Politics

(Corrects paragraphs 1 and adds paragraph 9 to clarify judge’s ruling concerning Army regulations)

By Nate Raymond

May 1 (Reuters) – The Trump administration’s assignment of military lawyers to help the Department of Justice prosecute civilians for offenses unrelated to the military cannot be prevented by a court as it does not violate federal law, a Minnesota judge ruled on Friday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins in Minneapolis reached that conclusion in a closely watched case in which a defendant challenged the lawfulness of being prosecuted by a lawyer from the armed services.

Paul Johnson, a Minnesota resident, was charged with assaulting a Customs and Border Protection agent in January as President Donald Trump’s administration pursued an aggressive immigration enforcement surge in his state.

During the surge, the Defense Department assigned lawyers belonging to the Judge Advocate General’s Corps to assist the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, after it had sent JAGs to help prosecute crime in Washington, D.C., and Tennessee.

Lawyers for Johnson argued that the use of JAG lawyers to prosecute civilians in cases without a military nexus violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally forbids the military from taking part in civilian law enforcement, as well as Department of Defense regulations.

He sought to have the military lawyer removed from his case, a cause that garnered national attention after 11 former JAG lawyers filed a brief supporting him that argued “the government has crossed a perilous line.”

But Elkins sided with the government in finding that Congress had through two other laws created exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act that give the U.S. attorney general the authority to appoint JAG lawyers to prosecute civilians as special assistant U.S. attorneys.

“If Congress passes statutes giving the Department of Justice the authority to appoint active military personnel as SAUSAs to prosecute civilians, that is the law,” she wrote.

She agreed with the defense that the appointment of a JAG lawyer in Johnson’s case violated binding regulations allowing such attorneys to only prosecute cases “in which the Army has an interest.”

But Elkins said that while those regulations recognize it would be “ill-advised” for JAG lawyers to prosecute civilians in cases unrelated to the military, they do not give her the power to disqualify a military lawyer from Johnson’s case.

Kevin Riach, a lawyer for Johnson, said he plans to appeal. Representatives for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota did not respond to requests for comment.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by William Mallard)

source

By Kamal Choudhury

May 1 (Reuters) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has named Katherine Szarama as the acting director of its vaccines and biologics unit, a Health and Human Services official told Reuters on Friday, replacing Vinay Prasad, whose turbulent tenure came to an end this week.

The appointment comes days after FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said no decision had been reached on Prasad’s permanent successor and that he expected an announcement “in the coming weeks.”

Szarama will lead the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), which regulates vaccines, gene therapies and the blood supply.

Prasad left the agency after a term marked by controversy, including several high-profile decisions on rare disease drugs and vaccines.

The news was first reported by Politico.

Before joining the agency, Prasad, an oncologist, was known for his vocal criticism of U.S. drug and vaccine policies, especially concerning COVID-19 mandates.

His time at CBER was marked by repeated clashes, most notably the FDA’s rejection of a Huntington’s disease gene therapy from Dutch drug developer UniQure.

The U.S. drug regulator called for a new study to support the approval of the company’s treatment for the rare brain disorder.

However, UniQure and patient advocates said the request was too lengthy and onerous on patients, while the HHS accused the company of misleading the public about regulators’ requirements.

Prasad had previously resigned abruptly in July last year, saying he did not want to become a distraction. He was reinstated a little more than a week later.

Szarama, who holds a PhD, worked at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2016 to 2019, then moved to the Emerson Collective and Arnold Ventures. She joined the FDA in December as CBER deputy director, reporting to Prasad.

(Reporting by Kamal Choudhury in Bengaluru; Editing by Shreya Biswas and Maju Samuel)

source

NEW YORK (AP) — Maine just sent a blunt message to the Democratic Party’s national leaders.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills was forced to abandon her U.S. Senate campaign on Thursday, unable to generate sufficient fundraising or enthusiasm to compete against Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who has never served in elected office. The announcement marked a stinging defeat for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who recruited Mills to lead the party’s decades-long quest to defeat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

The swift defenestration of a two-term governor by a political neophyte highlighted a stark reality that has begun to take hold at a pivotal moment — Democratic voters are rejecting their party’s establishment and embracing new risks, even as their confidence grows that a blue wave is coming in November’s midterm elections.

Sometimes Democrats seem almost as angry at their own party’s aging and entrenched leadership as they are at President Donald Trump.

“Rank-and-file Democrats don’t want the Democratic Party as we know it,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Democratic resistance group Indivisible. “Rank-and-file Democrats want fighters.”

Local Indivisible chapters, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s an independent but caucuses with Democrats, and other leaders from the party’s progressive wing had already lined up behind Platner, who is now almost certain to be the Democratic nominee in one of the party’s best Senate pickup opportunities in the nation.

Platner on Friday insisted he would continue to speak out against his party’s leadership, including Schumer, although he acknowledged that the two spoke privately the night before.

“The fact that we’ve been able to do all of this without the help of the establishment, it puts us in such an amazing position,” Platner said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.” “My criticisms of the party leadership, my criticisms of the party, they have not changed, and I’ve been very vocal about that since the beginning. But we will absolutely take the help that we can get.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are giddy — and some moderate Democratic strategists are worried — that the anti-establishment shift may undermine the party’s effort to claw back control of Congress in November.

“Chuck Schumer has officially lost the first battle in his proxy war with Bernie Sanders,” said Bernadette Breslin, spokesperson for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. “As Sanders hits the campaign trail to prop up progressives in messy Democrat primaries in Michigan and Minnesota, Schumer’s chances of getting his preferred candidates through look grim.”

Maine is far from alone.

Prominent anti-establishment clashes are playing out in high-profile Senate races across Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa, along with House races in several states.

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, continues to promote Platner and other critics of the Democratic Party’s national leadership. The Vermont senator will campaign this weekend in Detroit with Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who is running in a three-way Senate primary against Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

“There’s a desire to turn the page on the old guard,” Sanders’ political adviser Faiz Shakir said. “It’s not even just the Democratic electorate. There’s a populist mood in this country. You’d have to be blind not to see it.”

Indeed, McMorrow is actively working to remind voters that she would not support Schumer as Democrats’ Senate leader if given the chance.

“Frankly, I was the first person in this country to say no,” McMorrow said in a video she posted Thursday on social media. “It is a different moment. This is no longer a Republican Party we’re dealing with, it is a MAGA party that has been taken over by Trump loyalists. … You need to respond in a very different way.”

Veteran Democratic strategists like Lis Smith, who works with candidates across the country, tied the anti-establishment shift to the party’s painful losses in 2024, when President Joe Biden was forced to abandon his reelection bid and Vice President Kamala Harris went on to lose to Trump.

“After 2024, voters are sick of the gerontocracy, sick of the status quo, and Chuck Schumer has completely misread that,” Smith said.

Privately, Schumer’s allies downplay the impact of the anti-establishment backlash.

The Senate Democratic leader’s preferred picks in North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska haven’t faced the same challenges as Mills did in Maine. The four states represent the party’s most likely path to a majority in the chamber, which has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Mills is the oldest of the candidates and, at 78, would have been the oldest freshman senator in history. She promised to serve one term if elected. Platner is only 41.

Schumer’s team is unwilling to make any apologies for backing Mills over Platner.

“Leader Schumer’s North Star is taking back the Senate,” Schumer spokesperson Allison Biasotti said. “When no one thought a Senate majority was possible just a year ago, he made it a reality by recruiting great candidates across the country and laying out an agenda for lower costs and better lives for Americans.”

Some in the Democratic Party’s moderate wing are worried.

Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way, said that Platner’s emergence in Maine “without a doubt” will make it harder for Democrats to defeat Collins in November. He warns that it could be the same elsewhere if Democratic primary voters rally behind anti-establishment candidates.

“Our message is if you would like to beat Donald Trump’s Republicans, you better nominate people who can win,” Bennett said.

source

By Daniel Wiessner

May 1 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Friday temporarily blocked a federal rule allowing the abortion drug mifepristone to be dispensed through the mail, significantly curtailing access to the drug nationwide and particularly in states that have banned abortion. 

A conservative three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the Republican-led state of Louisiana was likely to prevail in its challenge to the 2023 rule adopted by Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration.

While the ruling is temporary, it is the first to significantly curtail access to mifepristone in a series of lawsuits challenging the drug’s initial approval in 2000 and subsequent rules making it easier to obtain. The 2023 U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation removed a requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person. 

The ruling was hailed by Louisiana’s Republican Attorney General, Liz Murrill, who in a statement said she will “look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues.”

The decision is not the final word on the issue, but is for now the most sweeping threat to abortion access since the Supreme Court rolled back abortion rights in 2022, said Kelly Baden, vice president at the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group.

“Reimposing medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone will send shockwaves of chaos and confusion across the country and dramatically upend patients’ ability to obtain abortion care,” Baden said in a statement.

The FDA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

SERIES OF LEGAL BATTLES

Restricting access to mifepristone, including through telehealth appointments with out-of-state providers, has been a top priority for Republican-led states that have banned abortion, including Louisiana.

Nearly half of states have banned or severely restricted abortion ⁠since the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back its recognition of a woman’s constitutional right to the procedure in 2022. That has driven a surge in medication abortion, which has spurred a series of legal battles over access to the drugs.

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

In states where abortion is legal and doctors are permitted to prescribe drugs via telehealth, fewer than 2% of prescriptions for abortion drugs are filled in person, according to research from the University of Southern California.

Louisiana sued the FDA last year, claiming the agency in adopting the 2023 rule ​had ignored the risks of serious adverse events posed by mifepristone, including sepsis and hemorrhaging.

The Biden administration had maintained that mifepristone is effective and safe, citing studies that showed major adverse events occurring in fewer than 1% of patients.

Drug companies GenBioPro and Danco Laboratories have intervened in Louisiana’s lawsuit to defend the FDA regulation. 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. The FDA last year approved another generic version made by Evita Solutions.

“We are alarmed by this court’s decision to ignore the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents,” GenBioPro CEO Evan Masingill said in a statement.

He said the company is committed to taking any actions necessary to make mifepristone as widely available as possible. The drugmakers, as well as the FDA under Trump, could either ask the full 5th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or appeal to the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 2024 took up a challenge to the mail-order rule by medical groups and doctors, but ruled that they lacked legal standing to sue. Missouri, Kansas and Idaho have taken over that case, which is pending.

‘PROGRESSIVE RELAXATION’

U.S. District Judge David Joseph in an April 7 decision had paused Louisiana’s lawsuit pending a review by President Donald Trump’s administration of the safety of mifepristone, which, according to media reports, has been delayed until after the November midterm elections.

The judge denied Louisiana’s request to block the 2023 rule but agreed with the state that it was likely unlawful, indicating he would rule that way when the case resumes. 

Louisiana had asked the 5th Circuit to pause that ruling and block the rule while the state pursues an appeal, which could take months to resolve.

On Friday, a 5th Circuit panel composed of three judges appointed by Republican presidents agreed with Louisiana that the FDA had failed to justify eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement. 

“The agency’s progressive relaxation of mifepristone’s guardrails likely lacked a basis in data and scientific literature,” U.S. Circuit Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee, wrote for the court. 

He said that “every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions.” Once lost, he wrote, “that sovereign prerogative of protecting unborn life cannot be regained by legal remedy.”

Five other Republican-led states are pursuing two separate lawsuits over FDA abortion drug regulations, including the initial approval 26 years ago. The Trump administration has moved to pause both cases pending its review of the drug.

Louisiana and Texas ​have also sued ⁠or indicted healthcare providers from other states for prescribing mifepristone to their residents, testing so-called shield laws in states including New York and California that protect providers against out-of-state investigations and prosecutions.

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; additional reporting by Nate Raymond and Ahmed Aboulenein; Editing by Mark Porter, Will Dunham, Alexia Garamfalvi and Aurora Ellis)

source

By Nate Raymond

BOSTON, May 1 (Reuters) – Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Friday in an effort to block the Republican from pursuing investigations and litigation against it as part of what the lawsuit calls an unlawful retribution campaign.

ActBlue’s lawsuit in federal court in Boston asked a judge to prevent Paxton from moving forward with a separate case he filed last month that accused it of misleading Congress and the public about its donation practices.

“Paxton’s decision to use his government office to target ActBlue with legal sanctions as retribution for its protected speech and political association is an affront to the Constitution and must not be tolerated,” ActBlue’s lawyers wrote.

Paxton’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

SEVERAL REPUBLICAN-BACKED INVESTIGATIONS

His lawsuit against ActBlue stemmed from one of several Republican-backed probes into the organization, which President Donald Trump last year had directed the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate along with other online fundraising platforms.

Paxton’s lawsuit, which was filed on April 20 in a state court in Texas, seeks financial penalties and to block ActBlue from permitting donations on its platform via gift cards and prepaid debit cards.

He alleged such payment methods enable fraudulent donations by concealing a donor’s true identity, allowing for improper contributions from people outside the U.S. The lawsuit said ActBlue has continued to process gift card donations despite saying in 2024 it would cease doing so.

In Friday’s lawsuit, the Massachusetts-headquartered group called the case an example of the conservative attorney general using his authority to intimidate and harass political opponents in violation of the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

ActBlue said the Texas case is rife with “false and inflammatory allegations,” saying that its investigators’ efforts to use gift cards on its platform were repeatedly rejected by its automated tools.

It accused Paxton of targeting it as retaliation for its support for Democratic candidates. Since its founding in 2004, ActBlue has helped raise $19 billion for Democratic candidates and causes.

They include Paxton’s Democratic opponent in his current campaign for the U.S. Senate, James Talarico, according to the lawsuit. It said that after Talarico announced raising more than $2 million in 24 hours through ActBlue, Paxton, the next day, dispatched investigators to start a case against ActBlue.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in BostonEditing by Rod Nickel)

source

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — President Donald Trump entered the fray of another Republican primary Friday by endorsing Kentucky congressman Andy Barr for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former longtime Senate GOP leader.

“I know Andy well, and he is always a Vote we can count on because he knows what it takes to GET THINGS DONE,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.

Barr is facing former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron in the May 19 Republican primary, and would have faced entrepreneur Nate Morris. In a Truth Social post just before his endorsement of Barr, Trump announced that he’d asked Morris to “step aside” from the race to join his administration as an ambassador.

“Nate is a terrific businessman and strong MAGA Warrior,” Trump wrote, adding that he’ll announce Morris’ specific role soon. Shortly after, Morris posted on X that he was proud to be part of the Trump administration and, in another post, endorsed Barr.

All three Republicans coveted the president’s endorsement — and boasted frequently of their Trump loyalty — in the conservative state, where Trump won 64% of the vote in the 2024 presidential race.

It isn’t the first Senate primary where Trump has endorsed or teased an endorsement, and he’s been using his influence to continue shaping the Republican Party.

In Louisiana, Trump backed Sen. Bill Cassidy’s challenger, Rep. Julia Letlow. Cassidy voted to convict the president during his 2021 impeachment trial after the Jan. 6. attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In Texas, the president has dangled a possible endorsement in the primary between Sen. John Cornyn and challenger Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, but he hasn’t announced anything.

The Democratic field in Kentucky includes former state lawmaker Charles Booker and former Marine pilot Amy McGrath. Booker narrowly beat McGrath in the 2020 Democratic primary to face McConnell.

Democrats have not won a U.S. Senate race in Kentucky since 1992.

source

By Joseph Ax

May 1 (Reuters) – The Republican governors of Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee made clear on Friday they will try to push through congressional maps more favorable to their party ahead of November’s midterm elections, the latest fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s seismic voting rights ruling on Wednesday.

Democratic voters, civil rights groups and a Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives meanwhile filed lawsuits challenging Republican Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry’s decision to suspend his state’s congressional primary elections and pursue a new map.

Landry on Thursday postponed the scheduled May 16 primary vote to give state lawmakers time to draw a new map that would dismantle at least one Democratic-held majority-Black U.S. House district, after the Supreme Court found the current map unconstitutional. Early voting had been set to begin on Saturday. 

President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans are fighting to maintain their control of the House, as well as the Senate, in the midterm elections.

The rapid developments underscored how the court’s decision, which severely weakened the landmark Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, has injected a fresh dose of chaos into what had already been a dizzying national fight over redistricting.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey announced that she had called a special legislative session starting on Monday so lawmakers can consider postponing the May 19 primary election in the hope that the Supreme Court will permit the state to use a different map.

Alabama, where Black voters make up a quarter of the electorate, is currently using a court-ordered map that includes two majority-Black districts out of seven. Both are held by Black Democrats.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Alabama immediately filed emergency motions asking the court to allow it to revert to an older map with only a single majority-Black district.

Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

“I remain hopeful Alabama will receive a favorable outcome from the U.S. Supreme Court,” Ivey said in a statement.

Republican Tennessee Governor Bill Lee on Friday also called a special legislative session beginning on Tuesday to “review” the state’s congressional map, saying in a statement that officials must “ensure our congressional districts accurately reflect the will of Tennessee voters.”

And Republican South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster suggested that he would like his state’s legislature to consider a new map. South Carolina’s lone Democratic seat, a majority-Black district that includes parts of the capital Columbia, is represented by longtime U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn.

“In light of the court’s most recent decision on the Voting Rights Act, it would be appropriate for the General Assembly to ensure that South Carolina’s congressional map still complies with all requirements of federal law and the U.S. Constitution,” McMaster wrote on X.

In Louisiana, the new lawsuits argued that Landry had overstepped his authority in suspending the election and that allowing the contests for other offices to proceed would confuse voters. The plaintiffs also noted that at least some absentee ballots had already been cast.

“Louisiana is following the law,” Landry said in response to the litigation in a social media post on Friday.

In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the United States are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national census conducted every 10 years. Redistricting typically has been carried out by state legislatures once per decade.

Republicans and Democrats have been waging a multistate redistricting fight ignited last year when Trump initiated an unprecedented mid-decade effort to redraw maps in Republican-led states, starting with Texas.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Donna Bryson and Will Dunham)

source

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) — The FIFA presidential vote in 2027 that is set to give Gianni Infantino a final four-year term in office will be hosted by Morocco — the soccer body’s second straight election meeting in Africa where he has built strong political ties.

Infantino on Thursday announced the 2030 World Cup co-host will stage a March 18 election meeting of FIFA’s 211 member federations who currently figure to re-elect him unopposed for a third time since his first win in a five-candidate contest in 2016.

“I am honored and humbled at the same time,” Infantino told global soccer leaders before confirming his inevitable candidacy for the election.

FIFA’s financial security, with multi-billion dollar reserves boosted by a high-revenue 2026 World Cup in North America, allows paying at least $8 million during this presidential term to each voting member federation.

Infantino was paid more than $6 million by FIFA last year in a job that has given him a global profile as a regular visitor with U.S. President Donald Trump and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, which will host the 2034 World Cup.

The 2027 FIFA Congress had seemed likely to be Europe or Oceania’s turn to host after a run of annual meetings in Canada, Paraguay, Thailand, Rwanda and Qatar.

FIFA chose Rwandan capital Kigali for its 2023 election won by acclaim by Infantino, who has allied himself to the Confederation of African Football under the leadership of South African mining billionaire Patrice Motsepe since 2021. That CAF election also was in Morocco which is now Africa’s main soccer power.

African voters — now 54 among the 211 members — have for decades been seen as decisive in FIFA presidential elections.

CAF and Motsepe already pledged support to Infantino in Vancouver this week, even before the election period was formally opened Thursday at the FIFA Congress.

Morocco has been a big winner during Infantino’s presidency and will host the 2027 FIFA Congress in Rabat, where the soccer body opened its African regional office last year.

The north African nation will co-host the 2030 World Cup with Spain and Portugal and hopes to stage the final at a 115,000-capacity stadium being built in Casablanca. Real Madrid’s Santiago Bernabeu Stadium also is a contender.

Hosting a FIFA gathering of officials, business partners and media next year shapes as a showcase for Moroccan soccer and its influential leader Fouzi Lekjaa, who also is a government budget minister appointed by King Mohammed VI.

Lekjaa is Motsepe’s most senior vice president at CAF and sits on the Infantino-chaired, 37-member FIFA Council that approves strategy for the soccer body.

During Lekjaa’s 12-year presidency of the Moroccan soccer federation, the men’s team made World Cup history in 2022 by becoming the first African team to reach the semifinals.

That fueled Morocco’s campaign to join the Spain-Portugal project for hosting the World Cup that was long expected to go to Europe. Morocco had lost several hosting contests since the 1990s including for the 2026 edition as the only rival to the winning bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Morocco also has a five-year deal with FIFA to host the annual Under-17 Women’s World Cup.

Morocco hosted the men’s African Cup of Nations this year that ended in a chaotic and controversial final. Senegal won the title on the field, Morocco was awarded it by a CAF appeal panel and the result will be settled by Senegal’s appeal pending at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.

Infantino’s presidency is expected to stretch to 15 years when he will reach his statutory term limit in 2031.

When Infantino was elected in February 2016 in Zurich, FIFA members also approved a 12-year presidential limit on a slate of governance reforms forced by U.S. federal investigations of corruption implicating senior soccer officials worldwide.

Infantino’s initial three-year mandate through 2019 — completing the term of Sepp Blatter who was ousted in the fallout from the investigations — eventually was decided not to count toward the 12-year limit. His first re-election win was in Paris.

___

Dunbar contributed from Geneva

___

AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer

source

‘America Can Learn Something From Israel’: White House Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting Raises Alarm Over Presidential Security 

After gunfire near President Donald Trump, pro-Israel figures frame the moment as a test of resilience 

The shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has opened a new debate over political violence, presidential security, and how moments of public vulnerability are interpreted by allies and adversaries of the United States. The incident, which led to the evacuation of President Donald Trump, the first lady, Vice President JD Vance, Cabinet members, and other senior officials, is now being examined not only as a security disaster narrowly averted, but also as a symbolic event at one of Washington’s most visible gatherings of political and media power. 

“America can learn something from Israel’s secret service, otherwise known as the Shabak—Shin Bet,” Dr. Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told The Media Line. “This is a reminder to the [US] Secret Service that they can never be too careful.” He added that the incident marks what he described as “the third assassination attempt that the president has faced, unprecedented in presidential history in the United States.” 

Diker said the incident should be treated cautiously while the investigation is still underway. “I don’t want to speculate because all the information is not yet available,” he said. “The investigation is ongoing. But the timing is rather notable of this particular attempt. And it was a very serious event.” He added that the suspect was “heavily armed,” and said the case should prompt a wider review of protective procedures around American political leadership. 

For Diker, the fact that the attack unfolded around a high-profile media event in a democracy matters. He said open societies carry a particular vulnerability because a range of political expression can exist alongside extreme and violent rhetoric. “Democratic societies, of course, are free and transparent,” he said. “And that type of culture, inviting freedom of expression, also has a risky side to it.” 

He pointed specifically to the American constitutional framework. “Certainly, in the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution is the guarantee of free speech,” Diker said. “Sometimes when you have an era in which free speech is brought to the levels of incitement to murder, … it’s protected speech in the United States … unless it’s known to lead directly to an act of terror, then it’s illegal.” 

Diker argued that the broader challenge is not only security at a single event, but the relationship between political culture and physical risk. “Here in the United States, particularly, you always run the risk that violent speech can lead to violent acts,” he said. “All of this is under investigation. But just the larger point here is that the risk that the United States takes as being the most outstanding example of guaranteed freedom of expression is that it can end up in very unfortunate situations like this.” 

The incident has already prompted internal security reviews and discussions about protective protocols for major public events involving senior leadership. The response itself, including the rapid securing of the venue and evacuation procedures, is also being assessed as part of a broader evaluation of preparedness and coordination. 

Diker said he would not be surprised if US agencies consult Israeli counterparts after the incident. “There are lessons learned from these types of events that would really ratchet up the security protocols for public figures,” he said. “I definitely think that there will be changes in protocols. And I would be very unsurprised if the government would be consulting Israel on exactly how to strengthen those protocols.” 

He framed that possibility as part of a pattern of security cooperation between the two countries. “The United States police departments have turned to Israel to learn advanced policing techniques. And here, I would be very unsurprised if this would be happening on the level of the FBI and Israel’s national security services.” 

Mike Evans, founder of the Friends of Zion Heritage Center, said his immediate reaction was confidence in the protective response around the president. “I wasn’t concerned about the president,” Evans told The Media Line. “I know the Secret Service would handle it all. Obviously, it was very uncomfortable to see that again after several terrorist attacks, but I know the president, and I know he’s very strong.” 

Evans said the incident resonated strongly among pro-Israel and evangelical communities, where President Trump is viewed by many as a major supporter of Israel. “Israel, the Israeli people are tremendous supporters of Donald Trump,” he said. “They know he’s the greatest president in Israel’s history, and I think it’ll work in reverse. When Donald Trump is faced with a crisis, he gets more focused, and I think the Iranians will find that he’s not weak at all, and by the way, it’ll make the American people unite more behind him.” 

President Trump addressed the incident shortly after returning to the White House and said the dinner would be rescheduled. He emphasized that officials were safe and projected a message of continuity following the disruption. 

Diker said that the decision carried its own strategic message. “The president actually mirrored, it appears, the Israeli approach to these types of violent assaults,” he said. “The Israelis, if we remember, always clear the scene of any terror attack very quickly and return to normal life very quickly. And this is an expression of strength, resilience, and power.” 

“The message that President Donald Trump conveyed in having a press conference immediately after, within 30 minutes of the event, is to say, ‘I’m going to speak directly to American people’,” Diker said. “I am fine. We are fine. We’re continuing business as usual.” 

Evans made a similar point, also drawing on Israel’s experience. “This is the strength of Israel,” he said. “They don’t give in to the fear. They force themselves to go on with their lives.” He said the message that officials were safe and that the event would be rescheduled was “very important” because “the objective of the terror is to instill terror and fear and break the will of the individual and of the nation.” 

For both men, the attack was not only a question of physical security, but also perception. Diker said foreign adversaries watch such incidents closely, especially during a period of heightened confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. “The cognitive effect of an assassination attempt has to be taken into account as a component in the ongoing war,” he said. 

“When something like this happens, especially repeatedly, it conveys a message on the face of it that America is exposed,” Diker said. “These types of attacks always deepen this divide between the perception of power and the perception of weakness.” Still, he added that the outcome also allowed the United States to project control. “On the other hand, no one was hurt. The attempted killer was apprehended.” 

Evans placed the incident inside what he described as a more extensive ideological struggle over leadership and public trust. “There’s many different types of attempts at destroying leadership,” he said. “You have assassination attempts … but then there’s other attempts at destruction. There are attempts to destroy the reputation of a leader.” 

He also linked moments of political violence to the information environment. “He who defines the terms controls the debate,” Evans said. He warned that public opinion is being shaped by false information and ideological messaging. “Probably 80% of the information in social media is false information, and it’s an AI war,” he said. 

Evans’ message to supporters who felt shaken was direct. “I would say don’t worry about it,” he said. “This is what happens in the lives of great men.” He compared the risks faced by President Trump to past attacks on American leaders and said the burden of leadership includes exposure to personal danger. “The greater the president, the greater the attempt by individual [assassins],” he said. “So, we have incredible security. Everything will be fine. But this is the price they have to pay for leadership.” 

The shooting has already produced parallel readings. For security officials, it raises questions about access, checkpoints, and the protection of senior officials at events that mix political leadership, media visibility, and large public attendance. For American Israeli voices, it has become a moment to discuss deterrence, resilience, and whether the United States should adopt more of the instincts developed in Israel under repeated threat. 

Diker said the most important response is not to allow the incident to project weakness. “There has to be absolutely no tolerance,” he said. He argued that the US must continue to show resolve toward its enemies “to deter any future attacks.” 

For Evans, the answer lies in continuity and moral confidence. “It doesn’t make any difference if you’re Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu,” he said. “If you’re going to be a leader and make the tough decisions, don’t expect to have a whole lot of friends. It’s a very lonely job at the top because you’re making decisions based upon moral clarity.” 

source

By Jasper Ward

April 30 (Reuters) – Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy on Thursday vetoed a major election reform bill, citing “significant operational burdens” and unspecified legal challenges. 

The bill, at least a decade in the making, sought to allow absentee and other voters to track their ballot and see when it had been received and counted.

It also sought to expand acceptable voter identification, modify voter roll maintenance, change the absentee ballot timeline and create a rural community liaison position. Alaska is the least densely populated state in the U.S. and the largest by area.

Alaskans are set to hold elections this year for governor, lieutenant governor, the U.S. Congress and the state legislature.

The legislation had won bipartisan support in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate.

In a statement, the Republican governor expressed support for parts of the bill, but said the legislation contained legal challenges. He did not elaborate on what they were but said the bill as a whole would cause “significant operational burdens” and possibly jeopardize Alaska’s election process.

“The Division of Elections warns such changes would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement securely and reliably in advance of the 2026 elections,” Dunleavy wrote in a letter to the Senate’s president.

The bill was sponsored by the state’s Senate Rules Committee. The committee’s chair, Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk, a Republican, described the legislation as a good baseline bill that would benefit elections for Alaskans.

Under the U.S. Constitution, states are empowered to administer federal elections.

Work on the Alaska bill preceded moves by some states to address allegations raised by U.S. President Donald Trump and other high-profile Republicans who have asserted states are not doing enough to prevent voter fraud, even though state audits and academic studies have found fraud is rare.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington; Editing by Donna Bryson and Kate Mayberry)

source