Federal and state health officials are investigating 13 cases in 10 states of infant botulism linked to baby formula that was being recalled, authorities said Saturday.
ByHeart Inc. agreed to begin recalling two lots of the company’s Whole Nutrition Infant Formula, the Food and Drug Administration said in a statement.
All 13 infants were hospitalized after consuming formula from two lots: 206VABP/251261P2 and 206VABP/251131P2.
The cases occurred in Arizona, California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas and Washington.
No deaths were reported. The FDA said it was investigating how the contamination happened and whether it affected any other products.
Available online and through major retailers, the product accounted for an estimated 1% of national formula sales, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
People who bought the recalled formula should record the lot number if possible before throwing it out or returning it to where it was purchased, the CDC said in a statement.
They should use a dishwasher or hot, soapy water to clean items and surfaces that touched the formula. And they should seek medical care right away if an infant has consumed recalled formula and then had poor feeding, loss of head control, difficulty swallowing or decreased facial expression.
Infant botulism is caused by a bacterium that produces toxins in the large intestine.
Symptoms can take weeks to develop, so parents should keep vigilant, the CDC said.
A ByHeart spokesperson did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment Saturday.
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
If you have upcoming travel plans anytime soon, you might notice fewer options on the airport’s departure board.
Airlines are scaling back flights at dozens of major U.S. airports to ease the pressure on air traffic controllers, who have been working unpaid and under intense strain during the ongoing government shutdown.
The Federal Aviation Administration says the decision is necessary to keep travelers safe. Many controllers have been putting in long hours and mandatory overtime while lawmakers are at a standstill over how to reopen the government.
Major hubs like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are among those affected, and the ripple effects could mean more cancellations, longer delays and fuller flights for travelers across the country. The cutbacks will impact hundreds if not thousands of flights daily.
Here’s what to know about the FAA’s order — and what you can do if your plans are disrupted:
Is my airport on the list?
There’s a good chance it is. The list spans more than two dozen states.
It includes the country’s busiest airport — Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia — and the main airports in Boston, Denver, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Miami, San Francisco and Salt Lake City.
Multiple airports will be impacted in some metropolitan hubs, including New York, Houston, Chicago and Washington.
How long will this go on?
It’s hard to say. Even if the shutdown ends soon, the FAA has said it would not lift the flight restrictions until staffing at airport towers and regional air traffic centers makes it safe to do so.
“It’s going to take time to work through this,” said Michael Johnson, president of Ensemble Travel, an association of travel agencies in the U.S. and Canada.
That’s why, he said, it’s important to plan ahead — whether you’ve already booked flights or you’re just starting to make holiday travel plans.
Know before you go
Airlines say they will let their customers know if their flight is called off.
Still, it doesn’t hurt to check your airline’s app or a flight-tracking site for updates before you leave for the airport. It’s better to be stuck at home or in a hotel than stranded in a terminal.
My flight was canceled. Now what?
“Take a deep breath. Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “There are options available. They may not be ideal, and they may be inconvenient, but you have options.”
If you’re already at the airport, it’s time to get in line to speak to a customer service representative. While you’re waiting, you can call or go online to connect to the airline’s reservations staff. It can also help to reach out on the social platform X because airlines might respond quickly there.
Now might also be the time to consider if it makes sense to travel by train, car or bus instead.
Kyle Potter, executive editor of Thrifty Traveler, said the shutdown is different from when a single airline is having problems and travelers can just pick another carrier.
“The longer the shutdown drags on, it’s unlikely that there will be one airline running on time if the rest of the them are failing,” Potter said.
Can I get a refund or compensation?
The airlines will be required to issue full refunds, according to the FAA. However, they aren’t required to cover extra costs like meals or hotel stays — unless the delay or cancellation was within their control, according to the Department of Transportation.
You can also check the DOT website to see what your airline promises for refunds or other costs if your flight is disrupted.
Should I just stay home for the holidays?
Not necessarily. You might just need a little more planning and flexibility than usual.
A travel adviser can help take some stress off your plate, and travel insurance may give you an extra safety net.
Johnson also warned that flights could sell out fast once the shutdown ends.
“There will be a flurry of booking activity,” he said. “So try to get ahead of it and make sure that you’re protected.”
Booking an early flight can also help, says Tyler Hosford, security director at risk mitigation company International SOS. If it gets canceled, you still “have the whole day” to sort things out.
Other tips
Travel light. Limiting baggage to a carry-on means one less airport line to deal with, and if your plans change unexpectedly, you’ll already have everything with you.
Give yourself extra time at the airport, especially if you’re an anxious flyer or traveling with young children or anyone who needs extra help getting around.
And be nice. Airline agents are likely helping other frustrated travelers, too, and yelling won’t make them more willing to help. Remember, the cancellations aren’t their fault.
“An extra ounce of kindness to yourself and to others at this time of year, with all of the disruptions, will go a long way,” Johnson said.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Republicans filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to block a new U.S. House map that California voters decisively approved at the ballot.
Proposition 50, backed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is designed to help Democrats flip as many as five congressional House seats in the midterm elections next year. The lawsuit claims the map-makers improperly used race as a factor to favor Hispanic voters “without cause or evidence to justify it,” and asks the court to block the new boundaries ahead of the 2026 elections. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is funded by the National Republican Congressional Committee.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
The Supreme Court has ruled that “states may not, without a compelling reason backed by evidence that was in fact considered, separate citizens into different voting districts on the basis of race,” the lawsuit says.
There have been two analyses showing there were no voting rights problems that warranted the redrawing of the map, it adds.
The complaint was filed by The Dhillon Law Group, the California-based firm started by Harmeet Dhillon, who is now an assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice.
The lawsuit also alleges that state lawmakers and a mapmaking consultant admitted in public statements that they intentionally redrew some districts to have a Latino majority. In one of the press releases from state Democrats, lawmakers said that the new map “retains and expands Voting Rights Act districts that empower Latino voters” while making no changes to Black majority districts in the Oakland and Los Angeles areas, the lawsuit says.
“The map is designed to favor one race of California voters over others,” Mike Columbo, whose plaintiffs include a state Republican lawmaker and 18 other voters, said at a news conference Wednesday. “This violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, and the right under the 15th Amendment.”
Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, speaks to reporters during a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 50, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, speaks to reporters during a press conference announcing a federal lawsuit challenging Proposition 50, Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez)
The mapmaking consultant Paul Mitchell declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.
Newsom’s office said on a social media post that the state hasn’t reviewed the lawsuit but is confident the challenge will fail.
“Good luck, losers,” the post reads.
Democrats said the measure is their best chance to blunt Texas Republicans’ move to redraw their own maps to pick up five GOP seats at Trump’s urging.
It’s unclear whether a three-judge panel convened to hear such cases would grant a temporary restraining order before Dec. 19, the date when candidates can start collecting voter signatures to qualify for the ballot. It’s essentially the first step in officially running in the 2026 midterm elections. Columbo said he’s hoping to get a decision in the upcoming weeks and predicted the case to reach the Supreme Court.
Republicans have filed multiple lawsuits in California to block Democrats’ plan with little success so far.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. airlines and travelers slogged through a second day of flight cuts across the country on Saturday as the government shutdown was expected to drive more cancellations in the days to come.
The Federal Aviation Administration instructed airlines to cut 4% of flights on Saturday at 40 major airports because of the shutdown. The cuts will rise to 6% on Tuesday and then to 10% by November 14.
The cuts, which began at 6 a.m. ET (1100 GMT) on Friday, include about 700 flights from the four largest carriers – American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and United Airlines.
Airlines will cut fewer flights on Saturday than Friday because of lower overall volume. United will cut 168 flights, down from 184 Friday, while Southwest will cancel just under 100 flights, down from 120.
During the record 39-day government shutdown, 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 security screeners have been forced to work without pay, leading to increased absenteeism. Many air traffic controllers were notified on Thursday that they would receive no compensation for a second pay period next week.
The Trump administration has ramped up pressure on Congressional Democrats to agree to a Republican plan to fund the federal government, which would allow it to reopen.
Raising the specter of dramatic air-travel disruptions is one such effort. Democrats contend Republicans are to blame for the shutdown because they refuse to negotiate over extending health insurance subsidies.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said it was possible that he could require 20% cuts in air traffic if things get worse and more controllers do not show up for work.
“I assess the data,” Duffy said. “We’re going to make decisions based on what we see in the airspace.”
Separate from the cancellations, absences of air traffic controllers on Friday forced the FAA to delay hundreds of flights at 10 airports including Atlanta, San Francisco, Houston, Phoenix, Washington, D.C., and Newark. More than 5,600 flights were delayed Friday.
Earlier this week, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said 20% to 40% of controllers were not showing up for work on any given day.
(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Thomas Derpinghaus)
Angel Goodwin used to work remotely, processing applications for Medicaid and for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. People would sometimes yell at her over the phone—“I’ve been called every name but a child of God,” she said—but it was worse when they cried. “Especially the elderly. They would be approved for, like, thirty dollars a month, and they’re getting Social Security for, like, nine hundred and forty-three dollars. They’d be, like, ‘Honey, I can’t—I don’t know what I’m going to do, I don’t have anybody.’ ” Goodwin, a single mother with an eleven-year-old son, also received SNAP benefits. “Little do they know I’m in the same boat,” she said.
Earlier this year, Goodwin began to feel pain shooting down from her shoulder, most likely a consequence of repetitive computer work. At the beginning of October, she took a short-term disability leave. Then, toward the end of the month, she logged in to her SNAP account and saw an alarming notification: November benefits weren’t coming. She and her son had already scaled back to subsist on the short-term disability benefits, which were “not very much at all,” she said. Now they’d have to make do with less, even as food prices seemed to get higher every week. “Personally, my faith will always outweigh my fear,” she said. “But it’s at a scary point now.”
Amid the prolonged government shutdown, which is now the longest in American history, SNAP benefits have become a political football. In previous shutdowns, emergency funds have been used to cover the program, which serves around forty-two million Americans. But the Trump Administration has declined to do so. A number of states have stepped in to cover the gap, or to provide additional money to food banks; Texas, which has a multibillion-dollar rainy-day fund, has done neither. (H-E-B, the grocery-store chain which arguably serves as a second layer of social services in the state, has donated six million dollars to food banks.) At the end of October, a federal judge ordered the Administration to continue SNAP payments. But, several days later, there was nothing in Goodwin’s SNAP account; the Administration has said that November payments will be only partial, and it’s unclear when the funds will arrive.
Goodwin, who grew up in South Carolina, had what she describes as “a pretty rough childhood.” In her early twenties, she cut ties with her family, and found herself with a young child and no real support system. She slept on friends’ couches and then, when she felt her welcome wearing out, in her car. Being homeless was tolerable—“You meet cool people on the streets, people with wisdom,” she said—but she wanted her son to have a more stable life. She got a job working the night shift at a gas station, and earned enough money to move into a hotel where she paid by the week. It took two years to save up enough to cover a deposit to rent a small apartment. “I didn’t have any furniture—no couch or anything like that, just a couple of pans that I’d had in the hotel,” she said. “We pretty much slept on the floor. We literally started from zero.” When she felt overwhelmed, she prayed to God for guidance. She began having dreams about Texas, the state’s outline popping up in unexpected places. In her journal, she asked God if this was really what he wanted her to do— she’d never left South Carolina before. Yes was the answer she received, so she began researching apartments online. By now, she was working remotely as a customer-service representative for a bank, but she’d need more money to fund the move. On YouTube, she learned about retail arbitrage—essentially, buying discounted items in bulk and then reselling them on Amazon at a markup. The scheme eventually stopped working, but by then she’d saved up enough money to cover the deposit on an apartment in Houston. Two years ago, she moved into a renovated two-bedroom with pale-gray walls and a bright, narrow kitchen. Her days were taken up with work and with homeschooling her son.
On the morning of November 3rd, day three of no SNAP, Goodwin put her son in the car and drove twenty-five minutes to the West Houston Assistance Ministries, a nonprofit social-services organization, which was hosting a special food-distribution event for SNAP recipients. When she arrived, at around 9 A.M., a line of cars snaked down the block, and volunteers in neon vests directed traffic. Nationwide, fourteen per cent of households are considered food-insecure. In Harris County, which comprises Houston, the figure is close to forty per cent. WHAM had seen a notable uptick in need since the shutdown began, on October 1st. “We’ve been focussed on food, but we’ve also seen an increase in evictions—it’s a crisis on top of a crisis,” Neysa Gavion, a social worker and a senior case manager at WHAM, told me. “And the interesting thing is, while we’ve always had people at the poverty line or below, this is the middle class.” Recently, the organization had provided assistance to an I.R.S. employee and single mother who was days from being evicted. “People that weren’t impacted before are being impacted now,” Gavion said. A retired woman waiting in line told me that she had contemplated growing her own food. “I got a little balcony. Maybe I can grow some beans?” she said.
Federal immigration officials are out of control, and America’s third branch of government needs to rein in the gross abuse of power on display in Colorado and across the nation.
Gregory Davies, a high-level federal official overseeing deportation arrests in Colorado, told a judge last month that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials did not have a warrant to arrest Fernando Jaramillo-Solano. But the agents arrested Jaramillo-Solano anyway after mistakenly pulling the Durango man over while he was on his way to drop off his 12-year-old and 15-year-old children at school. ICE officials detained all three, and they spent weeks in Durango before they were shipped to Dilley, Texas.
This is no simple mistake that is easily rectified.
ICE is causing real harm to contributing members of our community — teachers, nurses, mothers and fathers. And children are traumatized in the wake of these unjustified detainments.
President Donald Trump has upended the mission at ICE, a part of Homeland Security that was once dedicated to keeping Americans safe by deporting criminals. The president has said he plans to deport the more than 13 million people who live in the United States without legal immigration status, regardless of whether they have committed other crimes. But he has gone farther than that, and his agents are now detaining people who do have legal status. The intent is clear — push out immigrants even who are doing everything right.
Trump’s intent is that the people his agents wrongfully detain will either self-deport becasue conditions are so poor in the federal facilities or that if a judge orders their release, they will be silenced by their fear of reprisal, after all, they were detained once; who can protect these individuals from being detained again?
But Trump has calculated wrong. These brave victims of Trump’s mass deportation policy are speaking out, and have filed a lawsuit together to try and prevent ICE from terrorizing people.
Caroline Dias Goncalves, the 19-year-old college student who was detained in Grand Junction and held for almost three weeks in a detention center in Aurora because a sheriff’s deputy thought her perfect English was broken by an accent, testified that her detainment has dramatically affected her life.
She lost her driver’s license, moved back home and has reduced her course load at the University of Utah.
To Davies she might be “collateral” damage, but to us she is an injured kid trying to rebuild her life. Her arrest was completely unnecessary and likely illegal. If people like Davies don’t step up to make sure that ICE agents are doing their jobs – targeting and arresting criminals for deportation – then who will?
The answer of course is that the judicial branch must act as a strong check on the abuses of the executive branch.
Trump’s immigration enforcement squad cannot just smash and grab Coloradans because they suspect someone might be here illegally. And if these agents do, there must be legal consequences for them and their bosses, no matter how high the orders have come from.
Gonclaves was lucky. She was released.
Jaramillo-Solano and his children are still detained in Texas with no end to their nightmare in sight, despite the fact that a federal official just testified to a judge that their arrest was a mistake.
Marina Ortiz, who teaches fifth grade at the Global Village Academy, went for a routine check-in with ICE officials and she and her family never came home. The principal of the school says that Ortiz had work authorization to work legally in the United States. She said the school is working with immigration attorneys to see if Ortiz can be released from detention.
The sad truth is that unless the courts step up, these abuses will likely continue, and thousands of people like Ortiz and Jaramillo-Solano will never get home.
The cuts have been prompted by the government shutdown, which has left air traffic controllers working without pay. FAA officials say the goal is to maintain travel safety. Since the shutdown began Oct. 1, nearly 13,000 air traffic controllers have been working unpaid — or calling out sick.
With growing fatigue among controllers, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said he did not want to wait until staffing pressures compromised safety.
What will change?
As many as 1,800 flights a day across the country could be canceled.
The cuts could affect about 1,800 flights and 268,000 passengers in the U.S. a day, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium. About 72 flights a day could be cut at Los Angeles International Airport alone, affecting 12,371 passengers a day, Cirium estimated. An additional 105 flights could be canceled at the four other California airports targeted for reductions.
What airports will be impacted?
The FAA has not commented publicly. But here is a list from the Associated Press:
1. Anchorage International in Alaska
2. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International in Georgia
3. Boston Logan International in Massachusetts
4. Baltimore/Washington International in Maryland
5. Charlotte Douglas International in North Carolina
6. Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International in Ohio
7. Dallas Love Field in Texas
8. Ronald Reagan Washington National in Virginia
9. Denver International in Colorado
10. Dallas/Fort Worth International in Texas
11. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County in Michigan
12. Newark Liberty International in New Jersey
13. Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International in Florida
14. Honolulu International in Hawaii
15. Houston Hobby in Texas
16. Washington Dulles International in Virginia
17. George Bush Houston Intercontinental in Texas
18. Indianapolis International in Indiana
19. John F. Kennedy International in New York
20. Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas
21. Los Angeles International in California
22. LaGuardia Airport in New York
23. Orlando International in Florida
24. Chicago Midway International in Illinois
25. Memphis International in Tennessee
26. Miami International in Florida
27. Minneapolis/St Paul International in Minnesota
28. Oakland International in California
29. Ontario International in California
30. Chicago O`Hare International in Illinois
31. Portland International in Oregon
32. Philadelphia International in Pennsylvania
33. Phoenix Sky Harbor International in Arizona
34. San Diego International in California
35. Louisville International in Kentucky
36. Seattle/Tacoma International in Washington
37. San Francisco International in California
38. Salt Lake City International in Utah
39. Teterboro in New Jersey
40. Tampa International in Florida
When will the reductions begin to show?
A shortage of air traffic controllers has caused delays for weeks, including at LAX and Burbank airport. But officials said the flight reductions will begin Friday and continue until they amount to a 10% cut.
Officials urged passengers to check with airlines for the status of their flights but warned flights could be canceled with little notice.
Officials said the decision to cut flights was motivated by data about what areas faced the greatest staffing pressures that could compromise safety.
“This is not based on what airline … has more flights out of what location,” Duffy said. “This is about where is the pressure, and how do we alleviate the pressure?”
What about international flights?
International flights are expected to be exempt from the cuts. But passengers making connecting flights before they head overseas could face issues as the cuts target several of the nation’s busiest hubs, including Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Orlando and Miami.
FRISCO, Texas (AP) — Police in a Dallas suburb say 24-year-old Dallas Cowboys defensive end Marshawn Kneeland was found dead of an apparent suicide after evading authorities in his vehicle and fleeing the scene of an accident on foot.
Frisco police said Thursday they are investigating the possible suicide. They said Kneeland didn’t stop for Texas Department of Public Safety troopers over a traffic violation in a chase that was joined by Frisco police on Wednesday night.
Authorities lost sight of the vehicle before locating it crashed minutes later. During the search after Kneeland fled the crash site on foot, officers said they received word that Kneeland might be suicidal. He was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound early Thursday morning, about three hours after the crash, police said without specifying where Kneeland’s body was found.
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org. Helplines outside the U.S. can be found at www.iasp.info/suicidalthoughts. ___
Kneeland was in his second season with the Cowboys. He was a 2024 second-round draft pick out of Western Michigan.
“I am shattered to confirm that my client and dearest friend Marshawn Kneeland passed away last night,” Kneeland’s agent, Jonathan Perzley, said in a statement that asked for privacy. “Marshawn poured his heart into every snap, every practice and every moment on the field. To lose someone with his talent, spirit and goodness is a pain I can hardly put into words.”
Kneeland’s rookie season was off to a promising start before he was sidelined for five games by a knee injury.
Kneeland had his first career sack in the season opener this year against Philadelphia. He played in seven games this season, missing two with an ankle injury.
“Marshawn was a beloved teammate and member of our organization,” the Cowboys said. “Our thoughts and prayers regarding Marshawn are with his girlfriend Catalina and his family.”
The Cowboys have frequently sought pass rushers and other defensive linemen in the first two rounds of the draft. Kneeland was drafted a year after defensive end Sam Williams was taken by Dallas in the second round. Williams blocked the punt that Kneeland recovered against the Cardinals.
Kneeland’s mother, Wendy Kneeland, died suddenly while he was preparing for the draft. He had his mother’s ashes in a necklace he wore after joining the Cowboys, according to The Dallas Morning News.
“We are deeply saddened by the tragic news of the passing of Cowboys’ Marshawn Kneeland,” the NFL said. “We have been in contact with the Cowboys and have offered support and counseling resources.”
Miami Dolphins receivers coach Robert Prince, who had the same position with the Cowboys when Kneeland was a rookie last year, had tears in his eyes as he met with reporters Thursday.
“We spent a lot of time (together) when he was injured and working out in the weight room,” Prince said. “We’d shoot the breeze. He was a Western Michigan kid and I coached with the Lions for a while so we had some Michigan-type stories. Good kid. I’m sorry to hear that about him.”
Kneeland had a career-high 57 tackles along with 4 1/2 sacks in nine games as a senior at Western Michigan.
“My heart is absolutely broken over the loss of Marshawn Kneeland,” Western Michigan coach Lance Taylor said. “His leadership, energy and smile were infectious, and he left a lasting impact on everyone in our program. Having coached him during my first season here, we developed a special bond that went far beyond football.”
Tributes poured in from around the NFL, including Tennessee Titans defensive tackle Jeffery Simmons, who raised the topic of suicide awareness with a reporter during training camp this year.
“It sucks seeing the news of our NFL brother!” Simmons wrote on X. “Even when someone is carrying the biggest smile, make sure to just check in on them. You just never know man. Don’t be afraid to ask for help, we all go through things that we sometimes hide!”
Two of Kneeland’s Dallas teammates, quarterback Dak Prescott and defensive lineman Solomon Thomas, had siblings who died by suicide and have foundations supporting suicide awareness and prevention. Thomas’ sister, Ella, was the same age as Kneeland.
My new article, “Immigration is not Invasion” is now available on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In recent years, state governments and the second Trump Administration have increasingly advanced the argument that illegal migration and cross-border drug-smuggling qualify as “invasion” under the Constitution, and the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA). If these arguments are accepted by courts, or if they rule the issue is committed to the unreviewable discretion of the executive, the consequences will be dire. Such an outcome would pose a grave threat to the civil liberties of both immigrants and US citizens. It would also enable state governments to initiate war without federal authorization. This article makes the first comprehensive case against claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as “invasion.” As James Madison explained in 1800, “Invasion is an operation of war.” Illegal migration and drug smuggling do not qualify.
Part I summarizes the history of the “invasion” debate and currently ongoing litigation over it. Part II explains why the broad interpretation of “invasion” is manifestly wrong under the text and original meaning of the Constitution. The concept does not include illegal migration or drug smuggling. This conclusion is supported by the constitutional text, extensive evidence from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification process, and references to “invasion” in the Federalist Papers.
In Part III, I consider the meaning of “invasion” in the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The text and public meaning indicate it is essentially the same as that in the Constitution. Under the Act, an invasion requires a military attack. This reality is not changed by the fact that many Americans die as a result of overdosing on illegal drugs, or by recent US military attacks on suspected drug smugglers in international waters.
Part IV outlines the dire implications of the broad view of invasion. State governments would have the power to wage war in response to undocumented migration and smuggling, even if such warfare were not authorized by Congress. This would be a major undermining of Congress’ power to declare war, and threatens to involve the United States in warfare at the behest of a single state government. Even worse, the broad view would also effectively give the federal government the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any time. These dangerous implications strengthen the originalist case against a broad definition of “invasion.” They also cut against the broad definition from the standpoint of various living constitution theories of interpretation.
Finally, Part V explains why courts should not defer to the president or to state governments on either the meaning of “invasion” or the factual issue of whether an “invasion” – properly defined – has actually occurred.
I feel a little silly to write so much about the meaning of just one word. But the meaning of this one has major implications for civil liberties and our constitutional system. Despite what SSRN says, the article is not actually 101 pages long. It’s about 65 pp. with an extensive appendix of references to “invasion” at the Constitutional Convention, state ratification conventions, and the Federalist Papers.
A federal judge in Texas has agreed to dismiss a criminal conspiracy charge against Boeing in connection with two 737 Max jetliner crashes that killed 346 people.
In a written decision issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor approved the federal government’s request to dismiss its case against Boeing as part of a deal that requires the aircraft maker to pay or invest an additional $1.1 billion in fines, compensation for the crash victims’ families, and internal safety and quality measures.
The ruling came after an emotional hearing in early September when relatives of some of the victims urged O’Connor to reject the deal and instead appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.
All passengers and crew members died when the planes went down off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019. Prosecutors had alleged that Boeing deceived government regulators about a flight-control system that was later implicated in the fatal flights.
The long-running case has taken many twists and turns since the Justice Department first charged the American aerospace company in January 2021 with defrauding the U.S. government, including a failed deal that would have required Boeing to plead guilty. That plea agreement fell through after O’Connor did not approve it.
Airlines began flying the Max in 2017. After the Ethiopia crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months while the company redesigned the flight-control software.
The Justice Department had said it believed the latest agreement served the public interest more effectively than taking the case to trial and risking a jury verdict that might spare the company further punishment. It also said the families of 110 crash victims either support resolving the case before it reaches trial or did not oppose the deal.
Meanwhile, more than a dozen relatives spoke at the Sept. 3 hearing, some of whom traveled to Texas from as far as Europe and Africa. They are among nearly 100 families who opposed the agreement.
Catherine Berthet, who traveled from France, had asked the judge to send the case to trial.
“Do not allow Boeing to buy its freedom,” she said. Her daughter, Camille Geoffroy, died when a 737 Max crashed shortly after takeoff from Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Bole International Airport.
The yearslong case centers around a software system that Boeing developed for the 737 Max, which began flying in 2017.
In both of the deadly crashes, that software pitched the nose of the plane down repeatedly based on faulty readings from a single sensor, and pilots flying for Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines were unable to regain control. After the Ethiopia crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months.
Investigators found that Boeing did not inform key Federal Aviation Administration personnel about changes it had made to the software before regulators set pilot training requirements for the Max and certified the airliner for flight.
Associated Press writer Jamie Stengle in Dallas contributed to this report.
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
In a written decision issued Thursday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor approved the federal government’s request to dismiss its case against Boeing as part of a deal that requires the aircraft maker to pay or invest an additional $1.1 billion in fines, compensation for the crash victims’ families, and internal safety and quality measures.
What You Need To Know
A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a criminal conspiracy charge against Boeing related to two 737 Max crashes that killed 346 people
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor approved the federal government’s request on Thursday
The deal requires Boeing to pay or invest an additional $1.1 billion in fines, compensation for victims’ families, and internal safety measures
The ruling follows a September hearing where victims’ relatives urged the judge to appoint a special prosecutor
The ruling came after an emotional hearing in early September when relatives of some of the victims urged O’Connor to reject the deal and instead appoint a special prosecutor to take over the case.
All passengers and crew members died when the planes went down off the coast of Indonesia and in Ethiopia less than five months apart in 2018 and 2019. Prosecutors had alleged that Boeing deceived government regulators about a flight-control system that was later implicated in the fatal flights.
The long-running case has taken many twists and turns since the Justice Department first charged the American aerospace company in January 2021 with defrauding the U.S. government, including a failed deal that would have required Boeing to plead guilty. That plea agreement fell through after O’Connor did not approve it.
Airlines began flying the Max in 2017. After the Ethiopia crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months while the company redesigned the flight-control software.
The Justice Department had said it believed the latest agreement served the public interest more effectively than taking the case to trial and risking a jury verdict that might spare the company further punishment. It also said the families of 110 crash victims either support resolving the case before it reaches trial or did not oppose the deal.
Meanwhile, more than a dozen relatives spoke at the Sept. 3 hearing, some of whom traveled to Texas from as far as Europe and Africa. They are among nearly 100 families who opposed the agreement.
Catherine Berthet, who traveled from France, had asked the judge to send the case to trial.
“Do not allow Boeing to buy its freedom,” she said. Her daughter, Camille Geoffroy, died when a 737 Max crashed shortly after takeoff from Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa Bole International Airport.
The yearslong case centers around a software system that Boeing developed for the 737 Max, which began flying in 2017.
In both of the deadly crashes, that software pitched the nose of the plane down repeatedly based on faulty readings from a single sensor, and pilots flying for Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines were unable to regain control. After the Ethiopia crash, the planes were grounded worldwide for 20 months.
Investigators found that Boeing did not inform key Federal Aviation Administration personnel about changes it had made to the software before regulators set pilot training requirements for the Max and certified the airliner for flight.
Several counties across Texas have been warned by the National Weather Service (NWS) to expect dense fog, which could reduce visibility to less than a quarter mile in some parts, until Thursday morning.
Why It Matters
This drop in visibility is likely to make driving conditions hazardous and could affect Thursday morning’s commute. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, low visibility caused by fog, results in over 38,700 vehicle crashes each year. The NWS has, therefore, urged drivers to slow down, use low beam headlights, and maintain a safe distance from the car in front.
What To Know
The dense fog, which is expected to reduce visibility to a quarter of a mile or less overnight Wednesday until Thursday morning, is forecast to affect:
North central, central, south central, southwest, west central, and northwest parts of Louisiana.
East and south-central Texas, especially counties to the east of the I-35 corridor across south-central Texas.
Southeast Texas, specifically Chambers, Northern Liberty, and Southern Liberty counties.
South Texas, particularly the following areas: Bee, Coastal Aransas, Coastal Calhoun, Coastal Kleberg, Coastal Nueces, Coastal Refugio, Coastal San Patricio, Duval, Goliad, Inland Calhoun, Inland Kleberg, Inland Nueces, Inland Refugio, Inland San Patricio, Jim Wells, Live Oak, McMullen, and Victoria counties.
The NWS has issued the below safety advice for those who need to drive in these dangerous conditions:
Slow down and allow extra time for journeys.
Make the vehicle visible to people ahead and behind by using low-beam headlights.
Use fog lights where possible.
Don’t use high-beam headlights, as they will make it harder to see what’s ahead.
Leave plenty of distance between the vehicle in front in case they stop suddenly.
Follow the road lines.
In extremely dense fog, drivers are advised to turn on their hazard lights, pull over into a safe place, and if that’s on the side of the road or hard shoulder—turn off all lights except the hazards, engage the hand brake, and wait until the fog lifts.
What People Are Saying
The chief meteorologist for KTRE-TV ABC 9, Brad Hlozek, said: “A Dense Fog Advisory is in effect for most of east Texas through 9 a.m. Thursday as patchy, dense fog will lead to reduced visibility overnight and on the morning commute into work and school. Allow extra time for your morning travels and use the low beam headlights.”
The Shreveport NWS issued the following warning on X: “A Dense Fog Advisory has been issued for portions of deep east Texas and central Louisiana from 3:00 am through 9:00 am Thursday morning. Visibility of one quarter mile or less in the advisory area.”
What Happens Next
The fog is expected to lift on Thursday morning, after 9 am (CST), but residents and travelers in affected areas are advised to be prepared, remain vigilant, and check local forecasts for weather and road condition updates.
The privacy changes web browsers will be required to make under a new California law could set the de facto standard for the entire country, changing how Americans control their data when using the internet, according to experts.
Assembly Bill 566, recently signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, requires companies that make web browsers to offer users an opt-out “signal” that automatically tells websites not to share or sell their personal information as they browse.
It will likely be easier for companies to roll out the service for the entire country, rather than for users only in California.
“It’s such a trivial implementation,” said Emory Roane, associate director of policy at Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, an organization that pushed for the legislation. “It’s really not that difficult technically.”
The legislation, a first of its kind in the country, was sponsored by the California Privacy Protection Agency, the state’s consumer privacy watchdog, as well as several consumer advocacy and privacy rights groups.
Under the law, browsers like Google’s Chrome and Microsoft’s Edge will have until the beginning of 2027 to create a way for consumers to select the signal. Combined with recent changes from other states, the new law could be a tipping point in how web traffic is treated in the United States.
“We expect it to have a national impact,” Roane said.
California already offers privacy protections under the California Consumer Privacy Act, including customers’ right to opt out from having their information sold.
But advocates for the new law point out this still puts the burden on the consumer to navigate to web pages and individually select web pages to opt out from. The new tool will effectively automate that process, giving consumers a single toggle to keep their data protected.
“I would argue if you have to go to every individual website and click the link saying you ‘don’t want your information sold or shared,’ that’s not really a meaningful privacy right,” said Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, another organization that pressed for AB 566.
Already, some browser makers have voluntarily offered similar settings under a framework called the Global Privacy Control. Mozilla’s Firefox, for example, includes a setting called “tell websites not to sell or share your data.” With that setting on, the browser communicates to sites that the visitor wants the site to respect the user’s preference.
But until now, browsers haven’t been required to offer a setting that uses the Global Privacy Control or another standard to communicate users’ preferences. “There are browser extensions but those aren’t very widely used,” said Nick Doty, senior technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Since it would likely be burdensome for companies to carve out a way to only allow the signal to be used by Californians, according to experts, the tool will likely be available across the country. How, exactly, that will look still remains to be seen. The legislation doesn’t require browser makers to use a specific standard.
Spokespeople for Google and Microsoft declined to comment on the companies’ plans.
There’s still a risk that some websites may try to detect which state a visitor is from, and only respect the signal if they find the visitor is from a state that mandates it.
This is legally risky, though, according to Roane, who points out that AB 566 applies to residents of California, regardless of whether they’re using the web from California.
“If I’m safe saying I’m a resident and you’re assuming I’m not and you’re flagrantly not respecting my privacy wishes, that is a violation of the law,” Roane said.
Pushback from Google and the industry
The law didn’t get across the finish line without friction. As CalMatters reported in September, despite not being publicly against the legislation, Google organized opposition to the bill through a group it backs financially.
AB 566 also wasn’t the first attempt at such legislation. Newsom vetoed a similar, but slightly more expansive, version of the bill in 2024.
But now that the door is open, some advocates say they are going to continue to push to further expand privacy preferences.
Roane notes that legislation could be drafted that requires connected smart devices to offer an opt-out preference, or for vehicles that gather data on drivers to respect opt-out preference requests.
“We are finally, finally starting to have real privacy rights,” Roane said, “but we’re far away from them being really easy to exercise across the country and across the border and even in states like California where we have these rights.”
This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, one of Tesla’s biggest investors, said Tuesday that it will vote against a proposed compensation package that could pay CEO Elon Musk as much as $1 trillion over a decade.
There will be more than a dozen company proposals up for a vote Thursday during Tesla’s annual meeting, but none have generated more division than Musk’s potentially massive pay package.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk consistent with our views on executive compensation,” said Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages the country’s Government Pension Fund Global. “We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics.”
The fund has a 1.16% stake, the sixth largest holding among institutional investors.
AP AUDIO: Big Tesla investor will vote against Musk’s massive pay package
A proposed compensation package is getting a lot of attention ahead of Tesla’s annual meeting. AP correspondent Mike Hempen reports.
Baron Capital Management, which holds about 0.4% of Tesla’s outstanding shares said Monday that it will vote in favor of the compensation package.
“Elon is the ultimate “key man” of key man risk. Without his relentless drive and uncompromising standards, there would be no Tesla,” wrote founder Ron Baron. “He has built one of the most important companies in the world. He’s redefining transportation, energy and humanoid robotics and creating lasting value for shareholders while doing it. His interests are completely aligned with investors.”
Musk is the company’s largest investor, holding 15.79% of all outstanding shares.
Tesla management has proposed a compensation arrangement that would hand Musk shares worth as much as 12% of the company in a dozen separate packages if the company meets ambitious performance targets, including massive increases in car production, share price and operating profit.
Progressive-backed candidates flipped three school board seats in a district near Houston, Texas, as Democrats flipped seats across the country Tuesday night.
Mike Doyle, chair of the Harris County Democrats, told Newsweek in a phone interview that the wins in a red-leaning, suburban area are a testament to “a lot of hard work” by candidates and their supporters.
Newsweek reached out to the Harris County GOP for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Tuesday’s elections were a key bellwether for the electorate’s mood ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when Democrats are hoping to stage a comeback following losses in the 2024 elections. The results fueled Democratic optimism after a year of uncertainty about the party’s future, with Democrats outperforming expectations in key races.
Those victories extended to suburban Texas. The Lone Star State has been viewed as a reliably conservative state. Democrats did make some gains in the first Trump administration, but it shifted back toward Republicans last November. Still, Democrats are hoping to make the state’s Senate race competitive next November.
Public education has remained a divisive issue in Texas as some state legislators have supported bills that would infuse religion into schools, including by requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms across the state.
What to Know
Three candidates who have identified as being more progressive flipped seats on the Cypress-Fairbanks ISD school board, reported local news outlet Houston Press. Lesley Guilmart, Cleveland Lane Jr. and Kendra Camarena all defeated Republican-aligned candidates in the race, the news outlet reported.
That is the third-largest school district in the state
Technically, the board is nonpartisan, but Guilmart, Lane and Camarena have all voted in Democratic primaries, while their opponents were viewed as more conservative. They have said they would keep their personal politics off of the school board due to its nonpartisan nature, the news outlet reported.
Conservatives previously held a 6-1 majority on the school board, but will now be in a 4-3 minority, reported Houston Public Media. They have implemented policies including book-banning practices and adding a Bible-focus elective course for students, according to the report.
The races became competitive as voters saw “Republican ideologues fully revealed themselves,” Doyle told Newsweek. The race, despite the nonpartisan nature of the board, had become partisan, he said.
“They were focused on banning books and running off good teachers and cutting school budgets, and pretty much ripping into the fabric of the school system out there,” he said.
Their defeat comes amid a broader debate about religion in schools, of which Texas has found itself the center after lawmakers passed a bill that required schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. In August, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, issued a statement directing schools to abide by the order.
“The woke radicals seeking to erase our nation’s history will be defeated. I will not back down from defending the virtues and values that built this country,” he said in a statement at the time.
What People Are Saying
School Board Trustee-elect Lesley Guilmart wrote in a Facebook post: “’Im so proud of us, and I am deeply grateful. We came together across lines of difference, from across the political spectrum to do right by our children. Every student and staff member deserves to thrive in our district, and Cleveland4CFISD, Kendra 4 CFISD, and I will fight for just that.”
Zeph Capo, president of Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT) wrote in a statement: “While there’s more work to do to make this board representative of the community and responsive to its needs, this victory turns the page on a dark chapter in this district’s history. The trustees defeated last night routinely pushed the school board into a hard right turn to the extremist fringe, and voters said enough.”
What Happens Next
Republicans will continue to grapple with losses during Tuesday night’s elections. Democrats performed well across the country, including in high-profile contests like the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races. Victories also extended into states like Georgia and Mississippi.
The closest thing resembling drama for the first big reveal of this season’s College Football Playoff rankings hinged on which undefeated team would receive top billing.
The Buckeyes took the top spot in the first set of 2025 rankings Tuesday night, followed by Indiana and Texas A&M.
In choosing the two Big Ten teams ahead of Texas A&M, the 12-person committee appeared to give less weight to A&M’s tougher schedule and its 41-40 win over tenth-ranked Notre Dame and more to the way the Buckeyes and Hoosiers have mowed down opponents this year, with only two games between the two of them decided by less than 10 points.
“I think statistically when we looked at A&M defensively, they’re just lower than both Ohio State and Indiana,” committee chair Mack Rhoades said. “We had to make a hard decision, and you’re trying to find separators, and that was a separator for us.”
Another team with no losses, BYU of the Big 12, was ranked seventh.
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 went to Southeastern Conference teams with one loss each — Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. All of the top six came from either the Big Ten or SEC, a dose of business as usual despite a season that has been anything but predictable.
This marked the first of six weekly rankings the committee will release this season, ending Dec. 7 when the final list will set the bracket for the second 12-team playoff in major college football history.
That tournament begins Dec. 19-20 with four games on the campus of seeds No. 5-8. The top four seeds play winners of those games over the New Year holiday and the title game is set for Jan. 19 at Hard Rock Stadium outside Miami.
Texas Tech was ranked eighth and Oregon came in at No. 9. Rounding out the top 12 were Notre Dame — the only team in the Top 25 not from a power conference — then Texas and Oklahoma.
But if the bracket were set today, the Longhorns and Sooners would miss out,- bumped by No. 14 Virginia of the ACC and Memphis of the American. That’s thanks to a rule that places the five best-ranked conference champions into the bracket even if they’re not in the top 12.
Memphis wasn’t among the committee’s top 25 but was still the highest ranked leader in a Group of Five conference.
There is, of course, plenty of time for teams to make their cases, with four more weeks of the regular season, then a slate of conference title games set for the first weekend in December.
“If we go back to last year, Arizona State wasn’t even in the rankings for our first two rankings,” Rhoades said of the Sun Devils, who won the Big 12 and made the field. “Again, to everybody out there, this is the first ranking and still a lot of ball left to be played.”
The final tally in the top 12: The SEC has six teams, the Big Ten three, the Big 12 two, and the ACC none, with one independent.
Among those still holding out hope are teams such as 16th-ranked Vanderbilt and 17th-ranked Georgia Tech, each of whom spent time in the AP top 10 this season thanks to upsets that turned college football upside down in September and October.
The first-round matchups based on CFP rankings
— No. 12 Memphis at No. 5 Georgia, winner vs. No. 4 Alabama. You can almost hear SEC commissioner Greg Sankey breaking his TV wondering how an unranked team is in here over one of his.
— No. 11 Virginia at No. 6 Ole Miss, winner vs. No. 3 Texas A&M. Virginia’s only Top 25 meeting this season was against Florida State, which does not resemble a Top 25 team now.
— No. 10 Notre Dame at No. 7 BYU, winner vs. No. 2 Indiana. The Fighting Irish have to hope some of the teams immediately below them — like Texas and Oklahoma — do not put up impressive wins since they close with Navy, Pitt, Syracuse and Stanford.
— No. 9 Oregon at No. 8 Texas Tech, winner vs. No. 1 Ohio State. A Booster Bowl pitting teams backed by billionaires Phil Knight (Ducks) and Cody Campbell (Red Raiders).
Tweaks in this year’s bracket
The biggest change in the setup of this year’s bracket was eliminating the first-round bye for the four best conference champions. It would mean that Virginia, instead of jumping from a No. 14 ranking to a No. 3 seed, would be seeded 11th with a road game against Mississippi.
Rhoades also spent time discussing Oregon, which is ranked sixth in the AP poll but ninth in the playoff rankings. The Ducks’ best win this year was a 20-point victory over Northwestern, while its double-overtime win at Penn State early in the season has become less impressive as last year’s semifinalist fell apart.
“When we looked at and evaluated Oregon, we really looked at the quality of the team and how they looked on film,” Rhoades said.
The skew in Texas mirrored national trends: in the wake of Republicans’ 2010 gains, Democrats could conceivably have won the national popular vote by five percentage points or more and not won a majority of House seats. But that advantage eroded, such that, by last year, “the party that won the most votes for the House was quite likely to win the most seats,” as Nate Cohn, the data maven at the Times, recently explained to my colleague Isaac Chotiner. There are a variety of reasons for this reversal. Several states created California-style independent processes that took map-drawing out of politicians’ hands, and some state courts overturned partisan maps. In others, Democrats aggressively countered Republican gerrymanders with their own.
Changing voting patterns also played a role, as did (at least at the margins) what political scientists call “dummymandering,” a term—named for the Massachusetts governor Elbridge Dummy (just kidding)—that describes when gerrymanderers inadvertently spread their party’s votes too thin, or fail to correctly predict voter behavior. Especially since Trump first won, in 2016, “our politics have been very volatile,” Michael Li, an attorney focussed on redistricting and voting rights at the Brennan Center, told me. When politicians gerrymander, “you’re placing a big bet that you know what the politics of the future look like, and if you’re wrong, it can really backfire.” By way of example, Li pointed me, again, to Texas, where state legislative maps drawn to maximize G.O.P. gains after 2010 proved less advantageous by 2018, when suburbs of Dallas, for instance, swung to the left, and demographic shifts made heavily white districts more diverse.
Last year, politics shifted again: Trump performed surprisingly well with Latino voters in Texas, according to exit polls, winning fifty-five per cent to Kamala Harris’s forty-four. Since then, his approval among Latinos nationally has receded, and, after Texas passed its new maps this year, some Democrats expressed optimism that Republicans in the state might prove to be dummies—that the projection of five new seats was based on a risky bet that Latino voters would stick with the Party at Trump-2024 levels. Mitchell, who drew California’s retaliatory maps, told me that his Texas counterparts may have made existing G.O.P. seats less safe. (Mitchell claims that his maps in California will offer Democrats pickup opportunities and shore up vulnerable incumbents.) According to the Texas Tribune, Republicans in Texas were reluctant to redraw the maps before Trump demanded that they do so.
The independent data journalist G. Elliott Morris, however, told me that the Texas redistricting does not look like a dummymander, and other observers agree. (A lawsuit challenging the new maps alleges that they were drawn to distribute Latino voters who have lower rates of turnout in a manner that amounts to disenfranchisement.) Morris told me that, nationally, the worst-case net outcome of the current redistricting war for Democrats would lead to “potentially a pretty big drop” in representation. But predicting the precise number of seats they might lose is tricky, given that redistricting efforts remain in flux in several states—in addition to the purely partisan tit-for-tat, Utah and Ohio have been in the throes of mid-decade redistricting for mandated legal reasons—and, dummymanders or not, voter behavior can indeed buck expectations, especially in this era. (At least one Republican operative has expressed concern that moderate voters could punish the Party for initiating the mid-decade redistricting, which smacks of foul play.) Cohn told Chotiner that Democrats may have to win the over-all House vote by two or three points to gain the most seats in 2026—not a fair requirement, but hardly an insurmountable one given Trump’s unpopularity. If they fail, they won’t be able to blame redistricting alone.
Well, they might be able to. Recently, the Supreme Court heard a case that could gut Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which currently prohibits racial discrimination in mapmaking and has been, as the law professor Atiba Ellis told NPR, “the most important check” on partisan gerrymanders in many G.O.P.-led states in the South. The weakening of Section 2 could swing as many as nineteen House seats in Republicans’ favor; even a lesser effect, per Cohn, would put Democrats severely on the back foot.
NEW YORK (AP) — Elon Musk turned off many potential buyers of his Tesla cars and sent sales plunging with his foray into politics. But the stock has soared anyway and now he wants the company to pay him more — a lot more.
Shareholders gathering Thursday for Tesla’s annual meeting in Austin, Texas, will decide in a proxy vote whether to grant Musk, the company’s CEO and already the richest person in the world, enough stock to potentially make him history’s first trillionaire.
Several pension funds have come out against the package, arguing that the board of directors is too beholden to Musk, his behavior too reckless lately and the riches offered too much.
Supporters say Musk is a genius who is the only person capable of ushering in a Tesla-dominated future in which hundreds of thousands of self-driving Tesla cars — many without steering wheels — will ferry people and humanoid Tesla robots will march around factories and homes, picking up boxes and watering plants. The pay is necessary to incentivize him, they say, and keep him focused.
Musk has threatened to walk away from the company if he doesn’t get what he wants and has blasted some of the package’s critics as “corporate terrorists.”
To get his Tesla shares, Musk has to secure approval from a majority of the company’s voting shareholders. Improving the odds, Musk gets to vote his own shares, worth 15% of the company.
Shareholders first heard about the pay package in September when the board of directors proposed it in a detailed filing to federal securities regulators. The document, running 200 pages, also contains other proposals up for a vote at the meeting, including whether to allow Tesla to invest in another Musk company, xAI, and who should serve on the board in the future.
How Musk can get $1 trillion
Musk won’t get necessarily get all of that money, or even a cent of it, if the package is approved. He first has to meet several operational and financial targets.
To get the full pay, for instance, he has to deliver to the car market 20 million Teslas over 10 years, more than double the number he has churned out over the past dozen years. He also has to massively increase the market value of the company and its operating profits and deliver one million robots, from zero today.
If he falls short of the biggest goals, though, the package could still hand him plenty of money.
Musk will get $50 billion in additional Tesla shares, for example, if he increases the company’s market value by 80%, something he did just this past year, as well as doubling vehicle sales and tripling operating earnings — or hitting any other two of a dozen operational targets.
Musk is already the richest man in the world with a net worth of $493 billion, according to Forbes magazine, and well ahead of some of the wealthiest of years past.
He’s worth more than two Cornelius Vanderbilts, the shipping and railroad magnate of the 19th Century whose inflation-adjusted wealth hit $200 billion or so at its peak. The steel giant, Andrew Carnegie, was once worth $300 billion, according to the Carnegie Corp., well below Musk’s wealth, too.
Musk is still trailing John D. Rockefeller, but he’s closing in fast. The railroad titan hit peak inflation-adjusted wealth of $630 billion in 1913, according to Guinness World Records.
What really drives Musk, or so he says
Musk says it’s not really about the money but about getting a higher Tesla stake — it will double to nearly 30% — so he can control the company. He says that’s a pressing concern given all the power Tesla may soon have, specifically something he referred to in a recent investor meeting as its future “robot army.”
That was a reference to Tesla’s Optimus division, which makes humanoid workers that will be so numerous that, as Musk put it recently, he wouldn’t want anyone else but himself to control them.
Many investors have come out in support of the package, including Baron Capital Management, whose founder called Musk indispensable to the company. “Without his relentless drive and uncompromising standards,” wrote founder Ron Baron, “there would be no Tesla.”
Critics include the biggest in the U.S. public pension fund, Calpers, and Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the world’s largest. They argue the pay is excessive, with the Norway fund expressing concern that the board that designed it, which includes Musk’s brother, is not independent enough. Two giant corporate watchdogs, Institutional Shareholder Service and Glass Lewis, said they are voting against it, too.
Even the Vatican has weighed in, decrying the wealth gap in the world and blasting the trillion dollar offer in particular.
“If that is the only thing that has value anymore,” said Pope Leo XIV, “then we’re in big trouble.”
Musk’s record at Tesla is mixed
Judging from the stock price alone, Musk has been spectacularly successful. The company is now worth $1.5 trillion.
But a lot that runup reflects big bets by investors that Musk will be able deliver things that are difficult to pull off, and the way Musk has run the company recently doesn’t inspire confidence. He has broken numerous promises, and his tendency to say whatever is on his mind has sabotaged the company.
Just this year, for instance, he vowed to deliver driverless taxis in several cities, secure regulatory approval in Europe for his self-driving software and push sales up 20% or 30%.
Instead, his driverless robotaxis in Austin and San Francisco have human safety monitors inside. Europeans still haven’t approved his software. And Tesla sales continue to plunge, with new figures out Monday showing a stunning 50% drop last month in Germany alone.
That said, Musk has pulled off the impossible before. His company a half dozen years ago was widely feared to be near bankruptcy because he wasn’t making enough cars, but then he succeeded and the stock soared.
“He frequently teeters on the edge of disaster,” said Tesla owner and money manager Nancy Tengler, “and then pulls back just in the nick of time.”
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
(Reuters) -Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives will defend a narrow majority in the November 2026 elections a year from now. Below are some of the races to watch as Republicans and Democrats battle for control of the chamber.
ANOTHER CLOSE CALL IN IOWA?
Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a Republican, was elected to Congress in 2020 by the thinnest of margins. Her six-vote victory in 2020 swelled into a 20,000-vote advantage over Democratic state Representative Christina Bohannan in 2022. Bohannan closed the gap in a 2024 rematch but still lost by about 800 votes.
Bohannan is running yet again to unseat Miller-Meeks, but other Democrats are also eager to try to flip one of the most competitive districts in the country. The field for the June 2 Democratic primary includes former state Representative Bob Krause, who served in the Iowa Legislature in the 1970s, healthcare worker Travis Terrell and attorney Taylor Wettach.
Bohannan outraised Miller-Meeks and her Democratic challengers in the third quarter, which covers July through September, but Miller-Meeks began October with $2.6 million in the bank, and she notably performed better in the lower-turnout 2022 midterms than she did in 2020 and 2024, when President Donald Trump was also on the ballot.
A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY IN MAINE
Representative Jared Golden, the lone Democrat to back House Republicans’ stopgap funding bill to avert the ongoing government shutdown, is the most vulnerable House Democrat seeking reelection. Trump won Golden’s district last year by nearly 10 points.
State Auditor Matt Dunlap, a progressive Democrat, is challenging Golden in the June 9 primary. Former Maine Governor Paul LePage, a Republican, is also running for the seat. The moderate-progressive battle among Maine Democrats is also playing out in a high-profile Senate primary between Governor Janet Mills and oysterman Graham Platner.
NO INCUMBENT IN NEBRASKA’S SECOND DISTRICT
Representative Don Bacon is one of just three House Republicans who were reelected in districts that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris won last year. The difficulty for Republicans to retain that seat is twofold: Harris won it by more than 4 points, and Bacon is retiring, leaving Republicans without an incumbent in Democrats’ top target.
Harris also won the districts of Republican Representatives Mike Lawler of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, but her margins were a fraction of a percentage, and both are running for reelection.
Brinker Harding, an Omaha city councilman, and former state Senator Brett Lindstrom are Republicans contesting the May 12 primary. Democratic primary candidates include Kishla Askins, former deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, state Senator John Cavanaugh, former Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland’s policy director James Leuschen, small business owner Denise Powell and Crystal Rhoades, a district court county clerk.
CAN REPUBLICANS CAPTURE KAPTUR’S DISTRICT?
Ohio’s redistricting commission approved a compromise map that will make two Democratic seats more competitive for Republicans. The delegation has 10 Republicans and five Democrats. Representatives Marcy Kaptur, Emilia Sykes and Greg Landsman are the most vulnerable Democrats in the state. Sykes’ district will be slightly less competitive for Republicans.
Trump won Kaptur’s district by nearly 7 points in 2024. Kaptur won reelection by less than 1 point. A Libertarian candidate won 4% of the vote, an indication that Republicans may have flipped the seat had it been a two-person race. Sykes won by 2 points, and Landsman won by almost 9 points. The compromise avoids a worst-case scenario for Democrats, as Republican lawmakers could have drawn a more partisan map to try to unseat Kaptur, Sykes and Landsman.
Representative David Schweikert, a Republican, is vacating his battleground seat to run for governor of Arizona. Schweikert defeated former state Representative Amish Shah by fewer than 4 points in 2024. Shah is seeking the Democratic nomination again in a crowded field for the August 4 primary that includes former journalist Marlene Galán-Woods, who finished a close third in last year’s primary.
The Republican field includes Arizona Republican Party Chair Gina Swoboda and former federal prosecutor Jason Duey. Schweikert’s district was the most competitive in Arizona, a politically divided state that Trump and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego both won last year.
TEXAS DEMOCRATS REACH FOR A STAR
Democrats are excited about the candidacy of Bobby Pulido, a Tejano music star hoping to oust Republican Representative Monica De La Cruz. Though Texas state lawmakers drew a new congressional map to net Republicans as many as five new seats, De La Cruz’s South Texas district remains largely intact.
De La Cruz defeated Democrat Michelle Vallejo by 8.5 percentage points in 2022 and 14 points in 2024. House Democrats’ campaign arm has the seat on its target list of districts in play, but Trump won it by 18 points last year, giving Republicans optimism that Democrats risk wasting resources chasing victory in an unwinnable seat.
Pulido is not running uncontested for the Democratic nomination in the March 3 primary. Ada Cuellar, an emergency room doctor, is also in the race. De La Cruz has reported raising nearly $2.6 million through September, and she entered October with $1.7 million in the bank, giving her a sizable financial advantage over her opponents with several months to go before the general election matchup is set.
WILL A WASHINGTON STATE DISTRICT RETURN TO REPUBLICANS?
Washington’s 3rd Congressional District had been in Republican hands for 12 years until Democratic Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez won it in 2022, narrowly defeating Republican Joe Kent. The longtime incumbent, Republican Jaime Herrera Beutler, finished third in the state’s open nonpartisan primary, a system in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.
Gluesenkamp Perez defeated Kent by a larger margin in their 2024 rematch, but Republicans believe a stronger candidate can return the district to their column. Trump carried it by 3 points last year, and Perez won it by nearly 4 points. State Senate Minority Leader John Braun, a Republican, is running for the seat.
MASSIE’S MESSY MAGA PRIMARY
Trump pre-endorsed Ed Gallrein over Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky in an October social media post, urging the retired Navy SEAL officer to challenge the incumbent with the president’s “Complete and Total Endorsement.” Gallrein announced his candidacy to take on Massie in the May 19 primary days later.
Massie voted against Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act and teamed up with Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California on legislation to require the Justice Department to publicly release all unclassified materials related to the federal government’s investigation into the late convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein. Massie has also joined Democrats in an effort to circumvent House Republican leadership and force a floor vote on the proposal.
Trump has called Massie a “Third Rate Congressman” and “Weak and Pathetic RINO” — a party slur meaning “Republican in name only” — who “must be thrown out of office, ASAP!” Massie has raised $1.8 million this year, more than he has ever raised during any two-year cycle. He entered October with more than $2 million cash on hand.
DEMOCRATS LINE UP TO OUST LAWLER
While Republican Representatives John James of Michigan and David Schweikert of Arizona sacrificed their battleground districts to run for governor of their respective states, Republican Representative Mike Lawler did the opposite, avoiding a potential gubernatorial primary against fellow New York Representative Elise Stefanik, a likely candidate, to help House Republicans preserve their majority.
Lawler is one of three Republicans representing a district Harris won in 2024. Harris won the district by more than half a point, though Lawler defeated former Democratic Representative Mondaire Jones by 6 percentage points. A long line of well-funded Democrats has launched campaigns for the June 23 primary seeking their party’s nomination to unseat Lawler, including Village of Briarcliff Manor Deputy Mayor Peter Chatzky, Army combat veteran and national security expert Cait Conley, Rockland County legislator Beth Davidson, nonprofit leader Jessica Reinmann and former FBI intelligence analyst John Sullivan.
Lawler has raised more than $4 million this year and has $2.8 million in the bank.
A SURPRISE IN SAN FRANCISCO?
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 85, is expected to announce whether she’ll seek reelection to her San Francisco seat after the 2025 election.
Pelosi stepped down from her leadership role after the 2022 midterms, but she continues to serve in Congress. Her potential departure from the House after nearly 40 years in office could pressure her former deputies, Representatives Steny Hoyer, 86, of Maryland and Jim Clyburn, 85, of South Carolina, to retire as well.
But Democrats aren’t necessarily waiting for Pelosi to step aside. Saikat Chakrabarti, New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff, and state Senator Scott Wiener have already entered the field for the June 2 primary. Other Democrats could also enter the race if Pelosi retires. The seat is safely Democratic.
(Reporting by Nolan D. McCaskill; editing by Scott Malone and Howard Goller)
Texas voters appeared to support all 17 constitutional amendments on Tuesday’s ballot, as each of the measures — including tax exemptions and bans, a $20 million investment into the state’s water supply, bail reform and dementia research — held strong leads late Tuesday.
With only early votes, mail-in ballots and 30 out of 600 precincts reporting in Harris County just after 11 p.m., it appeared local voters narrowly rejected Proposition 6, which bans new taxes on security transactions, and Proposition 17, a tax exemption for property involved with border security infrastructure near the Texas-Mexico line.
But it’s the statewide numbers that count, and political experts say constitutional amendments rarely fail.
Proposition 1 creates an endowment for 11 Texas State Technical Colleges, including one in Fort Bend County, to purchase loans and buildings. This measure supports a skilled workforce and broader career choices in the college system.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.79 percent approval.
About 66.46 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 2 prohibits the establishment of a capital gains tax on assets like real estate, investments and personal property. Critics say it protects wealthy Texans and could stunt the state’s economic growth.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.19 percent approval.
About 56.6 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 3 requires the denial of bail for individuals accused of violent felony offenses. The measure supports denying bail for high-risk defendants but creates a financial barrier for poor Texans, increasing the likelihood of overcrowded jails and neglect of mental health issues.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 63.66 percent approval.
About 61.01 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 4dedicates the first $1 billion per fiscal year of sales tax revenue exceeding $46.5 billion to the Texas Water Fund over the next 20 years. Voters supported funding to increase the Lone Star State’s water supply and repair aging infrastructure.
Critics expressed concerns about spending mandates in the constitution and whether the funds would be allocated fairly by a three-person board appointed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 70.6 percent approval.
About 67.23 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 5 exempts Texans from taxes on animal feed. The amendment was advertised as potential assistance for farmers and ranchers who are already dealing with rising costs.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 65.78 percent approval.
About 52.22 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 6 bans new taxes on securities transactions and financial market operators (aimed at those who work in the stock market today or will work in the new Texas Stock Trade in Dallas). Critics said this was a tax break for the rich and would benefit only the wealthiest Texans.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 57.92 percent approval.
About 46.2 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 7 provides a property tax exemption for spouses of veterans who died in the line of duty, if the widow or widower has not remarried.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 86.92 percent approval.
About 84.32 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
As of late Tuesday evening, it appeared likely that all 17 constitutional amendments would be approved. Credit: April Towery
Proposition 8 bans taxes on estate and inheritance. Texas does not have estate taxes, and a ban would prevent future regulations that could level the playing field to shift the tax burden from working families to wealthy Texans.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 74.91 percent approval.
About 63.6 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 9 is a tax exemption for up to $125,000 worth of business inventory or equipment. The measure is viewed as an incentive for small businesses that could also help the Texas economy.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 67.1 percent approval.
About 55.88 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 10 is a temporary tax exemption for homeowners whose properties were destroyed by fire. While most property owners have home insurance, this exemption could offer extra support.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 90.18 percent approval.
About 86.87 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 11 increases school property tax exemptions from $10,000 to $60,000 for elderly and disabled homeowners. The amendment provides support for about 2 million homeowners who are likely to be on a fixed income.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 79.55 percent approval.
About 75.38 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 12 expands the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates judicial misconduct and reviews the termination of judgeships. Approval of this measure means new members would have less power than governor-appointed residents, which critics say could politicize the judicial process. Supporters say it will promote accountability.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 64.49 percent approval.
About 54.25 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 13 increases a school property tax exemption from $100,000 to $140,000 for all homeowners, saving an average of about $490 per year. The state will pay for an estimated $2.7 billion in revenue losses to school districts for the 2026-27 school year.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 81.78 percent approval.
About 76.01 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 14 will establish the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, providing $3 billion in funding for dementia research and prevention to study brain-related conditions. Critics have said that brain research should be funded by the private sector.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 68.13 percent approval.
About 68.24 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 15 codifies “parental rights” language in the state constitution. Critics say this could weaponize the Constitution to propagate right-wing culture wars involving LGBTQ+ families, book bans, and what’s taught in public schools. Parental rights are already outlined in federal case law.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 72.23 percent approval.
About 63.85 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 16 adds citizenship requirements to the Constitution and is redundant because U.S. citizenship is already a requirement to register to vote in Texas. Critics say it is an inflammatory response aligned with anti-immigration policies and stokes fear about non-citizen voting.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 74.94 percent approval.
About 69.37 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
Proposition 17 provides a tax exemption for property involved with border security infrastructure near the Texas-Mexico line. Critics say this could incentivize support for border security infrastructure and shift the tax burden onto other property owners.
Statewide, the measure was leading with 60.86 percent approval.
About 48.08 percent of Harris County early voters supported the measure.
