Category: Politics

Political news and coverage

  • Asked about anti-ICE protests, McCormick says ‘dehumanizing language’ is leading to violence

    Asked about anti-ICE protests, McCormick says ‘dehumanizing language’ is leading to violence

    In an interview with Pennsylvania’s two U.S. senators, CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil asked about “extreme rhetoric” in Minneapolis.

    “Where is the line,” Dokoupil asked, “between protected demonstrations, civil disobedience … and impeding ICE, which is breaking the law?”

    He did not specifically mention the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

    “The moment you start dehumanizing people, the moment you start calling people Hitler, the moment you start doing that, it’s a slippery slope to violence,” Republican U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick said during the exchange, which was telecast Friday. “So there’s a direct connection between the violent language, the dehumanizing language, and the actual violence.”

    The Trump administration has defended Good’s killing as an act of self-defense by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who shot Good four times as she drove away from him, video of the incident showed.

    The Department of Justice has since signaled it will not investigate the shooting; rather, it has launched a probe into Democratic elected officials in Minneapolis.

    Federal immigration officers confront protesters outside Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2026, in Minneapolis. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

    McCormick said that ICE agents have a responsibility to enforce the law.

    “The moment the protesters get in the way of the ICE officials actually enforcing the law … the moment that it starts to become physical, I think the risk of violence goes up,” he said.

    The exchange was part of a wide-ranging interview, billed as a “lesson in bipartisanship,” that found McCormick and Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman often agreeing on divisive topics.

    “I reject the extreme on both sides right now,” Fetterman said. “It was a tragedy. We all wish that woman was alive. But also, ICE has a job to do as well,” and everyone doesn’t need to agree on its tactics.

    Here are other moments that stood out from the 16-minute conversation held at U.S. Steel’s Mon Valley Works in West Mifflin, about 10 miles south of Pittsburgh.

    Acquiring Greenland

    Fetterman and McCormick both rejected the idea, proposed by President Donald Trump, that the U.S. may use military force to acquire Greenland. But both senators agreed that it makes sense for the U.S. to increase its presence there.

    “It’s also undeniable, that, one, this is not a brand-new conversation,” Fetterman said, adding that President Harry Truman and others had tried to buy Greenland. “So it’s not an absurd idea.”

    McCormick said he recently met the prime minister of Denmark, “and they are welcoming the United States playing a more active role.” He doesn’t believe the U.S. should use military force, he added, but “we ought to have a strategic foothold.”

    Fed Chair Jerome Powell

    The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, recently subpoenaed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, head of the independent body that determines U.S. monetary policy. The inquiry is looking into Powell’s comments related to renovations of Federal Reserve buildings. Powell has said the probe was opened because Trump was angry that Powell would not cut interest rates when the president wanted him to.

    McCormick defended Trump’s right to criticize Powell, and said Powell should have raised rates faster and lowered them sooner. However, he emphasized Powell’s “mandate” to control federal interest rates.

    “The Fed has to be independent,” McCormick said. “It’s absolutely critical for our financial system.” He added that he does not believe Powell is “involved in any criminal activity.”

    Regulating social media

    Both of Pennsylvania’s U.S. senators support legislation to rein in social media companies, which have faced broad criticism for negatively impacting children and teens.

    “If there’s a friend who’s spending four or five hours a day with your kid, you really want to know who that friend is,” Fetterman said, “and that is social media right now, and it can be incredibly poisonous.”

    Pennsylvania Sens. Dave McCormick, left, and John Fetterman play with Fetterman’s three-legged dog, Artie, at Fetterman’s home in Braddock, Pa., on Feb. 2. (MUST CREDIT: Justin Merriman for The Washington Post)

    Fetterman won his 2022 Senate race against Republican Mehmet Oz after relentlessly trolling his opponent on social media, but he said he has seen the negative effect social media has had on his own family.

    Fetterman said Congress is not doing enough — and he would like to see a social media ban for children similar to what Australia recently implemented.

    Fetterman said he and Republican U.S. Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama are pushing the “Stop The Scroll Act,” which would create a mental health warning label for social media platforms.

    McCormick’s wife, Dina Powell McCormick, recently became president and CEO of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. But McCormick said he agrees that Congress needs to do more. He wants to eliminate social media for children under 14, make social media platform data available to researchers, and ban phones in schools that are funded by the federal government.

    Data centers

    Despite public skepticism over artificial intelligence data centers and their potential impact on energy prices, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has been a vocal supporter of companies building the centers in the state.

    McCormick said Pennsylvania is the country’s second-largest energy exporter, making the state “uniquely positioned to be the AI energy leader.”

    “But, yes, as we develop this huge infrastructure, we need to make sure that consumers aren’t stuck with raising energy increases,” McCormick added.

    The two senators also spoke about energy and healthcare costs, the steel industry, and other topics. The full interview can be viewed here:

  • Abigail Spanberger becomes Virginia’s 1st female governor in historic inauguration

    Abigail Spanberger becomes Virginia’s 1st female governor in historic inauguration

    RICHMOND, Va. — Abigail Davis Spanberger, a former Democratic member of Congress and undercover operative for the CIA, became Virginia’s 75th governor Saturday as the first woman chosen to lead a state that waited until 1952 to ratify the federal amendment giving women the right to vote.

    “We will not agree on everything,” Spanberger said. “But I speak from personal experience when I say we do not have to see eye-to-eye on every issue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder on others.”

    Spanberger, 46, won a 15-point victory last fall after promising to address the rising consumer costs, job insecurity, and lack of access to healthcare that she blamed on policies enacted in Washington and by the Republican administration of President Donald Trump.

    But Spanberger also ran on a record of bipartisanship during her three terms in Congress representing a conservative district, with a reputation for pragmatism that pulled her to the political center at a time of increasing partisan division. Her sweeping win in a swing state drew national attention from Democrats searching for a message that could resonate broadly in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.

    She set a theme of unity for Saturday’s inauguration, which began at noon on the steps of the State Capitol in Richmond — a spot where suffragists demonstrated for the vote more than a century ago.

    Thousands assembled on risers — many wearing clear plastic rain ponchos handed out by staffers. Spanberger wore a long coat and gloves in suffragette-white.

    The crowd chanted “Abby! Abby!” and “We love you Abigail!” as she took the lectern.

    “The history and the gravity of this moment are not lost on me,” Spanberger told a crowd of several thousand who cheered heavily at a mention of suffrage. “I maintain an abiding sense of gratitude to those who worked generation after generation to ensure women could be among those casting ballots, but who could only dream of a day like today.”

    The chilly, occasionally drizzly day held a series of historic firsts. Former state Sen. Ghazala Hashmi was sworn in as the first Muslim and first person of Indian descent to serve as lieutenant governor, taking the oath of office on the Koran. Former state Del. Jay Jones took office as the first Black person elected Virginia attorney general, holding his young son as he was inaugurated.

    Politically, the group marks a sharp left turn from the Republican executive branch that governed in Virginia over the past four years. Outgoing Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) gave Spanberger the keys to the Executive Mansion on Saturday morning, and in his final speech to the legislature earlier in the week, he urged Democrats to maintain his business-friendly policies and to establish a relationship with the Trump administration.

    But Virginia Democrats wield the consolidated power to set any agenda they want. A blue “tsunami” in last fall’s elections — as House Speaker Don Scott (D., Portsmouth) put it — gave the party a 64-36 majority in the House of Delegates to go with a 21-19 majority they already hold in the state Senate. Democratic leaders have pledged to govern with restraint and to stay focused on an affordability agenda, and the national party is touting the state — and Spanberger — as a standard-bearer ahead of this fall’s congressional midterms.

    “I know many of you are worried about the recklessness coming out of Washington. You are worried about policies that are hurting our communities,” Spanberger said. She blamed “an administration,” without mentioning Trump, for “gilding buildings” while the social safety net erodes, prices go up and communities live in fear. The crowd grew loud when she said everyday Virginians should drive policy, “not kings or aristocrats or oligarchs.” But she acknowledged that not all Virginians see the same root problems.

    “I know that some who are here today or watching from home may disagree with the litany of challenges and hardships I laid out,” she said. “Your perspective may differ from mine, but that does not preclude from us working together where we may find common cause.”

    Spanberger pledged to work to lower the cost of housing and energy, reduce gun violence, and improve education. Though she mentioned her predecessor — who, by tradition, left before her speech — only to thank him for his service, Spanberger drew one of her sharpest contrasts to Youngkin by invoking immigration. The Republican has played enthusiastic cheerleader for the hardline policies of the Trump administration, and Spanberger drew loud cheers when she spoke directly to immigrants.

    “And in Virginia, our hardworking, law-abiding immigrant neighbors will know that when we say that we will focus on the security and safety of all of our neighbors,’ we mean them too,” Spanberger said.

    She invoked leaders of the past who called for unity in troubled times, such as Patrick Henry — the first governor of Virginia — who warned in 1799: “United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.”

    That, Spanberger said, “is the charge we must answer again today.” Saying Virginians must put aside differences to find solutions for the future, she asked: “What will you do to help us author this next chapter?”

    D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, another Democrat with a national profile, attended their neighboring governor’s inauguration. “I’m just going to be there to watch history being made,” Moore said in an interview this week. He added that he looks for a “new era of cooperation” between the two states, with shared concerns around issues such as transportation, energy, and “protecting our federal workers.” He leapt to his feet in applause when her speech concluded.

    Prominent national Democrats also attended, including Spanberger’s long-time friend New Jersey Gov.-elect Mikie Sherill (D), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.).

    Virginia’s incoming leaders were busy even before inauguration day, with Jones on Friday dismissing top lawyers at George Mason University and the Virginia Military Institute — universities where Democrats have accused Youngkin and outgoing Attorney General Jason Miyares of politicizing the boards and kowtowing to efforts by the Trump administration to enforce a conservative ideology.

    Spanberger sought resignations from board members at the University of Virginia and has pledged to make appointments there as soon as she takes office. She was expected to take those actions and sign a series of executive orders kicking off her agenda later Saturday.

    Spanberger has cast her election as a victory for a long line of women who have broken barriers in Virginia — including her Republican opponent last year, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who in 2021 became the first woman elected to that role. Just as Virginia delayed ratifying the 19th Amendment for 32 years after it passed in 1920, Spanberger’s mother spent years lobbying the state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. It did so in 2020 under the leadership of its first female Speaker of the House of Delegates, Eileen Filler-Corn (D., Fairfax).

    As Spanberger told the crowd that her mother put herself through nursing school and “worked a heck of a lot more than just full-time,” her mother blew her a kiss. The governor’s three daughters joined her to take the oath; one helped a group of Girl Scouts lead the Pledge of Allegiance.

    After being sworn in before spectators facing the Capitol, Spanberger was set to watch a traditional parade and attend an inaugural ball in the evening.

  • Prosecutor moves to dismiss indictments against Atlantic City superintendent, high school principal

    Prosecutor moves to dismiss indictments against Atlantic City superintendent, high school principal

    ATLANTIC CITY — The Atlantic County prosecutor said Friday his office would not go forward with a child abuse trial against Atlantic City Superintendent La’Quetta Small, the wife of Mayor Marty Small, after determining that their daughter no longer wanted the case to proceed.

    Their daughter, who turned 18 this month, testified for hours at the December trial of her father, who was later acquitted by a jury of charges that he beat his daughter with a broom and further abused her with terroristic threats.

    The office will also request dismissal of charges against Constance Days-Chapman, the principal of Atlantic City High School, who was accused of failing to properly report to the state hotline the accusations made by the daughter.

    In a statement Friday, the prosecutor said the decision was based on the daughter’s wishes and the prior verdict.

    “We believe it is prudent and responsible to dismiss the remaining indictments against them,” prosecutor Williams Reynolds said in the statement.

    The charges have been hanging over the Small family for two years. After being acquitted last month, Mayor Small shouted, “Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, jury.”

    Atlantic City Mayor Marty Small Sr. speaks to the media after being found not guilty on all counts of abusing his teenage daughter, Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025.

    His daughter attended the ceremony when the newly reelected Small was sworn in, and the mayor said the family had spent New Year’s Eve together like old times and begun the healing process.

    Small, 51, faced charges stemming from a handful of incidents in late 2023 and early 2024 in which prosecutors said he and his wife abused and assaulted the teen. The couple said the incidents stemmed from their disapproval of their daughter’s relationship with a young man, leading to escalating tension and arguments in the family home.

    The jury delivered its verdict at noon after having deliberated for two days. They found Small not guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, aggravated assault, making terroristic threats, and witness tampering. A conviction would have required Small to relinquish his office.

    La’Quetta Small was scheduled to stand trial in April on charges of endangering the welfare of a child and simple assault.

    Also facing a forthcoming trial was Days-Chapman, the principal of the Smalls’ daughter’s high school. Prosecutors say when the teen reported her parents’ abuse, Days-Chapman failed to notify child welfare authorities and instead told the couple of the report.

    Days-Chapman, who is Marty Small’s former campaign manager, was later charged with official misconduct and related crimes.

    Mayor Small could not be reached for comment.

    La’Quetta Small’s lawyer, Michael Schreiber, said Friday he was “happy they decided to do the right thing.”

    “It was a very difficult time for my client and her husband and their daughter,” he said. “We have to work on reunification, which is hard.”

    He said the matter should have been handled by counselors or in family court, “where you have therapists to help everyone involved.”

    “When the case is over, the prosecutor goes to the next case,” he said. “Where does that leave everybody? What is the benefit of the prosecution to the daughter? Whether it’s guilty or not guilty, how do you pick up the pieces and help this family?”

    He said he would now be officially appealing a ruling by the state Division of Child Protection and Permanency that made an initial finding that substantiated the allegations.

    He said the daughter has been living with her boyfriend and his mother.

    In the statement, the prosecutor said the victim had last week “received a threat, racial in tone, on one of her social media accounts pertaining to her accusations she made against her father.”

    “While we actively investigate this threat, we believe it is no longer in her best interest both emotionally and perhaps even physically for us to continue with our cases against La’Quetta Small and Constance Days-Chapman at this time,” the prosecutor said. “The further intent of this decision is to hopefully allow [the daughter], her family, and the community the time to heal and move forward.”

  • Brian Fitzpatrick talks Trump’s ‘lack of moral clarity,’ November’s midterms, and his hatred for the two-party system in Philly Mag

    Brian Fitzpatrick talks Trump’s ‘lack of moral clarity,’ November’s midterms, and his hatred for the two-party system in Philly Mag

    U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick didn’t vote for President Donald Trump in 2024, penciling in former Ambassador Nikki Haley instead.

    In 2020, he voted for Trump. Four years earlier, he wrote in former Vice President Mike Pence’s name instead of Trump.

    Those decisions by the moderate Republican, who represents purple Bucks County and a sliver of Democratic-leaning Montgomery County, underscore Fitzpatrick’s unique relationship with and perspective of the president, Philadelphia Magazine reported Friday.

    There are times when Fitzpatrick is blunt in his opposition, telling Philly Mag that Trump’s placation to Russian President Vladimir Putin is because of a “lack of moral clarity.”

    But in other instances, he couches his words against the Trump administration. Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent, told the magazine that the state of the FBI under Director Kash Patel is “heartbreaking,” but that “we’ve seen the weaponization of the Justice Department now, I believe, in two administrations.”

    He also called it “unbecoming” for Trump to accuse six Democratic members of Congress — including U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Chester County — of committing sedition after they appeared in a video urging service members to refuse illegal orders.

    Trump claimed in a social media post that the lawmakers, all military veterans or former members of the intelligence community, had engaged in behavior that was “punishable by DEATH!”

    Fitzpatrick’s comments came in a Philadelphia Magazine profile that details how the Bucks County Republican — who rarely gives interviews to local media — is grappling with an American political system that he wishes was drastically less partisan.

    “I could talk for hours about this, but the two-party system needs to go away. We need to move to a coalition government and not the way it is now, which is a zero-sum, all-or-nothing game,” Fitzpatrick said, describing his preference for a form of government in which competing political parties govern and work together.

    “In the House, if you get 218 votes on a bill, you get everything. And if you get 217 votes, you get nothing,” he said. “Well, a 218-217 breakdown is representative of a very divided electorate that wants compromise, but they don’t get it. And that’s why we have this great, cavernous divide.”

    The interview comes as the lawmaker’s district has been named a key target for Democrats in the midterms, along with the seats of Republican U.S. Reps. Scott Perry of York County, Ryan Mackenzie of Lehigh County, and Rob Bresnahan of Lackawanna County.

    “I’m going to keep doing this as long as I can,” Fitzpatrick told the magazine.

    Fitzpatrick has strayed from voting with his party (and Trump) on several key issues. But other times, he toes the party line, and Democrats have said that Fitzpatrick votes with his party when it counts.

    Fitzpatrick said that party leadership discourages reaching across the aisle, but that he attempts to do so on certain issues.

    Recently, Fitzpatrick, Bresnahan, and Mackenzie joined Democrats to sign a discharge petition on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies. He also voted against the final version of Trump’s domestic policy package, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    The latter vote earned Trump’s ire. Without using his name, the president said that Fitzpatrick was disloyal after Trump did him “a big personal favor. As big as you can get having to do with death and life.” This was in reference to Fitzpatrick’s family receiving permission from Trump’s acting secretary of veterans affairs to bury Fitzpatrick’s late brother, Mike Fitzpatrick, who held the seat before him, in a national veterans’ cemetery in Washington Crossing, Pa., that Mike Fitzpatrick had proudly established.

    The late representative, a former Navy ROTC enlistee, did not meet the required years of service.

    Fitzpatrick told Philly Mag that he thought Trump’s invocation of his brother crossed a line.

    “I was really upset to hear that,” he said.

    This story has been updated to clarify that Fitzpatrick wrote in Nikki Haley in the 2024 presidential election, following a revision to Philadelphia Magazine’s profile.

  • How the Trump administration erased centuries of Justice Department experience

    How the Trump administration erased centuries of Justice Department experience

    WASHINGTON — Michael Ben’Ary was driving one of his children to soccer practice on an October evening last year when he paused at a red light to check his work phone. He was in the middle of a counterterrorism prosecution so important that President Donald Trump highlighted it in his address to Congress.

    Ben’Ary said he was shocked to see his phone had been disabled. He found the explanation later in his personal email account, a letter informing him he had been fired.

    A veteran prosecutor, Ben’Ary handled high-profile cases over two decades at the Justice Department, including the murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent and a suicide bomb plot targeting the U.S. Capitol. Most recently he was leading the case arising from a deadly attack on American service members in Afghanistan.

    Yet the same credentials that enhanced Ben’Ary’s resumé spelled the undoing of his government career.

    His termination without explanation came hours after right-wing commentator Julie Kelly told hundreds of thousands of online followers that Ben’Ary had previously served as a senior counsel to Lisa Monaco, the No. 2 Justice Department official in Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration. Kelly also suggested Ben’Ary was part of the “internal resistance” to prosecuting former FBI Director James Comey, even though Ben’Ary was never involved in the case.

    As Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, approaches her first year on the job, the firings of lawyers such as Ben’Ary have defined her turbulent tenure. The terminations and a larger voluntary exodus of lawyers have erased centuries of combined experience and left the department with fewer career employees to act as a bulwark for the rule of law at a time when Trump, a Republican, is testing the limits of executive power by demanding prosecutions of his political enemies.

    Interviews by the Associated Press of more than a half-dozen fired employees offer a snapshot of the toll throughout the department. The departures include lawyers who prosecuted violent attacks on police at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; environmental, civil rights, and ethics enforcers; counterterrorism prosecutors; immigration judges; and attorneys who defend administration policies. This week, several prosecutors in Minnesota moved to resign amid turmoil over an investigation into the shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.

    “To lose people at that career level, people who otherwise intended to stay and now are either being discharged or themselves are walking away, is immensely damaging to the public interest,” said Stuart Gerson, a senior official in the George H.W. Bush administration and acting attorney general early in Bill Clinton’s administration. “We’re losing really capable people, people who have never viewed themselves as political and attempted to do the right thing.”

    Justice Connection, a network of department alums, estimates that more than 230 lawyers, agents, and other employees from across the department were fired last year, apparently because of their work on cases they were assigned or past criticism of Trump, or seemingly for no reason. More than 6,400 employees are estimated to have left a department that at the end of 2025 had roughly 108,000, the group says.

    The Justice Department says it has hired thousands of career attorneys over the past year. The Trump administration has characterized some of the fired and departed workers as out of step with its agenda.

    Ben’Ary left with unfinished business, including the prosecution stemming from the airport bombing in Kabul, the Afghan capital, and the national security unit he led at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

    Left to pack his belongings, he posted a typed note near his door that functioned as a distress call, reminding colleagues they had sworn an oath to follow the facts “without fear or favor” and “unhindered by political interference.”

    But, he warned, “In recent months, the political leadership of the Department have violated these principles, jeopardizing our national security and making American citizens less safe.”

    Unparalleled in scale, scope, and motivation

    Since its founding in 1870, the Justice Department has occupied elevated status in American democracy, sustained through transitions of power by reliance on facts, evidence, and law.

    To be sure, there has always been a political component to the department, with lawyers appointed by the president.

    But even during turbulent times, when attorneys general have been pushed out by presidents or resigned rather than accede to White House demands — as in the Watergate-era “Saturday Night Massacre” — the department’s rank and file have generally been insulated thanks to long-recognized civil service protections.

    “This is completely unprecedented in both its scale and scope and underlying motivation,” said Peter Keisler, a senior official in the George W. Bush Justice Department.

    In his first term, Trump pushed out one attorney general and accepted another’s resignation, but the workforce remained largely intact. He returned to office in January 2025 seething over Biden-era prosecutions of him and vowing retribution.

    The firings began even before Bondi arrived in February. Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team that investigated Trump were terminated days after the inauguration, followed by prosecutors hired on temporary assignments for cases resulting from the Capitol insurrection in 2021.

    “The people working on these cases were not political agents of any kind,” said Aliya Khalidi, a Jan. 6 prosecutor who was fired. “It’s all people who just care about the rule of law.”

    The firings have continued, at times surgical, at times random and almost always without explanation.

    Adam Schleifer, a Los Angeles prosecutor targeted in a social media post by far-right activist Laura Loomer over past critical comments about Trump, was fired in March. The Justice Department the following month fired attorney Erez Reuveni, who conceded in court that Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported. Reuveni later accused the department of trying to mislead judges to execute deportations. Department officials deny the assertion.

    Two weeks after Maurene Comey completed a sex trafficking trial against Sean “Diddy” Combs, the New York prosecutor was fired, also without explanation. Like Ben’Ary, she wrote a pointed farewell, telling colleagues that “fear is the tool of a tyrant.” Her father, the former FBI director who was a frequent Trump target, said those same words after being indicted in September in a case that has been dismissed.

    Among the most affected sections is the storied Civil Rights Division. A recent open letter of protest was signed by more than 200 employees who left in 2025, with several supervisors recently giving notice of plans to depart. The Public Integrity Section, which prosecutes sensitive public corruption cases, has also been hollowed out by resignations.

    The Justice Department has disputed the accounts of some of those who have been fired or quit and has defended the termination of those who investigated Trump as “consistent with the mission of ending the weaponization of government.”

    “This is the most efficient Department of Justice in American history, and our attorneys will continue to deliver measurable results for the American people,” the department said in a statement. More than 3,400 career attorneys have been hired since Trump took office, the department says.

    The departures have caused backlogs and staff shortages, with senior leaders soliciting job applications. It has affected the department’s daily business as well as efforts to fulfill Trump’s desires to prosecute political opponents.

    Desperate for lawyers willing to file criminal cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, the administration in September forced out the veteran U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, replacing him with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide with no experience as a federal prosecutor.

    Halligan secured the indictments but the win was short-lived.

    One judge later identified grave missteps in how Halligan presented the Comey case to a grand jury. Another dismissed both prosecutions outright, calling Halligan’s appointment unlawful.

    Smith, the special counsel who investigated Trump but left before he could be fired, has himself lamented the losses. “These are not partisans,” he recently told lawmakers.

    “They just want to do good work,” he added, “and I think when you lose that culture, you lose a lot.”

    ‘Our dream was to be federal prosecutors’

    Khalidi joined the department in 2023 in a group of new prosecutors hired to help with the hundreds of cases stemming from the Capitol riot.

    Upon Trump’s return to the White House, she watched cases she prosecuted get dismantled by Trump’s sweeping clemency for all 1,500 defendants charged in the riot, including those who attacked police.

    Less than two weeks later, a Justice Department demand for the names of FBI agents involved in Jan. 6 investigations triggered rumors of potential mass firings. Worried about the agents she worked with, Khalidi spent the day checking in on them. But as she started preparing dinner one Friday evening, she received an email suggesting she had lost her own job.

    Attached was a memo from then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove ordering the firings of prosecutors such as Khalidi who had been hired for temporary assignments but were moved into permanent roles after Trump’s win, a maneuver Bove called “subversive personnel actions by the previous administration.” Neither the email nor memo identified the fired prosecutors, leaving them to guess.

    Khalidi grabbed a suitcase to collect family photos and other personal items she kept at work and rushed to the office, retreating with fellow shocked prosecutors to a bar where they received termination emails.

    The group of 15 fired attorneys later assembled to surrender their computers and phones, entering the same room where they gathered on their first day in 2023.

    “For a lot of us, our dream was to be federal prosecutors,” Khalidi said. “And so we had happy memories of that room, of being excited on our first day. So it was just kind of surreal to be back there turning in our stuff.”

    The news came for Anam Petit, an immigration judge, during a break between hearings.

    Hired during the Biden administration, she said she felt a little uneasy when Trump won the election but also figured her position would probably be safe because immigration judges generally have job stability and because they bear responsibility for issuing removal orders for those who are in the United States illegally, a core presidential priority.

    Petit arrived on Sept. 5 bracing for bad news because it was the Friday of the pay period before her two-year work anniversary, when her probationary appointment was poised to become permanent. Though she said she had received strong performance reviews and had already exceeded her case completion goal for the year, she had become anxious as colleagues were fired amid an administration push to accelerate deportations.

    She was in the courtroom between hearings when she learned via email that she had been fired. She left to text her husband, then returned to the courtroom to render a decision in the case before her.

    “I just put my phone back in my pocket and went into the courtroom and delivered my decision, with a very shaky voice and shaky hands, trying to center myself back to that decision just so that I could relay it,” Petit said.

    Joseph Tirrell was mindful of his job security from the very start of the Trump administration. As the department’s chief ethics officer, he had affirmed that Smith, the special counsel, was entitled to a law firm’s free legal services, a decision he sensed had the potential to rile incoming leadership.

    But he remained in the position and over the ensuing months counseled Bondi’s staff on the propriety of accepting various gifts, including a cigar box from mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor.

    He was fired in July, just before a FIFA Club World Cup final in New Jersey that Tirrell had said Bondi could not ethically accept a free invitation to. He was not terribly surprised, he says, when it was later reported that Bondi attended in Trump’s box. The Justice Department said in a statement that none of Tirrell’s advice “was ever overruled” and that “the Attorney General obtained ethics approval to attend this event in her official capacity as a member of the FIFA Task Force.”

    “There’s a great deal of fear there just because I was fired and just because so many others were summarily fired,” Tirrell said. “Are you going to get fired because you provided ethics advice? Are you going to get fired because you have a pride flag on your desk?”

    ‘Our country depends on you’

    Trump was promoting his administration’s commitment to counterterrorism during his address to Congress in March when he announced a success: the capture of a militant from the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate who was charged in the Kabul airport bombing that killed 13 American service members during the 2021 withdrawal from the country.

    Mohammad Sharifullah arrived the following day in the United States, encountering Ben’Ary in an Alexandria, Va., courtroom.

    Ben’Ary spent the next several months working on the case, but on Oct. 1, he was fired. It was the apparent result, he told colleagues, of a social media post he said contained “false information” — a reference to the one from Kelly, the commentator.

    The termination was so abrupt that Ben’Ary could not tell his colleagues where he had saved important filings and notes. Another prosecutor listed on the case, James Comey’s son-in-law, Troy Edwards, had resigned days earlier upon Comey’s indictment. Once set for trial last month, the case has been postponed.

    In his farewell note, Ben’Ary observed that he was not alone, that in “just a few short months” career employees like himself had been removed from U.S. attorneys offices, the FBI “and other critical parts of DOJ.”

    “While I am no longer your colleague, I ask that each of you continue to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reasons,” Ben’Ary wrote. “Follow the facts and the law. Stand up for what we all believe in — our Constitution and the rule of law. Our country depends on you.”

  • Mixed signals and suspicions fueled clash between Fed and prosecutors

    Mixed signals and suspicions fueled clash between Fed and prosecutors

    The battle between the Federal Reserve and Trump administration prosecutors accelerated over the past few weeks amid mixed signals and mutual suspicion, according to interviews with a half-dozen figures with knowledge of both sides of the dispute.

    Late last month, Fed officials grew concerned that the Justice Department was preparing a criminal case against them when they received two casually worded emails from a prosecutor working for Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. The messages sought a meeting or phone call to discuss renovations at the central bank’s headquarters, according to three people familiar with the matter, who like most others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an open investigation.

    The emails, sent Dec. 19 and Dec. 29, came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Carlton Davis, a political appointee in Pirro’s office whose background includes work for House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R., Ky.), the people said.

    The messages struck Fed officials as breezy in tone.

    “Happy to hop on a call,” one of the missives read in part.

    The casual approach generated suspicions at the Fed. Chair Jerome H. Powell, who by that point had sustained months of criticism from President Donald Trump and his allies over the central bank’s handling of interest rates, retained outside counsel at the law firm Williams & Connolly. Fed officials opted not to respond to Davis, choosing to avoid informal engagement on a matter that could carry criminal implications, according to a person familiar with the decision.

    That led Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime personal friend of Trump’s, to conclude that the Fed was stonewalling and had something to hide, according to a Justice Department official familiar with the matter.

    “The claim that, ‘Oh, they didn’t think it was a big deal’ is naive and almost malpractice,” the official said. “We gave them a deadline. We said the first week of January.”

    The investigation centers on the Fed’s first large-scale renovation of its headquarters on the National Mall since it was built in the 1930s and whether proper cost controls are in place. Powell testified to Congress in June about the scope of a project that had ballooned to $2.5 billion in costs, up from about $1.9 billion before the coronavirus pandemic.

    Trump, his aides, and some congressional Republicans have sought to cast the renovation as overly luxurious and wildly over budget, claims that Powell has strenuously disputed. Fed officials have said that the economic disruptions following the pandemic triggered a jump in the price of steel, cement, and other building materials.

    Powell and the Fed’s defenders say the renovation claims are being used to pressure the independent central bank to lower interest rates, as Trump has called for, and potentially to bully Powell into resigning.

    The emails from Davis to a Federal Reserve lawyer did not indicate the existence of a criminal investigation because prosecutors had not yet opened one, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. There was no FBI involvement when Pirro’s office opened a fact-gathering inquiry in November, and the bureau remains uninvolved, according to two other people familiar with the matter.

    In the emails, Davis asked “to discuss Powell’s testimony in June, the building renovation, and the timing of some of his decisions,” a Justice Department official said. “The letter couldn’t have been nicer,” that official said. “About 10 days after that, we sent another, saying, ‘We just want to have a discussion with you.’ No response through January 8.”

    “We low-keyed it,” the official added. “We didn’t publicize it. We did it quietly.”

    The subpoenas were served the next day. They seek records or live testimony before a grand jury at the end of the month.

    Powell publicly disclosed the probe Sunday evening in a video statement, saying the Fed had received subpoenas “threatening a criminal indictment.”

    “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” he said.

    In a post on X, Pirro said the outreach had been benign, writing: “The word ‘indictment’ has come out of Mr. Powell’s mouth, no one else’s. None of this would have happened if they had just responded to our outreach.”

    Conducting an investigation without using the FBI is an approach Pirro’s office has used on at least one previous occasion. In August, one of the prosecutors now assigned to the Fed inquiry, Steven Vandervelden, was tasked with reviewing numerous complaints that the D.C. police, under then-Police Chief Pamela A. Smith, had been incorrectly categorizing some crimes to paint a rosier picture than the reality on the ground.

    That inquiry relied on voluntary interviews with more than 50 police officers and other witnesses, as well as cooperation from the mayor’s office and the police department’s internal affairs unit, according to a seven-page report Pirro and Vandervelden issued at its conclusion. The report recommended changes to police practices while saying the classification issues did not rise to the level of criminality. No subpoenas were issued in that probe, according to a person familiar with the matter, and the report does not mention any.

    But Smith announced her resignation shortly before the report was released.

  • Mixed signals and mutual suspicions fueled the clash between the Federal Reserve and Trump administration prosecutors

    Mixed signals and mutual suspicions fueled the clash between the Federal Reserve and Trump administration prosecutors

    The battle between the Federal Reserve and Trump administration prosecutors accelerated over the past few weeks amid mixed signals and mutual suspicion, according to interviews with a half-dozen figures with knowledge of both sides of the dispute.

    Late last month, Fed officials grew concerned that the Justice Department was preparing a criminal case against them when they received two casually worded emails from a prosecutor working for Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. The messages sought a meeting or phone call to discuss renovations at the central bank’s headquarters, according to three people familiar with the matter, who like most others interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an open investigation.

    The emails, sent Dec. 19 and Dec. 29, came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Carlton Davis, a political appointee in Pirro’s office whose background includes work for House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky), the people said.

    The messages struck Fed officials as breezy in tone.

    “Happy to hop on a call,” one of the missives read in part.

    The casual approach generated suspicions at the Fed. Chair Jerome H. Powell, who by that point had sustained months of criticism from President Donald Trump and his allies over the central bank’s handling of interest rates, retained outside counsel at the law firm Williams & Connolly. Fed officials opted not to respond to Davis, choosing to avoid informal engagement on a matter that could carry criminal implications, according to a person familiar with the decision.

    That led Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime personal friend of Trump’s, to conclude that the Fed was stonewalling and had something to hide, according to a Justice Department official familiar with the matter.

    “The claim that, ‘Oh, they didn’t think it was a big deal’ is naive and almost malpractice,” the official said. “We gave them a deadline. We said the first week of January.”

    The investigation centers on the Fed’s first large-scale renovation of its headquarters on the National Mall since it was built in the 1930s and whether proper cost controls are in place. Powell testified to Congress in June about the scope of a project that had ballooned to $2.5 billion in costs, up from about $1.9 billion before the coronavirus pandemic.

    Trump, his aides and some congressional Republicans have sought to cast the renovation as overly luxurious and wildly over budget, claims that Powell has strenuously disputed. Fed officials have said that the economic disruptions following the pandemic triggered a jump in the price of steel, cement and other building materials.

    Powell and the Fed’s defenders say the renovation claims are being used to pressure the independent central bank to lower interest rates, as Trump has called for, and potentially to bully Powell into resigning.

    The emails from Davis to a Federal Reserve lawyer did not indicate the existence of a criminal investigation because prosecutors had not yet opened one, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. There was no FBI involvement when Pirro’s office opened a fact-gathering inquiry in November, and the bureau remains uninvolved, according to two other people familiar with the matter.

    In the emails, Davis asked “to discuss Powell’s testimony in June, the building renovation, and the timing of some of his decisions,” a Justice Department official said. “The letter couldn’t have been nicer,” that official said. “About 10 days after that, we sent another, saying, ‘We just want to have a discussion with you.’ No response through January 8.”

    “We low-keyed it,” the official added. “We didn’t publicize it. We did it quietly.”

    The subpoenas were served the next day. They seek records or live testimony before a grand jury at the end of the month.

    Powell publicly disclosed the probe Sunday evening in a video statement, saying the Fed had received subpoenas “threatening a criminal indictment.”

    “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” he said.

    In a post on X, Pirro said the outreach had been benign, writing: “The word ‘indictment’ has come out of Mr. Powell’s mouth, no one else’s. None of this would have happened if they had just responded to our outreach.”

    Conducting an investigation without using the FBI is an approach Pirro’s office has used on at least one previous occasion. In August, one of the prosecutors now assigned to the Fed inquiry, Steven Vandervelden, was tasked with reviewing numerous complaints that the D.C. police, under then-Police Chief Pamela A. Smith, had been incorrectly categorizing some crimes to paint a rosier picture than the reality on the ground.

    That inquiry relied on voluntary interviews with more than 50 police officers and other witnesses, as well as cooperation from the mayor’s office and the police department’s internal affairs unit, according to a seven-page report Pirro and Vandervelden issued at its conclusion. The report recommended changes to police practices while saying the classification issues did not rise to the level of criminality. No subpoenas were issued in that probe, according to a person familiar with the matter, and the report does not mention any.

    But Smith announced her resignation shortly before the report was released.

  • The White House and a bipartisan group of governors, including Josh Shapiro, want to fix AI-driven power shortages and price spikes

    The White House and a bipartisan group of governors, including Josh Shapiro, want to fix AI-driven power shortages and price spikes

    Washington — The Trump administration and a bipartisan group of governors on Friday tried to step up pressure on the operator of the nation’s largest electric grid to take urgent steps to boost power supplies and keep electricity bills from rising even higher.

    Administration officials said doing so is essential to win the artificial-intelligence race against China, even as voters raise concerns about the enormous amount of power data centers use and analysts warn of the growing possibility of blackouts in the Mid-Atlantic grid in the coming years.

    “We know that with the demands of AI and the power and the productivity that comes with that, it’s going to transform every job and every company and every industry,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told reporters at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House. “But we need to be able to power that in the race that we are in against China.”

    Trump administration says it has ‘the answer’

    The White House and governors want the Mid-Atlantic grid operator to hold a power auction for tech companies to bid on contracts to build new power plants, so that data center operators, not regular consumers, pay for their power needs.

    They also want the operator, PJM Interconnection, to contain consumer costs by extending a cap that it imposed last year, under pressure from governors, that limited the increase of wholesale electricity payments to power plant owners. The cap applied to payments through mid-2028.

    “Our message today is just to try and push PJM … to say, ‘we know the answer.’ The answer is we need to be able to build new generation to accommodate new jobs and new growth,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said.

    Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, and Wes Moore of Maryland appeared with Burgum and Wright and expressed frustration with PJM.

    “We need more energy on the grid and we need it fast,” Shapiro said. He accused PJM of being “too damn slow” to bring new power generation online as demand is surging.

    Shapiro said the agreement could save the 65 million Americans reliant on that grid $27 billion over the next several years. He warned Pennsylvania would leave the PJM market if the grid operator does not align with the agreement, a departure that would threaten to create even steeper price challenges for the region.

    PJM wasn’t invited to the event.

    Grid operator is preparing its own plan to meet demand

    However, PJM’s board is nearing the release of its own plan after months of work and will review recommendations from the White House and governors to assess how they align with its decision, a spokesperson said Friday.

    PJM has searched for ways to meet rising electricity demand, including trying to fast-track new power plants and suggesting that utilities should bump data centers off the grid during power emergencies. The tech industry opposed the idea.

    The White House and governors don’t have direct authority over PJM, but grid operators are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which is chaired by an appointee of President Donald Trump.

    Trump and governors are under pressure to insulate consumers and businesses alike from the costs of feeding Big Tech’s data centers. Meanwhile, more Americans are falling behind on their electricity bills as rates rise faster than inflation in many parts of the U.S.

    In some areas, bills have risen because of strained natural gas supplies or expensive upgrades to transmission systems, to harden them against more extreme weather or wildfires. But energy-hungry data centers are also a factor in some areas, consumer advocates say.

    Ratepayers in the Mid-Atlantic grid — which encompasses all or parts of 13 states stretching from New Jersey to Illinois, as well as Washington, D.C. — are already paying billions more to underwrite power supplies to data centers, some of which haven’t been built yet, analysts say.

    Critics also say these extra billions aren’t resulting in the construction of new power plants needed to meet the rising demand.

    Tech giants say they’re working to lower consumer costs

    Technology industry groups have said their members are willing to pay their fair share of electricity costs.

    On Friday, the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents tech giants Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, said it welcomed the White House’s announcement and the opportunity “to craft solutions to lower electricity bills.” It said the tech industry is committed to “making investments to modernize the grid and working to offset costs for ratepayers.”

    The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned electric companies, said it supports having tech companies bid — and pay for — contracts to build new power plants.

    The idea is a new and creative one, said Rob Gramlich, president of Grid Strategies LLC, a Washington, D.C.-based energy markets and transmission consultancy.

    But it’s not clear how or if it’ll work, or how it fits into the existing industry structure or state and federal regulations, Gramlich said.

    Part of PJM’s problem in keeping up with power demand is that getting industrial construction permits typically takes longer in the Mid-Atlantic region than, say, Texas, which is also seeing strong energy demand from data centers, Gramlich said.

    In addition, utilities in many PJM states that deregulated the energy industry were not signing up power plants to long-term contracts, Gramlich said.

    That meant that the electricity was available to tech companies and data center developers that had large power needs and bought the electricity, putting additional stress on the Mid-Atlantic grid, Gramlich said.

    “States and consumers in the region thought that power was there for them, but the problem is they hadn’t bought it,” Gramlich said.

    Associated Press writer Matthew Daly and The Washington Post contributed to this article.

  • Federal immigration agents filmed dragging a woman from her car in Minneapolis

    Federal immigration agents filmed dragging a woman from her car in Minneapolis

    A U.S. citizen on her way to a medical appointment in Minneapolis was dragged out of her car and detained by immigration officers, according to a statement released by the woman on Thursday, after a video of her arrest drew millions of views on social media.

    Aliya Rahman said she was brought to a detention center where she was denied medical care and lost consciousness. The Department of Homeland Security said she was an agitator who was obstructing ICE agents conducting arrests in the area.

    That video is the latest in a deluge of online content that documents an intensifying immigration crackdown across the midwestern city, as thousands of federal agents execute arrests amid protests in what local officials have likened to a “federal invasion.”

    Dragged from her car

    Rahman said that she was on her way to a routine appointment at the Traumatic Brain Injury Center when she encountered federal immigration agents at an intersection. Video appears to show federal immigration agents shouting commands over a cacophony of whistles, car horns and screams from protesters.

    In the video, one masked agent smashes Rahman’s passenger side window while others cut her seatbelt and drag her out of the car through the driver’s side door. Numerous guards then carried her by her arms and legs towards an ICE vehicle.

    “I’m disabled trying to go to the doctor up there, that’s why I didn’t move,” Rahman said, gesturing down the street as officers pulled her arms behind her back.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security disputed that account in an emailed statement on Thursday, saying that Rahman was an agitator who “ignored multiple commands by an officer to move her vehicle away from the scene.” She was arrested along with six other people the department called agitators, one of whom was accused of jumping on an officer’s back.

    The department did not specify if Rahman was charged or respond to questions about her assertion that she was denied medical treatment.

    Barrage of viral videos draw scrutiny

    The video of Rahman’s arrest is one of many that have garnered millions of views in recent days — and been scrutinized amid conflicting accounts from federal officials and civilian eyewitnesses.

    Often, what’s in dispute pertains to what happened just before or just after a given recording. But many contain common themes: Protesters blowing whistles, yelling or honking horns. Immigration officers breaking vehicle windows, using pepper spray on protesters and warning observers not to follow them through public spaces. Immigrants and citizens alike forcibly pulled from cars, stores or homes and detained for hours, days or longer.

    In one video, heavily armed immigration agents used a battering ram to break through the front door of Garrison Gibson’s Minneapolis home, where his wife and 9-year-old child also were inside. The video shot inside the home captures a woman’s voice asking, “Where is the warrant?” and, “Can you put the guns down? There is kids in this house.”

    Another video shows ICE agents, including Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino, detain two employees at a Target store in Richfield, Minnesota. Both are U.S. citizens who were later released, according to social media posts from family members.

    Monica Bicking, 40, was leaving the homeless shelter where she works as a nurse when she took a video that appears to show a federal agent kneeing a man at least five times in the face while several other agents pin him facedown on the pavement in south Minneapolis.

    Bicking works full time, so she says she doesn’t intentionally attend organized protests or confrontations with ICE. But she has started to carry a whistle in case she encounters ICE agents on her way to work or while running errands, which she says has become commonplace in recent weeks.

    “We’re hypervigilant every time we leave our houses, looking for ICE, trying to protect our neighbors, trying to support our neighbors, who are now just on lockdown,” Bicking said.

    ‘I thought I was going to die’

    Rahman said in her statement that after her detainment, she felt lucky to be alive.

    “Masked agents dragged me from my car and bound me like an animal, even after I told them that I was disabled,” Rahman said.

    While in custody, Rahman said she repeatedly asked for a doctor, but was instead taken to the detention center.

    “It was not until I lost consciousness in my cell that I was finally taken to a hospital,” Rahman said.

    Rahman was treated for injuries consistent with assault, according to her counsel, and has been released from the hospital.

    She thanked the emergency department staff for their care.

    “They gave me hope when I thought I was going to die.”

  • Senate passes more spending bills, but Homeland Security dispute looms

    Senate passes more spending bills, but Homeland Security dispute looms

    WASHINGTON — Congress is halfway home in approving government funding for the current budget year that began Oct. 1 after the Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a three-bill package.

    Now comes the hard part. Lawmakers still must negotiate a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security amid soaring tensions on Capitol Hill after the shooting of a Minnesota woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.

    Lawmakers are working to complete passage of all 12 annual spending bills before Jan. 30, the deadline set in a funding patch that ended a 43-day government shutdown in November. With the Senate’s action on Thursday, six of those bills have now passed through both chambers of Congress. The measure before the Senate passed by a broadly bipartisan vote of 82-15. It now goes to President Donald Trump to be signed into law.

    That recent success would greatly reduce the impact of a shutdown, in the unlikely event that there is one at the end of January, since lawmakers have now provided full-year funding for such agencies as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Justice.

    Lawmakers from both parties are determined to prevent another lapse in funding for the remaining agencies. The House’s approval of a separate two-bill package this week nudges them closer to getting all 12 done in the next two weeks.

    “Our goal, Mr. President is to get all of these bills signed into law. No continuing resolutions that lock in previous priorities and don’t reflect today’s realities,” said Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “No more disastrous government shutdowns that are totally unnecessary and so harmful.”

    ICE shooting inflames debate on funding

    The biggest hurdle ahead is the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The plan was to bring that bill before the House this week, but Rep. Tom Cole, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the decision was made to pull the bill and “buy some time” as lawmakers respond to the Minneapolis shooting.

    Democrats are seeking what Rep. Rosa DeLauro called “guardrails” that would come with funding for ICE.

    “We can’t deal with the lawlessness and terrorizing of communities,” said DeLauro (D., Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. “We’re going back and forth with offers, and that’s where we are.”

    Trump’s deportation crackdown, focused on cities in Democratic-leaning states, has incensed many House Democrats who demand a strong legislative response. Last week, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Good in a shooting that federal officials said was an act of self-defense but that the mayor described as reckless and unnecessary.

    Some 70 Democrats have signed onto an effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Others are seeking specific changes to how the agency operates, such as requiring ICE agents to wear body cameras.

    “There are a variety of different things that can be done that we have put on the table and will continue to put on the table to get ICE under control so that they are actually conducting themselves like every other law enforcement agency in the country, as opposed to operating as if they’re above the law, somehow thinking they’ve got absolute immunity,” said Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus, which includes nearly 100 Democratic members, formally announced opposition to any funding to immigration enforcement agencies within the Department of Homeland Security “unless there are meaningful and significant reforms to immigration enforcement practices.”

    Looking for a solution

    Cole said any changes to the Homeland Security funding bill would need sign-on from the White House. He said one possible answer would be to let Democrats have a separate vote on the Homeland Security bill. If passed, it would then be combined with some other spending bills for transmittal to the Senate. Republicans used a similar procedural tactic to get a previous spending package over the finish line in the House.

    The options for Democrats on Homeland Security are all rather bleak. If Congress passes a continuing resolution to fund the agency at current levels, that gives the Trump administration more discretion to spend the money as it wants.

    Meanwhile, any vote to eliminate funding for ICE won’t stop massive sums from flowing to the agency because Trump’s tax cut and border security bill, passed last summer, injects roughly $170 billion into immigration enforcement over the next four years.

    Also, any vote to eliminate funding could put some Democrats in tough reelection battles in a difficult position this fall as Republicans accuse them of insufficiently supporting law enforcement.