Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Education’s mass layoffs on Tuesday affected some 1,315 employees — including civil servants around the country who are now left wondering who will advocate for those they served.

The cuts — which account for a nearly 50% reduction at the department — impacted every part of the Department of Education, according to senior education department officials.

But a source familiar tells ABC News that most of the reduction in force affected the Offices for Civil Rights and Federal Student Aid. The civil servants who worked for OCR and FSA are tasked with investigating discrimination within America’s schools and helping the nation’s students achieve higher education.

OCR and FSA staff in almost all regional offices were eliminated, according to the source, who spoke to ABC News on the condition of anonymity. Therefore, the cuts to nearly half the federal agency will “absolutely affect” the department’s operations, according to the source familiar with the reductions who works at the department.

“I don’t know how [disabled students] will be serviced,” said another Department of Education employee who didn’t want their name used for this story.

The employee’s office is a law enforcement agency charged with enforcing anti-discrimination laws for students based on race, gender and disability, among other characteristics.

By law, the office reviews complaints regarding the nation’s most vulnerable students, including Section 504, which helps ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to educational opportunities. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has ensured that programs that are critical to students with disabilities will not be cut.

Shuttering this employee’s office — and other regional offices — shrinks the number of civil servants around the country who ensure disability services are provided to these students.

The regional Department of Education employee, who received the reduction in force email on Tuesday, told ABC News their civil rights office was abolished.

“All those disabled kids, which is the bulk of our docket, will not be helped,” the employee said.

However, McMahon said the agency will still administer those statutory programs that students from disadvantaged backgrounds rely on. In an interview on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on Tuesday night, McMahon suggested the “good” employees who administer the statutorily mandated functions will not be harmed in the process.

“What we did today was to take the first step of eliminating what I think is bureaucratic bloat,” McMahon said.

“It’s a humanitarian thing to a lot of the folks that are there, they’re out of a job, but we wanted to make sure that we kept all of the right people, the good people, to make sure that the outward-facing programs, the grants, the appropriations that come from Congress, all of that are being met and none of that is going to fall through the cracks,” she said.

Impacted staff will be placed on administrative leave starting March 21, a statement from the Education Department on Tuesday said. They will receive full pay and benefits through June 9, senior officials added.

The statement also said that the DOE will “continue to deliver on all statutory programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking.”

But the news of the cuts on Tuesday was demoralizing to the Department of Education employee who is out of a job after more than two decades at the agency.

“It’s upsetting,” said the employee. “It doesn’t make sense — it’s upside-down world.”

On Wednesday, Trump said he felt “very badly” about the massive cuts at the DOE, but quickly claimed, without evidence, that many of its employees weren’t going to work or doing a good job.

“Now, Department of Education, maybe more so than any other place, has a lot of people that can be cut,” he said.

He praised McMahon, saying that she is doing a “very good job.”

“We have a dream, the dream is we’re going to move the Department of Education, we’re going to move education into the states,” he said.

The Trump administration has urged McMahon to return power to the states, but education is already a local-level issue. The Education Department’s responsibility is to administer money, conduct critical research projects and oversee discrimination complaints.

“We all know that local education agencies and state education agencies — they control about 95% of what happens in public education,” the Department of Education employee said. “The federal government doesn’t control curriculum, doesn’t control hiring, firing of teachers, doesn’t control standardized testing, etc. We don’t control anything other than trying to help people, give folks loans so they can maybe help their family and educate themselves and go to college and then make sure that kids that are disabled get the services that the laws say that they’re supposed to.”

The civil servant said that they — along with the rest of their office — are now shell shocked.

“There’s no rules in a hostile takeover,” the employee said. “They’re treating the government like it’s a business, and it’s not and that’s what’s unfortunate.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump‘s “trust” in Russia’s Vladimir Putin now faces a major test as the world waits for Moscow to respond to a 30-day ceasefire proposed by the U.S. and accepted by Ukraine.

Trump said after Tuesday’s breakthrough in Saudi Arabia that he would speak with Putin soon, though declined to comment on Wednesday when asked if anything had been scheduled.

“I’ve gotten some positive messages, but a positive message means nothing,” he said from the Oval Office, where he was peppered with question on what comes next. “This is a very serious situation.”

The Kremlin has cautiously said it is reviewing the proposal and it will not be pushed into anything.

The Trump administration placed significant pressure on Ukraine in recent weeks in stopping military aid and pausing some intelligence sharing — both resumed only after Ukraine agreed to the ceasefire on Tuesday.

U.S. officials, including Trump himself, have also set limited expectations amid broader negotiations on Ukraine’s borders and expressly ruled out NATO membership for the Eastern European ally.

Meanwhile, they’ve not publicly demanded any concessions from Putin — and it’s not clear how far Trump is willing to go in pressuring Russia to accept the 30-day ceasefire.

“We can, but I hope it’s not going to be necessary,” Trump said on Wednesday when asked about that very issue.

“There are things you could do that wouldn’t be pleasant in a financial sense,” he added without divulging any specifics. “I can do things financially that would be very bad for Russia. I don’t want to do that because I want to get peace.”

Trump last Friday threatened sanctions on Russia until it reached an agreement with Ukraine. The Biden administration imposed hundreds of sanctions on Moscow over the course of the conflict.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio earlier on Wednesday noted that Russia is already “pretty sanctioned up” as he was asked what pressure the administration would be ready to apply.

“As far as I am aware, the United States has not provided armaments to Russia,” Rubio said as he largely sidestepped the inquiry. “The United States is not providing assistance to Russia. Every single sanction that has been imposed on Russia remains in place … So my point being is that there’s been no steps taken to relieve any of these things, these things continue to be in place.”

“We don’t think it’s constructive for me to stand here today and begin to issue threats about what we’re going to do if Russia says no, let’s hope they say yes,” Rubio said.

Trump has also often praised his relationship with Putin, saying he knows him “very well” and declining to call him a dictator despite using the term to describe Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“I think he wants peace. I think he would tell me if he didn’t,” Trump said of the Russian leader in mid-February. “I trust him on this subject. I think he’d like to see something happen.”

Just last week, in an interview with Fox News, Trump claimed Putin was “more generous” and easier to work with than Ukraine.

Now, the administration is saying the ball is in Russia’s court after Ukraine agreed to an immediate, monthlong stoppage in hostilities should Moscow do the same.

“We’ll see what their response is,” Rubio said. “If their response is yes, then we know we’ve made real progress and there’s a real chance of peace. If their response is no, it will be highly unfortunate and then it’ll make their intentions clear.”

ABC News’ Patrick Reevell and Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — 
 

A federal judge spent Wednesday morning grilling a Department of Justice lawyer about the legality of the Pentagon’s transgender service member ban, repeatedly suggesting the policy relies on a flawed understanding of gender dysphoria.

The Pentagon’s new policy to separate transgender U.S. service members from the military is facing its first legal test as U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes considers issuing an order blocking the policy from taking effect.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Judge Reyes said that the government “egregiously misquoted” and “cherry picked” scientific studies to incorrectly assert that transgender soldiers decrease the readiness and lethality of the military.

While Judge Reyes has not yet issued a formal ruling, she repeatedly suggested that the policy unfairly targets a class of people that the Trump administration dislikes.

“The question in this case is whether the military under the equal protection rights afforded to every American under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, if the military … can do that and targeting a specific medical issue that impacts a specific group that the administration disfavors,” she said.

Judge Reyes also pressed DOJ attorney Jason Manion to identify any other similar medical issues that has prompted a similar response from the Department of Defense.

“Identify for me a single other time in recent history where the military has excluded a group of people for having a disqualifying issue, because I can’t think of one,” Judge Reyes asked.

Manion answered that the military applied a similar policy for soldiers who declined to take the COVID-19 vaccine, prompting an incredulous Judge Reyes to ask anyone in the gallery to raise their hand if they had gotten COVID.

“Lots of people raise their hands, right?” Judge Reyes said. “All different kinds of people … so it wasn’t just aimed at getting rid of one group of people.”

The plaintiffs have argued that the DOD’s policy — which was finalized in late February and bans most transgender service members from serving with some exceptions — violates the Fifth Amendment’s right to equal protection and causes irreparable harm by denigrating transgender soldiers, disrupting unit cohesion and weakening the military.

“This case is a test of the core democratic principle that makes our country worth defending — that every person is of equal dignity and worth and is entitled to equal protection of the laws,” the plaintiffs argued.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have defended the policy by arguing the court should not intervene in military decision-making, describing gender dysphoria as a condition that causes “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of human functioning.”

“DoD has been particularly cautious about service by individuals with mental health conditions, given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service,” government lawyers argued.

During a hearing last month, Judge Reyes — a Biden appointee who was the first LGBT judge on the D.C. District Court — signaled deep skepticism with the government’s claim that transgender service members lessen the military’s lethality or readiness, though she declined to intervene until the DOD finalized their policy.

When the policy was formalized last month, she quickly ordered the government to clarify key tenets of their policy, including identifying what “mental health constraint” other than gender dysphoria that conflicts with the military’s standards of “honesty, humility, and integrity.”

She also raised doubts about the government’s claims about the exceptions to the policy, flagging on the court’s docket a recent DOD social media post that “transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”

The hearing comes amid an increasingly hostile relationship between Judge Reyes and the Department of Justice.

After Judge Reyes excoriated a DOJ lawyer last month during a hearing in the case, the Department of Justice filed a complaint with an appeals judge about what they alleged was Reyes’ “hostile and egregious misconduct.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle alleged that Reyes demonstrated a political bias, compromised the dignity of the proceedings and inappropriately questioned a DOJ attorney about his religious beliefs.

“At minimum, this matter warrants further investigation to determine whether these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct that requires more significant remedial measures,” Mizelle wrote.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Immigrations and Customs Enforcement has arrested over 32,000 migrants who are living in the United States without legal status since Jan. 21, according to Department of Homeland Security officials.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Canadians who are in the United States for 30 days or longer and cross the land border will soon have to register their information with the U.S. government, according to a notice obtained by ABC News.

Foreign nationals who plan to stay in the U.S. for longer than 30 days will be required to apply for registration with the federal government and be fingerprinted starting on April 11, according to the rule, which was posted on the federal register on Wednesday.

Canadians are exempt from fingerprinting, which applies to other foreign nationals, according to an immigration lawyer who spoke with ABC News.

Traditionally, Canadians who cross the northern border by land and stay for longer than 30 days have not had to register with the federal government, but the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally change that rule.

Canadians who stay in the U.S. for 30 days or more and were not issued evidence of registration, such as Form I-94, at entry will need to complete the new Form G-325R through the myUSCIS online portal.

The rule would not require Canadians to apply for a visa but rather a different federal form to enter in the U.S.

Rosanna Berardi, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo, New York, told ABC News her firm has heard from many Canadians who have expressed “strong disappointment” in the new rule.

“It’s important to clarify that this measure specifically impacts Canadian citizens crossing land borders who intend to remain in the United States for periods exceeding 30 days,” she told ABC News. “Casual travelers visiting for tourism or shopping will not be affected. However, Canadian business professionals who regularly enter the U.S. for extended assignments will now face these new registration requirements.”

Berardi told ABC News that some Canadians are reconsidering their travel to the U.S. as a result of the “recent tensions” between the U.S. and Canada.

“Historically, Canadians have enjoyed visa-exempt status and have never been required to formally register their presence in the United States,” she said. “This development appears to align with recent tensions in U.S.-Canada relations, including the threat of the 51st state, the trade tariffs and other policy shifts.”

The Canadian Snowbird Association, which represents Canadian “snowbirds” who travel around the U.S. during the warmer months, said it is working with Congress to see if Canadians will be exempt from having to register.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Wednesday will consider the fate of more than 20,000 government employees fired by the Trump administration.

Twenty Democratic attorneys general sued to block the firings last week. Now, U.S. District Judge James Bredar will consider issuing a temporary restraining order that would block future firings and reinstate the probationary employees.

“These large-scale, indiscriminate firings are not only subjecting the Plaintiff States and communities across the country to chaos. They are also against the law,” they argued in their complaint, which named 41 agencies and agency heads as defendants.

The attorneys general have argued that the Trump administration violated federal law with the firings by failing to give a required 60-day notice for a reduction in force, opting to pursue the terminations “suddenly and without any advance notice.”

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the states lack standing because they “cannot interject themselves into the employment relationship between the United States and government workers,” and that to grant the TRO would “circumvent” the administrative process for challenging the firings.

Two other federal judges have declined to immediately block the firings and reinstate the employees.

“The third time is not the charm. Like the unions and the organizational plaintiffs, the States are strangers to the employment relationships at issue and cannot disrupt the exclusive remedial scheme that Congress put in place to adjudicate these disputes,” lawyers with the DOJ argued.

The Pentagon’s new policy to separate transgender U.S. service members from the military will face its first legal test on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes considers issuing an order blocking the policy from taking effect.

The plaintiffs have argued that the DOD’s policy — which was finalized in late February and bans most transgender service members from serving with some exceptions — violates the Fifth Amendment’s right to equal protection and causes irreparable harm by denigrating transgender soldiers, disrupting unit cohesion and weakening the military.

“This case is a test of the core democratic principle that makes our country worth defending—that every person is of equal dignity and worth and is entitled to equal protection of the laws,” the plaintiffs argued.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice have defended the policy by arguing the court should not intervene in military decision making, describing gender dysphoria as a condition that causes “clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of human functioning.”

“DoD has been particularly cautious about service by individuals with mental health conditions, given the unique mental and emotional stresses of military service,” government lawyers argued.

During a hearing last month, Judge Reyes — a Biden appointee who was the first LGBT judge on the DC District Court — signaled deep skepticism with the government’s claim that transgender service members lessen the military’s lethality or readiness, though she declined to intervene until the DOD finalized their policy.

When the policy was formalized last month, she quickly ordered the government to clarify key tenets of their policy, including identifying what “mental health constraint” other than gender dysphoria that conflicts with the military’s standards of “honesty, humility, and integrity.”

She also raised doubts about the government’s claims about the exceptions to the policy, flagging on the court’s docket a recent DOD social media post that “transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”

The hearing comes amid an increasingly hostile relationship between Judge Reyes and the Department of Justice.

After Judge Reyes excoriated a DOJ lawyer last month during a hearing in the case, the Department of Justice filed a complaint with an appeals judge about what they alleged was Reyes’ “hostile and egregious misconduct.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle alleged that Reyes demonstrated a political bias, compromised the dignity of the proceedings and inappropriately questioned a DOJ attorney about his religious beliefs.

“At minimum, this matter warrants further investigation to determine whether these incidents represent a pattern of misconduct that requires more significant remedial measures,” Mizelle wrote.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MADISON, WI) — A closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court election takes center stage as Republican-backed Brad Schimel and Democratic-backed Susan Crawford are set to debate on Wednesday, locked in a race for a seat that is technically nonpartisan but has become the center of a political firestorm.

The April 1 election will determine which of the candidates, vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, will help determine the ideological bent of the court, which currently leans liberal. The winner will join the bench as the court grapples with hot-button issues such as abortion access and redistricting.

The race could also preview how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into President Donald Trump’s second term.

“They’re using it as a test as to President Trump’s popularity,” Janine Geske, a law professor at Marquette University and a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, told ABC News. “He took Wisconsin in the election. And the question is, how will this election go?”

The debate, hosted by ABC affiliate WISN-TV and the Marquette University Law School, will air online and on ABC News affiliates across Wisconsin at 7 p.m. Central time on Wednesday.

Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general who is a circuit court judge in Waukesha County.

“I got in this race 16 months before Election Day because I recognize … you gotta meet voters where they are,” Schimel told WISN in February.

Crawford, backed by Democrats, is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. She at points represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.

“I have spent a lot of time talking about my record, my background as a prosecutor, as a lawyer representing people in court and standing up for their rights,” Crawford told WISN in February.

Over $40 million has been spent on ad reservations, both aired already and for future reservations, in the race, according to advertisement tracking firm AdImpact. (Recent polling from the Marquette University Law School showed a sizable percentage of voters do not have an opinion on either candidate.)

The election is also seen as one indication of Elon Musk’s influence beyond Washington, where he has overseen major cuts to the federal government.

A conservative group affiliated with Musk, Building America’s Future, has spent more than $1.6 million on television ads in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, while another one Musk backs, America PAC, has spent over $6 million on get-out-the-vote efforts and digital media, according to state campaign finance records. The expenditures are marked as either opposing Crawford or supporting Schimel.

Musk himself has not weighed in much directly about the race, but he posted on X last month urging people to “vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud!” Schimel has said he has never spoken to Musk and told reporters in February, “I don’t have any agenda that I’m working alongside anyone.”

These groups’ investment in the race has sparked pushback from Democrats.

“Wisconsin voters don’t like Elon Musk running our federal government and they don’t want him buying elections in Wisconsin either,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement on Monday.

Crawford’s own support has not been free of scrutiny. Schimel and his supporters have pointed to major donors seemingly supporting Crawford, including liberal billionaire George Soros and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat. According to state campaign finance records, those individuals donated to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford.

Crawford has said she has made no promises to any donors and has also emphasized her independence.

While this election is being eyed nationally as the first major race of 2025, experts and supporters of either candidate say it also could have major impacts for the state of Wisconsin, including on issues such as redistricting, voting rights and abortion access.

For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.

Wisconsin has an 1849 statute on the books that would effectively limit all abortions in the state, although the law is not enforced.

If the court were to determine in a different case that the statute is still in effect and later that abortion access is not protected by the Wisconsin Constitution, it could mean abortion is determined illegal in Wisconsin, Chad Oldfather, another law professor at Marquette University, told ABC News.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Schimel had previously indicated support for leaving the 1849 law in place. More recently, Schimel told WISN that on abortion access cases, “I treasure life even when it’s not planned, but I respect that the law puts this in the hands of voters, and I will respect their will. … [My] personal opinions? No, they don’t have any role.”

Crawford, on her end, told WISN she has made no promises to any abortion access advocacy groups but said she is proud of the work she did as a lawyer “fighting for people’s rights,” including when representing Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin.

Women Speak Out PAC, a group that is affiliated with Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, a group that opposes abortion access, launched canvassers and volunteers to get out the vote for Schimel. SBA has made a six-figure investment in the race.

“Lives are literally on the line in this race, and they depend upon Wisconsin voters showing up for Brad Schimel. … If Schimel doesn’t win, the court will be a tool of the Left,” Kelsey Pritchard, political communications director for SBA, told ABC News in an interview.

EMILY’s List, a political group that supports female candidates who support abortion access, has donated to Crawford and ran a digital fundraising campaign to encourage others to donate.

“As Trump, MAGA Republicans, and unelected billionaires like Elon Musk try to rip away the freedoms we’ve fought so hard for, electing Judge Susan Crawford to the Wisconsin state Supreme Court means protecting these rights that are under attack,” EMILY’s List President Jessica Mackler said in a statement to ABC News.

ABC News’ Hannah Demissie, Soorin Kim and Will Steakin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In dramatic fashion, House Republicans passed a bill to fund the government through the end of September 2025 — a major victory for Speaker Mike Johnson, who has previously relied on Democrats for bipartisan support to avert a shutdown.

The House voted 217-213 to pass the spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, days before some funding runs out.

Following the House vote — which saw just a single Republican defection — Johnson thanked President Donald Trump, who helped convince GOP holdouts to support the bill.

“We are united in our mission to deliver the America first agenda,” Johnson said in a post on X.

The spending bill now heads to the Senate — where it requires 60 votes to pass, and its fate is uncertain.

The House’s approval has left Senate Democrats divided on the “stark” decision ahead.

What will Senate Democrats do?

“There are really only two options: One is vote for a pretty bad CR. Or the other is to vote for a potentially even worse shutdown,” said Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, following the House vote. “So it’s a very tough choice,”

Democrats met for two hours Tuesday with no consensus on how they planned to handle the vote on the bill — and the fissure is palpable.

Some Democrats are clearly leaning toward casting a painful vote to oppose the House package and effectively shut down the government.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., branded the House-passed CR a “shutdown bill” that Republicans will bear responsibility for in a floor speech Tuesday night.

“A budget is a reflection of our values,” Warren said on the floor. “This proposal makes crystal clear where Republicans’ values lie. After months of bipartisan talks, they’re walking away from the negotiating table and offering a non-starter House bill that forces us to the brink of a full government shutdown. The Republican shutdown playbook is dangerous, and it will hurt working families.”

Though she did not expressly state how she plans to vote on the package, she said House Democrats were right to oppose the measure, and said the Senate should follow suit.

“Democrats in the House have showed us they are united,” Warren said, when asked if Senate Democrats should be united in their opposition to the House package. “Why should it be different in the Senate?”

Separately, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries suggested Tuesday that Senate Democrats should oppose the measure.

“The strong House Democratic vote in opposition to this reckless Republican spending bill speaks for itself,” Jeffries said.

Senate Dem: Vote ‘like a bad dream’

Pointing to the “stark” choice Senate Democrats face, King said he has concerns that the “uncharted” territory of a shutdown under the new Trump administration that has already laid off federal employees.

“A shutdown is uncharted territory when you’ve got an administration that at least in some ways probably would welcome a shutdown because that would give the president almost unlimited power: deciding who is essential who is not unessential, folding up agencies,” King said. “So that is the dilemma that is being discussed.”

The House has left town for the week after passing their bill. If Democrats in the Senate want to avoid a shut down on Friday night, they’ll have to furnish at least eight votes to do it, with Republican Sen. Rand Paul already stating he’ll oppose the package.

It’s unclear what route they’ll ultimately choose but some members are clearly plagued by the choice.

“They made a bunch of changes, I want to see what they’re changing,” Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo. said.

“I’m not happy … It’s one of those things once we go through it, it’s going to feel like a bad dream. I’ve got to go through it.”

House vote: 1 Republican ‘No,’ 1 Democratic ‘Yes’

In the House vote, Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie voted no — despite pressure from the president in the form of a primary threat. In a Truth Social post Monday, Trump suggested that the defection warranted mounting a primary campaign against Massie.

To pass the measure Tuesday afternoon, Johnson relied on some GOP support from Republicans who had never voted in favor of a continuing resolution.

Rep. Jared Golden was the only Democrat who voted with Republicans. All other Democrats voted against the measure — potentially previewing the posture of Senate Democrats.

“This CR is not perfect, but a shutdown would be worse. Even a brief shutdown would introduce even more chaos and uncertainty at a time when our country can ill-afford it,” Golden posted on X.

He also slammed Democrats for using what he called “messaging gimmicks” about the bill.

The bill funds the government at current levels through Sept. 30, 2025.

What’s in the bill?

The 99-page bill decreases spending overall from last year’s funding levels, but increases spending for the military by about $6 billion.

While there is an additional $6 billion for veterans’ health care, non-defense spending is about $13 billion lower than fiscal year 2024 levels.

The legislation leaves out emergency funding for disasters, but provides a boost in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation operations.

It also increases funding for W.I.C. by about $500 million, a program that provides free groceries to low-income women and children.

Now that the House has dispatched its bill to the Senate, it’s not yet clear how it will fare as it will require significant bipartisan support to pass the upper chamber.

Vote was major test of Johnson’s leadership

The spending bill was a major test for Johnson. In the absence of Democratic support, Johnson could only afford to lose one Republican vote before a second defection killed the bill.

In a statement following the vote, Johnson said Republicans “stood for the American people” and blasted Democrats who he said “decided to double down on partisan politics.”

Johnson had crucial allies in Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who lobbied House Republicans to shore up support ahead of the vote.

In the final hours before the Tuesday vote, Trump worked the phones, reaching out to the House Republicans who remained undecided.

On Tuesday morning, Vance attended a closed-door House conference meeting where he urged House Republicans to get on board with the vote and emphasized the importance of not shutting the government down, members said to ABC News.

Government funding is set to lapse at the end of the day on Friday, March 14.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., the first transgender person elected to Congress, continues to face attacks from her Republican colleagues, who have repeatedly misgendered her on the House floor and in committee hearings.

On Tuesday, it happened again during a House foreign affairs subcommittee meeting.

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, introduced McBride, saying: “I now recognize the representative from Delaware: Mr. McBride.”

McBride then responded, “Thank you, Madame Chair,” hitting back at Self.

However, as McBride started her line of questioning, Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., the ranking member of the subcommittee, interjected.

“Mr. Chairman, could you repeat your introduction again, please?” he asked.

Self argued, without elaborating, that he was following “the standard on the floor of the House.”

Keating grew irate with Self, asking him to repeat his introduction of McBride. However, Self doubled down.

“I will. The representative from Delaware: Mr. McBride,” Self said.

McBride sat there as a back-and-forth ensued between the chairman and the ranking member.

“Mr. Chairman, you are out of order. Mr. Chairman, have you no decency?” Keating said.

“We will continue this hearing,” Self responded, attempting to move the committee hearing along.

“You will not continue it with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way,” Keating said.

However, Self still did not change his rhetoric. Rather, he called for the hearing to be adjourned.

In a statement to ABC News Tuesday, McBride said she was “disappointed” by the decision to end the hearing early.

“I was prepared to move forward with my questions for the Subcommittee on nuclear nonproliferation and US support for Democratic allies in Europe,” she said.

This is not the first time McBride has been misgendered or has been the center of policy changes as it relates to transgender people.

Before McBride was sworn into office, Republican members worked to place a ban on transgender women from using women’s restrooms at the U.S. Capitol.

In late November, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced as policy that transgender women cannot use women’s restrooms at the Capitol and in House office buildings, as well as in changing rooms and locker rooms.

“It is important to note that each Member office has its own private restroom, and unisex restrooms are available throughout the Capitol,” Johnson said in a statement announcing the policy. “Women deserve women’s only spaces.”

Then, before giving her first floor speech on Feb. 8, McBride was misgendered by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill.

“The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. McBride,” Miller said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The law firm Perkins Coie has filed suit against the Trump administration over an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last week that targeted the firm for its work representing Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Attorneys representing Perkins Coie filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a request for a temporary restraining order to bar enforcement of the executive order.

“The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice,” the lawsuit said. “Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients.”

It’s the first legal challenge in what Trump has previewed will be a wave of executive actions seeking to punish law firms that have represented his perceived political enemies.

The order, signed by Trump on March 6, mandates that lawyers working for Perkins Coie have their security clearances stripped and aims to terminate any government contracts that might exist with the firm or other entities that it represents. It further bars agencies from hiring employees of Perkins Coie and prohibits employees from the firm from accessing government buildings.

“Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly,” the lawsuit said. “The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients — and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all — are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied.”

In his signing of the order, Trump pointed to Perkins Coie’s work in the 2016 campaign and ties to the “Steele Dossier,” which detailed a series of highly salacious allegations about Trump that were later investigated by the FBI and determined to be unsubstantiated.

Marc Elias, who left Perkins Coie to start his own firm in 2021, brokered an agreement with the research and intelligence firm Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Trump leading up to the 2016 election. Fusion then hired a former British spy, Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier.

As Perkins Coie’s lawsuit noted, however, the two attorneys singled out in the executive order’s actual text “have not been with the firm for years.”

“The retaliatory aim of the Order is intentionally obvious to the general public and the press because the very goal is to chill future lawyers from representing particular clients,” the lawsuit said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.