President Donald Trump speaks during a "Beautiful, Clean Coal" event in the Oval Office of the White House on June 4, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Behind him, left to right, are Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The federal government will spend $700 million on building or refurbishing coal power infrastructure across the country in a boost to “clean, beautiful coal,” President Donald Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office.
Trump said he was invoking the Cold War-era Defense Production Act, which gives the president authority over domestic industry, to save 13 existing power plants and build two new ones. He said the move would save 14,000 coal jobs and lower energy costs, though the spending will not lower the price of gasoline or diesel fuel, which has spiked since Trump launched a war with Iran in February.
Trump criticized subsidies for wind power championed by Democrats, including his predecessor, Joe Biden, characterizing coal as the most important energy source to cultivate.
“It’s real power,” Trump said. “In terms of power, there’s really nothing like it. We have so many different alternatives. You talk about some, there’s no real alternative.”
New coal plants would be built in Alaska and West Virginia, Trump said. A defunct plant in Maryland would also be restarted. Those projects would be funded with $200 million in Department of Energy grants.
Coal plants receiving a combined $425 million in Defense Production Act funding are in West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Wisconsin, according to the White House.
Coal mines benefiting from the move are in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wyoming, North Dakota and New Mexico, according to the White House.
The administration would also spend $75 million, authorized by the Defense Production Act, to help open a long-delayed new coal export terminal in Oakland, California, the White House said.
Administration officials said Thursday’s announcement built on a record of the past 18 months in which the administration has saved dozens of coal production facilities.
“It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “If you look at our efforts across the whole government, so far 45 coal plants are open today that would not be open.”
Republican approval
Trump Cabinet members, congressional Republicans and two governors, Wyoming’s Mark Gordon and West Virginia’s Patrick Morrissey, joined Trump for the Oval Office announcement, with several extolling the importance of the coal industry after Trump spoke.
Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin praised Trump for intervening to help the industry and refocusing federal energy policy away from renewables.
Wright said Democratic policies were more responsible for high energy costs than the war in Iran, even though Republicans have held unified control of the federal government since January 2025 and the Trump administration has consistently touted its moves to encourage fossil fuel production.
“We wish they were lower, but gasoline prices in the U.S. are a little over $4. They’re $10 in Europe, they’re higher in Asia, they’re very high in California,” Wright said. The national average price for regular gasoline Thursday was $4.24 per gallon.
“The bigger threat to energy prices in the United States is Democratic green energy policies,” Wright continued. “They have driven up energy prices far more than a conflict in Iran.”
Burgum said the president was perhaps the strongest advocate for coal in the country’s history.
He echoed Trump’s statements that the coal industry needed to be reinvigorated after the Biden administration focused more on renewable energy production.
“The prior administration, under Biden, had gone so far down the path of pursuing the highly subsidized, intermittent, weather-dependent sources of electricity that our grid was at risk. You understood that and you understood how key coal is,” Burgum told Trump. “It’s the backbone of having affordable, reliable and secure American energy to power our country, our electric grid, power our competitiveness in AI, and power all the manufacturing that’s coming back.”
Morrissey said the moves would benefit his state.
“We believe your policies are going to allow America to compete and win,” Morrissey said. “West Virginia is going to supply the coal, the gas, the nuclear to help make that happen. So I’m very excited by everything you’re doing.”
Greens decry ‘polluter handout’
Environmental groups blasted the move, saying it propped up a failing industry and would have little long-term impact on energy prices or reliability.
Jesse Lee, a senior adviser with the advocacy group Climate Power, said the spending on coal projects would not lower utility prices, which he said have climbed 18% during Trump’s second term.
“He’s gaslighting the American people by claiming that this move will lower electricity prices in the middle of an energy affordability crisis that he created,” Lee said.
Environmental groups noted the coal industry heavily contributed to Trump’s 2024 campaign.
Several environmental advocates, including Lena Moffitt, the executive director of the climate group Evergreen Action, suggested that relationship drove Trump to promote coal at the expense of renewable energy sources.
“Spending $700 million to bail out the coal industry is like throwing a lifeline to a ship that has already sunk,” Moffitt wrote. “Trump is handing out taxpayer money to coal barons and leaving us with nothing but higher energy costs. … There’s no coal revival waiting around the corner—just polluters collecting a handout while their friends run the White House and Americans foot the bill.”
The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., amid fog on Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans fended off an attempt Thursday to block the Department of Justice from using an “anti-weaponization” fund to pay people who feel they were wrongly prosecuted, as well as another proposal that sought to require congressional authorization for a new White House ballroom.
Debate on amendments and motions, by Democrats and Republicans, is a required part of the special process GOP leaders are using to approve nearly $70 billion for immigration enforcement and deportation activities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, through the end of President Donald Trump’s term.
Votes were expected to last into the evening and possibly overnight as Democrats look to challenge their Republican counterparts on policy while also making their case for control of Congress ahead of this year’s November midterm elections. The U.S. House adjourned for the week Thursday, meaning the measure will not head to the president’s desk until next week at the earliest.
Senators voted 49-50 to reject an amendment from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that would have prevented the Department of Justice from carrying out the “anti-weaponization” proposal by Trump to use $1.776 billion to pay people who feel they were wrongly prosecuted.
Several Republicans facing tough reelection campaigns joined Democrats in voting for the amendment, including Alaska’s Dan Sullivan, Maine’s Susan Collins and Ohio’s Jon Husted.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified earlier this week the administration had scrapped plans for the “anti-weaponization” fund, following intense criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, but Trump later said he wasn’t sure and would have to check with his attorneys.
“Trump won’t give Americans a penny to help offset the skyrocketing costs he brought on our country,” Schumer said. “But he’s more than happy to charge them nearly $2 billion to line the pockets of his families, his billionaire friends, and the criminals who mauled police officers on January 6. If Republicans truly oppose this corruption, then prove it.”
North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis then offered an amendment of his own that would have transferred the funding the administration had proposed for its so-called “anti-weaponization” fund to the Justice Department’s fraud division.
“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward,” Tillis said. “All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is.”
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham raised a procedural objection to Tillis’ amendment, arguing it didn’t comply with the strict rules of the process.
Tillis tried to waive that maneuver, but a 15-84 vote didn’t achieve those goals and the amendment failed.
White House ballroom construction
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley offered an amendment that would have required congressional authorization to proceed with Trump’s White House ballroom renovations.
“All of us here have a responsibility to follow the power of the purse responsibility in the Constitution. Let’s all support the idea that it must proceed, if it’s to proceed, with a congressional authorization,” the Democrat said.
Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul called the amendment a “poison pill” and raised a procedural issue on the grounds that Merkley’s measure is not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.
“There is no money in this bill for a ballroom,” Paul said.
Merkley tried to waive the procedural objection, but it failed in a 53-46 vote, which required at least 60 to agree in order to move forward.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche walks by reporters at the U.S. Capitol on May 21, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump will nominate acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer, to fill the top role at the Department of Justice on a permanent basis, he said Wednesday night.
Trump revealed Blanche as his choice at an outdoor event at the White House, saying “we are going to make him permanent attorney general” and adding that he expects Blanche’s nomination process to “go very quickly.”
Blanche has been leading the department in an acting capacity since former Attorney General Pam Bondi exited the administration in early April.
Blanche, of Florida, will almost certainly have that state’s two Republican senators, Rick Scott and Ashley Moody, supporting his nomination.
The GOP-led Senate confirmed Blanche as deputy attorney general in early March 2025 on a party-line vote.
Blanche represented Trump in 2023 and 2024 during a New York state hush money case. A jury convicted Trump two years ago on 34 first-degree felony counts of falsifying business records.
The close tie between the president and his pick for attorney general is a major reason Democrats will oppose the nomination, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.
“Trump picked Blanche because he’s loyal to the president alone – not the Constitution, not the rule of law, and certainly not the American people, and not to the values that this country has had for 250 years,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “For years, Blanche has been Trump’s personal lawyer and attack dog, and that didn’t stop when Blanche joined the department.”
Anti-weaponization fund
Blanche has taken heat in recent weeks, including from Republicans, for the department’s settlement in Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against his own IRS.
Trump dropped the suit in exchange for the department establishing a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund for persons Blanche described on May 18 as “victims of lawfare.” The settlement revealed that the fund would be governed by five commissioners hand-chosen by Blanche, with only one involving consultation from congressional leadership.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle quickly objected to the proposal, noting the possibility that people convicted — then pardoned by Trump — of assaulting police during the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol could receive reparations from the fund.
When pressed at a May 27 Senate hearing on whether violent Jan. 6 defendants who were pardoned could reap taxpayer dollars from the fund, Blanche replied, “Anybody can apply.
“The commission will set rules, I’m sure,” he continued. “That’s not for me to set, that’s for the commissioners, and whether an individual, an Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned, applies for compensation, anybody in this country can apply.”
Several lawsuits quickly challenged the legality of the fund, including one from former police officers who deployed to the Capitol on Jan.6, and another from legal advocates who argued the fund would be illegally shielded from transparency laws.
After intense pressure, Blanche testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday that the administration was “not moving forward with the fund, period.”
The concession cleared the way for reluctant Senate Republicans to support a roughly $70 billion immigration enforcement package. Senate Democrats plan to stall the bill on the floor Thursday with a marathon of amendments, including proposals to curtail or outright ban such funds going forward.
The administration is still facing questions from lawmakers about a provision in Trump’s IRS settlement that absolves him, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, from tax audits.
Epstein files
Blanche has also come under scrutiny for the DOJ’s handling of the release of files related to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The botched release last year, when Bondi headed the department, initially exposed names of sexual abuse victims.
Democrats claimed Bondi told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during a closed-door interview last week that Blanche oversaw the legally mandated release of the files and made the decision to not investigate any possible leads.
Bondi refuted the claim on social media following the interview.
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer's badge and weapon are seen as ICE conducts a vehicle checkpoint on Georgia Ave. on August 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Trump administration has deployed federal officers and the National Guard to the District in order to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and assist in crime prevention in the nation's capital. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — A Louisiana detention center that houses roughly 1,500 immigrants failed to ensure sanitary conditions, properly store perishable food, properly notify use-of-force incidents and maintain medical records of detainees, according to a report published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security’s internal watchdog.
The findings stem from an unannounced visit from federal inspectors in March 2025 to the Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana.
In a statement, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson characterized the report as showing only “minor infractions” at the facility, but did not address the reports of improper use of force.
“These minor infractions included failing to provide detainees exercise equipment, record keeping errors, and leaking vents,” the DHS spokesperson said. “Another infraction included providing a shared computer for legal research that would allow other detainees to see other detainees’ case information.”
The spokesperson said that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is working to address the issues laid out in the report, including “by adding additional training to facility staff.”
Use-of-force reporting
Facility staff did not properly notify the ICE field office of several use-of-force incidents, and videos of the incidents that inspectors tried to review were incomplete, according to the report.
The incidents the OIG reviewed included “applying a choke hold around a detainee’s neck,” and “puncturing a detainee’s skin with a pen to gain compliance.”
In the first video reviewed by inspectors, an officer applied a chokehold to stop an altercation between detainees. OIG investigators noted that the facility agreed “that the officer should receive remedial training.”
In a second video, “an officer could not close and secure a housing unit because a detainee would not remove his hand from the unit’s door. After verbally ordering the detainee to remove his hand, the officer then stabbed the detainee’s right thumb with a pen, puncturing the skin.”
OIG detailed that the “facility investigated the incident and determined that the officer required disciplinary action.”
But because the facility does not have a process to document when staff received extra training or disciplinary actions, inspectors argued they could not tell if staff who used prohibited practices or did not follow standards during use-of-force incidents received the appropriate follow-up training or disciplinary actions.
“This could lead to staff repeating inappropriate use-of-force tactics that could potentially result in property damage, injury, and death,” according to the report.
Sanitation and recreation
The report recommended that detainees be provided some recreational activities or equipment and noted that ICE complied, adding soccer balls, beanbag toss and pull-up bars.
The OIG report also found three leaking vents in the kitchen area, and raised concerns about sanitation.
“Because Winn did not conduct maintenance sufficient to prevent the leaks or repair or remove these leaking items, the facility risks food-safety hazards, such as residue leaking onto food preparation materials or into prepared food,” according to the report.
Inspectors also found the refrigerators and freezers that stored the food were not at proper temperatures.
“Storing perishable food at temperatures above the required ranges could cause food spoilage or rotting and potentially place staff and detainees at risk of food borne illnesses if served and consumed,” according to the report.
OIG made recommendations to ICE to fix the leaks and food temperature, and the agency agreed. OIG could not determine if ICE fixed the leaks, but did find ICE resolved the issue of food being stored at the proper temperature.
President Donald Trump salutes as a U.S. Army carry team moves a flag-draped transfer case containing the remains of Sgt. Declan J. Coady at Dover Air Force Base on March 07, 2026 in Dover, Delaware. Six soldiers from the 103rd Sustainment Command were killed in action by an Iranian drone strike on March 1 in Port Shuaiba, Kuwait during "Operation Epic Fury". (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a resolution Wednesday to force President Donald Trump to withdraw from the war with Iran and require congressional approval for further military action in the country.
The 215-208 vote, in which four Republicans voted with all Democrats to adopt the resolution, is the strongest rebuke to date against Trump’s handling of the months-long war that has left more than a dozen military troops dead, killed thousands of Iranian civilians and disrupted global supply chains of fertilizer and oil with the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz.
Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted in favor.
The War Powers Resolution nearly passed the House last month, but failed on a 212-212 tie. The measure is a tool for Congress to limit the president’s ability to initiate or escalate military actions.
Several similar efforts in the Senate have failed. However, following the Republican primary loss of Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Louisianan joined with Democrats and several GOP senators in a vote to move the measure forward. A vote on final passage on the Senate measure has not been scheduled.
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, sponsored the resolution in that chamber.
Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib has a separate War Powers Resolution that would force the president to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel, with weapons and funding from the United States, has launched an assault on that nation.
The passage of the resolution in the GOP-controlled House was the latest sign of growing dissent against Trump among congressional Republicans.
Senate Republicans balked at Trump’s effort to create a nearly $1.8 billion fund to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department, including those who were convicted and later pardoned by the president for attacking the U.S. Capitol in January 2021.
The Trump administration backed away from the fund after disputes over it halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities for the rest of the president’s second term.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testifies during a Senate Committee on Finance hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on June 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. The hearing was held to examine the Treasury Department's budget request for fiscal year 2027. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — The day after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund was dead, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent evaded questions on Capitol Hill Wednesday about whether President Donald Trump, his family and the Trump Organization would be absolved from future tax enforcement, another part of the president’s IRS settlement.
During a budget oversight hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, Bessent repeatedly cited “ongoing litigation” to sidestep lawmakers’ inquiries into the settlement details the administration negotiated to voluntarily drop Trump’s multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the IRS for the 2019 leak of his tax returns.
Committee Chair Mike Crapo said he wanted to give Bessent a chance to “set the record straight, understanding there is ongoing litigation.”
“What can you share with us about Treasury and the IRS role in the settlement agreement, specifically since IRS CEO Frank Bisignano signed the settlement agreement?” Crapo of Idaho asked.
Bessent responded that Treasury was represented in the case by the Department of Justice and so “any additional questions about the settlement or the fund should be addressed to the Justice Department and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.”
Sen. Ron Wyden, the committee’s top Democrat, said during opening remarks that Bessent “owes the committee an explanation of what the Treasury knows about the dirty settlement.”
“That’s because his department was involved from beginning to end,” the Oregon senator added. “Treasury was a defendant and a negotiator in the lawsuit.”
Moments later, Wyden asked, “Does the IRS audit immunity given to Trump, his family, and his businesses still stand? I’d like a yes-or-no answer to that. I got five minutes, I’m gonna use them for these questions, okay, so that we understand what’s at stake here. This immunity deal is the biggest scam against the taxpayer in American history.”
Bessent responded: “As Albert Einstein said, that doing the same thing, expecting a different answer is the definition of insanity.”
“You’ve given no answers on this subject, and that’s why I’m going to ask these questions,” Wyden said.
“Because, as I said, there’s ongoing litigation,” Bessent replied.
Fund fails to launch
Trump, his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, as well as the Trump Organization sued the IRS and the Department of Treasury for $10 billion in damages for leaking his tax returns to news outlets. The contractor responsible for the leak was sentenced in early 2024.
On May 18, the Department of Justice announced the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund for “victims of lawfare.”
Under intense worry, even from Republicans, that Jan. 6 defendants who assaulted police could receive reparations, Blanche told lawmakers Tuesday that the DOJ would “not be moving forward with the fund.”
The creation of the fund had mired Senate Republicans’ path to approving a bill that would fund immigration enforcement for multiple years. Trump had wanted the bill on his desk by June 1.
‘FOREVER BARRED’
But lawmakers are still searching for a clear answer on the department’s May 19 settlement addendum declaring “The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals or requests for relief … including tax returns filed before the Effective Date.”
Senate Democrats and legal advocates representing multiple plaintiffs in lawsuits challenging the settlement criticized the arrangement Tuesday.
The Department of Justice did respond to a request for comment, and the White House referred States Newsroom to the DOJ and the Trump Organization.
Ahead of the November midterm elections, President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have demanded Congress pass sweeping voting restrictions, including showing proof of citizenship to register — all in the name of election security.
At the same time, the only federal agency dedicated solely to helping states and localities run smooth and secure elections operates on a meager budget. It provides grants for election security far smaller than in the past. And U.S. House Republicans have signaled they want sizable further cuts.
The agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, sits at the center of a fight playing out in Congress over how to best ensure secure elections. The debate has thrown into sharp relief a yawning gap between GOP rhetoric over election tampering and actual congressional support for election security efforts.
“If my colleagues truly cared about protecting our elections from foreign interference, they’d put the resources behind it,” Rep. Sanford Bishop, a Georgia Democrat, said at a House Appropriations Committee meeting this spring. “Instead, we get empty rhetoric, zero urgency, while putting the right of citizens to vote at risk.”
Congressional support of the EAC’s election security grant program has fluctuated over time, but has generally trended downward.
Congress has approved election security grant funding at much lower levels than the program’s early years. (Credit: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 2025 Annual Report)
Lawmakers approved $380 million in 2018 and $425 million in 2020, along with an additional $400 million in election-related pandemic aid that year.
Since then, grant funding has slowed to a trickle. Congress appropriated $75 million in 2022 and again in 2023. That was followed by $55 million in 2024 and $15 million in 2025.
This year’s amount, $45 million, is an increase from the previous year — consistent with enhanced needs in an election year — but substantially lower than other recent years and a far cry from the program’s early years.
Trump and many GOP lawmakers support the SAVE America Act, which would impose new restrictions on voting. It would require voters to show a photo ID at the polls, as well as require them to bring documents proving their citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, with them when they register to vote.
The requirements are needed, the bill’s supporters say, to combat noncitizen voting, an extremely rare occurrence.
“The cheating is rampant in our elections,” Trump asserted without evidence in his 2026 State of the Union address. He has called the SAVE America Act “commonsense, country-saving legislation.”
The House passed the bill in February but it has floundered in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and a handful of Republicans. Trump continues to seek new avenues to advance the measure, including urging lawmakers to attach it to housing legislation.
President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address on Feb. 24, 2026. During the address, Trump claimed, without evidence, “cheating is rampant” in U.S. elections. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Cuts to election security agency
The Trump-led push for voting restrictions has largely ignored concrete election security needs in favor of chasing the phantom specter of noncitizen voting, Democrats and experts on election administration say. The result, they say, has been the possibility of sharp cuts at the EAC.
The House Appropriations Committee in April approved a bill that would cut the EAC’s salaries and expenses from $23.86 million to $17 million. It would mark the first time in four years the agency’s budget has dropped below $20 million.
The bill would also sharply cut the EAC’s election security grant program from $45 million to $15 million, the same as the last non-election year.
Since 2018, the agency has distributed the grants to election officials for technology upgrades, including cybersecurity, physical security improvements at election sites and efforts to combat voter misinformation. Lawmakers created the election security grants in response to foreign interference in the 2016 election.
U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, at a Democratic rally in 2022. (Photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters)
“Republicans claim falsely that our elections are plagued by fraud and that more needs to be done to secure the vote,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said in a statement to States Newsroom.
“Yet, they have consistently undermined the security of our elections, including by proposing to cut election-security grants by two-thirds and the Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) overall budget by almost 30% in Fiscal Year 2027,” Hoyer said. “This will leave states without critical resources to secure their voting systems and adopt the latest in voting technology and best practices.”
Hoyer, who helped spearhead the 2002 legislation creating the EAC and is the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency’s budget, said it has been a tremendous benefit to state and local election officials and to the integrity of the vote.
“I will continue to oppose Republican efforts to cut its funding,” he said.
Congressional GOP embraces Trump
The bill represents only one, early step in the appropriations process. The House hasn’t voted on it and the Senate could eliminate or alter the cuts, with any differences eventually worked out in a conference committee.
The House Appropriations Committee, which is not burdened with the Senate’s need for bipartisan approval of most legislation, in past years has also put forward cuts to election security grant funding that have been abandoned later.
Still, the measure this year demonstrates how House Republicans have embraced Trump’s focus on noncitizen voting.
While cutting the EAC and election security funding, the bill includes a provision prohibiting the use of funds to register noncitizens to vote. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections and only a very small number of municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local contests.
Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole speaks with reporters at the U.S. Capitol in January 2024. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
“The people demanded a new mandate, we’re carrying it forward. That includes reinforcing President Trump’s work to … ensure that only citizens vote in our elections,” Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican and the Appropriations Committee chairman, said at an April meeting.
A spokesperson for Rep. Dave Joyce, an Ohio Republican who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee that developed the bill, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Funding ebb
Congress created the EAC in the 2002 Help America Vote Act, passed in the wake of the 2000 presidential election and the Florida recount.
A bipartisan commission leads the agency, which has about 70 employees, according to its 2025 annual report. It focuses on aiding state and local election officials with training and other resources, certifying voting equipment and overseeing grant programs.
Gideon Cohn-Postar, director of federal affairs at the Institute for Responsive Government, said election officials generally want Congress to provide about $400 million a year, a figure that reflects lawmakers’ initial commitment to the grant program in 2018 and would allow states to make significant strides in bolstering their election infrastructure.
Each year’s grants are split between states and territories based on a formula. In practice, most receive the minimum amount. The $45 million grant for 2026 translated into $819,000 for most states, with a mandatory 20% match.
“It’s absolutely insufficient,” Cohn-Postar said.
State spending
A December 2024 report from the Bipartisan Policy Center measuring the impact of the grant program found that cybersecurity constituted the single largest category of grant spending, at over $200 million, followed by nearly $150 million on voting equipment.
Some states save up their grant money over several years to help pay for larger purchases, like voter registration systems, with the money earning interest in the meantime. As of March 2025, states had collectively spent 69% of their grant dollars, according to the latest data available from the EAC.
Two states — Nevada and Ohio — have spent 100% of their funds. Only Louisiana has spent none, ahead of a future elections system overhaul.
In Connecticut, election officials have spent 95% of the $13.8 million it has received in election security grants over the years, according to the EAC data. The funds have helped towns conduct security audits, Connecticut Democratic Secretary of State Stephanie Thomas said in an interview.
As an example, Thomas said when she took office in 2023 not all of the town’s systems were on a government online domain but most have now adopted one.
“Someting like that, it never gets the headlines but hugely important from a security perspective,” Thomas said.
Commission warns against cuts
EAC commissioners have been warning Congress that unstable funding and budget cuts would harm their agency’s work. All three current commissioners and a recent former commissioner testified at a House Administration Committee hearing on election security in May, where they cautioned lawmakers against reduced and unpredictable resources.
Commissioner Benjamin Hovland, a Democratic appointee of Trump, noted that while Congress has provided “significant” funding since the 2002 law, federal dollars have covered less than 5% of the total cost of running elections during that time.
Election officials today face challenges that would have been unimaginable when the law was passed, he said, adding that commissioners heard enthusiasm for the EAC’s work in recent meetings with officials.
“But the agency is nearing a point where funding cuts will impact what we can accomplish, and the support we can provide election officials, especially related to election security,” Hovland said.
States frequently tell the EAC they want federal funding that is “predictable, consistent, and sufficient” to support long-term planning, said Christy McCormick, a Republican commissioner appointed by President Barack Obama.
U.S. Election Assistance Commissioner Christy McCormick spoke at the Iowa State Association of County Auditors summer conference in Des Moines in June 2024 about federal resources available to local election officials. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch)
The EAC’s adoption of newer, more rigorous standards for election equipment illustrates the importance of funding for state and local election officials.
In 2021, the EAC adopted the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0, or VVSG 2.0, replacing the earlier 1.0 guidelines. The technical standards are designed to enhance security, such as requiring air gapped systems, and greater accessibility for voters with disabilities.
While states are not required to use VVSG-certified machines, many states have followed the EAC’s lead and mandated the use of machines that meet these standards. Upgrading is expensive, however.
In the meantime, election technology continues to age. By 2028, the average age of modern voting equipment will rise to 9.3 years old, up from just 4.9 years old in 2020, according to a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center released in late May. The report identified “episodic and unpredictable” federal funding as one obstacle to states purchasing VVSG 2.0 equipment.
“Federal support is absolutely key to making sure that election infrastructure is functioning well at the state and local levels,” Will Adler, a co-author of the report, said in an interview.
‘Don’t give me any more money’
To be sure, some state election officials are skeptical of accepting grant funding. Kansas Republican Secretary of State Scott Schwab told a congressional hearing in April that elections are best run and funded locally.
He said he previously accepted grant dollars but that state lawmakers then didn’t approve the required matching funds, leaving his office in a bind.
“I would rather, because of the strings attached, just don’t give me any more money,” Schwab said. “If we need more money, we can handle it locally.”
But since the House Appropriations Committee advanced cuts to the EAC and the election security grants in April, numerous election officials and voting rights groups have urged lawmakers to reconsider.
On May 12, the Project for Election Infrastructure sent a letter signed by several dozen local election officials asking senators for $400 million in election security grants, with at least two-thirds directed to localities. The true cost of modernizing and fully securing American election systems will run billions of dollars, the letter warned.
Bollards surround a ballot drop box at the Salt Lake County Government Center in Salt Lake City on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
The National Association of Counties on June 2 asked House and Senate appropriations leaders to not cut funding. The years between presidential elections are when “critical groundwork is laid,” the association’s CEO and executive director, Matt Chase, wrote in a letter.
Chase ticked through typical security expenses that can quickly add up. Bollards to protect remote drop boxes can cost $500 to $4,000 per bollard. Key card access at election facilities can cost $1,500 to $5,000 per door. Video surveillance cameras can run hundreds to thousands of dollars.
“Federal investment scaled only to presidential cycles leaves counties without the resources needed to be ready when turnout surges,” Chase wrote.
Thomas, the Connecticut secretary of state, echoed the sentiment.
“I feel that many people use the term election security almost like a slogan,” Thomas said. “But election security is actually year-round work.”
U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks during a press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has scrapped plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department — a proposal that halted work on legislation to fund immigration and deportation activities.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified Tuesday before a House committee the DOJ will no longer move forward with those plans shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said the administration had reversed course.
That decision could clear the way for the Senate to debate a roughly $70 billion package meant to fund immigration and deportation for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term.
“I think his statements are going to be very definitive, very clear and create the certainty that I hope all of our members, and House members need as well, in order for us to proceed on the reconciliation bill,” Thune said, referring to Blanche. “But I’m not guaranteeing that happens yet.”
Blanche confirmed Thune’s statements when he testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee in the afternoon.
“We’re not moving forward with the fund, period,” Blanche said when pressed by the subcommittee’s top Democrat, Rep. Grace Meng of New York.
“You and Associate Attorney General Woodward signed earlier documents regarding the settlement and this fund, would both of you now sign and release documents reversing the DOJ position on the fund?” Meng asked.
“We’re not moving forward with the fund. I’m not sure what that means to sign documents reversing. There’s nothing to reverse,” Blanche replied.
The DOJ posted on social media this week that it plans to abide by a temporary court ruling that blocked distribution of the funds, but Republican lawmakers said that wasn’t enough to end the impasse it created.
The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund last month as part of a legal settlement between Trump and the IRS over leaked copies of his returns during Trump’s first term. The settlement included provisions that precluded future IRS investigations into Trump and his family.
Senate Republicans weigh in
Thune said GOP senators had a “quite robust conversation” during a closed-door lunch about the DOJ fund and whether to move forward with their immigration and deportation package.
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven said after that meeting it’s up to GOP leaders to determine whether there are enough votes to move forward with the immigration package.
“I think the next step is for our whip team to find out where everybody’s at based on the administration’s indication that they’re not going to move forward with the fund,” Hoeven said.
Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said there is a “chance” that Republicans could begin a marathon amendment voting session on the immigration bill as soon as Wednesday, if Blanche’s testimony alleviates concerns created by the DOJ fund.
Montana Sen. Steve Daines, however, said he believes it’s “unlikely” that process begins this week.
North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said earlier in the day, before the lunch, that he wouldn’t accept taxpayer dollars going toward people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6.
“To provide restitution to somebody who assaulted a police officer and pled guilty to it. I mean, man, I’ve seen some crazy stuff before, but that’s right up there with crazy,” he said.
Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis said he needs to know “if it’s dead or nearly dead.”
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said he wants clarification from the White House about the settlement fund in light of the court’s ruling.
He added that Republicans are waiting to see if “the court case set aside both the settlement fund and the audits.”
“We need clarification for what it is and isn’t, because the White House already said ‘we agree, we don’t like it, but we agree with the courts,’” Lankford said. “What does that mean?”
Amendment to ban fund
Democrats have also criticized Trump and those in his administration over the fund, vowing to block it in law.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said during an afternoon press conference that promises from Trump and administration officials are “worthless.”
“Trump sued his own government, had his own Justice Department settle the case and is now trying to use taxpayer dollars to pay off his MAGA allies, billionaire buddies and cop-beating insurrectionists,” Schumer said.
“And let’s be clear, Trump has not killed this slush fund,” he added. “He has not revoked the special tax immunity he gave himself and his family. He has not ended the corruption. He hit a temporary roadblock. That’s it.”
Schumer said the first amendment he would offer during debate on Republicans’ immigration and deportation bill would “ban Trump’s slush fund permanently and revoke his family’s free rein to commit tax fraud forever.”
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, on the right, at a press conference opposing the Trump administration's $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization" fund on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats, police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection and their legal advocates spoke out Tuesday against the Trump administration’s proposed $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund.
The press conference, organized by liberal litigation organizations Public Citizen and Common Cause, occurred as Senate Democrats applied pressure to their Republican counterparts struggling to pass an immigration budget reconciliation bill with only a handful of votes to spare.
Democrats plan to introduce multiple amendments proposing guardrails on the fund if and when Senate Republicans bring to the floor the $72 billion immigration package that President Donald Trump said he wanted on his desk by June 1.
“The notion that we are going to come up with a fund to provide some sort of a relief for the Capitol Hill cop beaters is outrageous to me, to think the Republican Party would even consider it,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said.
“That’s why we’re making every effort to make sure that there is a record vote against this slush fund,” Durbin, of Illinois, said as former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who is running for the Democratic nomination for a U.S. House seat in Maryland, stood behind him.
Dunn along with former Washington Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, who also attended the press conference, are suing the Trump administration over the fund. Dunn and Hodges both deployed to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and Hodges described in the complaint how he thought he was going to die as rioters assaulted him.
“Beat police, support Donald Trump, get paid,” Dunn said. “Cause an insurrection, get paid. I believe that this is Donald Trump putting his mob on a retainer.”
Trump pardoned nearly all defendants charged with attacking the Capitol that day, and commuted the prison sentences of more than a dozen involved in planning the attack.
Trump repeatedly characterized those involved in the riot as “patriots” during his 2024 presidential campaign, and accused the Biden administration of weaponizing the Department of Justice.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche has said the fund is not targeted toward Jan. 6 attack defendants, and that anyone of any political affiliation can “be heard and seek redress.”
IRS settlement
The Department of Justice announced the $1.776 billion fund on May 18 as a condition of Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns in 2019.
A day later, the DOJ issued another order declaring Trump and his family would be forever immune from government inquiries, including tax audits, as part of Trump’s voluntary dismissal of the suit.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said the DOJ is facing “real pressure now, and indeed the Trumpsters are starting to say they might have to abandon their cop beaters slush fund.”
U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., at a press conference opposing the Trump administration’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)
Whitehouse, another senior Judiciary Committee member, also slammed the DOJ order to indefinitely absolve Trump family members from any future tax audits.
“Even if they get rid of the crooked cop beaters slush fund, even if they get rid of the crooked Trump family tax amnesty, that still leaves one very interesting thing, and that is the question of whether the crooked Trumpsters committed a fraud on the court,” Whitehouse said.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida reopened Trump’s IRS case on May 29 following a filing from 35 former federal judges who argued the DOJ “deceived” the court by not sharing with the judge details of the “anti-weaponization” fund.
The government has until June 12 to respond.
Fund future unclear
The Department of Justice said Monday in a social media post the administration would comply with a separate temporary court order to pause the fund, but would not answer States Newsroom Tuesday about reports that the department planned to scrap the fund altogether in the face of intense scrutiny, even from Republicans.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said during the event that the organization is seeking further details from the DOJ.
“We are in the position of trusting but verifying, and so have demanded that DOJ send us a response today asking them to confirm that they have taken a number of steps to comply with that order,” Perryman said. “We have also asked them to confirm what the status of the fund is, since they seem to be leaking that they are somehow abandoning the fund.”
Democracy Forward is representing multiple plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the nearly $1.8 billion fund, including a former DOJ Jan. 6 prosecutor who was fired and a university professor who was charged with a felony then acquitted by a jury for involvement in protesting a 2025 immigration raid.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia on May 29 ordered the Department of Justice, the Treasury Department and other high-ranking administration officials from taking any additional actions to create the fund or make payments from it.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund appeared to be on shaky ground Monday as he continued to face opposition from his own party.
Trump had not yet made a public announcement by late afternoon, but several media outlets reported the president planned to possibly drop the fund to clear the way for Senate Republicans to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement funding package. Politico reported White House officials communicated the decision Monday to Republicans on Capitol Hill, according to two unnamed sources.
Trump’s fund has sparked resistance from both parties as concerns mounted that Jan. 6, 2021, riot defendants who assaulted police officers could conceivably get reparations by claiming the law was “weaponized” against them for political purposes.
A slew of lawsuits challenging what opponents called a “slush fund” followed, including from police officers who defended the Capitol that day.
Shortly after the reports circulated that Trump might shelve the idea, the Department of Justice defended the fund on social media but said it would comply with a court order issued Friday temporarily barring the government from any further action on the fund. The order did not address the merits of a suit filed against the fund.
“The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people. This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling,” according to the department’s post on X.
The DOJ and the White House directed States Newsroom to the post when asked if the president would scrap the fund altogether.
Several Republicans vehemently opposed the fund, including retiring Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who called the fund “stupid on stilts.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., abandoned plans for a floor vote on the immigration bill ahead of the Memorial Day recess as members threatened to defect unless the budget reconciliation package also included language to apply guardrails on the massive “anti-weaponization” pot of money.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Monday that even if Trump says he will drop the fund, “a promise from Trump is worthless.”
“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Schumer said on the floor. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”
The Department of Justice announced the $1.776 billion fund on May 18 as a condition for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. A day later, the DOJ issued another order declaring Trump and his family would be forever immune from government inquiries, including tax audits, as part of Trump’s voluntary dismissal of the suit.
