DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program will move Wednesday to what’s known as the “expert level” — a sign analysts say shows that the talks are moving forward rapidly.

However, experts not involved in the talks who spoke with The Associated Press warn that this doesn’t necessarily signal a deal is imminent. Instead, it means that the talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff haven’t broken down at what likely is the top-level trade — Tehran limiting its atomic program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

“Agreeing to technical talks suggests both sides are expressing pragmatic, realistic objectives for the negotiations and want to explore the details,” said Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association who long has studied Iran’s nuclear program.

“If Witkoff was making maximalist demands during his talks with Araghchi, such as dismantlement of the enrichment program, Iran would have no incentive to meet at the technical level.”

That technical level, however, remains filled with possible landmines. Just how much enrichment by Iran would be comfortable for the United States? What about Tehran’s ballistic missile program, which U.S. President Donald Trump first cited in pulling America unilaterally out of the accord in 2018? Which sanctions could be lifted and which would be remain in place on the Islamic Republic?

“The most important determinant of expert talks’ value lies in whether there is a political commitment to do something and experts just need to figure out what,” said Richard Nephew, an adjunct fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who worked on Iran sanctions while at the U.S. State Department during negotiations over what became the 2015 nuclear deal.

“If the experts also have to discuss big concepts, without political agreement, it can just result in spun wheels.”

The 2015 nuclear deal saw senior experts involved in both sides of the deal. For the U.S. under President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reached an understanding working with Ali Akbar Salehi, then the leader of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Both men’s technical background proved key to nailing down the specifics of the deal.

Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only to 3.67% purity and keep a stockpile of only 300 kilograms (661 pounds). Today, Iran enriches some uranium up to 60% purity — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency put Iran’s overall uranium stockpile in February at 8,294.4 kilograms (18,286 pounds).

The deal also limited the types of centrifuges Iran could spin, further slowing Tehran’s ability to rush for a bomb, if it chose to do so. It also set out the provisions of how and when sanctions would be lifted, as well as time limits for the accord itself.

Reaching limits, relief and timelines require the knowledge of experts, analysts say.

“A nonproliferation agreement is meaningless if it cannot be effectively implemented and verified,” Davenport said. “The United States needs a strong technical team to negotiate the detailed restrictions and intrusive monitoring that will be necessary to ensure any move by Iran toward nuclear weapons is quickly detected and there is sufficient time to respond.”

It remains unclear who the two sides will be sending for those negotiations.

Both the Americans and the Iranians have been tightlipped over exactly what’s been discussed so far, though both sides have expressed optimism about the pace. However, there has been one noticeable dispute stemming from comments Witkoff made in a television interview, suggesting Tehran could be able to enrich up to 3.67% purity. However, analysts noted that was the level set by the 2015 deal under Obama.

Witkoff hours later issued a statement suggesting that comparison struck a nerve: “A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal.”

“Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program,” Witkoff added.

Araghchi responded by warning that Iran must be able to enrich.

“The core issue of enrichment itself is not negotiable,” he said.

Despite that, experts who spoke to the AP said they remained positive about the talks’ trajectory so far.

“Although still early stages, I’m encouraged so far,” said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat once involved in past nuclear negotiations with Tehran. “The pace of negotiations — to include starting expert level meetings this Wednesday — is good.”

He added that so far, there didn’t appear to be any “mutually exclusive red lines” for the talks as well — signaling there likely wasn’t immediately any roadblocks to reaching a deal.

Nephew similarly described reaching the expert level as a “positive sign.” However, he cautioned that the hard work potentially was just beginning for the negotiations.

“They imply the need to get into real details, to discuss concepts that senior (officials) might not understand and to answer questions. I also think too much can be read into them starting,” Nephew said. “Expert talks can sometimes be a fudge for seniors to avoid working on tough issues — ‘let’s have experts discuss it while we move on to other things’ — or to sidestep big political decisions.”

Corey Hinderstein, the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. government nuclear expert, described herself as feeling “cautious optimism” over the expert talks beginning.

“Heads of delegation are responsible for setting strategic goals and defining success,” she said. “But if there is a deal to be made, the technical experts are the ones who will get it done.”

___

The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

___

Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape: https://apnews.com/projects/the-new-nuclear-landscape/

Moments after Daniris Espinal walked into her new apartment in Brooklyn, she prayed. In ensuing nights, she would awaken and touch the walls for reassurance — finding in them a relief that turned to tears over her morning coffee.

Those walls were possible through a federal program that pays rent for some 60,000 families and individuals fleeing homelessness or domestic violence. Espinal was fleeing both.

But the program, Emergency Housing Vouchers, is running out of money — and quickly.

Funding is expected to be used up by the end of next year, according to a letter from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and obtained by The Associated Press. That would leave tens of thousands across the country scrambling to pay their rent.

It would be among the largest one-time losses of rental assistance in the U.S., analysts say, and the ensuing evictions could churn these people — after several years of rebuilding their lives — back onto the street or back into abusive relationships.

“To have it stop would completely upend all the progress that they’ve made,” said Sonya Acosta, policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which researches housing assistance.

“And then you multiply that by 59,000 households,” she said.

The program, launched in 2021 by then-President Joe Biden as part of the pandemic-era American Rescue Plan Act, was allocated $5 billion to help pull people out of homelessness, domestic violence and human trafficking.

People from San Francisco to Dallas to Tallahassee, Florida, were enrolled — among them children, seniors and veterans — with the expectation that funding would last until the end of the decade.

But with the ballooning cost of rent, that $5 billion will end far faster.

Last month, HUD sent letters to groups dispersing the money, advising them to “manage your EHV program with the expectation that no additional funding from HUD will be forthcoming.”

The program’s future rests with Congress, which could decide to add money as it crafts the federal budget. But it’s a relatively expensive prospect at a time when Republicans, who control Congress, are dead set on cutting federal spending to afford tax cuts.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters, who championed the program four years ago, is pushing for another $8 billion infusion.

But the organizations lobbying Republican and Democratic lawmakers to reup the funding told the AP they aren’t optimistic. Four GOP lawmakers who oversee the budget negotiations did not respond to AP requests for comment.

“We’ve been told it’s very much going to be an uphill fight,” said Kim Johnson, the public policy manager at the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

Espinal and her two daughters, aged 4 and 19, are living on one of those vouchers in a three-bedroom apartment with an over $3,000 monthly rent — an amount extremely difficult to cover without the voucher.

Four years ago, Espinal fought her way out of a marriage where her husband controlled her decisions, from seeing her family and friends to leaving the apartment to go shopping.

When she spoke up, her husband said she was wrong, or in the wrong or crazy.

Isolated and in the haze of postpartum depression, she didn’t know what to believe. “Every day, little by little, I started to feel not like myself,” she said. “It felt like my mind wasn’t mine.”

When notices arrived in March 2021 seeking about $12,000 in back rent, it was a shock. Espinal had quit her job at her husband’s urging and he had promised to cover family expenses.

Police reports documenting her husband’s bursts of anger were enough for a judge to give her custody of their daughter in 2022, Espinal said.

But her future was precarious: She was alone, owed thousands of dollars in back rent and had no income to pay it or support her newborn and teenage daughters.

Financial aid to prevent evictions during the pandemic kept Espinal afloat, paying her back rent and keeping the family out of shelters. But it had an expiration date.

Around that time, the Emergency Housing Vouchers program was rolled out, targeting people in Espinal’s situation.

A “leading cause of family homelessness is domestic violence” in New York City, said Gina Cappuccitti, director of housing access and stability services at New Destiny Housing, a nonprofit that has connected 700 domestic violence survivors to the voucher program.

Espinal was one of those 700, and moved into her Brooklyn apartment in 2023.

The relief went beyond finding a secure place to live, she said. “I gained my worth, my sense of peace, and I was able to rebuild my identity.”

Now, she said, she’s putting aside money in case of the worst. Because, “that’s my fear, losing control of everything that I’ve worked so hard for.”

LANSING, Mich. — A former Michigan public health official and Democratic candidate for governor entered the race for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat on Thursday.

Abdul El-Sayed, 40, is the second Democrat to put his name in the running in what could be one of the most watched races in the 2026 midterm elections. He’s also the second candidate this week to launch a campaign to replace Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, who is not seeking reelection.

“It’s way too hard to survive here in the richest, most powerful country in the world and it should not be this hard to get by,” he told The Associated Press.

El-Sayed ran for governor in 2018 as a progressive Democrat and was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders. He came in second in the Democratic primary, losing to Gretchen Whitmer by more than 20 points and beating now U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar by more than 12 points. Whitmer went on to win the general election and is in the midst of a second term. She can’t run again because of term limits.

A resident of Ann Arbor, El-Sayed recently served as director of the Department of Health, Human & Veterans Services in Wayne County, home to Detroit. Before that, he was the public health director of the city after it declared bankruptc y in 2013.

El-Sayed said he’s inspired to run for Senate after the overhaul of the federal government brought on by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, including changes and cuts made at the nation’s top health agencies. But he said Democrats must do more than just run on the opposite of Republican policies.

“You have to come with your own independent analysis of what you think the problem is and how you want to solve it, if you want to earn the trust of the public,” he said.

El-Sayed joins state Sen. Mallory McMorrow in the Democratic field of candidates looking to replace Peters. Others considering a run include U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

On the Republican side, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers launched his bid on Monday after losing a Senate race last year by 19,000 votes to Democrat Elissa Slotkin.

WASHINGTON — Former President Joe Biden returns to the national stage Tuesday to elevate liberal concerns that President Donald Trump’s agenda is threatening the health of Social Security.

The 82-year-old Democrat has largely avoided speaking publicly since leaving the White House in January. That’s even as Trump frequently blames Biden for many of the nation’s problems, often attacking his predecessor by name.

Biden is expected to fight back in an early evening speech to the national conference of Advocates, Counselors and Representatives for the Disabled in Chicago. While Biden has made a handful of public appearances in recent weeks, Tuesday’s high-profile address focuses on a critical issue for tens of millions of Americans that could define next year’s midterm elections.

“As bipartisan leaders have long agreed, Americans who retire after paying into Social Security their whole lives deserve the vital support and caring services they receive,” said Rachel Buck, executive director of the ACRD. “We are thrilled the president will be joining us to discuss how we can work together for a stable and successful future for Social Security.”

Trump almost immediately began slashing the government workforce upon his return to the White House, including thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration.

Along with a planned layoff of 7,000 workers and controversial plans to impose tighter identity-proofing measures for recipients, the SSA has been sued over a decision to allow Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to access individuals’ Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information.

Musk, the world’s richest man and one of Trump’s most influential advisers, has called Social Security “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

At the same time, Social Security recipients have complained about long call wait times as the agency’s “my Social Security” benefits portal has seen an increase in outages. Individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income, including disabled seniors and low-income adults and children, also reported receiving a notice that said they were “not receiving benefits.”

The agency said the notice was a mistake. And the White House has vowed that it would not cut Social Security benefits, saying any changes are intended to reduce waste and fraud.

Biden will be joined in Chicago by a bipartisan group of former elected officials, including former Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., former Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and former Social Security Administrator Martin O’Malley.

“Social Security is a sacred promise between generations,” O’Malley said. “We are deeply grateful to the President for joining us at ACRD to discuss how we can keep that promise for all Americans.”

Biden is not expected to make frequent public appearances as he transitions into his post-presidency. He still maintains an office in Washington, but has returned to Delaware as his regular home base. Trump has revoked his security clearances.

While Biden may be in position to help his party with fundraising and messaging, he left the White House with weak approval ratings. Biden also faces blame from some progressives who argue he shouldn’t have sought a second term. Biden ended his reelection bid after his disastrous debate performance against Trump and made way for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost to Trump in the fall.

Just 39% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Biden in January, according to a Gallup poll taken shortly after Trump’s inauguration.

Views of the Democratic former president were essentially unchanged from a Gallup poll taken shortly after the November election. They broadly track with the steadily low favorability ratings that Biden experienced throughout the second half of his presidential term.

___

Peoples reported from New York. Associated Press writer Linley Sanders contributed to this report.

JUNEAU, Alaska — After President Donald Trump returned to office, Alaska Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy declared “happy days are here again.” He likened Trump’s friendly approach to energy development as “Christmas every day” for a state whose fortunes rise or fall with oil.

But the nearly three months since Trump’s inauguration have been tumultuous, roiling Alaska’s substantial federal workforce and raising questions about the reliability of federal funding.

And his on-again, off-again tariffs, and a related drop in oil prices, have compounded the uncertainty for Alaska lawmakers, who each year must craft a state budget based on volatile oil prices. The legislative session is set to end in mid-May, well before Trump’s recently announced pause on higher tariffs for many countries expires.

The whiplash has worsened long-standing tension over how much money should go toward the yearly oil-wealth fund check most Alaska residents receive as opposed to education or other needs. Lawmakers have shown scant interest in raising taxes and have blown through billions in savings plugging recurring budget deficits dating back more than a decade.

“We’re all in a pickle,” said House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, an independent who leads a coalition of Democrats, independents and two Republicans.

Alaska is no stranger to the boom-bust cycle of oil. The government spends more freely on infrastructure and other projects when prices are high and shutters facilities or slashes costs when they are low. Lawmakers base spending off twice-a-year revenue outlooks pegged to oil price and production forecasts.

A year ago, North Slope oil was around $90 a barrel. It settled in the low-to-mid-$70 range beginning last fall and hit as low as $65 this week before Trump announced the 90-day tariff pause.

At current prices, each dollar change in oil equates to about $35 million to $40 million in state revenue, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Finance Division. The March revenue forecast was based on $68-a-barrel oil for the upcoming budget year, down $2 from a December forecast.

Oil prices change frequently and plans by OPEC+ members to add more oil to the market could cause a price softening, said Dunleavy spokesperson Jeff Turner, who noted the governor is focused on Trump’s executive order supporting increased oil and gas drilling, mining and logging in Alaska, and that it is “great to have an administration that supports Alaska’s responsible resource development.”

Some state political leaders hope Trump’s threatened tariffs could prompt countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan to invest in or commit to buying gas from a proposed massive liquefied natural gas project in Alaska. The project, repeatedly touted by Trump, has struggled for years to gain traction amid cost concerns, competition from other projects and questions about its economic feasibility.

Trump carried Alaska in November’s election.

Besides oil, Alaska relies heavily on earnings from its nest-egg oil-wealth investment fund. The fund’s principal is protected, but its earnings can be spent. Lawmakers cap withdrawals based on a percentage of the fund’s average market value over a five-year period. The yearly dividend paid to residents has traditionally come from earnings, but since lawmakers also began using earnings for state services in 2018, there has been friction over how much should go toward each.

Dunleavy proposed a roughly $3,800 dividend per resident, which would cost $2.5 billion — two-thirds of this year’s earnings withdrawal — and result in a deficit he suggested covering by tapping the state’s diminished savings. That amount hews to a formula abandoned years ago by lawmakers as unaffordable.

The proposal is a nonstarter with legislative leaders, who are hearing pleas for more funding for K-12 schools squeezed by years of inflation and energy and health care costs. Education advocates also want the state to tackle a maintenance backlog that they say has created unsafe learning environments for students, including mold and structural issues at some schools.

Last year, residents received $1,702, a combined dividend and energy relief payment. The dividend the past five years has been as low as $992 in 2020 and as high as $3,284, another combined dividend and energy relief check.

House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, a Republican, said politicians should not be “even stoking the fantasy” of a dividend as large as Dunleavy proposed.

“We cannot pay an unsustainable dividend, and that dividend distorts the fiscal reality that we’re facing,” he said. “Do we need new revenue, or do we need to get a handle on the size of the dividend we’re paying and honestly figure out how we’re going to prioritize that?”

Some members of the bipartisan-led Senate have urged changes to oil taxes to raise revenue, but overall support has been limited.

DENVER — People in Colorado will soon have to pass a background check and complete a state-sanctioned safety course to buy most semiautomatic guns with detachable magazines under a bill signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday.

Colorado, which has seen some of the country’s worst mass shootings — including the 2022 killings at the LGBTQ+ nightspot Club Q in Colorado Springs and the 1999 Columbine High School massacre — joins nearly a dozen other states in requiring some level of safety training or an exam to purchase a firearm.

One of the most restrictive gun control measures to be passed in the state as part of a long-running Democratic campaign to curtail gun violence, the law takes full effect in August 2026.

“We can’t afford not to do all we can to change the continuing impact of gun violence,” said bill sponsor and state Sen. Tom Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in a 2013 shooting at a theater in Aurora. Speaking at the bill signing, he added that the measure is “just the next step we have undertaken on that effort.”

Republicans and other opponents contend that the measure violates the Second Amendment, and at last one organization, Rocky Mountain Gun owners, was considering a legal challenge.

The several layers of hurdles that the law requires to purchase these guns, and the accompanying costs and potential backlogs, make “it a more or less administrative ban,” said Ian Escalante, executive director of the gun rights group.

Previous attempts at securing an all-out ban on certain semiautomatic guns, as has been done in deeply Democratic states including New York and California, floundered in more purple Colorado where many including the governor have something of a libertarian streak.

“I really think this bill will make Colorado communities safer and prevent both accidents as well as reduce gun violence, and ultimately that means saving lives while protecting our Second Amendment rights,” Polis said.

The proposal was watered down from a flat ban on sale of most semiautomatics with detachable magazines, including rifles and some pistols. Proponents argued that allowing only permanently attached magazines would force a would-be shooter to reload bullet by bullet.

The final bill as signed is a concession to Polis and other Democrats wary of going too far.

___

Bedayn is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

WASHINGTON — Republicans narrowly got their budget plan over the finish line. Now comes the hard part.

The resolution adopted this week was only a first step that allows Republicans to draft legislation that they can push through Congress without Democratic support. Next, they begin crafting a final bill with enough spending cuts to satisfy those on the right while not jeopardizing the reelection prospects of more vulnerable lawmakers whose constituents rely on key safety net programs.

With thin majorities in the House and Senate, Republicans can afford to lose hardly any votes from their side of the aisle as they draft legislation, giving every individual lawmaker leverage over the process.

“It’s going to take all of us to get it done,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La.

The road ahead is daunting.

Republicans are determined to extend the individual tax cuts that were approved during President Donald Trump’s first term before they expire at year’s end. But they intend for the legislation to do far more than that, potentially enacting a host of tax reductions that Trump promised during the campaign, such as no income tax on tips and overtime.

And the tax cuts are only half the equation. Conservatives in the House gave the budget plan the final votes needed for passage Thursday after they said they received assurances from leadership in both chambers that they would work to have a final product with at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts — forcing changes to federal programs including Medicaid that could prove hard for some in the party to support.

“The struggles Republicans have faced so far are only a glimmer of what’s to come,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.

Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio, senses a difficult fight for Republicans. He said Trump has made clear he doesn’t want any benefit cuts for those who get health insurance coverage through Medicaid, which could conflict with the desire some conservatives have for steep spending cuts.

“If it’s this rocky now, it’s only going to get worse from here on out if the speaker is not able to get the entire conference in line,” Miller said.

Democrats have framed the debate as Republicans looking to slash key government programs so they can pass tax cuts that predominately help wealthier households. It’s a message Democrats will hammer home leading up to the 2026 midterm elections.

“At this point, they’re all worried about primaries and they are worried about Elon’s money, but they ought to be worried about a general election as well,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., referring to Trump’s billionaire ally, Elon Musk. “I think it’s going to be very difficult for a moderate Republican, if there’s still any left, to be able to vote for this and go home and defend it.”

Some Republicans also made clear to GOP leadership before Thursday’s budget vote that they will be closely monitoring the changes to Medicaid in the final bill.

“This was just making sure that there is a clear understanding here that there are a group of members that will not cut benefits from seniors and our most vulnerable New Yorkers who rely on Medicaid,” said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for reelection next year, said she’s also made her position known to leadership.

“I could not make my position on Medicaid cuts clearer,” she said. “I am not going to support cuts that affect low-income families, disabled individuals, low-income seniors, rural hospitals.”

Republicans say their focus is on instilling work requirements for able-bodied beneficiaries and more rigorous eligibility assessments. But Democrats say Republicans can’t generate the savings being discussed without also cutting benefits.

Meanwhile, Republicans see extending the individual and estate tax cuts passed in Trump’s first term as key to their electoral success next year. The House Ways and Means Committee says a family of four making $80,610, the median income in the United States, would see a $1,695 tax increase if the tax cuts are not extended.

Republicans spent the last few years blaming the Biden administration for increasing the debt, and a key test will be how many keep that focus as they seek to extend and expand tax cuts.

A recent estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation projects that extending the 2017 tax breaks will add $5.5 trillion over the next decade when including interest, and $4.6 trillion not including interest. On top of that, adding Trump’s campaign promises would swell the price tag to $7 trillion.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he’ll advocate for splitting the measure into two reconciliation bills if Republicans take too long to get to a final product.

“I’m going to say break it apart, because they need money for the border yesterday and they also need money for DoD,” Graham said, referring to the Department of Defense.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said he looked forward to the challenge and there was a lot of work ahead.

“The American people are counting on us,” Johnson said.

Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said he’s confident a final bill will pass with the House winning the most important tussles on the scope of taxes and spending cuts.

“I will bet you they will fold rather than inflict the largest tax increase in American history on their voters,” Cole said of the Senate. “And two-thirds of them, with all due respect, aren’t on the ballot next time. … Whereas everyone here is on the line. And our majority is much more on the line that their majority is.”

——

Associated Press staff writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Lisa Mascaro and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — On a day when stock markets around the world dropped precipitously, Alabama Republican Party Chairman John Wahl led a celebration of the president whose global tariffs sparked the sell-off.

With no mention of the Wall Street roller coaster and global economic uncertainty, Wahl declared his state GOP’s “Trump Victory Dinner” — and the broader national moment — a triumph. And for anyone who rejects President Donald Trump, his agenda and the “America First” army that backs it all, Wahl had an offer: “The Alabama Republican Party will buy them a plane ticket to any country in the world they want to go to.”

Wahl’s audience — an assembly of lobbyists and donors, state lawmakers, local party officials and grassroots activists — laughed, applauded and sometimes roared throughout last week’s gala in downtown Birmingham, the rare Democratic stronghold in one of the nation’s most Republican states. The president’s son Donald Trump Jr. elicited perhaps the most enthusiasm with an unapologetically partisan pitch, even repeating the lie that his father won the 2020 election over Democrat Joe Biden.

Yet beyond the cheerleading, there were signs of a more cautious optimism and some worried whispers over Trump’s sweeping tariffs, the particulars of his deportation policy and the aggressive slashing by his Department of Government Efficiency.

That doesn’t mean Trump or Republicans are in danger of losing their grip in Alabama, where the GOP holds all statewide offices, dominates the Legislature and has won every presidential electoral vote since 1980. But it’s a notable wrinkle in a place where there’s long been tension between relying on the federal government for funding and jobs, and an embrace of the kind of anti-Washington, anti-establishment populism that has twice propelled Trump to the Oval Office. And any cracks for Trump in Alabama — where he got 65% of the vote in 2024 — could portend trouble elsewhere, as the effects of a seismic shift in U.S. policy reach across the economy and society.

“There are some concerns, some conversations,” said John Merrill, a former secretary of state, over just what Trump’s agenda will mean on the ground. Alabama, he acknowledged, has “been a net recipient” of the very federal government and economic model Trump is upending, meaning it receives more money back from Washington than its taxpayers send the federal government.

“It’s a big risk,” said Merrill, who sported a Trump 45-47 pin on his lapel, a nod to the president’s two terms.

Blocks to the south of the complex where Republicans convened sits the multibillion-dollar University of Alabama at Birmingham health system, a regional gem where research depends on grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Republican Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, listed as a “Silver Sponsor” of the gala, didn’t join the Democratic attorneys general suing the Trump administration to stop the cancellation of certain research funding streams Congress already has approved.

Most of the medical services provided at UAB and many other hospitals throughout the state are covered by Medicare and Medicaid, two of the largest federal outlays. Alabama, because its per-capita income ranks among the lower tier among states, has one of the most generous federal match rates for Medicaid funding.

A short drive west toward Tuscaloosa sits a gargantuan Mercedes-Benz complex, one of the earliest examples of foreign auto manufacturers coming to the American South, where state laws are hostile to organized labor. The plants have provided jobs at wages higher than the local norms but in some cases lower than in union shops of the Great Lakes region around Detroit. Many suppliers have followed in the South, but not so many that the assembly plants don’t still import many parts that now will be subject to Trump’s tariffs.

Terry Martin, a county GOP committeeman in Tallapoosa County, said he supports the tariffs as leverage. Trump has “something to bargain with,” Martin said. But, “the parts that are coming from overseas … it’s going to pop it up” in price, he said, at least in the short term.

Agriculture, meanwhile, is still a dominant Alabama industry. Meat processing plants in the North and row crop farms in the South depend on migrant labor that Merrill, the former secretary of state, said involves workers who are in the U.S. both legally and illegally. Alabama, he recalled, passed its own strict immigration bill during Barack Obama’s presidency only to roll it back after industry leaders complained of a depleted workforce.

Wahl, in an interview after the gala, took a more nuanced approach than he did at the podium.

“It is possible to secure our border and still take into account migrants who deserve to be here,” he said. “This has to be a two-pronged approach.”

Back in Birmingham, Interstate 65 splits the city. The aging, increasingly congested artery is a local priority for widening. The proposal has support from Alabama’s two Republican senators, Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt. U.S. interstate projects, though, are typically a 90-10 split, meaning 90% of the money comes from Washington, 10% from the state.

That funding — along with money for schools, Medicaid and other areas — could be at risk with Trump adviser Elon Musk and DOGE carrying Trump’s blessing to slash spending. GOP lawmakers who control Congress have supported Trump’s agenda, which also includes dismantling the Education Department.

Tallapoosa County GOP Chair Denise Bates said “absolutely” there’s a possibility DOGE could go too far. “I hope there are guardrails,” she said, noting she was once a local school board member.

“Am I 100% for getting rid of the Department of Education? I can’t say that I am,” she said, adding a phrase similar to Merrill’s description of the state as a whole. “You know, we’re a net receiver.”

Yet for all the caveats offered in one-on-one conversations, the GOP crowd cheered when Tuberville, the former football coach turned Trump acolyte on Capitol Hill, offered a plainspoken defense of Musk and his pop-up agency, telling the crowd, “We’re dead broke.” And they roared as he addressed tariffs.

“It’s past time we level the playing field and tell the rest of the world to get off their ass and start paying their fair share,” Tuberville said.

Bates argued that Alabama’s embrace of Trump’s “America First” push is not simply loyalty to the president. She said it reflects generations of voters watching the steel industry decline in Birmingham and, after the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted in 1994, the textile industry leaving for Mexico and, eventually, Southeast Asia.

“We just want jobs,” she said.

Still, state Sen. Jabo Waggoner, the longest-serving member of the Alabama Legislature, made clear Trump’s visceral appeal, declaring him “the most popular president here since Ronald Reagan, hands down.”

Wahl recalled Trump’s first massive outdoor rally as a presidential candidate: 30,000 people at Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Mobile, Alabama, in August 2015.

Wahl, who owns a butterfly farm outside Huntsville, said perhaps the best way to understand Trump and Alabama and this moment of uncertainty is to see a president who, at least to his supporters in the state, has earned the benefit of the doubt.

“He’s going to let everybody know he’s serious,” the chairman said. Trump is “going to bring people to the bargaining table. We’re actually going to see the negotiator conduct business.”

WASHINGTON — After a long wait, the Senate is launching action on President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” of tax breaks and spending cuts at a risky moment for the U.S. and global economy.

More than a month after House Republicans surprised Washington by advancing their framework for Trump’s $4.5 trillion in tax breaks and $2 trillion in spending cuts, Senate Republicans voted Thursday to start working on their version. The largely party-line vote, 52-48, sets the stage for a potential Senate all-nighter Friday spilling into the weekend.

But work on the multitrillion-dollar package is coming as markets at home and abroad are on edge in the aftermath Trump’s vast tariffs scheme, complicating an already difficult political and procedural undertaking on what Republicans hope will become their signature domestic policy package.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., opened the chamber Thursday saying they expected to be ready to begin.

Trump says he’s on board with the plan and Republicans, in control of Congress, are eager to show the party is making progress toward delivering on their campaign promises. By nightfall, as voting began, one Republican, the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted against, as did all Democrats.

Democrats, as the minority party, don’t have the votes to stop the GOP plan. But they intend to use the procedural tools available to prolong the process. Democrats argue that Republicans are focusing on tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of the programs and services millions of Americans rely on for help with health care, child care, school lunches and other everyday needs.

“They’re mean, they’re nasty, they’re uncaring,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said about the Republicans. “We, tonight and tomorrow, are going to show just who they are.”

Senate Democrats started consuming up to 25 hours of their available debate time, holding the floor into the night and railing against potential GOP cuts to Medicaid, veterans programs, DOGE cuts and the impact of Trump’s tariffs.

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Budget committee, repeated a slogan he has been sharing: “Families lose and billionaires win.”

“That,” he said, “is the Republican plan.”

Fundamental to the Senate package is making sure Trump’s first-term tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year, are continued and made a permanent fixture of the tax code. The senators also will consider adding Trump’s proposed tax cuts on tipped wages, Social Security income and others.

The Senate package also would bolster border security funds by some $175 billion to carry out Trump’s mass deportation campaign, which is running short of cash, and it would add national security funds for the Pentagon — all priorities the Senate GOP tucked into an earlier version that was panned by House Republicans.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the party whip, said that without action tax cuts would expire, becoming a $4 trillion tax hike on Americans. “Republicans are focused on getting America back on track,” he said.

What’s unclear is how it will all be paid for, since Republican deficit hawks typically require spending offsets to help defray the lost tax revenue and avoid piling onto the nation’s $36 trillion debt load.

While House Republicans approved their package with $4.5 trillion in tax breaks and up to $2 trillion in spending cuts, the Senate Republicans are taking a different tack.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is making the case that since the existing Trump tax breaks are the current policy, they are not considered new, and do not need to be offset with reductions in spending — an approach Democrats compare to “going nuclear” with the normal rules, particularly if the strategy is put to the test with an unfavorable ruling before the Senate parliamentarian.

Instead, Senate Republicans are considering offsets mostly for any new Trump tax breaks. Raising alarms from the most conservative budget hawks, the senators have set a floor of about $4 billion in budget reductions to health and other programs — a fraction of the package’s expected $4 trillion-plus price tag for tax breaks.

GOP leaders are assuring the deficit hawks within their own ranks that the legislation says the cuts can rise to as much as $2 trillion.

After an expected Friday night vote-a-rama, with dozens of amendments being offered to the package, the senators are planning to stay into Saturday if needed to take a final vote to approve it, sending it to the House for action.

The House and Senate will ultimately need to merge their frameworks into a final product, expected in May, but House Speaker Mike Johnson’s intention to have it all wrapped up by Memorial Day could prove optimistic.

The political environment is uncertain, and the public’s appetite for steep budget cuts is being tested in real time, with Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency headed by billionaire Elon Musk blazing through federal offices, firing thousands of workers and shuttering long-running government mainstays — from scientific research projects on diseases to educational services for schoolchildren to offices that help with Social Security, tax filing and the weather.

At the same time, the staunchest fiscal conservatives in both the House and Senate, many aligned with the Freedom Caucus, are pushing for even more cuts.

Trump told senators publicly and privately this week he would have their backs, particularly when it comes to standing up for the spending reductions. At a White House announcing the tariffs Wednesday, Trump said the Senate plan had his “complete and total support.”

The president’s steep tariffs threw the global economy into a tailspin Thursday, with stocks down around the world, the U.S. markets leading the way.

__

Associated Press writers Leah Askarinam and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

SALT LAKE CITY — Republican U.S. Rep. Celeste Maloy received applause at a Thursday town hall in Salt Lake City when she told the crowd she’s concerned about the country drifting toward authoritarianism “if we don’t get the executive branch under control.”

But the cheers turned to boos when she added those worries weren’t specific to Republican President Donald Trump.

“When Biden was president, I had the same concern,” she said, referring to former Democratic President Joe Biden.

Maloy’s comments summed up her careful approach to criticizing Trump throughout the event, which she held with Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Kennedy. The Utah lawmakers are among a handful of Republicans who have held public meetings against the recommendation of House Speaker Mike Johnson, who encouraged them to skip out after others drew protesters.

The boisterous audience in liberal Salt Lake City repeatedly urged Maloy to denounce Trump’s sweeping federal budget cuts. Maloy wields power over federal funding as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. She and Kennedy said they opposed some of the administration’s cuts, including to the National Park Service. But Maloy also said tough spending decisions are necessary.

“We are not going to get out of the situation we’re in financially without all of us feeling some pain,” she said.

Maloy said she and Kennedy held the town hall because they believed Utah could set an example on how to hold civil discussions about tough issues. Questions were sent in to a message board and attendees could vote for those they were most interested in hearing. The question about authoritarianism came from a man who stood up and shouted it.

To jeers from the crowd, Kennedy defended Trump’s actions in his first three months in the White House, including the president’s move to end foreign aid contracts at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“We need to make sure that our own house is in order,” he said. “We’re spending money off in foreign lands on things that may or may not be meritorious. In this case, our grandchildren will be paying back with economic disaster.”

Maloy took a more tepid approach, telling the crowd she sees a need for more checks on the executive branch as Trump has signed a flurry of executive orders.

She said she called the White House to express concern about an order that directed federal agencies to lay off hundreds of thousands of probationary employees. Judges recently ordered the workers to be rehired. She said she supports broad efforts to shrink the size and scope of the federal government but thinks the mass firing of probationary workers was the wrong approach.

Many questions focused on how federal budget cuts might impact Utah’s vast public lands, including its five national parks. Both lawmakers said they opposed the Trump administration’s reductions of National Park Service staff, but that they had little power to influence his decisions. Some jobs have been restored.

Maloy, who lives just north of Zion National Park, began her career at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, working to conserve natural resources, improve water quality and manage nutrients in the farmlands of southwest Utah. In Congress, she has served on subcommittees focusing on water resources and rural development. Her district includes many rural towns known for outdoor recreation.

Kennedy is a family doctor and former state senator. His district spans the entire eastern border of the state and groups vastly different communities, from the winter resort town of Park City, to the urban center of Provo, down to the red rock recreation hub of Moab.

Voters from both parties said after the town hall they had hoped to hear more about Social Security. Dozens of the program’s offices across the country are slated to close due to actions taken by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Not everyone in the crowd opposed Trump’s actions. Andrew Turner, a 30-year-old Republican and engineering student, said he wished the lawmakers had more time to address the future of Social Security and criticized the audience for talking over Maloy and Kennedy as they tried to answer questions.

“Something will have to be done about Social Security because otherwise it’s going to collapse,” he said. “I know as somebody who’s younger, at the current trajectory, I’m probably not going to be able to use the program. So I support the budget cuts Trump is doing.”