona residents to oppose a proposed ballot initiative aimed at placing abortion rights in Arizona’s state constitution.

“They would wipe away all pro-life laws put in place by the Legislature, reflective of the will of the people," SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.

Hobbs, however, predicted that outrage will motivate voters to enshrine abortion rights directly in state law.

“The fight is not over, for sure” she said.

SEE MORE: Pence slams Trump's stance on abortion as 'a slap in the face'

Grace Harders drove around metro Phoenix on Wednesday looking for an opportunity to sign an abortion rights petition. She said she wouldn’t know what to do if she had an unplanned pregnancy but knew she’d be scared.

“I’m a pro-choice person, and I want to ensure the right for all women,” Harders said.

Abortion rights advocates said they’ve gathered more than 500,000 signatures for the petition from the Arizona for Abortion Access campaign — far above what they need to add a ballot question asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion until viability, when a fetus could survive outside the womb.

Arriving for a campaign fundraiser in Atlanta, Trump said the Arizona court decision went too far and called on state lawmakers to change it even as he defended the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 ruling overturning of Roe v. Wade.

“It’s all about states’ rights,” the former president told supporters and journalists. “It’ll be straightened out.”

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, most Republican-controlled states have started enforcing new bans or restrictions, and most Democratic-dominated ones have sought to protect abortion access.

Meanwhile, voters have sided with abortion rights supporters on statewide ballot measures in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Vermont.

The Arizona ruling suggests doctors can be prosecuted for performing the procedure. The 1864 law carries a sentence of two to five years in prison for doctors or anyone else who assists in an abortion.

“Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” the Arizona Supreme Court said in its decision, adding that additional criminal and regulatory sanctions may apply to abortions performed after 15 weeks, the state's previous time limit for the procedure.

Beyond that, the court ruling also ignited concern that enforcement might interfere with handling miscarriages.

Enforcing the 1864 law won’t begin for at least two weeks. However, plaintiffs in the case — including Planned Parenthood — said the delay could last up to two months, based on an agreement reached in a related case.

Analysts say Costco's interesting and innovative initiative selling 1-ounce gold bars to its members has been a success in the months since its launch last year. 

A research equity note released by analysts at Wells Fargo has reportedly found that the company is bringing in as much as $200 million a month since the debut of the exclusive online sales of the precious metal  bars in 2023. 

As MarketWatch reported, the analysts said the gold sales appear to be boosting same-store sales by around 1%.

In October, the company found that customers were buying out the pure 24-karat gold bars faster than its discounted 170-ounce jugs of laundry detergent, The Associated Press reported. 

The company's CFO Richard Galanti said during an earnings call that the gold bars were "typically gone within a few hours" after they are posted for sale on Costco's website, and said at the time the company had initially placed a two-bar limit for each buyer. The company was selling them at just under $2,000 each. 

SEE MORE: What is the 'Oatzempic' trend, and are its social media claims true?

The company said it was monitoring reports on Reddit while watching sales as it estimated how receptive customers would be to continued sales of precious metals. 

Estimates have found that Costco is pricing the gold bars aggressively at around 2% above the spot price, Investor Place reported. With just one transaction per member allowed, this could contribute to how the gold bars are priced. Within each transaction, up to five bars were eventually permitted in a sale. 

Costco has said on its website that there will be no refunds for purchase of gold bars. 

Wells Fargo has called Costco's decision to offer gold and silver for sale a "smart move" that "reinforces" the company's "value position." Jewelry has also been a top-performing product sector for the warehouse giant, Axios reported. 

Once the Senate receives the articles of impeachment for Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, it will decide whether he should be convicted and removed from office. But the impeachment trial of Mayorkas could be over almost as soon as it begins.

In February, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas by a vote of 214-213. The first floor vote to impeach Mayorkas failed. That marked the first time since 1876 that such an impeachment vote has taken place.

With Democrats in the majority, the Senate is unlikely to hold a lengthy impeachment trial that would bring most other business on the floor to a halt. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday, "We're going to try to resolve this as quickly as possible. Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements."

The Senate has three main options for avoiding a full trial, and all of them would only require a simple majority vote.

First, a senator could offer a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment, and that would dismiss the articles entirely, bringing the process to an end.

Another option is that a senator could raise a point of order that could claim the articles are unconstitutional or violate the Senate rules in some way.

SEE MORE: Speaker to send Mayorkas impeachment articles to Senate next week

Third, the Senate could vote to send the articles of impeachment to a committee. That committee could proceed with a trial, keeping evidence and witnesses away from the spotlight of the Senate floor, or the committee could delay action and leave the issue pending without a clear resolution.

"All of those would obviate the need for a full-on trial, which I think the chances of that happening are next to zero," said Paul Schiff Berman, the Walter S. Cox professor of law at the George Washington University School of Law. He said the Senate is not required to hold a trial, and he supports the Senate quickly dismissing the Mayorkas impeachment. 

"I think it's important to recognize how deficient the House impeachment articles are. They haven't even come close to alleging any kind of crime or misdemeanor that Mayorkas has committed. They haven't brought forth any evidence. The articles themselves are a mess from a legal point of view," Berman said.

While Democrats would like to quickly set the impeachment trial to the side, Republicans in the Senate would like to see a trial move forward. Senate Minority Whip John Thune said on the Senate floor Tuesday, "I don't think it's too much to ask that we look seriously at the charges the House has brought at one of the chief architects of the Biden administration's lax border security regime, individuals so disconnected from the reality of the situation we face that he has repeatedly, publicly asserted that the border is secure."

Impeachment is an inherently political process, and experts have been tracking an increase in impeachment resolutions for decades. J.D. Rackey from the Bipartisan Policy Center says the overuse of impeachment runs the risk of reducing accountability in government.

"We're noticing a trend over the past 30 to 50 years of more and more impeachment. And so I think the average American should be concerned about the trends we're seeing in Congress. Members themselves have started to acknowledge that maybe this is getting out of hand," Rackey said.

Schumer has kept details of his plan quiet, so the public likely won't know how Democrats plan to address the trial on the Senate floor until after senators are sworn in as jurors. That will happen the day after the articles are presented, and Tuesday afternoon Republicans decided to delay that formality. The articles of impeachment could be presented as soon as Monday next week.

The WNBA and makers of the over-the-counter birth control pill Opill announced a multi-year agreement on Tuesday "that focuses on building confidence, strength and health equity, all of which closely align with both organizations' core priorities."

The WNBA said that it enters the season with two main social justice priorities: civic engagement and reproductive health advocacy.

Opill's maker Perrigo recently began marketing the pill to those without a prescription. The pill has recently become available at major pharmacy chains, such as CVS and Walmart. Last year, government regulators allowed Opill to be distributed without a prescription.

"At the WNBA, we are committed to addressing issues that matter to the players, and expanding access to reproductive healthcare is one of those key issues," said Colie Edison, WNBA chief growth officer. "It's great to be working with a partner whose values align and authentically integrates into the health equity work our players are dedicated to."

SEE MORE: What to know about Opill, the 1st over-the-counter birth control pill

The WNBA said it plans to educate millions of fans about Opill being available over-the-counter, making contraception more accessible in the U.S. 

As part of those education efforts, the league and Perrigo said they plan to engage college students on campuses nationwide. 

The WNBA will hold its draft April 15, with the regular season starting May 14. 

A Florida mother was sentenced Tuesday to a month in prison and three months of home confinement for stealing and selling President Joe Biden's daughter's diary four years ago to the conservative group Project Veritas.

Aimee Harris was sentenced in Manhattan federal court by Judge Laura Taylor Swain, who called the Palm Beach, Florida, woman's actions "despicable."

Harris pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in August 2022, admitting that she received $20,000 of the $40,000 that was paid by Project Veritas for personal items belonging to the president's daughter, Ashley Biden.

Project Veritas, founded in 2010, identifies itself as a news organization. It is best known for conducting hidden camera stings that have embarrassed news outlets, labor organizations and Democratic politicians.

A tearful Harris apologized for enabling Ashley Biden's private writings to be sold after she found the diary and other items at a friend's Delray Beach, Florida, home in 2020, where prosecutors said Ashley Biden believed her items were safely stored after she temporarily stayed there in spring 2020.

"I do not believe I am above the law," Harris said after a prosecutor urged a prison sentence following her failure to appear at numerous sentencing dates on the grounds that she was consumed with caring for her two children, ages 8 and 6.

"I'm a survivor of long term domestic abuse and sexual trauma," she told the judge.

With a lawyer for Ashley Biden observing from the courtroom's spectator section, Harris apologized to the president's daughter, saying she regrets making her childhood and life public.

SEE MORE: Judge refuses to toss out tax case against Hunter Biden

In announcing the sentence, Swain noted that Harris and a co-defendant, Robert Kurlander, of nearby Jupiter, Florida, had first tried unsuccessfully to sell Ashley Biden's belongings to then-President Donald Trump's 2020 presidential campaign.

The judge said that Harris, besides being motivated by greed, had hoped to impact the nation's political landscape.

Kurlander, who has not yet been sentenced, and Harris, had each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport stolen property across state lines.

Defense attorney Anthony Cecutti urged no prison time, citing his client's traumatic life and her efforts to care for her children while recovering from abuse and violence.

"She carries the shame and stigma of her actions," he said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Sobelman urged a prison sentence, saying Harris had exhibited a "pattern of disrespect for the law and the justice system."

"Ms. Harris is not the victim in this case," Sobelman said. "Ms. Biden is the victim in this case."

He said Harris in the summer of 2020 had stolen Ashley Biden's diary, a digital storage card, books, clothing, luggage and "everything she could get her hands on" in the hopes she "could make as much money as she could."

"She wanted to damage Ms. Biden's father," he said.

Harris was told to report to prison in July. As she left the courthouse, she declined to speak.

The lawyer for Ashley Biden also declined to comment, though he submitted a letter to the judge on his client's behalf a day earlier that was not immediately put in the court record.

Donald Trump said Wednesday that an Arizona law that criminalizes nearly all abortions goes too far and the former president called on Arizona lawmakers to change it, while also defending the overturning of Roe v. Wade that cleared states to ban the procedure.

“It’ll be straightened out and as you know, it’s all about states’ rights,” Trump told supporters and journalists after landing in Atlanta for a fundraiser. “It’ll be straightened out, and I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason and that’ll be taken care of, I think, very quickly.”

Trump faces political pressure on abortion rights, which Democrats hope will be a defining issue in November's election, after issuing a video statement this week declining to endorse a national abortion ban and saying he believes limits should be left to the states. His earlier statement angered religious conservatives and energized allies of President Joe Biden who see abortion rights as one of Trump’s weaknesses.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday cleared the way for the enforcement of an 1864 law that bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Trump maintains he is proud that the three Supreme Court justices he nominated voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, saying states will have different restrictions. He supports three exceptions in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.

He also spoke about a Florida law that bans abortions after six weeks, saying that “is probably maybe going to change also.”

“For 52 years, people have wanted to end Roe v. Wade, to get it back to the states. We did that. It was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement,” he said. “Now the states have it, and the states are putting out what they want. It’s the will of the people. So Florida is probably going to change.”

Trump ignored questions about how he plans to vote himself on Florida’s pending state constitutional amendment that would enshrine abortion access as a right of his home state’s residents. He did not elaborate on what he thinks the level of restrictions and access should be in Arizona or any other state.

SEE MORE: Trump says abortion rights should be left to states

President Joe Biden is welcoming Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to the White House on Wednesday for an official visit and state dinner. The leaders want to showcase the partnership between the United States and Japan as concerns over China come to the forefront before a trilateral summit with the Philippines on Thursday.

U.S. officials view the visit as marking a new chapter in the alliance and more broadly as an affirmation of President Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

“In the last 60 years, you would define this relationship between the United States and Japan, since it got formalized in 1960, as one of alliance protection. I think this state visit kind of ends that era and defines the next period of time,” a senior administration official said.

The visit signals the importance of the Indo-Pacific strategy, marking official visits with India, South Korea, Australia and now Japan under the Biden administration.

“What I really think is happening here is the president's theory of the case for his Indo-Pacific strategy is being borne out. When he came into office, the president theorized that if we invested in our alliances and our partnerships, those allies would step up alongside us so we could do much more together collectively in the Indo-Pacific, which would in turn leave us much more strongly positioned,” said Mira Rapp-Hooper, special assistant to the president and National Security Council senior director for East Asia and Oceania.

SEE MORE: Biden and Xi hold talks, discussing Taiwan, AI and fentanyl

The visit is expected to bring a large set of agreements on technology, economic investment, global diplomacy and defense.

As Japan has increased its defense spending and sought a joint operations center, officials said the U.S. is expected to give its intent to update its command and control in Japan for closer integration. AUKUS, the partnership between the U.S., U.K. and Australia, also indicated an intent to start consultation with Japan to consider its inclusion in a pillar of the agreement focused on advanced capabilities.

“Until very recently, Japan had an extremely restrained and self-imposed defense policy that sort of did not allow it to act as many other countries do on the global stage. So while there has been an incredible shift, it really should be thought of bringing Japan to a baseline that is more closely in line with what many other U.S. allies around the world do to support their own defense,” said Rapp-Hooper.

Officials also expect a focus on cooperation amid the defense industrial base, including forming a defense industrial council, the start of a pilot program to allow Japanese to repair U.S. ships in the region and a focus on intelligence and cyber efforts.

Officials previewing the visit also expected a major space agreement, expanded ties on AI research and on the economic front through commercial deals.

One topic officials have indicated is not expected to be broached is Nippon Steel’s efforts to acquire U.S. Steel, as President Biden has supported domestic ownership.

“I think people in Japan understand that this is a domestic political issue. And the Kishida government, to its credit, has not really commented on it, and probably will not comment much during the visit. But I do think it raises broader questions in Japan and Asia, about whether the United States is open to foreign direct investment from allies and partners,” said Nicholas Szechenyi, a senior fellow with the Japan chair and deputy director for Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies

The official visit paves the way to a trilateral summit with the Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos on Thursday.

Regional experts said it sends a signal to China about the strength of the alliances in the region. 

“And I think it sends a really strong signal to China, that the alliance network in Asia led by the United States is only going to get stronger if China maintains this assertive posture in the region,” said Szechenyi.

It comes as the Philippines has faced aggression from China in the South China Sea over disputed territory, as the U.S. has a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. Leading up to the meeting, the countries and Australia conducted joint exercises.

“Well, there's no question that the United States and Japan are both very concerned about the PRC’s aggressive tactics in many areas of its foreign policy, one that we will certainly be speaking to this week as the PRC’s use of aggressive tactics in the South China Sea. And that's part of why it's important that President Marcos will also be here this week so that Prime Minister Kishida and President Biden can show their resolve and support,” Rapp-Hooper said.

SEE MORE: Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin creating group to buy TikTok

The U.S. and Japan are expected to announce work together on infrastructure in the Philippines, cooperation on digital connectivity and maritime cooperation, according to Rapp-Hooper.

“They're going to talk about how to strengthen supply chains, perhaps Philippines providing nickel, and in that way reduce over dependence on China. Might also hear, as well, cooperation on cybersecurity, is important. And this comes at a time when the Philippines and Japan have also deepened their bilateral security cooperation,” said Mireya Solís, director at the Center for Asia Policy Studies.

Beyond the Indo-Pacific, at a time of conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East, Kishida will also address Congress as U.S. funding for Ukraine defense has hung in the balance. Kishida indicated the address would be focused on the future.

“Japan has really stepped up in the last 15 years or so. Japan used to be a far more passive player, but now it has become very proactive. It brings to the table very important assets in terms of its economic and security diplomacy in the region. And at a time when quite frankly, there's a lot of uncertainty about where the US may be heading. And after the presidential election, Tokyo has decided to double down in its investment of the U.S. alliance, and that's very much what's captured in this summit,” said Solís.

Tensions mounted in the Tennessee Senate on Tuesday when troopers had to remove people from the gallery as lawmakers voted on a bill that would allow teachers to carry handguns in schools.

Senate members voted 26-5 along party lines to approve the legislation. It comes just one year after The Covenant School mass shooting claimed the lives of three kids and three adults at a Nashville Christian elementary school. 

The House version of the bill is still on hold, but it can be brought up again this legislative session, meaning it's not dead. SB1325 and HB1202 would allow faculty or staff at a school to carry a concealed handgun on school property.

SEE MORE: Most school shootings caused by guns taken from relatives

How it would work

For those wanting to carry, they would have to go through several steps to do so.

Teachers wanting to carry would have to:

- Have an enhanced carry permit.

- Get written authorization from the superintendent, principal and law enforcement.

- Complete 40 hours of basic training in school policing and 40 hours of POST commission-approved training that is specific to school policing each year in order to keep the authorization.

- Obtain a background check.

- Undergo a psychological exam conducted by a Tennessee-licensed psychologist.

Those carrying would also have immunity from any financial damages, and parents wouldn't know which teachers are armed.

"Regarding the portion of confidentially, that is because of the element of surprise," Republican Sen. Paul Bailey said. "If you are a possible intruder, you don't know if the person you encounter is an authorized faculty or staff member. That maybe will change their mind about coming."

SEE MORE: Scripps investigates incidents of guns in US schools

How the conversation went among lawmakers

While the bill went through its Senate processes, people were asked to leave the gallery as they were loud in opposition to the bill. Democrats, though they are a small group, voted against the bill.

"I saw many laughing like it's funny," said Democratic Sen. London Lamar. "I am offended by many of my colleagues on the floor. This is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to come out of this assembly. They took an oath to give our kids writing and arithmetic, and we are now making them as law enforcement. It will enable the next school shooter. It's going to be a teacher with this next legislation. Use common sense."

Other Democratic lawmakers tried to get others to extend empathy and pointed out that many up on the Hill to discuss legislation for keeping kids safer at school haven't asked for the bill. They also brought up that it's not teachers clamoring to carry on campuses.

"This isn't sane," said Democratic Sen. Heidi Campbell, who has constituents in her district that were affected by The Covenant School mass shooting in 2023. "This isn't healthy. It's obvious that people are passionately telling us they don't want it to happen. What is freedom? They want the freedom to be able to send their kids to school without their kids being shot by a gun. That's freedom. It seems like we do backflips to protect people who sell guns."

SEE MORE: Schools across US are adapting safety codes because of gun violence

Republican Sen. Ken Yager said he felt like what was being said was incorrect, but he didn't point to what was inaccurate during his articulation of denouncing Democratic comments. However, he felt arming teachers would keep his schools safer because of the rural nature of the district he represents.

"The subject is emotionally charged. I am standing in support of this bill," Yager said. "Rural counties like I serve, where they may only have two deputies on a shift, what can be wreaked in that 30 minute period? Protect children. That's what it's all about."

What happened to protesters?

Senate leadership had the Tennessee Highway Patrol come in to clear the gallery of any demonstrators protesting against the bill. Covenant mom Sarah Shoop Neumann said the noise and the troopers rushing into the gallery gave her PTSD, making it difficult for her to be there.

"It shows another example of not hearing those in Tennessee," Neumann said. "I sit silently. I do as they ask as many others did. It's unfair to clear a room of everyone because you're unhappy with their belief system. When I heard people being loud, I knew this was how things would end. I am not surprised. I have met with multiple legislators on this bill. They have put some thoughtful consideration, but it would be my ask with no one with a direct responsibility of students have a gun. There's a lot more that needs to happen and we aren't going anywhere. I have voted conservative or independent my entire life. This is something we are all asking for. We can't shut people down and kick them out."

This story was originally published by Emily R. West at Scripps News Nashville.

There are lots of questions about how Arizona’s Supreme Court ruling and near-total ban on abortion will be enforced.

Under the ruling, there is a 14-day stay followed by another 45-day delay in enforcement stemming from another court case. After that, it’s unclear how or if the law will be enforced.

Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes made clear Tuesday she will not prosecute any abortion cases, even though the 1864 law reinstated by the state Supreme Court mandates prison time for anyone providing an abortion.

“Let me be completely clear: As long as I am attorney general of the state of Arizona, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law,” Mayes told a crowd of people outside the Arizona Capitol.

SEE MORE: Abortions increase in 2023 despite Roe v. Wade reversal

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order last year giving all the power to enforce abortion laws to the state attorney general and essentially stripping the state’s 15 elected county attorneys of their authority to prosecute abortion cases. But county attorneys could challenge the order.

“What I have said and what the governor has said in her executive order is that … the authority for prosecuting abortion sits now in my office, where it belongs,” Mayes said.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell issued a statement about the ruling Tuesday, urging the governor and legislators to delay enforcement of the decision.

"Today's Supreme Court decision is a serious one that needs to be addressed by lawmakers,” Mitchell said in the statement.

Mitchell also said her office has not received any requests, in almost two years, to prosecute an abortion case.

"It is important to remember that under Arizona's law, women who get an abortion cannot be prosecuted. Today's ruling does not change that: women cannot and will not be prosecuted for receiving an abortion,” Mitchell also wrote in the statement.

This story was originally published by Jennifer Kovaleski at Scripps News Phoenix.

The U.S. consumer price index, the government's top measure for inflation, had a slight increase in the month of March as the price of goods and services increased by 3.5% in the 12-month period ending last month. The new inflation data was released Wednesday by the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The inflation rate was 3.2% for the 12-month period ending in February and 3.1% for the year ending in January. March's consumer price index marked the highest inflation rate the U.S. has experienced since September 2023. 

The consumer price index weighs the costs of goods based on their importance. Items like food, shelter and energy tend to be weighted more heavily.

The new data released on Wednesday could impact people buying homes, cars and other large items. The Federal Reserve's effective interest rate remains at a five-decade high. While the Federal Reserve entered 2024 optimistic that rates would drop during the year, that expectation came with the thought that inflation would drop.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has stated that its goal is to get the U.S. to a 2% annual inflation rate. Powell said a rise in interest rates was needed to quell once sky-high inflation that exceeded 9%. 

The Federal Reserve meets at the end of the month and could decide on whether it is time to drop interest rates.

SEE MORE: All eyes on the Fed as interest rate cuts have yet to materialize

In the meantime, those buying homes aren't just paying more in the form of higher interest. Inflation is also causing the out-of-pocket expenses for shelter to go up. According to Wednesday's consumer price index data, the cost of shelter has risen 5.7%. For homeowners, that rate is 5.9%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

While the cost to buy a new or used car has remained stable in the last year, it is now 22.2% more expensive to insure a car, and 8.2% pricier to get one repaired. 

The new data did have some promising news for consumers. 

The once-astronomical inflation on food at the grocery store has cooled to near-normal levels. Food meant to be consumed at home has gone up 1.2% in the last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. Some common grocery staples, such as milk, eggs, coffee and butter, were cheaper this March compared to last March.

It also appears that wages are outpacing inflation. Average weekly earnings have increased by 4.1% in the last year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. 

From credit cards to mortgages, it's expensive to borrow money. The Fed has kept interest rates high to help slow the economy and lower inflation. But we've been waiting for that rate to go down since last summer, and the Fed says cutting too soon could cause inflation to spike.

And it's also possible the Fed is changing its tune on cutting interest rates.

Some economists predicted as many as six cuts starting this summer. But that hope is more uncertain now, with federal reserve chair Jerome Powell saying in a speech last Wednesday at Stanford University that the Fed "face[s] risks on both sides."

"My colleagues and I continue to believe that the policy rate is likely at its peak for this tightening cycle," said Powell. "If the economy evolves broadly, as we expect, most FOMC participants see it as likely to be appropriate to begin lowering the policy rate at some point this year."

In the Fed's eyes, the economy is strong, with the March jobs report showing growth for 39 months straight.

But inflation ticked up slightly in February, and Interest rates are currently holding steady at 5.25%-5.50%, the highest level in more than two decades.

Last week, Minneapolis Fed president Neel Kashkari sparked a frenzy after suggesting rate cuts may be off the table if there's no progress on inflation. He clarified his comments during a Q&A at the University of Montana in Missoula on Monday night.

"What I said was, my best-case scenario is that inflation will continue to fall this year and I jotted down in March that we would have two interest rate cuts over the course of this year," he said. "Then I explained if we don't see any progress on inflation and inflation moves sideways, then that would make me question, 'Why would we cut interest rates?'"

He added, "I think it's unlikely we would raise interest rates from here, but I don't want to rule it out. If inflation surprises us on the upside, that's always possible."

Kishore Kulkarni, an economist with Metro State University of Denver, says all eyes will be on Wednesday's Consumer Price Index Report, which measures inflation by tracking the overall change in the cost of goods.

"Now, if the economy is doing very well again, lowering the interest will make higher demand for loans and that will probably put pressure on inflation in the future," he told Scripps News.

The next Fed meeting is set for April 30, with six more chances for a rate cut this year.

Experts say in the meantime, work on your credit score and get ready to re-finance your mortgage, in case rates are slashed.

SEE MORE: US job market remains strong, wages outpacing inflation, data shows

House Speaker Mike Johnson says he will wait until next week to send articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate. 

In a rare move, lawmakers issued two articles of impeachment earlier this year in an effort to hold the cabinet member responsible for the influx of migrants at the border, and House Republicans were set to bring their impeachment case to the Senate this week.

However, Republicans became concerned about the optics of scheduling the trial mid-week, leading to senators rushing to a quick conclusion before heading home, which seems to be what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wants.

“To ensure the Senate has adequate time to perform its constitutional duty, the House will transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week. There is no reason whatsoever for the Senate to abdicate its responsibility to hold an impeachment trial,” said the speaker of the House in a statement through a spokesperson.

And other Republican lawmakers agree with the move. 

"I'm very grateful to Speaker Johnson for his bold willingness to delay this. We don't want this to come over on the eve of the moment when members might be operating under the influence of jet fume intoxication. That was precisely the plan, and it's much better for us to do this at the beginning of a legislative week rather than toward the end of one," said Sen. Mike Lee.

The big question now is: What will Schumer do with this trial? Senate Republicans believe that Schumer is going to do anything he can to make this trial go away, whether that's a motion to dismiss, a motion to refer to committee, or a motion to table to a later date. While he didn't answer any specific questions on how he plans to handle this case, he did confirm this is something they will try to solve as fast as possible. 

"We're going to try and resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements," said Schumer.  "As I said in the past, it's absurd and there are no charges in the House complaint that rise to the level of impeachment."

Had the timing not changed, the charges would have arrived on schedule at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, when senators usually depart for the week on Thursday, meaning that there wouldn't have been a very long window in which to begin a trial.

SEE MORE: What happens next in the impeachment process for Sec. Mayorkas?

The Arizona Supreme Court upheld a Civil War-era abortion ban on Tuesday.

"To date, our legislature has never affirmatively created a right to, or independently authorized, elective abortion," the court's opinion stated.

This 4-2 ruling makes nearly all abortions in the state illegal, with the exception of cases in which the procedure is needed to save the mother's life. 

It also wipes out a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, which was made law in 2022, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade.

After the constitutional right to an abortion was overturned later that year, Arizona still had a law on the books from 1864 that banned nearly all abortions, including in cases of rape or incest.

Republicans attempted to revive the law but faced opposition from abortion-rights advocates, including Planned Parenthood Arizona, which was a plaintiff in this case.

A lower court previously ruled that medical providers could perform abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy under the new law. But that ruling was overturned with the state Supreme Court's decision on Tuesday.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs spoke to reporters just minutes after the ruling was made public, imploring the Republican legislature to repeal the 1864 law. She then took to social media to double down on her message and reiterate the significance of the 2023 executive order she issued, safeguarding individuals engaged in legal abortion from prosecution.

"Like millions of women across Arizona, I am reeling from the Supreme Court's callous decision to uphold the 1864 total abortion ban. This archaic law, which was written by men 48 years before Arizona even became a state, threatens the lives of countless women and strips us of control over our bodies. Today seems like a dark day," said Hobbs. "But I assure Arizona women that the fight for our reproductive freedoms is far from over. I want to make it clear that my executive order protecting women and doctors from prosecution by extremist county attorneys still stands. We are taking immediate action to uphold your reproductive freedoms."

SEE MORE: Trump says abortion rights should be left to states

Whether the legislature acts or not, the issue of abortion could end up on the November ballot. 

Arizona for Abortion Access said it has gathered 500,000 signatures, which is beyond the number needed to get the measure on the ballot in November.

The ballot measure would ask voters to decide on a constitutional amendment on abortion. If passed, the amendment would allow access until the point of fetal viability.

Abortion is also a major topic in the presidential race between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, said on Monday that decisions about abortions should be left up to the states. 

President Biden has been a vocal supporter of abortion rights. On Tuesday, he decried the Arizona Supreme Court's decision, saying, "This ruling is a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women’s freedom."

Following the ruling, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is visiting Arizona on Friday to continue her advocacy for reproductive rights, placed the blame fully on Trump, saying he would sign off on a national abortion ban if he were to be elected again.

“The alarm is sounding for every woman in America: if he has the opportunity, Donald Trump would sign off on a national abortion ban. He has called for punishing women and doctors. If he wins, he and his allies have plans to ban abortion and restrict access to birth control, with or without Congress. It’s terrifying, but we are not powerless," Harris said in a statement.

This law will not be enforced for the next 14 days to allow the plaintiffs a chance to explore other legal challenges, the judges wrote. 

SEE MORE: Pence slams Trump's stance on abortion as 'a slap in the face'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, is among a group of lawmakers attempting to penalize those who use artificial intelligence and "deepfakes" to create non-consensual sexually explicit material. 

Ocasio-Cortez introduced the DEFIANCE Act last month in Congress. 

In January, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Senate's version of the legislation. Ocasio-Cortez might find unusual allies in her efforts as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, are among those who have backed the Senate's version of the DEFIANCE Act. 

“Victims of nonconsensual pornographic deepfakes have waited too long for federal legislation to hold perpetrators accountable. As deepfakes become easier to access and create — 96% of deepfake videos circulating online are nonconsensual pornography — Congress needs to act to show victims that they won’t be left behind,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “The DEFIANCE Act will allow victims to finally defend their reputations and take civil action against individuals who produced, distributed, or received digital forgeries.”  

SEE MORE: Kansas moves to require porn sites to verify ages

In a story published Monday by Rolling Stone, Ocasio-Cortez explained how a deepfake of her prompted her to act. 

“There’s a shock to seeing images of yourself that someone could think are real," she told Rolling Stone. "There are certain images that don’t leave a person, they can’t leave a person. It’s not a question of mental strength or fortitude — this is about neuroscience and our biology.”

The legislation would give someone the right to sue for damages if their likeness is used to create a pornographic deepfake. The Senate's version was released around the same time a deepfake pornographic video of Taylor Swift circulated on the internet. 

“Nobody — neither celebrities nor ordinary Americans — should ever have to find themselves featured in AI pornography,” said Hawley. “Innocent people have a right to defend their reputations and hold perpetrators accountable in court. This bill will make that a reality.”

The senators backing the legislation noted that a 2019 study by Deeptrace Lounge found that 96% of deepfake videos on the internet involved pornography. 

Former President Donald Trump's stance on abortion rights is now drawing some harsh criticism from members of his own party, including his former vice president. 

Mike Pence is calling Trump's failure to support a nationwide ban on abortion"a slap in the face" to pro-life advocates who supported him in the last two presidential elections. Pence, who has been an adversary to Trump since they left office in 2021, said the former president is seeking to "marginalize the cause of life" and that voters who oppose legal abortion won't support his stance.

SEE MORE: Trump says abortion rights should be left to states

"Too many Republican politicians are all too ready to wash their hands of the battle for life," Pence said in a post on X. "Republicans win on life when we speak the truth boldly and stand on the principle that we all know to be true — human life begins at conception and should be defended from womb to tomb." 

Trump announced Monday that he believes abortion rights should be left up to states to decide. However, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee fell short of taking a definitive position on what is expected to be a major issue among voters heading into the November general election. 

SEE MORE: Abortions increase in 2023 despite Roe v. Wade reversal

In the meantime, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham — usually a very loyal Trump ally — also criticized the former president's stance on abortion. Graham said Trump made a mistake by advocating for a state-by-state approach that would leave a patchwork of abortion regulations around the country. 

"I respectfully disagree with President Trump’s statement that abortion is a states’ rights issue," Graham said in a statement. "Dobbs does not require that conclusion legally and the pro-life movement has always been about the wellbeing of the unborn child — not geography." 

In response to the criticism, Trump made a series of posts on his Truth Social media platform, making it clear that he did not welcome Graham's feedback. 

"I blame myself for Lindsey Graham, because the only reason he won in the Great State of South Carolina is because I Endorsed him!" Trump said, going on to blame Republicans for losing recent elections because they refuse to support fellow members of their own party.

For lawmakers in Washington, D.C., a long spring break is over. They return to Capitol Hill this week and are faced with an agenda packed with crises here at home and abroad.

In the Senate, the first order of business is whether to hold an impeachment trial for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his role in the southern border crisis. While the charges have made their way over from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, it's still up to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats as to whether they proceed with a trial.

SEE MORE: Mike Johnson faces 3 options for moving Ukraine aid through the House

Republicans have pushed in the Senate to hold a full trial. However, there's a very good chance Democrats will move to dismiss the charges against Mayorkas given the fact that many have called them baseless.

"As I've said, I think the charges are absurd," Schumer has said. "There is no evidence, zero evidence, that he's committed an impeachable offense."

In the House chamber, Republicans and Democrats return to Washington on Tuesday. But Speaker Mike Johnson will enter the building already on thin ice after having a motion to vacate filed against him by a member of his own party.

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been threatening to bring up that motion to remove Johnson from his post, just like what happened to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. But Johnson may have to rely on Democratic support to save his job, given that Republicans have an extremely narrow majority in the House.

One way Johnson could get some Democratic support would be if he follows through on his pledge to bring up additional aid to Ukraine. But that's a proposal some Republicans in the chamber have balked at.

Either way, it's expected to be an extremely busy two-week work period on Capitol Hill before lawmakers return to recess. So keep an eye out for some pretty contentious issues to make headlines this week.

Special counsel Jack Smith's team urged the Supreme Court on Monday night to reject former President Donald Trump's claim that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with scheming to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The brief from prosecutors was submitted just over two weeks before the justices take up the legally untested question of whether an ex-president is shielded from criminal charges for official actions taken in the White House.

"A President's alleged criminal scheme to use his official powers to overturn the presidential election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power frustrates core constitutional provisions that protect democracy," they wrote.

The outcome of the April 25 arguments is expected to help determine whether Trump faces trial this year in a four-count indictment that accuses him of conspiring to block the peaceful transfer of power after losing the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.

SEE MORE: Judge says Pence must testify in 2020 election probe against Trump

Trump has argued that former presidents enjoy immunity for official acts in office. Both the judge presiding over the case, Tanya Chutkan, and a three-judge federal appellate panel in Washington have forcefully rejected that claim.

The Supreme Court then said it would take up the question, injecting uncertainty into whether the case — one of four criminal prosecutions confronting Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president — can reach trial before November's election.

In their latest brief, Smith's team rehashed many of the arguments that have prevailed in lower courts, pointedly noting that "federal criminal law applies to the president."

"The Framers never endorsed criminal immunity for a former President, and all Presidents from the Founding to the modern era have known that after leaving office they faced potential criminal liability for official acts," Smith's team wrote.

Prosecutors also said that even if the Supreme Court were to recognize some immunity for a president's official acts, the justices should nonetheless permit the case to move forward because much of the indictment is centered on Trump's private conduct.

Smith's team suggested the court could reach a narrow determination that Trump, in this particular case, was not entitled to immunity without arriving at a broader conclusion that would apply to other cases.

"A holding that petitioner has no immunity from the alleged crimes would suffice to resolve this case, leaving potentially more difficult questions that might arise on different facts for decision if they are ever presented," they said.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump continue to command most of the attention ahead of the November election, but you can bet they are also watching what's going on in Congress.

Historically, presidents have found ways to work with moderates in both parties to get things done. Former President George W. Bush leaned on moderates to pass his signature tax cuts. Former President Barack Obama worked with moderate Democrats to pass the Affordable Care Act. President Biden also negotiated with moderates to pass his infrastructure law. 

But many of those so-called moderate, like Arizona's independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, Utah's Republican Sen. Mitt Romney and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, have all decided to not run for reelection, fueling speculation that there may be fewer people willing to work with the other side.

Usually, moderate politicians represent a state that is evenly divided. However, the number of states with senators from more than one party is dwindling.

Right now, only Montana, Ohio, Maine, West Virginia and Wisconsin have so-called split delegations. That is when one senator mostly votes with Democrats while the other mostly votes with Republicans. That's a modern American historical low, according to Pew Research, and it's possible the number of split delegates will decline even further after November's election.

Of course, the likely decline in moderates in Congress doesn't mean there won't be any. In fact, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska hasn't ruled out potentially becoming an independent in the future.

SEE MORE: Trump challenges Biden to debate after dodging GOP rivals

After promising to make a firm announcement on where he stands on abortion rights, former President Donald Trump said Monday that the issue should be left up to the states.  

He made the announcement in a video released on his social media platform Truth Social. The presumptive Republican nominee fell short of taking a definitive position on what is likely to be a deciding issue for many voters come November.  

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case — the law of the state. Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others. And that's what they will be,” Trump said in his video. 

His remarks come as the U.S. waited to see if the former president would stand behind some sort of national ban. There had been previous reporting suggesting he would back a 15- or 16-week national ban. He has now made clear his official position is to leave abortion rights to the states. 

In the video Trump also said he’s proudly responsible for the overturning of Roe v. Wade back in the summer of 2022. He had appointed three of the six justices who voted to take down the Roe v. Wade decision. 

SEE MORE: Health experts concerned over Supreme Court restricting abortion pill

President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election, was critical of Trump's stance, noting the difficulties some women face when trying to get an abortion. 

"Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to go to court to seek permission for the medical attention they need, and left to travel hundreds of miles for health care," President Biden said in a statement. 

The president's stance on abortion rights is in direct contrast to Trump's. President Biden has called on Congress to restore federal protections that were in place after the Roe v. Wade decision.

President Joe Biden said Monday that college graduates would see “life-changing” relief from his new plan to ease debt burdens for more than 30 million borrowers, the latest attempt by the Democratic president to make good on a campaign promise that could buoy his standing with young voters.

President Biden detailed the initiative, which has been in the works for months, during a trip to Wisconsin, one of a handful of battleground states that could decide the outcome of President Biden's likely rematch with Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.

President Biden said he wanted to “give everybody a fair shot” and the “freedom to chase their dreams” as he lamented the rising cost of higher education.

“Even when they work hard and pay their student loans, their debt increases and not diminishes," he said. "Too many people feel the strain and stress, wondering if they can get married, have their first child, start a family, because even if they get by, they still have this crushing, crushing debt.”

Biden's trip comes less than a week after primary voting in Wisconsin that highlighted political weaknesses for President Biden as he prepares for the general election.

More than 48,000 Democratic voters chose “uninstructed” instead of President Biden, more than double his narrow margin of victory in the state in 2020.

Trump also saw a significant number of defections during the state's primary, with nearly 119,000 Republicans voting for a different candidate than their party's presumptive nominee.

But President Biden's results, which echoed similar protest votes in states like Michigan and Minnesota, have rattled Democrats who are eager to solidify the coalition that catapulted him into the White House in the first place.

A critical fracture has been the war in the Middle East. Young voters are more likely to disapprove of President Biden's enduring support for Israel's military operation in Gaza, which has caused heavy casualties among Palestinian civilians.

Some have also been impatient with President Biden's attempts to wipe away student loan debt. The U.S. Supreme Court last year foiled his first attempt to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in loans, a decision that President Biden called a “mistake.”

Since then, the White House has pursued debt relief through other targeted initiatives, including those for public service workers and low-income borrowers. Administration officials said they have canceled $144 billion in student loans for almost 4 million Americans.

SEE MORE: Biden's 2025 budget plan details vision for potential second term

At the same time, the Department of Education has been working on a more expansive plan to replace President Biden's original effort. Although the new federal rule has not yet been issued, Monday's announcement was an opportunity to energize young voters whose support President Biden will need to defeat Trump in November.

Republicans said President Biden's plan shifts the financial burden of college tuition onto taxpayers who didn't take out loans to attend school.

“This is an unfair ploy to buy votes before an election and does absolutely nothing to address the high cost of education that puts young people right back into debt," said Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who chairs a committee on education and other issues.

President Biden's new debt plan would expand federal student loan relief to new categories of borrowers through the Higher Education Act, which administration officials believe puts it on a stronger legal footing than the sweeping proposal that was killed by a 6-3 court majority last year.

The plan is expected to be smaller and more targeted than President Biden's original plan, which would have canceled up to $20,000 in loans for more than 40 million borrowers. The new plan would cancel some or all federal student loans for more than 30 million Americans, the White House said. The Education Department plans to issue a formal proposal in the coming months, with plans to start implementing parts of the plan as early as this fall.

“President Biden will use every tool available to cancel student loan debt for as many borrowers as possible, no matter how many times Republican elected officials try to stand in his way,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a call with reporters.

Details the White House released on Monday largely mirror a plan drafted by the Education Department. It lays out five categories of borrowers who would be eligible to get at least some of their federal student loans canceled if the rule is approved.

The plan’s widest-reaching benefit would cancel up to $20,000 in interest for borrowers who have seen their balance grow beyond its original amount because of unpaid interest. Borrowers could get the entirety of their interest erased, with no limit, if they are enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan and have annual incomes of less than $120,000 or couples making less than $240,000.

That part of the plan would forgive at least some unpaid interest for an estimated 25 million borrowers, with 23 million getting all their interest erased, according to the White House.

An additional 2 million borrowers would automatically have their loans canceled because they’re eligible but have not applied for other forgiveness programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Borrowers who have been repaying their undergraduate student loans for at least 20 years would be eligible to have any remaining debt canceled, along with those repaying their graduate school loans for 25 years or more.

The plan would forgive debt for those who were in college programs deemed to have “low financial value.” It’s meant to help those who were in programs that ended up losing eligibility to receive federal student aid or programs found to have cheated students.

A final category would cancel debt for borrowers facing hardships that prevent them from repaying their student loans, either because they’re at high risk of defaulting or are burdened with medical debt or child care expenses, among other criteria.

Cardona said in a call with reporters that the relief that would be provided under the new plan would be "on top of the $146 billion in student loan debt relief for 4 million Americans that we’ve already approved, more than any other administration in our country’s history.”

Hearings to craft the rule wrapped up in February, and the draft is under review. The Education Department will issue a formal proposal and open it to public comment before it can be finalized.

Donald Trump's campaign said it raised $50.5 million on Saturday, a staggering reported haul as his campaign works to catch up to the fundraising juggernaut of President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.

The reported haul from the event with major donors at the Palm Beach, Florida, home of billionaire investor John Paulson sets a new single-event fundraising record and is almost double the $26 million that President Biden's campaign said it raised recently at a gathering with former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama at Radio City Music Hall in New York.

"It's clearer than ever that we have the message, the operation, and the money to propel President Trump to victory on November 5," his campaign senior advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles said in a statement.

The event, billed as the "Inaugural Leadership Dinner," sends a signal of a resurgence of Trump and the Republican Party's fundraising, which has lagged behind President Biden and the Democrats.

"This has been some incredible evening before it even starts because people — they wanted to contribute to a cause of making America great again, and that's what's happened," Trump said briefly to reporters as he arrived at the event with his wife Melania Trump.

Trump and the GOP announced earlier in the week that they raised more than $65.6 million in March and closed out the month with $93.1 million. President Biden and the Democrats announced Saturday that they took in more than $90 million last month and had $192 million-plus on hand.

"While Donald Trump has been busy awarding himself golf trophies at Mar-a-Lago and palling around with billionaires, Joe Biden has been crisscrossing the nation connecting with voters and outlining his vision to grow our economy from the bottom up and the middle out," Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison said in a statement, referring to Trump's Florida residence.

Campaign fundraising reports filed with the Federal Election Commission detailing donations from Saturday's event are not expected until a mid-July filing date.

Trump initially struggled to attract big donors in particular when he launched his campaign and some lined up to support the other Republicans who challenged him in the presidential primary. But as Trump racked up easy wins, leveled the field and became the party's presumptive nominee, the GOP has solidified behind him.

Saturday's high-dollar event hosted about 100 guests, including more than a few billionaires. Contributions to the event will go toward the Trump 47 Committee, according to the invitation, a joint fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee, state Republican parties and Save America, a political action committee that pays the bulk of Trump's legal bills. In an unusual arrangement, the fundraising agreement directs donations to first pay the maximum allowed under law to his campaign and Save America before the RNC or state parties get a cut.

SEE MORE: Inside the Race: GOP fundraising in March, issues impacting campaigns

Donors who gave the suggested $814,600 per person or $250,000 per person will only have $5,000 of their donation go to Save America, sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cash-strapped RNC.

As Trump prepared in March to install a new handpicked leadership team at the RNC, including his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, some members of the RNC worried that the committee's money would go toward Trump's sizable legal fees as he fights a number of court cases, including four criminal cases.

The fundraising arrangement doesn't direct RNC funds to Trump's legal bills. But when checks of any amount are written to the combined campaign, the campaign and Save America get paid first by default.

Co-chairs of the fundraiser include Robert Bigelow, a Las Vegas-based businessman who had supported Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' presidential campaign; New York grocery billionaire John Catsimatidis; Linda McMahon, the former World Wrestling Entertainment executive and head of the Small Business Administration while Trump was president; casino mogul Steve Wynn; and former Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, according to the invitation.

Guests were asked to contribute $814,600 per person as a "chairman" contributor, which came with seating at Trump's table, or $250,000 per person as a "host committee" contributor. Both options come with a photo opportunity and a personalized copy of Trump's coffee table book featuring photographs from his administration, "Our Journey Together."

Three of Trump's former rivals for the GOP nomination — South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — were expected to appear as "special guests."

Hours before the fundraiser, Trump complained on his social media site about the judge in his upcoming New York hush-money trial and the former president once more compared himself to the late Nelson Mandela, who was jailed for years by South Africa's longtime apartheid government before he became the country's leader.

"If this Partisan Hack wants to put me in the 'clink' for speaking the open and obvious TRUTH, I will gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela - It will be my GREAT HONOR," Trump wrote.

In response, Biden campaign official Jasmine Harris said: "Imagine being so self-centered that you compare yourself to Jesus Christ and Nelson Mandela all within the span of little more than a week: that's Donald Trump for you."

Democrat Joseph E. Brennan, whose hardscrabble childhood shaped his working-class views in a political career that included two terms as Maine's governor and two terms in the U.S. House, died Friday evening at his home in Portland. He was 89.

Brennan died with his wife at his side a few blocks from the third-floor tenement housing on Munjoy Hill where his Irish immigrant parents raised a family of eight children, Frank O'Hara, a longtime friend, said Saturday.

Brennan's experience in that neighborhood, a working-class melting pot, stayed with him when he entered politics with a campaign for the Maine Legislature at age 29, O'Hara said.

An Army veteran, Brennan attended Boston College under the GI Bill and graduated from the University of Maine Law School. He served as a county district attorney and state attorney general, in addition to state lawmaker, governor and congressman.

Former Democratic Gov. Joe Baldacci called Brennan "a friend, a mentor and a dedicated servant."

SEE MORE: Inside the Race: GOP fundraising in March, issues impacting campaigns

"He was a man of the highest integrity, who led Maine through difficult times. He believed that he had an obligation to make things better, and he lived that ideal through his commitment to public education and improving the state's economy," Baldacci said.

As attorney general, Brennan participated in negotiations with Wabanaki tribes and the federal government on what became the Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1980, which was signed by President Jimmy Carter when Brennan was governor.

Also as governor, Brennan launched education reforms, pressed for tough highway safety measures and helped establish the Finance Authority of Maine.

Current Gov. Janet Mills, a fellow Democrat who was appointed by Brennan in 1980 as the first woman to serve as district attorney, said her selection despite objections from a number of men at the time put her on a path to become Maine’s first female governor.

"Gov. Brennan demonstrated for me and others that politics is about building relationships, that public service is not about enriching yourself but about enriching the lives of others, and that the most important relationship is the one we have with the people we serve," she said.

Another key appointment by Brennan was tapping George Mitchell, a federal judge, in 1980 to fill the seat vacated by Democratic U.S. Sen. Edmund Muskie, who resigned to become secretary of state. Mitchell went on to become majority leader in the Senate.

"His family and the people of Maine have lost a great man, and I have lost a dear friend," said Mitchell, who called Brennan "a superb leader and lawyer who understood the importance of a firm and fair system of justice in our democracy."

On this edition of “Inside the Race Weekend,” Politico's Daily Campaign Newsletter Author Madison Fernandez joined Scripps News Congressional Correspondent Nate Reed to discuss how the GOP's fundraising efforts look in comparison to the Democrats, how it's important for President Joe Biden to have a broad coalition of support for his campaign, the impact of abortion as an issue and former President Donald Trump's influence on GOP lawmakers. 

SEE MORE: Inside the Race: President Biden's campaign cash is adding up

Tennessee residents convicted of felonies can apply to vote again without restoring their gun rights under a bipartisan bill that faces some GOP skepticism as it advances late this session.

The effort by Democratic Rep. Antonio Parkinson and Republican Sen. Paul Bailey to untangle the two rights has cleared early hurdles but several remain in the annual session’s expected final weeks.

The proposal seeks to undo restrictions established in July, when election officials interpreted a state Supreme Court ruling as requiring people convicted of felonies to get their full citizenship rights restored by a judge, or show they were pardoned, before they can apply for reinstated voting rights. In January, the elections office confirmed that voting rights restoration would also require getting back gun rights.

SEE MORE: Disney shareholders back CEO Iger, rebuff activist investors

Since July, officials have approved 12 applications to restore voting rights and denied 135, according to the secretary of state’s office. In the seven months before, about 200 people were approved and 120 denied.

Voting rights advocates have argued the elections office's legal interpretations have been way off-base. A group of Democratic state lawmakers has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate. And a lawsuit over Tennessee's restoration process has been ongoing for years.

The bill would allow a judge to restore someone's right to vote separately from other rights, including those regarding guns, serving on a jury, holding public office and certain fiduciary powers.

People who have paid their debt to society should get some rights back, especially to vote, Bailey said.

"We want to clear that up," he said.

In Tennessee, felonies involving drugs or violence specifically remove someone's gun rights, and high-level action such as a pardon by a governor is needed to restore their voting rights.

The gun issue adds to an existing, complicated list of disqualifying felonies that differ depending on conviction date.

Expungement offers a separate path to restore voting rights, but many felonies are ineligible.

Tennessee had established a process under a 2006 law for people convicted of a felony to petition for the restoration of their voting rights. It allows them to seek restoration if they can show they have served their sentences and do not owe outstanding court costs or child support. An applicant wouldn't have to go to court or get a governor's pardon.

Now, applicants must get their citizenship rights back and complete the old process.

John Weare, a U.S. Navy veteran, told a House subcommittee Wednesday he has a decades-old aggravated assault charge in another state that eliminated his gun rights. He said he had been pursuing voting rights restoration for four years when the elections office decided he needs his gun rights back, too.

Weare, a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging voting rights restoration in Tennessee, said not being able to vote has made him feel like a "non-American."

"I'm asking you to support this bill allowing me the chance to vote according to my conservative Christian values that I hold dear," Weare said, "and allowing me to be an active participant in my community and to be part of the democratic process, for which I served my country to protect, and which makes our country so great."

But the bill's odds are uncertain. Some prominent Republicans have been skeptical.

When asked if changes to the system were needed, House Majority Leader William Lamberth has previously said, "My advice is don’t commit a felony."

Senate Speaker Randy McNally told The Associated Press early this year he would prefer even tougher restrictions. Republican Gov. Bill Lee has expressed openness to voting rights restoration reforms, but has said he thinks lawmakers should lead on potential changes.

Some Republican dissenters have said they'd rather lump it into a broad study of citizenship rights laws and a bill proposing changes next year.

"This entire code needs to be rewritten from top to bottom," Lamberth told reporters Friday.

The U.S. labor market continued its consistent growth in March as 303,000 jobs were added, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.

The unemployment rate fell from 3.9% in February to 3.8% in March, marking 26 consecutive months it's been below 4%, the longest such period of low unemployment in more than five decades. 

The largest job gains in March were in the health care sector, with the addition of 72,000 jobs. There were also 71,000 new government jobs in March, the majority in the education sector. 

The hospitality industry is back above pre-pandemic levels as it added 49,000 jobs. 

Average hourly earnings went up 12 cents between February and March, and average weekly earnings increased by over $7 per worker between months. The average weekly wage for U.S. workers is $1,193.34, up from $1,185.75.

SEE MORE: California lawmaker wants workers to ignore off-the-clock calls

Average weekly earnings have increased by 4.1% in the last year. The consumer price index was 3.2% for the 12-month period ending in February, indicating wages are outpacing inflation. 

While employment figures remain very strong, not all Americans say they are reaping the benefits. 

The U.S. Federal Reserve noted that credit card debt increased by $113 billion by Americans in 2023. Americans now hold a record $1.13 trillion in credit card debt, the agency said. 

According to Gallup, 30% of Americans would rate the economy as good or excellent, while 39% would consider it poor. In early 2022, 72% of Americans said it was a good time to find a quality job. That percentage dropped to 55% in January 2024.

The White House celebrated the news as it tries to paint the picture of a strong economy heading into the 2024 election. 

"Three years ago, I inherited an economy on the brink. With today’s report of 303,000 new jobs in March, we have passed the milestone of 15 million jobs created since I took office. That’s 15 million more people who have the dignity and respect that comes with a paycheck," President Joe Biden said in a statement.

The Trump campaign, however, noted that the number of Americans working multiple jobs has increased steadily during Biden's presidency. 

A hospital in Alabama that was key in the state's highly publicized IVF embryo ruling says it will shut down IVF therapy by the end of the year "in light of litigation concerns" in the state. 

Infirmary Health hospital system, which serves a large swath of Alabama and the Gulf Coast, said the hospital's Mobile campus will "no longer be able to offer this service to families" after it shuts down IVF therapy operations by Dec. 31, 2024. 

The hospital said in a statement this week that it only temporarily resumed In vitro fertilization therapy "in order to assist families" in the state and from the Gulf Coast who had already begun the IVF process "in the hopes of starting a family."

SEE MORE: Paid surrogacy legalized in Michigan after gov. signs package of bills

In March Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation to protect in vitro fertilization services in Alabama. Her signature came hours after state lawmakers passed the bill through Alabama's House and Senate. The legislation was meant to protect health care providers from the Alabama Supreme Court's February ruling that held frozen embryos are equal to children.

The legislation said that "no action, suit, or criminal prosecution for the damage to or death of an embryo shall be brought or maintained against any individual or entity when providing or receiving services related to in vitro fertilization." 

It would apply retroactively but would not be applied to ongoing litigation, Scripps News reported at the time. 

A spokesperson for Mobile Infirmary said in a statement obtained by the New York Times that the decision to end services before next year was made amid "pending litigation and the lack of clarity of the recently passed IVF legislation in the state."

Both former President Donald Trump and the Biden administration voiced support for IVF therapy last month. The White House sent the Health and Human Services secretary to Alabama after the state Supreme Court's ruling, the Associated Press reported. 

At least three Alabama IVF providers paused services after the ruling recognized embryos as “extrauterine children" after wrongful death cases were filed when embryos were accidentally destroyed. 

A bill introduced by the Arizona state Senate would allow people to carry a gun on university and college campuses if they hold a valid concealed carry permit. If the bill is passed, it would trigger changes to rules at colleges and universities across the Grand Canyon State that ban firearms on campus grounds.  

ASU, University of Arizona, and the Maricopa Community Colleges Faculty Association, which oversees 10 community colleges, have policies in place banning firearms on school grounds. 

The concealed weapon bill known as SB 1198 was introduced by Republican Sens. Wendy Rogers, Dave Farnsworth and Republican Rep. Leo Biasiucci. 

The bill would allow anyone with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a weapon on campus and ban universities and colleges from implementing rules or policies that prevent firearms on school grounds.   

"It speaks to us being able to protect ourselves in an increasingly dangerous environment, especially college campuses," Rogers said in a Senate Judiciary meeting in February.  

Many students at ASU tell Scripps News they take their safety seriously and find the bill concerning. 

Jordan McMullen, a freshman studying engineering at ASU said as a Texas native he is against the bill.  

"I think that's also just inviting way too many possibilities of a negative outcome,"  McMullen said. 

"You want to have that college experience, but you also want to be safe," ASU senior Lauren Cooper said.  

Armei Forster walked alongside a couple of friends on the university campus. She commutes for classes during the day and at night and admits it can get a little scary around campus.  

"I'm weary, especially as a woman," said Forster, but she added that guns on campus are not the answer. "For me personally, it does make me feel safe that there are no guns on campus." 

Dr. Barry Vaughan, a philosophy professor and the chairman of the Maricopa Colleges Faculty Association Political Action Committee, which is part of the Maricopa Community Colleges Faculty Association, calls the bill a political ploy to score points with supporters. He points to polls that prove most people do not feel safe with guns on college campuses.  

"This is a position that's a commonsense position; it's a pragmatic position," Vaughan said. 

A recent Gallup poll found 1 in 3 current college students in the U.S. worry about gun violence on campus, and 84% of current or prospective students surveyed indicated they prefer a college that would ban or restrict the possession of guns. 

SEE MORE: Concealed guns could be coming soon to Wyoming schools, meetings

In 1819, former President Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia and in 1824, during the University of Virginia Board of Visitors meeting Jefferson and former President James Madison opposed weapons within the precincts of the University.  

“They voted to ban, to prohibit firearms on campus — this is the author of the Declaration of Independence, this is the father of the Bill of Rights,” Vaughan exclaimed. “James Madison wrote the Second Amendment, and he voted in favor of prohibiting firearms on campus.” 

Conner Miskowiec graduated from college several years ago, and as someone who leans more conservative, he admitted he was conflicted.   

"There's a lot of emotions already on college campuses, like depression, mental health. This is kind of where it starts with stress and everything, so I'm going to go ahead and say probably not a good idea." Miskowiec concluded.  

Supporters of the bill argue that it’s their right to bear arms, and say that it will help students protect themselves.  

"This is not a good guy with a gun bill, this is the ability to defend yourself, which is our constitutional right in the state of Arizona," Michael Infanzon, who supports the bill, said at the Senate Judiciary meeting in February. 

Legislation tied to guns on campus grounds also surfaced in Virginia and Colorado.  

This year, Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed two bills that made it illegal to possess a firearm in a building owned or operated by a public college. 

In Colorado, Senate Bill 24-131 seeks to ban carrying a firearm openly and concealed in sensitive public places including college campuses. 

The University of Colorado is also considering banning concealed carry on all their campuses.  

The success of SB 1198 is uncertain, but previous rulings give insight into its future. In 2023, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a similar bill to SB 1198, writing that it could lead to greater anxiety among students, staff and faculty. 

SB 1198 passed the Arizona Senate and is now before the state House. 

A federal judge refused Thursday to throw out the classified documents prosecution against Donald Trump, turning aside defense arguments that a decades-old law permitted the former president to retain the records after he left office.

Lawyers for Trump, in asking for the case to be tossed out, had cited a 1978 statute known as the Presidential Records Act in arguing that he was permitted to designate records from his time in office as personal and take them with him when he left the White House.

Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith's team vigorously challenged that argument, saying the statute had no relevance in a case concerning classified documents and there was no legal basis for Trump to hold onto top-secret information.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who heard arguments on the matter last month, rejected the Trump team's arguments, writing that the 40-count indictment against Trump makes “no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating an offense.”

Cannon also defended an order from last month that asked lawyers for both sides to formulate potential jury instructions and to respond to two different scenarios in which she appeared to be entertaining Trump's presidential records argument. The order drew a sharp rebuke from Smith's team, who in a filing this week called the premises she laid out “fundamentally flawed.”

“The Court's order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case,” Cannon wrote. “Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties' competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression.”

The ruling Thursday is the second time in as many months that the judge has denied one of Trump's motions to drop the case. In March, she spurned an argument that the statute underpinning the bulk of the charges was unconstitutionally vague and therefore required the dismissal of the indictment.

Cannon has yet to rule on other Trump efforts to dismiss the case, including arguments that presidential immunity shields him from prosecution and that he has been subject to “selective and vindictive prosecution.”

SEE MORE: Georgia judge refuses Trump motion to dismiss election tampering case

The centrist political group No Labels has confirmed to Scripps News that it will no longer pursue a third-party candidate to run against top candidates for the two major U.S. political parties in the 2024 race for the White House. 

"No Labels is ending our effort to put forth a Unity ticket in the 2024 presidential election," the group said in a statement. "No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House. No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down."

In March President Joe Biden won enough delegates to presumptively gain a second straight Democratic nomination, and former President Donald Trump moved forward to become the Republican nominee again. 

No Labels said, "Like many Americans, we are concerned that the division and strife gripping the country will reach a critical point after this election regardless of who wins. Post-election, No Labels will be prepared to champion and defend the values and interests of America's commonsense majority."

SEE MORE: Biden tells Netanyahu: 'Immediate cease-fire is essential'

No Labels was able to gain ballot access in 21 states and reinvigorated the national conversation around ongoing efforts to find a viable third-party candidate in a political climate where the two major U.S. parties continue to dominate in presidential elections, cycle after cycle. 

The group tried for weeks to field presidential candidates and spent months debating the launch of what it called the "unity ticket."

Last year Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman spoke on behalf of the group at a New Hampshire town hall, causing speculation that the group was seriously considering a political ticket. 

Joe Cunningham, a former Democratic member of Congress and a No Labels member said, "What do you say to two-thirds of Americans who say they don't want this rematch? They want other options."

Everyone wants to step on the scale and feel good, but that isn't always how most Americans feel. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 4 in 10 Americans are struggling with obesity.

That is where drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy may help. They have shown to help with weight loss, while reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes in adults who are overweight. 

There is only one problem: Changing the numbers on the scale with the help of a prescription drug remains too costly for many Americans.

"The real problem in America is that obesity as a disease state is not a standard benefit on insurance. It should be a standard benefit like other diseases," said Dr. Angela Fitch, the president of the Obesity Medicine Association.

She says the problem that's preventing more Americans from accessing the drugs is cost and uncharted territory for insurance companies.

SEE MORE: Costco now offers weight-loss program that includes Ozempic and Wegovy

Right now, out-of-pocket costs for Wegovy average more than $1,000 a month. 

Fitch faults an outdated law for the reason why the weight-loss drugs are so expensive. 

"We carved it out years ago because it was considered aesthetic. So, we carved it out many years ago, out of insurance, because it was considered cosmetic. And we know now it's not cosmetic, so we shouldn't carve it out anymore," she said. 

Fitch believes Congress should step in. She wants to start with Medicare.

The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act would allow Medicare to cover weight loss drugs. If Medicare covers it, the thinking is many private insurance companies would follow suit.

Medicare recently announced that weight loss drugs would soon be covered for those with Part D coverage, but the patient must demonstrate a heart-related illness. 

Fitch believes it should be covered before an overweight American has a heart attack or receives a heart disease diagnosis.

"It's our biggest public health crisis of today," she noted.

That legislation faces an uphill battle in Congress. The outcome of this year's election could be critical, and other weight-loss fights appear to be brewing.

Sen. Bernie Sanders last week released a statement calling on drug companies to reduce the price of weight loss drugs after it was reported in one study that some weight loss drugs could be produced for less than $5 a month.

A Georgia judge will not throw out an election tampering case against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants after the defendants argued that their prosecution violates their First Amendment’s protections of political speech and activity.

Trump is facing 10 criminal counts in Georgia, including an alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. 

The RICO Act charges stemmed from alleged attempts to interfere with the 2020 election illegally. Georgia was one of several states Trump lost that he and his allies contested. 

The RICO Act is meant to punish those who conspire with others to commit a variety of racketeering offenses. 

Judge Scott McAfee ruled on the motion Thursday afternoon. 

"The Court finds that the Defendants’ expressions and speech are alleged to have been made in furtherance of criminal activity and constitute false statements knowingly and willfully made in matters within a government agency’s jurisdiction which threaten to deceive and harm the government," McAfee wrote. "Even core political speech addressing matters of public concern is not impenetrable from prosecution if allegedly used to further criminal activity."

Trump attorney Steve Sadow responded to McAfee's order. 

"President Trump and other defendants respectfully disagree with Judge McAfee’s order and will continue to evaluate their options regarding the First Amendment challenges," Sadow said. "It is significant that the court’s ruling made clear that defendants were not foreclosed from again raising their as-applied challenges at the appropriate time after the establishment of a factual record."

SEE MORE: Key attorney in Trump's Georgia election case speaks with Scripps News

A trial date has not yet been set. The case has faced some delays as defendants tried to remove prosecutor Fani Willis from the case due to her alleged relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. 

Ultimately, McAfee allowed Willis to continue her prosecution against Trump and his associates, but Wade stepped down in the wake of the decision. 

The group fighting for abortion to be on the ballot in Arizona announced Tuesday they are one step closer. Arizona for Abortion Access said they have gathered 500,000 signatures, which is beyond the number needed to get the measure on the ballot in November.

"It's very validating," said Dawn Penich, the Communications Director for the group.

She said that's well above the minimum threshold, which is around 384,000 signatures.

If they succeed, voters will be deciding on a constitutional amendment on abortion. If passed the amendment would allow access until the point of viability.

"What this measure does is return the decision-making power to the people who matter most; that's the patient themselves, their own health care provider and their own family," said Penich.

SEE MORE: Roe v. Wade by the numbers: What's changed

However, critics like those with the group It Goes Too Far told Scripps News Phoenix that the language of the measure is too vague.

"Voters deserve to know the truth," said Cindy Dahlgren. "They deserve to know what they will lose."

Dahlgren said she and others believe it would create uncertainty when it comes to medical safety.

"Well, unfortunately, most of the voters are not being told that under this unregulated unlimited abortion amendment, they will lose the required medical doctor and those critical common sense safety standards that are in place right now," said Dahlgren.

This story was originally published by Ashley Holden at Scripps News Phoenix.

President Joe Biden told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday that future U.S. support for the Gaza war depends on new steps to protect civilians and aid workers.

Biden and Netanyahu spoke by phone days after Israeli airstrikes killed seven food aid workers in Gaza and added a new layer of complication in the leaders’ increasingly strained relationship.

“He made clear the need for Israel to announce and implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers,” the White House said in a statement following the leaders call. “He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel’s immediate action on these steps.”

Biden, a Democrat, also told Netanyahu that an “immediate cease-fire is essential” and urged Israel to reach deal "without delay," according to the White House.

The leaders conversation comes as the World Central Kitchen, founded by restauranteur José Andrés to provide immediate food relief to disaster-stricken areas, called for an independent investigation into the Israeli strikes that killed the group’s staff members, including an American citizen.

The White House has said the U.S. has no plans to conduct its own investigation even as they called on Israel to do more to prevent the killing and wounding innocent civilians and aid workers as it carries out its operations in Gaza.

SEE MORE: World Central Kitchen demands independent investigation after strike

Separately, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters in Brussels that U.S. support would be curtailed if Israel doesn’t make significant adjustments to how it's carrying out the war. “If we don’t see the changes that we need to see, there will be changes in our policy,” he said.

Biden was also expected to reiterate his concerns about Netanyahu’s plan to carry out an operation in the southern city of Rafah, where about 1.5 million displaced Palestinians are sheltering, as Israel looks to eliminate Hamas following the militant group’s deadly Oct. 7 attack. Vice President Kamala Harris also joined the call.

Despite the growing divisions, the Biden administration has proceeded apace with arms transfers and deliveries to Israel, many of which were approved years ago but had only been partially or not at all fulfilled. Just this week, on Monday, the Democratic administration’s “Daily List” of munitions transfers included the sale to Israel of more than 1,000 500-pound (225-kilograms) bombs and more than 1,000 1,000-pound (450-kilogram) bombs.

Officials said those transfers had been approved before the publication of the list on Monday — the day Israeli airstrikes hit a World Central Kitchen aid convoy in Gaza, killing seven of the group’s employees — and that they fell below the threshold for new congressional notification. Also, they noted that the bombs are not for delivery to Israel until 2025.

Israel has acknowledged responsibility for the strikes but said the convoy was not targeted and the workers’ deaths were not intentional. The country continues to investigate the circumstances surrounding the killings.

Andrés harshly criticized the Israeli military for the strike, and his organization has paused its work in Gaza.

“The Israeli government needs to stop this indiscriminate killing. It needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon,” he wrote on X. “No more innocent lives lost.”

The war in Gaza began when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking around 250 people hostage.

The Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history. Within two months, researchers say, the offensive already had wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria’s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine’s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group.

Nebraska will remain one of two states that does not give all of its Electoral College votes automatically to whoever wins the state in presidential elections. 

Like Maine, Nebraska only gives two of its electors to whoever has the most statewide votes in presidential elections. The rest of the Electoral College electors are divided based on who has the most votes within the state's congressional districts. 

On Wednesday, lawmakers sent a bill that would have made Nebraska a winner-take-all state back to committee, putting the issue to rest for now. The bill was attached to an unrelated bill and lost a procedural vote as most senators deemed the amendment "not germane." 

The winner-take-all bill has the support of the state's GOP Gov. Jim Pillen and former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee in this year's presidential election. 

Republican State Sen. Loren Lippincott sponsored the bill.

"I am a strong supporter of Sen. Lippincott's winner-take-all bill (LB 764) and have been from the start," Pillen said. "It would bring Nebraska into line with 48 of our fellow states, better reflect the founders' intent, and ensure our state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections. I call upon fellow Republicans in the Legislature to pass this bill to my desk so I can sign it into law."

SEE MORE: Third-party candidates could swing 2024 election

The bill would likely benefit Republicans running for president, given Nebraska's electoral history. No Democrat since 1964 has won the statewide presidential vote. President Lyndon Johnson was the only Democrat to have won the statewide vote since 1940. 

But under the current rules, Democrats have picked up an Electoral College vote from time to time. In 2020, Joe Biden won Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. Then-Sen. Barack Obama also won the Omaha-centric district in 2008. 

If Nebraska had a winner-take-all system in 2008 and 2020, all five electors in those elections would have gone to Republicans. But since Democrats managed to win a congressional district those years, Republicans only won four of the five electors. 

Lippincott noted that the current system encourages candidates to campaign in the Omaha area since that district is generally competitive, while the rest of the state gets little attention from candidates. 

"What we have now discourages candidates from addressing issues that appeal to the state as a whole by rewarding candidates who visit our congressional districts with higher population and income levels to the exclusion of rural Nebraska," he said. 

Lippincott noted that had every state had the same system of using congressional districts in place in 2012 when Obama defeated Mitt Romney 332-206 in the Electoral College, Romney would have won that year's election.

The legal battle over Texas's controversial immigration law expanding the powers of local law enforcement over migrants was back in court Wednesday.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments to consider whether the law Gov. Greg Abbott supported and signed is unconstitutional.

It gives any licensed police officer in the Lone Star State the power to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally. It's been at the center of a legal back-and-forth over its constitutionality.

During arguments, the attorney arguing for Texas admitted to the appellate court that perhaps Texas went to too far in crafting its far reaching law, but insisted the state is within its rights to establish its own border security mechanism

The law known as SB4 has been blocked from taking effect while its constitutionality is argued in court.

Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson insisted the law does not interfere with federal authority on immigration. He also referred to a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down an Arizona law which had similar provisions.

In that case out of Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled immigration enforcement was largely under the purview of the federal government, although part of the law requiring police officers to inquire about a person's immigration status was allowed to stand. 

Nielson inferred Texas lawmakers wrote the law using Arizona as a model.

"What Texas has done here is that they've looked at the Supreme Court's precedent and they have tried to develop a statute that goes up to the line of Supreme Court precedent but allows Texas to protect the border," Nielson said in court. "Now to be fair, maybe Texas went too far and that's the question the court's going to have to decide."

A Texas state representative who opposed SB4 took note of Nielson's concession.

"He admits Texas may have gone too far, " said Rep. Armando Walle, a Houston area Democrat. 

In October before the state legislature passed the bill, his outburst caught on cell phone camera toward his Republican colleagues went viral on social media. He told the largely White caucus that their support of it discounted the effects it could have on Hispanics — whether they're citizens or not.

Texas Republicans who favor the law have said it's necessary due to the record number of unauthorized crossings into the country since President Joe Biden assumed the White House. They argue that if the federal government won't do its job, Texas has a right to step in.

SEE MORE: Sheriffs worry about housing detained migrants at US-Mexico border

Walle says Texas can play a role cooperate with the federal government instead of fighting it. He said SB4 will lead to racial profiling. 

"Texas itself has a long-complicated history in its treatment of people of color," Walle said.

Walle believes Hispanics in Texas have historically been asked to "always prove their citizenship."

"I come from a multi-generational Texan family," Walle said, adding it dated back to before the Civil War.

A large portion of Houston's Latinos are Mexican nationals both documented and undocumented. Overall 2022 data from U.S. Census Department said more than 45% of Houston's 2.3 million people are Hispanic.

The law allows local judges — regardless of knowledge or training on immigration matters — to order a migrant to return to Mexico, regardless of nationality. The government of Mexico opposes the law and has said it will not accept foreign nationals deported to that country, according to a friend of the court brief it filed on this case.

Mexico's government also said that the law could sour the current relationship between the U.S. and Mexico.

"The bill certainly generates uncertainty in the population. We have received questions about what implications it has, how will the community's relationships with the authorities change," said Juan Carlos Hernandez Wocker, Consul for Protection at the Mexican Consulate.

Officials at the Mexican consulate in Houston say they're busy reassuring that community. In an interview conducted in Spanish, Hernandez said local police assured his office they won't be immigration police.

"We know their focus is not on criminalizing migrants," Hernandez said," But rather on preventing crime and public safety."

In some of the larger cities, more progressive politically, law enforcement and local officials have sought to soothe anxieties.

The law can't be enforced right now. That's because the same three-judge panel of judges already decided, in a 2-to-1 decision, that SB4 should stay blocked while the case plays out.

That decision on March 27 came after a flurry of legal back-and-forth that saw the law paused, briefly put in place and then blocked again.

In more rural conservative portions of the Lone Star state, the politics change to deep support and a belief Texas can and should police its roughly 1,200-mile border with Mexico. The appellate court didn't decide on the law Wednesday but will likely release a ruling in the coming weeks. Whatever it decides the case may ultimately go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A judge on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump's bid to delay his April 15 hush money criminal trial until the Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity claims he raised in another of his criminal cases.

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan deemed the former president's request untimely, ruling that his lawyers had “myriad opportunities” to raise the immunity issue before they finally did so in a March 7 court filing.

The timing of the defense filing "raises real questions about the sincerity and actual purpose of the motion," Merchan wrote in a six-page decision.

Lawyers for Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, had asked last month to adjourn the New York trial indefinitely until Trump’s immunity claim in his Washington, D.C., election interference case is resolved.

Merchan previously chided Trump’s lawyers for missing a filing deadline, waiting until 2 1/2 weeks before jury selection to raise the immunity issue and failing to "explain the reason for the late filing."

SEE MORE: Trump challenges Biden to debate after dodging GOP rivals

Trump contends he is immune from prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. His lawyers argue some evidence in the hush money case is from his time in the White House and constitutes official acts. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 25.

Trump first raised the immunity issue in his Washington criminal case, which involves allegations that he worked to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche declined comment. The Manhattan district attorney’s office also declined to comment.

Trump's hush money trial, the first of his four criminal cases scheduled to go before a jury, was delayed from March 25 to April 15 because of another issue.

His lawyers have continued to push in recent weeks for more delays. In separate court filings, they urged Merchan to delay the trial indefinitely until "prejudicial media coverage" subsides and claimed he won’t get a fair shake in heavily Democratic Manhattan.

Prosecutors balked at that request Wednesday, arguing that publicity about the case is “unlikely to recede” and that the jury selection process, with additional questions designed to detect biases, will allow them to pick an impartial jury. Further, they said, Trump’s "own incessant rhetoric is generating significant publicity, and it would be perverse to reward defendant with an adjournment based on media attention he is actively seeking."

The hush money case centers on allegations that Trump falsified his company’s internal records to hide the true nature of payments to his former lawyer Michael Cohen, who helped Trump bury negative stories during his 2016 presidential campaign. Among other things, Cohen paid porn actor Stormy Daniels $130,000 to suppress her claims of an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump years earlier.

Trump’s lawyers argue that some evidence Manhattan prosecutors plan to introduce at the hush money trial, including messages he posted on social media in 2018 about money paid to Cohen, were from his time as president and constituted official acts.

Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels, and his lawyers argue the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses and not part of any cover-up.

A federal judge last year rejected Trump’s claim that allegations in the hush money indictment involved official duties, nixing his bid to move the case from state court to federal court. Had the case been moved to federal court, Trump’s lawyers could’ve tried to get the charges dismissed on the grounds that federal officials have immunity from prosecution over actions taken as part of their official duties.

The question of whether a former president is immune from federal prosecution for official acts taken in office is legally untested.

Prosecutors in the Washington case have said no such immunity exists and that, in any event, none of the actions Trump is alleged to have taken in the indictment charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election after he lost to Democrat Joe Biden count as official acts.

The trial judge in Washington and a federal appeals court have both ruled against Trump, but the high court agreed last month to give the matter fresh consideration — a decision that delays the federal case in Washington and injects fresh uncertainty as to when it might reach trial.

When lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week, House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated he's willing to bring a Ukraine aid package to the floor. But the embattled Republican leader has to balance differing priorities, while also trying to hang onto his job.

One option to break the logjam: Give Ukraine a loan.

Some members oppose sending aid to Ukraine while the national debt is ballooning and the southern border is overwhelmed. Making the aid a loan could help get them on board, even if it's a 0%-interest, waivable loan.

Another pathway: Use procedural tools to force an aid bill to the floor. A discharge petition allows House members to do just that.

A petition by Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern has 191 signatures, and that would force a vote on the bipartisan deal that's already passed the Senate. That bill includes $95 billion for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific.

A competing effort from Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick has just 16 signatures. That petition would push forward a bill to provide over $66 billion in defense-only aid for our international allies. But the legislation also adds increased restrictions on people who cross the border illegally.

Any discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a vote. 

Option No. 3: Use frozen Russian assets.

"If we could use the seized assets of Russian oligarchs to allow the Ukrainians to fight them, that's just pure poetry," Speaker Johnson said on Fox News Sunday.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul proposed a bill to allow the president to confiscate Russia's frozen assets in the U.S., and send those funds to Ukraine. That bill has 80 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House, and there's a companion version that's been introduced in the Senate.

Whatever path Speaker Johnson chooses, he has a potential motion to vacate the speakership hanging over his head. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced the move in March, but hasn't yet taken the steps to force a vote on the House floor.

SEE MORE: Marjorie Taylor Greene files motion to oust Speaker Mike Johnson

Former President Donald Trump is again calling on President Joe Biden to debate him, despite dodging similar challenges from his former Republican primary rivals.

At a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Tuesday night — where both men won their respective primaries — Trump said he'll take the debate stage with the incumbent president "anytime, any place."

"We'll do it anywhere you want, Joe," he said to a crowd of supporters. "So that we can discuss in a friendly manner the real problems of our country, of which there are many, instead of trying to have corrupt prosecutors fight your battles for you."

It's not the first time the expected Republican presidential nominee has challenged President Biden to a debate. Following a successful Super Tuesday campaign, Trump again claimed he would debate "anytime, anywhere, anyplace," and said he'd even allow the Democratic National Committee to set it up.

SEE MORE: Following Super Tuesday victories, Trump calls for debate with Biden

Prior to becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Trump ignored calls from the likes of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis to debate.

A Biden campaign official called his most recent challenge a "weak" move from someone who is "desperate." 

"Trump said last fall only people who are losing want debates," Biden spokesman Michael Tyler said in a statement obtained by NBC News. "At least we agree on something." 

As to whether Trump or Biden would actually accept an official invitation to face off on a debate stage remains in question. But the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates says plans for 2024 debates are underway. 

The pair debated twice in 2020 ahead of the general election. 

A lawmaker in California has proposed legislation that would give workers the right to ignore routine job messages outside of work hours.

Assembly Bill 2751 would give workers the right to ignore work communications except in cases of emergencies or schedule changes. The bill defines an emergency as an "unforeseen situation that threatens an employee, customer, or the public; disrupts or shuts down operations; or causes physical or environmental damage."

If approved, employees would be able to report violations of the law to state officials who can punish businesses with a civil fine. 

On Monday, the bill was assigned to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee. 

SEE MORE: California fast food workers now make $20 minimum wage

Federal labor laws generally state that employees can be "on call" and not get paid as long as they are not at work. 

The bill's sponsor told the San Francisco Standard the proposal updates workers' protections for "the times we live in." Haney added that it is not sustainable for workers to be expected to be reached at all hours. 

“If you’re working a 9-to-5 job, you shouldn’t be expected to be working 24/7. That should be available to everyone, regardless of the existence of smartphones," said Assembly Member Matt Haney, who wrote the legislation. 

Haney told the San Francisco Standard that there should be a clear line between work and personal time. 

“We want all Californian workers and employers to just be aware when people should be working and not working, and just be more upfront with each other in ways that they aren’t right now,” he told the outlet.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert is recovering after having an emergency surgery Tuesday morning, according to her campaign. The surgery happened in order to remove a blood clot in her upper left leg. 

The Colorado congresswoman was admitted to the hospital Monday afternoon after experiencing severe pain and swelling in her leg. Doctors then discovered Boebert had May-Thurner syndrome, a condition that disrupts blood flow.

According to the National Institutes of Health,  May-Thurner syndrome is characterized by the compression of the common left iliac vein, leading to restricted blood flow from a person's left leg to their heart. Over time, this compression can lead to symptoms such as swelling and discomfort in the leg, but in severe cases can result in blood clots causing deep vein thrombosis.

The NIH says May-Thurner syndrome can be found in over 20% of the population and is more prevalent in young to middle aged women. However, the agency said it often goes undiagnosed as many individuals may not experience symptoms.

SEE MORE: Son of Rep. Lauren Boebert arrested after string of vehicle break-ins

“I want to thank Dr. Rebecca Bade and the entire team at UCHealth Medical Center of the Rockies for their great care and providing helpful insight on my recent diagnosis,” Boebert said in a statement released by her campaign. “I'm looking forward to making a full recovery and getting back to Congress to continue fighting for Colorado."

This story was originally published by James Gavato at Scripps News Colorado Springs.

The sister of Ruby Garcia says former President Donald Trump did not speak with her family about the 25-year-old’s death.

Trump visited Grand Rapids, Michigan, on Tuesday to discuss what he calls the “border bloodbath."

During his speech, Trump claimed he spoke to Garcia’s loved ones.

Garcia was found dead with multiple gunshot wounds on the shoulder of US-131 in Grand Rapids last month.

According to Michigan State Police, her boyfriend, Brandon Ortiz-Vite, a native of Mexico in the United States illegally, killed her.

“Ruby's loved ones and community are left grieving for this incredible young woman,” Trump said Tuesday. “They said she had just this most contagious laughter and when she walked into a room, she lit up that room — and I've heard that from so many people. I spoke to some of her family.”

After Trump’s remarks, Scripps News Grand Rapids contacted Garcia’s sister, Mavi, to verify their family spoke with the former president. She disputed his statement.

“No, he did not speak with us,” Mavi said in a text message.

Garcia declined to comment further about Trump's visit.

This story was originally published by Marisa Oberle at Scripps News Grand Rapids.

A Texas law that would authorize police to arrest and detain migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico remains on hold as it proceeds through the appellate process. The law known as SB4 applies to all of Texas' 254 counties.

In rural conservative Texas there's strong support for it. However, in Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, with 45% of the population having Hispanic heritage, the fear of the law is palpable among many. There's a belief that if the law is found constitutional, it would be used in racial profiling.

"My district, District I, is about 75% Latino," said Joaquin Martinez, a Houston City Council member.

Martinez says fear amongst Spanish-speaking immigrants in his neighborhood regardless of their immigration status is palpable.

"Now you're just targeting a specific community," Martinez said, "In a way where you're asking everybody to start investing in this and creating this fear."

SB4 would make crossing illegally into the U.S. from Mexico a state crime, and would give police all over Texas authority to enforce it. Furthermore, Martinez thinks it will open the door to racial profiling.

"One hundred percent. I think right off the bat, some of the first conversations about this amongst older members of the Latino community were about 'Operation Wetback'," Martinez said.

The Houston City Council member is referring to the infamous massive deportation program that occurred in 1954 under the Eisenhower administration. It resulted not only in the removal of undocumented Mexicans, but caught up U.S. citizens of Hispanic heritage. He fears that if federal courts find SB4 constitutional and put it into effect, Hispanic communities will be less likely to cooperate with local police.

SEE MORE: Texas' migrant arrest law will remain on hold under new court ruling

"Prior to that and even now we have communities that are like hands off," Martinez said. " We don't want to get involved in law enforcement because of fear of status."

The law remains on hold as the U.S. Justice Department is suing, arguing Texas is trampling on federal authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws. However, in urban Texas it has irked Hispanic immigrant communities, and local police and officials feel compelled to respond.

Before the law was held up in the courts, Houston Mayor John Whitmire told reporters, "HPD is not enforcing immigration laws. Period."

Fort Worth's chief of police put out social media videos in English and in Spanish reiterating that the department will "follow the law," but views immigration enforcement as primarily the responsibility of the federal and state governments, not local police.

Immigrant advocacy groups like Houston's FIEL, which staunchly opposes the law, still get a constant stream of questions about it.

"Is it going to be enforced in the border? Is it going to be enforced everywhere? And sometimes people just enter panic mode and they say, 'How can I get out of here?,'" said FIEL executive director Cesar Espinosa.

Because the law applies to all of the 254 Texas counties, Espinosa views the reassurances from law enforcement with skepticism.

"One of the things that we're seeing is the second- and third-generation folks that are showing up, also afraid that SB4 is going to target them just because of the way they look. Just because, you know, they may have relatives who are undocumented or immigrants," Espinosa said. 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the supporters of the law say it helps Texas assist the federal government to enforce immigration laws. 

But the federal government argues it would create chaos and confusion, saying Texas' foray into immigration enforcement would create patchwork response and result in less cooperation with our biggest trading partner: Mexico. 

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals takes up the case Wednesday.

What do Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have in common? Well, on top of the fact that they're all former presidents, all three Republicans are among the few to have airports named after them. And if it's up to some current House Republicans, one more of their party's leaders will be added to that list.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Guy Reschenthaler introduced a bill that would rename Virginia's Washington Dulles International Airport after former President Donald Trump. 

In a statement, he said, "As millions of domestic and international travelers fly through the airport, there is no better symbol of freedom, prosperity and strength than hearing 'Welcome to Trump International Airport' as they land on American soil."

Freedom. Prosperity. Strength.

That's what America stood for under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump — the best president of my lifetime.

And that's why I'm introducing legislation to rename Dulles as the Donald J. Trump International Airport.https://t.co/h7dMVaERbQ

— Guy Reschenthaler (@GReschenthaler) April 2, 2024

And six other House Republicans agree, co-sponsoring the bill ahead of its referral to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for further consideration. These include Tennessee Reps. Chuck Fleischmann and Andrew Ogles, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, Alabama Rep. Barry Moore, Texas Rep. Troy Nehls and Florida Rep. Mike Waltz. 

But will the Washington, D.C., area's most prominent international airport really be renamed "Donald J. Trump International Airport?" The short answer: No.

To pass the House, the bill would need the support of every Republican, as they have just a one-vote margin in the coming weeks. And since the bill isn't a major priority, it's unlikely the bill will even receive a vote.

But even if it did pass the House, it would head to the Democratic-held Senate, who almost definitely won't approve it. There's also the filibuster rule which requires 60 votes on legislation before it heads to President Joe Biden's desk — a number that would include both parties again unlikely pledging support.

And even if it did beat the odds and headed to the president's desk, there's probably no chance the leader would approve the bill, and that would be the final "no."

Other Democrats have already expressed their disapproval of the proposal. 

Virginia Rep. Gerry Connelly, one of two Democrats who represent the area around Dulles, said in a statement regarding the proposal, "Donald Trump is facing 91 felony charges. If Republicans want to name something after him, I'd suggest they find a federal prison."

And Virginia Democrat Rep. Don Beyer said in a post on X, "One of Trump's first acts as president was a racist Muslim ban that blocked permanent American residents from their own country. I went to Dulles to try to help innocent people caught up in the chaos. I remember grandparents detained for hours as their terrified families waited."

One of Trump’s first acts as president was a racist Muslim ban that blocked permanent American residents from their own country.

I went to Dulles to try to help innocent people caught up in the chaos. I remember grandparents detained for hours as their terrified families waited. https://t.co/VFXt5TGTXs

— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) April 2, 2024

Dulles is named after John Foster Dulles, a member of the Republican Party who served as secretary of state under President Eisenhower, who also has an airport named after him. 

As for other presidents whose names fill American travel tickets, Democrats are few and far between. Only two Democratic presidents' names grace airport screens — John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, New York, and Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas — while six have that of Republican leaders. 

Those six include George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston; Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C.; Gerald R. Ford International Airport in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport in Wichita, Kansas; Dickinson Theodore Roosevelt Regional Airport in Dickinson, North Dakota; and Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport in Springfield, Illinois.

Prices at fast food restaurants increased at a rate that far exceeds inflation over the last decade, according to a new analysis from FinanceBuzz. 

According to the newly released data, leading fast food restaurants increased prices by about 60% between 2014 and 2024. That is nearly double the rate of inflation. 

According to the consumer price index, the general cost of goods and services has gone up 31% in the past decade. 

The data shows that prices have doubled at McDonald's over that time. FinanceBuzz noted that the average price of a McDouble increased from $1.19 in 2014 to $3.19 currently. A medium fry has gone up from $1.59 to $3.79. 

SEE MORE: California fast food workers now make $20 minimum wage

Earlier this year, McDonald's said that it planned to reemphasize affordability in an effort to bring back low-income customers. 

"Providing our customers with affordable options has always been core to our brand, and it's even more important as consumers feel pressure on their spending, particularly the lower-income consumer," Ian Borden, McDonald's chief financial officer, said earlier this year. "We continue to listen to our customers by evolving our value offerings, maintaining strong perceptions in value for money and affordability."

Other fast food chains also had major price hikes. Here is a look at how much prices have gone up at other chains, according to FinanceBuzz:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of dining out has increased 47% from the start of 2014 through early 2024. Meanwhile, food consumed at home has gone up a mere 30%

The data indicates that eating at home is gaining higher value over eating fast food. 

Daniel Roccato, clinical professor of finance at the University of San Diego, said in FinanceBuzz's report that labor is a significant factor. The comments come as fast food workers in California began receiving a $20 minimum wage on Monday. 

"It’s all about labor. Commodity price increases have moderated but labor costs keep climbing. A tight labor market and higher minimum wage laws are a one-two punch for employers," Roccato said. 

FinanceBuzz's full report is available online. 

President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping discussed Taiwan, artificial intelligence and security issues Tuesday in a call meant to demonstrate a return to regular leader-to-leader dialogue between the two powers.

The call was the leaders’ first conversation since their November summit in California produced renewed ties between the two nations’ militaries and a promise of enhanced cooperation on stemming the flow of deadly fentanyl and its precursors from China.

The call also kicks off several weeks of high-level engagements between the two countries, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen set to travel to China on Thursday and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to follow in the weeks ahead.

President Biden has pressed for sustained interactions at all levels of government, believing it is key to keeping competition between the two massive economies and nuclear-armed powers from escalating to direct conflict. While in-person summits take place perhaps once a year, officials said, both Washington and Beijing recognize the value of more frequent engagements between the leaders.

The two leaders discussed Taiwan ahead of next month’s inauguration of Lai Ching-te, the island’s president-elect, who has vowed to safeguard its de facto independence from China and further align it with other democracies. President Biden reaffirmed the United States’ longstanding “One China” policy and reiterated that the U.S. opposes any coercive means to bring Taiwan under Beijing’s control. China considers Taiwan a domestic matter and has vigorously protested U.S. support for the island.

President Biden also raised concerns about China’s operations in the South China Sea, including efforts last month to impede the Philippines, which the U.S. is treaty-obligated to defend, from resupplying its forces on the disputed Second Thomas Shoal.

Next week, the president will host Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida at the White House for a joint summit where China’s influence in the region was set to be top of the agenda.

SEE MORE: House passes bill that could lead to ban of TikTok

President Biden, in the call with Xi, pressed China to do more to meet its commitments to halt the flow of illegal narcotics and to schedule additional precursor chemicals to prevent their export. The pledge was made at the leaders’ summit held in Woodside, California, last year on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting.

At the November summit, Biden and Xi also agreed that their governments would hold formal talks on the promises and risks of advanced artificial intelligence, which are set to take place in the coming weeks. The pair touched on the issue on Tuesday just two weeks after China and the U.S. joined more than 120 other nations in backing a resolution at the United Nations calling for global safeguards around the emerging technology.

President Biden, in the call, reinforced warnings to Xi against interfering in the 2024 elections in the U.S. as well as against continued malicious cyberattacks against critical American infrastructure, according to a senior U.S. administration official who previewed the call on the condition of anonymity.

He also raised concerns about human rights in China, including Hong Kong’s new restrictive national security law and its treatment of minority groups, and he raised the plight of Americans detained in or barred from leaving China.

The Democratic president also pressed China over its defense relationship with Russia, which is seeking to rebuild its industrial base as it presses forward with its invasion of Ukraine. And he called on Beijing to wield its influence over North Korea to rein in the isolated and erratic nuclear power.

As the leaders of the world’s two largest economies, President Biden also raised concerns with Xi over China’s “unfair economic practices,” the official said, and reasserted that the U.S. would take steps to preserve its security and economic interests, including by continuing to limit the transfer of some advanced technology to China.

The call came ahead of Yellen’s visit to Guangzhou and Beijing for a week of bilateral meetings on the subject with finance leaders from the world’s second largest economy — including Vice Premier He Lifeng, Chinese Central Bank Gov. Pan Gongsheng, former Vice Premier Liu He, American businesses and local leaders.

SEE MORE: UN passes resolution to protect against malicious AI

An advisory for the upcoming trip states that Yellen “will advocate for American workers and businesses to ensure they are treated fairly, including by pressing Chinese counterparts on unfair trade practices.”

It follows Xi’s meeting in Beijing with U.S. business leaders last week, when he emphasized the mutually beneficial economic ties between the two countries and urged people-to-people exchange to maintain the relationship.

Xi told the Americans that the two countries have stayed communicative and “made progress” on issues such as trade, anti-narcotics and climate change since he met with President Biden in November. Last week’s high-profile meeting was seen as Beijing’s effort to stabilize bilateral relations.

Ahead of her trip to China, Yellen last week said that Beijing is flooding the market with green energy that “distorts global prices.” She said she intends to share her beliefs with her counterparts that Beijing’s increased production of solar energy, electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries poses risks to productivity and growth to the global economy.

U.S. lawmakers’ renewed angst over Chinese ownership of the popular social media app TikTok has generated new legislation that would ban TikTok if its China-based owner ByteDance doesn’t sell its stakes in the platform within six months of the bill’s enactment.

As chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., which reviews foreign ownership of firms in the U.S., Yellen has ample leeway to determine how the company could remain operating in the U.S.

Meanwhile, China’s leaders have set a goal of 5% economic growth this year despite a slowdown exacerbated by troubles in the property sector and the lingering effects of strict anti-virus measures during the COVID-19 pandemic that disrupted travel, logistics, manufacturing and other industries.

China is the dominant player in batteries for electric vehicles and has a rapidly expanding auto industry that could challenge the world’s established carmakers as it goes global.

The U.S. last year outlined plans to limit EV buyers from claiming tax credits if they purchase cars containing battery materials from China and other countries that are considered hostile to the United States. Separately, the Department of Commerce launched an investigation into the potential national security risks posed by Chinese car exports to the U.S.

The law pertaining to surrogacy in Michigan changed Monday. Surrogacy contracts or paid surrogacy are now allowed in Michigan.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed a package of bills called the Family Protection Act, repealing a 1988 law. 

State Rep. Samantha Steckloff, D-Farmington Hills, sponsored the main bill in the package.

For Tammy Myers, the moment was four years in the making. She fought to allow surrogacy contracts in Michigan. She said several drafts of proposed bills were made before the Legislature approved.

When asked what the tipping point was, Myers told Scripps News Detroit, "The tipping point, I think, is seeing that rights are being taken across the nation and we all need to fight for reproductive freedom.”

Diagnosed with breast cancer in 2015, and no longer able to bear children, the Grand Rapids resident hired a surrogate who bore her twins.

“Families like mine, we don’t have a lot of choices. This was our only choice to grow our family," Myers explained.

But a premature birth complicated her and her husband's rights as their legal parents.

“After our babies were born, you know, they rushed them out of the room just to get them stable and breathing, and it was in those moments that we got the first call from our attorney that the Grand Rapids judges had denied our emergency request for rights," Myers said.

Myers and her husband, Jordan, said they were forced to adopt their own children and it was a two-year fight.

- Advocates said the new law does the following:

- Legalizes and regulates surrogacy

- Allows surrogates to be fairly compensated

- Eases the process for families to get “formal recognition” of a parental relationship with their child

- Children born by surrogacy and IVF are to be treated equally under the law

- Surrogates have legal representation and are screened by medical professionals before entering an agreement

- Advocates say state law is also updated to protect LGBTQ+ families

When asked about the biggest hurdle on this, Whitmer told Scripps News Detroit, "Well, I mean, that whole time we had Republican majorities in the Legislature. We’ve had a Democratic majority for 15 months, and we’ve already made Michigan a more welcoming place, a place where you make your own decision, where you have full civil rights protections under the law.”

The governor's office said the new law officially takes effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns. That usually happens in late December.

This story was originally published by Darren Cunningham at Scripps News Detroit.

SEE MORE: VA expands IVF access to single veterans, same-sex couples

Oregon's Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek on Monday signed into law a bill that recriminalizes the possession of small amounts of drugs, ending a first-in-the-nation experiment with decriminalization that was hobbled by implementation issues.

The new law rolls back a 2020 voter-approved measure by making so-called personal use possession a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. It also establishes ways for treatment to be offered as an alternative to criminal penalties by encouraging law enforcement agencies to create deflection programs that would divert people to addiction and mental health services instead of the criminal justice system.

In a signing letter, Kotek said the law's success will depend on “deep coordination” between courts, police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and local mental health providers, describing them as “necessary partners to achieve the vision for this legislation.”

SEE MORE: Oregon addiction crisis sparks fervid debate over solutions

Measure 110, approved by voters with 58% support in 2020, made the personal use possession of illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine only punishable by a ticket and a maximum fine of $100. Supporters said treatment is more effective than jail in helping people overcome addiction and that the decadeslong approach of arresting people for possessing and using drugs hasn’t worked.

The law directed hundreds of millions of dollars of the state’s cannabis tax revenue toward addiction services. But the money was slow to get out the door and health authorities, already grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, struggled to stand up the new treatment system, state auditors found. At the same time, the fentanyl crisis began to spark an increase in deadly overdoses.

SEE MORE: Portland under 90-day state of emergency to tackle fentanyl crisis

Those pressures prompted Oregon Democrats to shift their stance on decriminalization policy in recent months.

Some who historically supported the measure voted for the new law during this year's short legislative session. While other Democratic lawmakers opposed the measure, concerned it would result in more arrests and exacerbate social inequities, it ultimately passed the Democrat-controlled Legislature last month.

GOP leaders had long sought to overhaul Measure 110. After Kotek's signing, House Minority Leader Jeff Helfrich said the law illustrated how Republicans "stood united and forced Democrats” to restore criminal penalties.

The changes take effect Sept. 1.