You have to respect that, the guy did win. It’s more than half the country… you can not like Trump, you can hate him, but you can’t hate everybody who voted for him… I don’t hate half the country and I don’t want to hate half the country,” Bill Maher said.

Maher’s attitude differs from most Democratic voters I have encountered. Most Democratic voters loathe people who voted for Trump. In my observation, anti-Trumpers vacillate between raw hatred of Trump voters and a childlike refusal to accept that anyone could have voted for him. Viewing themselves as enlightened, objective and well-informed, these poor bewildered saps are 100 percent the product of a media that entirely manufactures a false narrative about the characteristics of Trump positions and the wide variety of reasons people have voted for him three times, in some cases. Democratic voters are so unhinged about Trump, they seem not to have noticed how their own openly socialist and fascist candidates have taken on positions differing little from history’s greatest murdering sociopaths, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

*******

Here’s another unhinged Democrat inciting violence: @RepJasmine Crockett says you should “punch” your opponents, then says Senator @tedcruz “has to be knocked over the head, like, hard.”

11¹111Of course this freak is violent. She’s a Communist and a fascist, and violence is what Communism and fascism are all about. My question is: Why are people who threaten violence even permitted to hold office?

Michael J. Hurd

Axios

Mar 24, 2025 –Politics & Policy

Column / Behind the Curtain

Behind the Curtain: Dems’ dark, deep hole

Top Democrats tell us their party is in its deepest hole in nearly 50 years — and they fear things could actually get worse:The party has its lowest favorability ever.No popular national leader to help improve it.Insufficient numbers to stop most legislation in Congress.

• A durable minority on the Supreme Court.
• Dwindling influence over the media ecosystem, with right-leaning podcasters and social media accounts ascendant.
• Young voters are growing dramatically more conservative.
• A bad 2026 map for Senate races.
• Democratic Senate retirements could make it harder for the party to flip the House, with members tempted by statewide races.
• There are only three House Republicans in districts former Vice President Harris won in 2024, a dim sign for a Democratic surge. There were 23 eight years ago in seats Hillary Clinton won.
• And, thanks to the number of people fleeing blue states, the math for a Dem to win the presidency will just get harder in 2028.

Why it matters: Both parties — after losing the White House, Senate and House — suffer and search for salvation. But rarely does healing seem so hard and redemption so distant.

• Doug Sosnik — a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, and widely followed thinker on political megatrends — told us this is Dems’ deepest hole in at least the 45 years since Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980. Sosnik said the 2024 election was at least as much a repudiation of Democrats as it was a victory for Trump.

As Ezra Klein noted this month in his New York Times column, if current population patterns hold, Democrats will suffer a devastating blow after the 2030 census: The party will lose as many as a dozen House seats and electoral votes.

• 🚨 He points out that in that Electoral College, Dems could win all the states Harris carried in 2024 — plus Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and still lose the White House.

The big picture: Democrats’ dismal reality is not Republican spin. In fact, there’s broad consensus among Democratic leaders that most current political, cultural, media and generational trends are cutting against them.

• “Democrats are losing working-class voters,” Klein, co-author with Derek Thompson of the new liberal blueprint “Abundance,” said last week. “They’re seeing their margins among nonwhite voters erode and vanish. They’re losing young voters. Something is wrong in the Democratic Party.”

By the numbers: A deep, comprehensive poll by Democratic pollster David Shor of Blue Rose Research captured vividly and empirically the daunting data.

• For those skeptical of polls and sampling size, Shor’s study is based on 26 million online responses collected over the course of 2024, and filtered to adjust to oddities of modern polling.
• Shor said on Klein’s podcast, “The Ezra Klein Show,” that his most striking finding — and the one most worrisome to him — is the surging pro-Trump/MAGA/Republican views and voting patterns of young men, immigrants and anyone other than strident liberals.

Shor estimates a 23-point swing against Democrats among immigrants. The swing is very pronounced among Hispanics who consider themselves conservatives: Democratic support dropped by 50%.

• But it’s the rise of conservatism among young people, mainly men, that spooks him most. “[Y]oung voters — regardless of race and gender — have become more Republican,” Shor writes in his 33-slide presentation. (Request the deck.)
• Ali Mortell, director of research at Blue Rose Research, told Axios’ Tal Axelrod: “Millennials were one of the most progressive generations, and it’s looking like Gen Z is about to be one of the most conservative.”

The thing he’s been most shocked by over the last four years, Shor told Klein: “[Y]oung people have gone from being the most progressive generation since the Baby Boomers, and maybe even in some ways more so, to becoming potentially the most conservative generation that we’ve experienced maybe in 50 to 60 years.”https://109cae21d97c1f6efb00ae23badfdcb6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-41/html/container.html

• A gender gap has exploded: 18-year-old men were 23 points more likely to support Donald Trump than 18-year-old women, which Shor called “just completely unprecedented in American politics.”
• Sosnik told us that young men who didn’t go to college “are firmly for Trump, not just against Democrats.” He said young white women who didn’t attend college “may be as much anti-Democrat as pro-Trump. And then the outliers are college women, who are very pro-Democratic. But it’ll be very hard to dislodge the Republicans’ success with non-college white men under 30.”

What’s next: Rahm Emanuel — the former House Democrat, Chicago mayor, ambassador to Japan, White House chief of staff and possible 2028 presidential candidate — told us his party needs an emergency meeting of mayors and governors to rethink the party’s perception and priorities, and see what’s working in schools.

• “The public has seen us as more focused around a set of cultural interests and issues — climate, ‘woke,’ DEI, abortion — than the American people,” Emanuel said. “All those I care about. But they consumed both our intellectual and thematic energy. The American people said: You care more about that than everything else.”

Emanuel told us Democrats have to stop being a liberal-only party for liberal-only voters: “We used to have liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats. Now we’re basically a liberal party, because African American and Hispanic voters went out the back door. They’re the ones who walked as we became more liberal.”

• Emanuel’s big message in conversation after conversation: “The American dream is unaffordable and inaccessible. And that is totally unacceptable. … The forgotten middle class has to be our North Star.”

Axios’ Tal Axelrod contributed reporting.

• facebook (opens in new window)
• twitter (opens in new window)
• linkedin (opens in new window)
• email (opens in new window)

Wyoming has become the first state in the United States to require proof of citizenship for residents to register to vote. This measure, which will take effect in July 2025, will apply to all elections: local, state, and federal.

Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon allowed the voter residency bill to become law without his signature.

This afternoon, WY Governor Mark Gordon allowed HB 156 to become law without his signature, establishing requirements for Proof of 1 Residency and U.S. Citizenship in order to vote!

This is a major win for Election Integrity in Wyoming! pic.twitter.com/0GhziPJ1l7— American Action Fund (@AmericanActFund) March 21, 2025

While Gordon did not veto the legislation, his decision to refrain from signing it reflects his neutral stance on a law focused on verifying voter eligibility.

ADVERTISEMENT

«I am a strong supporter of the idea that citizens should be residents of Wyoming for a considerable period of time before being allowed to participate in our elections (it took me eighteen years),» Gordon said.

Additionally, he expressed concern over the vagueness of some terms in the law, such as the possibility of rejecting a vote for «any indication» of an issue with registration documentation. This could be difficult for county clerks to apply as there is no clear standard.

Gordon also anticipated that the law would likely lead to litigation. However, he acknowledged that the legislation grants the Secretary of State the authority to regulate voter identification, something he had unsuccessfully attempted last year.

This legislation is another step toward improving election integrity in the state, aligning with Republican policies aimed at ensuring voters are properly established in Wyoming.

Joana Campos, Gateway Pundit

Job applications from federal workers, especially those who are employed at agencies targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have gone up significantly this year, according to a report released on Tuesday by the Indeed jobs site.

Applications from those working at such agencies as USAID, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the USDA — all of which have been heavily targeted by DOGE for dismissals — have surged more than 75% above the 2022 levels by February 2025.

The surge in applications from this generally well-educated and highly specialized segment of the workforce comes as job openings are muted nationwide, particularly for the types of knowledge worker positions that displaced federal employees are likely looking for in the market.

This influx of especially skilled and specialized workers is unfolding across the United States, raising disturbing questions about if and how local labor markets can absorb such a surge of job seekers.

With the exact number of federal workers who will end up unemployed unclear, due to  some firings being tied up in court battles, it is still too early to determine what will be the broader impact on the national economy, according to Axios.

But Cory Stahle, an economist at Indeed, did point out that there are fewer opportunities right now that match the education and experience of these workers, which is “creating a friction in the labor market.” He added that there is real concern that the job market will not be able to absorb them all.

According to Pew, 31.5% of federal workers have at least a Bachelor’s degree, but almost 70% of the those in agencies targeted by DOGE and active on Indeed in February had at least that level of education.

Newsmax

On March 7, I argued in The Federalist that President Donald Trump should ignore a Supreme Court that would allow lower courts to refuse to uphold the Constitution and instead encroach on executive authority. Recent new encroachments prove my point. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has blocked the EPA from terminating $14 billion in climate grants awarded by the Biden administration, funds now sitting in a Citibank account. Judge Ana Reyes has ordered the military not to enforce Trump’s ban on trans-identifying service members.

These rulings are not mere disagreements, as Chief Justice John Roberts claimed last week when he rejected Trump’s call to impeach a judge who ruled against his deportation policy. They are direct assaults on the president’s constitutional power. I urged Trump to defy such orders then, and I stand by that now — Trump must confront the courts!

Since Jan. 20, a pattern of politically motivated judicial overreach has emerged. Chutkan’s decision overrides Trump’s executive authority to redirect the EPA, preserving Biden-era spending. Reyes’ ruling interferes with his control over military policy, a domain the Constitution assigns to the president and the president alone. In February, a Rhode Island judge forced the release of frozen federal funds, and multiple courts blocked Trump’s efforts to end funding for so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors.

These single district judges, often appointed by past Democrat administrations, issue nationwide injunctions that halt the president’s agenda. This is not judicial review — it is judicial governance. Roberts’ call for “normal appellate review” ignores the reality: Unelected judges are hijacking executive policies in the name of judicial review, and while appeals wind through the courts, executive action stalls, sometimes for years.

Justice Samuel Alito has warned of this for years. In his Obergefell dissent, he criticized courts for imposing policy under the guise of constitutional rulings. In Trump v. United States, he argued with the majority that judicial overreach undermines the president’s ability to fulfill his duties. These latest district court orders bear out his concerns.

They do not check executive power — they seize it, substituting judicial preference for the president’s constitutional role. Article II gives Trump, not judges, authority over federal agencies and the military. When a single judge blocks presidential policy, that judge has assumed far more power than the Constitution provides under the separation of powers.

History offers precedent. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus despite court objections, asserting executive necessity over judicial interference. Trump faces a similar moment. He should disregard Chutkan’s and Reyes’ orders, allowing the EPA to end those grants and the military to enforce his ban.

Roberts’ statement — that impeachment is not the answer to “disagreement” — misses the issue. These are not disagreements over law; they are attacks on Trump’s Article II powers. If Congress will not curb this overreach through impeachment — and with a divided Senate it likely cannot — the president must step in.

Trump was elected to dismantle the bureaucracy and strengthen the military, not to be handcuffed by judges. Each injunction undermines that mandate, replacing the will of voters with the dictates of unelected judges. Waiting for the Supreme Court to resolve these cases risks years of paralysis — too long when you’re choking on tens of trillions of dollars in debt and a massive bureaucracy, and the future of the executive branch is at stake.

Trump should defy these rulings now and force a constitutional confrontation. This is not about defying law — it is about defending the Constitution and the authority it grants the president no matter who is president. The American people expect Trump to do the job he promised. In an unprecedented fashion, he is doing just that.

The courts have an important constitutional role to fulfill. But it’s not to play president.

Curtis Hill is the former attorney general of Indiana.

The Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) issued a new update in its ongoing audit of the Social Security Administration (SSA). This program has been a significant focus for the department, and DOGE has issued weekly updates on its findings on X. In a post about the Social Security matter made on March 12, 2025, DOGE announced a significant change to how the SSA will deal with customer service complaints meant to cut down on fraud.

The investigation began when Elon Musk reacted to the massive number of Social Security numbers over 120 years old. He posted, “According to the Social Security database, these are the numbers of people in each age bucket with the death field set to FALSE! Maybe Twilight is real and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security 🤣🤣.”

DOGE replied to this post, explaining the significance of these ‘vampires.’ The department posted, “In 2020-2021, @SBAgov issued 3,095 loans, including PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) and EIDL (Economic Injury Disaster Loan), for $333M to borrowers over 115 years old who were still marked as alive in the Social Security database. In one case, a 157 years old individual received $36k in loans.”

Nearly a month after Musk’s initial post, DOGE announced that on March 23, 2024, they had made a significant move to close this loophole. They said, “As of Friday, @SBAgov now: – Requires date of birth collection for all direct loan applications – Pauses the direct loan process for those under 18 and above 120 years old. Basic sanity checks like these are initial steps toward minimizing fraud in government payment programs.”

While most of the response to these moves was positive, some woke activists were enraged. On February 17, 2025, Adam Schiff took to X to make his ill-intentioned post. He said, “Elon Musk is trying to access your personal bank and tax data. The world’s richest man should not and cannot be able to snoop around your personal finances. Period. End of story.”

Other comments under the post were much more positive. Many were baffled that this was a new policy. A comment read, “Wait… so until now, the SBA didn’t check if someone was under 18 or over 120 before giving out loans? No wonder fraud ran wild. The real question is, how much taxpayer money vanished before they added these basic sanity checks? 💸🤦‍♂️”

Others explained why DOGE is so important. One reply read, “This is exactly why accountability matters. The fact that SBA handed out $333M to applicants over 115—including a 157-year-old ghost—proves how broken the system was. Basic age verification should’ve been standard from day one, not an afterthought.”

A comment hoped for accountability for the people involved in these massive scams. It read, “Hopefully @FBIDirectorKash @PamBondi can track down the fraud recipients and hold all accountable along with the department supervisors who approved and signed off on the fraud. I know so many small businesses that failed because they couldn’t get approved for a small business loan or PPP loans under COVID.

Adam Stanton, American Review

Republican lawmakers are promoting a bill that would limit the power of district judges to impose nationwide injunctions.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., earlier this month introduced the “No Rogue Rulings Act“ (NORRA), which would curtail judges’ ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., confirmed on social platform X that the legislation would come to the House floor next week.

No United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court,” the bill states.

Issa’s legislation came shortly before President Donald Trump demanded the removal of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!” Trump said on Truth Social.

Issa’s bill has gained traction among several prominent Republicans, The Los Angeles Times reported.

“The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president’s ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,” Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing, the Times reported.

“This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.”

Trump isn’t the only administration official to call out judges.

Elon Musk, who’s heading the Department of Government Efficiency, previously called for a “wave of judicial impeachments” against judges who blocked actions by DOGE to streamline the federal government.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, last week introduced a resolution calling for Boasberg’s impeachment, claiming the judge abused his powers. Several other Republicans began preparing other impeachment articles against other judges, The Hill reported.

However, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday shrugged off calls by Trump and other lawmakers to impeach federal judges, Politico reported.

“Look, everything is on the table: Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem,” Johnson told reporters.

The speaker and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, are considering other legislative tools to address the federal judiciary, including hearings in the Judiciary Committee to “highlight the abuses.”

Charlie McCarthy ✉

Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said on Fox News Monday that it’s time to curb the powers of activist district courts.

President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to accelerate the deportation of Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang members. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, however, issued an injunction and required the Trump administration to bring back two planes of gang members on their way to El Salvador. During an appearance on “The Ingraham Angle,” Hawley said he was frustrated with the misuse of judicial authority through so-called nationwide injunctions.

“The key thing to do here, Laura, is to end the ability of these district courts to abuse their judicial authority by issuing these so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley told host Laura Ingraham. “I don’t think they have that authority, properly speaking, under the Constitution, Article III. What they’re doing is they’re purporting these judges, they’re purporting to go out, and to bind parties and individuals who aren’t before them [in their districts].”

Hawley said such actions exceed their constitutional authority.

We only have one Supreme Court that can bind the whole nation. District courts aren’t supposed to be able to do it, and yet President Trump has been subject already to 15 separate, so-called nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said. “In his first term, Laura, there were 64. We have never seen anything like this in American history. It’s incredibly abusive, and Congress ought to end it, and we can end it by just saying, ‘No nationwide injunctions by these district courts.’”

Hawley said this was unprecedented and highly abusive, urging Congress to intervene.

“The Constitution expressly gives to Congress the ability to create the lower courts. The lower courts are not in the Constitution, per se. Congress has the ability to create them, to govern them. I don’t believe that under Article III, these district courts even have the power to issue these nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said. “I think it’s abusive. And that’s why we ought to just say they can’t do it. Congress has the authority to govern them. We should say they do not have the power to issue injunctions nationwide, period. End of story, no more abuse.”

The continuous misuse of judicial powers by district courts, Hawley said, calls for a decisive response from Congress, not just to protect the presidency but to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

“I noticed that the Democrats, just a few months ago, before the election of Donald Trump, were complaining bitterly about Republican-appointed judges issuing nationwide injunctions. So I had to say this. Let’s have a vote,” Hawley said. “They said they wanted to eliminate nationwide injunctions seven months ago. OK. Let’s do it. Let’s now give them the chance to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and let’s vote on it. I think that this ought to be a no-brainer. Let’s stop the abuse. Here’s the thing. We’ve seen this before. You put judges into office. You think they’re going to be good. They drift left. Let’s take away the power of these judges to issue injunctions like this.”

Upon assuming office on Jan. 20, President Trump signed several executive orders aimed at curbing illegal immigration, designating Mexican drug cartels, TdA, and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations. Allegations have surfaced of TdA members engaging in the seizure of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colo., in addition to committing kidnapping and murder.

In response to the Trump administration’s policies, Democratic states and unions have consistently filed lawsuits, leading various judges to grant nationwide injunctions that stall these initiatives. In retaliation, Republican lawmakers are actively considering legislation that would prevent district judges from issuing nationwide blocks on certain executive orders.

DAILY CALLER, Mariane Angela

As President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk work to overhaul the federal government, they’re removing thousands of workers with insider knowledge and connections who now need a job.

For Russia, China and other adversaries, the upheaval in Washington as Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency restructures government agencies presents an unprecedented opportunity to recruit informants, national security and intelligence experts say.

Former federal workers with knowledge of or access to sensitive information could become targets. When large numbers leave their positions simultaneously, it creates both potential vulnerabilities and challenges for U.S. counterespionage efforts.

“This information is highly valuable, and it shouldn’t be surprising that Russia and China and other organizations — criminal syndicates for instance — would be aggressively recruiting government employees,” said Theresa Payton, a former White House chief information officer under President George W. Bush, who now runs her own cybersecurity firm.

Each year an average of more than 100,000 federal workers leave their jobs. Some retire; others move to the private sector. This year, in three months, the number is already many times higher.

It’s not just intelligence officers who present potential security risks. Many departments and agencies oversee vast amounts of data that include personal information on Americans as well as sensitive information about national security and government operations. Exiting employees could also give away helpful security secrets that would allow someone to penetrate government databases or physical offices.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative holds information on trade negotiations that could be valuable to adversaries. Federal records contain data on intelligence operations and agents, while Pentagon databases store sensitive information on U.S. military capabilities. The Department of Energy manages many of the nation’s key nuclear assets.

“This happens even in good times — someone in the intelligence community who for personal financial or other reasons walks into an embassy to sell America out — but DOGE is taking it to a whole new level,” said John Schindler, a former counterintelligence official.

“Someone is going to go rogue,” he said. “It’s just a question of how bad it will be.”

Only a tiny fraction of the many millions of Americans who have worked for the federal government have ever been accused of espionage. The vast majority are dedicated professionals committed to their work, Payton 

Background checks, employee training and exit interviews are all designed to prevent informants or moles — and to remind departing federal employees of their duty to preserve national secrets even after leaving federal service.

It takes only one or two misguided or disgruntled workers to cause a national security crisis. Former FBI agent Robert Hanssen and former CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who both spied for Russia, show just how damaging a single informant can be.

Hanssen disclosed information about American intelligence-gathering, including details that authorities say contributed to the exposure of U.S. informants in Russia, some of whom were later executed.

The odds that one former employee reaches out to a foreign power go up as many federal employees find themselves without a job, experts said. What’s not in doubt is that foreign adversaries are looking for any former employees they can flip. They’re searching for that one informant who could deliver a big advantage for their nation.

“It’s a numbers game,” said Schindler.

Frank Montoya Jr., a retired senior FBI official and former top U.S. government counterintelligence executive, said he was less concerned about well-trained intelligence community employees betraying their oaths and selling out to American adversaries. But he noted the many workers in other realms of government who could be targeted by Russia or China,

“When it comes to the theft of intellectual property, when it comes to the theft of sensitive technology, when it comes to access to power grids or to financial systems, an IRS guy or a Social Service guy who’s really upset about what DOGE is doing, they actually are the bigger risk,” Montoya said.

Once military and intelligence officials were the primary targets of foreign spies looking to turn an informant. But now, thanks to the massive amount of information held at many agencies, and the competitive edge it could give China or Russia, that’s no longer the case.

“We have seen over the last generation, the last 20–25 years, the Chinese and the Russians increasingly have been targeting non-national defense and non-classified information, because it helps them modernize their military, it helps them modernize their infrastructure,” Montoya said.

The internet has made it far easier for foreign nations to identify and recruit potential informants.

Once, Soviet intelligence officers had to wait for an embittered agent to make contact, or go through the time-consuming process of identifying which recently separated federal employees could be pliable. Now, all you need is a LinkedIn subscription and you can quickly find former federal officials in search of work.

“You go on LinkedIn, you see someone who was ‘formerly at Department of Defense now looking for work’ and it’s like, ‘Bingo,’” Schindler said.

A foreign spy service or scammer looking to exploit a recently laid-off federal worker could bring in potential recruits by posting a fake job ad online.

One particularly novel concern involves the fear that a foreign agent could set up a fake job interview and hire former federal officials as “consultants” to a fake company. The former federal workers would be paid for their expertise without even knowing they were supplying information to an enemy. Russia has paid unwitting Americans to do its business before.

Payton’s advice for former federal employees looking for work? It’s the same as her guidance for federal counterespionage officials, she said: “Be on high alert.”

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to questions about the risks that a former federal worker or contractor could sell out the country. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard recently announced plans to investigate leaks within the intelligence community, though her announcement was focused not on counterespionage concerns but on employees who pass information to the press or the public.

In a statement, the office said it would investigate any claims that a member of the intelligence community was improperly releasing information.

“There are many patriots in the IC that have reached out to DNI Gabbard and her team directly, explaining that they have raised concerns on these issues in the past but they have been ignored,” the office said. “That will no longer be the case.”

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without