Politics

ATLANTA (AP) — The specter of the 2020 election — when President Donald Trump refused to accept his loss to Democrat Joe Biden — continues to haunt Georgia and casts a long shadow over the Republican primary for candidates vying to be the state’s top election official.

Georgia’s current secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, became a household name when he defended the state’s election results against Trump’s false claims about widespread voter fraud and resisted the president’s urging to help “find” enough ballots to win the race.

Now that Raffensperger is stepping down to run for governor, election oversight is a key issue in the race to replace him. Some Republican candidates are endorsing the same distortions that Trump did six years ago. The president has stocked the federal government with people who echo his conspiracy theories, and election denial has spread through state offices as well.

The race comes at a time when lawmakers have made a contradictory mess of state law governing how votes are counted. Gov. Brian Kemp on Wednesday called lawmakers into special session on June 17 for redistricting but also to address a looming deadline on voting.

Georgia’s touch-screen voting machines print a paper ballot that includes a human-readable list of voters’ selections and a QR code that a scanner reads to count votes. Lawmakers two years ago passed a law saying QR codes could not be used for the official vote count after July 1 of this year.

However, they’ve failed to agree on an alternative method since then, causing uncertainty and the potential for lawsuits over Georgia elections until that’s sorted out.

While the special session may resolve the question temporarily, the next secretary of state will likely be involved in implementing a new voting system by 2028.

Gabriel Sterling, who was one of Raffensperger’s top aides, is the only Republican secretary of state candidate actively defending the state’s 2020 election results.

He rose to prominence by imploring Trump to help discourage threats of violence against election workers, and he said in a recent Atlanta Press Club debate that the state has “the best and safest elections in America.”

But others continue to echo Trump’s claims.

Vernon Jones, who was elected as a state representative and DeKalb County CEO as a Democrat and then switched parties to become a Republican and fervent Trump supporter, is maybe the harshest critic.

“I believe there were many irregularities. I believe violations have taken place,” Jones said, adding, “I stand with those who believe there was election fraud.”

Kelvin King, a general contractor who previously ran for U.S. Senate and is married to State Election Board member and conservative commentator Janelle King, is only a little more reserved.

“I think 2020 is still in question to be frank with you,” King said.

State Rep. Tim Fleming said he believes there were some “irregularities” in 2020 and that “great strides” have been made to address the issues. He said he’s “not running on conspiracy theories” and is focused on the future.

Fleming said he believes he and his fellow lawmakers need to find a “temporary fix” during the special session to remove the QR code from the ballot in a way that is “least disruptive for the county elections officials.” But ultimately, he said, he also wants to see the state move to hand-marked paper ballots, a position supported by many other Republicans.

Fleming previously worked for the secretary of state’s office while Brian Kemp, now the outgoing Republican governor, held the position. He led a study committee on Georgia’s election system last summer, but the committee produced only the briefest of reports.

Jones and King and Ted Metz, who has previously run for governor and secretary of state as a Libertarian, have criticized Raffensperger’s record as secretary of state. They have decried what they say is incompetence, which he denies, and a lack of transparency and are calling for a switch from touch-screen voting machines to hand-marked paper ballots. They have extended that criticism to Sterling, who oversaw the implementation of the state’s current voting system and continues to defend it.

Sterling, for his part, has insisted he is best positioned to beat a Democrat in the fall. He endlessly repeats the refrain that he has defended Georgia’s election laws and policies against attacks from “Stacey Abrams, Joe Biden’s Justice Department and the woke world.”

Cole Muzio, president of Frontline Policy, a Christian conservative group, said he believes Jones has “traction” in the closing days of the race, but said he believes that in any runoff, rank-and-file Republicans are likely to rally behind anyone who is opposing Jones. Muzio said despite Jones’ outspoken pro-MAGA position, questions about his party switch could intensify in a runoff, particularly over Jones’ switch from vociferously defending legal abortion to opposing it.

On the Democratic side, the candidates have stressed protecting the right to vote and fighting attacks on the state’s elections.

The Democrats running for secretary of state include certified financial planner and political organizer Cam Ashling; Fulton County Commissioner Dana Barrett; nonprofit founder Adrian Consonery Jr; and former Fulton County State Court Judge Penny Brown Reynolds.

source

BEIJING (AP) — President Donald Trump says he’s not yet made a determination on whether a major U.S. sale of arms to Taiwan can move forward, following his three-day visit to China.

Speaking to reporters as he flew back on Air Force One on Friday, Mr. Trump said he’d not decided on the sale, but added he “will make a determination.”

The Trump administration has authorized the sale but it has yet to move forward.

China opposes the deal and has suggested that Washington’s relationship with the self-governing island is the key factor in China-U.S. relations.

Mr. Trump also says he raised a potential three-way nuclear deal among the U.S., Russia and China.

source

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic leaders, desperate to compete in red states where their party brand is toxic, are embracing something new this midterm season: not backing Democrats.

In states like Nebraska and Alaska, Democratic officials are, in some cases, looking past their own party’s candidates while subtly encouraging — or even openly promoting — independent candidates they hope can outperform the Democratic label. The Democratic National Committee and some of its allies in Washington are quietly supporting the new strategy.

Meanwhile, some of the independent candidates are chatting in a group text about their approach as they plot a path that could shake up Congress, which is consumed by partisan gridlock.

Nebraska Democrats this week chose a nominee for U.S. Senate, Cindy Burbank, who said a major campaign priority was to ensure a Democrat wouldn’t be on the fall ballot to pull support from independent Dan Osborn. Shortly after polls closed, Burbank reiterated her plan to drop out in the coming weeks during a private conversation with a party official, according to state Democratic chair Jane Kleeb.

Democratic leaders believe Osborn, who came within 7 percentage points of winning a Senate seat in 2024, has the best chance to defeat Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.

Democrats’ pivot toward independents is part of an intentional strategy in some places — and something closer to a wink and a nod in others — that covers a handful of high-profile Senate and House and even statehouse contests. Independent Senate candidates are also running in states like Idaho, South Dakota and Montana, where Democratic leadership has so far been unwilling to fully embrace the independents, although many view them as the Democrats’ best chance to stop Republicans this fall.

“For some states, and Nebraska is one of them, where Democrats are 32% of the electorate, this is a long-term strategy for us,” said Kleeb, who also serves as a vice chair to the Democratic National Committee.

Kleeb said her state party is backing independents in at least four state legislative seats in addition to the U.S. Senate: “We have to build a coalition with independents in order to win elections so we can do good work for the people. Period.”

Some of the Democratic Party’s national political machine appears to be on board.

The Democrats’ fundraising site, ActBlue, serves some of the independent candidates, as do popular Democratic-allied website builders. At the same time, some of the party’s campaign committees in Washington quietly provide logistical support in some cases, while avoiding public criticism of the independent candidates even in some races where there is a Democratic nominee.

“The Democratic Party’s brand is awful right now,” said Democratic strategist Josh Schwerin. “The combination of the brand problem and the existential nature of the threat that our country is facing requires us to have a big tent and look for candidates who can win.”

Some Democratic donors, strategists and party leaders from other states have privately pushed back, insisting Democrats should not look past their own nominees for short-term political gain. They want Democratic officials, in Washington and on the ground in red states, to work harder to make the Democratic brand more attractive — even if it takes several more years to be competitive.

“What’s the independent going to do for the Democratic Party if they win?” asked Democratic strategist Mike Ceraso, who sees the shift toward independents as an attempt to disguise Democrats in some cases. “We’re the party of truth and honesty and integrity, but we’re playing these stupid political games?”

And there is no guarantee that the independent candidates, if elected, would support all of the Democrats’ policy priorities or even Democratic leadership in Congress.

In Idaho, independent Senate candidate Todd Achilles, an Army veteran and former Democratic state legislator, said he won’t be caucusing with either party if elected. He explained his politics as “straight down the middle,” and said he believes in individual liberties.

“Idahoans should be able to live how they want,” he said. But the Democratic Party was a bad fit because it “has given up on little red states like Idaho.”

On his list of problems with Democrats is that the party made a big mistake by initially running Joe Biden again for president in 2024. But he also said “the shine is coming off” Trump, whom Idaho voters backed by 36 points in 2024.

Achilles said he and other military veterans running for Senate as independents chat in the text chain and are “very much on the same page.” He says the group wants to see “guardrails,” including term and age limits and campaign finance reform.

“The priority is to get Congress functioning again,” he said. “We gotta break the grip of the two-party system.”

In South Dakota, Navy and Air Force veteran Brian Bengs has launched an independent bid to defeat Republican incumbent Sen. Mike Rounds, who’s seeking a third term this fall.

Bengs ran as a Democrat against Senate Majority Leader John Thune four years ago and lost by 43 points.

A lifelong independent, he said he got turned down by the party in 2022 when he sought to run with its organizational support but without the label. Still, he insists he can win without the party’s formal backing.

One key lesson from his 2022 campaign, he says, was how hard it was to break through with the Democratic Party label.

Voters would immediately ask, “What are you?” he recalled.

“When you say, ‘I’m a lifelong independent running as a Democrat,’” Bengs said, the response was quick. “‘I’ll never vote for a Democrat.’ And that was it,” he said.

“So that takeaway soured me on running again in any party system, because it was just a soul-sucking experience.”

In Alaska, some Democrats believe that commercial fisherman Bill Hill, a retired school superintendent, may represent their best hope in defeating first-term Republican Rep. Nick Begich for the state’s only House seat.

Hill, a lifelong independent, raised more than $780,000 in the first three months of the year, besting Democrat Matt Schultz, a pastor, who raised $578,000 from last October through March.

The state Democratic Party declined to endorse Schultz at its recent convention, which Hill also attended. The House Democrats’ campaign committee in Washington has also declined so far to promote Schultz’s candidacy. Hill, meanwhile, is racking up local union endorsements.

Hill’s message to voters, he said, is the same for Republicans, Democrats and independents: “You need to be pragmatic about who you choose to support in this election cycle, because at the end of the day, we need a change in the House seat in Alaska.”

A spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee criticized independents like Osborn, Bengs, Achilles and Seth Bodnar, who is running in Montana, as “fake Independents who would push liberal Democratic policies in the Senate.”

Currently, there are two independents in the Senate: Maine Sen. Angus King and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Both caucus with Democrats.

In an interview, Hill said he’s unlikely to caucus with Republicans in Washington if elected, but he’s not committing to joining Democrats either. He was reluctant to criticize the Democratic Party or Trump.

Hill acknowledged the challenge of running for Congress as an independent, but said there are benefits, too.

“There’s freedom,” he said. “I can truly represent the working people of Alaska.”

___

This story has been updated to correct the date when Brian Bengs said he was turned down by Democrats for seeking to run with the party’s support. It was 2022, not this year.

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he issued an executive order to restrict voters’ ability to cast ballots by mail, attorneys for Democrats and civil rights groups told a federal judge on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols didn’t rule from the bench on the plaintiffs’ request for an order blocking officials from implementing Trump’s March 31 order, his second related to elections since winning his second term in the White House. The case is one of multiple lawsuits filed to block the order on the grounds that only states and Congress, and not the president, are given power under the Constitution to decide how elections are run.

Trump’s initial executive order to revamp elections by requiring documentary proof of citizenship, issued last year, was largely halted by multiplefederal judges on similar grounds. He issued his latest order only after the voting bill he backed stalled in Congress. The current legal fight comes as the country is in the midst of primary elections and election officials are preparing for the intricacies of holding the fall’s midterm elections.

“I understand the time pressure here,” said Nichols, who questioned both sides but gave no clear indication of which way he’s leaning.

The president can’t rewrite election rules to give himself and the Republican Party a partisan advantage, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said. They argued that the executive order’s requirements are illegal and designed to coerce states into limiting voter registration and ballot access.

“It is harming our clients every day in the middle of an election season,” said Orion Nevers, an attorney representing the NAACP.

Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. Since even before his 2020 loss, Trump has falsely implied there is mass fraud involved in the practice and fought to curtail it, even after his baseless claims led to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and were repeatedly debunked by audits and reviews, including some run by Republicans.

Since returning to office, Trump has said he wants Republicans to “take over” elections in Democratic areas and launched investigations of the 2020 vote.

His latest executive order calls on the Department of Homeland Security to make a list of eligible voters in each state and seeks to prohibit the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to those not on each state’s approved list.

The administration is asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. Justice Department attorney Stephen Pezzi on Thursday suggested that the litigation is premature, calling it “shadowboxing” for the plaintiffs to challenge a list that hasn’t yet been created.

“It’s a little hard to address these questions in the abstract,” Pezzi said.

Nichols, who was nominated to the bench by Trump, asked Pezzi why it would be lawful to disseminate the list to states.

“I think it would be the plaintiffs’ burden to explain why it’s unlawful,” Pezzi replied. “I don’t mean to be cute with that answer.”

Trump’s executive order requires federal agencies to compile a list of adults the U.S. government has purportedly “confirmed” to be U.S. citizens and to share it with each state at least 60 days before each federal election.

“There isn’t a way to lawfully compile it,” said Lalitha Madduri, an attorney for Democratic Party plaintiffs.

Danielle Lang, who represents the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the executive order is aimed at creating “the maximum amount of chaos and confusion” for local election officials.

“They need clear direction,” Lang said.

___

Riccardi reported from Denver.

source

By Joseph Ax

May 14 (Reuters) – Republicans in Louisiana and South Carolina on Thursday took steps toward installing new congressional maps aimed at eliminating one Democratic-held seat in each state, as a national redistricting battle expands further across the South.

In Louisiana, the Republican-controlled state Senate passed a new congressional map that eliminates one of the state’s two Democratic-held, majority-Black U.S. House districts, paving the way for Republicans to pick up an additional seat in November’s midterm elections.

And in South Carolina, Republican Governor Henry McMaster on Thursday reversed positions and called for a special legislative session starting on Friday to consider redrawing the state’s congressional map, a move that would likely oust longtime Democratic U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn from Congress in November’s midterm elections.

Republican-led Southern states have raced to redraw their congressional maps after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision two weeks ago that severely weakened protections for districts with significant minority populations. Tennessee and Alabama have also either split up Democratic districts or taken steps to do so.

The new round of redistricting is part of a broader national fight that is likely to give Republicans a major boost as they seek to preserve a narrow majority in this fall’s election, though Democrats are still seen as favored to win the House given President Donald Trump’s sagging approval ratings.

The Louisiana map, which was approved 27-10 along party lines, will next head to the state House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a more than two-thirds majority.

Republican Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry previously suspended the congressional primary elections a day after the Supreme Court decision and only two days before early in-person voting was set to begin. Thousands of absentee ballots had already been returned by mail.

Democratic lawmakers, civil rights activists and voting rights advocates have criticized the proposed map for diluting the electoral power of Black residents, who make up about one-third of the state’s population. The new map would likely result in Republicans winning five of the state’s six districts in November.

“This Senate should seek to support a map that gives everyone a voice,” Democratic state Senator Katrina Jackson-Andrews said from the Senate floor on Thursday.

Republicans, including the bill’s sponsor,  state Senator Jay Morris, said the map was drawn solely for partisan advantage, rather than along racial lines.

The current map, which includes majority-Black districts centered in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which found lawmakers relied too heavily on race in crafting the lines.

The new map includes only a single Democratic district that connects the two cities, which could pit the two Democratic incumbent U.S. representatives, Troy Carter and Cleo Fields, against one another.

In South Carolina, McMaster’s announcement came two days after a vote to extend the legislative session and consider a new map failed in the state Senate, when five Republicans broke with their party to deny the required two-thirds majority.

McMaster had previously indicated he would defer to the legislature. But Trump has pressured state Republicans to pursue a new map that would eliminate the state’s lone Democratic district, held by Clyburn, a Black Democrat who is a leading figure within his party and has served in Congress since 1993.

Unlike the resolution that failed this week, any new map would only require a simple majority vote in both legislative chambers, which are dominated by Republicans.

The state House of Representatives has already advanced a proposal that would split up Clyburn’s seat while postponing the June 9 primary elections until August to accommodate the new district lines. Republicans hold the state’s other six districts.

(Reporting by Joseph AxEditing by Rod Nickel and Lincoln Feast.)

source

By Howard Schneider

WASHINGTON, May 15 (Reuters) – Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s immediate predecessors knew how to “go big” in a crisis, steer a committee towards an interest rate decision, and oversee changes in central bank strategy, all parts of the job that the lawyer and former private equity investor also had to learn.

Over a tumultuous eight-year term as leader, he slashed rates to effectively zero and bought bonds at a never-before-seen clip to combat the COVID-19 pandemic’s strain on the economy and markets and then jacked rates up at the fastest pace in four decades to fight off the inflation that came on the heels of the health crisis. He changed the Fed’s policy playbook twice significantly and communicated to the public about Fed actions and intentions more often than any previous U.S. central bank chief.

But as his leadership run draws to a close on Friday, what may have set Powell apart and indeed proved perhaps his most important skill as a central banker was his behind-the-scenes effort to rebuild the Fed’s relationships with elected officials on Capitol Hill.

As a Washington-area native, dealmaker, Treasury Department official, and think tank analyst before joining the Fed, relationship-building may have been a more natural inclination for Powell than his predecessors, even as former chairs like Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke brought PhD and even Nobel Prize-level economic research and insights to the process.

But it wasn’t just about gladhanding. Powell viewed Congress as the central bank’s chief source of oversight and accountability, and, after falling afoul of President Donald Trump early in his tenure as chair, also saw it as the chief bulwark against efforts to undermine the Fed’s authority to call the shots on the economy and interest rates regardless of outside pressure – from the Oval Office or otherwise.

Recent research by University of Maryland assistant economics professor Thomas Drechsel, categorizing meetings held by Fed chairs using publicly available calendars, showed that compared to Yellen and Bernanke, Powell worked the Hill in relentless fashion, and that the pace of meetings with members of the House and Senate from both major political parties was most intense when Trump was in office.

Incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, also a lawyer by training, is well-regarded also for his diplomatic skills and may follow a similar playbook, particularly as a hedge in the event Democrats win control of Congress and shift leadership of the Fed’s main oversight committees.

It didn’t make everyone Powell’s friend.

Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno had been sharply critical of the Fed chair in appearances before the Senate Banking Committee in 2025, and said his two meetings with Powell last year did nothing to temper his view that he “is hyperpolitical … and it hurt the Fed in a gigantic way,” a common opinion among Trump supporters.

But Drechsel said the numbers speak for themselves, and may have proved of particular importance in recent weeks when key members of the Senate backed Powell in a dispute with the Trump administration over a now-dropped criminal investigation.

In particular, Powell over his years as chair met 11 times with North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, Drechsel’s numbers show, and it was Tillis who as the pressure mounted on Powell put a hold on the nomination of Warsh until the administration backed down on the probe.

“It was systematic,” Drechsel said of Powell’s engagement with lawmakers. “Maybe it was just natural given Powell’s background. Bernanke and Yellen were academics…But given the political environment it was noteworthy that he interacted so much…One interpretation is that Powell actively worked with Congress perhaps to protect the Fed.”

(Reporting by Howard Schneider; Additional reporting by Ann Saphir; Editing by Andrea Ricci )

source

By Andrew Chung

May 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ensured that the abortion pill can continue to be prescribed through telemedicine and dispensed by mail, as the justices restored for now a 2023 federal rule challenged by Republican-governed Louisiana that had made access to the medication easier.

The justices granted requests by two manufacturers of the abortion pill, called mifepristone, to lift a lower court’s block on the rule that was issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration, while Louisiana’s legal challenge plays out.

The brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common with emergency actions by the Supreme Court. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision. 

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 1 had ordered the imposition of a previous federal rule that required an in-person clinician visit in order to receive mifepristone. 

Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed the 5th Circuit action restricting access to mifepristone, a drug that was given FDA regulatory approval in 2000. The two companies welcomed the court’s action on Thursday.

The case had put the contentious issue of abortion back in front of the justices, with the November U.S. congressional elections looming and President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans fighting to retain control of Congress.

SUPREME COURT’S DOBBS RULING

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The ongoing battles over abortion rights follow its 2022 ruling that overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent that had recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy and legalized abortion nationwide. 

That ruling, in a case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, prompted 13 states to enact near-total bans on the procedure, while several others sharply restrict access. Those laws have driven a surge in medication abortion.

Since the Dobbs ruling, anti-abortion advocates have targeted mifepristone, claiming it is unsafe for women to take and that the FDA should not have approved it or relaxed limits on its use. 

In his dissent on Thursday, Alito said that the delivery of abortion pills by mail from out-of-state providers has thwarted efforts by states like Louisiana that have sought to make abortion illegal in the wake of the Dobbs ruling.

“Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations and states that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement,” Alito added. 

In a separate dissent, Thomas said the federal Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of drugs intended for abortion. 

The drugmakers, Thomas said, “are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration opposed Louisiana’s legal challenge, citing an ongoing FDA review of safety regulations concerning mifepristone. The administration also argued that Louisiana does not have legal standing to pursue its case. 

Abortion rights advocates have called the legal challenges to mifepristone the biggest threat to abortion access in the United States since the court’s Dobbs decision. They also have called the Trump administration’s review politically motivated and unnecessary given decades of studies showing the safety of mifepristone, and said it could lead to tighter restrictions on the medication.

The Supreme Court in 2024 unanimously rejected an initial bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to roll back FDA regulations that had eased access to the drug, ruling that these plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the challenge.

‘ATTACKS ON OUR RIGHTS’

Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, “The Supreme Court just did the bare minimum, but this ruling is a relief for patients who can continue to get the care they need. We know this is just one in a long line of attacks on our rights and our care.”

Lizzy Hinkley, legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine advocacy group, said, “Even this conservative Supreme Court is not willing to endorse anti-abortion extremists’ latest desperate attempt to deprive women of needed healthcare. This case is a deliberate effort to disrupt access to telemedicine abortion across the country and cause undue confusion among patients and providers.”

The brand-name version of mifepristone, Mifeprex, is Danco’s only product, and GenBioPro derives most of its revenue from the ​generic version, the companies said in court filings. 

GenBioPro’s CEO Evan Masingill said that the company is committed to providing “evidence-based, essential medication to all who need it.”

“We are pleased that a safe and effective drug Americans depend on will continue to be available while this litigation proceeds,” Danco spokesperson Abby Long said.

Carol Tobias, president of the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, called Thursday’s decision deeply troubling.

“Women facing unexpected pregnancies deserve real medical care and support, not a one-size-fits-all mail-order abortion system that minimizes risks and leaves women isolated during medical emergencies,” Tobias said.

A TWO-DRUG REGIMEN

Medication abortion, typically a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone followed by misoprostol, accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. abortions and is used to terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks.

The FDA has said mifepristone was approved based on scientific evidence and continues to be safe and effective for its intended purpose when used as directed. 

Reproductive health experts note that hundreds of clinical trials, studies and medical reviews have shown that mifepristone is safe and that complications are exceedingly rare. 

“Mifepristone is one of the safest and most well-studied drugs on the market,” said Camille Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists physicians’ group.

Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2025 claiming that the 2023 rule that eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement was illegal and has allowed medication abortions to skyrocket despite the state’s near-total ban on abortion. Louisiana claimed the FDA ignored the risks of serious adverse events posed by mifepristone for women taking it, including sepsis and hemorrhaging.

Separate from Louisiana’s case, two other pending lawsuits by five Republican-led states are aiming to curb access to the abortion pill even more drastically, including by cutting it off altogether.

In December, Texas and Florida filed a lawsuit targeting the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 and several subsequent approvals and regulations that eased access, including the mail-order access rule. And separately, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho are arguing that the FDA acted improperly when it eased restrictions on mifepristone in 2016.

The Supreme Court in interim decisions on May 4 and May 11 had put the 5th Circuit’s May 1 action on hold to give the justices more time to decide how to proceed.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Dan Wiessner, Ahmed Aboulenein and Daphne Psaledakis; Editing by Will Dunham)

source

By Kanishka Singh

WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) – Muslim American groups said congressional hearings that Republican lawmakers cast as aimed at making the U.S. “sharia-free” are being weaponized against Muslim minorities in the United States by stoking fear against them.

Republicans, who hold a majority in both chambers of Congress, titled a Wednesday hearing by a House Judiciary Subcommittee as “Sharia-Free America: Why Political Islam and Sharia Law are Incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.” A similar hearing was also held in February.

“The radicals pushing political Islam do not want to coexist with America’s culture and political order. They want to replace it,” Republican U.S. Representative Chip Roy said in the hearing.

Critics have said such hearings single out Muslims for ridicule, revive tropes and conspiracy theories against them, and are unnecessary because American laws prevail on U.S. soil.

Sharia is a set of legal and moral principles, interpreted differently across the faith. Installing sharia in the U.S. does not enjoy wide support among American Muslims and community leaders. There is no evidence that any mainstream U.S. Muslim group has advocated for imposing sharia on the United States.

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, which represents over 50 Muslim groups, condemned what it called the “weaponization of government against American Muslims” and said the hearings engaged in “the politics of fear.” 

“Anti-Sharia hearings are not about protecting the Constitution. They are about demonizing Islam and portraying Muslim Americans as perpetual outsiders,” the Council on American Islamic Relations’ Maryland director, Zainab Chaudry, said.

Democratic U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin, a ranking member of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, said the hearings were a distraction and attacked religious liberty.

U.S. rights advocates have over the ⁠years noted rising Islamophobia, attributing it to the September 11, 2001 attacks; and more recently to anti-immigration policies, white ​supremacy and the fallout of Israel’s war in Gaza.

CAIR says it recorded 8,683 anti-Muslim and anti-Arab complaints in the U.S. in 2025, the highest since it began publishing data in 1996.

A study in April by the Center for the Study of Organized Hate think tank says anti-Muslim bigotry by Republican elected officials has surged since early 2025, citing over 1,100 online posts by Republican members of Congress and governors.

Republican governors in Florida and Texas have cast CAIR, which has opposed Republican President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration and pro-Palestinian protests, as a “terrorist” group. CAIR and other civil rights groups have denounced the claims.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Stephen Coates)

source

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Two Democrats vying to be Iowa’s next U.S. senator are scheduled to debate Thursday, as each seeks to convince voters he’s better positioned to flip the Republican-held seat in a contest that has seen heavy outside spending and high-profile endorsements.

State lawmakers Zach Wahls and Josh Turek are competing in a June 2 primary. It is one of a few remaining competitive Democratic Senate primaries this year, as the party looks to find the best approach to reclaim the U.S. Senate this fall.

Iowa’s Republican Sen. Joni Ernst opted out of a reelection bid, leaving the seat open for the first time since she replaced retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin in 2014. Republican Senate leaders have backed Ashley Hinson, a congresswoman representing northeast Iowa, committing $29 million for her to help keep their thin majority.

Democrats see an opportunity to flip seats in the once-competitive state, despite President Donald Trump’s double-digit win in the last presidential election and an all-Republican federal delegation. But first they need to settle which federal candidate will be at the top of the ticket. Early voting began Wednesday.

While Wahls and Turek have raised and spent similar amounts, a Democratic political organization, VoteVets, has spent about $7 million to support Turek in the final stretch of the campaign. That’s more than the two candidates have spent combined.

Turek, who is not a veteran, was born with spina bifida after his father’s exposure to chemicals while serving in the Vietnam War. The group has said Turek is uniquely positioned to advocate for veterans’ services, especially health care and military families.

Wahls has criticized the influx of cash as insiders in Washington trying to exert outsized influence, and it’s likely to come up again Thursday, as it did at an Iowa Press debate last week.

Wahls has been vocal about who should — or should not — lead Senate Democrats, saying he would not vote for Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York to be the caucus leader.

“The leadership of Chuck Schumer has failed the Democratic Party, it has failed the state and it has failed this country,” Wahls said during last week’s debate. “Dark money has an agenda, and that agenda is to protect the broken status quo and the failed leadership of Sen. Schumer.”

Schumer has tried to keep the focus on Republicans.

Wahls is endorsed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who joined him in Iowa for campaign events over the weekend. The progressive senator told voters the Senate needs Democrats who are willing to “get in there and stand up and fight.” Wahls also often highlights the support he’s seen from unions and local elected officials.

Turek responded to Wahls’ criticism saying he’s not a “DC insider.”

“I don’t know these folks,” he said. Turek explained his criteria for leader candidates but stopped short of saying he wouldn’t support Schumer.

“I will go up and ask whoever is deciding to run for leadership … ‘What are you going to do for Iowa? What are you going to do for Iowans? What are you going to do for the middle class?’” Turek said.

In the last week, Turek unveiled a rare endorsement from Harkin, who represented Iowa in Washington for three decades, as well as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Turek also has collected endorsements from sitting U.S. senators, including Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth, New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto.

In the first debate last week, Turek and Wahls were aligned on many issues. Both said that they would not support the Republican president’s tariffs or the war in Iran and that they do support raising the minimum wage and restoring health care access with a public insurance option. They criticized corruption in Washington and proposed higher taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans.

But they also started to draw some contrasts. More of that is likely Thursday.

Wahls referenced a law Turek supported in the Iowa legislature that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. Turek defended his vote, saying it was Biden-era legislation and stressed the importance of a secure U.S.-Mexico border. Turek said he also supports an easier path to citizenship and reforms to immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.

Turek highlighted his working-class background and contrasted his work for a nonprofit with Wahls’ work for a political organization focused on electing young Democrats.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the 2026 election at https://apnews.com/projects/elections-2026/.

source

By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening rules ​on mail‑in voting faces its first major court test on Thursday when a federal judge will hear arguments by Democratic Party lawyers that it is unconstitutional and would disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

A court hearing in Washington is set for 2 p.m. ET (1800 GMT) in a lawsuit brought by Democratic Party leaders seeking to block the March 31 executive order.

The case was brought by plaintiffs including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the Democratic National Committee. 

The litigation has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, who is likely to issue a written decision at a later date.

Trump, a Republican, has for years pushed the false claim that his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread voter fraud and has called for tighter rules on voting by mail ahead of the November midterm elections, when his party will be trying to defend its narrow majorities in Congress.

His executive order directs his administration to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and to use federal data to help state election officials verify who is eligible to vote.

It also requires the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver ballots to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list. States must also preserve election-related records for five years.

The case being argued on Thursday has been consolidated with two other lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive order brought by voting rights groups.

 A similar lawsuit brought by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys is pending before a federal judge in Boston.

The Justice Department has argued that the lawsuits are “premature” because federal agencies have not yet implemented Trump’s executive order.

(Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Andrea Ricci )

source