The Justice Department said in a court filing that thunderstorms created safety risks for workers carrying out the removal work and requested an extension until Saturday afternoon.

Democratic Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio, who filed the lawsuit, opposed the request, calling the delay unacceptable and part of what she described as a pattern of failing to comply with the court’s order.

A federal judge in Washington had earlier rejected a request from the administration and the Kennedy Center board to pause the removal order while an appeal moved forward.

US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that only Congress has the authority to rename the performing arts venue, which was established as a memorial to former President John F. Kennedy.

The administration appealed the decision to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which also declined to suspend the order.

Attorneys for Beatty said the law was clear that changing the Kennedy Center’s name required congressional action.

The Kennedy Center opened in 1971 as a memorial to Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963. After Trump appointed several board members, the board voted in December to rename the center to include his name.

Trump announced plans earlier this year for a major renovation of the center as part of a broader effort to reshape Washington’s landmark sites.

The measure would provide funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Border Patrol through the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.

The legislation now moves to the House of Representatives, where Republican leaders are aiming for swift passage as early as next week before sending the bill to the president for his signature.

The funding package comes after months of political battles in Washington over immigration enforcement, deportations and border security, issues that have remained central to Trump’s domestic policy agenda.

The resolution passed 215-208 after a small group of Republicans joined Democrats in defying President Donald Trump, reflecting growing concern in Congress over the cost and duration of the war.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the conflict had cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion and weakened America’s position, calling it a “reckless and costly war of choice.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson opposed the measure, arguing that Trump remains focused on securing a lasting resolution and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy route disrupted by the conflict.

The resolution now shifts attention to the Senate, where a similar measure has already advanced with bipartisan support but has yet to receive a final vote.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that congressional restrictions could undermine U.S. leverage in negotiations with Tehran, while lawmakers continue debating the balance of war-making powers between Congress and the White House.

practice of medically repatriating citizens exposed to or infected with dangerous infectious diseases abroad.The administration announced last week that it was establishing a quarantine facility in Kenya for U.S. citizens exposed to Ebola during the ongoing outbreak affecting eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda. Under the plan, Americans who develop symptoms would not be returned to the United States but instead transferred to a third country for treatment as Washington seeks to prevent Ebola cases from entering U.S. territory.

The health officials said the proposal raises “profound clinical, ethical, operational, and legal concerns,” warning that it could discourage healthcare workers and emergency responders from participating in outbreak-control missions in affected regions.They also expressed concern that resources would be diverted toward creating temporary quarantine, isolation and treatment infrastructure overseas rather than supporting efforts to contain the disease at its source.

According to the letter, such a shift could weaken already strained outbreak response operations and complicate international public health coordination.The administration’s plan has also generated opposition in Kenya, where concerns have been raised about the potential public health implications of hosting a quarantine center for foreign nationals exposed to Ebola.

A Kenyan court has temporarily suspended plans to establish the facility following a legal challenge arguing that the project could pose risks to public health. The ruling places the future of the proposed site in doubt as legal proceedings continue.The dispute highlights growing tensions between domestic disease-control priorities and international public health practices as governments seek to manage cross-border infectious disease threats while balancing political, logistical and medical considerations.

Trump’s appearance in New York’s Hudson Valley region comes as the White House seeks to bolster its economic message following a decline in the president’s approval ratings on economic management. The event will focus on last year’s tax legislation, including a significant expansion of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a key issue for voters in high-tax states such as New York.

Lawler, who faces a closely watched reelection race in November, has emerged as one of the most vulnerable House Republicans. His district was carried by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, making it one of only a handful of Republican-held seats in Democratic-leaning territory.

The White House said Trump’s remarks at Rockland Community College in Suffern will highlight measures it says have reduced tax burdens for working families and increased household refunds. Administration officials argue that the expanded SALT deduction, raised to $40,000 from the previous $10,000 cap, has delivered substantial tax relief to residents in suburban New York communities.

The president’s visit comes amid growing economic concerns among voters. According to a recent AP-NORC poll, roughly one-third of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, a decline from levels recorded at the beginning of his second term. Rising gasoline prices linked to the conflict with Iran have added pressure to household budgets and complicated the administration’s pledge to lower living costs.

Lawler has closely aligned himself with Trump despite representing a politically divided district. He argues that his legislative record and efforts to secure tax relief have broad appeal beyond the Republican base. The congressman played a prominent role in negotiations surrounding the SALT provision and has made the issue central to his reelection campaign.

Democrats, however, are seeking to frame Trump’s appearance as evidence of Lawler’s support for policies they say have failed to address economic challenges facing middle-class families. Five Democratic candidates are competing in a June 23 primary for the opportunity to challenge Lawler in the general election.

Republican strategists contend that Trump remains popular among GOP voters in the district and believe the visit will help energize supporters ahead of a campaign expected to draw national attention.

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson said internal polling showed the president performing well in competitive districts, while Democratic support had weakened.

Trump formally endorsed Lawler’s reelection bid last year, reinforcing the congressman’s position within the party as Republicans seek to retain control of the House of Representatives.

The Pentagon had announced on Friday that about 5,000 troops would be withdrawn from Germany over the next six to 12 months, but Trump said the reduction would go significantly beyond that figure.“We’re going to cut way down, and we’re cutting a lot further than 5,000,” Trump told reporters in Florida, offering no detailed explanation for the expanded drawdown.

The move escalates tensions with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and comes amid broader disputes between Washington and European allies over defense spending, the war in Iran and trans-Atlantic trade.Germany currently hosts around 36,000 U.S. service members, including major strategic facilities such as Ramstein Air Base, the headquarters of U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command, and the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a major military hospital serving overseas operations.

A withdrawal of 5,000 troops would represent roughly one-seventh of the U.S. military presence in Germany, though the Pentagon has not clarified which units or operations would be affected by the larger reduction Trump indicated.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said earlier on Saturday that the initial drawdown was expected and reflected a broader reality that Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security.“The presence of American soldiers in Europe, and especially in Germany, is in our interest and in the interest of the U.S.,” Pistorius told German news agency dpa.

“We Europeans must take on more responsibility for our security,” he added, pointing to Germany’s increased defense spending, faster procurement and military modernization efforts.NATO also responded cautiously, with spokesperson Allison Hart saying the alliance was working with Washington to understand the details of the force posture changes.

“This adjustment underscores the need for Europe to continue to invest more in defense and take on a greater share of the responsibility for our shared security,” she said in a post on X, while noting progress toward the alliance’s defense spending target of 5% of GDP among member states.

The troop reduction has faced immediate resistance in Washington from both Democrats and senior Republicans, who warned that it could weaken deterrence against Russia as Moscow’s war in Ukraine enters its fifth year.

Republican lawmakers Senator Roger Wicker and Representative Mike Rogers, who chair the Senate and House armed services committees, said they were “very concerned” the decision would risk “undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.”They also said the Pentagon had canceled the planned deployment of the Army’s Long-Range Fires Battalion, a move they argued would further weaken NATO’s eastern posture.

Trump’s renewed push to scale back troop deployments follows longstanding criticism of European allies for relying too heavily on U.S. defense guarantees while underinvesting in their own militaries.His frustration has deepened over Europe’s reluctance to fully support Washington’s military campaign with Israel against Iran, as well as over trade disputes with the European Union.

Trump recently accused the EU of failing to comply with a trade agreement and said he would raise tariffs next week on European-made cars and trucks to 25%, a step likely to hit Germany’s export-driven auto sector particularly hard.

Merz last week criticized U.S. strategy toward Iran, saying Washington was being “humiliated” by Iranian leadership and lacked a coherent approach.Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the troop withdrawal followed “a thorough review” of U.S. force posture in Europe and reflected operational needs and current conditions on the ground.

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said military branches had no prior notice of the decision and learned of the reduction in real time, underscoring internal concerns over the abruptness of the move.

Germany remains central to U.S. military operations in Europe, with permanent Army and Air Force deployments, logistical hubs and strategic nuclear assets, making any significant troop reduction symbolically and operationally sensitive for NATO.

Under the 1973 law, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of its start or require its end. The deadline followed U.S. operations that began on Feb. 28, but Senate Republicans took no action before leaving for a one-week recess.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he did not expect a vote on authorizing force in Iran, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued the deadline no longer applied because a ceasefire with Iran that began in early April had effectively paused the conflict.

Democrats rejected that claim, saying U.S. military operations continue as the Navy enforces a blockade linked to the Strait of Hormuz crisis.

Some Republicans, including Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, said Congress should still have a formal role, with Collins calling the deadline “a requirement” and not a suggestion.

A senior administration official said the hostilities that began on Feb. 28 had “terminated” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, arguing that the U.S. military and Iran have not exchanged fire since a two-week ceasefire took effect on April 7.

The position builds on remarks by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told lawmakers during Senate testimony earlier Thursday that the administration believes the ceasefire pauses or stops the 60-day clock mandated under the law.

“We are in a ceasefire right now, which our understanding means, the 60-day clock pauses or stops,” Hegseth said before the Senate Armed Services Committee.Under the War Powers Resolution, Congress must authorize military action within 60 days of a president notifying lawmakers of hostilities or the administration must end the campaign, with a possible 30-day extension allowed for withdrawal.

That deadline falls on Friday for Trump’s Iran operation.The White House has not sought formal approval from Congress, even as U.S. naval operations continue in the Gulf and Iran maintains pressure over the Strait of Hormuz while Washington enforces a blockade aimed at preventing Iranian oil exports.

Democrats and some Republicans have argued that the administration is legally required to obtain congressional approval and that the ceasefire does not suspend the statute.

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few Republicans to back a Senate effort to halt military action without authorization, said the deadline was binding and not optional.

“That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement,” Collins said, adding that any further military action must have “a clear mission, achievable goals, and a defined strategy for bringing the conflict to a close.”

The Senate on Thursday rejected, for a sixth time, a Democratic-led measure seeking to end U.S. military action in Iran absent congressional approval, allowing Republicans to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump as the legal deadline approached.

Some GOP lawmakers who had supported limited strikes against Tehran have increasingly signaled they want Congress to reassert its constitutional authority if the operation becomes prolonged.The administration’s interpretation has drawn criticism from legal experts who argue the War Powers Resolution contains no mechanism allowing the 60-day period to be paused because of a temporary ceasefire.

Katherine Yon Ebright, counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program, said the administration’s argument marked a significant expansion of prior executive branch interpretations of the law.

“To be very, very clear and unambiguous, nothing in the text or design of the War Powers Resolution suggests that the 60-day clock can be paused or terminated,” she said.Previous administrations have often argued that limited or intermittent military actions did not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the law.

But legal analysts say the sustained U.S. military campaign against Iran, including naval deployments and direct strikes, would be difficult to classify under that narrower interpretation.

Richard Goldberg, a former National Security Council official during Trump’s first term, said he had advised administration officials to transition the current operation into a separate mission focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and defending maritime navigation.

He suggested a follow-up mission could be framed as a self-defense operation rather than a continuation of the existing war authorization timeline.“That to me solves it all,” said Goldberg, now a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The dispute highlights the long-running constitutional struggle between Congress and the presidency over control of U.S. military engagements, a conflict that has persisted since lawmakers passed the War Powers Resolution during the Vietnam War era to curb unilateral presidential war-making.

Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives.

In the narrative of Pakistan’s creation, the story is often framed as a unified struggle for a Muslim homeland. Yet, this overlooks the voices of dissent, none more compelling than Allah Bux Mohammed Umar Soomro, the former Premier of Sindh. A devout Muslim and staunch Indian nationalist, Soomro rejected the Muslim League’s Two-Nation Theory, advocating for a secular, united India. His defiance of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his mysterious assassination in 1943 expose the contradictions and betrayals at the heart of Pakistan’s founding.

A Muslim Nationalist’s Stand

Allah Bux Soomro was no ordinary leader. As Premier of Sindh, he refused to let his Muslim identity be weaponized for political ends. Aligning with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, he championed a vision of India where civic identity trumped religious divides. “I am first an Indian and then a Muslim,” he declared, a statement that encapsulated his commitment to pluralism and unity.

His principles were matched by action. In 1942, Soomro returned his knighthood, a prestigious British honor, as a protest against colonial oppression and in support of the Quit India Movement. This bold move infuriated the British and alienated pro-British Muslim leaders, marking him as a true nationalist. While the Muslim League, led by Jinnah, avoided the Quit India Movement, Soomro’s government backed it, further antagonizing both colonial authorities and the League, which saw Sindh as crucial to its Pakistan agenda.

A Threat to Jinnah’s Vision

By 1943, Soomro’s influence was growing beyond Sindh, reaching Punjab and the North-West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). His message of secularism and unity resonated with Muslims who saw no conflict between their faith and Indian identity. This alarmed the Muslim League, which relied on communalism to consolidate power. Soomro’s popularity threatened Jinnah’s narrative that only the League spoke for India’s Muslims.

Jinnah viewed Soomro as a formidable obstacle, publicly dismissing him as a “Congress stooge.” Soomro’s principled stand made him a target, not just in Sindh but in regions critical to the League’s vision of Pakistan. His ability to rally diverse communities around a pluralist ideal posed a direct challenge to the League’s momentum.

A Mysterious Death

On May 14, 1943, Allah Bux Soomro was assassinated near Shikarpur, Sindh, reportedly by a hired killer posing as a beggar. The official account cited personal motives, but the political context suggests otherwise. Soomro had been ousted from his premiership under pressure from the British and the Muslim League. His rising influence, particularly as his ideas spread to Punjab, made him a threat to Jinnah’s communal agenda. The timing of his death, just as his vision gained traction, points to a calculated act to silence dissent.

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a leading Muslim nationalist and Congress president, mourned Soomro’s death as a blow to India’s unity. In India Wins Freedom, Azad praised him as a “man of great character,” lamenting the loss of a leader driven by conscience, not communalism. The murder was not just a personal tragedy but a blow to the vision of a united India.

Erased from History

Today, Soomro’s name is largely absent from Pakistan’s textbooks and official narratives. This erasure is deliberate. His life and death challenge the myth that Pakistan was the unanimous will of Indian Muslims. Many Muslims, like Soomro, opposed partition, advocating for a democratic, pluralist India. His assassination silenced a voice that could have altered South Asia’s trajectory, sparing it the horrors of division.

The hypocrisy is stark: a movement claiming to protect Muslim interests eliminated a Muslim leader who dared to prioritize unity over division. Soomro’s death was not at the hands of Islam’s foes but those who used faith to justify power. His murder underscores the cost of dissent in a movement that brooked no opposition.

A Legacy for Today

As Pakistan grapples with religious extremism and identity crises, Soomro’s story holds vital lessons. The unresolved tensions of its founding—when voices like his were silenced—continue to shape its challenges. Glorifying myths about Pakistan’s creation only deepens these divides. Honoring Soomro means confronting the uncomfortable truths of the past and embracing the values he died for: democracy, justice, and interfaith harmony.

Allah Bux Soomro was more than a Sindhi leader; he was a symbol of what South Asia could have been—a region united by shared ideals, not torn by faith. His mysterious death remains a haunting reminder of the price paid for dissent and the enduring need to reclaim his vision of unity.