Fresh from a courtroom loss over The Associated Press’ access to the presidency, the White House on Tuesday put forward a new media policy that sharply curtails access to Donald Trump by news agencies that serve media outlets around the world. It was the latest attempt by the new administration to control coverage of its activities.

The move would block the AP and other wire services that serve billions of readers through thousands of news outlets. It comes after a judge ruled the White House had violated the organization’s free speech by banning it because it disagreed with the outlet’s decision not to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

While outlining a new “pool coverage” policy for small spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One, the White House also said it will ultimately give press secretary Karoline Leavitt the final say over who gets to question her boss, according to people who have seen the plan.

The White House did not return messages for comment on Tuesday evening.

A federal judge last week ruled the White House improperly punished the AP for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico by blocking its reporters and photographers from covering the events. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ordered the administration to treat the AP as it does other news organizations.

A day after defying McFadden’s ruling and continuing AP’s ban when Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele met with reporters in the Oval Office, the White House leaked a new policy to selected journalists.

For many years, the White House Correspondents Association has run the pool for the limited space events, and each time it has included reporters from the wire services AP, Reuters and Bloomberg. One print reporter was also allowed, selected on a rotating basis from more than 30 news outlets.

The White House now says it will lump the three wire services with print reporters for two slots — meaning roughly three dozen reporters will rotate for two regular slots. Wire services typically report and write stories that are used in multiple locations around the country and the planet.

Even with the rotation, the White House said Trump’s press secretary “shall retain day-to-day discretion to determine composition of the pool.” The new policy says reporters will also be allowed in “irrespective of the substantive viewpoint expressed by an outlet.”

In a statement, the AP’s Lauren Easton said the outlet was deeply disappointed that rather than restore the AP’s access, the White House instead chose restrictions over all of the wire services.

“The wire services represent thousands of news organizations across the U.S. and the world over,” said Easton, an AP spokeswoman. “Our coverage is used by local newspapers and television stations in all 50 states to inform their communities.

“The administration’s actions continue to disregard the fundamental American freedom to speak without government control or retaliation,” Easton said Tuesday night.

The independent White House Correspondents’ Association said the administration’s insistence on retaining control over who covers the president shows that it is unwilling to guarantee that it would not continue “viewpoint discrimination.”

“The government should not be able to control the independent media that covers it,” said Eugene Daniels, the association’s president.

Under Leavitt, the White House has given greater access to news outlets friendly to Trump. That was visible Tuesday, when the first reporter Leavitt addressed during a briefing asked two questions while also praising Trump policy.

At Monday’s Oval Office meeting, Trump bristled at questions from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins about a man deported to an El Salvador prison, at one point accusing CNN of “hating our country.” He made it a point to contrast her questions with a non-pointed one from another reporter.

Despite the occasional fireworks, Trump has made himself accessible to the media more than his predecessor, former President Joe Biden. Cramped-quarters events, particularly in the Oval Office, are some of his favorite places to talk — rendering the new access policy all the more impactful.

The new policy advanced on Tuesday did not address access for photographers. At an earlier court hearing about the AP’s case, the outlet’s chief White House photographer, Evan Vucci, and correspondent Zeke Miller testified about how the ban has hurt the business of a news agency built to quickly get news and images to its customers.

The dispute stems from AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico, although AP style does cite Trump’s wish that it be called the Gulf of America. McFadden agreed with AP’s argument that the government cannot punish the news organization for what it says — for exercising its right to free speech.

The White House has argued that press access to the president is a privilege, not a right, that it should control — much like it decides to whom Trump gives one-on-one interviews. In court papers filed last weekend, his lawyers signaled that even with McFadden’s decision, the AP’s days of unchallenged access to open presidential events were over.

“No other news organization in the United States receives the level of guaranteed access previously bestowed upon the AP,” the administration argued. “The AP may have grown accustomed to its favored status, but the Constitution does not require that such status endure in perpetuity.”

The administration has appealed McFadden’s ruling, and is scheduled to be in an appeals court on Thursday to argue that ruling should be put on hold until the merits of the case are fully decided, perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The administration has not curtailed AP access to Leavitt’s briefings over the past two months. It has blocked access to events in the East Room to White House-credentialed AP reporters — until Tuesday, when one was allowed into an event that involved the Navy football team.

___

David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social

WASHINGTON — At first, the bar association for immigration attorneys began receiving inquiries from a couple students a day. These were foreigners studying in the U.S., and they’d discovered in early April their legal status had been terminated with little notice. To their knowledge, none of the students had committed a deportable offense.

In recent days, the calls have begun flooding in. Hundreds of students have been calling to say they have lost legal status, seeking advice on what to do next.

“We thought it was going to be something that was unusual,” said Matthew Maiona, a Boston-based immigration attorney who is getting about six calls a day from panicked international students. “But it seems now like it’s coming pretty fast and furious.”

The speed and scope of the federal government’s efforts to terminate the legal status of international students have stunned colleges across the country. Few corners of higher education have been untouched, as schools ranging from prestigious private universities, large public research institutions and tiny liberal arts colleges discover status terminations one after another among their students.

At least 600 students at more than 90 colleges and universities have had their visas revoked or their legal status terminated in recent weeks, according to an Associated Press review of university statements and correspondence with school officials. Advocacy groups collecting reports from colleges say hundreds more students could be caught up in the crackdown.

Around 1.1 million international students were in the United States last year — a source of essential revenue for tuition-driven colleges. International students are not eligible for federal financial aid, and their ability to pay tuition often factors into whether they will be admitted to American schools. Often, they pay full price.

Many of the students losing their legal status are from India and China, which together account for more than half the international students at American colleges. But the terminations have not been limited to those from any one part of the world, lawyers said.

Four students from two Michigan universities are suing Trump administration officials after their F-1 student status was terminated last week. Their attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, Ramis Wadood, said the students never received a clear reason why.

“We don’t know, and that’s the scary part,” he said.

The students were informed of the terminations by their universities via email, which came as a shock, Wadood said. The reason given was that there was a “criminal records check and/or that their visa was revoked,” Wadood said, but none of them were charged or convicted of crimes. Some had either speeding or parking tickets, but one didn’t have any, he said. Only one of the students had known their entry visa was revoked, Wadood said.

Students have filed similar lawsuits in several other states, arguing they were denied due process.

In New Hampshire, a federal judge last week granted a temporary restraining order to restore the status of a Ph.D. student at Dartmouth College, Xiaotian Liu, while he challenges the revocation of his visa.

At many colleges, officials learned the legal immigration status of some international students had been terminated when staff checked a database managed by the Department of Homeland Security. In the past, college officials say, legal statuses typically were updated after colleges told the government the students were no longer studying at the school.

The system to track enrollment and movements of international students came under the control of Immigration and Customs Enforcement after 9/11, said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, an association of international educators. She said recent developments have left students fearful of how quickly they can be on the wrong side of enforcement.

“You don’t need more than a small number to create fear,” Aw said. “There’s no clarity of what are the reasons and how far the reach of this is.”

Her group says as many as 1,300 students have lost visas or had their status terminated, based on reports from colleges.

The Department of Homeland Security and State Department did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Foreigners who are subject to removal proceedings are usually sent a notice to appear in immigration court on a certain date, but lawyers say affected students have not received any notices, leaving them unsure of next steps to take.

Some schools have told students to leave the country to avoid the risk of being detained or deported. But some students have appealed the terminations and stayed in the United States while those are processed.

Still others caught in legal limbo aren’t students at all. They had remained in the U.S. post-graduation on “optional practical training,” a one-year period — or up to three for science and technology graduates — that allows employment in the U.S. after completing an academic degree. During that time, a graduate works in their field and waits to receive their H-1B or other employment visas if they wish to keep working in the U.S.

Around 242,000 foreigners in the U.S. are employed through this “optional practical training.” About 500,000 are pursuing graduate degrees, and another 342,000 are undergraduate students.

Among the students who have filed lawsuits is a Georgia Tech Ph.D. student who is supposed to graduate on May 5, with a job offer to join the faculty. His attorney Charles Kuck said the student was likely targeted for termination because of an unpaid traffic fine from when the student lent his car to a friend. Ultimately, the violation was dismissed.

“We have case after case after case exactly like that, where there is no underlying crime,” said Kuck, who is representing 17 students in the federal lawsuit. He said his law firm has heard from hundreds of students.

“These are kids who now, under the Trump administration, realize their position is fragile,” he said. “They’ve preyed on a very vulnerable population. These kids aren’t hiding. They’re in school.”

Some international students have been adapting their daily routines.

A Ph.D. student from China at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said she has begun carrying around her passport and immigration paperwork at the advice of the university’s international student office. The student, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being targeted by authorities, said she has been distressed to see the terminations even for students like her without criminal records.

“That is the most scary part because you don’t know whether you’re going to be the next person,” she said. ___

Seminera reported from Raleigh, N.C., and Keller reported from Albuquerque, N.M.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. 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 — Former President Joe Biden returns to the national stage Tuesday to elevate liberal concerns that President Donald Trump’s agenda is threatening the health of Social Security.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___

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

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.

MIAMI — President Donald Trump entered to a standing ovation and cheers from a crowd of thousands attending a UFC event on Saturday night, shaking hands with supporters against a backdrop of fans waving his trademark MAGA hats.

Just as Trump entered, he greeted podcast host Joe Rogan, who sat to the right of the president. On the other side of Trump sat Elon Musk, billionaire and chief of the Department of Government Efficiency. Trump, who accented his dark suit with a bright yellow tie, pumped his fist in the air, prompting cheers to strains of “Taking Care of Business.”

He brought along several members of his administration and White House team, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., FBI Director Kash Patel, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House communications aides Steven Cheung and Taylor Budowich. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also joined Trump for UFC 314.

Trump entered the arena with UFC President Dana White, with whom he has been close for decades. He was also accompanied by his granddaughter, Kai Trump, the daughter of Donald Trump Jr.

The Republican president is a longtime UFC fan and sports enthusiast, who has frequently attended major fights. The mixed martial arts fight at Miami’s Kaseya Center was Trump’s first UFC visit since he took office in January, and it came weeks after Trump attended the Saudi-sponsored LIV golf tournament at his golf club in Miami.

In a further nod to his sports enthusiasm, Trump has also attended the Super Bowl and Daytona 500 since taking office. He sat cageside at a UFC championship fight in New York City last November, shortly after he won the 2024 election.

Aside from the president, the main event for the UFC 314 fight is a championship bout between Australian former champion Alexander Volkanovski and Brazilian fighter Diego Lopes, who are competing for the featherweight championship title. It’s the fourth UFC event in Miami, in a county that supported the president by about 11 percentage points in the November election.

The president arrived in West Palm Beach on Friday for his 10th visit to South Florida since he became president, spending the evening in his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. He flew to Miami after playing golf at his club in West Palm Beach.

“You know who’s going to win? Dana White. Dana White’s gonna win,” Trump told reporters Saturday night aboard Air Force One.

His close affiliation with UFC helped boost his 2024 presidential campaign among young male voters prior to the November election, where he made promoting hypermasculine tones a signature of the campaign.

___

Superville reported from West Palm Beach, Florida.

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 — WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump is undergoing his annual physical on Friday, potentially giving the public its first details in years about the health of a man who in January became the oldest in U.S. history to be sworn in as president.

“I have never felt better, but nevertheless, these things must be done!” Trump, 78, posted on his social media site.

Despite long questioning predecessor Joe Biden ‘s physical and mental capacity, Trump himself has routinely kept basic facts about his own health shrouded in secrecy — shying away from traditional presidential transparency on medical issues.

If history is any indication, his latest physical is likely to produce a flattering report that’s scarce on details. It will be conducted at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and will be the first public information on Trump’s health since an assassination attempt against him in Butler, Pennsylvania, last July.

Rather than release medical records at that time, Texas Rep. Ronny Jackson — a staunch supporter who served as his White House physician and once joked in the White House briefing room that Trump could live to be 200 if he had a healthier diet — wrote a memo describing a gunshot wound to Trump’s right ear.

In a subsequent interview with CBS last August, Trump said he’d “very gladly” release his medical records but never did.

Trump is three years younger than Biden. But on Inauguration Day of his second term in January, Trump was five months older than Biden was during his 2021 inauguration — making Trump the nation’s oldest president to be sworn into office.

Before Jackson’s memo, Americans hadn’t seen key details about Trump’s health since November 2023, when Dr. Bruce A. Aronwald released a letter to coincide with Biden’s 81st birthday, saying Trump was in “excellent” physical and mental health.

The letter, posted on Trump’s social media platform, contained no details — including Trump’s weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, or the results of any test. Instead, Aronwlad wrote that he’d examined Trump that fall and found his “physical exams were well within the normal range and his cognitive exams were exceptional,” while also noting that Trump had “reduced his weight.”

Trump was treated at Walter Reed for his serious bout with the coronavirus in 2020. During that, Trump’s physician offered a rosy prognosis on his condition, though his White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said some of Trump’s vital signs were “very concerning.”

After he recovered, more details emerged that Trump had been sicker than he’d let on.

But Trump largely refused to say more about his health at the time, instead submitting to a pretaped, remote medical “evaluation” and interview on Fox News Channel. That was conducted by Dr. Marc Siegel, a Fox News contributor who had questioned Hillary Clinton’s physical ability to serve as president in 2016 and later urged the Biden White House to test the then-president’s cognitive acuity.

In November 2019, meanwhile, Trump’s trip to Walter Reed for a physical was omitted from his public schedule, breaking the White House protocol of giving advance public notice of them.

The visit was revealed three days later, with Trump disclosing that he’d had a “ very routine physical.” The White House released a subsequent statement from the president’s then-personal physician, U.S. Navy Cmdr. Sean Conley, saying it had been a “planned interim checkup” kept “off the record” due to scheduling uncertainties.

Arguably, Trump’s most famous past comments about his own health came during a television interview in July 2020, when he listed off “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV” while attempting to demonstrate his cognitive abilities.

Trump said that a collection of those five nouns, or ones like them, stated in order, demonstrated mental fitness — and were part of a cognitive test he had aced.

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 — More than $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and around $790 million for Northwestern University have been frozen while the government investigates alleged civil rights violations at both schools, the White House says.

It’s part of a broader push to use government funding to get major academic institutions to comply with President Donald Trump ’s political agenda. The White House confirmed the funding pauses late Tuesday night, but offered no further details on what it entails, or what grants to the schools are being affected.

The moves come as the Trump administration has increasingly begun using governmental grant funding as a spigot to try and influence campus policy — previously cutting off money to schools including Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania.

That has left universities across the country struggling to navigate cuts to grants for research institutions.

In a statement, Cornell said it had received more than 75 stop work orders earlier Tuesday from the Defense Department related to research “profoundly significant to American national defense, cybersecurity, and health” but that it had not otherwise received any information confirming $1 billion in frozen grants.

“We are actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions,” said the statement from Michael I. Kotlikoff, the university president, and other top school officials.

In an email to the Northwestern community, university president Michael Schill said it had not been notified by the federal government of the cuts, according to The Daily Northwestern, the campus newspaper.

Last month, the Education Department sent letters to more than 60 universities — including Cornell and Northwestern — warning of “potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations” under federal law to “protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.”

The Trump administration has threatened to cut off federal funding for universities allowing alleged antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza — accusations the universities have denied.

Officials have already singled out Columbia University, making an example of it with threats to withhold $400 million in federal funds.

The administration repeatedly accused Columbia of failing to stop antisemitism during protests against Israel that began at the New York City university last spring and quickly spread to other campuses — a characterization disputed by those involved in the demonstrations.

As a precondition for restoring that money — along with billions more in future grants — the Republican administration demanded unprecedented changes in university policy.

Columbia’s decision to bow to those demands, in part to salvage ongoing research projects at its labs and medical center, has been criticized by some faculty and free speech groups as capitulating to an intrusion on academic freedom.

WASHINGTON — Manufacturers struggling to make long-term plans. Farmers facing retaliation from Chinese buyers. U.S. households burdened with higher prices.

Republican senators are confronting the Trump administration with those worries and many more as they fret about the economic impact of the president’s sweeping tariff strategy that went into effect Wednesday.

In a Senate hearing and interviews with reporters this week, Republican skepticism of President Donald Trump’s policies ran unusually high. While GOP lawmakers made sure to direct their concern at Trump’s aides and advisers — particularly U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who appeared before the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday — it still amounted to a rare Republican break from a president they have otherwise championed.

Lawmakers had reason to worry: the stock market has been in a volatile tumble for days and economists are warning that the plans could lead to a recession.

“Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?” Republican Sen. Thom Tillis told Greer as he pressed for an answer on which Trump aide to hold accountable if there is an economic downturn.

Tillis’ frustration was aimed at the across-the-board tariff strategy that could potentially hamstring U.S. manufacturers who are currently dependent on materials like aluminum and steel from China. His home state of North Carolina, where he is up for reelection next year, has attracted thousands of foreign firms looking to invest in the state’s manufacturing industries.

Ever wary of crossing Trump, Republicans engaged in a delicate two-step of criticizing the rollout of the tariffs then shifting to praise for the president’s economic vision. In the afternoon, Tillis in a Senate floor speech said that the “president is right in challenging other nations who have for decades abused their relationship with the United States,” yet went on to question who in the White House was thinking through the long-term economic effects of the sweeping tariffs.

Tillis even allowed that Trump’s trade strategy could still turn out to be effective, but said there is a short window to show that it is worth the higher prices and layoffs that will burden workers.

For his part, Greer emphasized to the committee that the U.S. was engaged in negotiations with other countries but that “the trade deficit has been decades in the making, and it’s not going to be solved overnight.”

Republican leaders in Congress, as well as a sizeable chunk of lawmakers, have emphasized that Trump needs time to implement his strategy. They’ve mostly rejected the idea of putting a check on Trump’s tariff power, but it is clear that anxiety is growing among rank-and-file Republicans about what’s ahead.

Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said there is a company in his state that had spent “millions of dollars” moving its parts production from China to Vietnam. But now that Vietnam is facing steep tariffs, the business is unable to move forward with negotiating prices with retailers.

Lankford pressed Greer for a timeline for negotiations, but the trade representative responded, “We don’t have any particular timeline. The outcome is more important than setting something artificially for us.”

Trade agreements between countries typically take months or even years to work out and often require the parties to navigate through a host of legal, economic and business issues. Still, Republicans said they were encouraged by the indications that Trump is entering into negotiations with other nations.

Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican, said at the committee hearing that he was “very encouraged” by news of trade negotiations and attributed a momentary upward tick in the stock market to “hope that these tariffs are a means and not solely an end.”

He told Greer, “Who pays these high tariffs? It will be the consumer. I’m worried about the inflationary effect. I’m worried if there is a trade war that we’re going to have markets shutting down for American farmers, ranchers and manufacturers.”

Other GOP lawmakers contended that the pain was worth bearing. Republican Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, said the president is on the right track.

“It’s pain, but it’s going to be,” he said. “The president will make the right call. He’s doing the right thing.”

Still, traditional Republicans were looking for ways to push back on Trump’s tariff plan.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, a senior Republican, has introduced a bipartisan bill to give Congress the power to review and approve of new tariffs, and Republican members in the House were also working to gain support for a similar bill. Such legislation would allow Congress to claw back some of its constitutional power over tariff policy, which has been almost completely handed over to the president in recent decades through legislation.

But the White House has already indicated that Trump would veto the bill, and both Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., have said they are not interested in bringing it up for a vote.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican closely aligned with Trump, said on social media that the bill was a bad idea because “Congress moves at the pace of a tortoise running a race.”

“The reason why Congress gave this authority to the president to begin with is because the ability to pivot,” he added.

But the president’s unclear messaging has also left lawmakers only guessing as they try to decipher which advisers and aides hold sway in the White House.

Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said that as he’s received calls from the business community in his state, he’s had no answers for them besides telling them the prospects for the economy are uncertain. The communication from the president’s aides has often been conflicting, Kennedy said even as he voiced support for Trump’s long-term goals.

Kennedy told reporters, “I don’t think there’s any way to double or triple your tariffs on the world when you’re the wealthiest country in all of human history without being somewhat shambolic.”