Category: Politics

A federal judge on Tuesday agreed to dismiss the seditious-conspiracy case against the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, and seven other members of the extremist group who planned to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta is the last step in the legal process to wipe out penalties from the Jan. 6 riot, cementing President Donald Trump’s bid to unravel the largest federal investigation in U.S. history.

Mehta had sentenced Rhodes to 18 years in prison and imposed lesser prison terms on other top Oath Keepers who were convicted at jury trials. Trump commuted those prison sentences on his first day in office last year, and he pardoned more than 1,500 rioters.

In a written ruling Tuesday, Mehta said he was dismissing the Oath Keepers’ charges reluctantly at the request of the Justice Department. He criticized prosecutors for claiming in a court filing that wiping out the most serious convictions from the Jan. 6 riot was in the public interest.

“The government does not say that the charges were legally deficient or that the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain Defendants’ convictions,” Mehta wrote. “It confesses to no prosecutorial misconduct, nor does it assert any denial or compromise of a defendant’s rights.”

The Justice Department, Mehta said, was simply bestowing the ringleaders behind the riot “unearned grace by wiping their records clean” after juries found them guilty of committing “crimes against the United States itself.”

The riot, during a joint session of Congress that was being held to certify Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election, left more than 140 police officers injured and caused an estimated $3 million in damage.

Rioters marched on the Capitol after a rally in which Trump repeated his false claims that he had won the election. Lawmakers were forced to evacuate, delaying Biden’s certification as the winner.

In his ruling, Mehta recounted how the Oath Keepers stocked firearms at a hotel outside D.C. and exchanged encrypted messages about using violence to thwart the congressional proceedings. The Oath Keeper with the guns, Edward Vallejo, was not called into action, Mehta added.

When the rioters breached the Capitol, about 10 members of the Oath Keepers wearing military gear entered the building. One half of that group ended up in then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. The other half headed to the Senate chamber, where they tried with other rioters to “storm past a line of police officers,” wrote Mehta, who was nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama.

A second contingent of Oath Keepers later entered the Capitol and clashed with police trying to clear the building, according to the trial evidence Mehta cited in his ruling.

In addition to Rhodes and Vallejo, the other Oath Keepers whose charges were dismissed are Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Roberto Minuta, Joseph Hackett, and David Moerschel. Harrelson and Watkins were acquitted of seditious conspiracy but convicted of other riot-related offenses.

An attorney for Rhodes, James Lee Bright, said in a post on X that Mehta’s ruling to dismiss the Oath Keepers’ case “personalizes his reasoning.”

Rhodes, he said, was convicted of a “thought crime” that “should never have been charged.”

“This chapter is now over,” the attorney wrote. “Congrats to the remaining defendants.”

In a court filing Tuesday, attorneys for Vallejo maintained that he was not guilty of a crime. “The Court correctly granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice based on the government’s exercise of discretion but incorrectly injected advisory opinions that are contrary to the presumption of innocence and unfair to an innocent man,” the attorneys wrote.

Trump pardoned nearly all the rioters — more than 1,500 — who were charged by the Justice Department in the wake of Jan. 6. But that blanket pardon, issued on the president’s first day in office last year, did not extend to about a dozen leaders and prominent members of two extremist groups behind the violence, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

Those defendants were convicted of carrying out a seditious conspiracy against the United States or related offenses. Trump initially commuted their prison terms, stopping short of a full pardon. But this year, while those cases were being appealed, Justice Department officials filed legal papers to vacate the convictions altogether.

The D.C. Circuit federal appeals court granted that request in May. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, a Trump ally who serves as the top federal prosecutor in D.C., then filed motions to dismiss the underlying charges in U.S. district court.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly similarly ruled last month to dismiss seditious conspiracy charges against the Proud Boys. Like Mehta, Kelly said judges are constrained to dismiss charges once prosecutors ask to drop them.

Under Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors have “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case,” and they may drop charges “in the interests of justice” even after defendants have been convicted.

Trump’s efforts to reframe the riot have continued. Even in recent days, he has asserted that those charged in the case “were treated so badly.”

“This is the last of the prosecutions seeking to hold accountable those responsible for the events of January 6,” Mehta wrote in his 15-page order dismissing the charges Tuesday.

“That book is now closed. Today’s epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of the prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions, and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries-long pillar of our democracy — the peaceful transfer of presidential power — to buckle.”

He added, “The court cannot write a different ending.”

President Donald Trump’s administration has detained dozens of parents and spouses of active-duty U.S. troops as it rolls back immigration protections for military families to pursue its mass deportation agenda, an Associated Press investigation found.

More than 50 parents and spouses of active-duty service members have been detained since Trump took office for a second term, and at least six have been deported, the AP found in the first accounting of such detentions, which the government does not track. At least eight immediate family members of U.S. service members remain in federal immigration custody.

Parents and spouses of people in the military have generally been shielded from deportation under bipartisan consensus for decades. But the AP found they’re now routinely being detained for months as they try to adjust their legal status through the policies available to service members’ close relatives and even as the military continues to recruit by advertising immigration benefits for enlistees’ families. Experts warn that the reversal could undermine military preparedness even as the U.S. is at war in Iran. It’s left military members without emotional support and caretakers for their children, delayed deployments, and forced some to take leave.

“How can I even focus on my military career because I have to worry about how my wife is doing?” said Army Sgt. Hedar Leonel Turcios Juarez, who was stationed in Fort Bliss, Texas, when his wife was detained outside a Walmart in front of their 6-year-old daughter in July.

A handful of detentions of service members’ spouses have prompted public backlash and led to intervention by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to secure their release.

The Department of Homeland Security has said it does not compile data on these cases. The AP obtained information by analyzing thousands of federal court records compiled by Habeas Dockets, a project run by the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative; by reviewing existing media coverage; and by verifying information with family members and attorneys. The actual number is likely much higher than the 51 cases AP found.

The AP asked for comment from DHS on each case, including the individuals’ immigration and criminal history. The agency did not provide specific information about the majority of cases but noted that at least seven people had been removed from the U.S. before, at least eight had removal orders, and at least two had drunken driving or drug-related convictions.

“DHS and ICE value the contributions of all those who have served in the U.S. military,” DHS said in a statement. “U.S. military service alone does not automatically grant lawful immigration status, or exempt aliens from the consequences of violating U.S. immigration laws.”

The Pentagon declined to comment on the AP’s findings.

Service members are losing their safety net

Air Force Tech. Sgt. Wendy Gbeve, 30, said she hasn’t had a good night’s sleep since her father, Luis Alberto Ramirez Zavala, was detained by immigration officials last month. Gbeve was there when he was arrested at a routine interview with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in Missouri about his pending application for legal status.

She spent hours refreshing the USCIS page to track where the government was taking her father: from a county jail in Missouri to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Texas. Finally, roughly two weeks after he was detained, she found out he had been deported to his native Mexico.

“It’s the most frustrating, helpless feeling,” Gbeve said.

Gbeve said ICE still hasn’t informed her family why her father was removed so quickly. Ramirez Zavala spent most of his life in the U.S. working as a ranch hand in rural Illinois.

Ramirez Zavala’s wife of 30 years, a legal permanent resident, is considering returning to Mexico to be with her husband. For Gbeve, whose husband is also in the Air Force, that would leave no one to watch their children, ages 2 and 4, if both were deployed.

“That would be our entire safety net,” she said.

Military members have had to take leave or delay a deployment

Some service members have been left caring for children alone.

Army Staff Sgt. Alexis Jaramillo, an aviation operations specialist who has served for more than a decade, said he would normally be involved in training soldiers at Fort Polk, La. Instead, he is on administrative leave, caring for his 5-year-old stepson, Noah, after his Brazilian wife, Maisa Lopes Eliaser, was detained in early July.

It happened during what the family thought was a routine appointment at a USCIS office in Alabama. Eliaser arrived in the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2019, and the couple was trying to change her status.

Immigration officials asked Jaramillo and his stepson to leave the room. Minutes later, they were told that Eliaser had been detained. The next time they saw her was inside a detention facility.

“It is really overwhelming because I need to take care of my kid by myself. No one is here to help me out,” Jaramillo said.

At least one active-duty soldier halted her imminent deployment after her husband was detained by immigration officers, leaving no one to care for their then-5-year-old son, court records show. A judge eventually ordered the husband released.

Trump’s policy is a reversal even from his first administration

A new policy, implemented in April 2025, states that “military service alone does not exempt aliens from the consequences of violating U.S. immigration laws.”

Experts in military immigration law said this marks a stark shift from previous administrations across the political spectrum, including Trump’s first administration.

Dan Gividen, who served as ICE’s deputy chief counsel from 2016 to 2019 under Trump, represents a soldier’s father who has been in ICE custody for more than eight months. He said that during his time as an ICE prosecutor, immigration authorities rarely detained service members’ immediate family members unless they had committed violent crimes.

“We would not place them into removal proceedings, period. That’s insane,” Gividen said. “The fact that they’re doing it now is just outrageous.”

ICE previously generally canceled past removal orders and allowed parents or spouses of troops to adjust their legal status, said Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney and retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. She said that’s because the government wanted to ensure troops focused on their duties.

“It’s the same thing that happens if you don’t provide healthcare to the troops, or you don’t provide housing to the troops,” she said. If soldiers are preoccupied with detained or deported family, “they’re not concentrating on their job anymore.”

Even some congressional Republicans who are otherwise largely supportive of Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown have pushed for the release of service members’ relatives.

“The immigration system is failing the honorable and good Americans,” Florida Republican Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar said at a news conference in July advocating for the release of the wife of retired Staff Sgt. Wilmer Trujillo, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. DHS said she illegally reentered the U.S. after being deported in 2005.

Although DHS said it does not have data on active-duty troops, it has released figures for former service members, who also qualify for immigration benefits along with their immediate families. From Jan. 20, 2025, through Jan. 26, 2026, immigration authorities detained 125 military veterans — placing 34 into removal proceedings — and arrested more than 150 immediate family members, DHS said in a letter to several Democratic senators.

Anh Dung Cong Tran, known as “Tony,” had both a father and son who served in the military. Tran came to the U.S. in 1990 through a program for children of American military personnel born in Vietnam. Tran, 56, was deported in July, having lived in the U.S. for decades with regular check-ins with immigration authorities after an assault conviction soon after his arrival.

His son Antonio Tran said his father persuaded him to enlist in the military in 2022. “He has a totally different view on America now,” said Tran, who was discharged as an Army specialist in March after a serious injury.

Benefits for service members include what’s known as parole-in-place

Military recruiters tout immigration benefits for troops’ families as a selling point to enlist.

One of the military’s most highly advertised immigration benefits is “military parole-in-place,” which allows the spouses, children, and parents of active-duty service members and veterans to obtain legal immigration status from within the country. Not everyone qualifies: Those who overstayed visas or who already applied for legal status at the border, for example.

The policy was implemented under Republican President George W. Bush during the U.S. war with Iraq in 2007 and codified under Democratic President Barack Obama. DHS agencies can grant it on a case-by-case basis.

Under Trump, the average time it takes to receive military parole-in-place has more than doubled to 12 months, according to USCIS data. That leaves military families more vulnerable to being placed in ICE custody.

Recruiters are still promoting immigration benefits

The AP found that troops’ immediate family members have repeatedly been detained by ICE while applying for parole-in-place or seeking to adjust their status, including during immigration appointments.

Marine Cpl. Jose Manuel Vilchis-Valle’s mother, Ursula Borja Valle, was detained at an appointment in August 2025 and deported to Mexico within a week. She had lived in the U.S. since the 1990s without a known criminal record. Her son was attempting to help her clear up a decades-old removal order through the immigration benefits that military recruiters had used to help convince him to enlist.

“They basically told me that if you serve, and if you served honorably, you can help your parents,” said Vilchis-Valle, 23, who was honorably discharged shortly after his mother was deported. “In a perfect world, I wished, because of my service, they could have pardoned her.”

In other cases, ICE has detained people who had already been granted protection, with the agency later arguing in court filings that their parole status had been revoked.

In June 2025, the Marine Corps officially stopped advertising enlistment as a way to protect immigrant family members, in response to inquiries from the AP. But recruiters for the Army and the National Guard still promote it.

“For some service members, enlisting isn’t just about serving their country,” read an Instagram post published in late July by an official Army recruiter based in California. “It’s also about doing everything they can to help protect their parents who sacrificed everything for them.”

Recruiters are expected to highlight the benefits of service to attract applicants and military parole-in-place remains in effect, Army spokesperson Christopher Surridge said.

The National Guard said it does not track detentions of its troops’ relatives or which recruiters advertise immigration benefits and referred additional comment to DHS.

Soldier who helped patrol the border grapples with his father’s detention

For U.S. Army Specialist Romero Ralios, his father’s detention has left him remorseful about his deployment last year to the Joint Task Force Southern Border, where he spent nine months supporting U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.

His father, Sebastian Ralios Tino, a Guatemalan landscaper with no known criminal record, was detained this summer. He lived in the U.S. for nearly two decades without legal status.

Ralios’ commanding officer, Capt. Mohamed Elmaola, told the AP he wanted to speak up because Ralios is a “phenomenal soldier” whose father should receive due process.

“It’s very hard to communicate and to have credibility as a leader when your own subordinates are unable to get support,” Elmaola said. “Considering he enlisted his time and his life into supporting and defending the United States Constitution, it is the right thing to do to support soldiers and their families.”

Romero Ralios now struggles to sleep at night due to the stress and wishes he had not been involved in immigration enforcement, even though he was just following orders.

“It was karma. I should’ve known,” Ralios told the AP. “All those families I broke. I have regrets.”

WASHINGTON — Anthony Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment before Congress will be put to the test this week as a Republican-led committee prepares to vote to hold him in contempt and refer the matter to the Justice Department.

A contempt finding could open the door to an investigation into whether Fauci had a valid constitutional right against self-incrimination when he refused to answer dozens of questions from lawmakers at a committee hearing last week focused on his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Republican senators including Rand Paul of Kentucky, who subpoenaed Fauci and has called a contempt vote for Thursday, insist that a pardon the doctor received early last year from Democratic President Joe Biden left him ineligible for Fifth Amendment protections. A Senate resolution released Tuesday asserts that Paul found Fauci’s privilege claims “unsupported.”

But some legal experts say Fauci had reasons to invoke the Fifth Amendment, given the threat of potential state prosecutions and questions from President Donald Trump’s administration about the validity of Biden’s pardons. Any testimony from Fauci could have also prompted false-statement investigations like the ones the current Justice Department has repeatedly initiated against the Republican president’s perceived adversaries.

No matter what happens, the episode raises fresh and complicated questions about Congress’ ability to compel testimony from previously pardoned witnesses — and the outcome could resonate beyond Fauci.

“This is an important case because I think a lot of people anticipate that President Trump is going to issue similar pardons to many people in his administration who will end up being called before Congress, and the precedent here is important,” said Mark Osler, a St. Thomas University law professor and pardon power expert.

Paul’s committee is moving to transmit the contempt referral from his Republican-led committee directly to the Justice Department. Whether the Justice Department would act on the referral is unclear.

Fauci’s pardon protects him for past, not future, acts

Fauci, a longtime National Institutes of Health scientist and the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, left the federal government in 2022 after more than five decades. He was among a group of perceived adversaries of Trump to be pardoned by Biden in one of the Democrat’s final acts in office. The clemency covered acts from 2014 to the date in January 2025 when the pardon was issued.

Republicans on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee say the pardon lifted the specter of criminal prosecution and left Fauci without a valid basis to invoke the Fifth Amendment — a bedrock constitutional protection found in the Bill of Rights but one typically available only to those who have a reasonable basis to believe they risk being charged over their testimony.

While a blanket pardon theoretically removes a threat of prosecution, Fauci made clear he thought he had a good-faith basis to fear criminal charges. He invoked his Fifth Amendment rights more than 100 times.

Before the hearing. Fauci said that Paul, the committee chairperson, had an “obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution.” The purpose of his forced appearance “is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, behind bars, unquote,” Fauci said.

In the run-up to the hearing, Paul made dozens of Fauci-related posts on X, including ones teasing that he was going to confront the doctor for having earlier given false testimony — something Fauci has denied.

“I think his invoking the Fifth makes sense because he was invited into a situation where everyone in the country understood that Rand Paul was trying to set him up for a criminal prosecution,” said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor. “In that circumstance, one of the smartest things to do would be to make yourself a very small target and say as little as possible, and that’s obviously what he did.”

In announcing the contempt vote, Paul noted on X that “Fauci refused to answer a single question, even though he knew he couldn’t be charged for crimes” during the decade covered by his pardon. Fauci’s deflections encompassed even seemingly harmless questions, such as the color of the tie he was wearing — a reflection of an apparent belief that it was safer to refuse any testimony.

There are factors that could tilt in favor of Fauci’s strategy, including the fact that his pardon would not protect him from potential state prosecutions or from a federal prosecution related to any testimony that investigators deemed false. That may not be an idle concern given the number of false-statement investigations prosecutors have opened against Trump’s political opponents.

Trump’s administration also has repeatedly called into question the validity of the Biden pardons, given Biden’s frequent use of an autopen for official business. Legal experts say the pardons are valid.

“The question is do you have a reasonable fear of prosecution, and Fauci’s argument would be — yes, I received a pardon, yes, I believe that pardon covers and prevents prosecution but there have been statements from lots of people including Trump and other administration officials … raising questions about the validity of that pardon,” said Ross Garber, a lawyer and expert in political investigations who has represented multiple clients who have invoked the Fifth Amendment.

“That,” he added, “is potentially a very viable argument.”

Paul has discussed trying to fast-track a contempt referral

Paul said in an interview with Fox News Channel last week that he did not think “there’s any rule” requiring that a contempt referral from a committee go through the entire Senate. His committee is instead working to send the referral straight to the Justice Department.

The contempt resolution states that the president of the Senate, Vice President JD Vance, “shall certify” the committee’s referral and the accompanying report to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

That fast-tracking of the process avoids the need for a vote in the full 100-member Senate, where Republicans likely lack the 60 votes required to move a contempt referral to passage.

Democrats in Michigan signaled their eagerness for a new political direction as voters advanced progressive Abdul El-Sayed over Rep. Haley Stevens for a key Senate seat and two left-wing candidates in key House primaries.

The Senate race in Michigan exposed deep rifts among Democrats in how they approach Israel and money in politics, and how they deem candidates electable.

Across the country, similar ideological battles were waged with mixed results. And in two red states, voters rejected GOP-led ballot measures that would have given state legislators more power to reshape the law on key issues, including abortion.

Here’s a rundown from Tuesday’s primaries.

Michigan’s marquee race ends in win for progressives

In November, El-Sayed will face former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost his first Senate bid in 2024 and received an endorsement from President Donald Trump. Democrats will have a tougher time retaking the chamber if they lose the Michigan seat.

The primary divided the Democratic Party between progressives, who saw El-Sayed’s left-wing politics as a way to energize voters, and establishment leaders, who viewed Stevens as a stronger candidate to win over independents and Republicans.

The two candidates also personified Democrats’ struggle with Israel. Like others on the party’s left, El-Sayed called the war in Gaza a genocide and said he wanted the U.S. to end its military aid to Israel. Stevens, an Israel supporter, benefited from more than $30 million spent by the super PAC of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The group’s support, sometimes even rumors of it, fuels tensions as Democrats wrestle with articulating their stance on Israel without alienating voters.

Left-wing candidates win key House primaries in Michigan

In Michigan’s 7th Congressional District, voters chose a progressive over two centrist candidates in the Democratic primary. The district is among the 18 House races classified by the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election analysis site, as a toss-up this year.

Sunrise Movement co-founder William Lawrence defeated Bridget Brink, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and Matt Maasdam, a retired Navy SEAL, and notched another big win for the surging left flank of the Democratic Party.

“Tonight the people of Michigan’s 7th district sent a clear message: they are tired of Silicon Valley billionaires and DC insiders determining the future of our towns and our country,” Lawrence said in a statement. “They want an unbought representative who isn’t afraid to stand up to leaders of both parties and fight for working people.”

Lawrence will run against incumbent Rep. Tom Barrett (R).

In Michigan’s 13th District, Rep. Shri Thanedar lost the Democratic primary contest to Donavan McKinney, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Virginia Democrats choose contenders for key races

Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District is headed for a rematch between incumbent Rep. Jen Kiggans (R) and former Rep. Elaine Luria, who won a crowded Democratic primary. The district, anchored in Virginia Beach, is considered the most competitive in the state.

Luria held the seat for two terms before she lost to Kiggans in 2022. Of incumbent Republicans in Virginia, Kiggans is most in jeopardy this year as Democrats look to flip red districts narrowly won by Trump.

Incumbent Rep. Rob Wittman (R) is defending GOP territory with better odds in Virginia’s 1st Congressional District. In November, he will face Shannon Taylor, a prosecutor who won another crowded Democratic primary Tuesday.

Tom Perriello, who won the Democratic nomination in the 5th Congressional District he once represented, faces much tougher odds. Perriello will face the incumbent Rep. John McGuire (R) in a district Trump won by 12 percentage points in 2024.

A rematch sees a familiar end in Missouri

Rep. Wesley Bell again defeated former Rep. Cori Bush in the Democratic primary in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District. Bell’s win against Bush, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, is a setback for the party’s left wing that has succeeded in defeating other incumbents.

The Missouri race assessed the power of AIPAC as it did when the duo competed in 2024. AIPAC’s spending that year made the race one of the most expensive primaries in U.S. history and helped Bell unseat Bush. The former congresswoman, an ex-member of “the Squad” of several progressive lawmakers, harshly criticized Israel over the war in Gaza before some Democrats even began to question their stance. On the night of her 2024 loss, Bush hinted at a comeback bid: “AIPAC, I’m coming to tear your kingdom down.”

The group spent about $3 million this year on lifting Bell to a second victory. He is favored to win in the solidly blue district.

Washington sets up battleground contest

On the West Coast, Washington’s most competitive district held a nine-way primary race that also featured a progressive-versus-moderate showdown among the Democrats. Washington uses an open primary system, meaning the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of party.

Republican John Braun, a former state senator who had Trump’s endorsement, and the incumbent Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez will compete in November. Gluesenkamp Perez, a centrist who is seeking a third term, overcame a challenge from the left by Democrat Brent Hennrich.

The district, which went for Trump in 2024, is considered a toss-up.

Voters deny GOP-led ballot measures

Kansans rejected an effort to start electing state Supreme Court justices, delivering a blow to Republican state lawmakers who have long been frustrated by their rulings.

For 68 years, Kansas governors have been required to appoint justices through a merit-based system. GOP legislators asked voters to scrap that system through a ballot measure that would have allowed the state to elect its justices directly. Critics viewed it as a gambit to remake the Kansas Supreme Court and enable its justices to revisit high-profile rulings that angered conservatives — including a decision that guaranteed a right to abortion.

In Missouri, voters turned down another measure pitched by GOP lawmakers that would have made it harder to pass citizen-led constitutional amendments. Voters in recent years have used such amendments to pass liberal policies, including preserving abortion access and legalizing marijuana.

The failure of both measures from Republican lawmakers in red states shows the limits in trying to persuade voters to change election rules or cede political power, even at the behest of lawmakers they may support.