After a series of fits and starts over President Trump's White House ballroom and the Justice Department's "anti-weaponization" fund, the chamber is moving ahead with the reconciliation process, beginning with what's known as a "vote-a-rama" on Thursday morning. During the vote-a-rama, senators can offer an unlimited number of amendments and require the chamber to cast vote after vote.

Democrats — and some Republicans — are expected to force a number of votes aimed at restricting the DOJ fund, which aimed to provide taxpayer-funded payouts to individuals who alleged the federal government had been "weaponized" against them. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before a House committee earlier this week that "we are not moving forward with the fund." But his refusal to put anything in writing, and the president's continued praise for the plan, have made some senators skeptical.

The announcement of the fund last month threatened to derail the funding for DHS' immigration enforcement agencies. Senate Republicans have been seeking to fund the agencies for months, but faced opposition from Democrats after two fatal shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis in January. And after negotiations over possible reforms to the agencies fell apart, Senate Republicans opted to pursue the funding on their own through budget reconciliation.

The process allows Republicans to bypass the 60-vote threshold needed to advance most legislation and move forward with a simple majority of members.

As Republicans were poised to begin the marathon vote series last month, the administration's announcement of the fund put GOP senators in a difficult position, with Democrats eager to force them to take vote after vote on the controversial payouts. Republican leaders ultimately scrapped plans to begin voting, and the chamber recessed without making progress. But upon their return this week, Republicans quickly worked to gain assurances from the administration, and appeared more confident in their path forward.

Even with the assurances from the administration, Democrats will take the opportunity to hammer Republicans over the fund Thursday. But the amendments set to be brought by Republicans will be the most noteworthy. 

GOP Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana have filed amendments related to the fund. Both senators are retiring at the end of this Congress, and have been more willing to break with their party than their colleagues. Whether they're joined by other Republicans who occasionally cross the aisle, or the newly unleashed Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, remains to be seen.

Republicans were already forced to do away with funding related to the president's renovation of the White House's East Wing, where he plans to build a massive ballroom. The initial reconciliation package included $1 billion for the Secret Service for security related to the complex. But it was stripped from the final bill after pushback from a number of Senate Republicans.

The marathon vote series marks the beginning of bringing to an end a long saga over fiscal year 2026 government funding, which prompted a 43-day shutdown last fall, followed by a partial government shutdown earlier this year. With the rest of the government funded, Republicans are looking to close the loop on the final agencies, while guaranteeing they remain funded through the end of the Trump administration.

Mendoza's announcement has been expected for months, after she announced last July that she would not seek a fourth term as Illinois State Comptroller.

It's not her first bid for mayor. She also ran in 2023, but she said this time is different.

Mendoza said she spent the last few months on a listening tour, talking to Chicagoans who she said asked her to run. She said that's why she decided now could be the time for a Mendoza administration on the 5th floor of City Hall.

On the heels of an official campaign video released online, Mendoza's son, David, delivered her introduction at a campaign kickoff event in the Little Village neighborhood, where she grew up.

"I've always been able to count on my mom, and so can all of you," David said.

Mendoza is not new to the Chicago political scene. She's been Illinois State Comptroller since 2016, and touted her experience balancing Illinois state government finances.

Before she was comptroller, she was the first woman elected Chicago City Clerk in 2011. She also served multiple terms in the Illinois House.

"I'm officially launching my campaign to be the next mayor of Chicago, your mayor of Chicago," she said. "I can do it, because I have."

In launching her campaign, she soundly criticized incumbent Mayor Brandon Johnson.

"Chicago has tossed mayors out of office for blizzards, corruption and incompetence. Right now, Chicago's experiencing a blizzard of incompetence. We deserve better," Mendoza said.

Mendoza also vowed to she promised to "trim the fat at City Hall," saying that means putting an end to what she calls unnecessary spending.

"I can't wait to get my hands into that budget, look over every line item," she said. "I mean, just look at the mayor's individual payroll with his staff; a bunch of 20-year-olds that are in charge of departments that they have an adversarial relationship with, even philosophically."

She also promised to reach across the political aisle to get things done, and said she's confident she can bridge the gap between the progressive wing of the City Council allied with Johnson and its more centrist members.

"I would just tell you that I've already done it. So, when I was state representative, I have a reputation for being a bipartisan collaborator. There wasn't a single bill I ever called on the House floor that I did not pass," Mendoza said.

However, it's common practice in Springfield for legislative leadership to only allow bills to be called on the House floor when there are enough votes to pass it, so it's rare for any legislation called for a floor vote to fail, regardless of who the sponsor is.

Asked what's changed since her failed 2019 run for mayor, when she came in 5th place in a crowded field, Mendoza said, "everything is different.

"I had a two-month window before. I had never run for that office. I did not plan to run for office. I was concerned about the city and that's why I jumped in. Nothing felt right about that election from day one, and it wasn't meant to be. This is a very different scenario. You were in this room today. You saw what I felt on that stage. This was Chicago busting at the seams in this room today," she said.

Mendoza also mentioned standing behind the Chicago Police Department, a "common sense" stance on crime, and curbing the use of electronic monitoring for repeat offenders.

Mendoza faces a growing field of competitors in the race for mayor. Congressman Mike Quigley and Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas both have said they plan to run, but have yet to make formal campaign announcements. Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias also is widely considered to be preparing a run for mayor.

While Johnson has yet to announce if he'll run for another term, he's widely expected to seek re-election.

The mayoral election is scheduled for Feb. 23, 2027. If no candidate gets a majority of the vote, the top two finishers in the election will face off in a runoff election on April 6, 2027.

The latest attack, the fifth in about a week, brings the number of people who have been killed in boat strikes by the U.S. military to at least 207 since the administration began targeting those it calls "narcoterrorists" in early September.

As with most of the military's statements on strikes in the eastern Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, U.S. Southern Command said it targeted the alleged drug traffickers along known smuggling routes. The military did not provide evidence that the vessel was ferrying drugs. A video posted on X showed a boat speeding through the water before bursting into flames.

U.S. Southern Command said in its post on X that the strike came at the direction of Gen. Francis L. Donovan, the top U.S. commander in Latin America. Donovan last week met with Cuban military leaders near the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay.

President Trump has said the U.S. is in "armed conflict" with cartels in Latin America and has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and fatal overdoses claiming American lives. But his administration has offered little evidence to support its claims of killing "narcoterrorists."

Critics have questioned the overall legality of the boat strikes as well as their effectiveness, in part because the fentanyl behind many fatal overdoses is typically trafficked to the U.S. over land from Mexico, where it is produced with chemicals imported from China and India.

The strikes have drawn intense scrutiny from some Democratic lawmakers and military legal scholars. The U.S. military's first strike in early September drew particular concern from some lawmakers and those who study military law.

Two men on the boat initially survived the attack that killed nine others, and they were clinging to the wreckage when the vessel was struck again, killing them. The two survivors were waving overhead before they were killed, according to two sources familiar with a video that was shown to lawmakers.

The White House confirmed the follow-up strike, insisting it was done "in self-defense" to ensure the boat was destroyed and in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. But some legal scholars said a second strike killing survivors would have been illegal under any circumstance, armed conflict or not.

The Pentagon's watchdog said in May that it plans to look into whether the U.S. military followed an established targeting framework when carrying out the strikes. However, the evaluation is focused specifically on what's known as the six-phase Joint Targeting Cycle and not on the legality of the strikes, the inspector general's office said.

To date, only three people are known to have survived strikes and then been rescued. Two were rescued from a "narco sub" accused of carrying drugs in October and later returned to their home countries of Ecuador and Colombia.

In March, the U.S. Coast Guard said it recovered a survivor of a strike that killed two others and transferred the survivor to Costa Rican authorities.

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate's procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It's unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans "to do the right thing." 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump's military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war's unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP's chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a "political liability" if it continues beyond "the next couple of weeks," according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in "no hurry" to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

"Everybody's saying, 'Oh, the midterms, I'm in a hurry.' I'm in no hurry," he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president "to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran," unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a "stupid political vote" that "weakens the president's hands as he's negotiating with Iran." 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, "You can expect us to continue to do our jobs." 

"We're going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities," he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, "The law is the law." 

"We have to follow the law. There's a law on the books," Fitzpatrick said. "So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can't violate the law. That's not an option." 

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven't held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

"If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor," Meeks said.

There's been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are "better tools" for Congress to assert its authority. 

"We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used," Kiley said, referring to Congress' power of the purse. "I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here." 

The Bears have publicly said they've exhausted opportunities to have their future stadium stay in Chicago, and their focus is on northwest suburban Arlington Heights and Hammond, Indiana.

But the mayor said the Illinois General Assembly's failure to pass legislation supporting a Bears stadium project during their spring session is a chance to revisit his proposal for the team to stay in Chicago.

"The best place for a fan to enjoy our Chicago Bears, it's downtown," Johnson said during a radio appearance on 104.3 The Score.

The mayor said his plan to keep the Bears in Chicago continues to be the best option.

"We are the only city that has put forth a viable plan for a publicly owned stadium that the people of Chicago could continue to enjoy, and the people of the city would own the stadium," he said.

Johnson has continued to push for the city's 2024 plan of relying on the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority and its 2% hotel tax to help fund a new Bears stadium on the lakefront, along with the team paying for a portion of the construction cost.

"I'm saying that, as fans, as elected leaders, this is an opportunity for us to come together to ensure that our Bears remain in Chicago," Johnson said.

Johnson cast doubt over Arlington Heights and Hammond, claiming his plan better protects taxpayers and keeps the team on the lakefront.

"The two other locations that have been discussed, there's no traffic study, there's no environmental study," he said.

Johnson said he and the Bears were negotiating what he called a "term sheet" for a potential new stadium on the lakefront earlier this year, but acknowledged they haven't had any contact since April.

"Up until April, we were working out a term sheet, because that's what you do in negotiations," he said.

However, since April, the Bears have said Chicago is no longer a viable option.

Former alderman and retired University of Illinois Chicago political science professor Dick Simpson said a state lawmakers' lack of action on a Bears stadium deal has left an opening, but the issue remains an uphill climb for Johnson.

"The fact that the legislature wasn't able to come to an agreement was a bad sign about keeping the Bears here," he said. "It's still pretty unlikely. The Bears and the state have, each the time the issue has come up, said that Chicago is dead as a possibility."

Katie Krall, a sports finance professor at Northwestern University, said while the Bears stadium saga can seem drawn out, the stakes are high, and have been seen in other stadium deals across sports.

"There are instances of teams leaving cities that they've been in before; that exodus and that relocation leaves scars," she said. "I would say that the back and forth or the absence of a clear, easy solution isn't surprising. If anything, it's a reflection of the amount of time and intentionality that you have to have with an issue of this scale and this impact."

Johnson said he aims to continue communication with the Bears, state lawmakers, and the governor.

Illinois state Rep. Kam Buckner (D-Illinois) met Pope Leo XIV in St. Peter's Square. Buckner gave the pope a No. 14 Illini jersey with the name "Leo" on the back.

Buckner played offensive tackle and defensive lineman for University of Illinois football. He went on to earn a B.A. in political science from the U of I and a J.D. from the DePaul University College of Law.

Buckner was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives in 2019. He ran in the mayoral contest that Mayor Johnson ultimately won in 2023.

The City Council Public Safety Committee was scheduled to meet for the second time to question the Johnson administration about why ShotSpotter has yet to be replaced nearly two years after the mayor shut it down.

But not enough alders were in the City Council chamber to hold the meeting, so it was called off. Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd), who chairs the committee, said the debate will continue despite the latest setback.

A meeting that needed at least 9 of 18 committee members physically present was dismantled after a handful of alders left the meeting moments before a quorum call.

"Ultimately, the majority must prevail, and we will do so. I'll reconvene this meeting," Hopkins said. "Despite the delays, the mayor's office assured me that they are still committed to finding a new gunshot detection system for the city."

Hopkins and other backers of ShotSpotter planned to use the meeting to refute new data released by the University of Chicago Justice Project showing there is no evidence that getting rid of ShotSpotter slowed police response times or drove up violent crime, as many warned.

The UChicago Justice Project analysis found police response times improved by four minutes in the six months after ShotSpotter went away, compared to the previous six months. The study suggested officers previously tied up responding to ShotSpotter alerts could now prioritize other emergency calls.

Hopkins shrugged off those findings.

"It is not an accurate study. It was not correct methodology, and it's deceptive to use it to imply otherwise," he said.

In a statement, University of Chicago sociology professor Rob Vargas, who leads the Justice Project, said in part he was "unable to appear before this committee in person today. I was notified of this hearing less than 24 hours ago."

Vargas went on to say, "the technology was sold as a tool to reduce crime" and that "the company then pivoted to selling the product on the basis of faster response times to gunshot incidents."

 "The product's advocates have arrived at this hearing to argue that our study is flawed because it did not center shots-fired calls. That is not a methodological critique, it is moving the goalposts one more time. The company and its advocates would rather debate the merits of one particular study instead of [ShotSpotter parent company] SoundThinking's track record of evading evidence based accountability in Chicago.

Rev. Michael Pfleger was among a number of community leaders who held a rally before Wednesday's meeting to support efforts to replace ShotSpotter with a new gunshot detection system to keep neighborhoods safe.

"This is a tool that can save lives. Let's use every tool we can in the toolbox to save lives in the city of Chicago," Pfleger said.

The reverend argued that, without ShotSpotter, many people have died after police were not notified of a shooting in areas where the gunshot sensors were once active, and no one called 911 about the gunfire that ShotSpotter would have detected

"Over the last two years, there's been a number of bodies that have been found, victims shot who laid on the street and nobody knows for how long they have been there," Pfleger said.

Attendance at City Council committee meetings is typically low, despite alders earning salaries of at least $125,000.

"Andrew Boutros's time as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has been riddled with chaos, deep internal dysfunction, and alleged misconduct," the senators said in a joint statement Tuesday afternoon. "He must resign, and there must be an open, transparent, and nonpartisan search to nominate the next U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois."

In his own statement on Wednesday afternoon, Garcia also urged Boutros to step down.

"Andrew Boutros has disgraced the office he leads. Between the baseless Broadview Six case, the ridiculous charges against Marimar Martinez, and the credible allegations of dysfunction and misconduct, he has made it clear that he will put politics above the interests of Chicagoans and other residents of the Northern District. He has no credibility and must resign, and there must be a non-partisan, transparent process to nominate the next U.S. Attorney for the Northern District," Garcia said.

Boutros made a rare personal appearance in court to dismiss the charges against the remaining "Broadview Six" defendants in late May, saying there was improper handling of grand jury proceedings by the lead prosecutor in the case. It subsequently emerged that the unredacted grand jury transcript revealed allegations of serious prosecutorial misconduct, including vouching, a meeting between a prosecutor and a juror outside proceedings, and jurors who disagreed with the case being dismissed and prevented from participating.

Boutros did not dispute the allegations. He told the court the conduct was upsetting and the reason the case was being dismissed, but also told Judge April Perry he believed "no one acted with the intent to mislead your honor, and I think that they were following your order to give the law."

Following the dismissal, Boutros announced "sweeping internal reforms" to his office's grand jury practices, though his office didn't provide specifics. In a news release, the U.S. Attorney's Office they took effect on May 26.

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg, who was the lead prosecutor for the "Broadview Six" grand jury proceedings, left the case in February to take an assignment to represent the Department of Justice as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Durbin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, confirmed she had been terminated the day after the "Broadview Six" charges were dismissed.

CBS News Chicago has reached out to Boutros' office about the call for his resignation, and are waiting to hear back. 

Capitol News Illinois and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

The case was an early test of how the courts would respond to President Trump's sweeping immigration crackdown.

Dugan had been scheduled to be sentenced on Wednesday, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman postponed the proceedings indefinitely to instead hear arguments about whether to overturn her conviction.

Adelman did not rule from the bench and did not indicate when he might issue a decision. Dugan and attorneys for both sides left the courtroom without commenting to reporters.

Dugan's attorney Steven Biskupic argued that her conviction was invalid and should be overturned. He said that was necessary because a federal appeals court in April overturned a key Virginia immigration case that the judge and prosecutors had cited in the Dugan case.

Biskupic argued that, based on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturning that ruling, Dugan was improperly convicted, procedurally, under a certain federal law.

"Our primary argument is this was an invalid theory of conviction," Biskupic said.

In the Virginia case, an immigrant who was in the country illegally was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and later escaped. He was recaptured and indicted on a charge of obstructing a pending immigration proceeding.

The federal appeals court found that the ICE action did not constitute a "pending proceeding," as is required under the federal obstruction law.

Dugan's attorneys argue that she should not have been charged because there was no "pending proceeding" against the immigrant in her courtroom being sought by ICE agents, only a warrant filed for his arrest. The filing of a warrant does not constitute a "proceeding" under the law, Biskupic argued.

Prosecutors countered that the facts in the Virginia case are different and don't apply to Dugan's. They also argued that other cases support Dugan's conviction.

"The court should stick with its ruling," said Richard Frohling, acting U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin.

In response to a question from the judge, he contended that the appeals court was wrong to overturn the Virginia case. The judge also quizzed Frohling on what constitutes a proceeding under the law and how long it lasts.

"It could be a couple minutes, it could be a couple years," Frohling said. "It all depends on the context."

Dugan, 67, faces up to five years in prison after a jury convicted her on Dec. 19. But it is unlikely that Dugan would be sentenced to prison. Federal sentencing guidelines generally call for probation for defendants like her who have no criminal history and are convicted of a nonviolent crime.

She resigned from her position as a Milwaukee County circuit judge two weeks after her conviction amid threats of impeachment from Republican state lawmakers. She had been a judge for nine years.

Dugan was present for Wednesday's arguments but did not speak.

The Trump administration brought the case against Dugan as the president pressed ahead with his sweeping immigration crackdown. Trump's administration and his allies branded Dugan as an activist judge, while Dugan's attorneys said she was being unfairly targeted and argued, unsuccessfully, that she was immune from being charged because she was a judge.

Dugan's case marked the first time that a state judge in Wisconsin went to trial on charges of obstructing immigration agents. She was acquitted of concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor.

On April 18, 2025, immigration officers went to the Milwaukee County courthouse after learning Eduardo Flores-Ruiz had reentered the country illegally and was scheduled to appear before Dugan for a hearing in a state battery case.

Dugan confronted agents outside her courtroom and directed them to the chief judge's office because she told them their administrative warrant wasn't sufficient grounds to arrest Flores-Ruiz.

After the agents left, she led Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out a private jury door. Agents spotted Flores-Ruiz in the corridor, followed him outside and arrested him after a foot chase. A week later, FBI agents arrested Dugan in the courthouse, leading her outside in handcuffs.

Flores-Ruiz was deported in November.

The U.S. attorney's office framed the acknowledgement, contextualized in a five-page "special report," as a direct rebuttal to a defense attorney's assertion last week that Boutros himself had "personal contact" with the grand jury.

Instead, the report explained that Boutros decided to address three ongoing grand juries "given prior grand jury disturbances and potential tension"  on Oct. 16, 2025, when the lead prosecutor excused grand jurors who disagreed with the government's case against the protesters.

It was prosecutors' second time presenting the evidence; the previous week, a separate grand jury had refused to indict the protesters. Federal grand juries in Chicago declined to indict at least four other immigration protesters this past fall, according to ongoing tracking and previous reporting by the Chicago Sun-Times.

RELATED: After "Broadview Six" case falls apart, U.S. Attorney orders "sweeping" grand jury reforms

On the morning of what would be the feds' third try presenting evidence about the Broadview Six, on Oct. 23, 2025, the U.S. attorney appeared in front of the grand jury "to remind the grand jurors of their obligations under the law and the role they play in our constitutional form of government," according to the special report. Boutros also gave a similar four-minute speech to two other ongoing grand juries that week, around the same time of the Trump administration's Chicago-focused "Operation Midway Blitz" mass deportation campaign.

"If there's anyone here who is struggling with a certain type of cases, such as the immigration cases or other cases where they do not believe that they can set aside their personal — their personal emotions, that they cannot listen and deliberate honestly and objectively, I would ask that you raise your hand and identify yourself, because we have a different procedure for that," Boutros said.

Apparently, no one raised their hand.

But Chris Parente, a lawyer for one of the former defendants, Oak Park village trustee Brian Straw, insisted Boutros' speech did constitute "personal contact" with the grand jury. In a statement, the attorney pointed to the U.S. attorney's remark that there would be a "different procedure" for those with "personal feelings on immigration cases" just one week after the prosecutor "dismissed grand jurors who voiced dissent" seeing the same evidence in the Broadview Six case.

"Of all days for the U.S. Attorney to make a rare appearance before the grand jury, that he would be present on the day he likely knew this case would be re-presented speaks for itself," Parente said.

Two hours after Boutros' office published his report, the former defendants filed the first of what's expected to be multiple motions for sanctions against the feds, this time demanding the U.S. Department of Justice pay attorneys' fees, claiming "wide-ranging misconduct" by prosectors in their case.

Also on Tuesday, Illinois' U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth jointly called on Boutros to resign, saying his office "has been riddled with chaos, deep internal dysfunction, and alleged misconduct." The resignation request follows Durbin's announcement last month that the former lead prosecutor in the Broadview Six case had been fired from her new job representing the DOJ as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A case unravels

After being presented with evidence about the six protesters' actions on Sept. 26, 2025, outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center in Chicago's near-west suburb of Broadview, the grand jury indicted them on a rare felony conspiracy charge. The group, along with dozens of others, surrounded an ICE vehicle that drove through the crowd, banging on its windows. Prosecutors allege the vehicle's windshield wipers were damaged and someone scratched the word "PIG" into its side, though none of the six were specifically accused of the vandalism.

The indictment, which wasn't made public for another week, alleged the group conspired to "interrupt, hinder, and impede" a federal immigration agent from the "discharge of his official duties." Each of the defendants were also charged with misdemeanor simple assault of a federal officer, which does not require physical contact.

But the case began unraveling in March, when prosecutors dropped all charges against two of the defendants. Defense attorneys began a more aggressive campaign to discredit the charges, including a push to see unredacted transcripts from the grand jury room.

On the same day U.S. District Judge April Perry called a hearing to ask prosecutors for the unredacted transcripts in late April, prosecutors made another surprise announcement: They'd decided to drop the felony conspiracy charge. While defense attorneys framed it as a win for their clients, they also suggested the feds' move was a strategic way to avoid having to hand over unredacted grand jury transcripts.

A few weeks later, Perry would agree.

After Perry canceled the trial, Boutros himself appeared in her courtroom and took responsibility for former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sheri Mecklenburg's alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The judge all but accused Mecklenburg of inappropriate "vouching" in which she put "her personal credibility and trustworthiness on the line in support of the charges," Perry said. The prosecutor — who Durbin later fired from her new job — also apparently asked grand jurors who did not support the government's case to not come back, and allegedly had improper contact with those impaneled outside the grand jury room.

Boutros also asked the remaining charges in the case be dropped.

The U.S. attorney claimed he was only informed of the vouching and improper communications with grand jurors late last month and told Perry that the revelations prompted his late April decision to drop the felony conspiracy charge against the four remaining defendants.

However, Boutros also revealed that he knew about — and took steps to correct — the grand juror dismissals in the fall, which was referred to in the report his office published Tuesday.

Road to sanctions

The report ended with a final defense of the U.S. attorney's address to the grand jury as a response to the "trying " and "emotional" times Boutros referred to in his brief speech, saying the "importance of U.S. Attorney Boutros entering into the grand jury cannot be overstated" due to the grand jury's significance to the criminal justice system.

"Grand juries unwilling to deliberate individually or as a collective body, or unwilling to attend grand jury sessions at all, or to receive evidence impartially without fear or favor, setting aside personally biases, views, and passions, are a threat to the rule of law and could mean that a district is operating in such a way that federal criminal law cannot be enforced," the report said. "In such unchartered and unprecedented circumstances, extraordinary measures may be required to restore the rule of law."

But in a statement, attorneys for another former defendant, Andre Martin, said the U.S. attorney's statements Tuesday "raise more questions than they answer," a sentiment echoed in defense lawyers' motion for attorneys' fees.

Martin's attorneys, Terence Campbell and Valerie Davenport, called the "entire sequence" of the three grand jury sessions in October, in addition to Boutros' speech before the Oct. 23, 2025, grand jury day "to say the least, highly unusual."

In a lengthy footnote in Tuesday's filing, defense attorneys wrote that Boutros "may seek to deflect and pin the blame on a single prosecutor" but that the judge "should not accept that convenient excuse which is clearly meant to deflect, minimize, and contain."

Tuesday's filing also accused Boutros of dragging his feet on dismissing the case despite knowing about the alleged prosecutorial misconduct for months in the case of the grand jurors' dismissals and for weeks after finding out about inappropriate vouching and improper contact with grand jurors.

"Dismissal when faced with these sordid facts, however, cannot absolve the government from its misconduct, nor immunize it from providing further information about it," the filing said.

The former defendants want "further targeted discovery" in the case. Defense attorneys already asked last week that the U.S. attorney's office preserve all communications about the case. In the closed-door hearing May 21, Perry told defense attorneys that she would entertain briefings "and perhaps a hearing on the issue of vindictive prosecution," based on what she'd learned from the grand jury transcripts.

Defense lawyers had already tried to proceed on a similar theory earlier this year, but their claims were focused on whether the Department of Justice had communications about the case with White House officials. When prosecutors in March assured the judge there weren't, she dismissed the motion.

"We all took the government attorneys' word on a great many things," the judge said, according to the transcript of the hearing she made public later. "I, at the time, was operating on a presumption of regular grand jury proceedings, which these were very clearly not. So based upon what I've seen in the grand jury transcripts, the calculus has changed and it has changed considerably."

Just days before the remaining defendants were set to face a rare federal misdemeanor trial, the judge scheduled a closed-door hearing during which she rebuked prosecutors for the apparent misconduct she found while reading the unredacted grand jury transcripts and for having previously obscured parts of the transcripts that would have revealed the misconduct earlier.

"I have read hundreds — if not thousands — of grand jury transcripts involving prosecutors who are the most junior of prosecutors to several U.S. Attorneys who appeared before the grand jury," Perry said, according to a record of the sealed hearing she later made public. "I have never seen the types of prosecutorial behavior before a grand jury that I saw in those transcripts."

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

The roundtable will be held from 6 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. Wednesday at Malcolm X College, 1900 W. Jackson Blvd.

The public was invited to attend and share more about their priorities, which services matter most, and where spending can be realigned. It is one of four public meetings this month.

A second meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. this coming Saturday, June 6, at Truman College, 1145 W. Wilson Ave. A third will be held from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 16, at Kennedy-King College, 740 W. 63rd St.

A fourth meeting will be held in Spanish from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, June 24, at Curie High School, 4959 S. Archer Ave.

Also this year, the city is introducing a fifth meeting focused on young people, ages 14 to 24. This youth engagement meeting will be held from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Thursday, June 25, at the Winter Garden at Harold Washington Library, 400 S. State St.

The city is also rolling out a new Budget Engagement Scenario game this year. The game is a simulated, interactive exercise that aims to help people better understand the budget process and explore real-world tradeoffs involved in funding city programs and services.

The game was developed in partnership with the Great Cities Institute at the University of Chicago.

"People feel the impacts of City budgets but rarely get the chance to wrestle with the choices behind them," Thea Crum, Associate Director of Neighborhoods Initiative at the Great Cities Institute, said in a news release. "By working through the simulation, participants will discover that budgeting involves more than line items and spreadsheets, it's about values, tradeoffs, and what kind of city we want to build. The game creates a shared space for learning, conversation, and collective problem-solving, helping residents engage with the budget process in a more meaningful and informed way."

Chicago residents can learn about the budget by visiting the  FY2027 Budget Engagement website and looking at the city's Budget 101 video. Residents can also provide feedback by taking the Budget Engagement Survey.

Weijia Jiang, who is the president of the association and a CBS News senior White House correspondent, said in an email to members of the White House Correspondents' Association that the rescheduled event would be a "more intimate gathering" and feature "significantly enhanced safety measures and new access procedures."

Mr. Trump said he has accepted an invitation to speak at the dinner next month, calling it a "'HOT' ticket!"

"In a sign of Strength and Fortitude, it was just announced that The White House Correspondents' Dinner, which violently ended rather abruptly on April 25th, will be rescheduled to July 24th," he wrote on Truth Social. "This announcement is a very good thing in that we cannot allow Lunatics to change our way of life, or even its scheduling."

The president said the event will take place at the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, D.C, which used to be the Trump International Hotel. Jiang said earlier Tuesday that information about a venue would be forthcoming.

"This dinner will not only be an opportunity to carry out our program. It will be a statement that violence has no place in American life and a free press will not be intimidated into silence," she wrote. "As you have all demonstrated, courage and community can and should rise above."

She said the decision to hold a second dinner was made by the association's board after receiving input from members.

"We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word, especially during a year when we are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of America and everything we stand for," Jiang wrote.

The dinner initially took place April 25 but was upended when an armed man charged a security checkpoint outside the event. Mr. Trump, Vice President JD Vance and several Cabinet officials in attendance were evacuated, while journalists and media executives took cover under tables. 

During a press conference soon after the shooting, the president said the dinner would be rescheduled.

Police identified the suspect in the attack as Cole Allen, a 31-year-old who they said traveled from California to Washington, D.C., by train and was staying at the hotel where the press dinner was to take place. He was charged with attempting to assassinate the president, assaulting a federal law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon and two firearms offenses.

Allen pleaded not guilty to all charges. He will remain detained in the lead-up to a trial.

Prosecutors said he was armed with a shotgun, a handgun and knives when he attempted to run through the security checkpoint one story above the ballroom at the Washington Hilton. Law enforcement officials said Allen shot a Secret Service officer, who was hit in his bulletproof vest but was not seriously injured.

Lahn — a farmer and businessman who has touted his ties to the "Make America Healthy Again" movement — prevailed over a crowded GOP field on Tuesday. Sand, who serves as state auditor, ran for the Democratic nomination unopposed.

His victory bucks the recent winning streak of Trump-backed candidates and marks an upset over Rep. Randy Feenstra, who didn't attend any primary debates and was viewed by many observers as a frontrunner. President Trump endorsed Feenstra last week, calling him "MAGA all the way," and several top Iowa GOP figures backed him. 

Feenstra conceded late Tuesday night, saying in a speech surrounded by his family that the outcome "wasn't what I wanted." 

Describing himself as a sixth-generation Iowan, Lahn owns a family farm and runs the agriculture, real estate and technology investment firm Homeplace Ventures. He previously worked for the conservative group Americans for Prosperity. He's running on a populist-inflected platform that he branded "Iowa First" and has said he wants to boost local ownership of farmland, stem the flow of younger Iowans out of the state and address Iowa's high cancer rate.

"I fear every day we are losing the Iowa we love," Lahn said in his victory speech Tuesday, castigating out-of-state investors that he says "treat Iowa land like it's a commodity instead of our inheritance."

Lahn was endorsed last year by MAHA Action, a group founded by allies of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he picked up support from the late Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Action last week. He was also endorsed by former Rep. Steve King, who was known for incendiary comments about race before Feenstra ousted him in a 2020 primary.

Three other candidates also ran: former Iowa Department of Administrative Services Director Adam Steen, state Rep. Eddie Andrews and former state Rep. Brad Sherman.

Lahn will now face Sand, a two-term state auditor who defeated a GOP incumbent in 2018 after working in the state attorney general's office.

Sand has focused his campaign on government accountability and faulted Republicans for the state's economic issues, while pitching universal pre-K and criticizing a school voucher program introduced by GOP officials. He has also sought to cultivate a moderate image on social issues, as Republicans try to cast him as a liberal in centrist's clothing.

In a campaign video late Tuesday, Sand said Republican voters are "welcome in this campaign," adding that the state's political system is "broken" and "all you would get with Zach Lahn it is more of the same."

Once considered a swing state, Iowa has trended sharply red in recent years as Democrats increasingly struggle on rural Midwestern terrain. Mr. Trump won the state three times in a row, including by a 13-point margin in 2024, and GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds won reelection by 18 points four years ago. Iowa hasn't elected a Democratic governor in two decades, and Sand is the only statewide elected Democrat, after he won reelection by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2022.

But Democrats are hopeful that a challenging political environment for Republicans, both nationally and in Iowa, could make them more competitive in the midwestern state. The Cook Political Report has rated the Iowa gubernatorial race a tossup, one of five states with that distinction this year, and the University of Virginia's Center for Politics says the race leans red.

Reynolds — who has led the state since 2017 — has one of the lowest approval ratings of any governor nationwide. Iowa farmers also struggled last year after the trade war with China caused Beijing to cut American soybean imports, pushing down prices of one of Iowa's most widely grown crops, and the war with Iran has caused a run-up in fuel and fertilizer prices.

Reynolds declined to run for reelection this year, setting up Iowa's first gubernatorial election without an incumbent in the race since 2006.

Lahn lent his campaign $2 million last year, but is heading into the general election at a fundraising disadvantage. His campaign had just over $700,000 on hand as of mid-May, compared to nearly $18.3 million for the Sand campaign. Sand's wife runs a sizable food and health products company founded by her family called the Lauridsen Group, and the Democrat's campaign coffers have been bolstered by millions in contributions from his in-laws.

Sand raised about $9.7 million between the start of the year and mid-May, just over $3 million of which came from members of his wife's family. Lahn raised just under $1 million.

Beyond the governor's race, Iowa also has an open Senate contest after Ernst declined to seek reelection, drawing interest from Democrats, though Republicans likely have a sizable edge. Democrats are also heavily targeting two of Iowa's four House seats, including the 1st District, where incumbent GOP Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won by fewer than 1,000 votes in 2024.

In a divided 6-3 decision, the high court agreed to freeze the district court decision that prevented the state from using the map drawn by Republicans in 2023, which included one majority-Black congressional district out of Alabama's seven. The lower court had found that Alabama intentionally discriminated against Black voters when it crafted those House district lines three years ago.

The lower court judges instead ordered the state to keep using a court-selected congressional map, which was in place for the 2024 elections, that includes two districts where Black voters have the opportunity to elect their preferred candidates. Under that map, the state's seven-member congressional delegation is divided between five Republicans and two Democrats.

Now, under the 2023 plan that Alabama can swap in as a result of the Supreme Court's order, which reconfigures the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, Republicans are likely to be favored 6-1. A special primary for four House seats altered by the 2023 map is set for Aug. 11. Primaries for the other three districts were held May 19.

In Tuesday's unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court wrote that the lower court "interposed itself into Alabama's ongoing efforts to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under maps that its elected representatives selected. Its view that conducting the elections under court-imposed maps would be more convenient for the State was not a valid justification for that intervention."

The high court said that Alabama was likely to prevail on its argument that the 2023 map is lawful.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent that was joined by the court's two other liberal justices, arguing that setting aside the current congressional map — and reassigning many voters to new congressional districts — could lead to a "chaotic election, held under a never-before-used congressional map that intentionally discriminates against Black Alabamians."

She said the court's conservative majority "disregards both democratic values and the rule of law."

Alabama GOP officials turned to the Supreme Court for emergency relief last week, after the district court's decision finding the 2023 map unlawful because it purposefully discriminates based on race. They said that when drawing the district lines, mapmakers aimed to help Republicans and keep the Gulf Coast region together in one congressional district.

The Trump administration backed Alabama in its effort to put the congressional districts drawn in 2023 in place for the midterm elections, arguing that federal courts shouldn't interfere with elections or usurp states' role in drawing congressional districts.

But a group of voters and voting rights groups pushed back on Alabama's assertion that it was seeking to achieve partisan goals when it drew the congressional map three years ago. In a filing with the Supreme Court, they said the legislature did not cite partisan goals at the time, and noted that the district court found "zero evidence" that mapmakers were motivated by party or incumbent protection.

"Granting Alabama's request would insert the Court into an ongoing election in a manner that upsets settled expectations, causes voter confusion, and creates chaos and unworkable deadlines for even the most diligent election officials," the voters, represented by the NAACP and the ACLU, said.

Kristen Clarke, general counsel of the NAACP, criticized the Supreme Court's order, but encouraged Black voters to cast ballots in upcoming elections to express their dissent.

"The Supreme Court continues to unleash chaos in our democratic process, and with this latest action, gives Alabama approval to use a congressional map that had previously been found to be intentionally discriminatory," she said in a statement. "This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame."

Figures, the Alabama Democrat, vowed to "stay in this fight to build a better future for Alabama and a better country, and urged voters to organize, mobilize and vote.

"The Supreme Court has now confirmed that there is no longer a Voting Rights Act in America, and states are essentially free to discriminate against minority voters with no consequences," he said in a statement. "This is a dangerous ruling that sets the state and this nation back decades."

The legal battle involving Alabama's voting boundaries posed an early test of the Supreme Court's blockbuster decision in late April that weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and invalidated a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana. On the heels of that ruling, several states in the South, like Alabama, have moved to reconfigure House districts that have favored Democrats. 

The high court's decision came amid a separate push by President Trump for GOP-led states to redraw their congressional maps to bolster Republicans' chances of holding onto their House majority in November, which set off a mid-decade redistricting battle.

Alabama has been involved in a protracted legal fight over its congressional boundaries that dates back to the redrawing of its House districts after the 2020 Census. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that a congressional map adopted in 2021 — which included one majority-Black district — likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the state's GOP-led legislature crafted a new map in the summer of 2023 that maintained a single majority-Black district.

But a district court blocked the state from using that map and found that it unlawfully diluted the votes of Black Alabamians. It ordered a special master to come up with a new plan, which was selected by the district court in October 2023 and used in the 2024 elections. 

After the Supreme Court's decision in the Louisiana voting rights case, Alabama asked the high court to lift the district court's injunction and allow it to revive the 2023 map that had been blocked. The Supreme Court agreed to set aside the lower court's decision and sent the case back for more proceedings. 

When the three-judge district court panel took another look at the 2023 map, it maintained its earlier finding that the plan is racially discriminatory.

"Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination," Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus and District Judges Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer found.

Alabama Republican officials asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the state's 2023 map was "lawful then, and it is lawful now."

Hinson made the remarks during a  conversation with a voter at a campaign stop in Fort Dodge, Iowa, on May 28. The exchange, first reported by Politico, captures Hinson fielding questions about the war and a potential military draft.

"I do hope we can get this done by the next couple of weeks," Hinson said in the recording. "If it drags on beyond that, it's a political liability for us too. Because we've lost Iowa soldiers."

Hinson cited the deaths of Iowa service members as the source of her concern.

"I've been to four funerals since December. It's awful," she said.

Asked whether she had a timeline for the war, Hinson said she was deferring to President Trump and his foreign policy team, who are seeking a deal with Iran to extend the current ceasefire and open talks on Iran's nuclear program. The two countries entered into a ceasefire in April, but occasional clashes have continued, and global oil markets remain impacted by a sharp slowdown in shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

"Obviously I was deferring to the President on the negotiations, because he has the team doing it," she said, adding that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon remains her bottom line. "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. At the end of the day, that's what I want to say on that."

Hinson also addressed questions about a potential military draft, saying she had not heard of any such plans. The White House said early in the war that a military draft was not planned.

"We don't need one," Hinson said. "I hope we don't need one."

Despite her concern about the conflict's duration and political consequences, Hinson said the families of the fallen Iowa soldiers she has visited have remained resolute.

"Those families all said we need to finish the job," she said. "Even in their grief."

Hinson and Democratic nominee Josh Turek will face off in November for the Iowa Senate seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, who is not seeking re-election. The race is among the competitive contests that will help determine control of the Senate in 2026.

A Hinson spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News: "Of course endless wars are unpopular—no one wants them and thankfully President Trump is doing everything he can to prevent one while keeping Americans safe."

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall issued the injunction just hours after the General Assembly approved a further one-year delay to the Interchange Fee Prohibition Act — subject of the ongoing "Credit Card Chaos" advertising campaign — before adjourning its spring session.

It's the latest development in a yearslong fight between retailers and financial institutions about a fee that's levied on every credit and debit card transaction.

Each time a shopper swipes their credit or debit card, it sets off a complicated string of payments between banks. The retailer's bank pays an "interchange fee," typically around 1-2% of the transaction cost, to the consumer's bank. The fees include both a set amount and a percentage of the transaction, but the credit card companies, namely Visa and Mastercard, control how they're calculated.

The Illinois law would have prohibited financial institutions from applying the fee to the tax and tip portion of bills. Banks and retailers have estimated it would affect $120 million to $200 million in revenue or more each year — to the benefit of retailers and chagrin of banks. Illinois would be the only place where such a law was implemented.

The law was slated to take effect July 1 after already being postponed from its 2025 effective date. If Gov. JB Pritzker signs the latest delay, its effective date would be July 1, 2027.

But it's Kendall's Monday ruling that casts the measure into further doubt.

Judicial history

Kendall in February ruled that the law could take effect, based largely on her interpretation of administrative rules written by the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent subsection of the U.S. Treasury.

Kendall had ruled that because the fees are set by third parties — the card companies — they're not preempted by the federal laws and regulations that give banks wide latitude to determine their own fees.

But the OCC, in a pair of April filings, rewrote the language at question and issued an order specifically preempting Illinois' law.

"Although the OCC believes that (Section) 7.4002 (the section discussed in the lawsuit) already allows national banks to impose fees that are set by a third party, the OCC is revising (Section) 7.4002 to make that explicit and resolve any uncertainty about the scope of the regulation," the agency wrote in the filing in direct response to Kendall's ruling.

At the time, the case was before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. But the court sent it back to Kendall for a reinterpretation of the new OCC filings. Addressing that change, Kendall wrote this week: "It is obvious from the face of the new rule that the modified language tees up an express conflict with the IFPA."

Ultimately, Kendall decided Illinois' law is now preempted by the federal rules, at least as it pertains to national banks, federal savings associations, payment networks and out-of-state banks.

The Electronic Payments Coalition — the bank-backed entity that's been running the "Credit Card Chaos" ads — welcomed the ruling. But they warned it further creates an unlevel playing field.

"Even with this decision, credit unions and Illinois-chartered banks remain subject to IFPA, creating ongoing uncertainty and the risk of inconsistent treatment for parties in the same transaction," the group said in a statement.

Kendall had previously issued a similar injunction on a portion of the law regarding data collection, applying it to only some financial entities.

Read now: 2026-06-01 KENDALL OPINION

What happens next isn't immediately clear, but further judicial review is almost guaranteed, with both sides weighing their legal options.

Legislative history, debate

The law was enacted two years ago at the behest of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association.

Pritzker and lawmakers in 2024 agreed to raise about $101 million in revenue to plug a budget hole by putting a $1,000 monthly cap on the "retailer's exemption," a tax break retailers claim for being the state's de facto sales tax collectors.

Late in the legislative process, IRMA successfully lobbied for the long-sought tax and tip exemption to alleviate the financial impact of the exemption cap for retailers.

The financial institutions argue the electronic payment system as it exists today can't segregate the tax and tip portion of a transaction, which could result in "credit card chaos" in Illinois if the law was to become effective.

Instead of complying, according to the coalition's literature, the card companies could just stop processing cards altogether in Illinois. They could also stop processing tax and tip portions or require two separate swipes for the subtotal and the tax and tip portion of bills.

"Electronic payments rely on a highly interconnected network that requires a uniform national standard," the Electronic Payments Coalition said in a statement. "We will continue working through the courts and with policymakers to ensure that all participants in the payments system are treated consistently, so the customers they serve will also be protected from the harm IFPA will cause."

But Rob Karr, president and CEO of IRMA, has forcefully disputed the "chaos" claim.

"This industry had had two years to figure this out. Instead of using their vast resources to solve problems, they're doing all they can to distract, distort, delay and demonize," Karr testified in a House committee over the weekend.

The Merchant Payments Coalition, a group of retailers and similar businesses that advocates on credit and debit card issues, argued the new rule gives financial institutions dangerously broad fee-setting authority.

"The revised language could apply broadly to numerous categories of consumer financial charges, including late fees, overdraft or over-limit fees, annual card fees, ATM fees and similar charges," the MPC said in a statement. "By eliminating the expectation of independent competitive pricing, the rule risks encouraging industry-wide fee standardization at the expense of consumers and merchants alike."

While Kendall said Illinois' law is indeed preempted for certain institutions, she also faulted the OCC for using emergency authority to implement new rules. And she criticized the order specifically preempting Illinois' law, writing that much of the logic contained in it "perches atop the catch-all justification of this is how things are done around here."

"What the Order's argument overlooks, however, is that the IFPA does not impede national banks' ability to participate in card networks, nor does it require them to engage in "costly negotiations" to maintain that participation," Kendall wrote. "Instead, it reduces the portion of a transaction upon which a fee could be calculated."

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

"We are not moving forward with the fund. Period," he told lawmakers on the House Appropriations Committee. 

"Not moving forward ever?" Democratic Rep. Grace Meng of New York asked. 

"Correct," Blanche responded. 

Meng asked whether Blanche would put that commitment in writing. He responded that it would be in writing through a transcript of the hearing. She followed up on the point later in the hearing and Blanche again declined to commit to put anything in writing. 

"Why do I need to put something in writing if I'm telling you what we're doing?" he said. 

"You established it in writing, so it just makes sense to rescind it in writing," Meng said. 

"I'm just concerned 'cause you're not under oath, and I want to trust you and I want to believe you — we all do — but putting it in writing would settle that issue," Meng added.  

Blanche's testimony comes a day after the Justice Department said it will stop work on the fund following a district judge's decision temporarily blocking the establishment of the program.

The fund faced intense pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who warned that it threatened to imperil the GOP agenda. Some Republicans continued to express reservations Tuesday that prevented leaders from moving forward with funding the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement agencies.

Whether Blanche's testimony proves definitive enough to win over GOP detractors remains to be seen. The establishment of the fund was also part of a legal settlement, raising questions about how exactly Blanche intends to abandon the program.

Skye Perryman, the president and CEO Democracy Forward, one of the groups that sued over the fund, said in a statement: "If you can say it on TV, you should say it in court."

Lawyers for President Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether he has agreed to drop the fund from the settlement.

The fund aimed to provide taxpayer-funded payouts to individuals who alleged the federal government had been "weaponized" against them. But Republican opposition to the plan led GOP leaders to scrap a vote on the DHS funding late last month. Democrats threatened to force votes on amendments on the fund, putting Republicans in a difficult position. And with some GOP members likely to join Democrats, GOP leaders opted to abandon their plans and leave town for a weeklong recess. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday called the administration's words "worthless" and said Democrats still plan to force votes on abolishing the fund. 

Blanche also told Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut during the hearing that the rest of the settlement between the IRS and Mr. Trump, from which the weaponization fund stemmed, remains in place, including the government's agreement to refrain from auditing any of the president or his family's previous tax returns. She read the portion of the agreement that would provide them with immunity from all civil or criminal tax actions on all prior tax returns.

"But you are moving forward with this second order," she said. 

"It's not moving forward. There's a settlement," Blanche replied. "There's a settlement that the IRS entered into with President Trump and others, his family and his companies, as part of that settlement, as is customary in IRS settlements, and there's a separate AG order."

Ahead of Blanche's testimony on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said senators had a "robust conversation" about the fund and how to proceed at their GOP lunch meeting, while pointing out that Blanche would testify later in the afternoon.

"I had a conversation with him a couple hours ago, in which he kind of previewed what he was going to say," Thune said. "And I think his statements are going to be very definitive, very clear, and create this certainty that I hope all of our members and House members need as well in order for us to proceed on the reconciliation bill."

But Thune added, "I'm not guaranteeing that happens yet," saying conversations continue with GOP members. 

"Everything dumbs down to a function of math — it's, do we have the votes? Do we have 50 votes to execute on getting a bill like that across the floor?" he said. "We have to have Republicans hanging together in order to do that."

Thune affirmed to CBS News ahead of the testimony that it's his understanding that the fund is off the table.

Senate Republicans leaving the lunch meeting indicated that they would be looking to Blanche's testimony for assurances, like Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, who said "if it goes like we are told it will go, there's a reasonable possibility we will move pretty quickly to the reconciliation."

But Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and the former GOP whip, told CBS News, "I'm not sure that's going to be good enough for some people." 

House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday that the fund was "off the table for consideration." Johnson met with Mr. Trump at the White House on Monday. 

"I told him that it was a difficult prospect right now, given our vote tallies," Johnson said when asked by CBS News if he encouraged Mr. Trump to drop the fund. "I understand the intent behind it was a very noble thing. ... But I don't think it was fully understood, and that's what it made it a difficult thing."

In a post Tuesday night on X, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina wrote that "it is imperative that we allow people with meritorious weaponization claims to come forward and receive compensation through this fund," and proposed to create "a weaponization fund that will be available to those who can prove their claim against the federal government through the Federal Tort Claims Act."

Los Angeles residents will be voting in the mayoral contest, with reality television star Spencer Pratt, a Republican, hoping to unseat incumbent Mayor Karen Bass. If no candidate receives a majority on Tuesday, the top two candidates will face off in November. 

Here are the major races to watch:

California governor's race

Incumbent Gov. Gavin Newsom — one of the top 2028 presidential contenders and one of the most powerful members of the Democratic Party — is prevented from running again due to term limits. California chooses its nominees via a top-two primary, meaning the two leading vote-getters will advance to the general ballot in November. 

The race has been wide open, especially after former Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla opted not to run. Former Rep. Eric Swalwell, a late entry into the race, had been one of the candidates leading polls until he dropped out of the race and resigned from his seat in April amid allegations of sexual assault. 

After Swalwell's exit, Xavier Becerra, the health secretary under President Biden, has surged, having previously lagged in polling and fundraising. Billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer has steadily worked his way to the top of the Democratic polls as well, having spent more than $195 million in broadcast TV, cable and radio ads — the most expensive political advertising campaign in the country this year, according to AdImpact. Becerra and Steyer have stepped up their attacks on each other, which could get even nastier if it does become a race in November with two Democrats on the ballot. 

Former Rep. Katie Porter, who was considered an early frontrunner after Harris decided not to run, has since fallen in recent polls after two viral incidents — one in which she tripped over her answers with a CBS Sacramento reporter and an old video berating her staff. But Porter, who gave up her Orange County seat to run for Senate in 2024 and finished third, leads among independents, according to a recent Emerson College survey. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate, was a favorite of the tech industry but has failed to gain traction in polls. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, is also on the ballot in his second attempt for the governor's office after running against Newsom in 2018.

California has not elected a Republican to statewide office since Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006 and Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state 2-to-1. Republican Steve Hilton, a British-born hedge fund manager and former adviser to David Cameron, has President Trump's endorsement. Hilton has consistently polled in the top three, even before Swalwell's exit from the race. 

Republicans had hoped with California's "top two" primary that they could lock Democrats out of the ballot in November, with early polling showing Hilton in the lead along with Chad Bianco. Bianco, a MAGA ally and the sheriff of Riverside County, made national headlines earlier this year when he seized ballots from a county election office in what he described as a "fact-finding mission" — despite no evidence the ballots were cast improperly. Newsom signed emergency legislation in response prohibiting county registrars from surrendering ballots or voting equipment to law enforcement without a court order.

While Democrats have worried about Republicans shutting them out of the November election, so have Republicans: As some Democrats have climbed in the polls, Hilton has called on Bianco to drop out, saying they could split the GOP vote and potentially give the top two slots to Democrats.

Per CBS News reporting and CalMatters, 61 names are appearing on the certified ballot.

Los Angeles' mayor's race 

Bass, Los Angeles' first female mayor, is fighting for survival in the city's nonpartisan primary against Pratt, a star of "The Hills," Los Angeles Councilwoman Nithya Raman and 11 others on the ballot. 

Pratt's campaign has soared amid a viral ad strategy focused on homelessness and his own family's story after losing their house in the 2025 Pacific Palisades fire. Pratt faced controversy after declaring "this is where I live" outside an Airstream trailer, but TMZ later reported he had been living at the Bel-Air Hotel.

Pratt, who has no prior political experience, told CBS News' Adam Yamaguchi last month that he believes his "common sense" attitude will appeal to voters: "I don't do the politician talk, and I think it's refreshing to people to hear somebody speak from the heart, be authentic."

Bass has been criticized for being overseas during the 2025 fires, as well as the recovery efforts and the city's homelessness. 

Bass and Pratt are also facing Raman, a democratic socialist who has leaned into fighting homelessness. 

A UC Berkeley-LA Times poll from May 28 found the three deadlocked in a tight battle for voters, with Bass holding a slim 26% lead, Raman close behind at 25%, and Pratt trailing at 22%.

If no candidate clears 50% on Tuesday, the top two advance to a November runoff. 

California congressional races

Looming over this year's congressional primaries is Proposition 50, the ballot measure championed by Newsom that redrew California's congressional districts to favor Democrats in as many as five new districts. California currently has nine Republicans in their delegation in Congress. Cook Political Report only rates one of the new districts as safe for the GOP.

That district, CA-40, covers parts of inland Orange County as well as portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties — and parts of districts represented by incumbent Reps. Young Kim and Ken Calvert. The pair are now facing off on Tuesday, alongside five others who are on the ballot as well.

Kim was first elected in 2020 and Calvert, the longest-serving member of Congress from California, has been in office since 1993. Given California's top-two primary system, they both could advance to the ballot in November.

Another longtime Republican incumbent, Rep. David Valadao, faces off against Democrats Jasmeet Kaur Bains, a member of the California Assembly, and progressive college professor Randy Villegas. Democrats are heavily targeting the district in November, which has one of the largest Hispanic populations in the state.

In San Francisco, eight Democrats, two Republicans and one no-party preference candidate are running to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the 11th District. Pelosi, who has represented the district since 1987, has backed San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who is considered one of the top candidates along with state Sen. Scott Wiener and economic policy director Saikat Chakrabarti. 

A San Francisco Chronicle poll released in early May before Pelosi's endorsement found Wiener leading the race with 40%, while Chakrabarti and Chan are in a statistical dead heat for second place, at 18% and 17%, respectively.

Iowa governor's race

Iowa Republicans will choose a nominee Tuesday in the state's first open governor's race in two decades, a crowded contest in a heavily GOP-leaning state that Democrats are hoping will be unusually competitive this year.

Three-term U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra is viewed as a frontrunner in the gubernatorial primary, drawing support from top Iowa Republicans like Sen. Joni Ernst. President Trump also offered a last-minute endorsement on Friday, calling Feenstra "MAGA all the way."

Meanwhile, businessman and farmer Zach Lahn is running on a populist-inflected "Iowa First" platform, and has touted his endorsements from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.-aligned MAHA Action and the late Charlie Kirk's Turning Point Action. And former Iowa Department of Administrative Services Director Adam Steen has been backed by socially conservative groups like The Family Leader, which is run by Iowa GOP kingmaker Bob Vander Plaats.

State Rep. Eddie Andrews and pastor and former state Rep. Brad Sherman are also running.

If no Republican candidate secures 35% of the vote, the nominee will be chosen by delegates at the state Republican convention on June 13.

The GOP nominee will face off in November against State Auditor Rob Sand, who ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination. Sand is currently Iowa's only statewide elected Democrat, having won reelection by fewer than 3,000 votes in 2022.

The best-funded Republican candidate is Lahn, who reported just over $700,000 on hand as of mid-May and lent his campaign $2 million last year, followed by Feenstra at nearly $600,000 on hand. All of the GOP contenders are well behind Sand, who had nearly $18.3 million in the bank, bolstered by millions in donations from his wife's family.

Once a swing state, Iowa has increasingly leaned toward the GOP: Mr. Trump won the state by 13 points in 2024, and retiring Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds won reelection by 18 points in 2022. Democrats have not controlled the governor's mansion since 2011.

But Republicans could face headwinds. The national environment is tough, with most voters signaling dissatisfaction with Mr. Trump's handling of the economy. The picture is especially challenging in Iowa, where the agricultural industry was hit hard by cuts in Chinese soybean imports during last year's trade war. The state is now struggling with high fuel and fertilizer prices wrought by the Iran war. Reynolds has one of the lowest approval ratings of any governor.

The Cook Political Report has rated the Iowa gubernatorial race a toss-up, and the University of Virginia's Center for Politics believes the race leans toward the GOP.

Iowa Senate race

Two Democrats are facing off in the Senate primary Tuesday as they look to take on the de facto GOP nominee in Rep. Ashley Hinson.

After Ernst announced she wouldn't seek reelection, Republicans rallied around Hinson, who's represented Iowa in the House since 2021. Hinson, who has Mr. Trump's endorsement, is facing off against former state Sen. Jim Carlin on Tuesday.

In a state that hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since 2008, Democrats face an uphill battle on paper. But the party has been increasingly bullish about their chances in recent months amid frustration with the cost of living.

Even so, the Democratic primary has been just the latest example of the divide among Democrats over the best path forward. 

On one side is state Rep. Josh Turek, a former wheelchair basketball Paralympian, who is considered friendlier to national Democratic groups. He represents a district that supported Mr. Trump in the 2024 election, and has focused his message on the economy, while pitching himself as the most likely candidate to defeat Hinson in November. 

Then there's state Sen. Zach Wahls, who gained recognition at 19 when he advocated for gay marriage, testifying about growing up with two moms before the state legislature. He's supported by progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and a slew of labor unions, and has leaned into an anti-establishment message that's included criticism of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Wahls has pledged not to support the New York Democrat as leader should he be elected to the Senate, while touting his willingness to defy leaders of both parties.

New Jersey 

New Jersey elects its statewide representatives in off years, so the only elections this year are for its congressional delegation, and Sen. Cory Booker is up for reelection in November. Booker is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination, and three Republicans are vying for the chance to take him on.

Rep. Tom Kean, one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country, is not facing a primary opponent in the 7th District, which the Cook Political Report ranks as a toss up. Kean flipped the district in 2022, and four Democrats are vying for the chance to take him on in November.

Kean has made national headlines after having not voted in Congress since March 5. In an April 27 statement, Kean said he was addressing a "personal medical issue." Statements from his staff and family members have only added to the mystery. 

"There's no cameras where Tom is," his chief of staff recently told the New York Times. Kean's father, former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean Sr., told CNN that his doctors "all agree he's going to be fine." 

"It took a real illness to knock him out," Kean Sr. added. "This won't linger. It's not some kind of disease that's going to incapacitate him in the future. The consensus is that he will be 100% OK."

Rebecca Bennett leads in fundraising in what is shaping up to be the most expensive race statewide. Bennett is a military veteran of 15 years who served as a U.S. Navy aviator. The other top Democratic candidates are physician Tina Shah and small business consultant, and progressive Brian Varela.

Montana 

Montana's senior senator, Republican Steve Daines, is not seeking reelection this year, and three Republicans are vying for the GOP nomination and five Democrats are seeking their place on the ballot. 

Mr. Trump won Montana by nearly 20 points in 2024 and both the state's congressional seats are occupied by Republicans. Rep. Ryan Zinke is not running for reelection, and although the 1st District is ranked as likely Republican by Cook Political Report, Democrats believe they have a chance to flip the open seat in November. Four Republicans are facing off on Tuesday as well as four Democrats.

South Dakota

Gov. Larry Rhoden, who became governor when Kristi Noem resigned to join the Trump administration, is facing three primary challengers, including U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, on Tuesday. Democrat Dan Ahlers is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination.

Two Republicans are vying for Johnson's seat, while the Democratic candidate is running unopposed.

Republican Sen. Mike Rounds is also facing a primary challenger, while Democrat Julian Beaudion is unopposed for the Democratic nomination.

New Mexico

Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján is facing a primary challenger on Tuesday, business owner and community organizer Matt Dodson. There are no Republican names on the ballot, although Larry Marker is running for the nomination as a certified write-in candidate. He will need 2,531 votes to qualify for the ballot, according to the New Mexico GOP.

Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is prevented from running for reelection due to term limits. Biden administration Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman are running in the Democratic primary to succeed her, while Rio Rancho Mayor Gregg Hull, medical cannabis entrepreneur and former state cabinet secretary Duke Rodriguez and small business owner Doug Turner are running in the Republican primary.

The move gives a louder voice to a community whose struggles are changing.

Antonio King holds the position. His executive title gives him, and LGBTQ+ policy, a louder voice at more tables inside the decision making fifth floor at City Hall.

King has a long to-do list.

"As we age, as LGBTQ community, we don't have children. But as we're getting older, who's helping the 60- and 70- and 80-year-olds?" said King. "We're living longer. Who's helping those aging LGBTQ adults?"

King explained that seniors being on their own can cause serious problems.

"Because you don't have anyone to advocate for you — advocating you on a personal level, when you go to the doctor to talk about what's really going on with you, physically, mentally and emotionally," he said. "We don't have those all the time."

The answer as to who should be in that advocacy position, King said, is the City of Chicago, through programs such as a "Life is Work" resource center on the city's West Side.

At the resource center, food, clothes, and resources are available to help those who are aging. The resource center helps young people too.

"On the to-do list is also to ensure within public schools that we are supporting some of the programming for our queer and LGBTQ students in mental health," said King.

King's advocacy is also helping push city policies that hit the right tone and needs of the community. He said talking with a trans resident recently, he learned the Chicago police department is ahead of the curve.

"She said, 'At first he misgendered me,' because I guess he misgendered her,'" King said of the trans resident's interaction with someone at the CPD. "But once she corrected him, he said: 'Oh, you know what? I've been trained on this.' And he began to treat her with much dignity and respect."

King's passion began 40 years ago alongside people dying alone on the fifth floor of the old Cook County Hospital from a disease the world was just learning about. 

"That was the AIDS ward. That was the AIDS unit, and that is where they basically took patients to die," he said. "You can hear the individuals, you can hear the pain, you can hear the sorrow, and you could just smell the death that was in the air."

After 40 years of advocacy, King now has the loudest megaphone of his career. With federal dollars for his community drying up, he is helping steer city policy and offer a helping hand to LGBTQ residents still struggling with the barriers of everyday life.

 "I'm a Black man living in Chicago. There's still some barriers," he said. "So there are marginalized communities in this city. They still have issues and concerns and challenges."

House Bill 5090 would regulate how rideshare drivers can form a union, elect union representatives and engage in union activities such as collective bargaining.

The bill passed the House 83-28 early Monday morning and now heads to the governor. It passed the Senate 42-12-1 earlier on Sunday afternoon.

Rideshare drivers say a union is necessary because under federal law, they're defined as independent contractors, despite having little control over work practices while working for companies like Uber and Lyft. That makes a statewide union their only option to collectively bargain and form a labor agreement, they say.

"This goes back to a fundamental belief that when workers are able to organize and have a collective voice, that does lead to better wages, benefits and working conditions," bill sponsor Sen. Ram Villivalam, D-Chicago, said. Rep. Yolonda Morris, D-Chicago, carried the bill in the House.

"This legislation is urgently needed as drivers face declining wages, rising vehicle costs and unsafe working conditions without basic protection or a real voice on the job," Morris said.

Forming a union

Drivers who are interested in forming a union would need to follow specific guidelines to do so: They would have to obtain signatures in support from 10% of active drivers to show interest, then 30% to become a certified union. From there, the union can petition the Illinois Labor Relations Board to conduct an election for individual union representatives.

Those thresholds are lower than in other labor sectors, but they were chosen because this industry is so new, Villivalam said. Union membership would be voluntary.

Every four months, transportation network companies — defined as entities providing rides through a digital platform, not including taxi associations — that provide the top 95% of rides would need to give the ILRB contact information for all drivers who, in the past six months, completed 10 or more rides in Illinois.

The board would determine the median number of rides completed by that population, and any driver who completed that number or more would be considered an active driver and would be eligible to join the union.

Like any other organization with unionized employees, these companies would be required to adhere to fair work practices, negotiate in good faith, provide timely and accurate information to the union and follow other standard labor regulations. They could be fined by the ILRB for violations.

This bill also includes a 4-cent-per-ride charge to the companies, to cover the implementation costs under the bill and for a grant program, a charge that companies are prohibited from passing on to the consumer. The grant program, Rideshare Workers Support Fund, would be managed by the secretary of state and paid to the union representative.

The bill also regulates how the ILRB and the Department of Labor would handle bargaining mediation, arbitration, labor agreements and unfair work practices.

The path to unionization

Rideshare drivers in Illinois have pushed for unionization rights since early 2019, initially beginning in the city of Chicago. In rallies and committees, drivers have told stories of dwindling wages and a lack of access to appeals for deactivations.

"Let's be honest, we don't operate independently at all. We don't set our own wages. We don't control the rules. We don't decide who is deactivated and how they're punished. The algorithm, the corporations do," Brett Currin, a rideshare driver, said at a January rally at the state Capitol.

The bill does not address those issues specifically, but through a union, drivers would be able to negotiate with their company on those issues.

"Hearing these (constituent) stories and then working with organized labor to craft a product that they had already been working on to move forward, really is what this is stemming from," Villivalam said.

Villivalam, who represents parts of the northwest side of Chicago and its suburbs, said his district has the largest number of rideshare drivers in Illinois.

The Illinois Drivers Alliance led the effort throughout this spring, backed by the local International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the Service Employees International Union Local 1, two unions representing thousands of workers across the Midwest.

California and Massachusetts have also passed similar measures, with Massachusetts certifying their statewide union just last week, on May 26.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.

Illinois state Sen. Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago) introduced the bill late Sunday night after a separate property tax incentive failed to move forward. The new bill looked like it could have opened the door for a plan for the Bears to build their new stadium within Chicago — albeit only a little bit.

The legislation would allow local municipalities in Cook County with a population of more than 70,000 to set up their own stadium authorities. Arlington Heights and Chicago both meet that threshold.

The Bears would put up the cash to build the stadium but would then lease it — thus avoiding property taxes altogether.

"This, as I said, would give the Bears what they want. They said that they can build and will build their own stadium with private finances. They can do that," Cunningham said. "What they can also do is enter into an agreement with a municipality, with a stadium district which would make the building publicly owned. As we know, publicly owned buildings do not pay property taxes, so that is exactly what the Bears have asked for."

If the Bears built on the Arlington Heights site that the team purchased for $197 million in February of 2023, Cunningham explained, the team would "essentially turn that property over to the stadium authority, it would become publicly owned."

Cunningham said the proposal was modeled after a stadium authority already created in Northwest Indiana.

"This, as I would remind you, is the exact same mechanic set up in Northwest Indiana," Cunningham said. "The Indiana state legislature created a northwest Indiana Stadium authority for this exact purpose."

Supporters of the Illinois bill said the plan could give the Bears the property tax certainty the Bears have been seeking for years. But while the state Senate passed the bill, the state House adjourned without voting on the Municipal Stadium Authority Act.

The Bears said they are still evaluating Arlington Heights and Hammond, Indiana, as sites for their news stadium and are on track to make a decision by the early summer. 

"Illinois couldn't get their act together, and we did it over here in a bipartisan fashion in three months, and we got a great offer on the table, and I'm optimistic the Bears are gonna take our offer," said Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr.   

"The only way the Bears were going to Indiana is if it was their only option. And at this moment, it is their only option," said Ernie Rose of Touchdown Arlington, the grassroots effort advocating for the Bears to move to the suburbs. "It's a shame we are where we are, where we're discussing whether the Bears should build on the $200 million lot they own in Arlington Heights, or the former hazardous waste spot in Hammond, Indiana, but that's where we are."

Mayor McDermott said he expects to have an answer from the team within a month and rejects any claims that the proposed Hammond site poses environmental concerns.

"I think that if there were environmental issues, the Bears would have known about that six months ago, and Hammond wouldn't even be considered right now," he said.

The Bears have said keeping the team in Chicago proper is not on the table.

"Well, my door's always open," Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said. "As has been reported we're still in conversations as recently as a month ago, a month and a half ago, and now it's June."

When asked, Johnson did not say whether the team was still setting up meetings with his office.

"The only viable plan for the Bears was proposed by my administration," he said. 

Hope to keep the Bears in Illinois had hinged on the so-called "megaprojects bill" that would have facilitated the construction of a new stadium in Arlington Heights. This bill would have allowed megaproject developers to freeze property tax assessments for 25 to 45 years, and rather than paying higher property tax bills that would come with rising assessments, developers would have been allowed to negotiate long-term Payments in Lieu of Taxes, or PILOT, with local taxing bodies.

The megaprojects failed to garner enough support from lawmakers on Saturday, and was taken off the table.

"There was no appetite at all to provide public dollars to a $10 billion sports franchise, as much as we love the Bears," said Illinois Senate President Don Harmon.

"Making sure we weren't doing something like paying for a privately owned stadium for a billionaire-owned team, that didn't make any sense to me and I said from the very beginning we weren't going to do that," Gov. JB Pritzker said Monday. "We were focused on only providing what was necessary in order to create infrastructure, as we have for other businesses in the state of Illinois, so they can do business in the state."

The mayor of Arlington Heights called the last-minute voting "clearly a fumble for the State of Illinois."

Afterward, the Municipal Stadium Authority Act was introduced in the state Senate as an alternative and passed in the early-morning hours by a vote of 37-17.

"I have never seen anything like this," said Marc Ganis, president and cofounder of Sportscorp Ltd. "Everything in Illinois seems to happen close to midnight on May 31st, is just not a healthy way to go about these things, and is very atypical."

Ganis, a stadium expert with years of experience in negotiating on projects, said Arlington Heights remains the best stadium site for the Bears — if property tax breaks are guaranteed.

"This deal is much closer to the structure of most NFL stadiums," said Ganis. "It's a very dysfunctional operation and the bears stadium saga highlights the dysfunction that is Chicago and Illinois government."

But this new bill not being passed doesn't mean it's the end of the road for keeping the Bears in Illinois.

"You could be looking at a special session at some point this summer when this was all ready to go," Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran (R-Downers Grove) said Sunday. "If this can't be pulled together today, or if the Bears timeline permits, you're talking about the fall veto session in November."

Meet Chicago Northwest, the local tourism office that promotes Arlington Heights and other northwest suburbs, issued a statement late Sunday before the House adjourned with no vote on a bill.

The statement read: "We remain hopeful that the legislators and bears will come to a mutually acceptable agreement to keep the bears stadium in Illinois — with all its positive economic impact for the state and its residents."

In a statement Monday morning, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson endorsed the idea of a municipal stadium financing authority and publicly owned sports stadiums, and reiterated his contention that the new Bears stadium should be built in the city.

"Chicago's 2024 plan relied on the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority and its existing 2% hotel tax to fund public infrastructure, a model that reflects the same principles the legislature ultimately centered in its framework," Mayor Johnson said in the statement. "Chicago continues to offer the strongest opportunity to retain the Bears. We have a publicly owned site the team has already vetted and approved, an existing sports authority with a dedicated revenue stream, and a framework for moving a deal forward."

Meanwhile, the Village of Arlington Heights expressed disappointment that no legislation to facilitate a new Bears stadium had passed. The village said they are still looking forward to future "redevelopment opportunities" at the former Arlington International Racecourse site that the Bears own and have been considering for a new stadium.

"The Village of Arlington Heights has spent the past five years working diligently to prepare for the redevelopment of Arlington Park. We are truly disappointed with the outcome from the spring legislative session yet again," Arlington Heights Mayor Jim Tinaglia siad in a statement. "Although we recognize that these discussions are complex and involve many stakeholders, this is clearly a fumble for the State of Illinois. My commitment to the residents and businesses of Arlington Heights is unwavering, and we will continue to represent the interests of our community as future opportunities and next steps are considered."

Several Illinois lawmakers said Sunday that the team has continued talking with leaders at Chicago's City Hall too. But the Bears recently said a plan to keep the team in the city is not going to happen.

The move comes after the plan earned intense pushback from Republicans in Congress that threatened to imperil the GOP agenda on Capitol Hill.

The Justice Department said on X that it would abide by the judge's ruling that halted work on the fund, effectively shelving plans for it for now.

"The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people," the department said on X. 

It continued: "This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court's ruling."

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an order on Friday that temporarily prevents the Justice Department from moving forward with the fund to "ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed" from it while she considered whether to issue longer-term relief.

Brinkema is overseeing a lawsuit brought by a former federal prosecutor who was involved in cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, and several other plaintiffs. Her order prohibits the Justice Department from "taking any further action pursuant to the creation or operation" of the program for now, including transferring money to the fund, considering any claims submitted and disbursing any payments. A hearing is set for June 12.

The DOJ fund

The Justice Department announced the fund as part of a settlement of a civil suit brought by President Trump against the IRS stemming from the release of his tax returns by a former government contractor. The fund aimed to provide taxpayer-funded payouts to individuals who alleged the federal government had been "weaponized" against them. 

But the program drew intense scrutiny when allies of Mr. Trump's, including some who were charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, expressed interest in submitting claims. The president granted clemency to roughly 1,500 defendants convicted for their actions on Jan. 6 on his first day back in office and has long claimed they were treated unfairly.

The decision not to contest Brinkema's ruling reflects the headwinds the administration has been facing from lawmakers in both parties who had significant reservations about the program. House Speaker Mike Johnson met with Mr. Trump at the White House on Monday to discuss the fund, according to multiple sources familiar with the meeting.

The pushback came to a head during a Senate Republican conference meeting last month, in which senators voiced their concerns with the fund to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Senators said the closed-door meeting grew intense. Members expressed frustration about the fund and its timing, which ultimately led GOP leaders to scrap plans to vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security's immigration enforcement agencies.

Democrats threatened to force votes on the fund, putting Republicans in a difficult position as they tried to move forward on the funding for DHS. With some of their members likely to join Democrats in opposing the program, Senate Republicans had considered putting guardrails on the fund into the DHS bill itself, or otherwise finding avenues to dictate how the fund would operate and who might receive payments from it. Some also wanted to prevent those who assaulted law enforcement from being compensated.

As the Senate returned from a weeklong recess Monday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged that Democrats would launch a coordinated effort to quash the fund. 

Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, who is part of a group of Senate Democrats pushing a measure to shut down the fund, said reconciliation will provide the first opportunity for Democrats to force votes on the issue, but they "may look for other opportunities as well, depending on what's going to be on the floor." 

"There will be no hiding from this issue," Schiff said at a news conference Monday evening. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said at the Capitol on Monday that he spoke to the president about the fund over the weekend.

"I do think the best way to handle it is if the administration decides to shut it down themselves," Thune told reporters. 

Mr. Trump and his GOP allies have long complained that the Biden administration unfairly targeted them through the justice system. The president defended the fund last month, saying he was helping people "who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized" Biden administration receive "justice."

Separate from the political blowback, the "anti-weaponization" fund also faces legal scrutiny on other fronts. Several lawsuits challenging the program were filed soon after it was announced, and on Friday, the federal judge who was overseeing Mr. Trump's suit against the IRS ordered the president to answer questions related to his decision to dismiss his case as part of the settlement agreement with his own administration and whether it should be reopened.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who sits on the district court in South Florida, was responding to a request from 35 former federal judges to reopen the case. The retired judges argued that the settlement, which ended Mr. Trump's civil lawsuit against the IRS, "is a product of collusion and is itself a fraud on the court."

Williams wrote in a brief order that the judges made "grievous allegations" that Mr. Trump voluntarily dismissed the case "solely to avoid judicial scrutiny" of his lawsuit, which they said was filed solely to serve as the springboard for the settlement. 

While Democrats applauded the passage, Republicans said the budget included too many tax increases and will hurt Illinois families.

Republicans also called the spending plan irresponsible, as it is the largest budget in Illinois history.

The $55.9 billion budget does not increase state income taxes or sales tax. The spending plan included an $830 million supplemental current-year spending plan, meaning the upcoming fiscal year 2027 budget is essentially flat.

To get it across the finish line, Democrats — especially progressives — had to temper their expectations. Many had called for new progressive revenue measures throughout the session, including taxes on big corporations and billionaires and for Illinois to untie itself from parts of the federal tax code.

Instead, the measure freezes corporate net operating loss and enacts taxes on social media companies, digital assets, fantasy sports, tobacco and sports betting on prediction market websites.

The budget does include more than $300 million new dollars for public education, and almost $100 million for families struggling to eat. There is also a sales tax holiday on school supplies when families go back-to-school shopping in August, and pauses a previously planned increase to the state gas tax.

Republicans said the relief didn't go nearly far enough.

"We're not going to raise the gas tax in July, we're just going to wait a couple more months, so we can raise it at the end of the year after election time," said Rep. Joe Sosnowski (R-Rockford), adding sarcastically that there was a "lot of courage coming out of that side of the aisle and the governor."

Republicans argued the budget relies too heavily on tax hikes, and could place a greater financial burden on Illinois families. 

"Our budget has increased at less than the rest of inflation since I took office," Gov. Pritzker said, responding to criticism that it's the largest budget in state history. "I warned that there would be truly unprecedented challenges because Donald Trump and the Republican congress are cutting the state over $8 billion."

Republican State Senator Don DeWitte (R-St. Charles) said while many of the new taxes involve businesses, it will have a trickle-down effect to the average taxpayer.

"Business takes all expenses involved in running their businesses, and they wash those expenses out over what they charge in fees, advertising fees, transaction fees. The taxpayer is ultimately who gets stuck paying those increases because of how business simply operates," he said. 

Tax increases and revenue maneuvers

The budget also calls for transferring $150 million in sales tax revenue from gas to the General Revenue Fund once public transportation is fully funded, opening that revenue up to be spent on any purpose.

"If you're a driver who is irritated by the high price of gas that you're paying, you should be extra irritated when you where the funds are going," Spain said.

Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, aired similar concerns earlier on Sunday during committee.

"We ought to be suspending the sales tax on motor fuel right now – not diverting it to the General Revenue Fund, and not diverting it, oddly to the exact same dollar amount that we got for illegal immigrants and welcoming centers," he said.

That state plans to spend $143 million on a healthcare program for undocumented immigrant seniors and another $4 million on welcoming centers that provide services to immigrants arriving in Illinois.

Lawmakers incorporated a pair of the tax changes that Pritzker had proposed in February. One would lower the cap on corporate net operating loss deductions for business. Another would impose a tax on social media companies based on the number of users the platform has in Illinois. Combined, those would generate $500 million in new revenue.

Social media companies would be taxed on a progressive scale starting with platforms with 100,000 to 499,999 users paying 10 cents per month for each user all the way up to platforms with at least 1 million users paying a $165,000 fee plus 50 cents for each user each month. A similar tax in Chicago is already tied up in court.

New taxes on digital asset sales and fantasy sports are expected to generate $65 million. The state would create a licensing structure for fantasy sports operators and impose a 15% tax on each business — something Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, said the industry themselves requested.

Consumers purchasing tires will also see a 50-cent increase in a tax on those purchases, which primarily funds a waste disposal fund.

Sports bets on prediction markets and remote tobacco retailers would also be taxed under the plan.

The revenue package also creates a Targeted Advertising Services Tax, which is more commonly known as a digital ad tax. However, lawmakers expect the tax will also face legal challenges and are not planning to gather revenue from it in FY27. Tarver said the goal was to create a framework to implement the tax later if it's held up in court. Keith Staats, president of the Illinois Taxpayers Federation, told a House committee the tax likely violates federal internet freedom laws.

The budget package does not eliminate tax incentives for data centers, despite Pritzker calling for it in his budget.

Other spending in the budget appears to rely on numerous fund sweeps that redirect money from one program to another or to the state's General Revenue Fund. One of those sweeps includes transferring $70 million from the BRIDGE program — created last year to allow Pritzker to allocate funding to programs that fall short in funding because of federal cuts ­— to the Fund for Illinois' Future for

infrastructure projects and other grants. Money in that fund is typically earmarked for specific projects in Democratic legislative districts.

However, the spending bill stipulates that $70 million from the BRIDGE Fund should go to a new program to fill gaps in food assistance programs, which led to some confusion among lawmakers debating the bill in the House.

Classroom cell phone ban

The General Assembly also approved a bill banning the use of cellphones in classrooms. The legislation amends the current school code to require a "bell-to-bell" ban on cell phones for K-8 students. High school students get more flexibility during lunch and passing periods.

The ban does not include school-issued devices used for education purposes, and includes exceptions including cell phone usage related to medical needs, education plans, English learner support and student caregivers.

Schools cannot use penalties like fees, fines, suspensions, expulsions or police involvement to enforce the policy.

Pritzker said he will sign the bill into law.

Lawmakers also passed a bill to shield abortion information from digital medical records. The Reproductive Health Records Privacy Act allows patients to choose whether abortions or gender dysphoria diagnoses are in their digital medical records.

The legislation could have major implications for those who travel to Illinois for care.

In a post to X, Gov. Pritzker said the bill will "ensure that patients retain full control over their health information."

Data center legislation not voted on

One bill that lawmakers did not address before the end of the Spring Session early Monday morning concerned data centers. Advocates said the POWER Act would curb "unchecked data center development."

The POWER Act was not called to the floor. Advocates said they hoped to get the legislation passed during the Fall Veto Session.

Capitol News Illinois contributed to this report

House Bill 4537 makes various changes to the regulations for selling property tax debt. The key change is if a homeowner fails to pay their debt in an initial redemption period, and their property is seized and sold, they will receive any surplus funds left over from the auction.

That change will bring Illinois — the last state to do so — into compliance with the 2023 Supreme Court decision Tyler v. Hennepin County. Previously passed by the Senate, the bill will now head to the governor.

In Tyler, the court decided that the sale process violated citizens' right to fair compensation for government seizure of property and ruled any surplus funds from the property sale must be returned to the owner to reimburse the equity they had in the property.

The new regulations would give certain counties the chance to purchase those debts themselves and offer more opportunity for the homeowners to pay back their debt.

The Senate passed the bill 56-1-1 on Thursday. Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, voted no, and Sen. Willie Preston, D-Chicago, voted present, out of concern that the changes won't work.

"We have done what we could to try to address as many concerns as possible, to try to address as much as we could, to try to ensure that people who are unfortunately in a position of losing their homes because of delinquent property taxes, have an ability to recoup some of the surplus once those properties are sold," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Celina Villanueva, D-Chicago.

Process reforms

When an owner falls behind on property taxes, the county clerk can place a lien — a legal claim against a person's assets to ensure their debt is paid — on the property. These liens can be sold as tax certificates in annual sales, often to third parties who hike interest rates and charge steep fees.

The property owners are given a redemption period at this point to pay off the debt, during which buyers must meet specific deadlines notifying the owner of the process steps. If the homeowner still can't pay the debt, then the tax buyers can seize and resell the property.

In that way, tax buyers can obtain a property for just the cost of the debt, regardless of the property's market value or equity the homeowner had invested.

Villanueva's bill addresses the issue by both restructuring the way counties handle tax debt sales and giving homeowners the right to be reimbursed for their equity.

"That was always my north star in this, is how do I protect people, how do I help people," Villanueva said. "It's always been them."

Counties with more than three million residents — effectively just Cook County — can take part in a pilot program during the next six annual sales by obtaining up to 100 tax certificates on certain low-tax, homestead properties. They would need to submit an annual report to the General Assembly detailing how many certificates the county acquired, what happened to them and where the proceeds went between the taxing district and the property owner.

That report will inform lawmakers if the new process works or whether a trailer bill is needed, House sponsor Rep. Curtis Tarver, D-Chicago, said on the floor Saturday night. Following the next six sales, those counties would be required to adopt the process.

"Cook County initially wanted the ability to take all tax certificates. … The pushback was to allow them to have a pilot program," Tarver said. "Then (they) would report back to the General Assembly annually, and this will allow us to have an opportunity to see if that pilot program is in fact working, and if they have the ability to really scale up to take on all of the tax certificates."

Some lawmakers pushed back on this model, however: "In six years, Cook County's going to do something completely different than the other 101 counties in Illinois, and I just don't think that that makes sense," Rose told Capitol News Illinois on Friday.

Outstanding certificates

In February, Villanueva sponsored a bill that extended Cook County's scheduled property tax sale to buy time while lawmakers negotiated this bill. Cook County was the focus in many of those negotiations, in part because it has significantly more outstanding certificates than any other county.

Lawmakers approved a similar bill in April, House Bill 799, but that bill only fixed the process moving forward, leaving those outstanding certificates in limbo. Then on May 11, a federal judge ruled the Cook County Treasurer's office is liable to refund the money property owners lost in the tax sales between the Tyler decision and now.

This bill modifies the sales-in-error regulations to create a new category for any current outstanding certificates to be automatically declared in error, meaning those sales will be reversed, tax buyers will be refunded and the process will restart under the new statute.

There are also provisions extending the initial tax redemption period by six months to a total of three years and establishing a surplus equity fund for those who've lost their home in the past two years. That fund would be supplied by a set of fees charged to the tax buyers.

Buyers in counties of more than three million residents, essentially Cook County, must pay 5% of the total taxes, interest and penalties for a certificate, capped at $1,000, plus an additional 5% of the taxes, interest and penalties. Buyers in smaller counties must pay a flat $20 fee. When the certificate is issued, buyers in counties larger than three million residents must pay $1,000 and those in smaller must pay $500.

Some Republicans, including Rose, cast doubt on how effective the bill would be because of those fees.

"If the tax buyer doesn't get repaid their money, who's going to ever buy taxes?" Rose said.

The Illinois Tax Purchasers Association is opposed to the bill, out of concern that the surplus equity fund fees will impact their business model and drive tax purchasers out of the state, Rep. Steven Reick, R-Woodstock, said on the floor Saturday.

"I understand the concern of pushing, you know, the tax buyers completely out. Somebody's got to pay the taxes, right?" Tarver said. "That's why we understand that the purpose of the pilot program is to ensure that …  if Cook County really is focused on keeping homeowners in their properties, and they believe they have the ability to do that, then let's see that proven."

The bill also establishes new notice requirements to ensure that property owners know their rights, how to get help paying their tax debts and what could happen if they don't.

Negotiations

Illinois is the last state to come into compliance with Tyler because, despite years of negotiations between lawmakers, stakeholders and advocates, those involved struggled to find a statewide solution.

"90% of the bill, everybody was in agreement with," Villanueva said. "The question was, how do we ensure that we have a policy that is statewide that works for everybody, because the county (Cook) is always going to be slightly different than everybody else."

Rose, Villanueva and Preston each said they support larger property tax reforms in the future to address why residents are falling behind on their payments in the first place.

Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundatio

The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court said Friday it would hear an appeal of a case brought by a bipartisan coalition of business executives seeking to redraw the state's Republican-friendly congressional districts.

A three-judge panel dismissed the case in April. The plaintiffs are not seeking a ruling in time for the election. Instead, they are asking the state Supreme Court to send the case back to the lower court for a trial — a process that would likely not take place until 2027.

Of Wisconsin's eight U.S. House seats, Republicans hold six. Only two of those seats are considered competitive under the current map.

The Wisconsin development came the same day Louisiana enacted a new congressional map designed to help Republicans gain a seat while eliminating one of the state's two majority-Black House districts. That redistricting push followed an April 30 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Louisiana's previous map as an illegal racial gerrymander, weakening the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Several other Republican-controlled Southern states have moved to redraw their own congressional maps in the weeks since that ruling.

On Wednesday, Freedom 250 announced the initial set of artists lined up to perform. 

Mr. Trump said Saturday that he is considering replacing the event with what he called an "AMERICA IS BACK Rally," where he would "give a major speech, rallying the Country forward." He said he was ordering representatives to look into the feasibility of hosting such an event on short notice, and said that it would be a "Wild and Beautiful Celebration of America." 

Who has pulled out of the America 250 concert series? 

Morris Day of Morris Day and The Time said he won't be performing, contrary to the advertisement. "It's A No For Me," Morris' official Facebook account posted. 

Young MC, another artist advertised to perform, also said he won't be there. "I HAVE INFORMED MY AGENTS THAT I WILL NOT BE PERFORMING AT THE FREEDOM 250 EVENT," he posted on Facebook. "The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event. And despite the claims by the organizers that the event is non-partisan, SPIN magazine describes it as Trump-backed. I hope to perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged."

The Commodores, also originally announced as performers, said on social media Thursday the group "will not be performing at the Great American State Fair."

"Our music has always been our voice and we choose not to publicly affiliate with any single political party," the statement said. "We support the betterment of all Americans."

Country singer Martina McBride announced on social media she will not perform. She wrote that she initially signed on because she was told the event would be nonpartisan, which "turned out to be misleading."

"I asked lots of questions and was assured this was a nonpartisan event that was meant to celebrate ALL 50 states," McBride wrote Thursday. "Yesterday things started changing and what we were told is, in fact, not what is happening."

Bret Michaels, of the band Poison, said on social media that he won't be there.

"Unfortunately, what was presented to us as a celebration of our country has evolved into something much more divisive than what I agreed to be a part of," he said. "Concerns have also been raised regarding the safety of my fans, band, crew, family and myself, including threats that are completely unfounded and unforgivable."

Who is still set to perform at the Freedom 250 concert series?  

Although half of the front-facing Milli Vanilli pop duo, Rob Pilatus, died in 1998, Fab Morvan, the other half of the duo, said he'll be performing. 

"Despite any rumors out there, I will be performing at The Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C. at the National Mall on June 26th, as a part of The I Love The 90's Tour," Morvan said in a statement to CBS News. "I am here to entertain and unite people, not divide them. Let's celebrate life & music and take a trip down memory lane. I feel honored to be a part of the Great American State Fair as it will celebrate the 250 Year Anniversary of America with so many other accomplished artists. Looking forward to reconnecting with you across the USA this summer and to finally sing Milli Vanilli songs live in person!"

Vanilla Ice, who is also part of the initial lineup, still plans to perform. "Vanilla Ice is contracted and will perform at the Great American Fair at the National Mall on Friday, June 26," his management agency told CBS News in an email. "He is proud to help celebrate America's 250th Anniversary!  Everyone is welcome to attend and celebrate USA's Birthday and our Freedom!" 

Others announced as performing at the Great American State Fair, a 16-day exposition taking place on the National Mall from June 25 through July 10, include C+C Music Factory and Flo Rida. CBS News has reached out to each artist advertised in the concert series to confirm their attendance. 

In a lengthy video posted to C+C Music Factory's Instagram page, band member Freedom Williams said that although he does not support Mr. Trump, he still plans to perform at the event. 

Freedom 250 said the initiative is nonpartisan, and should be treated as such. 

"Freedom 250 is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) dedicated to uniting Americans around the nation's 250th anniversary," Freedom 250 spokesperson Rachel Reisner said. "Freedom 250 is focused on our signature celebrations and events that honor our history and engage all Americans — welcoming all who share our goal of commemorating this milestone in a way that uplifts and unites America." 

Mr. Trump has expanded on many of the 250th celebrations, although they were in the works before he became president.  

The Great American State Fair, according to Freedom 250, will feature all states and territories in a world fair-style celebration, including exhibits, showcases and cultural programming from the U.S. Capitol to the Washington Monument. Mainstage musical performances are expected every Thursday, Friday and Saturday night.