As drivers on U.S. highways cross from one state to another, they often are greeted by a large “Welcome to ….” sign.

But not all drivers are welcome in every state.

In Florida, motorists with special out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to those in the U.S. illegally are not welcome to drive. Wyoming’s governor enacted a comparable ban this year. And Tennessee’s governor said he will sign similar legislation sent to his desk recently.

The message, though not literally printed on metal, is clear: “The sign says, `Welcome to Tennessee, illegal immigrants are not welcome,’” Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth declared during debate.

As President Donald Trump cracks down on illegal immigration, Republican lawmakers in many states are pushing new laws targeting people lacking legal status to live in the U.S. The measures contrast with policies in 19 other states and Washington, D.C., which issue driver’s licenses regardless of whether residents can prove their legal presence.

The Justice Department is seeking to strike down one such law in New York, which shields its driver’s license data from federal immigration authorities.

States are taking drastically different approaches to licensing drivers even as the federal government attempts to standardize the process.

On May 7, the U.S. will start enforcing a law passed 20 years ago that sets national standards for state driver’s licenses to be accepted as proof of identity for adults entering certain federal facilities or traveling on domestic commercial flights. Licenses compliant with the REAL ID Act are marked with a star and require applicants to provide a Social Security number and proof of U.S. citizenship or legal residency.

But states remain free to issue driver’s licenses to residents who don’t provide documentation for a REAL ID, so long as they meet other state requirements such as passing a vision exam or a driving laws test. In most states that issue licenses to people illegally in the U.S., there is no way currently to know from looking at the license whether the person is unlawfully present or simply chose not to apply for a REAL ID.

But at least some states do make a distinction. Connecticut and Delaware place special markings on driver’s licenses issued to immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

In 2023, Florida became the first state to invalidate some other states’ licenses. A law signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis made it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and potential jail time to drive in Florida with a type of license “issued exclusively to undocumented immigrants” or with markings indicating the driver didn’t provide proof of lawful presence.

As applied, the law has a limited scope. Only specially marked licenses from Connecticut and Delaware are deemed invalid, according to the website of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Connecticut has issued nearly 60,700 “drive-only” licenses to immigrants unable to prove lawful presence. Delaware has not responded to an Associated Press request for such data.

Bidding to avoid Florida’s ban, Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont last year proposed to end the special license designation for immigrants in the U.S. illegally and instead give them the same type of license as others not receiving a REAL ID. But the legislation never came to a vote.

In addition to Wyoming and Tennessee, at least a half-dozen other Republican-led states have considered legislation this year to invalidate certain types of out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to immigrants illegally in the U.S. Such legislation passed at least one chamber in Alabama, Montana and New Hampshire and was proposed in North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

“We want to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to or staying in Alabama,” said state Sen. Chris Elliott, sponsor of the Alabama bill that awaits House consideration. If someone illegally in the U.S. drives to Alabama, “they should turn around and go somewhere else.”

Frustrated about the legislation, Democratic Alabama state Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison added an amendment requiring highway welcome signs to contain a notice about the prohibited driver’s licenses.

“We have people that come here for a lot of events — tourists, vacation, what have you — that could be caught in this. So we need to let people know,” she told AP. “I think some of our laws are mean-spirited, and sometimes I think we just have to call it like it is.”

The legislation targeting driver’s licenses is part of a “trend of states getting involved in federal immigration enforcement issues,” said Kathleen Campbell Walker, an immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas.

It’s unclear if the laws carry much substance. Some Florida advocates for immigrants said they are unaware of specific instances where the driver’s license ban has been enforced.

But “it is a concern,” said Jeannie Economos, of the Farmworker Association of Florida, “because some people who are undocumented have specifically gone to other states where driver’s licenses are legal to get driver’s licenses to have them here.”

California is among the states where immigrants unlawfully in the U.S. can get driver’s licenses. Trump’s immigration policies have created “anxiety and fear,” said Robert Perkins, a Los Angeles area attorney who helps immigrants gain legal status.

“Even the ones that might have a California driver’s license, they’re terrified to go anywhere,” Perkins said.

___

Associated Press writers Susan Haigh and Kimberlee Kruesi contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Anna Paulina Luna was at her Florida home in fall 2023, caring for her newborn son and turning over a question in her mind as a member of Congress:

“How do I change this?”

Luna, then a first-time mom and first-term lawmaker, could no longer fly to Washington to cast votes in the U.S. House, a crucial part of the job, due to complications from childbirth — which she blamed at least partially on her hectic schedule, having flown to and from the capital during most of her pregnancy.

Luna began reading House rules and found what seemed like a simple solution: allowing proxy voting for new moms.

What Luna considered a minor rule change, affecting just a few — only about a dozen women had given birth while serving in Congress — over time escalated into a standoff against her own Republican leadership and her allies in the hard-right Freedom Caucus.

In a matter of months, it became a highly charged debate that crossed party lines, united a younger generation of lawmakers and raised fresh questions about how a more than 200-year-old institution accommodates working parents in the 21st century. The conflict turned on weighty history and thorny procedures, highlighting the difficulties of abiding by documents and rules written long before air travel and Zoom screens — and long before women served in Congress.

“When the Constitution was written, this was not really a topic,” Luna said.

When Luna was about to become a new mom, planning for the big change ahead, she asked then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy how she would be able to vote in the days after giving birth. That was 2023, and she didn’t realize she was stepping on a political landmine.

At the start of the pandemic, more than two years before Luna was elected, Democrats in the majority had created a proxy voting system to contain COVID-19 and avoid overcrowding in the chamber.

McCarthy had called the practice “ a dereliction of duty,” an excuse for members to skip out on work, and the resolution creating the system passed without a single Republican vote.

When Republicans won the House majority in 2022, McCarthy abandoned proxy voting — and for a time, there was no talk of bringing it back.

Once Luna was cleared to fly and returned to Washington, she kept the proxy voting proposal to herself. It wasn’t the right time: The House was in turmoil, having just ousted McCarthy from the speaker’s job and choosing Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana as his replacement.

But a few months later, Luna made her move.

She introduced a bill in January 2024 that would allow a mother to designate a proxy for six weeks, but by autumn, her legislation had gone nowhere, languishing in committee. Luna decided to launch a discharge petition — a workaround that allows legislation with 218 supporters to force a vote on the House floor. But she got just a handful of signatures.

“I went through every and exhausted every avenue,” Luna said.

Then she turned to Democrats, drafting a new proposal this year with Reps. Brittany Pettersen of Colorado and Sara Jacobs of California that would extend proxy voting to not just moms but all new parents for 12 weeks, double the time Luna had initially proposed.

Pettersen, who was previously the first member of the Colorado legislature to give birth, said she “came to Congress wanting to work on this.”

In a matter of months, Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, a father to two young girls, became the 218th member to sign the discharge petition, the tally needed to force a vote.

But only a dozen signatures came from Republicans.

Pushback was fierce, from members of the Freedom Caucus and from the speaker himself. Johnson repeatedly called proxy voting “unconstitutional.” Herself among the more far-right conservatives in the House, her desk adorned with a model of President Donald Trump on Mount Rushmore, Luna resigned from the Freedom Caucus, accusing them of working against her.

Luna felt that she had done everything she could to address Johnson’s concerns. She agreed that members had abused the practice in the past, but said her proposal included “guard rails.”

Johnson tried to snuff out Luna’s discharge petition with a rare legislative maneuver, linking it to a vote that was needed to advance one of the GOP priorities, a voter ID bill.

The aggressive move angered several Republicans, including some who didn’t even support Luna’s proposal. Johnson’s gambit failed on the floor.

Johnson called the outcome “unfortunate” and reiterated the argument that proxy voting for moms was a “Pandora’s box” that would open the door for members who’d rather not show up to work. Then he sent lawmakers home for the week.

That’s when Luna had a talk with Trump.

“I think she’s great, Anna,” Trump said aboard Air Force One.

The president recalled that he had spoken to her the previous day. When it came to proxy voting, Trump wondered why the idea was “controversial.”

Johnson sprang into action and quickly posted on social media that he had also spoken with Trump, quoting him saying, “Mike, you have my proxy on proxy voting.”

Meanwhile, a political storm was brewing against Luna. Right-wing influencers flooded Twitter to accuse Luna of holding up Trump’s agenda as House floor action stalled. She faced attacks from fellow Republicans.

On a Sunday afternoon this month, Luna announced that she and leadership had reached an agreement.

They would resurrect a well-worn congressional procedure that “pairs” two members of Congress who plan to vote on opposite sides of an issue, canceling out their votes — a way to accommodate the absent member.

“If we truly want a pro-family Congress, these are the changes that need to happen,” Luna posted on X.

The plan was quickly tucked into an upcoming procedural vote. This time, it succeeded.

Reviews were mixed.

Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., called the solution “bizarre” and said it was unlikely any member would voluntarily participate, essentially nulling their own vote, when the margins were so narrow in Congress.

But GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a member of the Freedom Caucus who opposes all proxy voting, said he would consider participating in pairing.

“We want to make it to where people can, you know, deal with whatever life curveballs they get,” Roy said.

Not everyone, though, is satisfied.

The day that Congress voted on vote-pairing, Pettersen stood outside the House chamber, cradling her son in her arms. “What Republican would be willing to vote present for me this week?” she asked. “Nobody.”

___

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.

WASHINGTON — The Senate confirmed retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday, filling the position almost two months after President Donald Trump fired his predecessor.

Trump nominated Caine to become the top U.S. military officer in February after abruptly firing Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the second Black general to serve as chairman, as part of his administration’s campaign to rid the military of leaders who support diversity and equity in the ranks. The Senate confirmed Caine 60-25 in an overnight vote before heading home for a two-week recess.

Caine is a decorated F-16 combat pilot who served in leadership in multiple special operations commands, in some of the Pentagon’s most classified programs and in the CIA. He does not meet prerequisites for the job set out in a 1986 law, such as being a combatant commander or service chief. But those requirements can be waived by the president if there is a determination that “such action is necessary in the national interest.”

Caine’s confirmation in the middle of the night, just before the Senate left town, comes as Republicans have been quickly advancing Trump’s nominees and as Democrats have been trying to delay the process and show that they are fighting Trump’s policies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., set up the early morning vote after Democrats objected to speeding up procedural votes on the nomination.

Still, Caine was confirmed with some bipartisan support. At his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Caine said he would be candid in his advice to Trump and vowed to be apolitical. He disputed Trump’s story that Caine wore a “Make America Great Again” hat when the two first met.

“I have never worn any political merchandise,” he said.

Caine was asked how he would react if ordered to direct the military to do something potentially illegal, such as being used against civilians in domestic law enforcement.

“Will you stand up and push back?” Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin asked.

“Senator, I think that’s the duty and the job that I have, yes,” Caine said.

Trump’s relationship with Caine dates to his first administration. They met during a trip to Iraq, as Trump recounted in a 2019 speech. He has said Caine is “a real general, not a television general.”

During his first term, Trump’s relationship with then-Chairman Gen. Mark Milley soured as Milley pushed back and took steps to try to prevent what he saw as an attempt to politicize the office. He would remind military service members that they took an oath to the Constitution, not to a president.

Within hours of Trump’s inauguration in January, Milley’s portrait as chairman of the Joint Chiefs was removed from the Pentagon. Milley’s security clearance and security detail also were revoked.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita Baldor and Tara Copp 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.

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.

MADISON, Wis. — Judge Susan Crawford preserved liberals’ narrow majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday by defeating conservative Brad Schimel, but in a way the real loser of the election was billionaire Elon Musk.

Musk and his affiliated groups sunk at least $21 million into the normally low-profile race and paid three individual voters $1 million each for signing a petition in an effort to goose turnout in the pivotal battleground state contest. That made the race the first major test of the political impact of Musk, whose prominence in President Donald Trump’s administration has skyrocketed with his chaotic cost-cutting initiative that has slashed federal agencies.

Crawford and the Democrats who backed her made Musk the focus of their arguments for holding the seat, contending he was “buying” the election, which set records for the costliest judicial race in history.

“Today Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” Crawford said in her victory speech. “And Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price, our courts are not for sale.”

Trump endorsed Schimel as the race turned into a proxy fight over national political issues. The state’s high court can rule on cases involving voting rights and redistricting in a state likely to be at the center of both next year’s midterm elections and the 2028 presidential contest.

But Musk’s involvement dialed those dynamics up to 11: “A seemingly small election could determine the fate of Western civilization,” the billionaire said Tuesday in a last-ditch call to voters on his social media site X. “I think it matters for the future of the world.”

Notably, America PAC, the super PAC backed by Musk, spent at least $6 million on vendors who sent door-to-door canvassers across the state, according to the non-partisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. It was a reprise of what the group did across the seven most competitive presidential battleground states, including Wisconsin, which were carried by Trump in November.

But the end results this time were not good for Musk. Despite the millions he spent on Schimel, as of late Tuesday night the Supreme Court candidate was losing by four percentage points more than the other Republican-backed statewide candidate, Brittany Kinser, who also fell short in her bid for superintendent of public instruction.

Musk’s court race defeat wasn’t only because of crushing Democratic margins in deep blue cities like Madison and Milwaukee. Crawford’s margins were higher in places where the Musk-backed group America PAC had been active, including Sauk County, just north of Madison, which Crawford was carrying by 10 points after Trump won it by less than 2 points in November.

In Brown County, the home of Green Bay where Musk headlined a campaign rally with 2,000 people on Sunday, Crawford beat Schimel. Trump won the county by 7 percentage points last year.

Overnight, Musk posted on his X platform that “The long con of the left is corruption of the judiciary.” In another comment, he seemed to take solace from voters’ approval to elevate the state’s photo ID requirement from state law to constitutional amendment. The platform was rife with criticism from Trump opponents for his involvement in the race.

“Please send @elonmusk to all the close races!” Jon Favreau, former speechwriter for President Barack Obama, wrote.

“Elon Musk is not good at this,” J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’ Democratic governor and a billionaire himself who donated to support Crawford, posted on X.

Voters definitely had Musk on their minds.

“There’s an insane situation going on with the Trump administration, and it feels like Elon Musk is trying to buy votes,” said Kenneth Gifford, a 22-year-old Milwaukee college student, as he cast his ballot on Tuesday. “I want an actual, respectable democracy.”

Others may not have had their vote decided by the billionaire but were all-too aware of the money pouring into their state.

Jim Seeger, a 68-year-old retiree who previously worked in communications and marketing, said he voted for Schimel because he wants Republicans to maintain their outsized majority in Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, which could be at risk if Crawford wins and the court orders the maps redrawn. But, he added, he was disappointed the election had become a “financial race.”

“I think it’s a shame that we have to spend this much money, especially on a judicial race,” Seeger said as he voted in Eau Claire.

Wisconsin’s Democratic Attorney General, Josh Kaul, sued to bar Musk from making his payments to voters if they signed a petition against “activist judges.” The state Supreme Court unanimously declined to rule on the case over a technicality.

Musk swooped into the race shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Republicans were pessimistic about being able to win the seat. They lost a longtime conservative majority on the state high court in 2023, and Democrats have excelled in turning out their educated, politically tuned-in coalition during obscure elections such as the one in Wisconsin.

Musk duplicated and expanded on some of the methods he used in the final weeks of last year’s presidential race, when he spent more than $200 million on Trump’s behalf in the seven swing states, including Wisconsin.

This time, in addition to the $1 million checks, Musk offered to pay $20 to anyone who signed up on his group’s site to knock on doors for Schimel and posted a photo of themselves as proof. His organization promised $100 to every voter who signed the petition against liberal judges and another $100 for every signer they referred.

Democrats were happy to make Musk a lightning rod in the race.

“People do not want to see Elon Musk buying election after election after election,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said Monday. “If it works here, he’s going to do it all over the country.”

___

Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writer Meg Kinnard in Washington contributed to this report.

A trio of elections Tuesday provided early warning signs to Republicans and President Donald Trump at the beginning of an ambitious term, as Democrats rallied against his efforts to slash the federal government and the outsized role being played by billionaire Elon Musk.

In the marquee race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat, the conservative judge endorsed by Trump and backed by Musk and his groups to the tune of $21 million lost by a significant margin in a state the president won in November. And while Florida Republicans held two of the most pro-Trump House districts in the country, both candidates also significantly underperformed Trump’s November margins.

The elections — the first major contests since Trump’s return to power — were seen as an early measure of voter sentiment as Trump works with unprecedented speed to dramatically upend the federal government, clashing with the courts and seeking revenge as he tests the bounds of presidential power.

The party that loses the presidency in November typically picks up seats in the next midterm elections, and Tuesday’s results provided hope for Democrats — who have faced a barrage of internal and external criticism about their response to Trump — that they can follow that trend.

Charlie Kirk, the conservative activist and podcaster whose group worked alongside Musk to boost conservative Brad Schimel in Wisconsin, argued Tuesday’s Supreme Court loss underscored a fundamental challenge for Republicans, particularly in races where Trump is not on the ballot.

“We did a lot in Wisconsin, but we fell short. We must realize and appreciate that we are the LOW PROP party now,” he said, referring to low-propensity voters who don’t regularly cast ballots. “The party has been remade. Special elections and off-cycle elections will continue to be a problem without a change of strategy.”

Trump won Wisconsin in November by 0.8 percentage points, or fewer than 30,000 votes. In the first major test since he took office, the perennial battleground state shifted significantly to the left.

Sauk County, northwest of the state capital of Madison, is a state bellwether. Trump won it in November by 626 votes. Sauk shifted 16 points in the direction of Judge Susan Crawford, the liberal favorite backed by national Democrats and liberal billionaire donors like George Soros.

In addition to strong turnout in Democratic-heavy areas, Crawford did measurably better in the suburban Milwaukee counties that Republicans rely on to run up their margins statewide.

Crawford won Kenosha and Racine counties, both of which went for Trump over Democratic nominee Kamala Harris. She was on pace to win by 9 points.

In interviews with more than 20 voters in Waunakee, a politically mixed town north of Madison, several Democrats suggested without prompting that their vote was as much if not more of a repudiation of Trump’s first months in office as it was a decision on the direction of the state high court.

“This is our chance to say no,” said Linda Grassl, a retired OB-GYN registered nurse, after voting at the Waunakee Public Library corridor Tuesday.

Others disliked the richest man in the world playing such a prominent role.

“I don’t like Elon Musk spending money for an election he should have no involvement in,” said Antonio Gray, a 38-year-old Milwaukee security guard. “They should let the voters vote for who they want to vote for instead of inserting themselves like they have.”

Former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said that part of the challenge for Republicans had been “trying to connect the dots” to turn the state Supreme Court race into one about Trump — a difficult task in a state judicial race.

“If you’re somebody who showed up for Trump because you feel forgotten, you don’t typically show up to vote in” these kinds of elections, he said, imagining voters asking themselves: “What does this have to do with Trump?”

Still, Walker cautioned against reading the tea leaves too closely.

“I’d be a little bit careful about reading too much into what happens nationally,” he said.

Trump had better luck in Florida, where Republican Randy Fine won his special election in the 6th District to replace Rep. Mike Waltz, who stepped down to serve as Trump’s national security adviser. But Fine’s Democratic challenger, Josh Weil, lost by 14 points less than five months after Waltz won the district by 33.

“This is the functional equivalent of Republicans running a competitive race in the district that is represented by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries beforehand, invoking a liberal favorite whom Trump often denigrates. “Kamala Harris won that district by 30 points. Do you think a Republican would even be competitive in that district in New York, currently held by Alex? Of course, not.”

Jimmy Patronis, the state’s chief financial officer, fended off a challenge from Democrat Gay Valimont to win the northwest Florida seat vacated by Matt Gaetz but also underperformed Gaetz’s last margin of victory.

The pair of wins gave Republicans a 220-213 margin in the House of Representatives, at a time when concerns about a thin GOP majority led Trump to pull the nomination of New York Rep. Elise Stefanik to be United Nations ambassador.

For voters in both districts, the clear draw was Trump.

Teresa Horton, 72, didn’t know much at all about Tuesday’s election — but said she didn’t need to.

“I don’t even know these people that are on there,” she said of her ballot. “I just went with my ticket.”

Brenda Ray, 75, a retired nurse, said she didn’t know a lot about Patronis, either, but cast her ballot for him because she believes he’ll “vote with our president.”

“That’s all we’re looking for,” she said.

Both Patronis and Fine were badly outraised by their Democratic challengers. Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee, argued that what was a GOP concern before Tuesday night had been a sign of the party’s strength.

“The American people sent a clear message tonight: they want elected officials who will advance President Trump’s America First agenda, and their votes can’t be bought by national Democrats,” he said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writers Stephany Matat in Daytona Beach, Florida, Kate Payne in Pensacola, Christine Fernando in Milwaukee, Mark Vancleave in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, Tom Beaumont in Waunakee, Wisconsin, and Matt Brown in Washington in contributed to this report.

ATLANTA — Georgia U.S. Rep. Lucy McBath on Monday announced that she’s suspending her exploratory bid for governor in 2026, casting uncertainty on the Democratic field.

McBath might still run for governor that year, spokesperson Jake Orvis said, but she needs to focus on her husband Curtis’ health right now after complications from a recent cancer surgery.

The four-term member of Congress, best known as a gun control advocate, had filed papers on March 5 to raise money for governor.

McBath is remaining in Congress, Orvis said

Republican Gov. Brian Kemp is completing his second term and can’t run again. On the Republican side, Attorney General Chris Carr is already running for governor in 2026 and Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is widely expected to run.

Other Democrats who have been exploring a run include former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, state Sen. Jason Esteves and former DeKalb County Chief Executive Officer Michael Thurmond. Democrat Stacey Abrams, who ran and lost to Kemp in 2018 and 2022, has not closed the door on a third run.

McBath first won election to Congress in 2018, ousting Republican U.S. Rep Karen Handel to seize a seat in Atlanta’s northern suburbs once held by Newt Gingrich. When Republicans redrew electoral districts after the 2020 Census, McBath jumped into a primary race against fellow Democrat Carolyn Bordeaux, beating her handily and winning election. Then after a court ordered another round of redistricting after finding African American votes were diluted, McBath shifted to a district Republicans drew on the western side of Atlanta.

Those moves mean McBath has represented a much larger number of voters than the typical member of Congress, which could make her a stronger statewide candidate.

McBath, like Abrams, would be bidding to become the first Black female governor of an American state.

The 64-year-old McBath rose to prominence as a gun control advocate after her 17-year-old son, Jordan Davis, was shot and killed in 2012 by a white man who was angry over the loud music the Black teenager and his friends were playing at a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida. McBath, a former flight attendant, has had her political career heavily backed by billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

She has touted her support of a 2022 law that toughens background checks for the youngest gun buyers, keeps firearms from more domestic violence offenders and helps states enact red flag laws making it easier for authorities to take weapons from people judged dangerous.

McBath led a group of survivors and family members of victims of gun violence who spoke in a prime-time slot at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.