NEW YORK — As President Donald Trump pushes the historical boundaries of executive power, some of the Democratic Party’s core political institutions are preparing for the possibility that the federal government may soon launch criminal investigations against them.

The Democrats’ dominant national fundraising platform, ActBlue, and the party’s largest protest group, Indivisible, are working with their attorneys for just such a scenario, according to officials within both organizations. Trump’s top political allies have suggested both groups should face prosecution.

Other Democratic allies are planning for Trump-backed legal crackdowns as well. Wary of antagonizing the president, most prefer to stay anonymous for now.

“Every one of our clients is concerned about being arbitrarily targeted by the Trump administration. We are going to great lengths to help clients prepare for or defend themselves,” said Ezra Reese, political law chair at Elias Law Group, which represents Democratic groups and candidates and is chaired by Marc Elias, the lawyer who has himself been a Trump target.

An FBI spokesperson declined to comment when asked about potential investigations into ActBlue and Indivisible. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not downplay the threat of a potential criminal probe when asked specifically whether Trump wants the FBI, the Treasury Department or any other federal agency to investigate Democratic groups.

“Anyone who has (not) broken the law should not be worried,” Leavitt told The Associated Press. “If you have broken the law and engaged in the weaponization of justice, then you should be worried. It’s that simple.”

Indeed, far from distancing themselves from talk of retribution, many key Republicans are embracing it.

Trump’s allies argue they are justified in seeking vengeance due to the four criminal prosecutions against Trump, one of which led to multiple felony convictions in New York. There’s no evidence former President Joe Biden influenced the Trump prosecutions in any way.

Matt Schlapp, president of the American Conservative Union, said Democrats needed to be taught not to touch a hot stove.

“Someone needs to get burned for all this activity or they’re just gonna do it again,” he said. “And that’s not hypocrisy; that’s justice.”

Trump has made no secret of his plans to use the power of the federal government to target domestic political adversaries.

During a norm-breaking speech at the Department of Justice last month, Trump cast himself as the country’s “chief law enforcement officer,” a title ordinarily reserved for the attorney general.

On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order instructing the Justice Department to investigate Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official who anonymously penned a book highly critical of his first presidency. Trump said that Taylor was likely guilty of treason, a crime that can carry the death penalty.

Indivisible has been perhaps the most important group in the Democratic resistance since Trump returned to the White House. The group’s leadership in Washington holds regular calls with state-based activists and recently released a detailed protest guide, which offers specific guidance to hundreds of local chapters across the country.

This year alone, Indivisible groups have hosted more than 1,000 protests covering every state in the nation. The group was a key organizer in the recent Hands Off! protests that attracted hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

Trump top adviser and billionaire Elon Musk has publicly condemned Indivisible as “criminals.”

The statement was an apparent reference to violent attacks against Tesla dealerships and vehicles, which have spiked in recent weeks. Indivisible’s leadership released a guide earlier in the year encouraging protests outside Tesla dealerships, although the guide instructs protesters to remain peaceful and stay off private property.

No charges are known to have been filed against Indivisible or its leaders. But Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin says it’s critical that Democratic institutions work together to speak out against the threats posed by the Trump administration. His organization has been discussing contingency plans with attorneys and other activists in the event that he or other Indivisible leaders face criminal charges.

“They may try to come at us directly, or it’s as likely that their non-state actors are inspired by their lies and propaganda, and try to come at us individually,” Levin said. “And that is a risk in a moment where you’re facing anti-democratic threats like we are.”

“Our choice is, we can be quiet and hope that they won’t target us, or we can try to work as a mass opposition,” he continued. “If you’re not willing to do that, what are you doing here?”

Musk, backed by several Republican members of Congress, has also called on the FBI to investigate ActBlue, alleging that the Democratic Party’s main fundraising platform has skirted campaign finance laws and allowed foreign nationals to make illegal contributions to Democratic candidates.

“I think the FBI’s going to do something on ActBlue soon,” Charlie Kirk, a key Trump ally who founded the conservative group Turning Point USA, said at a political event last month in Wisconsin.

ActBlue officials this week told the AP that they would continue to cooperate with a congressional investigation led by House Republicans into allegations of fraud within the organization. ActBlue is preparing a second batch of documents to comply with a new request by House Republicans. Additionally, two ActBlue staffers are expected to testify before a House panel behind closed doors later this month.

Multiple House Republicans in recent weeks have encouraged federal law enforcement agencies to pursue requested criminal investigations into ActBlue.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has asked the Treasury Department to investigate allegations that the nonprofit processed payments to “terror-linked organizations.” Separately, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., sent a letter to the FBI last month claiming that ActBlue is being used to “to skirt the integrity of federal campaign finance laws” by allowing foreign nationals to contribute to campaigns, among other allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

“It must be emphasized that these allegations, were they to prove true, would indicate a serious threat to the integrity of our elections, besides the victimization of American citizens,” Biggs wrote.

ActBlue said it is preparing for the possibility of “many different attacks on various fronts,” including investigations by the FBI or the Treasury Department.

Meanwhile, Democratic candidates are relying on ActBlue to fund their campaigns as never before.

Donors have given more than $400 million to Democratic candidates through ActBlue over the first three months of the year, the organization told the AP. The fundraising haul represents the most money raised in any first quarter in ActBlue’s two-decade history.

While Republicans accuse the group of being funded by wealthy donors, ActBlue acts as a passthrough between donors and candidates that’s funded by a 3.95% processing fee on each donation.

“These unfounded attacks haven’t shaken us — they’ve sharpened our resolve to fuel Democratic wins,” ActBlue spokesperson Megan Hughes said. “As our first-quarter fundraising demonstrates, Democratic grassroots donors are engaged, undeterred and ready to meet this moment.”

Leavitt is one of three administration officials who face a lawsuit from the AP on First- and Fifth Amendment grounds. The AP says the three are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. The White House says the AP is not following an executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

NEW YORK — Five years after Harvey Weinstein was convicted of rape and hauled to jail in handcuffs, the former movie mogul returns to a Manhattan courthouse Tuesday for a new trial covering the very same allegations — plus one that hasn’t been tried before.

It isn’t double jeopardy, but rather a legal redo after a New York appeals court overturned the landmark #MeToo verdict a year ago.

The state’s Court of Appeals threw out Weinstein’s convictions and 23-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial after finding that the original one was tilted by “egregious” judicial rulings and prejudicial testimony.

Jury selection could take a few days. Opening statements and the start of testimony are expected next week. Judge Curtis Farber said that in addition to 12 jurors, six alternates will be picked. Prosecutors expect the retrial to last a month.

Here’s what you need to know about Weinstein’s retrial:

In some ways, the new trial will be two trials spliced into one.

Weinstein, 73, faces charges involving two women from his original trial in 2020, Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley, and he’s being tried for the first time on an allegation from a woman who wasn’t in the first case.

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty and denies that he raped or sexually assaulted anyone. Prosecutors are not allowed to retry Weinstein on certain counts that he was acquitted of during his first trial, including charges of predatory sexual assault and one count of first-degree rape.

The judicial reboot will play out in a different climate than Weinstein’s first trial, which drew intense media attention and saw protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse.

The #MeToo movement, spawned by scores of allegations in 2017 against the ex-studio boss, has evolved and ebbed over time, and Weinstein has since been convicted in a separate rape case in Los Angeles — a verdict he is also appealing.

While some stars are still facing a legal reckoning for alleged sexual misconduct – like Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is set to go to trial next month – the drumbeat of allegations against powerful figures has abated from #MeToo’s early days.

Weinstein is being retried on two charges from his original trial: one count of criminal sex act for allegedly forcibly performing oral sex on a movie and TV production assistant in 2006 and one count of third-degree rape for allegedly assaulting an aspiring actor in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013.

Haley, a former production assistant on the Weinstein-produced “Project Runway,” testified at the 2020 trial that he pushed her onto a bed at his Manhattan apartment in June 2006 and forced oral sex on her, undeterred by her kicks and pleas of, “No, please don’t do this, I don’t want it.”

Haley, who has also gone by the name Mimi Haleyi, acknowledged that she kept in touch with Weinstein, exchanged warm messages with him, and accepted an invitation to his hotel room two weeks after the alleged assault, where he pulled her into bed for sex. Under New York law applicable at the time, Weinstein has not being charged with rape in connection with Haley’s allegations.

Mann, who said she saw Weinstein as a “pseudo father” figure as she pursued an acting career after a rough upbringing, testified at the 2020 trial that he trapped her in a hotel room in March 2013, ordered her to undress as he loomed over her, and then raped her. She alleges that Weinstein raped her again eight months later at a Beverly Hills hotel, where she worked as a hairdresser.

Mann also kept in touch with Weinstein after the alleged assault, testifying that she sent him flattering emails, because “his ego was so fragile,” she said, and it “made me feel safe, worshipping him in this sense.”

In addition to Haley and Mann, Weinstein is also charged with one count of criminal sex act for allegedly forcing oral sex on a different woman at a Manhattan hotel in 2006.

That woman, who was not part of Weinstein’s first trial, has not been named publicly. The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named, as Haley and Mann have done.

Prosecutors said that the woman came forward to them just days before the start of Weinstein’s first trial but was not part of that case. They said they did not pursue the women’s allegations after Weinstein’s conviction, but revisited them and secured a new indictment after the first verdict was thrown out.

Weinstein’s lawyers contend that prosecutors shouldn’t have waited nearly five years to bring the additional charge.

New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, threw out Weinstein’s conviction in April 2024.

In a 4-3 decision, the court said then-Judge James Burke had denied Weinstein a fully fair trial by letting three women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case and his decision to let prosecutors confront Weinstein, if he had testified, over his history of brutish behavior.

The court labeled the allegations against Weinstein “appalling, shameful, repulsive conduct” but warned that “destroying a defendant’s character under the guise of prosecutorial need” did not justify some trial evidence and testimony. Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022, and he is no longer a judge.

In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Madeline Singas wrote that her colleagues in the majority were continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”

The ruling came at “the expense and safety of women,” she wrote.

NEW YORK — A retrial is set to begin Monday for Sarah Palin’s libel lawsuit claiming The New York Times libeled her in an editorial eight years ago.

The onetime Republican vice presidential candidate and ex-governor of Alaska gets another chance to prove to a federal jury that the newspaper defamed her with the 2017 editorial falsely linking her campaign rhetoric to a mass shooting. Palin said it damaged her reputation and career.

The Times has acknowledged the editorial was inaccurate but said it quickly corrected an “honest mistake.”

The trial, expected to last a week, comes after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restored the case last year. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday morning.

In February 2022, Judge Jed S. Rakoff in Manhattan rejected Palin’s claims in a ruling issued while a jury deliberated. The judge then let jurors deliver their verdict, which went against Palin.

In restoring the lawsuit, the 2nd Circuit said Rakoff’s dismissal ruling improperly intruded on the jury’s work. It also cited flaws in the trial, saying there was erroneous exclusion of evidence, an inaccurate jury instruction and an erroneous response to a question from the jury.

The retrial occurs as President Donald Trump and others in agreement with his views of news coverage have been aggressive toward media outlets when they believe there has been unjust treatment.

Trump sued CBS News for $20 billion over the editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, and also sued the Des Moines Register over an Iowa election poll that turned out to be inaccurate. ABC News settled a lawsuit with Trump over its incorrect claim the president had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll.

Kenneth G. Turkel, a lawyer for Palin, did not return a request for comment.

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesperson for the Times, said Palin’s claim stemmed from “a passing reference to an event in an editorial that was not about Sarah Palin.”

“That reference was an unintended error, and quickly corrected. We’re confident we will prevail and intend to vigorously defend the case,” Stadtlander said in a statement.

AUSTIN, Texas — AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is gearing up for a potential U.S. Senate run while no longer shadowed by a federal corruption investigation that hung over his rising profile in the Republican Party.

That durability would be tested against Republican Sen. John Cornyn should Paxton embark on what would likely be one of the country’s most contentious 2026 primary battles.

Paxton, a close ally of President Donald Trump, has hinted at challenging Cornyn for more than a year but has not said when he will make a decision.

In the final weeks of the Biden administration, the Justice Department decided not to pursue its investigation into Paxton over bribery allegations, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Though the date of the decision was not immediately clear, it was made in the final weeks of the President Joe Biden’s presidency, one of the people said.

The accusations were arguably the most serious of multiple legal troubles Paxton has faced since becoming attorney general in 2015, including felony securities fraud charges that hovered over him for nearly a decade before he agreed to pay nearly $300,000 in restitution fees. The attorney general also faced an investigation by the Texas State Bar for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Paxton characterized the investigation as a “bogus witch hunt” in a social media post on X responding to the news Thursday. He also tacked on a fresh barb toward Cornyn.

“Care to comment now, John?” Paxton posted.

Paxton declined an interview request through a spokesperson Thursday.

Spokespeople for Cornyn did not immediately respond to phone and email requests seeking comment.

The quiet dismissal underscores Paxton’s political resiliency and ascendency among his party’s hard-right in recent years while also potentially giving his opponents less fodder for political attacks.

“There are no more clouds over him,” said Bill Miller, a longtime Texas lobbyist and friend of Paxton.

Paxton has targeted Cornyn since the senator became one of few prominent Republicans to criticize him. Cornyn, who helped push a bipartisan gun control bill after the 2022 mass shooting at an Uvalde elementary school, also previously came under criticism from conservative activists who have driven the party’s agenda farther to the right.

Cornyn, who also served as Texas attorney general, has served in the Senate since 2002 and is a popular member of the GOP conference. But Cornyn lost to South Dakota Sen. John Thune in a close bid to become Senate majority leader. If Paxton enters the race, it will likely be the senator’s most competitive primary campaign to date.

In 2020, eight of Paxton’s closest aides accused him of using his office to benefit a Texas real estate developer who employed a woman Paxton was having an extramarital affair with. He was impeached and acquitted in the Texas Senate in 2023.

Nate Paul, the real estate developer, pleaded guilty in January to federal charges for lying to banks to receive millions of dollars in loans.

___

Associated Press reporters Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker contributed to this report from Washington, D.C. Lathan 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.

BOISE, Idaho. — Idaho’s recently departed U.S. attorney has joined the prosecution team in the case against Bryan Kohberger, the man charged in the killings of four University of Idaho students in 2022.

Joshua Hurwit will be a special deputy prosecuting attorney for the state in the murder trial scheduled for August, court documents filed this week show. Latah County Prosecuting Attorney Bill Thompson is leading the prosecution team.

Hurwit was a former President Joe Biden-nominated U.S. attorney for the District of Idaho from June 2022 until February. Hurwit joined the office in 2012 as an assistant U.S. attorney. He stepped down in February before the White House dismissed more than 50 U.S. attorneys and deputies.

Kohberger, 30, is charged with four counts of murder in the deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen and Kaylee Goncalves, students who were killed in the early morning of Nov. 13, 2022, at a rental home near their campus in Moscow, Idaho.

Autopsies showed the four were all likely asleep when they were attacked, some had defensive wounds, and each was stabbed multiple times.

Kohberger, who was a criminal justice graduate student at Washington State University, was arrested in Pennsylvania weeks later. Investigators said they matched his DNA to genetic material recovered from a knife sheath found at the crime scene.

A judge previously entered a not-guilty plea on Kohberger’s behalf. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty if he is convicted.

A hearing is set for April 9 to consider pretrial motions, including arguments over whether an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis would preclude Kohberger from being eligible for the death penalty if convicted, and over whether jurors should hear audio of a 911 call hours after the killings, as the callers realized one of their roommates wasn’t waking up.

Kohberger’s trial is scheduled to begin Aug. 11 and expected to last more than three months.

WASHINGTON — Democratic officials in 19 states filed a lawsuit Thursday against President Donald Trump’s attempt to reshape elections across the U.S., calling it an unconstitutional invasion of states’ clear authority to run their own elections.

The lawsuit is the fourth against the executive order issued just a week ago. It seeks to block key aspects of it, including new requirements that people provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote and a demand that all mail ballots be received by Election Day.

“The President has no power to do any of this,” the state attorneys general wrote in court documents. “The Elections EO is unconstitutional, antidemocratic, and un-American.”

Trump’s order said the U.S. has failed “to enforce basic and necessary election protection.” Election officials have said recent elections have been among the most secure in U.S. history. There has been no indication of any widespread fraud, including when Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about how U.S. elections are run. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” In 2020, Trump blamed a “rigged” election for his loss and falsely claimed widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines.

Trump has argued his order secures the vote against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare.

It has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls.

The order also requires states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day, and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Some states count ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day or allow voters to correct minor errors on their ballots.

Forcing states to change, the suit says, would violate the broad authority the Constitution gives states to set their own election rules. It says they decide the “times, places and manner” of how elections are run.

Congress has the power to “make or alter” election regulations, at least for federal office, but the Constitution doesn’t mention any presidential authority over election administration.

“We are a democracy – not a monarchy – and this executive order is an authoritarian power grab,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said the Trump administration is requiring states to either comply with an unconstitutional order or lose congressionally approved funding, something he said the president has no authority to do.

“In one fell swoop, this president is attempting to undermine elections and sidestep the Congress, and we’re not going to stand for it,” he said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Trump’s executive order was an attempt to impose “sweeping voting restrictions” across the country and disenfranchise voters.

The attorney general and secretary of state in Nevada, a presidential battleground, defended their state’s elections as fair, secure and transparent, and objected to the president’s attempt to interfere in how they are run. Attorney General Aaron Ford praised Nevada’s automatic systems for registering voters and distributing mail ballots.

“While this order is on its face unconstitutional and illegal, it is also unnecessary,” he said.

A request for comment sent to the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts by the Democratic attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Other lawsuits filed over the order argue it could disenfranchise voters because millions of eligible voting-age Americans do not have the proper documents readily available. People are already required to attest to being citizens, under penalty of perjury, in order to vote.

Under the order, documents acceptable to prove citizenship would be a U.S. passport, a REAL ID-compliant driver’s license that “indicates the applicant is a citizen,” and a valid photo ID as long as it is presented with proof of citizenship.

Democrats argue that millions of Americans do not have easy access to their birth certificates, about half don’t have a U.S. passport, and married women would need multiple documents if they had changed their name. That was a complication for some women during recent town elections in New Hampshire, the first ones held under a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to register.

Not all REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses designate U.S. citizenship.

___

Cassidy reported from Atlanta. Associated Press writers Tran Nguyen in Sacramento, California, Holly Ramer in Concord, New Hampshire, and Rio Yamat in Las Vegas contributed to this report.

CHICAGO — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing parts of President Donald Trump’s executive orders aimed at curbing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts among federal contractors and grant recipients.

Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois halted the Labor Department from requiring federal contractors or grant recipients from certifying that they don’t operate any programs in violation of Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

That certification provision has stepped up pressure on companies and other organizations to revisit their DEI practices because if the government were to determine they violated the provision, they would be subject to crippling financial penalties under the False Claims Act.

Thursday’s ruling is in response to a lawsuit filed by Chicago Women in Trades, a nonprofit founded in 1981 that helps prepare women for work in skilled construction trades and has several contracts with the Department of Labor. There was no immediate reaction from Chicago Women in Trades to Kennelly’s order. The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A hearing on Chicago Women in Trades’ bid for a longer-lasting halt on Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders is scheduled for April 10.

The organization’s lawsuit is one of several challenging Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI programs in both the private and public sectors.

Trump signed an order his first day in office directing federal agencies to terminate all “equity-related” grants or contracts. He signed a follow-up order that included a requirement that federal contractors and grantees certify that they don’t “operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Kennelly’s decision comes nearly two weeks after an appeals court lifted a broader nationwide injunction against Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders in a separate lawsuit in Baltimore. But Thursday’s ruling is limited in scope because Kennelly declined to extend the temporary restraining order to other federal agencies.

Chicago Women in Trades, which filed its case against the Trump administration last month, argued that the president’s executive orders on DEI are so broad and vague that the organization had no way to ensure compliance, and thus they threaten its core mission.

Kennelly wrote that Chicago Women in Trades, which is being represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, was likely to succeed in its arguments that parts of the executive orders are a violation of free speech rights and are unconstitutionally vague.

Although the government argued that the certification provision “implicates only illegal DEI programs, it has studiously declined to shed any light on what this means. The answer is anything but obvious,” Kennelly wrote.

Kennelly wrote that he extended his order to all Labor Department contractors and grant recipients because the vagueness of Trump’s executive orders, coupled with the threat of financial penalties, would likely pressure organizations to curb DEI programs in potential violation of free speech rights.

Rather than face potentially crippling penalties, “it is likely that many of these grantees will take the safer route and choose to simply stop speaking on anything remotely related to what the government might consider to promote DEI or equity. A nationwide restraining order is appropriate to protect grantees who cannot afford the risks inherent in biting the hand that feeds them,” Kennelly wrote.

The judge also blocked the DOL from freezing or canceling any funding with Chicago Women in Trades, and the Trump administration from pursuing any False Claims Act enforcement against them.

During a hearing on Tuesday, the Trump administration argued that Chicago Women in Trades’ motion for relief was premature because its arguments rely on speculation as to how the executive orders will be implemented.

But Chicago Women in Trades noted in court filings that it has multiple communications from the Department of Labor directing them to ensure compliance with both DEI executive orders. The organization also said in court and has already lost a subcontract with a contractor trying to comply with the executive order.

Chicago Women in Trades has a long history of partnering with companies, state and federal agencies and other industry stakeholders to provide guidance and training on best practices for recruiting and retaining women in the trades — including training to combat bias and harassment that is prevalent in one of the country’s most male-dominated industries.

Its grant work with the federal government dates back years, including two grants awarded under the first Trump administration under the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations, which aims to expand pathways for women seeking to enter skilled trades.

________

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s shoot-from-the-lip style kept Americans on the edge of their seats during last year’s campaign. But now that he’s speaking as a president and not as a candidate, his words are being used against him in court in the blizzard of litigation challenging his agenda.

The spontaneity is complicating his administration’s legal positions. Nowhere has this been clearer than in cases involving Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, the driving force in Trump’s efforts to downsize and overhaul the federal government.

The latest example came earlier this week, when U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that Musk had likely violated the Constitution by dismantling the United States Agency for International Development.

The lawsuit turned on the question of whether the billionaire entrepreneur had overstepped his authority. Justice Department lawyers and White House officials insist that Musk is merely a presidential adviser, not the actual leader of DOGE.

But Trump has said otherwise — in speeches, interviews and public remarks — and Chuang quoted him extensively in his decision.

Trump most notably boasted of creating DOGE during his primetime address to a joint session of Congress and said it was “headed by Elon Musk.” Republicans gave Musk a standing ovation, who saluted from the gallery above the House chamber.

“Trump’s words were essential, central and indispensable,” said Norm Eisen, one of the lawyers for USAID employees who filed the lawsuit. “His admissions took what would have been a tough case and made it into a straightforward one.”

The looseness with words is a shift from predecessors like President Barack Obama, who used to say that he was careful because anything he said could send troops marching or markets tumbling.

Trump has no such feeling of restraint, and neither do other members of his administration like Musk.

Chuang, who is based in Maryland and was appointed by Obama, also cited social media posts from Musk, who writes frequently on X, the platform that he owns.

For example, Musk posted “we spent the weekend feeding USAID to the woodchipper” on Feb. 3. The agency was being brought to a standstill at that time, with staff furloughed, spending halted and headquarters shut down.

“Musk’s public statements and posts … suggest that he has the ability to cause DOGE to act,” Chuang wrote in his ruling.

Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary at the White House, said Trump was fulfilling his campaign promise “to make the federal government more efficient and accountable to taxpayers.”

“Rogue bureaucrats and activist judges attempting to undermine this effort are only subverting the will of the American people and their obstructionist efforts will fail,” he said.

Anthony Coley, who led public affairs at the Justice Department during President Joe Biden’s administration, said statements involving civil litigation were always coordinated between his office and the West Wing.

“The words could be used to support what we’re doing or undermine what we’re doing,” he said. “It’s a carefully choreographed effort to make sure there was no daylight between what was said in the court of public opinion and what could ultimately play out in the court of law.”

In comparison to how things were done in the past, Coley said, Trump has a “ready-fire-aim approach of doing business.”

Trump doesn’t usually let legal disputes force him to turn down the volume. During a criminal investigation over his decision to keep classified records at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House following his first term, Trump spoke extensively about the case in an interview with Fox News.

Longtime defense lawyers were startled — defendants are usually encouraged to keep mum while facing an indictment. But the situation panned out for Trump. His legal team delayed the case, and the special counsel’s office dropped the charges after he won the election because presidents can’t be prosecuted while in office.

DOGE has been the focus of nearly two dozen lawsuits. It’s often prevailed so far in cases involving access to government data, where several plaintiffs have struggled to convince judges to block the organization’s actions.

But it’s also run into challenges, such as a lawsuit over whether DOGE must comply with public records requests. The Trump administration asserted in court that DOGE is part of the White House, meaning it’s exempt.

Judge Christopher Cooper, also appointed by Obama, disagreed, siding with a government watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW.

“Musk and the President’s public statements indicate that USDS” — the original acronym for the organization that was renamed as DOGE — “is in fact exercising substantial independent authority,” wrote Cooper, who is based in Washington.

Cooper concluded that DOGE can “identify and terminate federal employees, federal programs, and federal contracts. Doing any of those three things would appear to require substantial independent authority; to do all three surely does.”

He ordered DOGE to start responding to requests about the team’s role in mass firings and disruptions to federal programs. The administration unsuccessfully asked the judge to reconsider, saying the judge “fundamentally misapprehended” the agency’s structure.

Just because Musk claims credit online for deep agency cuts, doesn’t necessarily translate to DOGE having authority in the eyes of the law, Stanford Law School professor Michael McConnell argued in a recent debate on the issue.

DOGE is recommending changes, he said, but it’s the agency heads who are actually putting them into effect.

“And that’s all that the courts are going to care about as to what the Supreme Court is going to do,” McConnell said at the debate hosted by the National Constitution Center.

STARKE, Fla. — A Florida man who killed an 8-year-old girl and her grandmother on a night in which he drank heavily and used drugs is set to be executed Thursday.

Edward James, 63, is scheduled to receive a lethal injection starting at 6 p.m. at Florida State Prison outside Starke under a death warrant signed in February by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Barring a last-minute reprieve, the execution is to be the second this year in Florida, which is planning a third in April.

Three other executions were scheduled this week around the United States: Louisiana put a man to death Tuesday using nitrogen gas for the first time as it resumed executions after a 15-year hiatus. Arizona on Wednesday lethally injected a man who had kidnapped and murdered his girlfriend’s ex-husband. Another lethal injection is planned Thursday in Oklahoma.

James drew the death penalty for the Sept. 19, 1993, killings of 8-year-old Toni Neuner and Betty Dick, 58, the child’s grandmother. James had been renting a room in Dick’s house in Casselberry. where Toni Neuner and three other children were also staying that night.

Court records show James drank up to 24 beers at a party, downed some gin and also took LSD before returning to his room at Dick’s house. The girl was raped and strangled to death. The other children were not harmed.

James, who pleaded guilty to the charges, was also found guilty of the rape and of stealing Dick’s jewelry and car after stabbing her 21 times. Court documents show James drove the car across the country, occasionally selling pieces of jewelry until he was arrested on Oct. 6 of that year in Bakersfield, California.

Police obtained a videotaped confession from James, who despite his guilty pleas was sentenced to death upon an 11-1 recommendation by a jury.

James’ lawyers filed several appeals with state and federal courts, all of which were denied. Most recently, the Florida Supreme Court rejected an argument that James’ longtime use of drugs and alcohol, several head injuries and a heart attack in 2023 led to mental decline that would make his execution cruel and unusual punishment.

The justices, however, agreed with a lower court decision that “James’s cognitive issues do not shield him from execution.” The court also rejected an argument from James’ lawyers that the heart attack he suffered in prison led to deprivation of oxygen that affected his brain and should be considered new evidence to halt the execution.

Even if it is new evidence, the court determined, the “defendant cannot establish that such evidence would likely yield a less severe sentence at a new penalty phase.”

The nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center said Florida uses a three-drug cocktail for its lethal injection: a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart.

Earlier this year, James Ford was executed for the 1997 killings of a couple in Charlotte County — witnessed by their toddler daughter, who survived. DeSantis also signed a death warrant for the April 8 execution of Michael Tanzi for the 2000 slaying of a woman in the Florida Keys.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear arguments Wednesday in a legal dispute that pits a suburban Ohio school district’s policy requiring use of students’ preferred pronouns against the free speech rights of classmates who believe there are only two genders.

The lawsuit brought by Parents Defending Education, a national Christian organization, against the Olentangy Local School District in 2023 has captured broad national attention from groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Manhattan Institute. Ohio’s solicitor general has asked to participate in oral arguments on behalf of 22 U.S. states that have interests in the case.

A lower court rejected the group’s arguments that the policies violated students’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit affirmed that decision in July.

The full court will reconsider that decision in a rare en banc hearing Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:

The lawsuit takes issue with overlapping district policies that prohibit the use of gender-related language that other students might deem insulting, dehumanizing, unwanted or offensive and call for the use of peers’ “preferred pronouns.”

The district’s electronic devices policy — which applies both on and off school time — prohibits transmitting “disruptive” material or material that could be seen as harassing or disparaging other students based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other categories.

A separate antidiscrimination policy prohibits students from engaging in “discriminatory language” during times when they’re under the school’s authority. That is defined as “verbal or written comments, jokes, and slurs that are derogatory towards an individual or group based on one or more of the following characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and transgender identity), disability, age, religion, ancestry, or genetic information.”

The district’s code of conduct echoes many of the same themes a third time.

Parents Defending Education, founded in 2021 amid the culture wars over schools’ teachings on race, diversity and sexuality, argues that the policies compel students and parents who belong to their group to “affirm an idea that gender is fluid” in contradiction of their religious beliefs.

“These students have views that the District disfavors,” the group wrote in a court filing. “Specifically, they believe that people are either male or female, that biological sex is immutable, and that sex does not change based on someone’s internal feelings. Accordingly, they ‘d(o) not want to be forced to ‘affirm’ that a biologically female classmate is actually a male — or vice versa — or that a classmate is ’nonbinary’ and neither male nor female.”

The group argues that the policies unconstitutionally compel “viewpoint-based” speech by forcing students who believe in only two genders to use pronouns that suggest otherwise. They say that violates the First Amendment’s guarantees to free speech and similar protections contained in the 14th Amendment, particularly since students are subject to punishment for violating the policies.

Parents Defending Education further challenges the electronic devices policy for applying outside school hours and off school property. The ACLU has sided with the parents’ group on this point, arguing the district’s policies are overbroad.

Olentangy Local School District outside Columbus, one of the state’s largest districts, maintains the policies protect students against abuse and harassment and asserts that Parents Defending Education represents “Christian, cisgender” students “seeking dispensation under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to harass other students based on their gender identity.”

“They are not illegal immigrants subject to deportation. They are not gay soldiers under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. They’re not African Americans in the Jim Crow south. They’ve not been systematically oppressed,” the district’s lawyers told the lower court. “They’re members of the majority who want to — under the guise of the First Amendment — openly voice their opposition to an historically maligned minority group, transgendered people.”

Olentangy argues that Parents Defending Education has failed to provide evidence of injury — as the lawsuit was filed before disciplinary action had been brought against any student. The district also says that its policies leave open other options for students who don’t wish to use someone’s preferred pronouns. That includes calling the person by their first name, using a gender-neutral pronoun or simply not referring to them at all.

The availability of such options, an argument against the policies unconstitutionally compelling students to say certain things, played a role in the three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling in favor of the district last summer.