Friday, April 24, 2026

‘Lefty’ Pope Leo’s a thorn for new Maga Catholics by Gerard Baker

 

Republican converts of the JD Vance variety are coming up against the reality of a Pope who doesn’t do their politics

 

It is politely forgotten now but we are occasionally reminded that the United States was born in part in a fit of anti-Catholic paranoia. Among the “Intolerable Acts” of King George III and parliament identified by the authors of the Declaration of Independence as the basis for their revolutionary urge was the Quebec Act of 1774. After victory over the French in Canada in the Seven Years War, Britain had the thorny task of managing a colony whose inhabitants were predominantly Roman Catholic. And so the act established for the first time wide-ranging civil rights for Catholics under English rule.

This was regarded with alarm by colonists in neighbouring New England. John Adams, son of a deacon of the Congregational Church in Massachusetts, and later the second president of the United States, declared it “Dangerous to the Interests of the Protestant Religion and of these Colonies”.

It was only one of the colonists’ objections to British rule, of course, and when they wrote their constitution a decade later the founding fathers placed freedom of worship near the top of the Bill of Rights. But it is a helpful reminder that the US is a Protestant creation, forged by settlers of a puritan sensibility whose pilgrimage west had been driven by consternation that the Anglican church was far too Romanish for their tastes.

No one would mistake Donald Trump for a puritan but his skirmish with Pope Leo XIV is another hint of the lingering American suspicion that God’s country is only a popish plot away from subjugation by the Bishop of Rome.

 hat the pontiff is an American adds a piquancy to this church-state tension. Leo’s condemnations of the war against Iran have sparked outrage among Trump supporters and calls that the pontiff should keep his ferula out of the Oval Office. Trump denounced the Pope, treating him like a political opponent who he said was “weak on crime” and “terrible on foreign policy”. “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician,” he posted.

 

Calls to keep religion out of politics sound odd from a Republican Party that has become more or less the political wing of evangelical Christianity in the past 50 years. Trump’s comments came days after a Holy Week prayer event at the White House in which Franklin Graham, a preacher whose services are barely distinguishable from Maga rallies, compared the president to a heroic biblical figure. God had “raised up President Trump” to defeat the modern day Persians, as he had with the prophet Esther. Paula White, the White House’s official “spiritual adviser”, who has built a highly lucrative ministry on televised public exorcisms and speaking in tongues, suggested Trump was like Jesus Christ on Good Friday — “betrayed and arrested and falsely accused”.

This harnessing of religious doctrine and symbolism to a political cause is nothing new. But the rift between the Republican leadership and the Catholic church is fresh and comes in the context of a sharp elevation of Catholic thinking in elite conservative American circles in the past 20 years.

Unlike evangelicals, American Catholics tend to vote like the country at large, split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans. But since the turn of the century the Pope’s flock has been augmented by conservatives, political and doctrinal, who have seen in the church a more hospitable home for their beliefs. A steady flow of prominent converts (perhaps most famously JD Vance, the vice-president) have been attracted by the intellectual framework for faith developed from Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Merton, and a traditionalism in rite and dogma that sits comfortably within the conservative mindset.

 

Many of the so-called “postliberals” who have been in the forefront of rationalising modern populist nationalism, such as Patrick Deneen of the University of Notre Dame, are also Catholics. Conservative Catholics have come to dominate the upper reaches of the judiciary — five of the six-member conservative majority of the Supreme Court are Catholics.

Just as important, Rome’s part in the victory over godless communism at the end of the Cold War fostered a sense among conservative Americans that the church was their ally. St John Paul II, the fierce anti-communist credited with helping bring down the Soviet Union, was also an outspoken intendant of traditional moral teaching on issues such as abortion, gay rights and euthanasia.

 

All this seems to have created the mistaken impression for a lot of religiously inclined Americans that the Catholic church was the new Republican Party at prayer. But they had forgotten or ignored that the church’s fundamental social principles were all along rooted in the message of Jesus Christ and the primacy of Christian charity. For all his doctrinal and moral conservatism, John Paul frequently reminded followers of the church’s commitment to social justice, with condemnations of material inequality and the excesses of capitalism, asserting the moral imperative of support for the poor, the immigrant, the marginalised — as well as a strong aversion to wars of choice.

Some years ago a wag on Twitter captured this dissonance for many American Catholics. “Every lifelong Catholic I’ve ever met is like ‘I think we’re supposed to give this food to poor people’ and every adult convert is like ‘the Archon of Constantinople’s epistle on the Pentacostine rites of the eucharist clearly states women shouldn’t have driver’s licenses’,” wrote @agraybee.

 For Maga-first Catholics Leo’s apostasy is a dismaying revelation that the Pope is after all a “Marxist”, as more than one prominent Trump supporter has described him this month. They may even start to consider that those colonists had it right all along.

Why Trump wants to spend $1 billion on Great Salt Lake by Saige Miller

 

At its peak, Great Salt Lake, located right outside the state's capital of Salt Lake City, was bigger than the state of Delaware, covering roughly 2,300 square miles, with a thriving ecosystem and the main reason Utah claimed to have "the greatest snow on Earth." Now, due to a severe water shortage caused by excessive water consumption and lackluster winters, the lake is a shadow of what it once was.

It's been labeled Utah's "environmental nuclear bomb" and it has the attention of the president of the United States.

"Very important to save The Great Salt Lake in Utah. This is an Environmental hazard that must be worked on, IMMEDIATELY — It is of tremendous interest to me," Trump wrote on Feb. 21 on Truth Social.

 

He ended the post with a twist on his trademark slogan, "MAKE 'THE LAKE' GREAT AGAIN!"

But a man from New York City didn't conveniently stumble upon a big, dying, salty lake located in the arid mountain west. The issue landed in front of Trump because someone in his inner circle gave him a nudge, which led to a meeting and the chance to do something no country has ever accomplished – the successful restoration of a terminal saline lake.

The survival of the lake – the largest of its kind in the Western Hemisphere – has been a priority for Utah leaders over the last several years. But they knew it couldn't conquer the colossal task on its own. That's why Utah, a state that prides itself on sovereignty and small-government, is seeking federal help to revive a landmark that is culturally, environmentally and economically vital to the region.

"If we are able to pull off this saline lake rescue, it will truly be a world first," said Ben Abbott, an ecology professor at Brigham Young University.

 Utah's Republican Gov. Spencer Cox walked into the White House on a Monday in late February with a pitch to the president: join Utah in the fight to save Great Salt Lake.

 

The day before Cox hopped on a plane to Washington D.C. for the National Governors Association conference and White House dinner, he received a phone call, said Joel Ferry, executive director of the Utah division of national resources.

"He got a call from the White House saying, 'Hey, President Trump would like to meet with you and a few other governors. Bring a couple of your top issues you guys can discuss,'" said Ferry. Ferry wasn't at the meeting but as one of Cox's closest advisors on the lake, he helped the governor prepare the pitch to the president.

It was a monumental moment for the state of Utah. Cox brought the problem of Great Salt Lake to the president's doorstep.

What was once water lies more than a thousand square miles of exposed lakebed. The parched playa is filled with heavy metals and toxins, such as arsenic, that pose serious respiratory health risks to approximately 2.5 million people. The toxic dust floats to neighboring states, such as Wyoming and Idaho during strong wind events. It's a primary source of fertilizer used to grow tree nuts. Critical minerals, such as lithium and magnesium are mined from the lake.

Its salty waters also hold up to 50% of the world's brine shrimp supply, which is the primary protein source for the farmed fish and shrimp consumed at restaurants and home dining tables globally. Millions of migratory birds pay a visit to Great Salt Lake every year and it supports an entire ecosystem that has been on the precipice of collapse for years because it fails to maintain adequate water levels.

 The lake's primary water source comes from Utah's snowpack. During bad snow years – and 2026 was Utah's worst snowfall on record – the lake suffers more. Water from the three main tributaries that feed into Great Salt Lake is often diverted for other purposes before it ever makes its way to the lake.

 

"For the past two years now, we've been working on a federal ask," said Abbott. The BYU professor studies saline lakes and is also the director of Grow the Flow, an advocacy organization centered around water conservation and shepherding water to Great Salt Lake.

Environmental stewardship isn't something Trump campaigned on so those lobbying for the lake knew they needed another way to appeal to the president.

Since returning to office, Trump has stripped billions of dollars in climate research, rolled back environmental regulations on emissions, incentivized companies to ditch renewable energy projects and has canceled billions of dollars in approved funding for clean energy projects. He's called climate change a "hoax" and frequently touts the U.S. is flushed with oil thanks to the "drill baby drill" mindset.

Trump didn't invite Cox inside his home on his own volition. One friend to the president got the ball rolling – Mark Burnett.

The former executive producer of NBC's The Apprentice, the reality TV show starring Trump, is now special envoy of the United Kingdom under the Trump administration. And he is a Great Salt Lake fan. He is a Utah transplant, a board member of Grow the Flow and involved in various other organizations focused on saving Great Salt Lake.

"So Mark and others have been talking with the federal government about the need for this coordination," Abbott said.

While Abbott tips his hat to Burnett for starting the conversation, Cox is the one who laid out the specifics to Trump in-person about why he should invest in the lake.

 Cox declined NPR's interview request but Ferry is one of the people who prepped the governor ahead of the meeting. Though, Ferry says Cox didn't need much prepping. Great Salt Lake is an issue Utah leaders have been working to resuscitate for nearly a decade; Cox knew the talking points.

 

"It was really just telling the story," Ferry said, "It's the largest lake west of the Mississippi. And it is in decline. It is disappearing. It is something that we can, if we put enough resources towards it and we do enough, we can change the trajectory."

From Ferry's perspective, the message resonated with Trump. The meeting, Ferry said, was originally scheduled for fifteen minutes. It lasted an hour and half. Trump made a commitment in that meeting, Ferry said, to make history.

Then, at the Feb. 21 White House dinner with governors, Trump pointed at Cox and reiterated the promise he made.

"We're going to save it. We're not going to let that go. That is what I call an environment, a real environmental problem," Trump told the audience.

 

The Trump effect

Since the initial meeting, Trump has made three mentions of the lake on social media. The most recent one, posted on March 10, declared he is the only one who can make it happen.

"I am also saving The Great Salt Lake, in Utah, which, in a short period of time, if nothing is done, will have no water. This is on top of everything else I am doing. Only 'TRUMP' CAN DO IT!," he wrote.

To stop the lake's decline and begin recovery, Abbott, the ecologist, said Great Salt Lake needs between 500,000 to 800,000 acre feet of water every year. If the goal is to return Great Salt Lake to what it once was, especially before Utah welcomes the world back for the 2034 Winter Olympic Games, Abbott estimates around one million acre feet of water annually must go to the lake.

"It's an enormous amount of water," Abbott said. "I don't know what political approach we need, except that it's got to be bold. It's got to be adaptive. We've got to try something new. And we've got to disrupt the status quo."

 

It'll also be very expensive. So Utah leaders are capitalizing on a Republican president in the White House and a narrow majority in Congress to hopefully get a huge budget request across the finish line. Cox told Utah reporters in February that he asked for one billion dollars in federal funds to help get water to the lake.

When Cox posed the figure, he said Trump "didn't flinch at all."

While Utah leaders have been strategizing how to get federal funding for years, they were successful this time around thanks to creative lobbying. The president's 2027 fiscal budget – which seeks cuts in many areas such as health care and other environmental priorities – includes the full $1 billion funding request for Great Salt Lake.

Congress, of course, will have the final say.

Thursday, April 23, 2026

Civil rights groups condemn Southern Poverty Law Center’s indictment and prepare for legal fights by MATT BROWN

 

The criminal indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center this week was met with much outrage but little surprise from civil rights leaders, who have for more than a year prepared for heightened legal scrutiny from the Trump administration, and how to mount a coordinated response.

In rounds of calls immediately following the indictment, advocates discussed how to support the SPLC, a Montgomery, Alabama-based civil rights group founded in 1971 that has tracked white supremacist groups and been outspoken on voting rights, immigration and policing. Organizers on one call agreed that winning in the court of public opinion would be crucial as judicial proceedings began, leading to dozens of public statements of support and planned rallies.

And legal advisors to civil rights groups urged organizers to prepare for similar criminal indictments, protracted legal action that may exhaust their resources and audits of their staff and internal documents. 

 The flurry of behind-the-scenes coordination represented a marked mobilization by activist groups that, like many universities, law firms and non-profits, have been at odds with the federal government since President Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year. 

 

“There’s a muscle that has been built among these organizations learned from the law firm debacle,” said Vanita Gupta, a former associate attorney general of the Justice Department during the Biden administration, referring to deals some major law firms made with the administration. Gupta led one of the calls that convened activists.

“The government’s goal is often to shut down and paralyze an organization, so that their work has to stop while they defend themselves. And the hope here is that with this broad effort to defend the SPLC, that will not happen,” said Gupta.

Organizers say they are prepared to back the SPLC in its legal fight.

 

“It’s a blatantly obvious attack on civil rights and civil liberties to whitewash the foot soldiers of the great replacement theory and other extremists. This coalition isn’t going silent,” said Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an umbrella organization of hundreds of civil rights groups.

Without addressing the indictment, a coalition of more than 100 activist groups on Tuesday published a letter vowing solidarity with groups that are “unjustly targeted” by the federal government. SPLC was a signatory to the pact.

“An attack on one is an attack on all,” the coalition declared. “We will share knowledge, resources, and support with any organization threatened by abuses of power.”

 

DOJ alleges criminal conduct in SPLC’s longtime informant network

The Justice Department alleges that the SPLC, which rose to prominence for its work prosecuting and tracking hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, violated federal law through its network of paid informants in extremist groups. The DOJ claims the payments funded hate groups and misled the SPLC’s donors.

The SPLC now faces charges of wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought in the federal court in Alabama, where the organization is based.

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche at a press conference announcing the charges. Blanche promised the department “will hold the SPLC and every other fraudulent organization operating with the same deceptive playbook accountable.”

Longtime civil rights activists found the claims to be a disingenuous and partisan move that may empower extremist groups.

“The indictment is nakedly political and represents the Justice Department turning on itself,” said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League. “It places the Justice Department in the posture of, in effect, defending white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and others.”

Advocates also view the indictment as part of the administration’s broader upending of civil rights law and the Justice Department’s prosecution of Trump’s political opponents.

The SPLC in recent years became a bogeyman among conservatives who resented that the watchdog designated several rightwing organizations that engage in Republican politics as hateful or extremist.

 

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which the SPLC has designated as a hate group, said the government should not only pursue convictions, but also restitution for those the SPLC has harmed.

“For years, the SPLC has used its platform to label and target organizations with whom it disagrees, often blurring the line between legitimate concern and ideological attack,” Perkins said in a statement. “That kind of reckless characterization doesn’t just damage reputations, it has put lives at risk.”

In October, FBI Director Kash Patel cancelled the agency’s longtime anti-extremism partnerships with the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League, which combats antisemitism. Patel at the time called the SPLC a “partisan smear machine.”

 The Justice Department and SPLC did not respond to requests for comment.

 

Indictment represents marked shift for civil rights work

Advocates dispute the DOJ’s characterization of the SPLC’s work.

“The problem is that the indictment essentially claims that it was a fraud on SPLC’s donors to use their funds to fight the Klan, the Neo Nazis and other white supremacist groups, when that is exactly why people gave to the organization,” said Norm Eisen, founder of Democracy Defenders Action, a group that works with organizations in legal disputes with the Trump administration.

Eisen added: “The notion that there’s something wrong with using informants and protecting their identities to prevent white supremacist violence is belied by the fact that that is not only what the SPLC did, but it is also the stock and trade of the FBI itself.”

 

Civil rights organizations are now preparing for further legal action. Organizations have reviewed their document retention, tax compliance and auditing policies over the last year to safeguard against any probes or lawsuits.

Some civil rights organizations have also floated creating new organizational structures that may better withstand legal scrutiny. On another recent call, activists floated restructuring some groups into for-profit entities, or potentially crafting new financial conduits for donors to ensure that staff could receive pay if an organization’s assets were seized or frozen.

The preparations represent a marked shift for many civil rights leaders, who in recent years counted the Justice Department under both Democratic and Republican administrations as a reliable ally in key civil rights battles.

“What we are seeing in real time is an administration seeking to leverage its position to target individuals and organizations that do not agree with its political thought,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson, who said the Justice Department has been “weaponized by dangerous forces.”

But for other leaders, the SPLC indictment raised the specter of a return to a previous era, when the Justice Department monitored civil rights leaders to disrupt their activities.

“We’re not backing down, but we are clear-eyed. Everyone could be in some form of jeopardy if you’re in the crosshairs of this administration,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights group suing the Trump administration over executive orders addressing birthright citizenship and mail-in voting.

“That’s what they’re looking for; they want this to have a chilling effect,” Proaño said.


Tuesday, April 21, 2026

The Counterterrorism Czar Without a Counterterrorism Plan by Hannah Allam

 

March unfolded like a stress test for U.S. counterterrorism authorities.

The month opened with a gunman in an Iranian-flag shirt killing three people at a bar in Texas. Then, an attack with homemade explosives outside the mayor’s mansion in New York City. Next came a deadly shooting March 12 on a Virginia college campus and, the same afternoon, a car-ramming at a Michigan synagogue. Days later, agents arrested a man charged with threatening a mass shooting at an Ohio mosque.

To current and former national security officials, these were omens, signs of the dangers they predicted last year when President Donald Trump began redirecting counterterrorism resources toward his mass deportation campaign.

They had warned of a diminished ability to respond should major global events inflame threats at home and abroad. Now, they say, the war in Iran has locked the Trump administration into a showdown with a sophisticated state sponsor of terrorism at a time when U.S. security agencies have hemorrhaged expertise and leadership is in flux.

The urgency of the moment has trained a spotlight on Sebastian Gorka, the White House counterterrorism adviser tasked with drafting a blueprint for fighting homegrown and international threats. Nearly a year ago, Gorka declared a national counterterrorism strategy “imminent.” By July, he was “on the cusp” of unveiling the plan — a phrase he repeated three months later in October. And again in January.

 To date, no strategy has appeared, and no explanation for the delay. When it is finally released, current and former counterterrorism personnel say, they expect a document rooted in politics rather than intelligence, with little detail on how to combat threats after a year of deep cuts across national security agencies.

 

“Strategies are only worth the amount of resources you put into them,” said a former senior official who served in the first Trump administration. “We’re entering very dangerous territory.”

The shifting promises are unsurprising to colleagues familiar with the brash, quick-tempered Gorka, a gate crasher in Washington’s buttoned-up defense establishment. His threats and boasts are laced with grandiose language and delivered in a booming, British-accented voice.

ProPublica interviewed more than two dozen national security specialists across party lines to trace Gorka’s path to one of the most sensitive jobs in government. Nearly all spoke on condition of anonymity because of the Trump administration’s record of retaliation.

His ascent, they said, tells the story of a startling transformation of the U.S. counterterrorism agenda in Trump’s second term. Eye-rolling over Gorka’s bombast has given way to anxiety about the administration’s preparedness to identify and stop major plots.

In the first Trump administration, Gorka lasted just seven months before being forced out by the “adults in the room,” as some staffers referred to the more moderate gatekeepers then around the president. In that brief stint, he reportedly struggled to obtain security clearance and faced an outcry over ties — which he denies — to a far-right group in Hungary.

After the exit, he hosted a right-wing podcast and popped up in ads selling fish-oil pills for pain relief. Then his fortunes changed again with the 2024 election that swept Trump back to power, this time with a more conspiratorially minded wing of the Make America Great Again movement. Gorka’s loyalty paid off with a phoenixlike return to the White House in a role sometimes called “counterterrorism czar.”

“I’ve been waiting 25 years for this job,” he confided on his podcast before taking office.

The first year of Trump’s second term was so frenzied that even the colorful Gorka faded into the background as the administration dismantled federal agencies and created a secretive, sometimes deadly immigration force. Now, however, the counterterrorism director’s role is coming back to light as hostilities roil the Middle East and heighten the risk of attacks in the United States or against American interests or allies overseas.

 

Days before U.S. military operations began in Iran, FBI Director Kash Patel fired a dozen personnel from a counterintelligence unit that monitored threats from Iran, CNN reported — part of a wider purge of some 300 agents specializing in counterterrorism.

Former officials said the sudden loss of that many colleagues is devastating to the sensitive, granular work of preventing attacks.

“I don’t think about it in raw numbers. I think about it in the wealth of expertise and knowledge that has been cut across all levels,” a former senior Justice Department official said. “What you lose is that nuance — with a smaller team, you can only go so deep.”

An FBI spokesperson said the bureau does not comment on personnel numbers but that agents are “working around the clock” and had disrupted four alleged U.S.-based terrorist plots in December alone. “The FBI continuously assesses and realigns our resources to ensure the safety of the American people,” the statement said.

 

ProPublica sought an interview with Gorka directly and via the White House. He did not respond to a detailed list of questions but assailed the requests in two posts on X, where he has 1.8 million followers. The first was a “no,” along with insults, addressed to several journalists who had asked him to comment on the strategy. In the second post, directed at ProPublica, Gorka accused the reporter of writing a “putrid piece of hackery.”

“If the criticism is we’re killing too many Jihadis (759) since 20th January 2024, or rescuing more US hostages in 12 months (106) than Biden did in 4 years, I stand by our historic wins for AMERICA First,” Gorka wrote, with an apparent typo. Trump took office in January 2025.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in an email that the restructuring of agencies “has made the entire foreign policy apparatus even more responsive to potential threats” and praised Gorka for “an incredible job” leading interagency talks.

“Anyone attempting to smear him and the President’s national security team is only revealing that they haven’t been paying attention for the past year,” Kelly wrote, “as anyone with eyes can see that our homeland is more secure than ever.”

 

Inattention “Can Be Deadly”

Gorka has emerged as one of the last men standing after a tumultuous stretch for U.S. counterterrorism leadership.

His original boss, national security adviser Mike Waltz, was booted to the United Nations after the Signalgate scandal, leaving the role to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was already juggling portfolios and is busier now with Iran.

Another blow came when Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned last month in protest of the war in Iran, which he said was pushing the United States “further toward decline and chaos.”

Gorka was livid. He told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations that he called Kent the day of his resignation and left a message calling him an “utter disgrace” for criticizing the president in wartime.

“At the end of my voicemail,” Gorka recounted, “I said, ‘Good riddance to you, Joe.’”

Within days, Gorka was angling for Kent’s old job at the counterterrorism center, the government’s hub for analyzing terrorist threats, The Washington Post reported. Colleagues said they weren’t surprised — the role brings more power — but added that Gorka would likely face a tough Senate confirmation process if nominated.

The leadership disarray compounds the risks of hollowed-out counterterrorism operations, say national security analysts.

At a time when hundreds of personnel typically would’ve been assigned to thwarting attacks amid international conflict, the administration “has gutted this capacity through firings, forced resignations, and slashed budgets,” a panel of national security analysts wrote in the journal Lawfare.

 

The Justice Department acknowledged in budget proposal documents that its National Security Division is facing “unprecedented personnel constraints,” struggling to keep up with increasing caseloads and a 40% drop in the number of prosecutors.

At the State Department, former officials said, Iran specialists at the counterterrorism bureau were dispersed to regional offices where counterterrorism is one of many priorities. The entire team focused on threat prevention was eliminated. As a senior official who recently left put it, “They keep saying we can do it all even though they have half an arm now, and no legs.”

Since the Iran war started, officials say, some counterterrorism specialists who had been reassigned to immigration have returned to their old roles, creating a whiplash that can disrupt investigations and analysis.

“If you’ve dropped all the cases and have taken people off the target set for an extended period of time, you can’t just drop back in and pick up where you left off,” said Ben Connable, a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who leads the nonprofit Battle Research Group. “The men and women who are back on that portfolio are going to have to play catch-up, and that conveys risk.”

The Department of Homeland Security hasn’t published any national terrorism advisory bulletins, periodic updates to alert the public to the current threat level, since September. It has not released the annual Homeland Threat Assessment since Trump returned to office, according to Colin Clarke, executive director of the security-focused Soufan Center, and fellow terrorism scholar Jacob Ware. A DHS spokesperson said updates on the documents “will be provided following the end of the Democrat DHS shutdown.”

Gorka’s long-awaited strategy, Clarke and Ware said in an op-ed, could help clarify White House thinking on how to handle threats when “defenses are divided, disorganized and under-resourced.”

“This is the moment for the Trump administration to demonstrate that it recognizes the stakes,” the researchers wrote. “In counterterrorism, inattention can be deadly.”

 

Winding Path to White House

Gorka’s path to the White House began in the cottage industry of self-styled terrorism experts that sprang up after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He became a regular on a training circuit where speakers received lucrative contracts from international governments and law enforcement agencies to teach about the threat of militant Islamist movements. Many trainers of that era maligned Islam and backed policies that violated the rights of ordinary American Muslims in the name of counterterrorism, according to civil liberties watchdogs.

“For him, counterterrorism is kinetic and it’s against one type of enemy: the jihadist enemy,” said an associate who has known Gorka for two decades.

Born in the United Kingdom to Hungarian parents, he attended college in London and served as a reserve intelligence soldier in the British military. He later spent time in Hungary, dabbling in nationalist politics and earning a doctorate degree.

In 2008, Gorka moved to the United States with his American wife, also a counterterrorism specialist, and eventually became a naturalized citizen — “a legal immigrant,” as he is introduced at events.

 

As an instructor at think tanks and military institutes, he pushed an image of Muslims as inherently violent, according to current and former colleagues. They say his fixation on Islamist militancy crosses into a more generalized bigotry, a claim Gorka has dismissed as “absurd.” He insists that his focus is “the war inside Islam” between radicals and Western-aligned Muslim leaders. “We want to see our friends win that war,” he has said.

A former senior Justice Department official recalled an FBI agent lobbying hard to get Gorka hired as a counterterrorism trainer several years ago. The official “didn’t feel comfortable clearing him in on my credentials” for an office visit so instead drove over an hour to watch a lecture.

 

Gorka’s talk was “reductionist” in its portrayals of Islam as locked in a civilizational war with the West, the former official recalled. Immediately after the event, the official advised against hiring Gorka because his teachings potentially violated department principles against bias in training.

“I came back and said to the U.S. attorneys, ‘Let’s be careful here,’” the former official said. “They put a flag.”

Concerns about Gorka’s approach flared again when he joined the first Trump administration through the MAGA strategist Steve Bannon. Gorka, who had worked at Bannon’s right-wing Breitbart outlet, was appointed to the Strategic Initiatives Group, an in-house think tank at the White House.

The appointment prompted 55 House Democrats to demand his firing in a letter calling his association with far-right groups “deeply troubling.” They focused on the Hungarian nationalist group Vitézi Rend, whose medal Gorka wore on a military tunic to Trump’s inaugural events. Gorka has denied belonging to the organization, which had Nazi ties during World War II, and said the medal honors his father’s escape from communism.

Gorka’s qualifications for the job also came under scrutiny. Critics dug out and posted his dissertation, which was pilloried by other academics for a simplistic chart that placed terrorism on a spectrum somewhere between “peacekeeping” and “thermonuclear war.”

 

He eventually was ousted in August 2017, days after Bannon, in an internal power struggle. In his resignation letter, Gorka blamed his departure on the idea that “forces that do not support the MAGA promise are — for now — ascendant within the White House.”

Reporters spotted him outside loading his belongings into the back of a Mustang convertible with vanity plates “ART WAR.”


Dream Job

Gorka’s comeback symbolizes the hard-right swing of Trump’s second term.

Even some prominent conservatives were shocked by Gorka’s return. Michael Anton, who also served in the last Trump administration, reportedly withdrew from consideration for a senior national security role rather than work alongside him.

The jabs don’t seem to faze Gorka, who tells a story of standing outside the White House in January 2025, ready to swipe his badge the moment it was activated after Trump’s swearing-in. He has referred to his role as a dream job.

 

“I pinch myself every single day,” Gorka told the “Triggernometry” podcast.

The counterterrorism director’s responsibilities include coordinating policy for external threats as well as leading efforts to free wrongfully detained Americans around the globe. Gorka can be remarkably candid and mercurial for a senior official with such a sensitive remit, according to hours of his public remarks reviewed by ProPublica.

He has exploded at journalists (“Go to hell!”) and cut off interviews when he didn’t like the questioning (“We’re done!”). He repeats anti-immigrant tropes and boasts that “Judeo-Christian civilization is the ultimate form of human existence.” He has urged Christians and Jews to buy guns to defend themselves “on the front line of the war between civilization and barbarity.”

Gorka’s public remarks also offer behind-the-scenes glimpses of working for a boss he calls “the most consequential American president” of modern times. At one event, he pulled out his phone to let the audience hear his ringtone: Trump delivering his classic “tired of winning” line.

 

Gorka has said his workday begins with a drive to the White House while listening to his favorite podcast, hosted by pro-Trump military historian Victor Davis Hanson. Upon arrival, he has to turn in his cellphone before spending up to 12 hours a day in “my SCIF,” the acronym for the secure chambers where senior officials discuss classified matters.

On Thursdays, he convenes an interagency discussion of the latest threats. He name drops “Marco,” “Kash” and other friends in senior roles: “They ask me as I bump into them in the West Wing: ‘Have you killed more jihadis today?’”

In his office, Gorka keeps a globe on his desk and a large poster of the Twin Towers on the wall, an ever-present reminder of 9/11. His team’s custom lanyards are printed with “WWFY & WWKY” in honor of a Trump line: “We will find you and we will kill you.”

 

Cloud of “Red Mist”

On Gorka’s watch, targeted militants don’t simply die.

They are “human filth” who are “obliterated,” he tells audiences, describing bodies stacked “like cordwood” after receiving “eternal justice” from the Trump administration’s “hammers of hell.”

Before the Iran conflict, Gorka was focused on a revival of the “war on terror” in parts of Africa and the Middle East. He claims U.S. strikes have killed more than 750 militants he has described as “leading jihadis” with “American blood on their hands or who were plotting attacks against Americans.”

“If we know where you are, anywhere in the world, we can kill you within 72 hours if the president says so,” he boasted last spring.

In the example Gorka shares most often, he briefed the president on a militant recruiter in Somalia who had been under surveillance for over a year during President Joe Biden’s administration. On the spot, he said, Trump ordered the fighter killed. Around 30 hours later, on Feb. 1, 2025, Gorka says, he watched live from the White House Situation Room as a U.S. strike vaporized the fighter into “a cloud of red mist,” a description he has repeated at least half a dozen times.

 

He sometimes screens declassified video of the militant being blown to pieces, as several State Department staffers found out when they watched him speak last year. Unsettled, they tried to rush out after the event but were corralled to flank Gorka in a photo op. “I look like a hostage,” one person in the picture said.

The staffers — since pushed out of government by cuts — said they had expected Gorka’s bravado but were horrified by his glee over what they described as a “snuff film.” Many other personnel expressed similar concerns that issues requiring level-headed professionalism were entrusted to someone they regarded as a volatile ideologue openly preaching bloodlust.

“He’s trying to show off” to the president, one longtime counterterrorism official said. “‘I nuked another 100 jihadis — pay attention to me.’”

 

Gorka’s claims of battlefield victories are often exaggerated or misleading about who was targeted and why, according to security officials and counterterrorism analysts. They say there are fewer than 10 “leading” Islamist militants in the world, and the idea of killing hundreds is absurd. The White House did not address a question about whether the numbers are inflated.

“It’s the word ‘leading’ that gets me,” said Clarke, of the Soufan Center. “I have no doubt they’re killing people, but they’re probably foot soldiers.”

 

Reports of civilian casualties from U.S. operations also muddy the death tolls, especially in Somalia and Yemen. But the Trump administration has shown little interest in investigating; it gutted a Pentagon office tasked with addressing civilian harm.

Take the “red mist” strike, for example. It targeted Ahmed Maeleninine, an Islamic State group recruiter who was hiding out in a cave complex in Somalia. Gorka said the Biden administration had surveilled Maeleninine for more than a year without striking. That’s true, said one former counterterrorism official with direct knowledge of the intelligence involved, but there was more to the story.

“He left out the part about the women and children,” said the official, who recently left government. “I knew the reason we hadn’t gone after him before was because he had his wife and children around him 24/7. Now, maybe they got lucky and found one time where they got a clear strike.”

U.S. Africa Command, which oversees the military’s Somalia operations, said in announcing the February 2025 strike that “approximately 14 ISIS-Somalia operatives were killed and no civilians were harmed.”

 

New Urgency

Gorka’s formal title is deputy assistant to the president and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council.

The role was upgraded from “special assistant” in recent years, though officials say the powers of the office have weakened since the days of early counterterrorism czars like Richard Clarke, who served under three presidents and revealed that senior leaders had ignored repeated warnings about al-Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

Christopher Costa, a retired Army intelligence officer who spent a year in the same job under the first Trump administration, described the role as “the convening authority for all things counterterrorism for the president of the United States.”

 

“It was rolling up your sleeves,” Costa recalled. “It was more than just policy work — it was mitigating current threats.”

Iranian threats against U.S. targets have brought renewed attention to the lack of a Trump counterterrorism doctrine.

Gorka has been tight-lipped about the contents of his strategy. Officials who typically would’ve been involved in interagency discussions say they haven’t been consulted. One person briefed on a working draft summed it up as “Sunnis. Shiites. Cartels.” Others said they expected the addition of far-left antifascist militants, a tiny subset of the extremist threat that receives disproportionate attention from the Trump administration.

Gorka told another colleague he was writing the document himself, without traditional input from partner federal agencies. “There was no ‘U.S. government strategy’ involved,” the colleague said. “It might as well have been a new book he was writing.”

At his recent Council on Foreign Relations appearance, Gorka was asked — again — when the strategy would be released. He glanced at his staff and shifted in his seat.

He confided that he had “put my life’s work into this massive document” but had received feedback in recent days to “Cut it down, Gorka!” He said he would make trims and send the draft back to senior aides in hopes of getting a presidential signoff.

“Keep your fingers crossed,” Gorka told the audience.

 

 

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

New federal figures reveal 1 in 3 US households struggle to pay energy bills, but the reality is likely even worse

 By 

 

Americans’ concerns about being able to afford electricity and home heating fuel are elevated since the beginning of the Iran war. But newly released nationwide data shows that even before the war began, these concerns were widespread, long-standing and getting worse faster than the data can reflect.

The new information is from preliminary reports based on the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, a representative survey of U.S. households conducted every four to five years by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. These early results show that energy insecurity, a hidden hardship defined as the inability to adequately meet household energy needs, affects millions of American households and is worsening quickly.

As a scholar who has spent years sitting in hundreds of homes around the country, hearing firsthand accounts about energy insecurity, I turn to this survey data to quantify the suffering I have witnessed up close.

The latest tranche of data was collected in 2024 and released in March 2026, but full results won’t be available for some time. The preceding survey was taken in 2020, but results weren’t finalized until August 2025.

Though that data is incomplete and slow to emerge, the picture is unambiguous: Even households once confident they could afford energy costs are at risk of falling behind on bills, making hard trade-offs to keep the lights on and living in homes they can’t afford to properly heat and cool.

 

A person sits at a table covered in financial papers, with her head in her hands.
Energy costs are hitting more American households harder than in past years. Olga Rolenko/Moment via Getty Images

Americans’ concerns about being able to afford electricity and home heating fuel are elevated since the beginning of the Iran war. But newly released nationwide data shows that even before the war began, these concerns were widespread, long-standing and getting worse faster than the data can reflect.

The new information is from preliminary reports based on the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, a representative survey of U.S. households conducted every four to five years by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. These early results show that energy insecurity, a hidden hardship defined as the inability to adequately meet household energy needs, affects millions of American households and is worsening quickly.

As a scholar who has spent years sitting in hundreds of homes around the country, hearing firsthand accounts about energy insecurity, I turn to this survey data to quantify the suffering I have witnessed up close.

The latest tranche of data was collected in 2024 and released in March 2026, but full results won’t be available for some time. The preceding survey was taken in 2020, but results weren’t finalized until August 2025.

Though that data is incomplete and slow to emerge, the picture is unambiguous: Even households once confident they could afford energy costs are at risk of falling behind on bills, making hard trade-offs to keep the lights on and living in homes they can’t afford to properly heat and cool.

Transparent, research-based, written by experts – and always free.

A pandemic success story

The survey asks respondents whether, in the prior 12 months, they received a disconnection notice threatening to terminate their home’s electricity, gas or other fuel service because they hadn’t paid the bills. It also asks whether any of those services were in fact disconnected; whether they bought less food or skipped taking medication to be able to afford their energy bills; or whether they left their home at an unhealthy temperature because running or repairing the heating or cooling equipment would be too expensive.

The result is a portrait of a significant swath of the population that has a hard time affording housing and energy, and who adopt various coping strategies to get through.

A closer look at the data over time reveals that more Americans live with energy insecurity now than in years past. In 2024, 43.6 million American households – 32.9% of all homes – reported experiencing some form of energy insecurity. In 2015, that figure was 31.3%, and in 2020 it was 27.2%.

The lower rate in 2020 confirms that pandemic-era government policies, including cash relief payments and bans on utility shutoffs, were effective, though they were too short-lived to last through the 2024 survey data.

Recent surge hits new households

Middle-income households, those earning between $60,000 and $200,000 a year, were hit hardest by post-pandemic inflation of housing costs, food prices and interest rates on loans and mortgages. The new survey data shows that energy costs added to the squeeze.

In 2020, 20.1% of households earning between $60,000 and $100,000 reported experiencing problems affording their energy. In 2024, 32.1% of those households did – a 12 percentage point increase, more than double the overall national increase of 5.7 percentage points.

There were also racial differences. Historically, Black, Hispanic and American Indian households have been disproportionately likely to have trouble affording energy bills. And between 2020 and 2024, those households’ risk grew.

But white households’ risk climbed even more steeply: In 2020, 20.1% of white households reported trouble with energy costs. By 2024, 26.4% of them did.

 

Working-age adults and seniors are increasingly insecure

In 2024, higher proportions of householders under 60, and of householders with children, reported struggling to meet their home energy needs than in 2020. The similarities in these increases verify that younger, working-age households are more strained.

Yet working-age adults without children, particularly moderate-income renters, don’t have as much potential support as seniors when they fall behind on utility bills. That’s because energy assistance programs direct support toward those who have historically been the most vulnerable.

 

Seniors have historically been among the most protected, partly by the designs of government and corporate programs to assist with energy costs and partly because wealth usually peaks in later life. Even so, the share of older Americans experiencing energy insecurity climbed to 1 in 4 in 2024 from roughly 1 in 5 in 2020 – a sign that long-standing safeguards for older Americans are no longer making as much of a difference as they used to.

Housing in good repair is no longer enough protection

An efficient home has long been considered a solution to high energy bills. But the data shows that’s not enough anymore. People who live in well-insulated homes and those with double-pane windows saw their likelihood of energy insecurity rise by a similar amount as those who live in poorly insulated homes.

People in uninsulated homes still have the highest risk of being unable to afford their energy costs, though their risk grew more slowly than those in homes with better insulation.

And people with single-pane windows, already in a tenuous position, saw their risk of being unable to afford their energy costs rise by 7 percentage points.

 

Where need is greatest, help is least available

Geographically, the steepest increases in energy insecurity were found in warm-weather regions. The Southwest experienced the largest increase of any climate category – 10 percentage points – followed by the Southeast and Gulf Coast, which rose from 30.1% to 35.6%.

Though rising temperatures are increasing the need for cooling in warm-weather climates, most attention and government assistance for energy costs continue to be concentrated on the need for home heating in cold-weather states.

But even in the Northeast, where federal assistance with energy costs helps large proportions of the population, higher percentages of households had trouble affording energy costs.

 

A problem that has outgrown its framing

The severity of energy insecurity remains highest among the most disadvantaged Americans, which includes low-income people, renters and Black, Hispanic and American Indian households.

But the trend lines show that energy insecurity is now spreading into middle-income, white, working-age families in efficient homes in warm-weather climates – families that previously had relatively little trouble meeting their household energy needs.

The 2024 RECS data indicates that the safety net designed to address energy affordability is insufficient and does not match the regions or populations where energy insecurity is actually growing.

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides money to help families pay their utility bills, was created in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s. It was built to prioritize home heating assistance – not cooling – and help for people in immediate danger of having life-preserving utilities shut off. Little has changed in its focus or funding level since its inception.

Meanwhile, the economics of household energy costs have shifted dramatically and are quickly evolving.

New wars are sustaining old energy regimes, driving price volatility through the same fossil-fuel supply chains the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program was designed to buffer against half a century ago. On the domestic front, meanwhile, data centers are increasing residential electricity rates. Clean energy developments that might have shielded households from price shocks have been politicized and curtailed, harming both affordability and public health.

The 2024 data – high-quality and reliable as it is – is already behind in an escalating energy affordability crisis. Many more Americans are having trouble keeping the lights, heating and cooling on in recent years, and it’s a trend that may already be worse than what the most recent data shows.

Wednesday, April 8, 2026

Evangelicals amplify Trump's religious framing of Iran war by Nathan Layne and Tim Reid

April 8 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump is using Christian rhetoric to rally core supporters behind the increasingly unpopular war with Iran, religious and political experts say - a message amplified from pulpits by evangelical leaders who cast it as a struggle between good and evil. Trump, who announced a two-week ceasefire on Tuesday, ​has struggled to persuade Americans to back the war, which has triggered a surge in energy prices, killed American servicemen and Iranians, and further eroded his standing among voters. Secretary Pete Hegseth has gone further, citing scripture to justify the use of "overwhelming violence" against enemies he said "deserve no mercy." That message has been echoed by conservative Christian leaders - from those close to Trump like Robert Jeffress, an influential Texas pastor, to small-town preachers. They have emphasized the biblical significance of the modern state of Israel, which many evangelicals associate with a prophecy about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

 

EVANGELICALS SEE IRAN WAR AS GOOD VS EVIL

Jackson Lahmeyer, an evangelical pastor and Trump supporter ​who is running for the U.S. Congress, said in an interview he has told his Tulsa, Oklahoma, congregation in some Sunday sermons that wars are typically battles between good and evil and that Iran was no exception.
"Evil people exist, and ​if you don't deal with them, they'll deal with you," he said. "Good and evil, that's the story of the Bible. The good news is that at the end good always wins."
White evangelicals are ⁠among Trump’s strongest supporters: more than 80% voted for him in 2024, according to exit polls, and surveys have shown they account for about one-third of his support.
This political reality is a major reason why Trump and members of his cabinet are increasingly leaning ​into religious framing of the conflict, several political and religious experts told Reuters.
 
"Look at Mr. Trump's standing in the polls and recognize he only has a little more than a third of the public on his side. A big part of that constituency is made ​up of white evangelical Christians," said Jim Guth, a political science professor at Furman University in South Carolina who studies religion in U.S. politics.
The White House did not respond to questions about Trump's use of Christian rhetoric but spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement that the president had taken bold action "to eliminate the threat of this terrorist regime, which will protect the American people for generations to come."
To be sure, U.S. presidents have throughout history invoked the Christian faith in times of war. But the experts interviewed by Reuters said the Trump administration's use of stark, unequivocal language to frame and ​justify violence in explicitly religious terms sets it apart.
 
"It's the same language as the crusades of the Middle Ages. You know, we must stop the infidel, we must defeat the wicked," said John Fea, a history professor at Messiah University who has written extensively ​about evangelicals and politics. "We've never seen anything like this in American history."
The overt religious messaging has drawn criticism from some Democrats and left-leaning Christian leaders, who see it as a misguided use of faith to justify an unpopular five-week-old war that has left 13 U.S. service members and ‌thousands of Iranians ⁠dead.
Addressing tens of thousands in St. Peter's Square on Palm Sunday, which opens Holy Week ahead of Easter for 1.4 billion Catholics, Pope Leo called the conflict "atrocious" and said the name of Jesus should never be invoked to propagate a war.
Doug Pagitt, a progressive evangelical pastor, said he believes the administration was deploying a "very specific Christian narrative" to keep evangelicals onside and Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) coalition intact.
 
"What they are saying is Trump is on God's side. You can rest easy at night," he said. "Because without the Christian coalition, the MAGA support base gets very fractured."
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published last week, 60% of respondents opposed U.S. military strikes on Iran. The survey highlighted a deep partisan divide, with 74% of Republicans backing the war versus only 22% of Democrats.

TRUMP LIKENED TO JESUS IN ​WHITE HOUSE MEETING

The prominent evangelist Franklin Graham has praised the strikes ​on Iran in biblical terms and likened Trump to the ⁠biblical figure of Esther, a Jewish queen who, according to the Bible, was elevated by God to save her people from annihilation in ancient Persia, now modern-day Iran.
Ken Peters, leader of the Patriot Church in Tennessee, delivered that message to his congregation this past Sunday, voicing hope that the war would yield a "pro-Israel, pro-America Iran" — a comment that drew applause, according to a video recording the pro-Trump ​pastor shared with Reuters.
"We see Trump as a man of the world that God is using to help us," Peters said in an interview, adding that he was supportive of framing ​the war in religious terms.
Hegseth in ⁠particular has used overtly religious language to frame the war. On Sunday, he likened the rescue of the U.S. airman inside Iran to the resurrection of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday.
"A pilot reborn, all home and accounted for, a nation rejoicing," he said. "God is good."
In a statement to Reuters, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said wartime leaders have long invoked the Christian faith, pointing to the example of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt distributing Bibles to troops during World War Two.
"Secretary Hegseth, along with millions of Americans, is a proud Christian. Encouraging the American people ⁠to pray for our ​troops is not controversial."
Similar religious rhetoric was used by evangelical pastors close to Trump at an Easter event with Trump at the White House last week. ​Televangelist Paula White-Cain, senior adviser to the White House Faith Office, likened Trump to Jesus, saying both were "betrayed and arrested and falsely accused."
Jeffress, the First Baptist Church pastor in Texas who was among the faith leaders who laid hands on Trump during the meeting, told Reuters he did not believe the Iran war was against ​Islam or Muslims, but "a spiritual war between good and evil, between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan."

Reporting by Tim Reid in Washington and Nathan Layne in Wilton, Connecticut; Additional reporting by Jason Lange in Washington; Editing by Ross Colvin and Edmund Klamann

Friday, April 3, 2026

Trump budget seeks $1.5T in defense spending alongside cuts in domestic programs By LISA MASCARO and KEVIN FREKING

 

President Donald Trump has proposed boosting defense spending to $1.5 trillion in his 2027 budget released Friday, the largest such request in decades, reflecting his emphasis on U.S. military investments over domestic programs.

The sizable increase for the Pentagon had been telegraphed by the Republican president even before the the U.S.-led war against Iran. The president’s plan would also reduce spending on non-defense programs by 10% by shifting some responsibilities to state and local governments.

 

“President Trump is committed to rebuilding our military to secure peace through strength,” the budget said.

The president’s annual budget is considered a reflection of the administration’s values and does not carry the force of law. The massive document typically highlights an administration’s priorities, but Congress, which handles federal spending issues, is free to reject it and often does.

 This year’s White House document, prepared by Budget Director Russ Vought, is intended to provide a road map from the president to Congress as lawmakers build their own budgets and annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded. Vought spoke to House GOP lawmakers on a private call Thursday. 

 

Trump, speaking ahead of an address to the nation this week about the Iran war, signaled the military is his priority, setting up a clash ahead in Congress.

“We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care,” Trump said at a private White House event Wednesday.

“It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare — all these individual things,” he said. “They can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal.”

 

Immigration enforcement, air traffic controllers and national parks

Among the budget priorities the White House called for:

-Supporting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement and deportation operations by eliminating refugee resettlement aid programs, maintaining Immigration and Customs Enforcement funds at current year levels and drawing on last’s year’s increases for the Department of Homeland Security funds to continue opening detention facilities, including 100,000 beds for adults and 30,000 for families.

 

A 13% increase in funding for the Department of Justice, which the White House said would be focused on violent criminals.

-- A $10 billion fund within the National Park Service for beautification projects in Washington, D.C..

-- A $481 million increase in funding to enhance aviation safety and support an air traffic controller hiring surge.

With the nation running nearly $2 trillion annual deficits and the debt swelling past $39 trillion, the federal balance sheets have long been operating in the red.

About two-thirds of the nation’s estimated $7 trillion in annual spending covers the Medicare and Medicaid health care programs, as well as Social Security income, which are essentially growing — along with an aging population — on autopilot.

The rest of the annual budget has typically been more evenly split between defense and domestic accounts, nearly $1 trillion each, which is where much of the debate in Congress takes place. 

 

The GOP’s big tax breaks bill that Trump signed into law last year boosted his priorities beyond the budget process — with at least $150 billion for the Pentagon over the next several years, and $170 billion for Trump’s immigration and deportation operations at the Department of Homeland Security.

The administration is counting on its allies in the Republican-led Congress to again push the president’s priorities, particularly the Defense Department spending, through its own budget process, as it was able to do last year.

It suggests $1.1 trillion for defense would come through the regular appropriations process, which typically requires support from both parties for approval, while $350 billion would come through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans can accomplish on their own, through party-line majority votes.

 

Congress still fighting over 2026 spending

The president’s budget arrives as the House and Senate remain tangled over current-year spending and stalemated over DHS funding, with Democrats demanding changes to Trump’s immigration enforcement regime that Republicans are unwilling to accept.

Trump announced Thursday he would sign an executive order to pay all DHS workers who have gone without paychecks during the record-long partial government shutdown that has reached 49 days. The Republican leadership in Congress reached an agreement this week on a path forward to fund the department, but lawmakers are away on spring break and have not yet voted on any new legislation.

Last year, in the president’s first budget since returning to the White House, Trump sought to fulfill his promise to vastly reduce the size and scope of the federal government, reflecting the efforts of billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

As DOGE slashed through federal offices and Vought sought to claw back funds, Congress did not always agree.

 

For example, Trump sought a roughly one-fifth decrease in non-defense spending for the current budget year ending Sept. 30, but Congress kept such spending relatively flat.

Some of the programs that Trump tried to eliminate entirely, such as assisting families with their energy costs, got a slight uptick in funding. Others got flat funding, such as the Community Development Block Grants that states and local communities use to fund an array of projects intended mostly to help low-income communities through new parks, sewer systems and affordable housing.

Lawmakers have also focused on ensuring the administration spends federal dollars as directed by Congress. This year’s spending bills contained what Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described as “hundreds upon hundreds of specific funding levels and directives” that the administration is required to follow.