博客

FAA seeking steeper cuts in flights at Chicago O’Hare airport, sources say

By Reuters
March 5, 2026 11:13 PM UTC Updated 23 mins ago

节点运行失败

Travelers walk through Chicago O’Hare International Airport, in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. November 27, 2024. REUTERS/Vincent Alban//File Photo [Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab]

WASHINGTON, March 5 (Reuters) – The Federal Aviation Administration told airlines ​it wants to potentially ‌cut a few hundred additional flights at Chicago ​O’Hare airport this summer ​over what it initially ⁠outlined last week, sources ​told Reuters on Thursday.

Last ​week, the FAA proposed a 2,800 per day limit, down ​from the 3,080 ​daily operations announced for the summer, ‌but ⁠above last summer’s 2,680 daily flights, citing concerns about delays and airline ​over ​scheduling. ⁠The FAA told airlines this week ​it wants to ​limit ⁠flights to around 2,500 per day, but that ⁠number ​remains under discussion, ​the sources added.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Reporting by David Shepardson; ​Editing by Chris Reese

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

House Democrats vote to continue DHS shutdown despite Iran threat, Noem’s ouster

House Democrats rejected Republicans’ pressure strategy on DHS funding as terror threat grows

By Elizabeth Elkind
Fox News

Published March 5, 2026 4:51pm EST

House Democrats largely voted to allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown to keep going on Thursday, shrugging off Republicans’ concerns about the increased domestic terror threat amid the U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran.

It comes hours after President Donald Trump shocked Capitol Hill by ousting DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and appointing Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as his replacement.

But that did not stop the vast majority of Democrats from voting against a bipartisan DHS funding bill aimed at funding the cabinet agency through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

The bill did pass the House in a 221 to 209 vote, with all but four House Democrats voting against it — a significant indicator that Noem’s firing is not enough to tip the scales in the ongoing standoff. The Democrats who voted in favor of the funding bill are Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, Jared Golden, D-Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp-Perez, D-Wash., and Don Davis, D-N.C.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on Nov. 3, 2025.(Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Nearly identical legislation already passed the House in January, but House GOP leaders wanted to force the vote again in light of heightened national security concerns within the country’s borders.

While largely symbolic, it shows Republicans’ pressure strategy is falling on deaf ears as the left continues to protest President Donald Trump’s strategy to combat illegal immigration.

The bill was the product of original bipartisan negotiations that followed the longest-ever full government shutdown in U.S. history, which ended in November after 43 days.

It would fully fund all aspects of DHS while also including new guardrails on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) demanded by Democrats, like a body-worn camera mandate and new required training on public engagement and de-escalation.

But Democrats walked away from the deal en masse amid fallout from Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota, which saw two U.S. citizens shot and killed by federal agents during anti-ICE demonstrations there. The operation has since ended.

Democratic leaders are still insisting on withholding their caucus’ support, however, until further restrictions are put on ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents on the ground in various cities.

A person holds an image of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as Iranian demonstrators protest against the U.S.-Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 28, 2026.(Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters)

And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., signaled to reporters that Noem’s ouster was not enough.

“It’s not like Kristi Noem was the one who was involved in negotiating anything. She was a corrupt lackey. So we were dealing with the White House before, and we’re going to continue to deal with the White House at this point,” he said.

Meanwhile, the resulting DHS shutdown has taken on new significance as the U.S. continues its campaign to take out Iran’s top leadership and its military sites.

Republican leaders are warning that keeping DHS in a shutdown state is dangerous for national security, given its jurisdiction over agencies that monitor threats from home and abroad.

“Now is the time to be vigilant at home and to ensure that all of our doors are locked, so to speak,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said during a press conference Wednesday. “And yet, as all this is happening, we have Democrats running around here playing political games in Congress. It’s infuriating. They’ve shut down the very agency that is responsible for securing the homeland.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., pauses for questions from reporters as he arrives for a Republican Conference meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Feb. 3, 2026.(J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called Republicans’ argument “insane” when asked by Fox News Digital earlier this week.

“Donald Trump launches an unauthorized war in the Middle East. … He decides that he wants to spend billions of dollars to bomb Iran, rather than spend taxpayer dollars to lower the grocery bills that are crushing the American people, and then wants to use his unauthorized war as an excuse to continue spending taxpayer dollars to brutalize or kill American citizens by continuing to unleash ICE without restriction on the American people?” Jeffries posed. “I think it’s ridiculous.”

It’s the Senate, however, where passing that DHS funding bill is actually key to ending the shutdown. The upper chamber voted again Thursday on the original legislation that passed the House in January, but it failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster.

Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com

US proposes to loosen bonding requirements for offshore oil, gas companies

March 5, 2026 9:21 PM UTC / Reuters

节点运行失败

An offshore platform is pictured after Tropical Storm Gordon in Dauphin Island, Alabama, U.S., September 5, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman [Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab]

March 5 (Reuters) – The Trump administration said on Thursday it would replace a Biden-era rule that ​required some oil and gas companies ‌to set aside billions of dollars in extra funds for decommissioning oil platforms if they go ​out of business.

The new rule will ​save the industry $484 million a year in ⁠compliance costs, the U.S. Interior Department ​said in a statement, a move aligned with ​U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to loosen regulations on industry.

The Reuters Power Up newsletter provides everything you need to know about the global energy industry. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Here are more details:

• The Biden administration’s 2024 rule required ​oil and gas companies to provide $6.9 ​billion in new bonds or other financial assurances to ‌protect ⁠taxpayers from cleanup costs in the event of bankruptcy.
• Trump’s Interior Department said the costs fell on small businesses and changes would ​free up funds ​for ⁠investment and job growth.
• The proposal will be published in the Federal ​Register and be available for public ​comment ⁠for 60 days.
• A 2024 Government Accountability Office report found the government was exposed to ⁠billions in ​financial risks if offshore ​oil and gas companies failed to meet their decommissioning ​obligations.

Reporting by Nichola Groom; editing by Diane Craft

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Fetterman breaks with Democrats, backs Trump pick Mullin for DHS secretary role | Fox News

Democrat Sen John Fetterman has called for Noem’s ouster and believes Mullin already has votes to win confirmation

By Adam Pack
Fox News

Published March 5, 2026 4:33pm EST

President Donald Trump fires DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and names Sen. Markwayne Mullin as her replacement after he was reportedly unhappy with her testimony regarding a $220 million ad campaign.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

3 min

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., will have at least one Democratic “yes” vote in support of his nomination to become President Donald Trump’s next Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary.

Trump announced Thursday afternoon that he tapped Mullin to replace outgoing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, who will leave the agency March 31. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., immediately threw his support behind Mullin’s nomination, dubbing the Oklahoma lawmaker a “nice upgrade” compared to Noem.

Fetterman repeatedly called for Noem’s ouster and said Thursday he was pleased with Trump’s decision.

“We’re in a different party, but this is the choice. I want to work together for making our America more secure,” he said.

Fetterman also said that he strongly believes Mullin already has the votes to win confirmation. Senate Republicans are widely expected to back Mullin’s nomination, and the jovial Oklahoma lawmaker could win over some Democrats. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who has voted against some Trump nominees, said she has a “great deal of respect” for Mullin and is “OK” with his nomination.

Under Senate rules, Cabinet nominations are set at a 51-vote threshold.

However, many of Fetterman’s Democratic colleagues were either noncommittal about Mullin’s nomination or suggested they would not support him.

“Whoever follows Kristi Noem is going to have to be totally and radically different in their approach to running this agency,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said Thursday. “Changing the person at the top is no substitute for changing the practices and the power structure of a department that is out of control.”

Blumenthal added that Mullin would have to commit to Democrats’ various reforms seeking to rein in immigration enforcement in order to win his vote.

Mullin has repeatedly criticized Democrats’ proposal to prohibit federal immigration officers from wearing masks and requiring judicial warrants during enforcement operations.

“I like him personally,” Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, a member of Senate Democratic leadership, said of Mullin before adding that it was too early to debate his nomination.

Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., told Fox News Digital that they would not yet weigh in on Mullin’s nomination. Slotkin notably voted for Noem’s confirmation despite later souring on the secretary.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Mullin appeared somewhat taken aback by the news of his nomination when talking with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday afternoon.

“No, the president and I still have to communicate, so we’ll talk about it moving forward,” Mullin said. “The president and I have already talked… I’ll talk to you all [later].”

Fetterman has been the lone Democrat to advance a DHS spending measure amid a funding standoff over the agency’s appropriations that has no clear end in sight.

He poured cold water on the prospect of his Democratic colleagues reversing course to support funding DHS in response to Mullin’s nomination, telling reporters he expected “no change” with the partial shutdown.

Related Article

[‘Blankies,’ ICE tactics and luxury jets: Top moments from Noem’s House testimony]

Savannah Guthrie visits

Trump’s new tariff plan barrels back to court following multistate lawsuit

State AGs said the effort from Trump is merely an attempt to ‘sidestep’ the Supreme Court’s ruling.

By Breanne Deppisch
Fox News

Published March 5, 2026 6:20pm EST | Updated March 5, 2026 6:28pm EST

A group of two dozen state attorneys general sued President Donald Trump on Thursday in an effort to block his new 10% tariffs from taking force — a move that all but ensures Trump’s newly revived tariff regime will end up back before the federal courts for the second time in nearly as many years.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the Court of International Trade by attorneys general from 24 states, including New York, Oregon, California, and Arizona.

The state attorneys general argued in the lawsuit that Trump lacks the authority to impose the 10% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, describing the effort as merely an attempt to “sidestep” last month’s 6-3 Supreme Court ruling, which blocked Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, (IEEPA) to unilaterally stand up his 10% global tariff regime announced last April.

Trump responded to the ruling by immediately invoking Section 122 to keep the 10% tariffs in place in the near-term. He also said then that the administration is planning to increase the import duties from 10% to 15% for certain countries.

In the lawsuit, the state AGs said Trump “has made clear that he is going to impose worldwide tariffs by any means necessary,” and argued that the effort is “an exercise of completely unrestrained executive power.”

“As with his unlawful use of IEEPA, the President has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have—involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed—to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy,” they added.

Next steps in the case are unclear, though the new lawsuit is likely to be met with fierce opposition from the White House and Justice Department.

It comes as Trump has continued to embrace tariffs as the signature economic policy of his second White House term. Trump, who previously billed himself as the “Tariff Man,” has described the issue as “life or death” for the U.S. economy.

Last April, Trump declared a national trade emergency to invoke IEEPA, citing the law as a means to address trade imbalances, reduce deficits with key trading partners and boost domestic manufacturing and production.

Two federal courts — the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — previously blocked Trump’s use of IEEPA to enact his tariffs, prompting the administration to kick the case to the Supreme Court last year for emergency relief. (The Manhattan-based Court of International Trade ruled last year that Trump, as commander-in-chief, does not have “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs under the emergency law.)

Lower courts had pressed the Justice Department to explain why Trump invoked IEEPA when other, more narrowly tailored statutes enacted by Congress more specifically address tariffs, including laws that cap tariffs at certain levels or set timeframes subject to congressional review.

Section 122 tariffs can remain in place for up to 150 days without congressional approval, and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., vowed on the Senate floor last week that the Democratic caucus would not approve an extension of the broad import duties.

Legally, the administration could have its work cut out for it as well.

Some economists — as well as the state AGs — argue that there is a difference between a traditional balance of payment deficit and the trade deficit between the U.S. and other countries.

“Contrary to the Section 122 Proclamation, a trade deficit is not a balance of payments deficit,” the states argued in their lawsuit.

Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Michigan, told Fox News Digital in an interview last year that Trump’s focus on the trade “deficit” is in fact based on a common misconception.

“We have a dollar deficit – but we have a stuff surplus,” he said.

“What that means is we sell China a small amount of stuff, and they sell us a large amount of stuff,” Wolfers explained. For every dollar bill that goes to China, the U.S. gets something for it that Americans want to buy, like T-shirts.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.

xAI loses bid to halt California AI data disclosure law

March 5, 2026 9:42 PM UTC / Reuters / By Blake Brittain

节点运行失败

xAI logo and a court gavel appear in this illustration taken August 26, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

March 5 (Reuters) – Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI failed to ​convince a California federal court on Thursday to ‌temporarily block the state’s law requiring companies to disclose information about the data they use to train AI models.

U.S. District Judge Jesus ​Bernal in Los Angeles said that xAI had not ​yet shown it was likely to prove the law ⁠violated its free-speech rights or was otherwise unconstitutional.

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

Spokespeople for ​xAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment ​on the ruling. A spokesperson for the California Department of Justice said the department “celebrates this key win and remains committed to continuing our ​defense” of the law.

California’s law, enacted by Governor Gavin ​Newsom in September 2024, requires generative AI companies to publicly post a ‌summary ⁠of the datasets used to train their systems. The data transparency law went into effect on January 1, and is part of the state’s broader push to regulate AI companies.

xAI ​sued the ​state in December. ⁠It argued the law violated its free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution and would ​force the company to reveal trade secrets about ​how ⁠its AI models are trained.

Bernal on Thursday denied xAI’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt the law’s enforcement, finding ⁠the ​company had not shown at this ​stage in the case that its lawsuit was likely to succeed.

Reporting by Blake ​Brittain in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

A record share of Americans are taking emergency withdrawals from their 401(k)s

March 5, 2026 / 4:03 PM EST / CBS News

A record share of Americans are tapping their retirement savings accounts to cover emergency expenses, according to new data from financial services firm Vanguard.

In 2025, 6% of people enrolled in Vanguard 401(k) plans made so-called hardship withdrawals from their accounts, up from 5% in 2024, according to the company’s 2026 report on Americans’ savings habits.

The share of workers tapping hardship withdrawals has risen in recent years, reflecting the financial pressure many households face when unexpected bills hit. Hardship withdrawals are permitted by the IRS for a limited number of financial issues, including covering medical care or payments to avoid eviction or foreclosure.

The rising incidence of hardship withdrawals highlights the importance of setting aside money for emergencies, Vanguard’s Jeff Clark, head of defined contribution research and the author of the report on savings, told CBS News.

Retirement funds are increasingly providing a financial buffer when households lack other resources.

“With more sponsors auto-enrolling workers, people saving at higher rates, they’re building meaningful balances, and so they have retirement assets available if a financial shock occurs,” he told CBS News. “It’s inadvertently providing a financial safety net because if they hadn’t been auto-enrolled, they might not have had those assets to tap into for an emergency.”

Many workers are enjoying bigger 401(k) balances due to stock gains during the past few years, as well as design improvements that have made it easier for employees to save. Auto enrollment and similar features helped 45% of plan participants increase their savings rates last year, Vanguard said.

1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad

At the end of 2025, the average account balance sat at $168,000, up 13% from the end of 2024, driven by strong stock market performance, the company said.

Congress has also made it easier for workers to make hardship withdrawals. For example, a 2022 law lets employees take money out if they are victims of domestic abuse, or for federally declared disasters. The same law allows them to make a penalty-free withdrawal of up to $1,000 once every three years.

In 2025, the median withdrawal amount was $1,900, according to Vanguard.

These were the top reasons people tapped into their 401(k)s:

• Avoiding foreclosure or eviction: 36%
• Medical expenses: 31%
• Tuition: 13%
• Primary residence repairs: 11%
• Primary residence purchase: 5%

The withdrawals also underscore a broader challenge: many Americans have little retirement savings to fall back on.

Research shows that Americans are behind when it comes to saving for retirement, with the median working-age American having only socked away $1,000 for their golden years, according to a 2026 report from the National Institute on Retirement Security.

That figure includes people with retirement plan savings as well as those who lack access to an employer-sponsored plan.

Another report from the AARP found that more seniors — about 7% of retirees —are returning to the workplace after retiring, citing financial pressures.

Edited by Aimee Picchi

House votes to let Trump’s Operation Epic Fury continue in Iran

Vote comes after the Senate similarly voted down a bid to rein in President Trump’s war powers

By Elizabeth Elkind, Alex Miller
Fox News

Published March 5, 2026 4:38pm EST

The House of Representatives narrowly voted to allow President Donald Trump to continue Operation Epic Fury in Iran on Thursday.

A bipartisan resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., failed to pass after four Democrats joined most Republicans in sinking it, 212 to 219.

The legislation was aimed at blocking Trump from using the Armed Forces in the joint U.S.-Israeli operation in Iran, which would likely force the strikes to grind to a halt.

The Trump administration, as well as the majority of Republicans in Congress, have insisted that the president has acted within his authority so far and are hopeful he will continue to do so.

President Donald Trump gives a speech about the economy at the Coosa Steel Corporation factory in Rome, Georgia, on Feb. 19, 2026.(Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

But Democrats, along with Massie and Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, are largely skeptical. Both Republicans voted in favor of the measure.

The Democrats who voted against reining in Trump’s war powers include Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, and Greg Landsman, D-Ohio.

“The Ayatollah was not a president. He was a religious leader from a region notorious for radical Islamists and the United States and Israel turned him into a martyr,” Massie said during debate on the resolution. “If Congress wants war, then the speaker should hold a vote to declare it.”

Davidson said Wednesday, “The moral hazard posed by a government no longer constrained by our Constitution is a grave threat.”

Other Republican lawmakers said they were concerned that handicapping the operation now could do more harm than good.

“I think the president is well within his legal authorities to conduct this operation,” Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. “I think any effort to stymie that would actually jeopardize our national security and jeopardize our troops.”

Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., left, and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., conduct a news conference outside a Department of Justice office in Washington, D.C., on Monday, Feb. 9, 2026.(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, R-Pa., told Fox News Digital, “I’ll be voting no, against the War Powers Act, because once the president has taken that action, that first action, if we were to pull back, it would actually leave us more vulnerable and less safe by leaving all of their capabilities in place, but having started a conflict like this.”

U.S. officials have said their targets remain Iran’s military assets, senior leadership, and nuclear capabilities. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth told reporters this week that the operation will have a finite timeline.

But Democrats are accusing Trump of plunging the U.S. into a seemingly endless conflict while running roughshod over Congress’ Article I authority.

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., leaves the U.S. Capitol after the last vote of the week on Jan. 9, 2026.(Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

“Donald Trump has taken America to war without authorization, without explanation, without a strategy or an exit plan. Six brave service members have already given the ultimate sacrifice,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said on Wednesday.

The Thursday vote comes a day after the Senate shot down a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., aimed at limiting Trump’s military actions in Iran following days of speculation about whether Republicans would cross the aisle — as they have done before — to reprimand the president.

Only Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., voted in favor of the resolution among Republicans, while Sen. Jon Fetterman, D-Pa., was the lone Democrat to cross the aisle in support.

Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com

Federal contractor who allegedly stole $46 million in crypto arrested in Caribbean, FBI says

March 5, 2026 / 4:12 PM EST / CBS News

A federal contractor accused of stealing $46 million in cryptocurrency was arrested in the Caribbean, the FBI announced.

John Daghita was nabbed Wednesday night by law enforcement on the island of Saint Martin, FBI Director Kash Patel said on social media. Photos posted online by the FBI and Saint Martin police show Daghita, who allegedly stole the crypto from the U.S Marshals Service, being taken away in handcuffs with a swimming pool seen in the background. A separate photo posted by law enforcement shows a suitcase full of cash.

The photos show the suitcase surrounded by computer flash drives and a passport. Patel said that the operation was conducted in cooperation with the International Cooperation Team Serious Crime Unit of the French Gendarmerie National in Saint Martin, and the Groupe d’intervention de la Gendarmerie nationale of Guadeloupe.

It is unclear how Daghita accessed digital currency.

“FBI will continue working 24/7 with our international partners to track down, apprehend, and bring to justice those who attempt to defraud American taxpayers—no matter where they try to hide,” Patel said.