The House on Wednesday passed a broad package of sanctions targeting Russian officials and key pillars of its economy as lawmakers look to deprive President Vladimir Putin of the financial resources needed to wage the war against Ukraine.

The bill is named after the late Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who spent more than a year negotiating it. The measure was approved in a 262-159 vote and now heads to President Donald Trump to be signed into law.

The legislation represents the most ambitious effort to support Ukraine since Trump's return to the White House and would break nearly two years of relative gridlock on the issue following a 2024 emergency aid package. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been pushing for the bill's passage and made a direct appeal to senators shortly before they passed it last month.

The measure sanctions Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of tankers that keeps Russian energy moving. It also directs Trump to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia's natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.

“These countries have a choice to make about whether they will continue to sustain Putin's aggression,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

Supporters said the tariff provisions are aimed at deterring China and India from purchasing Russian energy, but critics of the bill said they fear Trump will use the legislation to target allies in the European Union and elsewhere. Americans, they warned, would pay the price for such tariffs through higher prices at the cash register.

“This president has always said he loves tariffs,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y. “And we know the history of what he's done with reference to tariffs to our European allies, and our allies everywhere.”

Democrats were divided on the bill, despite overwhelming support in the caucus for aiding Ukraine. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told colleagues they can't control what the president does, but they can stand up and declare where they are on the war.

“If we fail to pass this bill, there will be cheers in the Kremlin and tears in Kyiv,” Hoyer said.

But Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., predicted Ukraine supporters would come to regret voting for the bill.

“Yes they will be able to say 'we stood with Ukraine' in the immediate aftermath,” Beyer said. “But when Donald Trump hits our allies with new tariffs and waives sanctions on Russia, the propaganda victory for Putin will be lasting, and the damage will be embedded in U.S. law.”

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, speaking in opposition to the bill, said Democrats would continue to support the Ukrainian people until victory is won, “but this bill does not provide a path to secure that.”

In all, 58 Democrats broke with Jeffries and voted for the bill, while 152 voted against it. Among Republicans, 203 voted yes while seven voted against it.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., celebrated the vote and highlighted the additional tariff power it provides the president.

“For too long, Putin has bankrolled this devastating war with money and resources from countries willing to look the other way, and today, that ends,” Johnson said.

Congress has struggled to ensure the flow of U.S. funding and munitions to Ukraine as Republican support for spending billions of dollars more on the effort has waned. Trump routinely derided the Ukraine aid while campaigning for the White House and insisted that, if elected, he would quickly end the war launched by Moscow's February 2022 invasion.

It took Graham essentially a full year to bring Trump on board with the Russia sanctions package. Eventually, Trump gave a nod to the bill after it included his push for a five-year extension of existing sanctions on Iran. Republicans speaking on the House floor in advance of Wednesday's vote were overwhelmingly supportive of the package.

Two lawsuits filed by small businesses are challenging Trump’s sweeping tariffs announced Thursday that impose double-digit levies on 60 trading partners.

The tariffs, implemented under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for what the Trump administration says is countries’ failure to prevent imports produced by forced labor, cover 99% of U.S. imports. Critics say the goal is less to prevent forced-labor imports and more to replace the worldwide tariffs that Trump imposed last year that were struck down by the Supreme Court in February. They came just as temporary 10% worldwide tariffs — that had also been challenged in court — expired.

Educational toy company Learning Resources, which was part of the tariff lawsuit that won in the Supreme Court, filed a new suit along with several other small businesses in the Court of International Trade on Friday over the current round of tariffs.

The second lawsuit was filed by Burlap and Barrel, a New York-based spice company, and Collective Horology, a watch retailer based in Ventura, California. They are represented by Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group.

Both lawsuits argue that the government didn’t adequately establish its case against each specific economy or spell how the tariffs will eliminate the specified practice they are being levied for, as required by Section 301.

“Forced labor is morally indefensible, but an important objective does not give the government permission to ignore the law,” said Sara Albrecht, chairman and CEO of the Liberty Justice Center. “The administration allowed one global tariff to expire and immediately replaced it with another under a different statute. Changing the statute doesn’t change the law.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Experts say it might be tougher to successfully challenge the current round of tariffs than previous rounds. Trump used Section 301 to impose big tariffs on China in his first term, and they survived court challenges.

Unlike the Section 122 levies that expired Friday, “these tariffs will be with us for the long haul,” said lawyer Patrick Childress, a partner at Holland & Knight and a former U.S. trade official.

Even if countries enact the precise policies the U.S. wants, he said, they will still need to prove that they’re enforcing them to Washington’s satisfaction before the tariffs are removed. “This suggests that no short-term path for country-wide relief from the new Section 301 tariffs will be available.”

A judge has rejected a request for a new trial for a Venezuelan man convicted of killing Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, a case that became a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration.

Lawyers for Jose Ibarra argued his constitutional rights were violated when the judge declined two defense motions before trial. One was a request to delay the trial to give an expert witness time to review and analyze DNA data. The other would have excluded some cellphone evidence.

Clarke County Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard, who presided over the trial, wrote in an order Monday that the evidence of Ibarra's guilt presented by the state was "overwhelming and powerful." After Ibarra waived his right to a jury trial, Haggard found him guilty of murder and other charges during the November 2024 trial and sentenced him to life in prison. A spokesperson for Ibarra's attorneys said they plan to file an appeal.

Ibarra, 28, had entered the U.S. illegally in 2022 and was allowed to stay while he pursued his immigration case.

Prosecutors said Ibarra encountered Riley while she was running on the University of Georgia campus in Athens on Feb. 22, 2024, and killed her during a struggle. Riley was a student at Augusta University College of Nursing, which also has a campus in Athens, about 70 miles (115 kilometers) east of Atlanta.

Ibarra's trial attorneys had asked the judge to delay the trial after a DNA expert said she would need six weeks to review evidence analyzed using TrueAllele Casework, software used to interpret DNA and assist the defense. The judge wrote in his order Monday that Ibarra's lawyers "effectively challenged the TrueAllele DNA evidence at trial" and concluded that Ibarra was not harmed by the denial of a delay.

The DNA expert testified during a January hearing on the motion for a new trial, and the judge wrote that he did not find her opinion to be persuasive or credible and that it would not have changed the trial outcome.

Ibarra's attorneys also had challenged the seizure of two cellphones from his apartment, saying they were not listed on the search warrant, and sought to exclude evidence pulled from them. Haggard wrote that there were "exigent circumstances authorizing the seizure of the cellphones" and that the phones were not searched until after warrants were issued authorizing the search of the contents of the phones.

Patrons at a restaurant acted quickly and selflessly to stop a gunman who opened fire while a wedding was taking place at a New Hampshire country club, averting a worse tragedy, authorities said Sunday.

One person was killed and two others were wounded by gunfire Saturday night before a suspect was taken into custody in a nearby neighborhood not long after the shooting, authorities said.

The gunfire killed Robert Steven DeCesare, 59, at Sky Meadow Country Club in Nashua, said New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Nashua Police Chief Kevin Rourke. They said the suspect was Hunter Nadeau, 23, of Nashua, and that he had been arrested and charged with one count of second-degree murder for knowingly shooting DeCesare.

Nadeau was a former employee of the club, Formella said, adding that Nadeau made a number of statements during the shooting and appeared to be attempting to cause chaos in the moment as opposed to showing a hate-based motivation. Witnesses reported that Nadeau said “Free Palestine” during the confusion.

Some witnesses said someone struck Nadeau with a chair in an attempt to subdue him. Formella cited “selfless acts of courage by the patrons in the restaurant who put aside care for their own safety and worked to intervene and stop the shooter.”

The shooting happened adjacent to a wedding that was taking place at the club. Wedding DJ Michael Homewood credited the chair strike with preventing an even worse shooting.

“He hit him over the head with a chair, and he probably saved a bunch of lives just doing that,” Homewood told WCVB-TV.

Investigators were working to determine a motive, Formella said. Police did not immediately respond to a question about whether Nadeau is represented by an attorney, and attempts to reach family members of Nadeau were not immediately successful. Authorities said there is no known connection between Nadeau and DeCesare.

Authorities had initially thought there could be two shooters but later said there was only one.

“Additional charges likely will be brought, including for the additional shooting victims,” Formella and Rourke said in a statement. They said they expect Nadeau to be arraigned at the Ninth Circuit Court in Nashua on Monday.

One of the surviving gunshot victims was an employee and the other was a patron, Formella said. The employee is hospitalized in critical but stable condition while the other victim’s status is unknown, Formella said. He said at least four other people at the scene suffered non-gunshot wounds that were not expected to be life threatening.

In addition to the three gunshot victims, others suffered injuries including lacerations, a broken hand and blunt force trauma, Nashua Fire Rescue said Sunday. The agency said it assisted about 100 people from the scene to a nearby firehouse, mostly on foot.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte said in a statement Sunday that the attorney general’s office will assist Nashua police with the investigation and that she and her husband were “praying for the victims and their families.”

Nashua is about 45 miles (70 kilometers) northwest of Boston, just across the Massachusetts border.

The mother of DeCesare, the man who was killed, had earlier described not being able to find her son after he was shot.

“He went down. My daughter-in-law and granddaughter escaped. ... They saw my son go down and they saw blood,” said Evie O’Rourke of Salem, New Hampshire.

Sophie Flabouris told WCVB-TV that someone hit the suspect over the head with a chair to subdue him. Flabouris said the suspect then fled the scene.

“We had just gathered around the dance floor. We were about to do a Greek smashing of the plates and throwing the dollar bills. The bride had just come up to me and gave me the plates to say, ‘All right, you give this to my husband.’ And all of a sudden we heard ‘pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.’ Heard five shots,” Flabouris said. “All of a sudden heard ‘Gun!’ Chaos, screaming, and then running.”

Emily Ernst said she saw a gunman in all black.

“He had a mask on. We just saw him raise the gun and then we ran,” Ernst said. “I ran through the kitchen for my life.”

Tom Bartelson of Pepperell, Massachusetts, described a chaotic scene that unfolded near his nephew’s wedding.

Los Angeles students and teachers return to class for the new academic year Thursday under a cloud of apprehension after a summer filled with immigration raids and amid worries that schools could become a target in the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown.

Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Alberto Carvalho has urged immigration authorities not to conduct enforcement activity within a two-block radius around schools starting an hour before the school day begins and until one hour after it classes let out.

“Hungry children, children in fear, cannot learn well,” Carvalho said in a news conference.

He also announced a number of measures intended to protect students and families, including adding or altering bus routes to accommodate more students. The district is to distribute a family preparedness packet that includes know-your-rights information, emergency contact updates and tips on designating a backup caregiver in case a parent is detained.

The sprawling district, which covers more than two dozen cities, is the nation’s second largest with more than 500,000 students. According to the teachers’ union, 30,000 students are immigrants, and an estimated quarter of them are without legal status.

Federal immigration enforcement near schools causes concern

While immigration agents have not detained anyone inside a school, a 15-year-old boy was pulled from a car and handcuffed outside Arleta High School in northern Los Angeles on Monday, Carvalho said.

He had significant disabilities and was released after a bystander intervened in the case of “mistaken identity,” the superintendent said.

“This is the exact type of incident that traumatizes our communities; it cannot repeat itself,” he added.

Administrators at two elementary schools previously denied entry to officials from the Department of Homeland Security in April, and immigration agents have been seen in vehicles outside schools.
DHS did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Carvalho said that while staffers and district police officers cannot interfere with immigration enforcement and do not have jurisdiction beyond school property, they have had conversations with federal agents parked in front of schools that resulted in them leaving.

The district is partnering with local law enforcement in some cities and forming a “rapid response” network to disseminate information about the presence of federal agents, he said.
Educators worry about attendance

Teachers say they are concerned some students might not show up the first day.

Lupe Carrasco Cardona, a high school social studies and English teacher at the Roybal Learning Center, said attendance saw a small dip in January when President Donald Trump took office.

The raids ramped up in June right before graduations, putting a damper on ceremonies. One raid at a Home Depot near MacArthur Park, an area with many immigrant families from Central America, took place the same morning as an 8th grade graduation at a nearby middle school.

“People were crying, for the actual graduation ceremony there were hardly any parents there,” Cardona said.

The next week, at her high school graduation, the school rented two buses to transport parents to the ceremony downtown. Ultimately many of the seats were empty, unlike other graduations.

One 11th grader, who spoke on the condition that her last name not be published because she is in the country without legal permission and fears being targeted, said she is afraid to return to school.

“Instead of feeling excited, really what I’m feeling is concern,” said Madelyn, a 17-year-old from Central America. “I am very, very scared, and there is a lot of pressure.”

She added that she takes public transportation to school but fears being targeted on the bus by immigration agents because of her skin color.

“We are simply young people with dreams who want to study, move forward and contribute to this country as well,” she said.

Madelyn joined a club that provides support and community for immigrant students and said she intends to persevere in that work.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs.

The justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency.

The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a “demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.”

Jackson warned of enormous real-world consequences. “This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it,” she wrote.

The high court action continued a remarkable winning streak for Trump, who the justices have allowed to move forward with significant parts of his plan to remake the federal government. The Supreme Court’s intervention so far has been on the frequent emergency appeals the Justice Department has filed objecting to lower-court rulings as improperly intruding on presidential authority.

The Republican president has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate for the work, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk recently left his role.

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration. It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement.

Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go.

In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump’s administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Illston’s order, finding that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation’s food-safety system and health care for veterans.

Illston directed numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president’s workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco were among cities that also sued.

“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the parties that sued said in a joint statement.

Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.