The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear from a faith-based pregnancy center in New Jersey challenging a state investigation alleging it misled people into thinking its services included referrals for abortion.

The justices agreed to consider an appeal from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which wants to block a 2023 subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin seeking information about donors, advertisements and medical personnel. It has not yet been served.

Attorneys for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers describe the organization as a “faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center.” The organization generally seek to steer women facing an unwanted pregnancy away from choosing an abortion.

The group challenged the subpoena in federal court, but a judge found that the case wasn’t yet far enough along to weigh in. An appeals court agreed.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the push for donor information had chilled its First Amendment rights.

“State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,” its lawyers wrote. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”.

Meanwhile, Platkin, a Democrat, has sought to enforce the subpoena in state court, but the judge there has so far refused the state’s push to require the group to turn over documents and told the two sides to negotiate instead.

The state asked the justices to pass on the case, saying the it doesn’t present the kind of significant lower-court controversy that requires the justices to step in.

“The decision below is correct and does not have the impacts petitioner alleges,” state attorneys wrote.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, pleaded not guilty Friday to human smuggling charges in a federal court in Tennessee.

The hearing was the first chance the Maryland construction worker has had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration’s allegations since he was mistakenly deported in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have characterized the smuggling case as a desperate attempt to justify the mistaken deportation. The investigation was launched weeks after the U.S. government deported Abrego Garcia and following a Supreme Court order and mounting pressure to return him.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers told a judge Friday that some government witnesses cooperated to get favors regarding their immigration status or criminal charges they were facing. A federal agent acknowledged during his testimony that one witness was living in the U.S. illegally with a criminal record and is now getting preferred status.

“He sounds like the exact type of person this government should be trying to deport,” Federal Public Defender Dumaka Shabazz said. “They’re going to give all these other people deals to stay in the country just to get this one other person.”

Most of Friday’s hearing focused on whether Abrego Garcia should be released as he awaits trial. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes said she will write her decision “sooner rather than later.”

The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. While officers suspected possible smuggling, Abrego Garcia was allowed to go on his way with only a warning.

Body camera footage shows a calm exchange between officers and Abrego Garcia. The officers then discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling before letting him go. One of the officers says, “He’s hauling these people for money.” Another says Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in an envelope.

The federal indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of smuggling throughout the U.S. hundreds of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang.

In briefings before Friday’s hearing, U.S. attorneys described Abrego Garcia as a danger to the community and a flight risk. They also accused him of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims, although he is not charged with such crimes.

Rob McGuire, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, told the judge Friday that “migrant transportation is inherently dangerous.”

The prosecutor also presented two orders of protection that Abrego Garcia’s wife sought in 2020 and 2021 against him for domestic violence. Jennifer Vasquez Sura said this spring that the couple had worked things out “privately as a family, including by going to counseling.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys rejected the prosecution’s assertions that he was a danger, while arguing the charges aren’t serious enough for detention.

A judge blocked New York City’s mayor from letting federal immigration authorities reopen an office at the city’s main jail, in part because of concerns the mayor invited them back in as part of a deal with the Trump administration to end his corruption case.

New York Judge Mary Rosado’s decision Friday is a setback for Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who issued an executive order permitting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies to maintain office space at the Rikers Island jail complex. City lawmakers filed a lawsuit in April accusing Adams of entering into a “corrupt quid pro quo bargain” with the Trump administration in exchange for the U.S. Justice Department dropping criminal charges against him.

Rosado temporarily blocked the executive order in April. In granting a preliminary injunction, she said city council members have “shown a likelihood of success in demonstrating, at minimum, the appearance of a quid pro quo whereby Mayor Adams publicly agreed to bring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (”ICE”) back to Rikers Island in exchange for dismissal of his criminal charges.”

Rosado cited a number of factors, including U.S. border czar Tom Homan’s televised comments in February that if Adams did not come through, “I’ll be in his office, up his butt saying, ‘Where the hell is the agreement we came to?’ ”

Adams has repeatedly denied making a deal with the administration over the criminal case. He has said he deputized his first deputy mayor, Randy Mastro, to handle decision-making on the return of ICE to Rikers Island to make sure there was no appearance of any conflict of interest.

Rosado said that Mastro reports to Adams and “cannot be considered impartial and free from Mayor Adams’ conflicts.”

Mastro said in a prepared statement Friday the administration was confident they will prevail in the case. “Let’s be crystal clear: This executive order is about the criminal prosecution of violent transnational gangs committing crimes in our city. Our administration has never, and will never, do anything to jeopardize the safety of law-abiding immigrants, and this executive order ensures their safety as well,” Mastro said.

City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, who is running in the Democratic primary for mayor, called the decision a victory for public safety.

“New Yorkers are counting on our city to protect their civil rights, and yet, Mayor Adams has attempted to betray this obligation by handing power over our city to Trump’s ICE because he is compromised,” she said in a prepared statement.

A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

The Republican president’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Casper wrote.

Casper also noted that, when it comes to citizenship, “there is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship.”

Casper cited arguments made by the states that the requirements would “burden the States with significant efforts and substantial costs” to update procedures.

The ruling is the second legal setback for Trump’s election order. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously blocked parts of the directive, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement for the federal voter registration form.

The order is the culmination of Trump’s longstanding complaints about elections. After his first win in 2016, Trump falsely claimed his popular vote total would have been much higher if not for “millions of people who voted illegally.” Since 2020, Trump has made false claims of widespread voter fraud and manipulation of voting machines to explain his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

He has said his executive order secures elections against illegal voting by noncitizens, though multiple studies and investigations in the states have shown that it’s rare and typically a mistake. Casting a ballot as a noncitizen is already against the law and can result in fines and deportation if convicted.

The order also would require states to exclude any mail-in or absentee ballots received after Election Day and puts states’ federal funding at risk if election officials don’t comply. Currently, 18 states and Puerto Rico accept mailed ballots received after Election Day as long they are postmarked on or before that date, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Oregon and Washington, which conduct their elections almost entirely by mail, filed a separate lawsuit over the ballot deadline, saying the executive order could disenfranchise voters in their states. When the lawsuit was filed, Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs noted that more than 300,000 ballots in the state arrived after Election Day in 2024.

Trump’s order has received praise from the top election officials in some Republican states who say it could inhibit instances of voter fraud and will give them access to federal data to better maintain their voter rolls. But many legal experts say the order exceeds Trump’s power because the Constitution gives states the authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections, with Congress allowed to set rules for elections to federal office. As Friday’s ruling states, the Constitution makes no provision for presidents to set the rules for elections.

During a hearing earlier this month on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the states and lawyers for the administration argued over the implications of Trump’s order, whether the changes could be made in time for next year’s midterm elections and how much it would cost the states.

Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey said during the hearing that the order seeks to provide a single set of rules for certain aspects of election operations rather than having a patchwork of state laws and that any harm to the states is speculation.

O’Hickey also claimed that mailed ballots received after Election Day might somehow be manipulated, suggesting people could retrieve their ballots and alter their votes based on what they see in early results. But all ballots received after Election Day require a postmark showing they were sent on or before that date, and that any ballot with a postmark after Election Day would not count.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump’s military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned.

The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies.

In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump’s move escalated the situation — and for political gain.

All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines “an alarming abuse of power” that “undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.”

The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured.

In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they’re planning to deploy military troops for protests.

Since Trump’s return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues.

The governors’ responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally?

Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations.

“There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance,” Shields said.

And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment.

On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump.

At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, “ we’ll see you in court ” over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls’ school sports. Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground.

Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a “straight-up dictator,” but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: “I’m not going to criticize him directly much at all.”

Democratic governors called to testify before a House panel Thursday on so-called sanctuary policies blasted the use of military troops in the Los Angeles area.

Gov. JB Pritzker said Illinois complies with all laws when it comes to immigration while honoring First Amendment rights. “We will not take away people’s rights to peacefully protest,” Pritzker said. “It’s wrong to deploy the National Guard and active duty Marines in an American city over the objection of local law enforcement just as it’s wrong to tear children away from their homes.”

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul told committee members that the focus should be on comprehensive immigration reform. “As we speak, an American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,” she said. “This is a flagrant abuse of power and nothing short of an assault on our American values.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia.

“He’s injected chaos into the world order, he’s injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California,” Shapiro said.

As state attorney general during Trump’s first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump’s tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself.

Protests that sprang up in Los Angeles over immigration enforcement raids and prompted President Donald Trump to mobilize National Guard troops and Marines have begun to spread across the country, with more planned into the weekend.

From Seattle and Austin to Chicago and Washington, D.C., marchers have chanted slogans, carried signs against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and snarled traffic through downtown avenues and outside federal offices. While many have been peaceful, some have resulted in clashes with law enforcement as officers made arrests and used chemical irritants to disperse crowds.

Activists are planning more and even larger demonstrations in the coming days, with “No Kings” events across the country on Saturday to coincide with Trump’s planned military parade through Washington.

The Trump administration said it would continue its program of raids and deportations despite the protests.

“ICE will continue to enforce the law,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted Tuesday on social media.

About 150 protesters gathered outside the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia on Tuesday afternoon and marched to ICE headquarters for speeches and then back to the detention center, according to Philadelphia police.

A group then walked though what police called major roads using bicycles to obstruct officers, prompting police to issue several orders for people to disperse. Police said demonstrators ignored the orders and things escalated when officers started arresting people.

Fifteen people were arrested, one on allegations of aggravated assault on police, and the rest for disorderly conduct, police said. Several officers used force during the arrests and their conduct will be reviewed, police said. Police didn’t say specifically what kind of force was used. Two officers had minor injuries and were treated at a hospital. Two females who were arrested reported minor injuries and were receiving medical attention, police said.

About 20 people remained peacefully gathered outside the detention center as of Tuesday night, police said. About 200 protesters gathered outside the San Francisco Immigration Court on Tuesday after activists said several arrests were made there.

That gathering came after protests on Sunday and Monday swelled to several thousand demonstrators and saw more than 150 arrests with outbreaks of violence that included vandalized buildings, and damaged cars, police vehicles and buses. Police said two officers suffered non-life threatening injuries.

“Individuals are always free to exercise their First Amendment rights in San Francisco, but violence, especially against SFPD officers, will never be tolerated,” San Francisco police posted on social media.

Police described Monday’s march as “overwhelmingly peaceful,” but said “two small groups broke off and committed vandalism and other criminal acts.” Several people were detained or arrested, police said.

Experienced Advocates in Labor and Employment Law

With years of experience representing both employees and employers, our firm has developed a comprehensive understanding of the legal challenges that arise in today’s workplaces. Our labor and employment attorneys provide strategic, personalized representation tailored to your specific circumstances.

We are passionate about protecting the rights of employees. If you’ve faced discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, or any other form of workplace injustice, we are prepared to stand by you and pursue the justice you deserve.

We also advise employers on navigating the complex landscape of labor and employment law. From drafting employment agreements and enforcing non-compete clauses to ensuring compliance and resolving disputes, we offer practical, results-oriented legal support designed to protect your organization.

Our attorneys have successfully represented clients in both the public and private sectors across a wide range of employment matters, including:

-Wrongful termination and layoffs
-Workplace discrimination and harassment
-Promotion and advancement disputes
-Disciplinary actions
-Employment contract and severance negotiations
-Non-compete and confidentiality agreements
-Disability accommodations and related claims

Whether you're an individual seeking justice or a business seeking clarity, we are here to help.

Seo Law Group, PLLC
https://seolawgroup.com

A judge on Monday dismissed the lawsuit that actor and director Justin Baldoni filed against his “It Ends With Us” costar Blake Lively after she sued him last year for sexual harassment and retaliation.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Liman’s decision is the latest development in the bitter legal battle surrounding the dark romantic film.

Baldoni and production company Wayfarer Studios countersued in January for $400 million, accusing Lively and her husband, “Deadpool” actor Ryan Reynolds, of defamation and extortion.

The New York judge ruled that Baldoni can’t sue Lively for defamation over claims she made in her legal claim, because allegations made in a lawsuit are exempt from libel claims. Liman also ruled that Baldoni’s claims that Lively stole creative control of the film didn’t count as extortion under California law.

The judge, however, said Baldoni could revise the lawsuit if he wanted to pursue different claims related to whether Lively breached or interfered with a contract. His legal team indicated it planned to do so.

“Ms. Lively and her team’s predictable declaration of victory is false,” one of Baldoni’s lawyers, Bryan Freedman, said in a statement. He said that Lively’s claims that she was sexually harassed on the film set, and then subjected to a secret smear campaign intended to taint her reputation, were “no truer today than they were yesterday.”

“It Ends With Us,” an adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling 2016 novel that begins as a romance but takes a dark turn into domestic violence, was released in August, exceeding box office expectations with a $50 million debut. But the movie’s release was shrouded by speculation over discord between Lively and Baldoni.

The judge also dismissed Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times, which had reported on Lively’s sexual harassment allegations.

“Today’s opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, (publicist) Leslie Sloane and The New York Times,” Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, said in a prepared statement.

The lawyers said they “look forward to the next round” of seeking attorneys’ fees, treble damages and punitive damages.

A spokesperson for The New York Times said they were “grateful to the court for seeing the lawsuit for what it was: a meritless attempt to stifle honest reporting.”

“Our journalists went out and covered carefully and fairly a story of public importance, and the court recognized that the law is designed to protect just that sort of journalism,” Charlie Stadtlander said in an emailed statement.

Lively appeared in the 2005 film “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants” and the TV series “Gossip Girl” from 2007 to 2012 before starring in films including “The Town” and “The Shallows.”

Baldoni starred in the TV comedy “Jane the Virgin,” directed the 2019 film “Five Feet Apart” and wrote “Man Enough,” a book challenging traditional notions of masculinity.

Getty Images is facing off against artificial intelligence company Stability AI in a London courtroom for the first major copyright trial of the generative AI industry.

Opening arguments before a judge at the British High Court began on Monday. The trial could last for three weeks.

Stability, based in London, owns a widely used AI image-making tool that sparked enthusiasm for the instant creation of AI artwork and photorealistic images upon its release in August 2022. OpenAI introduced its surprise hit chatbot ChatGPT three months later.

Seattle-based Getty has argued that the development of the AI image maker, called Stable Diffusion, involved “brazen infringement” of Getty’s photography collection “on a staggering scale.”

Tech companies have long argued that “fair use” or “fair dealing” legal doctrines in the United States and United Kingdom allow them to train their AI systems on large troves of writings or images. Getty was among the first to challenge those practices when it filed copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States and the United Kingdom in early 2023.

“What Stability did was inappropriate,” Getty CEO Craig Peters told The Associated Press in 2023. He said creators of intellectual property should be asked for permission before their works are fed into AI systems rather than having to participate in an “opt-out regime.”

Getty’s legal team told the court Monday that its position is that the case isn’t a battle between the creative and technology industries and that the two can still work together in “synergistic harmony” because licensing creative works is critical to AI’s success.

“The problem is when AI companies such as Stability AI want to use those works without payment,” Getty’s trial lawyer, Lindsay Lane, said.

She said the case was about “straightforward enforcement of intellectual property rights,” including copyright, trademark and database rights.

Getty Images “recognizes that the AI industry is a force for good but that doesn’t justify those developing AI models to ride roughshod over intellectual property rights,” Lane said.

Stability AI had a “voracious appetite” for images to train its AI model, but the company was “completely indifferent to the nature of those works,” Lane said.

Stability didn’t care if images were protected by copyright, had watermarks, were not safe for work or were pornographic and just wanted to get its model to the market as soon as possible, Lane said.

“This trial is the day of reckoning for that approach,” she said.

Stability has argued that the case doesn’t belong in the United Kingdom because the training of the AI model technically happened elsewhere, on computers run by U.S. tech giant Amazon.

The judge’s decision is unlikely to give the AI industry what it most wants, which is expanded copyright exemptions for AI training, said Ben Milloy, a senior associate at UK law firm Fladgate, which is not involved in the case.

But it could “strengthen the hand of either party – rights holders or AI developers – in the context of the commercial negotiations for content licensing deals that are currently playing out worldwide,” Milloy said.
In the years after introducing its open-source technology, Stability confronted challenges in capitalizing on the popularity of the tool, battling lawsuits, misuse and other business problems.

Stable Diffusion’s roots trace back to Germany, where computer scientists at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich worked with the New York-based tech company Runway to develop the original algorithms. The university researchers credited Stability AI for providing the servers that trained the models, which require large amounts of computing power.

Stability later blamed Runway for releasing an early version of Stable Diffusion that was used to produce abusive sexual images, but also said it would have exclusive control of more recent versions of the AI model.

Stability last year announced what it described as a “significant” infusion of money from new investors including Facebook’s former president Sean Parker, who is now chair of Stability’s board. Parker also has experience in intellectual property disputes as the co-founder of online music company Napster, which temporarily shuttered in the early 2000s after the record industry and popular rock band Metallica sued over copyright violations.

The Senate has set an ambitious timeline for passing President Donald Trump’s sweeping legislation to cut taxes and spending. But getting it on the Republican president’s desk by July 4 will require some big decisions, and soon.

Republican senators are airing concerns about different parts of the legislation, including cuts to Medicaid, changes to food aid and the impact on the deficit. To push the bill to passage, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and other negotiators will need to find a compromise that satisfies both ends of their conference — and that can still satisfy the House, which passed the bill last month by only one vote.

A look at some of the groups and senators who leaders will have to convince as they work to push Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill toward a Senate vote:

Every Republican senator represents a state with a rural constituency — and some of their states are among the most rural in the country. Many in those less-populated areas rely heavily on Medicaid for health care, leading several of them to warn that the changes to the program in the bill could be devastating to communities that are already struggling.

Of particular concern is a freeze on a so-called provider tax that some states use to help pay for large portions of their Medicaid programs. The extra tax often leads to higher payments from the federal government, which critics say is a loophole that allows states to inflate their budgets. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and several others have argued that freezing that tax revenue would hurt rural hospitals, in particular.

“Hospitals will close,” Hawley said last month. “It’s that simple. And that pattern will replicate in states across the country.”

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville said Thursday that provider taxes in his state are “the money we use for Medicaid.”

“You start cutting that out, we’ve got big problems,” Tuberville said. Eliminating those taxes “might lose some folks.”

At the same time, Republican senators have little interest in a House-passed provision that spends more money by raising a cap on state and local tax deductions, known as SALT. The higher cap traditionally benefits more urban areas in states with high taxes, such as New York and California.

The House included the new cap after New York Republicans threatened to oppose the bill, but Senate Republicans uniformly dislike it. “I think there’s going to have to be some adjustment” on the SALT provision, Thune said Wednesday, noting that “senators are just in a very different place” from the House.

The House-passed bill would also shift some Medicaid and food stamp costs to states, a change that has the former governors in the Senate, in particular, worried.

West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice, who was governor of his state for eight years before his election to the Senate last year, said he favors many aspects of the bill. He supports the new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamp recipients, the restrictions on benefits for immigrants who are in the country illegally and the efforts to cut down on fraud. “There’s real savings there,” Justice said. “But then we ought to stop.”

“We’re on our way to cannibalizing ourselves,” Justice said. “We don’t want to hurt kids and hurt our families.”

The provision stirring the most unease would shift 5% of administrative costs to the state for administering food stamps — known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. States that have high error rates in the program would have to take on an even higher percentage of federal costs.

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, also a former governor, said senators are working to get feedback from current governors and may propose some “incentive-oriented ideas” instead of a penalty for the high error rates.

“We don’t know if the states have really looked at the impacts of some of this yet,” Hoeven said.

Tuberville, who is running for governor of Alabama next year, said the program should be reformed instead of shifting costs.

As President Donald Trump builds a crypto empire — including hosting a private dinner with top investors at his golf club — Democrats have united in condemning what they call blatant corruption from the White House.

But the Democratic Party’s own relationship with the emerging crypto industry is far less cut and dried.

Work in the Republican-led Senate to legitimize cryptocurrency by adding guardrails has drawn backing from some Democrats, underscoring growing support for the industry in the party. But divisions have opened over the bill, with many demanding it prevent the Republican president and his family from directly profiting from cryptocurrency.

“I’m all on board with the idea of regulating crypto,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. “But at this moment, when cryptocurrency is being so clearly used by Donald Trump to facilitate his corruption, I don’t think you can close your eyes to that when you’re legislating.”

The legislation is moving ahead more rapidly than Congress usually acts when an industry is new. But the big money and campaign donations flowing from cryptocurrency firms have made them a new powerhouse on the political scene, one that’s increasingly gaining allies and capturing the attention of lawmakers.

A look at what to know about the industry’s clout and the political fight over what’s known as the GENIUS Act.

To understand the growing clout of the crypto industry, look no further than the 2024 election. Fairshake, a crypto super political action committee, and its affiliated PACs spent more than $130 million in congressional races.

Fairshake spent roughly $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio in an effort to defeat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Brown, who lost to Moreno by more than 3 percentage points, was seen as a chief critic of the industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

“DC received a clear message that being anti-crypto is a good way to end your career, as it doesn’t represent the will of the voters,” Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, wrote in a social media post the day after the 2024 election.

Coinbase — the largest crypto exchange in the U.S. and biggest contributor to Fairshake — does not view support for its industry as partisan, according to Kara Calvert, the company’s vice president of U.S. policy. The industry also spent heavily to support Democrats Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin in their races for open Senate seats in battleground states.

Fairshake spent $10 million in support of Slotkin during her successful Senate run against Republican Mike Rodgers, and Slotkin, who won the Michigan race by fewer than 20,000 votes, spoke in favor of crypto on the campaign trail.

Similar dynamics are setting up ahead of 2026 in contested House and Senate races. Fairshake said in January that it already had $116 million in cash on hand aimed at the 2026 midterm elections.

There was a notable absence last week when U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a 58-second video that the government would no longer endorse the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children or pregnant women.

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the person who typically signs off on federal vaccine recommendations — was nowhere to be seen.

The CDC, a $9.2 billion-a-year agency tasked with reviewing life-saving vaccines, monitoring diseases and watching for budding threats to Americans’ health, is without a clear leader.

“I’ve been disappointed that we haven’t had an aggressive director since — February, March, April, May — fighting for the resources that CDC needs,” said Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as CDC director under the first Trump administration and supported Kennedy’s nomination as the nation’s health secretary.

$9.2 billion-a-year agency without leader as nomination awaits

The leadership vacuum at a foremost federal public health agency has existed for months, after President Donald Trump suddenly withdrew his first pick for CDC director in March. A hearing for his new nominee — the agency’s former acting director Susan Monarez — has not been scheduled because she has not submitted all the paperwork necessary to proceed, according to a spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who will oversee the nomination.

HHS did not answer written questions about Monarez’s nomination, her current role at the CDC or her salary. An employee directory lists Monarez, a longtime government employee, as a staffer for the NIH under the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.

Redfield described Kennedy as “very supportive” of Monarez’s nomination.

Instead, a lawyer and political appointee with no medical experience is “carrying out some of the duties” of director at the agency that for seven decades has been led by someone with a medical degree.

Matthew Buzzelli, who is also the chief of staff at the CDC, is “surrounded by highly qualified medical professionals and advisors to help fulfill these duties as appropriate,” Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson said in a statement.

Adding to the confusion was an employee-wide email sent last week that thanked “new acting directors who have stepped up to the plate.” The email, signed by Monarez, listed her as the acting director. It was was sent just days after Kennedy said at a Senate hearing that Monarez had been replaced by Buzzelli.

The lack of a confirmed director will be a problem if a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic or a rapid uptick in measles cases hits, said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota.

“CDC is a crisis, waiting for a crisis to happen,” said Osterholm. “At this point, I couldn’t tell you for the life of me who was going to pull what trigger in a crisis situation.”

At CDC headquarters in Atlanta, employees say Monarez was rarely heard from between late January – when she was appointed acting director – and late March, when Trump nominated her.

She also has not held any of the “all hands” meetings that were customary under previous CDC chiefs, according to several staffers.

One employee, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media and fears being fired if identified said Monarez has been almost invisible since her nomination, adding that her absence has been cited by other leaders as an excuse for delaying action.