韩国防部：韩美从未讨论削减驻韩美军问题

2026年4月30日 11:51 / 联合早报

今年3月14日，美军士兵在韩朝非军事区附近观看美韩联合渡河演习，这是年度“自由之盾”联合军事训练的一部分。 （路透社）

韩国国防部周四说，韩国和美国从未讨论削减驻韩美军的问题。

韩联社报道，韩国国防部官员星期四（4月30日）告诉记者，驻韩美军的主要任务是与韩军形成牢固的联合防卫态势，从而遏制和应对朝鲜的入侵和挑衅。韩美将继续保持密切沟通，保障美军在朝鲜半岛稳定驻扎，加强两军协防态势。

美国总统特朗普周三在自家社媒平台Truth Social发文说，正在考虑削减驻德美军规模，并将在不久后作出决定。

此前有观点指出，出于对欧洲盟友在安全领域“搭便车”的不满，美国或削减在欧洲的驻军规模，但特朗普点名驻德美军并提及削减问题似属首次。

也有观点认为，美国2026财年《国防授权法》包含限制削减驻韩美军规模的条款，但不能排除特朗普政府调整驻韩美军军事能力部署的可能性。

New Orleans sheriff charged with criminal malfeasance in 2025 jailbreak

2026-04-30 1:04 AM UTC / Reuters

By Steve Gorman

April 30, 2026 1:04 AM UTC Updated 2 hours ago

Summary

• Outgoing Sheriff Susan Hutson indicted on 30 felony counts
• Sheriff’s chief financial officer charged with 20 counts
• Escape of 10 inmates marked one of biggest U.S. jailbreaks

April 29 (Reuters) – New Orleans Sheriff Susan Hutson and her chief financial officer were charged on ​Wednesday with criminal malfeasance, obstruction of justice and other charges stemming from last year’s escape of 10 inmates ‌in one of the biggest jailbreaks in U.S. history.

A special grand jury convened to investigate the May 2025 breakout returned an indictment charging Hutson with 30 felony counts and her CFO, Bianka Brown, with 20 counts, according to a statement released by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The ​judge presiding over the case set bond at $300,000 for Hutson and $200,000 for Brown. Both were ordered to surrender their ​passports and are barred from leaving the state.

“While Sheriff Hutson did not personally open the ⁠doors of the jail for the escapees, her refusal to comply with basic legal requirements and to take even minimal ​precautions in the discharge of her duties directly contributed to and enabled the escape,” Murrill said in a statement.

There was no ​immediate response to the indictment from the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, and legal representatives for Hutson and Bianka were not immediately known to Reuters. It was not clear whether the two would leave their posts.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Sheriff-elect Michelle Woodfork is scheduled to be sworn in early next month to succeed ​Hutson.

Ten inmates housed at the Orleans Parish Justice Center, which mostly holds people awaiting trial or sentencing, escaped on May ​16 by tearing a sink and toilet off a cell wall and fleeing through the resulting hole in the structure.

The escapees, some of ‌them murder ⁠suspects, were discovered missing during a routine headcount that morning. All 10 were ultimately recaptured.

Before Wednesday, more than a dozen people were charged as accessories to the escape, many of them employees of the detention center or relatives of the runaway inmates. They included a maintenance worker who turned off the water supply to the breached cell at the inmates’ request.

Hutson was charged ​with 14 counts of malfeasance ​in office, plus multiple ⁠counts of conspiracy to commit malfeasance, filing or maintaining false public records, conspiracy to file false records, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Brown was indicted on the same ​offenses.

Hutson, a Philadelphia native, was elected sheriff of Orleans Parish in December 2021 and sworn ​in on May ⁠2, 2022, becoming the first African-American woman to serve as a sheriff in Louisiana and the first woman ever to serve as sheriff in New Orleans.

She previously served as a defense attorney and prosecutor before becoming police monitor for the Los Angeles Police Department ⁠from 2007 ​to 2010, where she also oversaw local detention centers.

She was appointed as ​independent police monitor for New Orleans in 2010 and served in that post for a decade, helping institute such reforms as formation of an investigation team ​to probe officer-involved shootings and the use of officer-worn body cameras.

Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Lincoln Feast.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

韩国防部：韩美从未讨论削减驻韩美军问题

2026年4月30日 11:51 / 联合早报

今年3月14日，美军士兵在韩朝非军事区附近观看美韩联合渡河演习，这是年度“自由之盾”联合军事训练的一部分。 （路透社）

韩国国防部周四说，韩国和美国从未讨论削减驻韩美军的问题。

韩联社报道，韩国国防部官员星期四（4月30日）告诉记者，驻韩美军的主要任务是与韩军形成牢固的联合防卫态势，从而遏制和应对朝鲜的入侵和挑衅。韩美将继续保持密切沟通，保障美军在朝鲜半岛稳定驻扎，加强两军协防态势。

美国总统特朗普周三在自家社媒平台Truth Social发文说，正在考虑削减驻德美军规模，并将在不久后作出决定。

此前有观点指出，出于对欧洲盟友在安全领域“搭便车”的不满，美国或削减在欧洲的驻军规模，但特朗普点名驻德美军并提及削减问题似属首次。

也有观点认为，美国2026财年《国防授权法》包含限制削减驻韩美军规模的条款，但不能排除特朗普政府调整驻韩美军军事能力部署的可能性。

House adopts Senate-approved budget resolution to unlock ICE funding

April 29, 2026 / 10:53 PM EDT / CBS News

By Caitlin Yilek Politics Reporter
Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.

Read Full Bio

Washington— The House on Wednesday adopted a Senate-approved budget plan, the first step in a strategy that would allow Republicans to fund federal immigration agencies through the rest of President Trump’s term without the help of Democrats.

Senate Republicans unveiled and adopted the budget blueprint last week. Republicans are trying to meet Mr. Trump’s June deadline to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, and end the funding lapse that has shut down the Department of Homeland Security since February.

The resolution cleared the House in a 215 to 211 vote. It directs the committees that oversee ICE and Border Patrol to draft legislation to deliver about $70 billion to the agencies.

Adoption of the budget plan simply allows lawmakers to begin their work crafting legislation to fund the agencies, which both chambers will later need to approve.

Republicans are planning to fund other parts of DHS on a separate track.

Republicans have stressed a renewed urgency to fully fund the department after the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting on Saturday. Democrats have argued that most of DHS could be funded immediately if House GOP leaders held a vote on legislation that the Senate passed with bipartisan support in March.

In a memo to lawmakers on Tuesday, the Office of Management and Budget warned that DHS “will soon run out of critical operating funds, placing essential personnel and operations at risk.” Mr. Trump had directed the department to find available funding to pay all personnel during the shutdown, but the memo said the administration will be unable to pay personnel beginning in May.

Wednesday’s vote did not come without GOP infighting. What was expected to be a quick vote turned into an hourslong saga as some House Republicans launched a rebellion over an issue with an unrelated farm bill.

Democrats have refused to fund ICE and Border Patrol without reforms. A divide between House and Senate Republicans on whether to split off funding for DHS components that are unrelated to immigration enforcement has further prolonged the impasse.

An off-ramp appeared at the end of March, when the Senate approved a measure to fund most of the department, except for ICE and Border Patrol. Senate Republicans planned to then fund immigration enforcement through budget reconciliation, a process that allows them to pass spending bills without Democratic support.

House Democrats said they were willing to support the Senate-passed legislation to fund most of DHS, but GOP leadership refused to put it on the House floor for a vote since it faced opposition from conservatives, who wanted it wrapped into a single bill with voter ID requirements attached. Instead, House Republicans passed a measure to fund every agency under the department for 60 days, punting the issue back to the Senate, where a handful of Democratic votes are needed to overcome the filibuster.

Republicans circled back on the two-pronged plan to fund immigration agencies through reconciliation and the rest of DHS through the traditional appropriations process.

Reconciliation allows the Senate to advance legislation with direct budgetary consequences with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes typically needed, giving Republicans a path around Democratic opposition.

“We have been forced by the Democrats to use the reconciliation process to ensure that these two important agencies are funded,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said last week.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said the lower chamber plans to move the reconciliation measure first before voting on the bill the Senate passed in March. That bill funds the rest of DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

But some House Republicans have issues with the broader DHS bill, saying it includes language that zeroes out funding for immigration enforcement.

“It has some problematic language because it was haphazardly drafted,” Johnson said Monday, adding that they have a “modified version” that will be “much better for both chambers.”

Thune responded to Johnson’s criticism of the broader measure, saying the Senate “did everything we can to ensure that everything is appropriately funded.”

Johnson pushed back on suggestions House Republicans are at odds with their Senate counterparts and the White House.

“Everybody understands what we’re doing,” Johnson said Wednesday. “We’re all one team. We’re working together. I met with Leader Thune two hours ago. He knows exactly what we’re doing.”

Patrick Maguire, Ibrahim Aksoy and Jaala Brown contributed to this report.

Bondi agrees to testify in House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein probe

2026-04-29 6:15 PM EDT / CNN

Bondi agrees to testify in House Oversight Committee’s Jeffrey Epstein probe

The Lead

Rep. Robert Garcia, the Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee, joins The Lead.

1:02 • Source: CNN

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s historic Voting Rights Act opinion and what’s next for the midterms

2026-04-29T21:07:24.618Z / CNN

By Tierney Sneed, Fredreka Schouten
Updated Apr 29, 2026, 5:18 PM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 29, 2026, 5:07 PM ET

Demonstrators outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, October 15, 2025.

Eric Lee/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Wednesday kicked yet another leg out from under the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 civil rights law that Chief Justice John Roberts’ court has repeatedly undermined over the years.

Wednesday’s opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito with the dissent from the court’s three liberals, will make it much harder for voters of color to challenge redistricting plans that allegedly dilute the political power of minority communities.

The ruling will bring about major changes to political representation at all levels of government in future elections, starting in earnest in 2028. Many states will either choose to make changes to legislative boundaries or be forced by courts to redraw districts that currently guarantee the ability of minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice.

State legislatures controlled by Republicans could opt to eliminate a slew of Democratic-held seats, particularly across the South, in an effort to cement the GOP’s hold on the US House.

However, the decision’s impact on the 2026 midterm elections could be limited given the practical and legal hurdles to redrawing legislative plans at this point in the electoral cycle.

In the case, which examined Louisiana’s congressional plan, the Supreme Court ruled that a map that had created a second majority-minority district in the state because of a Voting Rights Act challenge amounted to an unconstitutional use of race. The opinion had the effect of drastically changing a legal test the Supreme Court put forward 40 years ago for how courts should approach Voting Rights Act redistricting cases.

Alito played down how much he was reworking that test, but in a dissent joined by the court’s two other Democratic appointees, Justice Elena Kagan said “the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”

Here’s what to know about the historic ruling and what happens next:

GOP could see immediate benefits

Wednesday’s decision lands in an election season that already is underway, but it could set off an effort in several states to create new maps ahead of November’s midterm elections for Congress.

Republicans appear likely to benefit from the initial scramble.

Louisiana, the state at the center of the case, saw the high court strike down a map that created a Black-majority district now held by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields.

Republican officials who control state government in Louisiana have not yet indicated how they will respond. But in a statement Wednesday, state Attorney General Liz Murrill said she would work with the state’s legislature and Gov. Jeff Landry on how to proceed with a “constitutionally compliant map” moving forward.

In a statement, Landry did not address whether the state would move to redraw lines.

Any redistricting action in Louisiana would disrupt the state’s May 16 primary. Early voting is slated to start Saturday, and overseas and military ballots already have gone out. Fields and other Democrats argued it already is too late draw new lines.

Alito’s opinion for the conservative majority returns the case to the lower court for more proceedings but without any instructions about whether the map should be withdrawn for the midterms.

His opinion also did not mention a legal doctrine known as Purcell, which says courts should avoid issuing rulings that would cause chaos and confusion for voters as an election is approaching.

Adam Kincaid, the president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, notes that Purcell is only a limitation on last-minute court action and should not constrain state lawmakers from moving forward.

“I think Louisiana very likely could do it,” he told CNN. “We’ll see if they do.”

Other states that have not kicked off voting in their primaries could also move quickly to draw lines. That includes Tennessee, which holds its primary August 6.

US Sen. Marsha Blackburn on Wednesday urged state lawmakers to draw another Republican seat in response to the court’s decision. That move would likely target the state’s sole Democrat in the House, Rep. Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis.

Laura Coates: Supreme Court ruling makes Voting Rights Act ‘not just a toothless tiger, you’ve got no tiger’

1:31 • Source: CNN

Laura Coates: Supreme Court ruling makes Voting Rights Act ‘not just a toothless tiger, you’ve got no tiger’

1:31

Florida effort gets a legal boost

In Florida, state lawmakers on Wednesday approved new congressional boundaries devised by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis that aims to help Republicans secure 24 of the state’s 28 US House seats this fall.

The high court’s ruling likely will strengthen DeSantis’ hand in defending that map against expected court challenges.

His legal team had cited the looming voting rights decision as one of its justifications for moving forward with mid-decade redistricting, and the high court’s ruling was quickly distributed electronically to members of the state Senate Wednesday as they prepared to vote on the boundaries.

Centers intentional discrimination

The Supreme Court’s ruling essentially means evidence of a discriminatory motive may be necessary to win Voting Rights Act-based challenges.

The decision cuts against 40 years of understanding that Congress wrote the VRA provision in question to push back not just on intentional racial discrimination, but on redistricting plans that had the effect of discrimination, even if intentional discrimination couldn’t be proven.

Alito wrote that VRA plaintiffs could only succeed “when the circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”

He claimed Wednesday that the court was stopping short of requiring a “finding of intentional discrimination.” But he significantly narrowed the kinds of evidence plaintiff can use to prove their cases, requiring a focus on “current” conditions.

Altogether, the ruling will make VRA redistricting cases “all but impossible to win,” said Omar Noureldin, senior vice president of the policy and litigation department of the voting rights group Common Cause.

Lawmakers don’t just say out loud that they are drawing maps for the purpose of diluting the political power of communities of color, Noureldin said, and legislative privileges often prevent plaintiffs from getting discovery that would show what map-drawers’ private intentions were.

Intentional discrimination cases are “much rarer than they used to be,” said Jason Torchinsky, an elections lawyer who has represented Republicans in redistricting fights, told CNN.

“You need some sort of smoking gun evidence,” said Torchinsky, who had represented Louisiana in the lower court proceedings in the current case. “You need an email where someone says ‘Yeah, I carved up the Hispanic neighborhood,’ and people don’t do that.”

Partisan gerrymanders as shield

The new ruling elevates the role partisan gerrymandering can play in warding off Voting Rights Act claims, coming on the heels of a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that said federal courts can play no role in policing partisan gerrymandering.

Alito’s new opinion – and a racial gerrymandering redistricting case the court handed down in 2024 – suggest that minority voters can only succeed in Voting Rights Act cases if they can propose maps that would protect whatever partisan advantage a legislature was seeking with its plan.

Alito said that to prevail in a Voting Rights Act case, plaintiffs will first have to show that it would be possible to draw the majority-minority district in a map that met all the other goals a legislature would have in drawing a plan – including a legislature’s goal of boosting one party over another. Secondly, Alito has said plaintiffs must show a minority group votes as a bloc in ways that are distinct from party affiliation.

Related article A person stands with a placard as immigrants’ rights activists and demonstrators attend a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026. Nathan Howard/Reuters Takeaways: Supreme Court signals it will side with Trump on Haitian and Syrian migrants 7 min read

In a two-party system, “racial divides often mirror the partisan divide,” said Hilary Harris Klein, a senior counsel for voting rights at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

“When these partisan objectives really amount to silencing Black and brown communities, the result is the same,” she said, accusing the Supreme Court of “allowing states to whitewash the dilution of minority voting strength.”

Roberts, Kavanaugh switch their views

In Wednesday’s decision, the Supreme Court essentially adopted arguments made by Alabama in a separate redistricting case decided three years ago — arguments that two court conservatives rejected then – but are siding with now.

Roberts — who wrote the 2023 opinion in Allen v. Milligan upholding a longstanding interpretation of the Voting Rights Act — didn’t write a concurrence in Wednesday’s Louisiana case to explain why he changed his views or how he squared the new redistricting ruling with the last one.

Neither did Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined Roberts and the three liberals in the Alabama case.

Roberts in 2023 upheld a legal test known as Gingles that the Supreme Court laid out for VRA redistricting cases in 1986.

It said that for voters to prevail in their challenge to redistricting plans, they must show that “the minority group must be sufficiently large and (geographically) compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district;” that the minority group is “cohesive” in its political views; and that White voters can vote as a bloc to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate.

Now, in the Alito opinion in the Louisiana case that Roberts has signed on to, the bar plaintiffs must meet in VRA cases is much higher.

Earthquake for 2028 and beyond

While practical and legal obstacles will limit the effects of the ruling for 2026, it will likely render major changes for the legislative maps used in 2028 and will be extremely influential in the redistricting drawn after the 2030 census.

Republican-controlled states will be inclined to take a look at their current maps and consider redrafting any majority-minority districts they were forced to draw under the Voting Rights. Southern states like Georgia and South Carolina could see new maps before 2028, as could Ohio and states where tribal populations had forced the creation of VRA districts.

(In Georgia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Jackson on Wednesday called on state lawmakers to add redistricting to an expected special session. The state’s primary election is fast approaching on May 19.)

Democratic states that were inclined to preserve their current plans may nonetheless face lawsuits arguing those plans violate Wednesday’s opinion in how race was used to draft them.

Illinois could be vulnerable to a lawsuit like that, according to Torchinsky. California’s plan may face legal challenge too, however, the way Wednesday’s ruling protects plans drawn for partisan reasons could protect it, as that was the goal of the recent initiative that redrew California’s congressional map.

Because of the Purcell doctrine, those lawsuits will not be able to force changes before the 2026 election. But they will need to be filed soon in order to be litigated in time for the 2028 election.

Democratic redistricting strategists have said they expect states controlled by their party – including New York, Colorado and Washington state – to attempt to mount counter-offenses in the coming years to draw maps that swing more US House seats to Democrats.

One Republican involved in redistricting efforts predicted Wednesday that 70 seats could be redrawn by the end of the 2028 election.

CNN’s Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

Trump stamp: The president wants taxpayer dollars to put his name all over the place

2026-04-29 20:09:35 UTC / CNN

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.

President Donald Trump, Republicans in Congress, his hand-picked appointees, and all manner of other allies have been doing their best to put Trump’s name, image and likeness all over the place.

Using taxpayer dollars, these efforts differ from Trump’s lifelong effort to put his name on privately owned buildings. They’re controversial in part because Trump is divisive and not currently very popular; his approval rating has recently been stuck in the 30s.

More importantly, the US more traditionally memorializes the dead with such honors. Placing the image of a sitting president on buildings and in such public government displays is often associated with kingdoms or authoritarian regimes.

Democrats, bristling at the Trump stamps, have introduced legislation to ban his name from being added to federal buildings or coins, but those efforts are likely to be stuck in Congress. So will GOP efforts to officially name more things after the president.

Some things have not yet been designated to carry his name, but if his planned addition of a massive ballroom to the White House gets built, one can imagine Trump will always view it as the Trump Wing of the White House. Same goes for the triumphal arch Trump wants to put adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery.

The 250th anniversary of US independence is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in the Trump memorialization efforts. The term for 250th anniversary is “semiquincentennial,” FYI.

Here’s a partial list of what’s being done (or attempted) to officially stamp the country on Trump’s behalf.

Passports

Official travel documents meant to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary will feature Trump’s image on top of the Declaration of Independence and opposite an image of the Founding Fathers. It is unclear how many will be issued, but the Trump document will apparently be the “default passport out of the Washington Passport office when available,” according to a State Department official.

This rendering shows a US passport with President Donald Trump’s image on the inside.

US State Department

Dollar bills

Trump’s signature will appear on US paper currency, a first for a living president. Usually it is the Treasury secretary’s signature printed on money. But Trump’s will be used, again to commemorate the 250th anniversary.

A gold coin

The president’s hand-picked Commission of Fine Arts is putting his likeness on a gold coin, also commemorating the 250th anniversary. Heads: Trump, looking serious, his fists on the Resolute Desk. Tails: An eagle in flight. Commission members wanted the coin to be as big as possible – two inches in diameter or larger.

The design of the America 250 commemorative gold coin.

US Treasury

There are efforts by Republicans to put Trump’s likeness on the $100 bill and a proposed $250 bill but those are complicated by a law that prohibits using the likeness of a living person on paper bills.

$1 coins

Separate from the commemorative gold coins, the Treasury Department is trying to put Trump’s image on a special $1 coin, also for the semiquincentennial, despite the fact that the law seeks to prohibit images of presidents on coins until they had been dead two years.

Proposed $1 coin.

From Steve Guest/X

‘Gold card’ visa

It’s been described by Trump as “a green card on steroids.” The Commerce Department sought to sell expedited access to US residency for $1 million per person in the hopes of bringing in $1 trillion from 200,000 people, according to an estimate from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick early in Trump’s second term. Beyond Lutnick’s fuzzy math, only one person had qualified as of April, but more could buy the gold card in the future.

President Donald Trump holds up a “Trump Gold Card” as he makes an announcement from the Roosevelt Room of the White House on December 19, 2025.

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Fighter jets

It’s a less direct homage, but a new sixth-generation fighter jet being developed for the Pentagon by Boeing will be called the F-47, Trump announced in 2025. It’s an apparent reference to him being the 47th president during his second term.

Battleships

Last December, Trump announced a new class of battleships would be the “Trump class” of battleships. It’s not clear whether that means a physical ship, which is years away from production, would ultimately carry his name. The New York Times reported it was Trump’s frustration with the timeline for producing the new class of battleships that led to the ouster of his Navy secretary in April.

President Donald Trump announced the creation of the “Trump class” battleship during a statement to the media at his Mar-a-Lago estate on December 22, 2025.

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Prescription drugs website

Trump has tried to make good on promises to lower the price of prescription drugs by offering a government-run website that will act as a sort of clearinghouse to connect patients with drugmakers. It’s not yet clear whether the site will lead to reduced drug prices, but it is called TrumpRx.

Investment accounts for kids

The federal government will put $1,000 into special investment accounts for newborns as a result of the tax spending bill Republicans enacted into law in 2025. Unlike some other things named after Trump, Trump accounts are in US law. FAQ to see if your child qualifies.

National park passes

Annual passes to US national parks will celebrate the semiquincentennial and replace images of some parks with Trump, angering some parkgoers. An environmental group sued to stop the change.

National parks and federal lands annual pass.

Department of Interior

The Kennedy Center

Trump’s name has not been added to the Kennedy Center in US law, which recognizes the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as a memorial to the slain president. But that didn’t stop the Trump administration from adding Trump’s name before Kennedy’s on the building’s wall. A subsequent administration could have the words removed. Trump has packed the Kennedy Center’s board with supporters. The arts center is closing for two years for renovations. Many artists refused to perform there under the current leadership.

The US Institute of Peace

There is also no legislation to rename the US Institute for Peace, an organization gutted early in Trump’s second term. But the administration changed the name anyway, putting Donald J. Trump over United States Institute for Peace on the DC building that is home to the organization. Trump said he deserved the distinction because he claimed he had negotiated the end to multiple international conflicts, although that was before he went to war with Iran. Congress may ultimately need to agree to the name change.

Banners on federal buildings

Trump’s image has been plastered on large banners on federal buildings around Washington, including, at times, the departments of labor and agriculture. Most controversially, a banner was unfurled at the Department of Justice. These banners remind some critics of propaganda in fascist or communist regimes, which honor strongman leaders while they’re in power.

A banner of President Donald Trump is hung on the Department of Justice on February 19, 2026.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

Palm Beach International Airport

Florida’s Legislature and governor have approved changing the name of the airport nearest Trump’s Mar-a-Lago golf club to the President Donald J. Trump International Airport. The Department of Transportation plans to change the airport’s three-letter designation from PBI to DJT.

Gold statue at his golf course

While the use of taxpayer dollars rankles Trump’s critics, his supporters are also willing to put their own money in to honor the president. For instance, a cryptocurrency outfit commissioned a gold statue that was recently unveiled at Doral, his Florida golf club.

Statues with Epstein

While critics see shades of autocracy and hagiography in the veneration of Trump with taxpayer dollars, it’s important to note that free speech – and criticism – are protected in the US. The National Park Service permitted multiple temporary statues of Trump and the convicted late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in forms of embrace. They were known associates decades ago, but Trump hasn’t been accused of any criminal wrongdoing related to Epstein and said he had a falling out with Epstein in the early 2000s.

Where Trump’s name won’t go

Other things Trump wants named after him don’t appear to be happening. The administration offered to unfreeze billions of dollars earmarked for a massive New York area infrastructure project if Democrats agreed to rename Penn Station in New York City and Dulles Airport in Virginia after him. They refused. A federal judge in February ordered the money released.

Elon Musk tells court he was a “fool” for funding OpenAI

April 29, 2026 / 6:37 PM EDT / CBS/AP

Elon Musk told a court on Wednesday that he was a “fool” for providing funding to launch ChatGPT maker OpenAI.

Testifying in a case he brought against OpenAI, the billionaire founder of Tesla and SpaceX said he continued to finance OpenAI after receiving assurances from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman that the company would remain a nonprofit. However, Musk said he began to have doubts about the company’s direction and said he later felt betrayed.

Musk alleged in his civil lawsuit that OpenAI, Altman, and OpenAI President Greg Brockman reneged on the AI company’s founding agreement by prioritizing profit over a promise to keep OpenAI as a nonprofit dedicated to human progress.

The trial, playing out in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, started Monday and is expected to last about four weeks.

Court sketch of Elon Musk on the witness stand in a courtroom in Oakland, California. Musk accuses OpenAI of betraying its founding mission to remain a nonprofit dedicated to benefitting humanity. Vicki Behringer

Musk contributed $38 million in funding to OpenAI from December 2015 through May 2017. The AI company is now valued at more than $85 billion.

Lawyers for OpenAI reject Musk’s allegations, saying that company leaders never promised it would remain a nonprofit forever. The company has argued Musk’s legal challenge is aimed at undercutting OpenAI’s rapid growth and bolstering Musk’s xAI, which he launched in 2023 as a competitor.

Heated cross-examination

During cross-examination, Musk repeatedly pushed back on questions. OpenAI lawyer William Savitt asked about emails Musk wrote before OpenAI’s founding in 2015, including whether it would be better to make it a standard for-profit company and whether tax deductions would apply to his donations to the nonprofit.

“Your questions are not simple,” Musk said. “They are designed to trick me essentially.” Any simple answer, he said, would be misleading the jury.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stepped in, asking Musk to answer whether it’s true or false that OpenAI was formed as a nonprofit in December 2015. Musk said in that case, the answer was yes, but added that it is not always simple, comparing it to asking “have you stopped beating your wife?”

“We are not going to go there,” the judge replied, to laughs in the courtroom.

High stakes

Despite moments of levity, the stakes are high at the trial, which could sway the balance of power in artificial intelligence. Musk’s lawsuit seeks to oust Altman from OpenAI’s board. If Musk wins, it could also derail OpenAI’s plans for an initial public offering.

Musk’s decision to stop funding the company contributed to a bitter falling out between the former allies that’s been evident throughout the trial. On Wednesday, Musk said his views on Altman and his OpenAI cofounders had three phases — from initial excitement to losing confidence to a period in late 2022 when he thought “wait a second, these guys are betraying their promise.”

Lawyers for OpenAI have said Musk sought to control the company for himself.

Musk repeatedly testified that while he initially sought a majority stake in OpenAI and control of four out of seven board seats, this would eventually be diluted when OpenAI grew and gained more shareholders. He compared it to his stake in Tesla, which he said is now around 15% after he initially had a majority stake when the electric car maker was founded over two decades ago.

OpenAI, however, claims there were no assurances that he would eventually relinquish his board majority.

Trump EPA chief vows he won’t take ‘morality lessons’ from Dem senator after heated clash

April 29, 2026 7:02pm EDT / Fox News

EPA’s Lee Zeldin invoked Sen Whitehouse’s controversial membership at exclusive ‘all-white’ beach club

By Leo Briceno

Democratic senator trades barbs with Trump’s EPA administrator over the cost-benefit of closing coal plants

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin claps back at Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, for suggesting country’s cost benefit would be improved by eliminating “polluting” energy sources.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

4 min

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., traded barbs with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin in a fiery Senate hearing on Wednesday over cost-benefit analysis of coal plants — and whether the EPA, under Trump’s leadership, had enough to weigh whether hospital bills and insurance claims should factor into the calculus.

The heated back-and-forth left Zeldin taking a thinly-veiled dig at Whitehouse long after the Democratic environmentalist had concluded his line of questioning.

“We just want to stick to the truth,” Zeldin said.

“We want to stick to the science. If you don’t agree with them, you don’t follow their logic, then they’ll want to vilify you… and I’m not going to take morality lessons from people who join all-white country clubs,” he added, referring to reports of Whitehouse’s family membership at Bailey’s Beach Club, a beach club formerly known as Spouting Rock Beach Association.

EPA CHIEF TAKES ON MEXICAN ‘SEWAGE CRISIS’ FLOWING INTO US WATERS WHERE NAVY SEALS TRAIN

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin attends a meeting with President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on March 13, 2025.(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

“I think the people who are running the place are still working on that and I’m sorry it hasn’t happened yet,” Whitehouse said in 2017, referring to allowing minority members. “It’s a long tradition in Rhode Island and there are many of them and we just need to work our way through the issues.”

The interaction comes as lawmakers weigh President Donald Trump’s 2027 budget request for the EPA, a framework that has alarmed Democrats for its proposed 50% slash to the agency’s funding.

Zeldin’s clash with Whitehouse also underscores sharp divisions between the administration and Democrats in Congress over what threat, if any, climate change poses and what resources the U.S. should devote to combating it.

Whitehouse, who panned the proposed budget, argued that Zeldin was ignoring secondary costs brought on by fossil fuels.

“One plant in Michigan has already cost Michiganders $600 million in excess health costs. That is money out of consumers’ pockets, and into the pockets of your fossil fuel polluters, Trump’s big donors. Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?” Whitehouse asked Zeldin.

“We’re going to get to talk about math?” Zeldin retorted. “Oh, this is great; I don’t even know where to start.”

“Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?” Whitehouse asked again. “Answer that question: Are you even tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?”

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS PRESENT DIFFERING OPINIONS OF TRUMP’S ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT APPOINTEES

Former Rep. Lee Zeldin, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, speaks during his Senate Environment and Public Works confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 16, 2025.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Zeldin began replying that the EPA did, in fact, track consumer costs of energy but was cut off.

“Where are you tracking the consumer costs of those coal plants?” Whitehouse interjected.

Zeldin, setting aside the matter of tracking, turned to confront Whitehouse’s underlying argument about the cost-benefit of coal across the country.

“Are you kidding me? Coal plants even staying open – you think that the math is that it’s better for West Virginia if you close down their coal plants and put these people out of work and tell them to learn how to code?” Zeldin said.

“According to you, in your mind, that’s saving West Virginia? Is it saving them on energy access? Is it saving them on jobs?” Zeldin added.

Whitehouse, running out of his allotted time, closed his line of questioning by proposing that Trump’s administration stood to gain from energy-aligned donors.

NEW SEN. JIM JUSTICE ‘ABSOLUTELY’ SHOCKED BY DEMOCRATS’ RESPONSE TO ELON MUSK’S DOGE REVELATIONS

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., conducts the Senate Budget Committee hearing titled “The Default on America Act: Blackmail, Brinkmanship, and Billionaire Backroom Deals” in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on May 4, 2023.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“You’re raising costs on purpose because the money that you get when you raise costs from consumers goes to Trump’s big fossil fuel donors,” Whitehouse said.

The EPA was given roughly $8.82 billion in the 2026 fiscal year. For 2027, Trump has requested just $4.2B for 2027 — a drop that would represent a 52% decrease year over year.

Leo Briceno is a politics reporter for the congressional team at Fox News Digital. He was previously a reporter with World Magazine.

‘America First’ immigration overhaul bill would codify Trump’s campaign promises once and for all

April 29, 2026 4:13pm EDT / Fox News

The 70-page legislation would also require applicants to sign a pledge supporting the Constitution

By Elaine Mallon, Fox News

A House Republican bill would codify President Donald Trump’s “America First” immigration overhaul, sharply narrowing legal pathways by prioritizing high-skilled workers, eliminating most family sponsorships, and ending the diversity visa lottery.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

4 min

FIRST ON FOX:President Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ immigration overhaul would be codified into law under a House Republican bill that would significantly narrow legal immigration pathways by shifting the system toward high-skilled workers, eliminating most family sponsorship categories and ending the diversity visa lottery.

Immigration — both illegal and legal — remains a contentious topic in Washington, with Democrats pushing to expand pathways for migrants to obtain citizenship, while Trump and his Republican allies are seeking to restrict migration, including proposals such as ending birthright citizenship.

Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., introduced the Americans First Immigration Act, which would amend several key provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act, in an effort to “putting American citizens first.”

“My bill draws a hard line – the days of putting illegals, random diversity lotteries and foreign labor ahead of American workers are over,”Moore said in a statement to Fox News Digital.”Our immigration system should serve the American people, not undercut them, and that means selecting individuals who will strengthen our economy, respect our laws, and share our values.”

FEDERAL JUDGE THROWS OUT BIDEN ADMIN PROGRAM TO LEGALIZE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SPOUSES OF US CITIZENS

Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala., participates in the House Judiciary Committee organizing meeting in the Rayburn House Office Building on Feb. 1, 2023.(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

The 70-page bill seeks to codify many of the actions already taken by the Trump administration to tighten legal immigration pathways. In December 2025, President Donald Trump paused the green card lottery program in the wake of two shootings on college campuses, and last September, Trump signed an executive order placing restrictions on the issuance of H1B1 visas, a work visa offered for specialty occupations.

“If you want to come to the United States, you should earn it through merit, not diversity lotteries or loopholes. The Americans First Immigration Act restores fairness and accountability by protecting American jobs, prioritizing the nuclear family and ensuring that every immigrant admitted is prepared to contribute and succeed,” Moore told Fox News Digital.

While Moore’s bill seeks to end the diversity lottery visa, it includes a provision to ensure that the allotment of visas for religious workers, equal to 3,000 a year, is preserved.

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 19, 2025. The orders established the “Trump Gold Card” visa program and introduced a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. The “Trump Gold Card” allows foreign nationals permanent residency and a pathway to U.S. citizenship for a $1 million investment in the United States.(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

‘SHAMEFUL’: LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FACE UPHILL BATTLE AMID ONGOING BORDER CRISIS

Julie Kirchner, a senior advisor at the America First Policy Institute, supports Moore’s bill, particularly the measure to eliminate lottery visas.

“The Visa Lottery has a long, documented history of fraud and national security concerns and should be abolished. Under a merit-based, America First system, any immigrant would have to demonstrate their skills, ability to assimilate, and how they will contribute to the U.S.,” Kirchner told Fox News Digital.

One of the other provisions in Moore’s bill seeks to put “American workers first” by overhauling the current employment-based immigration visa program and replacing it with a points-based merit system. Under the new points-based system, applicants are ranked and will receive points on factors such as their level of English proficiency, education, their level of compensation, military service and age. All applicants must have a salary that is at least 200% above the median wage of the state they’ll reside in, and they must meet English proficiency requirements.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP PUSHES ELECTION SECURITY BILL DESPITE SLIM ODDS, AS TRUMP PRESSURE LOOMS

Employers must also prove that they “took good faith steps” in recruiting American workers for the job offered to the foreign worker for equal compensation. The legislation also requires employers to share with the government the name and contact information of American workers who were offered the job and their offered wage. The Department of Labor will oversee and investigate compliance.

And migrants offered a visa are required to sign a petition pledging they support the U.S. Constitution and its values. The pledge also includes a requirement to disavow political groups or social groups that partake in honor killings, female infanticide or genital mutilation.

The Trump administration says foreign student visa vetting will be a continued process rather than a one-time check.(iStock)

“Ideally the government has the information in advance to bar these people from immigrating to the U.S.,” Kirchner said. “However, if a newly-arrived immigrant engages in behavior that demonstrates the statements he made to our immigration agencies were false, that can become the basis for deportation or denaturalization.”

The act would also curtail family-sponsored immigration to only be accessible to spouses of U.S. citizens, minor children, spouses of green card holders and children of green card holders. Parents, siblings, and adult children of U.S. citizens are barred.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“What the bill does is eliminate the ability of extended family members to get a preference under the law,” Kirchner said. “Extended family members can still apply – but they would have to do so based on their own skills, merit, and ability to assimilate.”

Elaine Mallon is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business covering national politics.