By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army on Friday confirmed there will be a military parade on President Donald Trump’s birthday in June, as part of the celebration around the service’s 250th birthday.

Plans for the parade, as first detailed by The Associated Press on Thursday, call for about 6,600 soldiers to march from Arlington, Virginia, to the National Mall along with 150 vehicles and 50 helicopters. Until recently, the Army’s birthday festival plans did not include a massive parade, which officials say will cost tens of millions of dollars.

But Trump has long wanted a military parade, and discussions with the Pentagon about having one in conjunction with the birthday festival began less than two months ago.

The Army’s 250th birthday happens to coincide with Trump’s 79th birthday on June 14.

In a statement Friday, Army spokesman Steve Warren said the Army’s birthday celebration will include “a spectacular fireworks display, a parade, and a daylong festival on the National Mall.”

By ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked a White House executive order targeting an elite law firm, dealing a setback to President Donald Trump’s campaign of retribution against the legal profession.

U.S. District Beryl Howell said the executive order against the firm of Perkins Coie amounted to “unconstitutional retaliation” as she ordered that it be immediately nullified and that the Trump administration halt any enforcement of it.

“No American President,” Howell wrote in her 102-page order, “has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’”

The ruling was most definitive rejection to date of Trump’s spate of similarly worded executive orders against some of the country’s most elite law firms, part of a broader effort by the president to reshape American civil society by targeting perceived adversaries in hopes of extracting concessions from them and bending them to his will. Several of the firms singled out for sanction have either done legal work that Trump has opposed, or currently have or previously had associations with prosecutors who at one point investigated the president.

The edicts have ordered that the security clearances of attorneys at the targeted firms be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that their employees be barred from federal buildings. The punished law firms have called the executive orders an affront to the legal system at odds with the foundational principle that lawyers should be free to represent whomever they’d like.

In the case of Perkins Coie, the White House cited its representation of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 presidential race. Trump has also railed against one of the firm’s former lawyers, Marc Elias, who engaged the services of an opposition research firm that in turn hired a former British spy who produced files of research examining potential ties between Trump and Russia. Elias left the firm 2021.

In her opinion, Howell wrote that Perkins Coie was targeted because the firm “expressed support for employment policies the President does not like, represented clients the President does not like, represented clients seeking litigation results the President does not like, and represented clients challenging some of the President’s actions, which he also does not like.”

“That,” she wrote, “is unconstitutional retaliation and viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.”

The decision was not surprising given that Howell had earlier temporarily blocked multiple provisions of the order and had expressed deep misgivings about the edict at a more recent hearing, when she grilled a Justice Department lawyer who was tasked with justifying it.

The other law firms that have challenged orders against them —WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey — have succeeded in at least temporarily blocking the orders. But other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to dedicate tens of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.

By LINDSAY WHITEHURST, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to clear the way for Elon Musk ’s Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans.

The emergency appeal comes after a judge in Maryland restricted the team’s access under federal privacy laws.

Social Security holds personal records on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, bank details, salary information and medical and mental health records for disability recipients, according to court documents.

The government says the DOGE team needs access to target waste in the federal government, and asked the justices to put the lower court order on hold as the lawsuit over the issue plays out.

Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the judge’s restrictions disrupt DOGE’s urgent work and inappropriately interfere with executive-branch functions. “Left undisturbed, this preliminary injunction will only invite further judicial incursions into internal agency decision-making,” he wrote.

Musk has been focused on Social Security as an alleged hotbed of fraud, describing it as a “ Ponzi scheme ” and insisting that reducing waste in the program is an important way to cut government spending.

An appeals court refused to immediately to lift the block on DOGE access, though it split along ideological lines. Conservative judges in the minority said there’s no evidence that the team has done any “targeted snooping” or exposed personal information.

The lawsuit was originally filed by a group of labor unions and retirees represented by the group Democracy Forward.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland that blocked DOGE from Social Security systems did allow staffers to access data that has been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable.

The appeal is the latest in a string of emergency applications to the nation’s highest court as the Trump administration faces about 200 lawsuits challenging various aspects of President Donald Trump’s sweeping conservative agenda.

President Donald Trump’s proposed budget looks to end the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft and Gateway space station central to NASA’s existing Artemis program — but only after a successful moon landing as the nation remains in a race with China.

A preliminary overview of the White House’s planned 2026 discretionary budget released Friday dubbed SLS and Orion as “grossly expensive and delayed,” citing that each launch SLS rocket alone costs the government $4 billion and is 140% over budget.

It’s among billions in cuts for the overall $18.8 billion proposed budget for NASA, which for the current fiscal year is nearly $25 billion. Ultimately, Congress will pass a budget and it often counters presidential proposals.

The Trump administration looks to drop funds toward Artemis’ future launches by $879 million with a goal of ending them after the Artemis III flight.

“The budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions,” the White House proposal stated. “The budget also proposes to terminate the Gateway, a small lunar space station in development with international partners, which would have been used to support future SLS and Orion missions.”

NASA flew the successful uncrewed Artemis I mission that orbited the moon in 2022 and has its first crewed mission, Artemis II, gearing up to fly around the moon no later than April. Artemis III, still on NASA’s calendar for summer 2027, would return humans to the lunar surface for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972.

NASA’s Office of the Inspector General in 2023 raised the red flag of rising costs of SLS and Orion, noting that by the time it manages to fly Artemis III the program would have topped $93 billion. That includes billions more than originally announced in 2012 as years of delays and cost increases plagued the lead-up to Artemis I.

Even nearly two years ago the audit said NASA should consider alternatives.

“Although the SLS is the only launch vehicle currently available that meets Artemis mission needs, in the next 3 to 5 years other human-rated commercial alternatives that are lighter, cheaper, and reusable may become available,” the audit said. “Therefore, NASA may want to consider whether other commercial options should be a part of its mid- to long-term plans to support its ambitious space exploration goals.”

That includes heavy-lift rockets such as Blue Origin’s New Glenn that flew for the first time early this year as well as the in-development SpaceX Starship that has made several suborbital test flights.

To that end, the Trump budget proposal looks to keep the human exploration budget the highest line item with more than $7 billion — including $1 billion in new investments to pursue Mars-focused programs.

That’s the only program with a proposed increase.

The biggest loser in the proposed budget is space science with cuts of more than $2.2 billion followed by more than $1.1 billion in cuts to Earth science, mission support and more than $500 million from space technology.

“In line with the administration’s objectives of returning to the moon before China and putting a man on Mars, the budget would reduce lower priority research and terminate unaffordable missions such as the Mars Sample Return mission that is grossly overbudget and whose goals would be achieved by human missions to Mars,” the proposal stated.

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Michael Romano spent more than 17 years at the Justice Department, eventually becoming a supervisor on the team that would prosecute more than 1,500 people charged in the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The moment he watched the largest investigation in department history get wiped away with the stroke of a pen — on President Donald Trump’s first day back in the White House — Romano knew he had to leave.

“I knew on January 20th, when the pardons were announced, that I needed to find my way out,” Romano said in an interview with The Associated Press weeks after his resignation from the Justice Department. “It would be untenable for me to stay, given the pardons and given the false narratives that were being spread about January 6.”

Now, Romano says he fears Trump’s decision to pardon even the most violent rioters — whom his own vice president once said “obviously” shouldn’t be pardoned — could embolden right-wing extremists and encourage future political violence.

“The way that the pardons have been received by the January 6th defendants and by other right-wing extremists, as I understand it, is to recognize that if you support the president and if you commit violence in support of the president, that he might insulate you from the consequences, that he might protect you from the criminal justice system,” Romano said. “And so that might encourage people to commit these sort of acts.”

Romano is among dozens of Justice Department lawyers who have resigned, been pushed out or fired in the weeks since Trump’s new leadership has taken over and begun making sweeping changes to align the law enforcement agency with the priorities of the Republican president whom the department once prosecuted.

Trump’s return to the White House has ushered in a dizzying change for many in the Justice Department, but perhaps few have felt it more than the lawyers who spent years working on the largest-scale serious attack on the Capitol since the war of 1812.

As a deputy chief of the now-disbanded Capitol Siege Section that prosecuted the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, Romano had a close-up view of the evidence, including harrowing videos and court testimony detailing the violence that unfolded when the pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol as lawmakers met to certify former President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.

Romano joined the Justice Department in 2007 straight out of law school, and was working in the section in Washington that handles public corruption cases on Jan. 6, 2021. He recalled watching the riot unfold on television, and quickly deciding he wanted to help with the prosecution of what he described as a “crime of historic proportions.”

Trump’s pardons cemented the president’s yearslong campaign to rewrite the history of the Jan. 6 attack.

While vying to return to the White House, Trump repeatedly downplayed the violence that left more than 100 police officers injured, and lauded the rioters as patriots and hostages whom he contended were unfairly persecuted by the Justice Department for their political beliefs. Only two Capitol riot defendants were acquitted of all charges, which Trump supporters cited as evidence that Washington juries can’t be fair and impartial. Some Jan. 6 defendants are now considering running for office.

The scope of Trump’s clemency hours after the inauguration came as a surprise to many, considering the president had suggested in the weeks prior that instead of blanket pardons, he would look at the Jan. 6 defendants on a case-by-case basis. Trump’s proclamation described the prosecution as “a grave national injustice” and declared that the pardons would begin “a process of national reconciliation.”

Trump’s pardons led to the release from prison of the leaders of far-right extremist groups convicted of orchestrating violent plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power as well as rioters convicted of brutal attacks on police — many of whose crimes were captured on camera and broadcast on live TV. Trump has defended his pardons, saying the sentences handed down for actions that day were “ridiculous and excessive” and that “these are people who actually love our country.”

Romano said the notion that the Jan. 6 defendants were not treated fairly by in the justice system or not given the due process they were entitled is “simply not true.” In many cases, he said prosecutors had overwhelming evidence because the defendants “filmed themselves proudly committing crimes.”

“They had the full protection of rights guaranteed to them by the American justice system and the Constitution,” Romano said. “It was my experience when dealing with these cases and seeing the way that the rioters and some of their attorneys behaved in court, that their take was that they should be treated like heroes and not prosecuted at all.”

Despite the pardons, Romano said he still believes that the Capitol Siege Section’s work was important because it left behind a “historical record” of what happened on Jan. 6 that cannot be changed.

“In light of the efforts to whitewash the history of that day, in light of the efforts for people to lie about that day for their own benefit, which is what’s happening, it’s important that people really understand the truth about what happened on January 6th,” he said.

By AAMER MADHANI

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ahead of his second go-around in the White House, President Donald Trump spoke with certainty about ending Russia’s war in Ukraine in the first 24 hours of his new administration and finding lasting peace from the devastating 18-month conflict in Gaza.

But as the Republican president nears the 100th day of his second term, he’s struggling to make good on two of his biggest foreign policy campaign promises and is not taking well to suggestions that he’s falling short. And after criticizing President Joe Biden during last year’s campaign for preventing Israel from carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump now finds himself giving diplomacy a chance as he tries to curb Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

“The war has been raging for three years. I just got here, and you say, ‘What’s taken so long?’” Trump bristled, when asked about the Ukraine war in a Time magazine interview about his first 100 days. As for the Gaza conflict, he insisted the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas in 2023 that triggered the war “would have never happened. Ever. You then say, ‘What’s taking so long?’”

Measuring a U.S. president by his first 100 days in office is an arbitrary, albeit time-honored, tradition in Washington. And brokering peace deals between intractable warring parties is typically the work of years, not weeks.

But no other president has promised to do as much out of the gate as Trump, who is pursuing a seismic makeover of America’s approach to friends and foes during his second turn in the White House.

Trump has moved at dizzying speed to shift the rules-based world order that has formed the basis for global stability and security in the aftermath of World War II.

All sides have scrambled to acclimate as Trump launched a global tariff war and slashed U.S. foreign aid all while talking up the ideas of taking Greenland from NATO ally Denmark and making Canada the 51st state.

But Trump’s inability to broker deals in Ukraine and Gaza — at least to date — might be the most demonstrable evidence that his effort to quickly shake up U.S. foreign policy through sheer will could have its limits.

And Trump hasn’t obscured his frustration, particularly over the Ukraine war, which he’s long dismissed as a waste of U.S. taxpayer money and of lives lost in the conflict.

The president and his team have gone hot and cold about prospects for peace in Ukraine since Trump’s Oval Office blowup with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in February.

In that encounter, both Trump and Vice President JD Vance lectured the Ukrainian leader for being insufficiently grateful for U.S. assistance in the fight to repel Russia’s invading forces before asking him to leave the White House grounds.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned that the White House is ready to walk away if Ukraine and Russia don’t make substantial progress toward a peace deal soon.

And Trump on back-to-back days this past week lambasted Zelenskyy for “prolonging” the “killing field” and then Russian President Vladimir Putin for complicating negotiations with “very bad timing” in launching brutal strikes that pummeled Kyiv.

But by Friday, Trump was expressing optimism again after his special envoy Steve Witkoff met in Moscow with Putin. Following the talks, Trump declared that the two sides were “very close to a deal.”

Less than 24 hours later, Trump was once again downcast after he met with Zelenskyy on the sidelines of Pope Francis’s funeral, expressing doubt in a social media post that Putin was serious about forging a deal.

“It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along,” Trump said of Putin and Russia’s ongoing bombardment of Ukraine.

Trump again expressed frustration with Putin in an exchange with reporters on Sunday evening. “I want him to stop shooting, sit down and sign a deal,” Trump said. “We have the confines of a deal, I believe. And I want him to sign it and be done with it.”

The Kremlin on Monday declared a ceasefire in Ukraine on May 8-10 as Russia marks Victory Day over Nazi Germany.

White House National Security Council spokesman James Hewitt said Trump remains committed to getting a deal done and is “closer to that objective than at any point during Joe Biden’s presidency.”

“Within 100 days, President Trump has gotten both Ukraine and Russia to the negotiating table with the aim to bring this horrific war to a peaceful resolution,” Hewitt said. “It is no longer a question of if this war will end but when.”

Peace in Gaza remains elusive

Trump started his second term with some momentum on ending the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

His envoy Witkoff, a fellow New York real estate maverick turned high-stakes diplomat, teamed up with the outgoing Biden Middle East adviser Brett McGurk to get Israeli and Hamas officials to agree to a temporary ceasefire deal that went into effect one day before Trump’s inauguration. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

On the eve of his return to office, Trump took full credit for what he called an “epic” agreement that would lead to a “lasting peace” in the Middle East.

The temporary ceasefire led to the freeing of 33 hostages held in Gaza and the release of roughly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

But the truce collapsed in March, and fighting resumed, with the two sides unable to come to an agreement for the return of 59 remaining hostages, more that half of whom Israeli officials believe are dead.

Conditions in Gaza remain bleak. Israel has cut off all aid to the territory and its more than 2 million people. Israel has disputed that there is a shortage of aid in Gaza and says it’s entitled to block the assistance because, it claims, Hamas seizes the goods for its own use.

Trump, as he flew to Rome on Friday for the pope’s funeral, told reporters that he’s pressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “very hard” to get food and medicine into Gaza but dismissed questions about how the Israeli leader is responding to his appeal.

“Well, he knows all about it, OK?” Trump told reporters.

Hewitt, the National Security Council spokesman, pushed back on the notion that Trump has fallen short on his effort to find an endgame to the Gaza conflict, setting the blame squarely on Hamas.

“While we continue to work to secure the release of all remaining hostages, Hamas has chosen violence over peace, and President Trump has ensured that Hamas continues to face the gates of hell until it releases the hostages and disarms,” Hewitt said.

Trump’s team says the president has racked up more foreign policy wins than any other U.S. president this early in a term.

The White House counts among its early victories invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport Venezuelan migrants it accuses of being gang members, securing the release of at least 46 Americans detained abroad, and carrying out hundreds of military strikes in Yemen against Houthi militants who have been attacking commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea.

Trump hopeful for Iran nuclear deal breakthrough

The White House this month also launched direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, a renewed push to solve another of the most delicate foreign policy issues facing the White House and the Middle East.

Trump says his administration is making progress in its effort to secure a deal with Iran to scupper Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program.

Witkoff flew directly from meeting with Putin in Moscow to Muscat, Oman, to take part in talks on Saturday, the third engagement between U.S. and Iranian officials this month.

The U.S. and other world powers in 2015 reached a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran’s enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the nuclear agreement in 2018, calling it the “worst deal ever.”

Since Trump pulled out of the Obama-era deal, Iran has accelerated its production of near weapons-grade uranium.

The president said on Friday that he’s open to meeting with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei or President Masoud Pezeshkian, while also indicating military action — something that U.S. ally Israel has advocated — remains an option.

As Trump increasingly expresses his preference for diplomacy rather than military action, Iran hawks at home are urging him to tread carefully in his hunt for a legacy-defining deal.

“The Iranians would have the talking point that they forced the same person who left the deal many years later, after them resisting maximum pressure, into an equal or worse deal,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

But Trump wants a solution, and fast.

“I think a deal is going to be made there,” Trump said Sunday “That’s going to happen pretty soon.”

By JACK BROOK, Associated Press/Report for America

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The textile mills that once served as the backbone of Mount Pleasant, North Carolina, have long been shuttered, and officials believed federal money would be key to the town’s overdue revitalization. They hoped an improved stormwater drainage system and secured electrical wires — funded through a program to help communities protect against natural disasters and climate change — would safeguard investments in new businesses like a renovated historic theater to spur the largely rural economy.

Mount Pleasant was about to receive $4 million when the Federal Emergency Management Agency eliminated the program. Officials say their plans — years in the making — and those of hundreds of communities nationwide supported by the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program have been upended.

“This is a generational set of infrastructure projects that would set us up for the next hundred years and it just — poof — went away,” said Erin Burris, assistant town manager for Mount Pleasant, 25 miles east of Charlotte.

FEMA’s elimination this month of the BRIC program revoked upwards of $3.6 billion in funding earmarked for communities like Mount Pleasant. Though President Donald Trump has openly questioned whether to shutter FEMA completely, local officials said they were blindsided by the move to end BRIC, established during the Republican president’s first term.

Many affected communities are in Republican-dominated, disaster-prone regions. FEMA called the BRIC grants “wasteful” and “politicized” tools, but officials and residents say they were a vital use of government resources to proactively protect lives, infrastructure and economies. Money would have gone toward strengthening electrical poles to withstand hurricane-force winds in Louisiana, relocating residents in Pennsylvania’s floodplains and safeguarding water supply lines in Oklahoma’s Tornado Alley.

Disasters affect the vast majority of Americans — 95% live in a county that has had a federally declared weather disaster since 2011, said Amy Chester, director of Rebuild by Design, a nonprofit focused on disaster prevention.

The BRIC program told communities, “We’re going to help your community be stronger ahead of time,” she said. “Cutting one of the sole sources of funding for that need is essentially telling Americans that it’s OK that they’re suffering.”

Officials call FEMA’s program imperfect but important

Across multiple states, officials said the BRIC program was far from perfect — they were often frustrated with the wait for funding.

But in southeastern Louisiana, Lafourche Parish President Archie Chaisson said despite his issues with FEMA’s bureaucracy, he’s seen firsthand that money invested to fortify homes and infrastructure works.

The hurricane-ravaged state receives the highest rate of federal disaster assistance per capita, with more than $8 billion pouring in since 2011, according to Rebuild by Design. Lafourche Parish has seen more than a dozen federally declared extreme weather disasters since 2011.

Lafourche had been set to receive more than $20 million from several grants to replace wooden electrical poles with steel and take other steps to lower the soaring costs of home insurance.

Chaisson, a Republican whose parish saw 80% of voters support Trump in November, said he backs efforts to streamline federal agencies — as long as funding continues to flow for disaster prevention.

“I’m hopeful that that’s what the president’s trying to do with this,” he said. “Is there some other way to get the money so we can continue to do these projects? … No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, the programs themselves and the dollars allocated make our communities more resilient.”

Research backs him up: A 2024 study funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found every $1 invested in disaster preparation saved $13 in economic impact, damage and cleanup costs.

Democratic officials in states that lost money have publicly expressed outrage. Few Republicans have joined in at a national level, even though about two-thirds of the top 15 states in total FEMA funds received, spending per person and number of federally declared disasters lean heavily Republican.

An exception has been Louisiana’s senior U.S. senator, Bill Cassidy. He took to the Senate floor this month calling for BRIC’s reinstatement, saying it’s “a lifesaver and a cost-saver.”

About $185 million intended for Louisiana evaporated, and officials had to shelve dozens of applications for hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding, according to data compiled by state and federal agencies.

“This isn’t waste,” Cassidy said. “To do anything other than use that money to fund flood mitigation projects is to thwart the will of Congress.”

FEMA says more than $3.6 billion of BRIC funds will be returned to the federal Disaster Relief Fund, for disaster response and recovery, and an additional $882 million is being returned to the U.S. Treasury or reapportioned by Congress in the following fiscal year. Agency officials did not comment further for this story.

Some states fight to restore funds

Twenty-two mostly blue states and the District of Columbia have filed a lawsuit demanding the federal government release obligated funding, including FEMA grants.

The lawsuit highlights Grants Pass in conservative southern Oregon, where FEMA has refused to release BRIC funding awarded for a $50 million water treatment facility.

Flooding could knock out the water supply for 60,000 people for months, said Jason Canady, city public works director. Funding would have been used in part to build a modernized plant on higher ground.

“If you can’t provide drinking water, hospitals, groceries, restaurants are going to have trouble. Economically, it would be devastating,” he said. “It really is the cornerstone on which the community is built.”

In Stillwater, Oklahoma, Mayor Will Joyce spent two years working with FEMA on a BRIC application to overhaul and provide backup supply for a regional water system used by 100,000 people. Its 36-mile pipeline is at risk of damage from tornadoes and flooding. If it breaks, Stillwater has less than a day’s worth of reserve drinking water.

“We can’t just hope nothing bad happens,” Joyce said. “This project is a necessity.”

Without FEMA’s support, he said, Stillwater will have to double the cost of water for residents to fund the project.

In an open letter, U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr., a northeast Pennsylvania Republican, urged FEMA to revive BRIC, saying communities in his district would struggle to fund disaster adaptation work, including relocating families in flooded homes.

Bresnahan wrote that “programs like BRIC are not wasteful, but well within the purview of federal coordination of disaster relief efforts” and noted that Trump “promised not to leave the forgotten men and women of America behind.”

Some towns fear their needs will be forgotten

In Mount Pleasant, Whit Moose, the fourth-generation owner of a downtown pharmacy, said few of his neighbors seem aware that funding disappeared, though his own business would have benefited.

“It was going to be a wonderful thing,” he said. “Now we just got to start over.”

Republican voters in the town embrace efforts to downsize government, but the perception is that cuts are focused on federal bureaucracy, related waste and redundancy, or diversity, equity and inclusion spending, said Jim Quick, vice chairman of the Cabarrus County Republican Party.

“It would be a surprise for us to learn that those budget cuts would be impacting a local municipality,” Quick said. “The reality is all of us have to trim back.”

Town voters are unlikely to retract their support for Trump, he said, noting that 80% supported him in November.

Burris, the assistant town manager, worries about flooding downtown. And she points to one vulnerable utility pole she’s nicknamed Atlas — after the Greek god carrying the world on his shoulders — holding up the electricity, internet and telecommunications for the town’s 1,700 people.

“It’s a special community, and it deserves good things,” Burris said, choking up. “I don’t know what was political about Mount Pleasant — little, teeny, tiny Mount Pleasant — getting a little bit of help with some stormwater flooding.”

Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

By CHRIS MEGERIAN and CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Since President Donald Trump returned to office, every week has been a whirlwind of activity to show Americans that his administration is relentlessly pursuing his promises.

With a compliant Republican-controlled Congress, Trump has had a free hand to begin overhauling the federal government and upending foreign policy.

As Trump hits his 100th day in office Tuesday, his imprint is everywhere. But will it last?

Very much unsettled is whether the Republican president has run up his scorecard lawfully. Trump has faced lawsuits over his attempts to surge deportations, punish law firms and slash the federal workforce. All of that and more is being adjudicated in courtrooms, meaning much of what he’s done could come undone.

Here’s a look at where progress on his promises stands:

He promised to beat inflation

“We’re going to get those prices down,” he told voters.

Prices have come down — before Trump took office and since. Inflation has been falling since a peak of 9.1% in 2022. It was at 3% in January, the month Trump was inaugurated, and 2.4% in March.

But the Federal Reserve has warned that the president’s tariff plans will most likely lead to higher prices by taxing foreign imports.

He’s cracked down on illegal immigration

Trump has clearly made progress on a signature promise to control the border.

The number of people trying to cross illegally into the United States from Mexico dropped steeply in President Joe Biden’s last year, from a high of 249,740 in December 2023 to 47,324 in December 2024. Under Trump, the numbers sank to only 8,346 in February and 7,181 in March.

For all the legal wrangling about Trump’s unorthodox and possibly illegal tactics to get immigrants out of the country, it’s unclear whether he’s matching Biden’s aggressive deportation record last year — the numbers are not yet in.

Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is arresting large numbers of people across the country. Many who assert their innocence have been deported without due process.

He promised to slash energy bills

Trump told voters he’ll reduce their energy costs by half to three-quarters in 12 to 18 months. That promise comes due next year.

He brought on the tariffs

Trump vowed in the campaign: “I will impose across-the-board tariffs on most foreign-made goods.”

He’s followed through, big time, though with frequently changing caveats.

Trump began by escalating tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, ostensibly as punishment for allowing fentanyl into the U.S. Then he announced even more widespread taxes on foreign imports on April 2, part of what he described as “Liberation Day.” Trump retreated from parts of that plan, choosing to pursue negotiations instead, but he left in place tariffs on China as high as 145%.

The stock market has whipsawed from the hefty import taxes and the erraticism in their application.

He failed to end a war as promised

At rally after rally last summer, Trump promised peace between Russia and Ukraine merely by winning the election. “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” he told a Detroit conference in August. By then, he’d been making the same vow at least since May. It did not happen.

At times, he framed the promise differently, saying he would end the war in one day. That day has not come.

He promised big tax cuts

Trump has tested the limits of what he can do by decree, but he’ll need Congress to achieve his promised tax cuts.

He pledged to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security payments, and he said he will make permanent the expiring tax cuts he enacted during his first term.

None of this has happened. And with big tariffs kicking in, the tax burden is on track to get worse before it possibly gets better. Trump is working with Republicans in Congress to push through legislation achieving the tax cuts, but his party has thin majorities.

He went after pillars of education

Trump’s threats to choke off billions in tax dollars to many universities flow from multiple promises in the campaign — to combat antisemitism on campuses, to take on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and to rid campuses of foreign students he considers hostile to American values.

After several other prominent schools signaled their willingness to comply with Trump’s demands, Harvard stood firm against the pressure.

In response, Trump has called for withdrawing Harvard’s tax-exempt status, has threatened to block it from enrolling foreign students — more than a quarter of its enrollments — and has frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts.

… and pillars of culture

Trump’s promised agenda against “woke” policy swept quickly through the government, as DEI programs from the Biden years were halted and references to diversity in federal communications were purged.

At the Pentagon, in particular, a messy revisionism ensued, as thousands of images on webpages and other online content were flagged for removal. An image of the Enola Gay bomber from World War II was flagged for deletion — because of the “gay” — as were materials paying tribute to Black and Navajo war heroes and pioneering women. Most of the targeted material ultimately survived.

An executive order from Trump on “restoring truth and sanity to American history” forbids federal money to Smithsonian programs that promote “improper ideology.”

He promised to roll back transgender rights

Trump campaigned against the participation of transgender athletes in sports and against broader moves in society, especially in Democratic-led jurisdictions, to accommodate views that gender is not inherently binary.

As president, he has signed executive orders to ban transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s teams, and he’s asked the Supreme Court to rule against lower courts that have blocked his attempt to remove transgender troops from the military.

He promised to pardon Jan. 6 rioters, and he did

In the campaign, Trump celebrated the Jan. 6 rioters as “patriots” and “hostages” of the justice system and promised, “I will sign their pardons on Day 1.” He did exactly that. Roughly 1,500 people, including those who attacked police officers, received pardons.

Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press

ROME (AP) — President Donald Trump on Saturday was among more than 50 heads of state and other dignitaries attending the funeral of Pope Francis, where he’ll personally pay his respects to the Roman Catholic leader who pointedly disagreed with him on a variety of issues.

Trump arrived at the Vatican with his wife, first lady Melania Trump.

Trump told reporters on Friday as he flew to Rome that he was going to the funeral “out of respect” for the pontiff, who died Monday after suffering a stroke at the age of 88.

Francis sharply disagreed with Trump’s approach on issues including immigration, the treatment of migrants and climate change. The Argentine pontiff and the American president sparred early in their relationship over immigration. In 2016, Francis, alluding to then-candidate Trump and his campaign slogan of “Build the wall,” called anyone who builds a wall to keep out migrants “ not Christian.” Trump said the comment was “disgraceful.”

But after Francis’ death, the Republican president praised him as a “good man” who “worked hard” and “loved the world.” Trump also directed that U.S. flags be flown at half-staff in Francis’ honor.

Trump had said on a couple of occasions before leaving Washington that he would have “a lot” of meetings with counterparts on the sidelines of the funeral. But he seemed to back away from that as he flew to Rome.

“Frankly, it’s a little disrespectful to have meetings when you’re at the funeral of a pope,” the president told reporters accompanying him aboard Air Force One. Nonetheless, Trump said: “I’ll be talking to people. I’ll be seeing a lot of people.”

The leaders of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Hungary and Argentina are among those expected to attend.

One person Trump didn’t expect to interact with is former President Joe Biden, who planned to attend the funeral with his wife, Jill. Trump said he wasn’t aware his Democratic predecessor would be at the funeral. Asked if they’d meet, Trump said: “It’s not high on my list. It’s really not.”

The pope’s funeral will not be one of those occasions that bring together the current and former U.S. presidents. Former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush are not attending, their offices said. A spokesperson for former President Bill Clinton did not respond to an inquiry about his plans.

Trump didn’t elaborate when asked if he’d just be meeting leaders in passing or holding more in-depth talks. He suggested he might have meetings at Villa Taverna, the U.S. ambassador’s residence, where he spent the night.

“It’s a little tough because we don’t have much time,” Trump said, noting his late arrival in Rome. He was scheduled to head back to the United States immediately after the funeral.

“I think that we’re going to try and see a couple of people that are important in what we’re doing,” said Trump, who is trying to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and negotiate trade agreements with multiple countries.

He posted on Truth Social shortly after arriving in Rome that Ukraine and Russia should meet for “very high level talks” on ending the bloody three-year war sparked by Russia’s invasion. His envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier Friday, and Trump said both sides were “very close to a deal.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Rome on Saturday to attend the funeral, his press office confirmed, joining first lady Olena Zelenska. Putin is not attending.

By ERIC TUCKER and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is poised to crack down on leaks of information to the news media, authorizing prosecutors to issue subpoenas to news organizations as part of leak investigations, serve search warrants when appropriate and force journalists to testify about their sources.

New regulations, announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in a memo to the workforce obtained by The Associated Press on Friday, rescind a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

The new regulations assert that news organizations must respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice” and also allow for prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media.”

The memo says members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo states.

“The Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people,” Bondi wrote.

The regulations come as the Trump administration has complained about a series of news stories that have pulled back the curtain on internal decision-making, intelligence assessments and the activities of prominent officials such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, said Wednesday that she was making a trio of referrals to the Justice Department over disclosures to the media.

The policy that Bondi is rescinding was created in 2021 by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in the wake of revelations that the Justice Department officials ls alerted reporters at three news organizations — The Washington Post, CNN and The New York Times — that their phone records had been obtained in the final year of the Trump administration.

The new regulations from Garland marked a startling reversal concerning a practice that has persisted across multiple presidential administrations. The Obama Justice Department, under then-Attorney General Eric Holder, alerted The Associated Press in 2013 that it had secretly obtained two months of phone records of reporters and editors in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into newsgathering activities.

After blowback, Holder announced a revised set of guidelines for leak investigations, including requiring the authorization of the highest levels of the department before subpoenas for news media records could be issued.

But the department preserved its prerogative to seize journalists’ records, and the recent disclosures to the news media organizations show that the practice continued in the Trump Justice Department as part of multiple investigations.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from implementing an executive order that a labor union says would cancel collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that a key part of President Donald Trump’s March 27 order can’t be enforced at roughly three dozen agencies and departments where employees are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union.

The union, which represents nearly 160,000 federal government employees workers, sued to challenge Trump’s order. The union said it would lose more than half of its revenue and over two-thirds of its membership if the judge denied its request for a preliminary injunction.

Friedman said he would issue an opinion in several days to explain his two-page order. The ruling isn’t the final word in the lawsuit. He gave the attorneys until May 2 to submit a proposal for how the case should proceed.

Some agencies, including the FBI, are exempt from a law requiring federal agencies to bargain with labor organizations over employment matters. Presidents can apply the exemption to agencies that have a “primary function” of performing intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work.

But no president before Trump tried to use the national security exemption to exclude an entire cabinet-level agency from the law’s requirements, according to the employees’ union. It said Trump’s order is designed to facilitate mass firings and exact “political vengeance” against federal unions opposed to his agenda.

“The President’s use of the Statute’s narrow national security exemption to undo the bulk of the Statute’s coverage is plainly at odds with Congress’s expressed intent,” union attorneys wrote.

Government lawyers argued that the court order requested by the union would interfere with the president’s duty to ensure federal workers are prepared to help protect national security.

“It is vital that agencies with a primary purpose of national security are responsive and accountable to the American people.” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

The IRS is the largest bargaining unit represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. A day after Trump signed his order, the administration sued a union chapter in Kentucky to seek a ruling that it can terminate the collective bargaining agreement for the IRS.

The union says the administration has “effectively conceded” that its members don’t do national security work. The union members affected by the executive order also include employees of the Health and Human Services Department, the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.

The union said it will lose approximately $25 million in dues revenue over the next year. Some agencies, it says, already have stopped deducting union dues from employees’ pay.

“In the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, NTEU may no longer be able to exist in a manner that is meaningful to the federal workers for whom it fights,” union lawyers wrote.

Government attorneys argued that the courts typically defer to the president’s judgment on national security matters.

“Executive actions that are facially valid — that is, within the lawful authority of the executive — are entitled to a presumption of regularity,” they wrote.

By HOLLY RAMER

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Nineteen states that refused to comply with a Trump administration directive aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools went a step further Friday, filing a federal lawsuit challenging what they consider an illegal threat to cut federal funding.

The lawsuit filed in Massachusetts by Democratic attorneys general seeks to block the Department of Education from withholding money based on its April 3 directive ordering states to certify their compliance with civil rights laws, including the rejection of what the federal government calls “illegal DEI practices.” States also were told to gather signatures from local school systems certifying their compliance by April 24.

Instead, the plaintiffs informed the government that they stand by their prior certifications of compliance with the law but refuse to abandon policies that promote equal access to education.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are legal efforts that help students feel safe, supported and respected. The Trump administration’s threats to withhold critical education funding due to the use of these initiatives are not only unlawful, but harmful to our children, families, and schools,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell.

The new lawsuit comes a day after judges in three states ruled against the Trump administration in separate but related cases.

A Maryland judge postponed the effective date of a Feb. 14 memo in which the education department told schools and colleges they needed to end any practice that differentiates people based on their race. A judge in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction against the April certification letter. And in New Hampshire, a judge ruled that the department can not enforce either document against the plaintiffs in that case, which includes one of the nation’s largest teachers’ unions.

All three lawsuits argue that the guidance limits academic freedom and is so vague that it leaves schools and educators in limbo about what they may do, such as whether voluntary student groups for minority students are still allowed.

The new lawsuit accuses the administration of imperiling more than $13.8 billion, including money used to serve students with disabilities.

“Plaintiffs are left with an impossible choice: either certify compliance with an ambiguous and unconstitutional federal directive — threatening to chill polices, programs and speech – or risk losing indispensable funds that serve their most vulnerable student populations,” the lawsuit states.

In addition to Campbell, the plaintiffs are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The education department did not respond to a request for comment Friday. President Donald Trump’s education secretary, Linda McMahon, has warned of potential funding cuts if states do not return the certification forms.

In a Tuesday interview on the Fox Business Network, McMahon said that states that refuse to sign could “risk some defunding in their districts.” The purpose of the form is “to make sure there’s no discrimination that’s happening in any of the schools,” she said.

As the Trump administration slashes funding for health, energy and climate research, there’s one science the administration is promoting: de-extinction.

Earlier this month, a biotechnology company announced it had genetically engineered three gray wolf pups to have white hair, more muscular jaws and a larger build — characteristics of the dire wolf, a species that hasn’t roamed the Earth for several millennia.

Now, the Trump administration is citing the case of the dire wolf as it moves to reduce federal protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. On Wednesday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a proposed rule to rescind the definition of “harm” under the act — which for decades has included actions like harassing, pursuing, hunting or killing endangered wildlife and plants, as well as habitat destruction.

“The status quo is focused on regulation more than innovation. It’s time to fundamentally change how we think about species conservation,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in an April 7 post on X, formerly Twitter. “The revival of the Dire Wolf heralds the advent of a thrilling new era of scientific wonder, showcasing how the concept of ‘de-extinction’ can serve as a bedrock for modern species conservation.”

But bioethicists and conservationists are expressing unease with the kind of scientific research being pioneered by Colossal Biosciences, a Dallas-based company on a mission to bring back extinct animals.

“Unfortunately, as clever as this science is … it’s can-do science and not should-do science,” said Lindsay Marshall, director of science in animal research at Humane World for Animals, formerly the Humane Society of the U.S.

The dire wolf also came up at an April 9 meeting of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources that considered amendments to a proposed law that would strip federal protections from western Great Lakes gray wolves — the latest in a decadeslong back-and-forth between conservationists, hunters and politicians that has shifted the species on and off the endangered list since its inclusion 50 years ago.

At the congressional meeting, Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman of California suggested an amendment to allow a federal judge to reconsider the removal of federal protections if population numbers begin to decline significantly again.

“Well, didn’t we just bring a wolf back that was here 10,000 years ago? I mean, if it really gets that bad, we can just bring woolly mammoths back,” responded Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, a Republican and the bill’s sponsor.

“That’s a deeply unserious response to what should be a very serious issue,” Huffman replied.

Gray wolves that live in the Great Lakes and West Coast regions are one of 1,662 species currently protected under the Endangered Species Act. Hunting and trapping almost drove them to extinction in the lower 48 states by the mid-20th century.

Naomi Louchouarn, program director of wildlife partnerships at Humane World for Animals and an expert on human-wildlife coexistence, had a gut reaction to the dire wolf news: “This is going to be a problem for gray wolves,” she recalls thinking. “It almost immediately undermined our ability to protect species.”

In a Wednesday statement to the Tribune, Colossal’s chief science officer, Beth Shapiro, said the company sees de-extinction as “one of many tools” that can speed up the battle against biodiversity loss, which humans are “not close to winning.”

“We don’t see this as an ‘either/or’ question, but rather as a ‘both and,’” she said. “We as a global community need to continue to invest in traditional approaches to conservation and habitat preservation, as well as in the protection of living endangered species.”

Advancements in genetic technologies could revolutionize wildlife conservation, said J. Elizabeth Peace, senior public affairs specialist with the Interior Department, in a statement Wednesday.

“By preserving genetic materials today, we equip future generations with the tools necessary to restore and maintain biodiversity,” the statement said. “This approach aligns with our commitment to stewarding natural resources responsibly, ensuring that our actions today support a sustainable and thriving ecosystem for the future.”

However, critics say de-extinction sends a misleading message and is, overall, a flawed approach to conservation.

“It’s important to realize that they did not bring the dire wolf back from extinction,” said Craig Klugman, a bioethicist and professor of health sciences at DePaul University. “What they did was genetically tweak a gray wolf … so you have a gray wolf that has some characteristics of a dire wolf.”

“It’s like one, but it isn’t one,” he added.

Shapiro said Colossal is working toward functional de-extinction.

“The goal of de-extinction has never been to create perfect genetic copies of an extinct species,” she said, “but instead to bring back key traits that fill an ecological niche that is vacant because of extinction.”

An inefficient science?

As the executive branch targets federal agencies through mass firings, funding cuts and regulatory rollbacks in the name of efficiency, those skeptical of de-extinction argue that it’s an inefficient science.

“It requires a lot of embryos that fail, a lot of pregnancies that don’t take, to get one creature,” Klugman said.

Those few dozen embryos were implanted in the wombs of two female domestic hound mixes, one embryo taking hold in each. A similar procedure was repeated a few months later with another surrogate who gave birth to a third puppy.

“This type of pioneering genetic research often requires multiple attempts to achieve success,” Shapiro said, “and the knowledge gained from both successes and failures contributes to future improvements in efficiency.”

Colossal announced in early March — around the same time Burgum met with company leaders to discuss their role in conservation efforts — that they had genetically edited 38 mice to have hair like the woolly mammoth, a significant step toward engineering Asian elephants with traits similar to those of the extinct species.

To get to those few dozen mice, however, scientists produced 385 embryos, of which 291 were implanted in 16 surrogate females.

“It’s mice. People don’t really care about mice — but we care about mice. We care what’s happening to them,” said Marshall, of Humane World.

Colossal’s facilities are certified by the American Humane Society and registered with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to Shapiro. She said the company’s research is overseen by a committee of scientists and nonscientists that is required by federal regulations. The committee reviews and evaluates the company’s research protocols and ensures the ethical use of animals.

Skeptics also argue that animals manipulated to mimic extinct ones likely have no future in the wild.

“They have to be taught how to live and hunt and take care of themselves,” Klugman said. “How do they know how to survive? How can they thrive?”

Leaders at Colossal have acknowledged this reality.

According to an Associated Press report, Matt James, Colossal’s chief animal care expert, said that despite the resemblance, “what they will probably never learn is the finishing move of how to kill a giant elk or a big deer,” because they won’t have opportunities to watch and learn from wild dire wolf parents

Shapiro said the pups won’t be released into the wild, where they would have to compete with gray wolves. Instead, they will live in an “expansive ecological preserve” — the company has said it’s a 2,000-acre site in an undisclosed location — where their health and needs will be continually evaluated under managed care.

According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a wild wolf pack’s territory can be as large as 32,000 acres, extending up to 640,000 acres where prey is scarce. They can travel as far as 30 miles a day to hunt.

“If you think about (it), those pups aren’t going to live much of a life trapped in an area that’s a tiny percentage of what they should have,” Marshall said. “They’re not a self-sustaining population. They have nowhere to live. … We don’t know if those animals are going to suffer as they get older.”

Ed Heist, a professor at Southern Illinois University and a conservation geneticist,  said the news bothered him.

“This is not conservation, but people conflate it,” he said. “The point is entertainment.”

Nichole Keway Biber feels similarly unsettled. She is a tribal citizen of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa and leads the wolf and wildlife preservation team at the Anishinaabek Caucus of the Michigan Democratic Party. She said it demonstrates that the natural world, to humans, is for consumption or entertainment — and that it ignores the inherent worth of voiceless animals beyond any commercial or amusement benefit they can provide.

“That has a danger,” she said, “of setting a pattern of behavior: to be dismissive of the vulnerable, or take advantage of the vulnerable or be abusive toward the vulnerable.”

Inability to coexist

Louchouarn, the Humane World program director, has dedicated her studies and research to the relationship between humans and animals, specifically carnivores like gray wolves.

“The reason our current endangered species are becoming extinct is because we don’t know how to coexist with them,” she said. “And this doesn’t solve that problem at all.”

Humans can treat the symptoms of wildlife conflict with “big, flashy silver bullets” and “in this case, advanced, inefficient science,” she said, but the real solution is behavioral change.

“Assuming that we could actually bring back a full population of animals,” Louchouarn said, “which is so difficult and so crazy — that’s a big if — I don’t understand the point of trying to bring back a woolly mammoth when we already can’t coexist with elephants.”

In the United States, political discussions surrounding gray wolf conservation have been based on different interpretations of whether their populations have recovered enough to be sustainable without protections.

“But we define what well is, not the wolves,” Louchouarn said. “The ecosystem can carry a lot more wolves than that. We just refuse to live with them.”

Recent winter estimates count more than 750 wild gray wolves in Michigan, almost 3,000 in Minnesota and just over 1,000 in Wisconsin. Some of those wolves may occasionally travel to Illinois, where they were common until they were wiped out after the arrival of European settlers.

The bill in the U.S. House aimed at removing protections from the species is called the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, and its supporters and sponsors argue it will allow ranchers and communities to manage conflict with wolves as they fear for the safety of their domesticated animals.

In Wisconsin, wolf attacks on livestock have increased over the last three years, resulting in animal deaths or injuries: from 49 confirmed or probable cases in 2022 to 69 in 2023 and up to 85 in 2024. While wolf attacks on dogs in residential areas are rare, they have also increased in recent years, according to state reports.

Conservation biologists who oppose hunting worry it will only exacerbate this type of conflict. When a wolf is killed, it can disrupt pack dynamics, which can in turn lead to lone wolves preying on livestock or pets outdoors — smaller and easier to kill than larger prey such as bison, elk, moose and deer.

For other people, coexistence is a way of life. Biber said the Anishinaabe, the Indigenous peoples of the Great Lakes region, live by the principle of dabasendiziwin, or humility in regard to other living organisms.

“It’s not self-denigration, but a realistic awareness of our dependence (on) the elements,” she said, “but also plants and animals, and us. And all the other orders of being can exist apart from us. They’re OK. They were here long before. We’re the newcomers.”

Anishinaabe people, like the Ojibwe and the Odawa, believe in a parallel history with the gray wolf or Ma’iingan, that their fates are intrinsically connected.

“What happens to one, will happen to the other,” Biber said.

A question of stewardship

Species don’t exist in a vacuum, Heist often reminds his students at SIU. “They are parts of their communities.”

So when a species ceases to exist, it loses its place in the ecosystem. It’s a void left to be filled by others over hundreds, thousands of years.

Klugman wonders whether resurrecting animals unprepared for the modern world — “which we clearly have not done yet” — would even be fair to them. “Is that us being good stewards of this planet?”

During a livestreamed town hall with Interior Department employees on April 9, Burgum said: “If we’re going to be in anguish about losing a species, now we have an opportunity to bring them back. Pick your favorite species and call up Colossal. And instead of raising money to get animals on the endangered species (list), let’s figure out a way to get them off.”

Ken Angielczyk, curator of mammal fossils at the Field Museum who researches extinct species that lived 200 to 300 million years ago, said it’s a misguided approach.

“If that’s the basis … for changing regulations related to the endangered species list, that is very, very premature,” he said. “Because we can’t resurrect things.”

Biber said humans should be focused on preventing further loss. “It’s a lot better use of effort, time, resources, mind power.”

“If the purpose is to restore the damage to the shared ecosystem, we have that opportunity right now,” she said. “And that’s the necessity immediately.”

Angielczyk, who studies mammals that survived the largest mass extinction in Earth’s history, said fossil records after such events show it takes a long time for real ecosystem recovery to occur: 1 to 10 million years — way longer than the human species has existed.

“So, changes that we can cause today quite easily, in some cases, have very, very long-term implications,” he said. “Just another reason why conservation efforts really are important and something that we should be concerned about and actively involved in.”

It’s also crucial to preserve the ability of species to adapt to changing conditions, Heist said, which requires large populations and genetic diversity.

Red wolves represent one such opportunity. The species — once common in most of the eastern and southern United States — still exists, but is critically endangered partly because in the wild, the wolves often mate with coyotes and produce hybrid offspring. That has led to low genetic diversity and weak evolutionary fitness. Just under 20 red wolves exist in their wild, native habitats today.

Alongside the dire wolf news, Colossal announced it cloned four of these hybrids and removed most of the coyote DNA along the way. They say it’s the first step to restoring genetic diversity in the captive breeding populations of red wolves, 241 of which live in 45 facilities across the country.

Some conservationists feel more hopeful about this endeavor, though they still express reservations.

“There is a benefit to trying to bring back some of the genes that would diversify … red wolves, that would enhance their ability to survive,” Louchouarn said. “But will that fix red wolf extinction, at the rate that they’re going extinct? No, because the reason it’s happening is they’re being poached at extreme rates.”

Heist said it might not be practical to spend so much money trying to create genetically diverse red wolves to significantly restore their populations.

Bioethicists and conservationists argue that, at its core, the issue is whether humans can put aside self-interest to invest in the well-being of other creatures.

“This whole idea that extinction is reversible is so dangerous,” Marshall said, “because then it stops us caring.”

adperez@chicagotribune.com

By Sam Whitehead, Phil Galewitz and Katheryn Houghton, KFF Health News

For many years, Eric Wunderlin’s health issues made it hard to find stable employment.

Struggling to manage depression and diabetes, Wunderlin worked part-time, minimum-wage retail jobs around Dayton, Ohio, making so little he said he sometimes had to choose between paying rent and buying food.

But in 2018, his CareSource Medicaid health plan offered him help getting a job. It connected him to a life coach, who helped him find full-time work with health benefits. Now, he works for a nonprofit social service agency, a job he said has given him enough financial stability to plan a European vacation next year.

“I feel like a real person and I can go do things,” said Wunderlin, 42. “I feel like I pulled myself out of that slump.”

Republicans in Congress and several states, including Ohio, Iowa, and Montana, are pushing to implement work requirements for nondisabled adults, arguing a mandate would encourage enrollees to find jobs. And for Republicans pushing to require Medicaid enrollees to work, Wunderlin’s story could be held up as evidence that government health coverage can help people find employment and, ultimately, reduce their need for public assistance.

Yet his experience is rare. Medicaid typically does not offer such help, and when states do try to help, such efforts are limited.

And opponents point out that most Medicaid recipients already have jobs and say such a mandate would only kick eligible people off Medicaid, rather than improve their economic prospects. Nearly two-thirds of Medicaid enrollees work, with most of the rest acting as caregivers, going to school, or unable to hold a job due to disability or illness, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Existing efforts to help Medicaid recipients get a job have seen limited success because there’s not a lot of “room to move the needle,” said Ben Sommers, a professor of health care economics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Most Medicaid enrollees already work — just not in jobs with health benefits, he said.

“The ongoing argument that some folks make is that there are a lot of people freeloading in Medicaid,” he said. “That’s just not supported by the evidence.”

Using health programs to encourage work

The GOP-controlled Congress could allow or require states to implement a Medicaid work requirement as part of revamping and downsizing Medicaid. The first Trump administration encouraged those work mandates, but many were struck down by federal judges who said they were illegal under federal law.

Policy experts and state officials say more attention should be paid to investments that have helped people find better jobs — from personalized life coaching to, in some cases, health plans’ directly hiring enrollees.

They argue work requirements alone are not enough. “The move to economic mobility requires a ladder, not a stick,” said Farah Khan, a fellow with the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan think tank.

While Medicaid work requirements have been debated for decades, the issue has become more heated as 40 states and Washington, D.C., have expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act to the vast majority of low-income adults. More than 20 million adults have gained coverage as a result — but Republicans are now considering eliminating the billions in extra federal funding that helped states extend eligibility beyond groups including many children, pregnant women, and disabled people.

Only Georgia and Arkansas have implemented mandates that some Medicaid enrollees work, volunteer, go to school, or enroll in job training. But a study Sommers co-authored showed no evidence work requirements in Arkansas’ program led to more people working, in part because most of those who could work already were.

In Arkansas, more than 18,000 people lost coverage under the state’s requirement before the policy was suspended by a federal judge in 2019 after less than a year. Those who lost their Medicaid health care reported being unaware or confused about how to report work hours. Since 2023, Arkansas has been giving Medicaid health plans financial incentives to help enrollees train for jobs, but so far few have taken advantage.

Some plans, including Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s, offer members $25 to $65 to complete a “career readiness” certificate. In 2024, some Arkansas health plans offered enrollees educational videos about topics including taxes and cryptocurrency.

Health plans don’t have an incentive to help someone find a better-paying job, because that could mean losing a customer if they then make too much to qualify for Medicaid, said Karin VanZant, a vice president at Clearlink Partners, a health care consulting company.

Rather than offering incentives for providing job training, some states, such as California and Ohio, require the insurance companies that run Medicaid to help enrollees find work.

In Montana, where some lawmakers are pushing to implement work requirements, a promising optional program nearly collapsed after state lawmakers required it be outsourced to private contractors.

Within the program’s first three years, the state paired 32,000 Medicaid enrollees with existing federally funded job training programs. Most had higher wages a year after starting training, the state found.

But enrollment has plummeted to just 11 people, according to the latest data provided by the state’s labor department.

Sarah Swanson, who heads the department, said several of the nonprofit contractors that ran the program shuttered. “There was no real part in this for us to deliver direct services to the folks that walked through our door,” she said. The state hopes to revive job training by allowing the department to work alongside contractors to reach more people.

The hunt for results

State officials say they don’t have much data to track the effectiveness of existing job programs offered by Medicaid plans.

Stephanie O’Grady, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Medicaid, said the state does not track outcomes because “the health plans are not employment agencies.”

Officials with CareSource, which operates Medicaid plans in multiple states, say it has about 2,300 Medicaid and ACA marketplace enrollees in its JobConnect program — about 1,400 in Ohio, 500 in Georgia, and 400 in Indiana.

The program connects job seekers with a life coach who counsels them on skills such as “showing up on time, dressing the part for interviews, and selling yourself during the interview,” said Jesse Reed, CareSource’s director of life services in Ohio.

Since 2023, about 800 people have found jobs through the program, according to Josh Boynton, a senior vice president at CareSource. The health plan itself has hired 29 Medicaid enrollees into customer service, pharmacy, and other positions — nearly all full-time with benefits, he said.

In 2022, California started offering nontraditional health benefits through Medicaid — including help finding jobs — for enrollees experiencing homelessness or serious mental illness, or who are otherwise at risk of avoidable emergency room care. As of September, it had served nearly 280,000 enrollees, but the state doesn’t have data on how many became employed.

The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which is among the largest private employers in Pennsylvania, running both a sprawling hospital system and a Medicaid plan, has hired over 10,000 of its Medicaid enrollees since 2021 through its training and support services. Among other jobs, they took positions as warehouse workers, customer service representatives, and medical assistants.

The vast majority left low-paying jobs for full-time positions with health benefits, said Dan LaVallee, a senior director of UPMC Health Plan’s Center for Social Impact. “Our Pathways to Work program is a model for the nation,” he said.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Cicero Institute, said Medicaid should focus on improving the financial health of those enrolled.

While the first Trump administration approved Medicaid work requirements in 13 states, the Biden administration or federal judges blocked all except Georgia’s.

“I don’t think states have been given ample chance to experiment and try to figure out what works,” Archambault said.

KFF Health News senior correspondent Angela Hart contributed to this report.

©2025 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By Shalina Chatlani, Stateline.org

Republicans in Congress are eyeing $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid, the joint federal-state government health care program for lower-income people.

Depending on how states respond, a Republican proposal that would slash the 90% federal contribution to states’ expanded Medicaid programs would end coverage for as many as 20 million of the 72 million people on Medicaid — or cost states $626 billion over the next decade to keep them on the rolls. More than 5 million people could lose coverage if the feds impose work requirements.

In recent months, this complicated government program has increasingly come under the spotlight, so Stateline has put together a guide explaining what Medicaid is and how it operates.

1. Medicaid is not Medicare.

Medicaid serves people with lower incomes or who have a disability. Medicare focuses primarily on older people, no matter their income.

Medicaid and Medicare were created in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson. Medicare is the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older, though younger people with special circumstances, such as permanent kidney failure or ALS, may be eligible earlier.

Medicare is a supplemental insurance program that’s limited in scope. It doesn’t pay for long-term care, most dental care or routine physical exams. Around 68.4 million people are enrolled in Medicare.

Medicaid is a more comprehensive government insurance plan that’s jointly funded by the federal government and states. Medicaid covers most nursing home care as well as home- and community-based long-term care. People on Medicaid generally don’t have any copayments. Only people and families with incomes under certain thresholds are eligible for Medicaid. About 72 million people, or a fifth of people living in the United States, receive Medicaid benefits.

2. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state.

In its original form, Medicaid was generally only available to children and parents or caretakers of eligible children with household incomes below 100% of the federal poverty line ($32,150 for a family of four in 2025). Over the years, the program was expanded to include some pregnant women, older adults, blind people and people with disabilities.

States have to follow broad federal guidelines to receive federal funding. But they have significant flexibility in how they design and administer their programs, and they have different eligibility rules and offer varying benefits.

In 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which allowed states to expand their eligibility thresholds to cover adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty line (about $21,000 for one person today), in exchange for greater federal matching funds. The District of Columbia covers parents and caretakers who earn up to 221% of the federal poverty line.

Only 10 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have chosen not to expand coverage. In the non-expansion states, eligibility for caretakers and parents ranges from 15% of the federal poverty line in Texas to 105% in Tennessee. In Alabama, people can only get Medicaid if they earn at or below 18% of the federal poverty line — $4,678 a year for a three-person household.

3. Traditional Medicaid exists alongside a health insurance program for children called CHIP.

Low-income children have always been eligible for Medicaid. But in 1997, Congress created CHIP, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The law gave states an opportunity to draw down enhanced federal matching funds to extend Medicaid coverage to children within families who earn too much money to qualify for traditional Medicaid coverage, but make too little money to afford commercial health care.

Like Medicaid, CHIP is jointly funded by the federal government and states, but it’s not an entitlement program. CHIP is a block grant program, meaning states receive a fixed amount of federal money every year and aren’t obligated to cover everyone who meets the eligibility requirements. States get to decide, within broad federal guidelines, how their CHIP programs will work and what the income limits will be. Some states have chosen to keep their CHIP and Medicaid programs separate, while others have decided to combine them by using CHIP funds to expand Medicaid eligibility.

4. Medicaid and CHIP are significant portions of state budgets.

In 2024, the federal government spent less on Medicaid and CHIP than on Medicare, with Medicare spending accounting for 12%, or $847.5 billion, of the federal benefit budget, and Medicaid and CHIP accounting for 8%, or $584.5 billion.

But at the same time, Medicaid is the largest source of federal funds for states, accounting for about a third of state budgets, on average, and 57% of all federal funding the states received last year.

5. Federal funding varies by state.

Before the Affordable Care Act, federal Medicaid funding to states mostly depended on a formula known as the FMAP, or the federal medical assistance percentage, which is based on the average personal income of residents. States with lower average incomes get more financial assistance. For example, the federal government reimburses Mississippi, which is relatively poor, nearly $8 for every $10 it spends, for a net state cost of $2. But New York is only reimbursed $5. By law the FMAP can’t be less than 50%.

The ACA offered states the opportunity to expand eligibility and receive an even greater federal matching rate. In expansion states, the federal government covers 90% of costs for expansion adults. If Republicans in Congress reduce that percentage, states would have to use their own money to make up for lost federal dollars. They might have to scale back Medicaid coverage for some groups, eliminate optional benefits or reduce provider payment rates. Alternatively, they could raise taxes or make cuts in other large budget items, such as education.

Another possibility is that states that have adopted Medicaid expansion would reverse it. Nine states (Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah and Virginia) already have “trigger” laws in place that would automatically rescind expansion if the federal match rate dips below 90%. Other states are considering similar legislation.

One new analysis from KFF, a health research policy group, found that if Congress reduced the federal match for the expansion population to the percentages states get for the traditional Medicaid population— 50% for the wealthiest states and 77% for the poorest ones — it would cost states $626 billion over the next decade to keep everyone eligible under Medicaid expansion on the rolls.

6. Medicaid is the largest source of health coverage, especially for people with low incomes.

Medicaid is the single largest health payer in the nation, and is particularly important for people in poverty. Almost a fifth of people living in the United States are covered through Medicaid. But nearly half of all adults with incomes at or below the federal poverty line are insured through the program. Medicaid covers 4 out of every 10 children overall, but it covers 8 out of every 10 children below the federal poverty line. Medicaid also provides coverage for people experiencing homelessness or who are leaving incarceration.

7. Medicaid covers essential services, such as childbirth.

In exchange for receiving federal funds, states are obligated to cover essential health care services, including inpatient and outpatient hospital services, doctor visits, laboratory work and home health services, among other things. States get to decide which optional services, such as prescription drugs and physical therapy, they want to cover.

Medicaid is a significant payer of essential services. For example, the program covers 41% of all childbirths in the U.S. and covers health care services for the 40% of all adults ages 19-65 with HIV.

8. The majority of Medicaid spending goes to people with disabilities and to pay for long-term care.

ACA expansion adults — about 1 out of every 4 enrollees — accounted for 21% of total Medicaid expenditures in 2021. Children, who make up about 1 out of every 3 enrollees, only accounted for 14% of spending.

People who qualify for Medicaid because of a disability or because they are over the age of 65 make up about 1 out of every 4 enrollees. But they accounted for more than half of all Medicaid spending. That’s because these populations typically experience higher rates of chronic illness and require more complex medical care. Older people are also more likely to use nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, which can be expensive.

Cuts could also mean that older people relying on Medicaid for home-based care and long-term nursing home services could be significantly affected.

9. Some state Medicaid programs cover people who are living in the country illegally.

People who are in the country illegally are ineligible for traditional Medicaid or CHIP. But some states have carved out exceptions to extend coverage to them using state dollars.

As of January, 14 states and the District of Columbia provide Medicaid coverage to children regardless of their immigration status. And 23 states plus the District of Columbia use CHIP to cover pregnant enrollees regardless of their immigration status.

Also, seven states provide Medicaid to some adults who are here illegally. New York opted to cover those who meet the income requirements and are over the age of 65, regardless of immigration status And California provides coverage to any adults ages 19-65 who are under the income threshold, regardless of immigration status.

10. The majority of the public holds favorable views of Medicaid.

According to surveys from KFF, two-thirds of Americans say that someone close to them has received health coverage from Medicaid at some point in their lives. Half of the public also say they or someone in their family have been covered through Medicaid.

Generally, around 3 out of every 4 people — regardless of political party — say that Medicaid is very important, though Republicans are less likely than Democrats and independents to share that opinion. At the same time, a third or less of people want to see any decrease in spending on the Medicaid program. In fact, the majority of people living in states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA want their states to do so.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By TARA COPP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot was asked to resign this week, a senior defense official told The Associated Press on Thursday, in the latest shakeup for the Defense Department following firings and other changes under President Donald Trump.

Ullyot was one of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s initial hires for the communications office and oversaw some of its most highly visible but controversial moves, including a broad edict to the military services to strip away online images and other content considered a promotion of diversity, equity or inclusion.

That directive, given under a wide-ranging Trump administration effort to purge so-called DEI content from federal agencies, led to public outcry when images of national heroes like Jackie Robinson were briefly removed.

Ullyot’s departure is the fourth this week among Hegseth’s former inner circle. Three other senior officials were escorted from the building this week after being implicated in an ongoing investigation into information leaks: Colin Carroll, chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg; Darin Selnick, Hegseth’s deputy chief of staff; and Dan Caldwell, an aide to Hegseth.

It was not immediately clear what leaks led to the departures. Caldwell and Selnick had worked with the defense secretary during his time leading the nonprofit Concerned Veterans for America.

Under Hegseth, the communications office has made significant changes to how it works with Pentagon reporters, including removing many news outlets from their longtime workspaces and not yet holding weekly briefings.

Ullyot was transferred out of the communications office in late March following the blowback from the Pentagon’s purge of Robinson and a bungled public affairs response. Also, in his emailed responses to journalists, Ullyot referred to himself as the Pentagon press secretary. But Hegseth had hired Sean Parnell to speak for him from the Pentagon’s podium.

In an emailed response to the AP on Thursday, Ullyot said he told Hegseth when he was hired he “was not interested in being number two to anyone in public affairs” and that the understanding was always that he would stay only for about two months to help get the communications office up and running. When no other suitable position was found for him, Ullyot said he decided to resign.

But a senior defense official familiar with the decision said that wasn’t the case and that Hegseth’s office had requested that Ullyot resign.

Ullyot, who shared his resignation letter with AP, disputed the official’s account, calling it “flat out false and laughable.”

Ullyot’s resignation Wednesday was not tied to the inquiry into the unauthorized disclosures. Two other U.S. officials said Carroll, Selnick and Caldwell were placed on leave in that investigation.

All three officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details that have not been made public.

The departures follow a purge of senior military officers, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. CQ Brown; Chief of Naval Operations Lisa Franchetti; National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command director Gen. Tim Haugh; and Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. military representative to the NATO Military Committee.

By RODRIQUE NGOWI and BEN FINLEY

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — University professors and students led protests on campuses across the U.S. on Thursday against what they say are broad attacks on higher education, including massive cuts to funding, the expulsion of international students and the stifling of free speech about the war in Gaza.

Demonstrations were held at schools including Harvard, where President Donald Trump’s administration says it will freeze $2.2 billion in grants and contracts and is threatening to revoke the university’s ability to host international students.

Rochelle Sun, a graduate student at Harvard’s Department of Government, said she came to stick up for international students because they’re integral to the school’s mission of pushing “the boundaries of human knowledge.”

“The whole point of me having this education here and for pursuing research at Harvard is to be among the best scholars that exist in the world,” Sun said after the protest in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “And so if they’re not going to be around me, then I’m not going to be able to achieve my goals of being here, either.”

Sun held a sign that read: “I should be writing my dissertation, but I keep having to fight this stupid fascism.”

Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology in Harvard’s School of Public Health, spoke to the crowd about cuts to programs that are crucial to medical discoveries and monitoring the health of the population.

“We are doing our work to make a better world in which all living on this planet can equitably thrive,” she said.

Krieger said her grant from the National Institutes of Health was terminated in late February because it studied discrimination in health, the kind of research that likely won’t be funded by companies or philanthropies.

“We need to have that money going towards research and academic work and the training and teaching of the next generation that can protect the public’s health,” Krieger said to cheers.

Federal funding targeted

A growing list of higher education institutions have had federal funding targeted by the government in order to comply with the Trump administration’s political agenda. The series of threats — and subsequent pauses in funding — to some of the top U.S. universities have become an unprecedented tool for the administration to exert influence on college campuses.

Trump vowed to pursue these federal cuts on the campaign trail last year, saying he would focus on schools that push “critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content.”

Republican officials have also heavily scrutinized universities where Palestinian protests erupted on campus amid the war in Gaza last year, while several Ivy League presidents testified before Congress to discuss antisemitism allegations.

Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being “pro-Hamas,” referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel’s actions in the war.

The U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations or criticized Israel over its military action in Gaza. Some have been taken into custody or deported. Others fled the U.S. after learning their visas had been revoked.

‘You cannot appease a tyrant’

Thursday’s protest at Harvard comes just a few days after it became the first university to openly defy the Trump administration as it demands sweeping changes to limit activism on campus. The university frames the government’s demands as a threat not only to the Ivy League school but to the autonomy that the Supreme Court has long granted American universities.

Meanwhile, roughly 450 people showed up for a protest at the University of California-Berkeley, where emeritus professor and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich spoke out against placating Trump.

“You cannot appease a tyrant,” said Reich, who served in President Bill Clinton’s cabinet. “Columbia University tried to appease a tyrant. It didn’t work.”

Columbia University in New York initially agreed to several demands from the Trump administration. But its acting president took a more defiant tone in a campus message Monday, saying some of the demands “are not subject to negotiation.”

About 150 protesters rallied at Columbia, which had been the scene of huge pro-Palestinian protests last year. They gathered on a plaza outside a building that houses federal offices, holding signs emblazoned with slogans including “stop the war on universities” and “censorship is the weapon of fascists.”

The protests were organized by the Coalition for Action in Higher Education, which includes groups such as Higher Education Labor United and the American Federation of Teachers.

Kelly Benjamin, a spokesperson for American Association of University Professors, said in a phone call that the Trump administration’s goal of eviscerating academia is fundamentally anti-American.

“College campuses have historically been the places where these kind of conversations, these kind of robust debates and dissent take place in the United States,” Benjamin said. “It’s healthy for democracy. And they’re trying to destroy all of that in order to enact their vision and agenda.”

Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia. Associated Press journalists Noah Berger in Berkeley, California, and Joseph B. Frederick in New York contributed to this report.

By GABRIELA AOUN ANGUEIRA and THALIA BEATY

For more than a century, the majority of colleges and universities have not paid most taxes. The Revenue Act of 1909 excused nonprofits operating “exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes” in order to continue acting in the public interest.

President Donald Trump is looking to challenge that designation, complaining that colleges and universities are “indoctrinating” their students with “radical left” ideas, rather than educating them. And he has decided to start with the 388-year-old Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious institutions of learning and the first college founded in the American colonies.

On Tuesday, he targeted Harvard University in a post on his social media site, questioning whether it should remain tax-exempt “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

Tax-exempt status, which is decided by the Internal Revenue Service, means that these institutions do not pay certain kinds of taxes and that their donors receive a tax deduction when they make gifts. The rules they have to follow to maintain that status are set out in the tax code. We spoke with attorneys who specialize in nonprofit law and freedom of speech to try to answer questions about this challenge.

Does a university’s curriculum affect its charitable status?

In general, no. Colleges and universities have broad leeway to design the education they provide.

Genevieve Lakier, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, said the U.S. Supreme Court has laid out four essential freedoms for colleges and universities — what to teach, how to teach it, who their students are and who their professors are.

“That’s the irreducible core of academic freedom and it is constitutionally protected in this country,” she said, adding the government cannot threaten funding cuts or revoking a school’s tax status as punishment for its views or what the school teaches.

The First Amendment also protects the rights of other nonprofits to pursue their charitable missions under freedom of assembly, Lakier said, even if those missions are odious or the government does not like them.

Can the president ask the IRS to revoke a nonprofit’s tax-exempt status?

No, he is not supposed to, according to two nonprofit tax attorneys who wrote about a previous call from Trump to revoke the nonprofit status of colleges and universities.

In 1998, Congress passed a law that forbade federal officials from telling the IRS to investigate any taxpayer in an effort to increase trust in tax enforcement.

The attorneys, Ellen Aprill and Samuel Brunson, also pointed to legislation that forbade the IRS “from targeting individuals and organizations for ideological reasons,” after a controversy over how it treated Tea Party groups in 2013.

How does a nonprofit get and keep its tax-exempt status?

The IRS recognizes multiple reasons for a nonprofit to to be exempt from paying many kinds of taxes, including pursuing charitable, religious or educational missions among many other examples. The statute specifically names sports competitions, preventing cruelty to children or animals and defending human or civil rights as exempt purposes.

Nonprofits can lose their tax-exempt status for things like improperly paying its directors, endorsing a political candidate or operating a business unrelated to its charitable mission.

In short, tax attorneys say nonprofits must operate “exclusively for charitable purposes,” which is a different standard than what the president referred to as, “acting in the public interest.”

Phil Hackney, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said, “Long history and precedent suggest that Harvard and institutions of higher education are operating for educational purposes, which are considered charitable,” under the tax code.

He said it would be exceedingly difficult to make a case that a college or university was not operating for charitable purposes under current law. However, Edward McCaffery, who teaches tax policy at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, warned there is precedent for the IRS revoking the tax-exempt status of colleges that the government could lean on.

“I think to dismiss it out of hand as over-the-top bluster and that the administration has no power to unilaterally pursue it, I think that’s naive,” McCaffery said. “This could happen.”

Has the IRS ever stripped a college of its tax-exempt status before?

Yes. In 1983, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that the IRS could deny tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University, a private Christian university that banned interracial dating and marriage on campus, and Goldsboro Christian Schools, which employed racially discriminatory admissions policies.

The court found the IRS had some discretion to determine whether an organization seeking tax-exempt status met standards of “charity,” meaning that it “must serve a public purpose and not be contrary to established public policy.”

Nonetheless, McCaffery said, “The ability of the IRS just to come in and deny tax exemption, it better be a very clear, long-standing, deeply held public policy, and not political preferences for certain kinds of positions, attitudes and voting patterns.”

How can the IRS revoke a nonprofit’s tax-exempt status?

Usually, the IRS would open an audit, where it gathers evidence that a nonprofit is not operating exclusively for charitable purposes.

“The IRS would have to send to Harvard a proposed revocation of its status,” Hackney said. “At that point, Harvard would have many different means to talk with the IRS about why they believed they were within the law,” including suing.

However, Hackney said the U.S. Department of Treasury could implement new regulations, for example, stating that operating a diversity, equity and inclusion program is not consistent with charitable purposes. Such a change would usually take years to make and would run counter to decades of precedent, Hackney said.

“I am skeptical this effort will be successful,” he said. “If it were, this would be the most dramatic change of charitable law in my lifetime and I would say in the history of our charitable law.”

This story has been updated to reflect that Harvard University is 388 years old. A previous version stated it is 488 years old.

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, ERIC TUCKER and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration’s claim that it can’t do anything to free Kilmar Abrego Garcia from an El Salvador prison and return him to the U.S. “should be shocking,” a federal appeals court said Thursday in a blistering order that ratchets up the escalating conflict between the government’s executive and judicial branches.

A three-judge panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously refused to suspend a judge’s decision to order sworn testimony by Trump administration officials to determine if they complied with her instruction to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan, wrote that he and his two colleagues “cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos.”

“This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time,” Wilkinson wrote.

The seven-page order amounts to an extraordinary condemnation of the administration’s position in Abrego Garcia’s case and also an ominous warning of the dangers of an escalating conflict between the judiciary and executive branches the court said threatens to “diminish both.” It says the judiciary will be hurt by the “constant intimations of its illegitimacy” while the executive branch “will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness.”

When asked by reporters Thursday afternoon if he believed Abrego Garcia was entitled to due process, Trump ducked the question.

“I have to refer, again, to the lawyers,” he said in the Oval Office. “I have to do what they ask me to do.”

The president added: “I had heard that there were a lot of things about a certain gentleman — perhaps it was that gentleman — that would make that case be a case that’s easily winnable on appeal. So we’ll just have to see. I’m gonna have to respond to the lawyers.”

The Justice Department didn’t immediately comment on the decision. In a brief accompanying their appeal, government lawyers argued that courts do not have the authority to “press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy.”

“Yet here, a single district court has inserted itself into the foreign policy of the United States and has tried to dictate it from the bench,” they wrote.

The panel said Republican President Donald Trump’s government is “asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.”

“Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear,” Wilkinson wrote.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia. An earlier order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the high court said in an unsigned order with no noted dissents.

The Justice Department appealed after Xinis on Tuesday ordered sworn testimony by at least four officials who work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department.

The 4th Circuit panel denied the government’s request for a stay of Xinis’ order while they appeal.

“The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature,” the opinion says. “While we fully respect the Executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.”

Wilkinson, the opinion’s author, was regarded as a contender for the Supreme Court seat that was ultimately filled by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. Wilkinson’s conservative pedigree may complicate White House efforts to credibly assail him as a left-leaning jurist bent on thwarting the Trump administration’s agenda for political purposes, a fallback line of attack when judicial decisions run counter to the president’s wishes.

Joining Wilkinson in the ruling were judges Stephanie Thacker, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, and Robert Bruce King, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton.

White House officials claim they lack the authority to bring back the Salvadoran national from his native country. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele also said Monday that he would not return Abrego Garcia, likening it to smuggling “a terrorist into the United States.”

While initially acknowledging Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported, the administration has dug in its heels in recent days, describing him as a “terrorist” even though he was never criminally charged in the U.S.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Wednesday that “he is not coming back to our country.”

Administration officials have conceded that Abrego Garcia shouldn’t have been sent to El Salvador, but they have insisted that he was a member of the MS-13 gang. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say there is no evidence linking him to MS-13 or any other gang.

The appeals court panel concluded that Abrego Garcia deserves due process, even if the government can connect him to a gang.

“If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order,” the opinion says.

Xinis also was skeptical of assertions by White House officials and Bukele that they were unable to bring back Abrego Garcia. She described their statements as “two very misguided ships passing in the night.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Xinis said Tuesday.

Associated Press writer Will Weissert contributed reporting.