WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump boasts that his tariffs protect American industries, lure factories to the United States, raise money for the federal government and give him diplomatic leverage.

Now, he’s claiming they can finance a windfall for American families, too: He’s promising a generous tariff dividend.

The president proposed the idea on his Truth Social media platform Sunday, five days after his Republican Party lost elections in Virginia, New Jersey and elsewhere largely because of voter discontent with his economic stewardship — specifically, the high cost of living.

The tariffs are bringing in so much money, the president posted, that “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.’’

Budget experts scoffed at the idea, which conjured memories of the Trump administration’s short-lived plan for DOGE dividend checks financed by billionaire Elon Musk’s federal budget cuts.

“The numbers just don’t check out,″ said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

Details are scarce, including what the income limits would be and whether payments would go to children.

Even Trump’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, sounded a bit blindsided by the audacious dividend plan. Appearing Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Bessent said he hadn’t discussed the dividend with the president and suggested that it might not mean that Americans would get a check from the government. Instead, Bessent said, the rebate might take the form of tax cuts.

The tariffs are certainly raising money — $195 billion in the budget year that ended Sept. 30, up 153% from $77 billion in fiscal 2024. But they still account for less than 4% of federal revenue and have done little to dent the federal budget deficit — a staggering $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.

Budget wonks say Trump’s dividend math doesn’t work.

John Ricco, an analyst with the Budget Lab at Yale University, reckons that Trump’s tariffs will bring in $200 billion to $300 billion a year in revenue. But a $2,000 dividend — if it went to all Americans, including children — would cost $600 billion. “It’s clear that the revenue coming in would not be adequate,” he said.

Ricco also noted that Trump couldn’t just pay the dividends on his own. They would require legislation from Congress.

Moreover, the centerpiece of Trump’s protectionist trade policies — double-digit taxes on imports from almost every country in the world — may not survive a legal challenge that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a hearing last week, the justices sounded skeptical about the Trump administration’s assertion of sweeping power to declare national emergencies to justify the tariffs. Trump has bypassed Congress, which has authority under the Constitution to levy taxes, including tariffs.

If the court strikes down the tariffs, the Trump administration may be refunding money to the importers who paid them, not sending dividend checks to American families. (Trump could find other ways to impose tariffs, even if he loses at the Supreme Court; but it could be cumbersome and time-consuming.)

Mainstream economists and budget analysts note that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who then generally try to pass along the cost to their customers through higher prices.

The dividend plan “misses the mark,” the Tax Foundation’s York said. ”If the goal is relief for Americans, just get rid of the tariffs.’’

“There really is no room for jubilation after so many months of dismantling,” said Andrew Kreider, a longtime Environmental Protection Agency communications and government affairs officer who is on administrative leave.

Many Democratic lawmakers, too, were ambivalent about a bipartisan, Senate-passed measure to fund the government through Jan. 30. Democrats in Maryland and elsewhere were strategizing how to push for expanded Affordable Care Act tax credits without the leverage a shutdown provides.

But Republicans cheered the anticipated end of the record-long shutdown, which began Oct. 1.

“We’re opening up our country. Should have never been closed,” President Donald Trump said Tuesday in Veterans’ Day remarks.

The Senate legislation, which must still be passed by the House, reverses the mass firing of employees during the shutdown and prevents more firings through Jan. 30, 2026, while promising to hold a vote on expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits in December.

But there is no assurance the health care subsidies — which Democrats consider critical to keeping premiums affordable — will be voted on by the House.

That uncertainty left Democrats, and some federal workers, with mixed feelings about the shutdown’s possible end.

“Speaking on behalf of myself, I am relieved that I will be returning to work,” Environmental Protection Agency employee Justin Chen said in an interview.

“However, there is a lot of uncertainty with this compromise,” said Chen, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 238.

“It doesn’t fund EPA  past Jan. 30,” said Chen, whose council represents about 8,000 EPA employees nationwide. Nor does it contain a renewal of the health care subsidies.

“We cannot build a healthy nation while denying Americans the right to access affordable health care,” Chen said earlier in a prepared statement.

The tax credits, introduced during the COVID pandemic in 2021 and subsequently extended, increased the amount of aid that eligible recipients were already receiving.

“Look, COVID is over,” Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris, who represents Harford County and the Eastern Shore, told The Sun in an interview. “We have to return to pre-COVID policies.”

Harris supports the Senate plan. But Democrats are trying to determine what comes next.

First, they will need to move on from the frustration of a failed shutdown and that might take a beat.

“There’s half the world, I think, that’s just like, ‘What the f — did we do with all that? Why did we go through all that?’” said Michael Ceraso, a Democratic strategist. “‘Why did people go through so much pain, just to make a point that Republicans are bullheaded and stubborn?’”

Another half feels like there was some success. Senate Democrats were able to guarantee a vote on the Affordable Care Act premium tax credits in that chamber. Such a vote forces Republicans to answer to their constituents on why they supported or opposed it — in theory.

“That’s all hogwash,” Ceraso said. “We should’ve f — ing saw this through.”

Even before a deal was in place, the shutdown had deteriorated for Democrats behind closed doors. One Democratic Senate staffer described the mood to The Sun last week. The staffer said everyone knew the party would cave and reopen the government, with no policy victories to show for it. Democrats had screwed it up, yet again, they added.

The House will have to pass the bill on Wednesday, and then the president has to sign it to officially reopen the government. The postmortem has begun, as the party looks for another way to address health care policies. But some aren’t sure what that looks like.

“I don’t know,” Ceraso said when asked about the party’s next step. “How much of it is symbolic? … How much of this is people trying to prove that they have backbone against Trump? How much of this is ego?”

“There’s not, like, a universality to all this,” Ceraso added.

One path being discussed is a procedural move to force a vote without the approval of the Speaker of the House, Louisiana Republican Rep. Mike Johnson. Democratic lawmakers would start a legislative petition, known as a discharge petition, on extending the Obamacare tax credits. If the petition reached 218 signatures, the House would vote on it.

“I’m certainly hearing grumblings,” Rep. Johnny Olszewski, a Baltimore County Democrat, said about a potential discharge petition. “It’s reflective of the fact that it’s not just Democrats who want to see action taken on extending the subsidies — at least in the short term — so that we can have a longer term conversation about how we keep health care affordable and available for Americans.”

Have a news tip? Contact Jeff Barker at jebarker@baltsun.com and Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.

Local grassroots organizations, The Baltimore Rapid Response Network and About Face, convened veterans at the War Memorial Plaza for “Vets Say No” — an event that is part of a national day of protest where activists in major cities across the country denounced Trump deploying federal troops to Washington, D.C., Portland and Chicago, among other cities.

Bobby LaPin, an army veteran who owns a local sailboat tour business, called Trump’s actions “unprecedented.”

“Every time the National Guard has been called up by the president, it’s to advance civil rights,” LaPin said Tuesday in an interview with The Baltimore Sun. “It’s to protect freedoms in this country, or to help those who have been put in horrible positions by natural disasters, fires, floods, things like that.”

In his later remarks during the event, LaPin argued — referring to how army veterans have historically been on the frontlines of fighting for racial justice in the United States — that veterans must “stand and defend this nation, not from enemies abroad, but from racism and fascism and corporate corruption that is growing here at home.”

Ryan Harvey, who is not a veteran but works for the Baltimore Rapid Response Network, emphasized the importance of veterans speaking out against what they perceive to be an abuse of power by political leaders and those in service.

“It’s no shock that some of the earliest leaders in the Civil Rights Movement were veterans of World War II,” he said in an interview with The Baltimore Sun. “Veterans have always been looking at the world with a critical eye, given what they’ve done and what they’ve been told to do.”

Asked to react to the “Vets Say No” event, a White House spokesperson argued “the real cause for concern is the Democrats’ defense of violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — not President Trump’s action to provide safety and security for Americans around the country.”

“President Trump has utilized his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent, left-wing riots that local leaders like [California Gov. Gavin] Newscum and [Illinois Gov. JB] Pritzker have refused to stop,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement to The Baltimore Sun.

Trump said in September that he would order federal troops to Baltimore to fight crime because it is one of the “most dangerous places” in the country — even though Baltimore, at the time, had recorded its lowest ever homicide rate.

Gov. Wes Moore took a thinly veiled dig at the president, saying that he would “never honor ignorance.” [Moore in October announced that Maryland would co-lead a coalition of governors and attorneys general supporting Oregon’s legal action against Trump deploying federal troops to the state.] Moore didn’t respond to requests for comment by the publication deadline. 

Mayor Brandon Scott also decried Trump’s plans and argued that the best way to continue lowering crime rates in the city is to “is to restore funding for public safety programs, pass a federal ban on both ghost guns and Glock switches, and repeal the Tiahrt Amendment — allowing local governments to fully track down where the weapons used in the commitment of crime on the streets come from.” Scott didn’t respond to requests for comment by the publication deadline.

When The Sun asked the White House when and if Trump intends to act on his promise to send troops, a White House official said in an email, “We would not get ahead of the President on any potential announcements that may or may not happen.”

Veterans at the event said they believe it’s only a matter of time before Trump acts on his promise and they appreciate Moore’s efforts to counter it.

“He’s doing as much as he possibly can,” LaPin said of Moore’s defense, adding that he spoke to the governor two weeks ago and relayed his concerns about federal troops being deployed to Baltimore.

Ellen Barfield, who served in the army in the 1970s and is a board member of Veterans For Peace, said Moore’s response to Trump so far has “been probably about right.” But, she added, “It would be satisfying if he got really loud.”

Harvey added, “[Moore] has been pretty clear with the president that he’s the Commander in Chief of the Maryland National Guard.”

Have a news tip? Contact Tinashe Chingarande tchingarande@baltsun.com or on Signal as Tnae.19

A Virginia transportation security officer is accusing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security of sex discrimination over a policy that bars transgender officers from performing security screening pat-downs, according to a federal lawsuit.

The Transportation Security Administration, which operates under DHS, enacted the policy in February to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive order declaring two unchangeable sexes: male and female.

According to internal documents explaining the policy change that The Associated Press obtained from four independent sources, including one current and two former TSA workers, “transgender officers will no longer engage in pat-down duties, which are conducted based on both the traveler’s and officer’s biological sex. In addition, transgender officers will no longer serve as a TSA-required witness when a traveler elects to have a pat-down conducted in a private screening area.”

Until February, TSA assigned work consistent with officers’ gender identity under a 2021 management directive. The agency told the AP it rescinded that directive to comply with Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order.

Although transgender officers “shall continue to be eligible to perform all other security screening functions consistent with their certifications,” and must attend all required training, they will not be allowed to demonstrate how to conduct pat-downs as part of their training or while training others, according to the internal documents.

A transgender officer at Dulles International Airport, Danielle Mittereder, alleges in her lawsuit filed Friday that the new policy — which also bars her from using TSA facility restrooms that align with her gender identity — violates civil rights law.

“Solely because she is transgender, TSA now prohibits Plaintiff from conducting core functions of her job, impedes her advancement to higher-level positions and specialized certifications, excludes her from TSA-controlled facilities, and subjects her identity to unwanted and undue scrutiny each workday,” the complaint says.

Mittereder declined to speak with the AP but her lawyer, Jonathan Puth, called TSA’s policy “terribly demeaning and 100% illegal.”

TSA spokesperson Russell Read declined to comment, citing pending litigation. But he said the new policy directs that “Male Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on male passengers and female Transportation Security Officers will conduct pat-down procedures on female passengers, based on operational needs.”

The legal battle comes amid mounting reports of workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees during Trump’s second administration. It is also happening at a time when TSA’s ranks are already stretched thin due to the ongoing government shutdown that has left thousands of agents working without pay.

Other transgender officers describe similar challenges to Mittereder.

Kai Regan worked for six years at Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, but retired in July in large part because of the new policy. Regan, who is not involved in the Virginia case, transitioned from female to male in 2021 and said he had conducted pat-downs on men without issue until the policy change.

“It made me feel inadequate at my job, not because I can’t physically do it but because they put that on me,” said the 61-year-old, who worried that he would soon be fired for his gender identity, so he retired earlier than planned rather than “waiting for the bomb to drop.”

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward — a legal organization that has repeatedly challenged the second Trump administration in court — called TSA’s policy “arbitrary and discriminatory,” adding: “There’s no evidence or data we’re aware of to suggest that a person can’t perform their duties satisfactorily as a TSA agent based on their gender identity.”

DHS pushed back on assertions by some legal experts that its policy is discriminatory.

“Does the AP want female travelers to be subjected to pat-downs by male TSA officers?” Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin asked in a written response to questions by the AP. “What a useless and fundamentally dangerous idea, to prioritize mental delusion over the comfort and safety of American travelers.”

Airport security expert and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign professor Sheldon H. Jacobson, whose research contributed to the design of TSA PreCheck, said that the practice of matching the officer’s sex to the passenger’s is aimed at minimizing passenger discomfort during screening. Travelers can generally request another officer if they prefer, he added.

Deciding where transgender officers fit into this practice “creates a little bit of uncertainty,” Jacobson said. But because transgender officers likely make up a small percent of TSA’s workforce, he said the new policy is unlikely to cause major delays.

“It could be a bit of an inconvenience, but it would not inhibit the operation of the airport security checkpoint,” Jacobson said.

TSA’s policy for passengers is that they be screened based on physical appearance as judged by an officer, according to internal documents. If a passenger corrects an officer’s assumption, “the traveler should be patted down based on his/her declared sex.” For passengers who tell an officer “that they are neither a male nor female,” the policy says officers must advise “that pat-down screening must be conducted by an officer of the same sex,” and to contact a supervisor if concerns persist.

The documents also say that transgender officers “will not be adversely affected” in pay, promotions or awards, and that TSA “is committed to providing a work environment free from unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”

But the lawsuit argues otherwise, saying the policy impedes Mittereder’s career prospects because “all paths toward advancement require that she be able to perform pat-downs and train others to do so,” Puth said.

According to the lawsuit, Mittereder started in her role in June 2024 and never received complaints related to her job performance, including pat-down responsibilities. Supervisors awarded her the highest-available performance rating and “have praised her professionalism, skills, knowledge, and rapport with fellow officers and the public,” the lawsuit said.

“This is somebody who is really dedicated to her job and wants to make a career at TSA,” Puth said. “And while her gender identity was never an issue for her in the past, all of a sudden it’s something that has to be confronted every single day.”

Being unable to perform her full job duties has caused Mittereder to suffer fear, anxiety and depression, as well as embarrassment and humiliation by forcing her to disclose her gender identity to co-workers, the complaint says. It adds that the ban places additional burden on already-outnumbered female officers who have to pick up Mittereder’s pat-down duties.

American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley urged TSA leadership to reconsider the policy “for the good of its workforce and the flying public.”

“This policy does nothing to improve airport security,” Kelley said, “and in fact could lead to delays in the screening of airline passengers since it means there will be fewer officers available to perform pat-down searches.”

Associated Press Staff Writer Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has pardoned Tennessee Republican Rep. Diana Harshbarger’s husband, who pleaded guilty more than a decade ago to health care fraud and other crimes and served time in federal prison.

Robert Harshbarger Jr. was a licensed pharmacist in 2013 when he admitted substituting a cheaper drug imported from China that was not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the iron sucrose that the FDA had approved for kidney dialysis patients to use. He was sentenced to and served four years in prison.

Trump signed the pardon document on Friday, according to the website of the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice. It was among several pardons the Republican president issued, including to a former speaker of the Tennessee House and to former Major League Baseball slugger and New York Mets great Darryl Strawberry.

Trump last week also pardoned a former New York police sergeant who was convicted of helping China try to scare an ex-official into going back to his homeland. On Monday, Trump pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, his onetime chief of staff Mark Meadows and many others accused of backing his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

A White House official on Tuesday defended the pardon for Harshbarger, saying that he was a victim of “excessive prosecution” and that the drug substitution he made was a common practice among pharmacists known as “compounding,” in which unapproved drugs are provided to patients based on their condition or for other reasons. The official insisted on anonymity to discuss the reasoning behind Trump’s clemency decision.

Presidents have broad constitutional powers to grant pardons, which do not erase criminal convictions but can be seen as acts of justice or mercy, often in cases that can further public welfare.

Harshbarger turned to the Chinese drug due to a backlog of the iron sucrose drug, the White House official said. No patients were alleged to have been harmed by the substitution, and doctors seemed to prefer the drug Harshbarger gave them because it was easier to administer, the official said.

Prosecutors said that even though there were no reports of patients being harmed, Harshbarger’s substitution still put patients at risk since the FDA cannot assure the safety and effectiveness of products from other countries.

Harshbarger has served his sentence, the official said. He also was ordered to pay restitution, pay a fine and forfeit $425,000 in cash.

Rep. Harshbarger, who is also a licensed pharmacist, was first elected to the U.S. House in 2020 and has been a strong supporter of Trump. She spoke in support of Trump outside his hush money criminal trial in New York in 2024 and in other settings.

Trump has backed all of her congressional campaigns and offered her his “Complete and Total Endorsement” for reelection in 2026 in a Nov. 3 social media post.

She was not a member of Congress when her husband pleaded guilty in 2013 to one count of distributing a misbranded drug and one count of health care fraud.

Robert Harshbarger’s license was revoked in 2013 after the conviction, according to the website of the Tennessee Department of Health. The congresswoman remains licensed, the records show.

The congresswoman’s office in Washington did not immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment.

NEW YORK (AP) — The White House says it is considering backing a 50-year mortgage to help alleviate the home affordability crisis in the country. But the announcement drew immediate criticism from policymakers, social media and economists, who said a 50-year mortgage would do little to resolve other core problems in the housing market, such as a lack of supply and high interest rates.

Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said on X over the weekend that a 50-year mortgage would be “a complete game changer” for homebuyers. FHFA is the part of the federal government that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy and insure the vast majority of mortgages in the country.

The 30-year mortgage is a uniquely American financial product and the default way to buy a home since the New Deal. Politicians and policymakers at the time wanted to create a standardized mortgage that borrowers could afford and pay off during their working years, when the average lifespan for an American was 66 years old.

Lower payment

Extending the life of a mortgage to 50 years does decrease a borrower’s monthly payment.

The average selling price of a home in the U.S. was $415,200 in September, according to National Association of Realtors. Assuming a standard 10% down payment and an average interest rate of 6.17%, the monthly payment on a 30-year mortgage would be $2,288 while the payment on a 50-year mortgage would be $2,022. That’s presuming a bank would not require a higher interest rate on a 50-year mortgage, due to the longer duration of the loan.

But significantly higher interest

Because even more of the monthly payment on a 50-year mortgage would go toward interest on the loan, it would take 30 years before a borrower would accumulate $100,000 in equity, not including home price appreciation and the down payment. That’s compared to 12-13 years to accumulate $100,000 in equity when paying off a 30-year mortgage, excluding the down payment.

A borrower would pay, roughly, an additional $389,000 in interest over the life of a 50-year mortgage compared to a 30-year mortgage, according to an AP analysis.

Other analysts came to a similar conclusion.

“Extending a mortgage from 30 years to 50 years could double the (dollar) amount of interest paid by the homebuyer on a median priced home over the life of the loan and significantly slow equity accumulation,” wrote John Lovallo with UBS Securities.

Broader housing issues

A 50-year mortgage does nothing to solve one critical issue when it comes to housing affordability — the lack of supply of homes. States like California and cities like New York have recently passed legislation or made regulatory changes to allow builders to build homes faster with less regulatory red tape.

There’s also the raw cost of homebuilding in the country. Products such as steel, lumber, concrete, copper and plastics that go into home construction are now subject to tariffs under President Trump. Further, many construction jobs were being done by undocumented workers, particularly in the Southwest, where deportations are impacting the ability for homebuilders to find enough labor to build homes.

“Many of the big things that would address supply right now are going in the wrong direction,” said Mike Konczal, senior director of policy and research at the Economic Security Project.”

Pulte said on X that the introduction of a 50-year mortgage was just a “potential weapon,” among other solutions the White House has considered to combat high housing prices.

American don’t live long enough

The average age of a first-time homebuyer has been creeping up for years and is now roughly 40 years of age. A 50-year mortgage would be difficult to underwrite for a bank for a 40-year-old first-time homebuyer, who would be 90 years old by the time that home is paid off. The average life expectancy of an American is now roughly 79 years, meaning there’s 11 years of life expectancy not covered in a 50-year loan.

“It’s typically not a goal of policymakers to pass on mortgage debt to a borrowers’ children,” Konczal said.

Others have tried longer loans

Other parts of the financial system have extended loan terms, to mixed results. The seven-year auto loan has become increasingly common as car prices have risen and Americans keep their cars longer. Despite longer loan terms, auto loan delinquencies have been rising, and the average price of a new car is now $49,740 compared to a price of $38,948 for a new vehicle five years ago.

Student loans were originally designed to be paid off in 10 years, and now there are multiple payment options that extend repayment out to 20 years.

Economists pointed out that a 50-year mortgage may do the opposite of helping with home affordability: by causing home price inflation by introducing more potential buyers into a market struggling with supply.

Trump downplays idea

After significant criticism, President Trump seemed less enthused about the 50-year mortgage. When asked by Laura Ingraham of Fox News about the idea, President Trump said it “might help a little bit” but seemed to brush it off.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cannot insure a mortgage that is longer than 30 years, so any 50-year mortgages issued before Congress amends the law would be considered a “non-qualifying mortgage” and would be more difficult to sell to investors. Congress would have to amend U.S. financial laws in multiple places to allow 50-year mortgage, and there seems to be little appetite for Congress to take this on immediately.

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah judge on Monday rejected a new congressional map drawn by Republican lawmakers and adopted an alternate proposal creating a Democratic-leaning district ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Republicans hold all four of Utah’s U.S. House seats and had advanced a map poised to protect them.

Judge Dianna Gibson ruled just before a midnight deadline that the Legislature’s map “unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”

She had ordered lawmakers to draw a map that complies with standards established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor a party, a practice known as gerrymandering. If they failed, Gibson warned she may consider other maps submitted by plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led her to throw out Utah’s existing map.

Gibson ultimately selected a map drawn by plaintiffs, the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. It keeps Salt Lake County almost entirely within one district, instead of dividing the heavily Democratic population center among all four districts, as was the case previously.

The judge’s ruling throws a curveball for Republicans in a state where they expected a clean sweep as they work to add winnable seats elsewhere. Nationally, Democrats need to net three U.S. House seats next year to wrest control of the chamber from the GOP, which is trying to buck a historic pattern of the president’s party losing seats in the midterms.

The newly approved map gives Democrats a much stronger chance to flip a seat. The state last had a Democrat in Congress in early 2021.

“This is a win for every Utahn,” state House and Senate Democrats said in a joint statement. “We took an oath to serve the people of Utah, and fair representation is the truest measure of that promise.”

The state’s top election official said Monday was the last possible date to enact a new congressional map so county clerks would have enough time to prepare for candidate filings for the 2026 midterms. Gibson said in her ruling that she is obligated to ensure a lawful map was in place by the deadline.

Republicans have argued Gibson does not have legal authority to enact a map that wasn’t approved by the Legislature. State Rep. Matt MacPherson called the ruling a “gross abuse of power” and said he has opened a bill to pursue impeachment against Gibson.

In August, Gibson struck down the Utah congressional map adopted after the 2020 census because the Legislature had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters.

The ruling thrust Utah into a national redistricting battle as President Donald Trump urged other Republican-led states to take up mid-decade redistricting to try to help the GOP retain control of the House in 2026. Some Democratic states are considering new maps of their own, with California voters approving a map last week that gives Democrats a shot at winning five more seats. Republicans are still ahead in the redistricting fight.

Redistricting typically occurs once a decade after a census. There are no federal restrictions to redrawing districts mid-decade, but some states — more led by Democrats than Republicans — set their own limitations. The Utah ruling gives an unexpected boost to Democrats, who have fewer opportunities to gain seats through redistricting.

If Gibson had instead approved the map drawn by lawmakers, all four districts would still lean Republican but two would have become slightly competitive for Democrats. Their proposal gambled on Republicans’ ability to protect all four seats under much slimmer margins rather than create a single-left leaning district.

WASHINGTON (AP) — After refusing to convene the U.S. House during the government shutdown, Speaker Mike Johnson is recalling lawmakers back into session — and facing an avalanche of pent-up legislative demands from those who have largely been sidelined from governing.

Hundreds of representatives are preparing to return Wednesday to Washington after a nearly eight-week absence, carrying a torrent of ideas, proposals and frustrations over work that has stalled when the Republican speaker shuttered the House doors nearly two months ago.

First will be a vote to reopen the government. But that’s just the start. With efforts to release the Jeffrey Epstein files and the swearing in of Arizona’s Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, the unfinished business will pose a fresh test to Johnson’s grip on power and put a renewed focus on his leadership.

“It’s extraordinary,” said Matthew Green, a professor at the politics department at The Catholic University of America.

“What Speaker Johnson and Republicans are doing, you have to go back decades to find an example where the House — either chamber — decided not to meet.”

Gaveling in after two months gone

When the House gavels back into session, it will close this remarkable chapter of Johnson’s tenure when he showed himself to be a leader who is quietly, but brazenly, willing to upend institutional norms in pursuit of his broader strategy, even at the risk of diminishing the House itself.

Rather than use the immense powers of the speaker’s office to forcefully steer the debate in Congress, as a coequal branch of the government on par with the executive and the courts, Johnson simply closed up shop — allowing the House to become unusually deferential, particularly to President Donald Trump.

Over these past weeks, the chamber has sidestepped its basic responsibilities, from passing routine legislation to conducting oversight. The silencing of the speaker’s gavel has been both unusual and surprising in a system of government where the founders envisioned the branches would vigorously protect their institutional prerogatives.

“You can see it is pretty empty around here,” Johnson, R-La., said on day three of the shutdown, tour groups no longer crowding the halls.

“When Congress decides to turn off the lights, it shifts the authority to the executive branch. That is how it works,” he said, blaming Democrats, with their fight over health care funds, for the closures.

An empty House as a political strategy

The speaker has defended his decision to shutter the House during what’s now the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. He argued that the chamber, under the GOP majority, had already done its job passing a stopgap funding bill in September. It would be up to the Senate to act, he said.

When the Senate failed over and over to advance the House bill, more than a dozen times, he refused to enter talks with the other leaders on a compromise. Johnson also encouraged Trump to cancel an initial sit-down with the Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries to avoid a broader negotiation while the government was still closed.

Instead, the speaker, whose job is outlined in the Constitution, second in line of succession to the presidency, held held almost daily press conferences on his side of the Capitol, a weekly conference call with GOP lawmakers, and private talks with Trump. He joined the president for Sunday’s NFL Washington Commanders game as the Senate was slogging through a weekend session.

“People say, why aren’t you negotiating with Schumer and Jeffries? I quite literally have nothing to negotiate,” Johnson said at one point.

“As I’ve said time and time again, I don’t have anything to negotiate with,” he said on day 13 of the shutdown. “We did our job. We had that vote.”

And besides he said of the GOP lawmakers, “They are doing some of their best work in the district, helping their constituents navigate this crisis.”

Accidental speaker delivers for Trump

In many ways, Johnson has become a surprisingly effective leader, an accidental speaker who was elected to the job by his colleagues after all others failed to win it. He has now lasted more than two years, longer than many once envisioned.

This year, with Trump’s return to the White House, the speaker has commandeered his slim GOP majority and passed legislation including the president’s so-called “one big beautiful bill” of tax breaks and spending reductions that became law this summer.

Johnson’s shutdown strategy also largely achieved his goal, forcing Senate Democrats to break ranks and approve the funds to reopen government without the extension of health care subsidies they were demanding to help ease the sticker shock of rising insurance premium costs with the Affordable Care Act.

Johnson’s approach is seen as one that manages up — he stays close to Trump and says they speak often — and also hammers down, imposing a rigid control over the day-to-day schedule of the House, and its lawmakers.

Amassing quiet power

Under a House rules change this year, Johnson was able to keep the chamber shuttered indefinitely on his own, without the usual required vote. This year his leadership team has allowed fewer opportunities for amendments on legislation, according to a recent tally. Other changes have curtailed the House’s ability to provide a robust check on the executive branch over Trump’s tariffs and use of war powers.

Johnson’s refusal to swear-in Grijalva is a remarkable flex of the speaker’s power, leading to comparisons with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision not to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, said David Rapallo, an associate professor and director of the Federal Legislation Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. Arizona has sued to seat her.

Marc Short, who headed up the White House’s legislative affairs office during the first Trump administration, said of Johnson, “It’s impressive how he’s held the conference together.”

But said Short, “The legislative branch has abdicated a lot of responsibility to the executive under his watch.”

Tough decisions ahead for the Speaker

As lawmakers make their way back to Washington, the speaker’s power will be tested again as they consider the package to reopen government.

Republicans are certain to have complaints about the bill, which funds much of the federal government through Jan. 30 and keeps certain programs including agriculture, military construction and veterans affairs running through September.

But with House Democratic leaders rejecting the package for having failed to address the health care subsidies, it will be up to Johnson to muscle it through with mostly GOP lawmakers — with hardly any room for defections in the chamber that’s narrowly split.

Jeffries, who has criticized House Republicans for what he called an extended vacation, said, “They’re not going to be able to hide this week when they return.”

LONDON (AP) — Britain’s government was due to weigh in Tuesday on a feud between the BBC and U.S. President Donald Trump, who is threatening to sue the broadcaster over the way it edited a speech he made after losing the 2020 presidential election.

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy was set to deliver a statement on the BBC crisis in the House of Commons, with critics demanding major changes to the corporation and supporters urging the government to defend the U.K.’s public broadcaster from political interference.

Outgoing BBC Director-General Tim Davie, who announced his resignation on Sunday because of the scandal, said the BBC needed “to fight for our journalism” in the face of growing attacks.

“We have made some mistakes that have cost us,” Davie acknowledged in a statement to staff, but added he was “fiercely proud” of the organization.

“I think we’ve got to fight for our journalism,” he said.

Trump threatens to sue

A lawyer for Trump is demanding a retraction, apology and compensation from the broadcaster over the allegedly defamatory sequence in a documentary broadcast last year.

Fallout from the documentary has already claimed the BBC’s top executive, Davie, and head of news Deborah Turness, who both resigned over what the broadcaster called an “error of judgment.”

The BBC has apologized for misleading editing of a speech Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington.

Broadcast days before the November 2024 U.S. election, the documentary “Trump: A Second Chance?” spliced together three quotes from two sections of the speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC chair Samir Shah said the broadcaster accepted “that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

The BBC has not yet formally responded to the demand from Florida-based Trump attorney Alejandro Brito that it “retract the false, defamatory, disparaging and inflammatory statements,” apologize and “appropriately compensate President Trump for the harm caused” by Friday, or face legal action for $1 billion in damages.

Legal experts say Trump is too late to sue the BBC in Britain, because the one-year deadline to file a defamation suit has expired. He could still bring a defamation claim in several U.S. states, and his lawyer cited Florida law in a letter to the BBC, but faces considerable legal hurdles.

An embattled national institution

The publicly funded BBC is a century-old national institution under growing pressure in an era of polarized politics and changing media viewing habits.

Funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by all households who watch live TV or any BBC content, the broadcaster is frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

Governments of both left and right have long been accused of meddling with the broadcaster, which is overseen by a board that includes both BBC nominees and government appointees.

Near the BBC’s London headquarters, some passersby said the scandal would further erode trust in a broadcaster already under pressure.

“They need to get their organization sorted so that in the future we can look at the BBC with confidence,” said retiree David Abraham.

Amanda Carey, a semi-retired lawyer, said the editing of the Trump speech is “something that should never have happened.”

“The last few scandals that they’ve had, trust in the BBC is very much waning and a number of people are saying they’re going to refuse to pay the license (fee),” she said.

The center-left Labour Party government has backed the BBC, without criticizing Trump, while stressing the need for the broadcaster to quickly correct its errors to maintain public trust.

“If you look at the levels of trust people have in the BBC, it’s extraordinarily high,” local government minister Alison McGovern told LBC radio. “If they’ve made an editorial mistake, then they should apologize.”

Associated Press journalist Kwiyeon Ha contributed to this story.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended an order blocking full SNAP payments, amid signals that the government shutdown could soon end and food aid payments resume.

The order keeps in place at least for a few more days a chaotic situation. People who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to feed their families in some states have received their full monthly allocations, while others have received nothing.

The order, which is three sentences long and comes with no explanation on the court’s thinking, will expire just before midnight Thursday.

The Senate has approved a bill to end the shutdown and the House of Representatives could vote on it as early as Wednesday. Reopening the government would restart the program that helps 42 million Americans buy groceries, but it’s not clear how quickly full payments would resume.

Ruling follows path of least legal resistance

The justices chose what is effectively the path of least resistance, anticipating the federal government shutdown will end soon while avoiding any substantive legal ruling about whether lower court orders to keep full payments flowing during the shutdown are correct.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only one of the nine justices to say she would have revived the lower court orders immediately, but didn’t otherwise explain her vote. Jackson signed the initial order temporarily freezing the payments.

The court’s action doesn’t do anything to settle uncertainty across the country.

Beneficiaries in some states have received their full monthly allocations while in others they have received nothing. Some states have issued partial payments.

How quickly SNAP benefits could reach recipients if the government reopens would vary by state. But states and advocates say that it’s easier to make full payments quickly than partial ones.

Carolyn Vega, a policy analyst at the advocacy group Share Our Strength, also said there could be some technical challenges for states that have issued partial benefits to send out the remaining amount.

An urgent need for beneficiaries

In Pennsylvania, full November benefits went out to some people on Friday. But Jim Malliard, 41, of Franklin, said he had not received anything by Monday.

Malliard is a full-time caretaker for his wife, who is blind and has had several strokes this year, and his teenage daughter, who suffered severe medical complications from surgery last year.

That stress has only been compounded by the pause in the $350 monthly SNAP payment he previously received for himself, his wife and daughter. He said he is down to $10 in his account and is relying on what’s left in the pantry — mostly rice and ramen.

“It’s kind of been a lot of late nights, making sure I had everything down to the penny to make sure I was right,” Malliard said. “To say anxiety has been my issue for the past two weeks is putting it mildly.”

The political wrangling in Washington has shocked many Americans, and some have been moved to help.

“I figure that I’ve spent money on dumber stuff than trying to feed other people during a manufactured famine,” said Ashley Oxenford, a teacher who set out a “little food pantry” in her front yard this week for vulnerable neighbors in Carthage, New York.

SNAP has been the center of an intense fight in court

The Trump administration chose to cut off SNAP funding after October due to the shutdown. That decision sparked lawsuits and a string of swift and contradictory judicial rulings that deal with government power — and impact food access for about 1 in 8 Americans.

The administration went along with two rulings on Oct. 31 by judges who said the government must provide at least partial funding for SNAP. It eventually said recipients would get up to 65% of their regular benefits. But it balked last week when one of the judges said it must fund the program fully for November, even if that means digging into funds the government said need to be maintained in case of emergencies elsewhere.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to pause that order in a ruling late Sunday.

An appeals court said Monday that full funding should resume, and that requirement was set to kick in Tuesday night before the top court extended the order blocking full SNAP payments.

Congressional talks about reopening government

The U.S. Senate on Monday passed legislation to reopen the federal government with a plan that would include replenishing SNAP funds. Speaker Mike Johnson told members of the House to return to Washington to consider the deal a small group of Senate Democrats made with Republicans.

President Donald Trump has not said whether he would sign it if it reaches his desk, but told reporters at the White House on Sunday that it “looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending.”

Still, the Trump administration said in a Supreme Court filing Monday that it shouldn’t be up to the courts.

“The answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in the papers. “The only way to end this crisis — which the Executive is adamant to end — is for Congress to reopen the government.”

After Tuesday’s ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on social media: “Thank you to the Court for allowing Congress to continue its swift progress.”

The coalition of cities and nonprofit groups who challenged the SNAP pause said in a court filing Tuesday that the Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, is to blame for the confusion.

“The chaos was sown by USDA’s delays and intransigence,” they said, “not by the district court’s efforts to mitigate that chaos and the harm it has inflicted on families who need food.”

Associated Press reporter Cara Anna in Carthage, New York, contributed.