分类： 未分类

Department of Homeland Security on track to shut down with lawmakers leaving Washington and an unresolved ICE fight

Updated Feb 12, 2026, 4:13 PM ET | PUBLISHED Feb 12, 2026, 3:57 PM ET | CNN Politics

By

[Sarah Ferris]

,

[Morgan Rimmer]

Updated 1 hr 38 min ago

Updated Feb 12, 2026, 4:13 PM ET

PUBLISHED Feb 12, 2026, 3:57 PM ET

Federal agencies Immigration Congressional news US shutdown

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link

Link Copied!

An ICE agent holds a taser in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on February 5.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images/File

A bitterly divided Washington is headed for its third government funding lapse of President [Donald Trump]’s second term — this time, a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security over the issue of federal immigration enforcement.

With lawmakers leaving town Thursday, funding for the department is set to expire Friday at midnight. GOP leaders sent their members home after the two parties made no concrete progress toward a deal that Democrats are demanding must rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations after last month’s fatal shootings by federal agents of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good in Minnesota.

The next steps are uncertain. With talks ongoing between the White House and Democrats, the two chambers aren’t scheduled to return to Washington for 11 days, though GOP leaders could still call members back if a deal is reached.

Ad Feedback

[Related article Community members react to federal immigration agents conducting immigration enforcement tasks in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S., February 5, 2026. Seth Herald/Reuters A partial government shutdown is about to hit the Department of Homeland Security. Here’s what that means 4 min read]

Democrats have demanded that Trump administration end its “roving” patrols, require independent oversight of ICE, bar the deportation of US citizens and forbid ICE agents from wearing masks. Another major sticking point: Democrats want immigration warrants to be signed by a judge, not by an ICE agency official. But Republicans are firmly opposed.

“We will find out, I think, very quickly, whether or not the Democrats are serious,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters just after the chamber’s final vote Thursday. He said he hoped Democrats would soon show the GOP that they, too, are willing to compromise after the White House’s latest proposal, though he declined to say what new policies are being discussed.

“I think the White House has given more and more ground on some of these key issues,” Thune said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks with reporters on Thursday.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images

One senior White House official, who declined to speak publicly, was even more blunt: “At this point it seems clear the Democrats are going to walk away from that bipartisan conversation. They’re going to shut the department down.”

“We will not be held hostage on an issue the president was elected on,” the official said.

But top Democrats insist the White House needs to come closer to the party’s demands or risk national backlash.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a top Senate Democrat, criticized Republicans for not understanding “the depth of the anger” across the country over Trump’s aggressive deportation efforts.

“Maybe this break will allow [Republicans] to go home and get yelled at — not just by people who are progressive, but everybody who thinks this agency is out of control,” Schatz said. “It’s gonna take them maybe another week to figure out how pissed off their own voters are about the idea of a masked police force terrorizing communities.”

Behind the scenes, top Democrats and the White House have been negotiating, but Democrats have criticized the White House for being unserious in those talks, refusing to yield to the party’s biggest demands to overhaul federal immigration enforcement.

Republicans, meanwhile, have argued that the White House demonstrated its commitment to the talks by sending a full legislative proposal to Democrats the night before — as well as announcing a formal end to its ICE operation in Minnesota.

Speaker Mike Johnson called the White House proposal in the negotiations for DHS funding “eminently reasonable” and criticized some Democrats for wanting “to impose pain.”

Speaker Mike Johnson attends an event at the US Capitol on Thursday.

Allison Robbert/AP

“I saw the last proposal sent over from the White House. It is eminently reasonable,” he told CNN, adding: “It seems to me, the appearance here is that some Democrats, House and Senate, want a government shutdown. They want to impose more pain on the American people. For what? I have no idea.”

Unlike in last fall’s full shutdown government, Democrats have so far offered a clear display of unity against the GOP’s latest ICE offer. The party roundly rejected the White House’s latest proposal in the ongoing negotiations over how to rein in ICE. Only Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who has repeatedly voted against any shutdowns, sided with Republicans on the Thursday votes.

Both parties are refusing to discuss the White House’s specific proposal. But it is clear the two sides are far apart.

Johnson maintained his hardline stance against requiring judicial warrants, saying it would “shut down the deportation of virtually all illegal immigrants.”

“You can’t do that. You can’t have an Immigration and Customs Enforcement program if you have to get a judicial warrant every time you go to arrest someone. That’s not how it works. It’s not how it can work. It’s not workable,” he said.

Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have been clear that judicial reform is one of their red lines.

Jeffries said earlier Thursday that Democrats need to see policy changes to ICE’s immigration enforcement that are “bold, meaningful, and transformational” — and that the White House’s latest offer did not meet that bar.

CNN’s Manu Raju, Adam Cancryn and Aileen Graef contributed to this report.

Federal agencies Immigration Congressional news US shutdown

[See all topics]

Facebook Tweet[Email]Link

Link Copied!

Ad Feedback

CBS News poll analysis on words voters pick to describe the Democratic and Republican parties

February 12, 2026 / 3:35 PM EST / CBS News

Long before campaign season, the images or brands of the political parties are in the public mind. We asked people to weigh in right now on various descriptions of each of them.

Their answers reveal a portrait of a very divided nation. One in which one party is seen more as “weak” while the other is “extreme.” And while each set of partisans thinks they’re reasonable, they tend to say the other is not. And neither party elicits glowing descriptions from independents.

From a list of descriptors, “weak” is the way most voters describe the Democratic Party, while “extreme” is the word most picked to describe the Republican Party. These sentiments are generally similar to what we’ve seen in recent years and how Americans viewed the parties as recently as last fall.

The perception of the Democratic Party as “weak” is not necessarily an artifact of the party’s being out of power. Voters’ perceptions of the Democratic Party in 2022 (when the party controlled Congress and the White House) were similar: More called it “weak” than “strong,” and most did not describe it as “effective.” At that time, most voters also called the GOP “extreme,” so that dynamic also remains.

The Democratic Party continues to lag behind the Republicans in being seen as “effective” or “strong”, although the percentage who ascribe these words to the GOP falls short of a majority.

These relatively less positive descriptors for the Democratic Party are driven in part by somewhat lackluster views among its own rank and file.

The nation’s Republicans, on the other hand, are more unified and more positive in their descriptions of the GOP.

For example, 45% of Democrats describe their party as “strong,” compared to 80% of Republicans who pick that descriptor for their party. And more Democrats label their party “weak” than Republicans do theirs. (More Republicans do call their party extreme than Democrats do theirs, but it’s still relatively few.)

Relatedly, we’ve seen some of this in perceptions of how the Democratic Party deals with President Trump. Recent CBS News polling found few of the country’s Democrats have “a lot” of confidence in the ability of congressional Democrats to effectively oppose the president.

The most liberal wing of the nation’s Democrats is the most critical: Most don’t have confidence in the Democrats in Congress to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, and that may be reflected in how they describe their own party. They are less apt than the moderates to call their party “effective” or “strong.”

Beyond energizing their own partisans, the parties will look to appeal to independent voters.

Like voters overall, most independents view the Democratic Party as “weak” and the GOP as “extreme.” They do give the Republicans an edge on being “strong” and “effective,” while the Democrats have an advantage on being “reasonable” — though they give both parties relatively low marks on each of these measures.

*

This analysis is based on a CBS News/YouGov survey that was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,425 U.S. adults interviewed between February 3-5, 2026. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.4 points.

After letting Trump abuse it for a year, the legislative branch shows a little pride

Analysis by Aaron Blake
4 hr ago
PUBLISHED Feb 12, 2026, 2:01 PM ET

The US Capitol on Tuesday.

Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images

This week brought fresh signs that as President Donald Trump’s popularity withers, Republicans in Congress are starting to reassert some of the prerogatives — and pride — that they abandoned during his first year back in office.

It’s a contrast from just last spring when the Republican-controlled House voted to strip itself of power to stop Trump’s tariffs — and did so by taking some liberties with the concept of time.

It voted to effectively pretend that a day was not a day, in order to skirt a rule that says any attempts to cancel Trump’s tariffs emergency had to be voted on within 15 days.

The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power over tariffs. So here was the House not just declining to stop Trump from gobbling up that power, but willfully preventing itself from reclaiming it. All in the name of helping Trump.

If anything encapsulates Congress’ willful acquiescence and fealty to Trump, those votes had to be it. But it was part of a broader trend. The Constitution arguably makes the legislative branch more powerful than the executive and judicial branches, but GOP lawmakers have repeatedly ceded that power to keep the peace with Trump.

Some have even spoken as if their roles were to do whatever Trump wanted — as if their elections didn’t matter, next to Trump’s 49.8% plurality in the 2024 election.

That dynamic is hardly going away, but with looming midterm elections — in which they’re on the ballot and Trump’s not — GOP lawmakers are breaking with him in more ways.

Three House Republicans voted this week to prevent an extension of House Speaker Mike Johnson’s tariffs gimmick. And meanwhile, key Republicans have balked at a pair of major Trump incursions into the legislative branch: his administration’s apparent monitoring of lawmakers’ searches of the Jeffrey Epstein files, and its failed attempt to indict six congressional Democrats.

The tariff votes

The tariffs vote Tuesday was hardly a resounding reclamation of congressional power, given 214 Republicans still voted to continue ceding it to Trump. But it was a significant rebuke of Trump and Johnson that means we’re likely to see a bevy of tariffs votes in the coming months.

Those votes could test Republicans’ willingness to toe Trump’s unpopular line on tariffs in an election year — and potentially make the tariffs more difficult to sustain if the GOP defections grow.

Already on Wednesday, six House Republicans joined with Democrats to block Trump’s Canada tariffs. Given the Senate already voted against those tariffs, that means majorities of both GOP-controlled chambers are now on-record opposing what Trump has done.

(Still, even if both chambers passed the same measure, Trump could veto it. They would then need two-thirds majorities to override him, which would require much bigger GOP defections than we’re currently seeing.)

What happened Wednesday

Wednesday also delivered some more big moments in the relationship between the two branches of government.

Photographs of a document that Attorney General Pam Bondi brought to her testimony to the House Judiciary Committee suggested DOJ appeared to have monitored lawmakers’ searches of the Epstein files when they viewed the unredacted files at the Justice Department this week. (The department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about the paperwork Bondi brought to the hearing.)

That raised the prospect that the executive branch was effectively spying on members. Democrats criticized it as a violation of the separation of powers.

Johnson’s usual response when such controversies arise is to punt or downplay. But while the GOP speaker allowed there was still more to learn, he told CNN on Thursday it wasn’t “appropriate” for lawmakers’ searches to be tracked.

“I think members should obviously have the right to peruse those at their own speed and with their own discretion and I don’t think it’s appropriate for anybody to be tracking that,” he said.

Also Wednesday — on a bigger scale — we saw a coterie of Republicans speak out against DOJ’s failed attempt to indict six congressional Democrats.

The effort traces back to a video in which those six Democrats had urged members of the military not to obey illegal orders. Trump and others around him suggested that message was akin to treason.

But Trump’s threat — that these lawmakers had committed “seditious behavior, punishable by death” — didn’t just come across as an effort to criminalize speech; but to potentially criminalize speech that effectively just restated what members of the military are already told.

Many Republicans have now criticized the administration’s effort to indict the Democrats, even as some assured that they objected to the six lawmakers’ video.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who’s not running for reelection, called it “political lawfare.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska called it “chilling.” Sens. Josh Hawley, Bill Cassidy, Mike Rounds and Susan Collins all objected. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker said the grand jury that rejected the charges “made the right decision.” Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa said federal law enforcement should be targeting “real law-breakers.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn’t judge the attempted indictments as harshly but did suggest it simply wasn’t a legal matter.

“That wouldn’t have been my response to that,” the South Dakota Republican said.

Are all of these responses full-throated? No. And these Republicans all could have objected more strongly weeks ago when Trump telegraphed his effort at retribution.

But it’s rare you see so many GOP lawmakers speaking out on a subject so quickly. And that undoubtedly owes at least in part to what this effort could have meant for their branch of government.

What it means

Nobody should look at this week’s developments and deduce that Republicans in Congress are suddenly ready to fight Trump for the honor of the legislative branch.

So much of Trump’s project is built on claiming massive amounts of unilateral power. And Congress acting as even an equal partner would likely torpedo the entire thing — especially given the GOP’s House majority is so small.

And in many ways, the damage is done. The precedent has been set for a Congress controlled by the president’s party to effectively stand by — to try to let the president serve as a more authoritarian leader who can be checked (eventually and maybe) by the judiciary but rarely by the legislature.

But at some point, Republicans have to recognize that ceding all that power to the notoriously unwieldy and chaotic Trump has caused them lots of political problems, and that maybe this isn’t how they want to conduct business forever.

An election year, perhaps unsurprisingly, seems to be when they’re coming to that realization.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is making an example of former President [Barack Obama] for encouraging voters and lawmakers to reject adopting national voter ID laws.

“You know how badly the Democrats are panicking when they bring out Obama to spread lies about voter ID,” Leavitt posted to X Thursday. “The fact is that nearly 90% of voters support” voter ID laws, she continued before posting two screenshots showing two polls reflecting that Americans support such laws at around 83% support to 84% support.

Leavitt’s comments follow the House passing a massive election integrity overhaul bill Wednesday, which includes requiring voters to show a photo ID when casting ballots in [federal elections]. The bill overall aims to prevent noncitizens from voting in U.S. federal elections, with all but one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, voting against it.

Obama was among prominent Democrats encouraging House lawmakers to vote against the measure, claiming it will disenfranchise voters.

[ROGAN DEFENDS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR WHO FACED BACKLASH FROM PARTY FOR SUPPORTING VOTER ID]

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is making an example of former President Barack Obama for encouraging voters and lawmakers to reject adopting national voter ID laws.(Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Republicans are still trying to pass the SAVE Act—a bill that would make it harder to vote and disenfranchise millions of Americans,” he posted to X Wednesday evening. “Join [@RedistrictAct]and tell your member of Congress to vote no.”

Democrats have argued that voter ID laws can disenfranchise eligible voters because they often require specific, current government-issued IDs that may be a struggle to obtain due to costs, paperwork hurdles or limited DMV access. Republicans have rejected that argument, calling the requirement a common-sense safeguards that would boost confidence in elections, while simultaneously noting that most Americans already need IDs for everyday tasks.

In another post, [Leavitt] shared that Obama presented his own driver’s license to vote in the 2012 election. Obama voted early that cycle and was seen on camera pulling his Illinois driver’s license from his wallet to flash to poll workers.

[‘I VOTED’ STICKER HELPS CONVICT NON-CITIZEN WHO CAST BALLOT IN 2024 AS ELECTION SECURITY DEBATE HEATS UP]

Then-President Barack Obama jokes with election worker Marie Holmes, left, who double-checked his photo on his driver’s license as he signed in for early voting Oct. 25, 2012, at the Martin Luther King Community Center in Chicago.(Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

“Here is Barack Obama showing his photo ID to vote in a past election,” [Leavitt posted.] “Why are Democrats in Congress so opposed to making this a requirement across the country? Voter ID laws are common sense.”

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers added that IDs are frequently used by Americans to buy alcohol or get on a plane, which she said shows the hypocrisy of Democrats pushing against the election security overhaul.

[MURKOWSKI BREAKS WITH GOP ON VOTER ID, SAYS PUSH ‘IS NOT HOW WE BUILD TRUST’]

“Barack Obama and the rest of the Democrats think Americans are stupid, which is why they are blatantly lying about the commonsense election integrity provisions in the popular SAVE Act,” Rogers told Fox News Digital.

“Americans need to show ID to buy alcohol, get on a plane, and even get into the Democratic National Convention — but these hypocrite Democrats don’t want voters to show their ID to cast a ballot. Congressional Democrats’ opposition to the SAVE America Act is indefensible and wildly out of step with the views of the American people.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Obama’s office Thursday for comment but did not immediately receive a reply.

Democrats have argued that voter ID laws can disenfranchise eligible voters because they often require specific, current government-issued IDs that may be a struggle to obtain due to costs, paperwork hurdles or limited DMV access.(Mark Kauzlarich/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Called the SAVE Act, the legislation would additionally require information-sharing between state election officials and federal authorities in verifying citizenship on current voter rolls, as well as enable the Department of Homeland Security to pursue immigration cases if non-citizens were found to be listed as eligible to vote.

[CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP]

If passed, the new requirement could be implemented for the November midterm elections. It must first pass the Senate before it could land on President [Donald Trump]’s desk.

Marine declared dead after falling overboard in Caribbean, first known U.S. death in “Operation Southern Spear”

February 12, 2026 / 3:45 PM EST / CBS News

Washington— A young Marine died after falling overboard from the USS Iwo Jima in the Caribbean Sea, the Marine Corps announced Thursday, the first known U.S. death in “Operation Southern Spear.”

Marine Lance Cpl. Chukwuemeka E. Oforah was 21.

Oforah, an infantry rifleman from Florida, was declared dead on Feb. 10 after a 72-hour search and rescue mission failed to find him, the Marine Corps said. He was reported as falling overboard on the evening of Feb. 7. The Marine Corps said the circumstances surrounded the incident are under investigation.

“We are all grieving alongside the Oforah family,” said Col. Tom Trimble. “The loss of Lance Cpl. Oforah is deeply felt across the entire Navy-Marine Corps team. He will be profoundly missed, and his dedicated service will not be forgotten.”

The military says the multi-branch search included five U.S. Navy ships, a rigid-hull inflatable boat, and 10 aircraft from the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.

Operation Southern Spear, begun last year, is the Trump administration’s military and surveillance campaign with the stated purpose of detecting and disrupting transnational criminal maritime networks, particularly related to drug trafficking. The operation has led to scores of deaths and the sinking of at least 39 alleged drug-carrying vessels in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.

White House seeks to tighten control over HHS priorities with personnel shakeup

By Adam Cancryn
Updated 38 min ago
Updated Feb 12, 2026, 5:22 PM ET
PUBLISHED Feb 12, 2026, 4:00 PM ET

Federal agencies Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policy

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., speaks during the Take Back Your Health Tour event on February 4, in Nashville, Tennessee.

George Walker IV/AP/File

The White House is looking to exercise tighter control over key areas of the US Health and Human Services Department, planning a shakeup of top personnel as the administration looks ahead to the midterm elections, an administration official told CNN.

The moves are aimed at restructuring HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s senior-most ranks, installing four new senior counselors who will be charged with more closely managing the department’s daily operations and communications across the federal government.

Chris Klomp, the administration’s current Medicare head and senior adviser at HHS, will become chief counselor and the department’s de facto chief of staff, the administration official said.

John Brooks, the deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, will be a senior counselor in charge of CMS-related issues. Two senior US Food and Drug Administration officials, Grace Graham and Kyle Diamantas, will take on senior counselor roles at HHS managing FDA-related issues.

Matt Buckham, the current HHS chief of staff, will move to a senior counselor role, the administration official said, adding that the changes came out of conversations between White House officials and Kennedy.

HHS confirmed the changes later Thursday, saying the hires would help accelerate the department’s agenda in their new roles, while still retaining their previous positions.

“I am proud to elevate battle-tested, principled leaders onto my immediate team — individuals with the courage and experience to help us move faster and further as we work to Make America Health Again,” Kennedy said in a statement.

Chris Klomp, deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, speaks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2025.

Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg/Getty Images

The White House is preparing a midterm push that will rely heavily on promoting key health policies President Donald Trump has increasingly touted as central to his domestic agenda. That includes the “most favored nation” drug pricing deals that Klomp took a lead role in negotiating and recent efforts to spotlight healthier eating that Trump aides view as appealing to a broad spectrum of voters.

Trump officials are also planning to step up their case for broader health care legislation aimed at codifying the administration’s most favored nation deals and advancing a slate of other policies aimed at lowering health care costs, the administration official said. That effort would require more muscle in HHS’ senior ranks, they added.

Klomp, who has played a central role in negotiating and promoting the drug price deals that Trump has touted as a top accomplishment, has drawn praise at HHS and among top Trump aides for his management expertise and public messaging skills.

The moves also represent an effort to keep closer tabs on Kennedy and an HHS leadership that has struggled at times to coordinate with its own agencies and the White House, frustrating senior Trump officials and generating dayslong controversies.

Kennedy last year ousted his first chief of staff, Heather Flick Melanson, and a top deputy, Hannah Anderson, after just months on the job following a series of internal clashes. The department was also roiled last year by the abrupt firing — and then rehiring — of top FDA official Dr. Vinay Prasad, who has since made a series of controversial drug approval decisions that have overruled career staff and angered the drug industry.

In the meantime, Kennedy has also pressed ahead on a major overhaul of the nation’s vaccine system — a top priority for the longtime vaccine skeptic that has raised concerns among Republicans that it could damage the party politically ahead of the midterms.

This story has been updated with additional reporting.

Federal agencies Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policy

One marriage, two campaigns: Iowa spouses launch dual campaigns for legislature

February 12, 2026 / 4:18 PM EST / CBS News

On a February evening in Iowa, the dining room table at the home of Spencer and Sinikka Waugh is buried under notebooks, campaign maps, yard signs — some with his name and some with hers.

Married since 1998, the two are both running for office in Iowa — Spencer for the state House and Sinikka for state Senate.

Their story didn’t begin as a coordinated political plan. Spencer, an associate dean at Simpson College, had run in the last election and lost by 17 points. When he announced early last year that he planned to run again, Sinikka’s first reaction was blunt. “I looked at him, I said, ‘Why?’” What followed were conversations about “the work and the care that we have for the community and the service that we can do along the way.” As she listened, Sinikka, a small business owner, began thinking about her own role. “How could I use my gifts and my skills and my talents to support him best in the campaign?”

At first, she did so in familiar ways: She stood by his side when he kicked off his campaign. She knocked on doors and showed up at events. Then, at one campaign gathering, someone in the crowd said, “You know, the Senate seat is open.” It happened again at another event.

Undated: Spencer and Sinikka Waugh, both Democrats, are running for office in Iowa. Spencer is running for a seat in the state House, while Sinikka is state Senate candidate. Photo provided by the Waughs

The moment Sinikka decided to take up the challenge still makes them laugh. “What if I really ran?” she asked one day in late December. “[Spencer] runs downstairs and he comes back like two seconds later,” she recalls. In his hands was a printed map. “This is the Senate district map. Take a look at this.” When she asked why he already had it, he told her, “I printed it a few weeks ago. Because I could tell.”

Politics, it turns out, fits neatly into the rhythm of the Waughs’ long marriage. The campaigns operate separately, but the boundaries blur. “We share the dining room table,” Sinikka said, “We have to alternate the time when we’re working sometimes.”

Asked why he chose to run for the state House again, Spencer joked, “We already had the yard signs.” After the 2024 race, a volunteer collected the 500 signs, and Spencer wiped them clean, to get them ready to be used again.

He’s not making any predictions about how this race will go, but he says it already feels different. “People care about their community. They care about education. They care about clean water,” he said, contrasting this election with the last one. Sinikka agrees. “The energy is changing,” she said.

Reactions to their joint candidacies have ranged from positive to incredulous. Sinikka laughed, recalling a friend told her, “You people are crazy!” One of their children initially misunderstood what it meant that both would be running, and thought that Mom was running against Dad. But Spencer says people have been “overwhelmingly positive, overall.”

They are realistic about the odds. “There’s four possible outcomes,” Sinikka said. She does not linger on which outcome matters most. “Right now, we’re focused on the journey,” she said. “What kind of good we can do, how we can serve, how we can educate?”

If they both win, someone suggested they could commute together to the Capitol. “Absolutely not!” Spencer replied. “We have a different relationship to time,” Sinikka laughs.

If only one of them were to win, Sinikka says “that’s okay.” Nearly 28 years into their marriage, love looks less like certainty and more like shared work. The dining room table will eventually be cleared. Yard signs will come down. Maps will be folded and put away. However the election turns out, the commitment remains. For now, Spencer says, “We’re focused on the journey.”

US energy secretary describes ‘tremendous’ cooperation with Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez | CNN Politics

By Blake McGill, CNN
Published 3:58 PM EST, Thu February 12, 2026

Video Ad Feedback

US energy secretary describes ‘tremendous’ cooperation with Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez

Link Copied!

US energy secretary Chris Wright joins CNN’s Boris Sanchez live from Venezuela where Wright and Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez toured an oil facility in the Venezuelan state of Anzoátegui. Wright is the highest-ranking US official to visit Venezuela in almost three decades.

8:33 • Source: CNN

Politics of the Day 11 videos

Video Ad Feedback

US energy secretary describes ‘tremendous’ cooperation with Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodriguez

8:33

Now playing

• Source: CNN

US judge blocks Pentagon’s effort to punish Senator Mark Kelly

February 12, 2026 5:26 PM UTC / Reuters / By Jan Wolfe

WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) – A U.S. judge blocked the Pentagon on Thursday from reducing Senator Mark Kelly’s retired military rank and pension pay because he urged troops to reject unlawful orders.

The preliminary ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington is the latest setback in court for President Donald Trump’s historic campaign of vengeance against his perceived political enemies, which has drawn pushback from judges across the ideological spectrum.

The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.

Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut who represents Arizona in the U.S. Senate, was one of six congressional Democrats who appeared in a November video that reminded service members of their duty to reject unlawful orders. In the clip, Kelly stated: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.”

节点运行失败

Leon, appointed by then-U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002, in his ruling said “the speech at issue here is unquestionably protected speech,” describing the move to punish Kelly as a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Kelly brought a lawsuit against the Trump administration to halt the censure.

“There is nothing ‘routine’ about defendants’ actions here: punishing a sitting U.S. Senator for his views on military policy,” Leon wrote. “It is a particularly valuable asset for our country to have retired veterans contributing to public discussion on military matters and policy.”

Kelly applauded the ruling, saying in a statement that “a federal court made clear that (U.S. Defense Secretary) Pete Hegseth violated the constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.”

A White House spokesperson said the court’s ruling would not be the final say on the matter and that “Hegseth rightfully directed a review to determine future actions as a result of these dangerous comments by Senator Kelly”.

The Pentagon declined to comment.

Kelly made his remarks in November as more Democrats were criticizing Trump’s decisions to deploy the National Guard in U.S. cities and authorize lethal strikes on boats suspected of smuggling drugs from Latin America.

The Republican president, in a social media post, called the video “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH.”

Hegseth issued a censure letter on January 5, asserting that Kelly had “clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline” in violation of military rules that apply to both active and retired personnel.

Trump administration lawyers had urged the judge to dismiss Kelly’s lawsuit, calling it a “quintessential matter of military discipline not within the Judiciary’s purview” in a recent court filing.

The Trump administration also called the lawsuit premature, saying Kelly has not yet been formally censured and should have responded to Hegseth’s allegations through administrative channels.

Reporting By Jan Wolfe and Mike Scarcella; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Nia Williams

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Wall Street regulator to restore some jobs after cuts, chair says

February 12, 2026 5:37 PM UTC / Reuters / By Douglas Gillison

节点运行失败

Paul Atkins, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), delivers remarks at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York City, U.S., December 2, 2025. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz/File Photo

WASHINGTON, Feb 12 (Reuters) – Wall Street’s top regulator is working to restore some of its workforce following last year’s deep cuts at the behest of the White House, the agency’s chief told Congress on Thursday.

“We have gaps in different divisions, so we will fill that,” Paul Atkins, chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, said during Senate testimony.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

He also rejected charges by Democratic lawmakers that the agency had dropped enforcement actions against crypto companies and entrepreneurs with ties to President Donald Trump.

After taking office last year, Trump called for “large-scale” workforce cuts across the federal government as part of the Department of Government Efficiency initiative with former adviser Elon Musk. The SEC offered several rounds of buyouts, resulting in a staff exodus that, as of a year ago, had depleted some key agency components by nearly 20%, causing critics to say this could hamper the SEC’s ability to police markets and respond to crises.

“A lot of these people left voluntarily or through buyouts before I arrived at the SEC, so I’m looking at our numbers of employees, and I think we have a very good group of people in enforcement,” Atkins said.

SEC HAS OFFERED MORE VOLUNTARY REDUCTIONS

Before Atkins arrived at the agency, the SEC argued to the White House that the voluntary cuts lessened the need for dismissing staff en masse, as the administration had done at other agencies, according to a memo obtained by Reuters.

The agency since then has offered more voluntary workforce reductions and the Trump administration has placed limits on agencies’ ability to rehire after staffing cuts.

Democrats and other critics have accused the SEC of dropping enforcement actions as a political favor to crypto companies that have made political donations favoring Trump, himself an entrepreneur in the industry.

Atkins briefly acknowledged the SEC’s actions could be limited in cases in which the president had granted pardons.

“If the president has pardoned someone or given clemency, then it becomes very difficult,” he said.

He rejected accusations of undue political influence, adding that the decision to drop cases had been made by the agency’s acting chair before Atkins’ swearing-in and mostly concerned matters of failing to register securities with the commission, which he said policymakers viewed as “regulation through enforcement.”

Reporting by Douglas Gillison in Washington Editing by Rod Nickel.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.