Sept. 19, 2025, 2:22 p.m. ETRobert Chiarito and Julie BosmanRobert Chiarito reported from Broadview, Ill., and Julie Bosman from Chicago.Tensions have been rising in the Chicago area for the last two weeks, since ICE agents have been conducting a higher number of immigration arrests in the region than usual.Credit...Jim Vondruska/ReutersDozens of protesters clashed with federal agents outside a federal immigration facility in suburban Chicago on Friday after the protesters tried to block a government vehicle from leaving.Tensions have been rising in the Chicago area for the last two weeks, since U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents intensified their push to arrest people in the country illegally, under an effort called Operation Midway Blitz. Demonstrators have typically gathered outside the federal detention facility in the suburb of Broadview, Ill., on Friday mornings, and their numbers have grown in recent weeks.During the standoff with protesters on Friday, ICE deployed tear gas and pepper balls at the group, including several local officials. A spokesperson for ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Advocates for immigrants have repeatedly raised concerns about conditions at the detention facility, which is used for processing immigration arrests.“This facility should be shut down, that’s what it comes down to,” said Byron Sigcho-Lopez, a member of the Chicago City Council, who was there during the standoff. Mr. Sigcho-Lopez, who represents a ward with many Latino residents, has been a vocal opponent of ICE’S presence in Chicago.Mayor Daniel Biss of Evanston, Ill., after wiping tear gas from his eyes, called the actions of ICE “a performance in brutality.”“They are trying to send a message of public violence and oppression,” he said. “Our job is to resist it as visibly, vocally and aggressively as we can while staying nonviolent.”Before the clash, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton had stopped outside the Broadview facility and said that she and Gov. JB Pritzker, both Democrats, were monitoring ICE activities in Illinois.Last Friday, an ICE officer fatally shot Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez, a 38-year-old man whom officers were trying to arrest during a traffic stop in Franklin Park, a suburb of Chicago near O’Hare International Airport with a significant Latino population. The ICE officer “followed his training, used appropriate force and properly enforced the law,” Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement.But immigration rights advocates and Mr. Villegas-Gonzalez’s family have questioned whether the arrest was warranted, saying that he was a father who had led a quiet life and had no violent criminal history.Sept. 19, 2025, 2:05 p.m. ETTrump says he will host President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey at the White House next Thursday. In a post on Truth Social, Trump says the two countries are working on trade and military deals.Sept. 19, 2025, 2:02 p.m. ETThe House Oversight Committee has started receiving material from the Treasury as part of its inquiry into the federal government’s handling of an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the committee’s Republican chairman said.Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky said that the committee, the House’s principal investigative panel, has started to receive redacted versions of “suspicious activity reports.” These are records in which banks flag potentially suspicious transactions to law enforcement.Sept. 19, 2025, 1:25 p.m. ETSenate Democrats just blocked the G.O.P. proposal to fund the government past a Sept. 30 deadline, a bill that already passed the House, demanding concessions on health care and other issues in exchange for their support to avert a shutdown.All Democrats except Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted against the Republican plan. Two Republicans broke party lines and also opposed the measure, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky.Sept. 19, 2025, 1:11 p.m. ETSenate Republicans just blocked Democrats’ proposal to keep the government funded through Oct. 31, add more than $1 trillion to extend Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year, and roll back Medicaid and other health program cuts that Republicans included in their marquee tax cut and domestic policy law.Lawmakers must find a compromise to keep the government funded ahead of a Sept. 30 deadline or the government will shut down.Sept. 19, 2025, 1:03 p.m. ETThe Supreme Court building in Washington.Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York TimesThe Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to require that passports reflect only a person’s sex as listed on original birth certificates.A federal trial court judge in Massachusetts had earlier issued a block on a new Trump administration passport policy, temporarily stopping it from going into effect while an appeal moved through the courts.“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the president’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the emergency application.The State Department first allowed transgender people to change their sex marker in the early 1990s if they provided evidence that they had undergone transition surgery. In 2022, the Biden administration issued a policy allowing passport applicants to choose “M,” “F” or “X” on their passports.The State Department earlier this year adopted a policy requiring passports to reflect gender as listed on birth certificates after President Trump issued an executive order directing all government agencies to limit official recognition of transgender identity.Mr. Sauer argued that the lower court block on the policy “injures the United States by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the president’s foreign policy and scientific reality.”The Supreme Court has yet to call for a response in the case or set a briefing schedule.In April, the trial court temporarily paused the policy for plaintiffs in the case, requiring the State Department to issue them passports with sex designations that matched their gender identity.Lawyers in the case then asked the court to extend the pause on the policy to cover everyone who might be affected by it.Sept. 19, 2025, 12:03 p.m. ETStudents on campus at Harvard University this month.Credit...Sophie Park for The New York TimesThe Trump administration on Friday opened a new front in its pressure campaign on Harvard University, demanding proof of the financial stability of the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college as well as a guarantee that federal debts will be paid if the school “closes or terminates classes.”The government letter asking for the information does not include any specific allegations that Harvard has failed to meet its obligations. It comes after the administration has spent months pointing to the university’s wealth and “colossal endowment” as a reason to question its reliance on federal research funding.Still, the administration is insisting on a guarantee of more than $36 million, representing about 30 percent of the federal financial aid that has flowed to the university during the past year, because of financial risks posed by more than a dozen government investigations targeting the university.Harvard officials have never suggested that the university’s financial footing is in any immediate danger. University leaders have, however, expressed concerns about the potential long-term effect of the monthslong battle with the administration, which has resulted in the freezing of billions of dollars in federal research funds.In a separate letter, the administration on Friday also warned Harvard about additional enforcement actions from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights unless the university provides more documents related to its admissions policies.The Trump administration’s targeting of Harvard is the most prominent part of its broad assault on higher education this year, rooted in conservative concerns over diversity practices and the handling of campus antisemitism. The pressure campaign has plunged campuses into financial and political crises as the government cuts research grants, opens investigations and demands steep settlement payments. Some colleges, including Columbia University, have negotiated deals with the Trump administration.Harvard has privately considered a settlement, but has so far resisted government pressure. A Harvard spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment.The Education Department opened its investigation into Harvard’s admissions policies in May, and the university has provided a trove of documents. But the administration has maintained that Harvard has refused to provide individualized and anonymized data for each student — such as race, ethnicity, gender, standardized test scores and grade point average — that the government says will show whether the university is discriminating against white and Asian students.The aggressive actions from the Trump administration come as negotiations between Harvard and the White House have stalled over a landmark settlement that would restore the university’s research funding and resolve the multitude of federal investigations aimed at addressing a perceived liberal bias on campus.The Cambridge, Mass.-based university has challenged the administration in court and resisted the White House’s push to include an independent monitor to ensure compliance with any agreement. The administration views a monitor as a way to strengthen the current framework of a deal that some on Mr. Trump’s team view as too favorable to Harvard. University negotiators have consistently opposed the idea of a monitor.Harvard and the White House engaged in a steady back-and-forth earlier this year over how to resolve the administration’s concerns about antisemitism on campus, the legality of the college’s admissions polices and additional issues raised by more than a dozen separate federal investigations opened since February.Still, the government has continued to ramp up the pressure. The State Department demanded a trove of detailed records about the university’s international students in July. In August, the Commerce Department opened a new investigation into Harvard’s patents.Now, the Federal Student Aid office is raising questions about the university’s financial stability by pointing to risks presented by the flurry of federal investigations aimed at Harvard.The letter from the student aid office also said Harvard’s sale of $750 million in bonds in April, layoffs of staff over the summer and a salary freeze initiated this year “call into question the ability of Harvard to meet its financial responsibility obligations.”Sept. 19, 2025, 12:02 p.m. ETSome members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, including, from left, Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, Dr. Raymond Pollak, Vicky Pebsworth and Prof. Retsef Levi, during its meeting on Thursday.Credit...Alyssa Pointer/ReutersThe chaos from the first day of a meeting of the federal vaccine committee appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bled into the second day, as the panel reversed one decision and indefinitely postponed a vote on a hepatitis B vaccine they had already deferred once.On Friday morning, the committee voted not to allow a federal vaccine program to cover the cost of a combination vaccine that protects against measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, or chickenpox. This reversed a vote on Thursday to allow coverage, apparently because some members had misunderstood the way it was worded.And the panelists said they felt unready to decide whether to limit the use of a vaccine for hepatitis B that is typically given to all newborns. Some said they still had questions about the vaccine’s safety, while others seemed relieved that the panel did not make what they saw as a rash decision that might harm children.“We are more prudent when we are cautious,” Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, a neuroscientist formerly at the National Institutes of Health, said as he voted to table the vote.Thursday’s session ended with the panel members at odds. A hot microphone caught one panelist calling another committee member “an idiot,” although it was unclear who was speaking.Friday’s session, too, at times devolved into raised voices and sharp-toned remarks. Dr. Jason Goldman, a liaison to the committee from the American College of Physicians, accused the committee’s chair, Martin Kulldorff, of muting him.“You want debate and discussion, but you’re muting people and silencing them,” Dr. Goldman said. “If you could respectfully tell the public how you are going to be analyzing all of these vaccine decisions, we can have confidence in this committee.”Dr. Kulldorff retorted: “You made that comment before, and I responded to that comment in a very nice and polite manner.”The decisions of the committee, which is meeting at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, are of enormous importance. Most private insurers are required to cover the shots it recommends — although they may choose to cover those not recommended — and many state policies on vaccines are tied to the committee’s guidelines.Dr. Martin Kulldorff, the committee chair, on Thursday.Credit...Alyssa Pointer/ReutersAt least some members seemed aligned with Mr. Kennedy’s goal of making sweeping changes to routine childhood immunizations. Mr. Kennedy has maintained for years that children receive too many shots, and he has incorrectly claimed that the vaccines in use today were never properly tested.The indecision of the panelists was a sign of the hurried way that Mr. Kennedy assembled the committee. Most of the panelists are first-time members, and their inexperience seemed to lead to the confusion that marred the meeting. About half of the committee members were appointed to the panel earlier this week.On Thursday, the committee voted to rescind the M.M.R.V. vaccine’s use in children under 4. A second vote was on whether the Vaccines for Children program, which provides shots to about half of American children, should continue to cover the cost of the shot. The committee voted yes on Thursday and then reversed that decision on Friday, in another vote.Such a contradiction was a first for the panel, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, as was the decision the next day to redo the vote.Approving which shots the vaccine program should cover is a key function of the committee, but some members did not appear to know how their decision would affect coverage. Several members said Thursday that they were unclear what they were voting for. One abstained from the vote, citing his confusion as the reason.The members themselves seemed uncomfortably aware of the optics.The panelists have “enormous depth and knowledge” about vaccines, Dr. Kulldorff acknowledged on Friday, but they are “rookies” when it comes to how the A.C.I.P. committee typically makes decisions.In June, Mr. Kennedy fired all 17 previous members of the committee, and appointed seven new members, many of whom are aligned with his vaccine skepticism. He announced another five members earlier this week. Members of the A.C.I.P. are typically vetted for months to years before they are invited to join.Some medical organizations sharply criticized the committee’s skipping of the methods the A.C.I.P. has typically followed, with detailed discussions on the feasibility and acceptability of the decision, the cost-benefit ratio and equity concerns.Instead, the panelists were “distracted” by small studies that raised safety concerns, said Dr. Amy Middleman, who heads pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Case Western Reserve University. She is a liaison to the committee from the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.Every vaccine and drug carries risks, she said, but “the committee’s scientific challenge is to determine whether the benefits outweigh the risk.”A presentation on the hepatitis B vaccine during the Thursday meeting.Credit...Alyssa Pointer/ReutersPublic health experts who study hepatitis B said they were pleased that the committee postponed the vote on that vaccine.“Tabling the vote is appropriate and a relief,” said Dr. Noele P. Nelson, a senior author on the current guidelines for the vaccine and a former leader of the C.D.C.’s hepatitis vaccines work group.“This discussion should not be rushed and would benefit from a more comprehensive evaluation of the public health impact,” she said.Babies are routinely immunized for hepatitis B within 24 hours after birth. The committee was scheduled to vote on whether the shot should instead be recommended only for those newborns whose mothers were known to be infected. Other babies, the motion said, should be immunized only after they are at least one month old.Hepatitis B experts noted that the vaccine has nearly eliminated maternal transmission of the disease in the United States, slashing the incidence to fewer than 20 cases a year from about 20,000 a year before 1991, the experts said.They said delaying the first dose of the vaccine would increase the risk to newborns because many cases in pregnant women are missed, despite a longstanding recommendation to test them routinely.Infected women may also not be identified because of inaccurate results or because of problems reporting or interpreting the results.“A universal birth dose recommendation is the only way to ensure we don’t miss vaccinating newborns exposed to this virus, including those whose mothers were not tested during pregnancy,” said Dr. John. W. Ward, director of the Coalition for Global Hepatitis Elimination and a former head of the C.D.C.’s viral hepatitis division.Hepatitis B experts also questioned the panel’s focus on the vaccine’s safety, despite years of data from millions of babies showing that the shot is safe. Some committee members were also unhappy with the discourse.The discussion about the hepatitis B vaccine’s potential harms was veering into “speculation,” Dr. Hibbeln said on Thursday, sounding frustrated. “We need data on real risks and benefits.”The committee is scheduled to vote on Covid-19 vaccines later on Friday and is expected to restrict access to those shots.Sept. 19, 2025, 11:54 a.m. ETPresident Trump spoke to members of the press aboard Air Force One on Thursday.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York TimesPresident Trump appeared to suggest on Friday that a deal to separate TikTok from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, had been approved by China’s top leader, Xi Jinping.In a post on Truth Social after a call with Mr. Xi, Mr. Trump wrote, “The call was a very good one, we will be speaking again by phone, appreciate the TikTok approval.” But he also said, “we made progress on many very important issues” including the approval of the TikTok deal. He did not elaborate on what the approval entailed.A readout of the call from a Chinese state-run news agency was similarly vague, but Mr. Xi appeared to support a commercial solution to TikTok. It reported that Mr. Xi said the Chinese government “respects the wishes of the company in question and is glad to see business negotiations in line with market rules and a solution that conforms to Chinese laws and regulations and takes into account the interests of both sides.”TikTok’s future has been in limbo in the United States since January, when a federal law took effect requiring the company to find a non-Chinese owner or face a ban in the United States. The law was intended to address national security concerns that the app’s ownership could give Beijing a channel to spread propaganda or to collect sensitive data about Americans. Mr. Trump has extended the deadline four times.ByteDance has for months been in talks to spin out the app’s American operations into a new company, and to bring on new U.S. investors, like the software giant Oracle, to dilute its Chinese ownership and satisfy the law’s requirements. The list of other potential investors has been in flux, two people familiar with the talks said.In a statement on Friday, ByteDance thanked the two leaders for “their efforts to preserve TikTok in the United States.” The company added that it would “work in accordance with applicable laws to ensure TikTok remains available to American users through TikTok U.S.”The fate of the app has also become entangled with trade negotiations between the United States and China, as the two sides have haggled over tariffs, China’s supply of minerals and other topics. In his post Friday, Mr. Trump said that he would meet Mr. Xi at a summit in South Korea this fall and go to China early next year, and that Mr. Xi would reciprocate.Mr. Trump has in the past heralded major deals that ended up falling short. The president has announced a flurry of trade deals this year, only to have some foreign trading partners subsequently dispute the terms he described. Some, like the trade agreements Mr. Trump announced with Vietnam and South Korea in July, have yet to be completed.His deals with China have not always materialized, either. In 2020, the president announced a trade deal in which China would commit to buying an additional $200 billion worth of American goods and services by 2021. A 2022 analysis of the trade data found that China had bought only 57 percent of the exports it promised.On Thursday, Mr. Trump added a detail to the TikTok agreement: The United States would be receiving a “tremendous fee” for putting the deal together. If that occurs, it would be the latest example of the government’s incursion into corporate deal making. In recent months, the Trump administration has negotiated and obtained a 10 percent stake in Intel, and a “golden share” in U.S. Steel as part of its sale to Nippon Steel.Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent first announced that the United States had a “framework” for a deal to keep TikTok operational in the United States at a news conference in Madrid on Monday.Chinese officials had previously vowed to oppose a forced sale of TikTok, and in 2020 it amended its export control list to include technology like algorithms and source codes.China decided to reach an agreement with the United States on TikTok because “this consensus serves the interests of both sides,” Li Chenggang, China’s vice minister of commerce, said in Madrid on Monday after meeting with American officials, according to a readout published in Chinese state media.On Tuesday, one day before a deadline for TikTok to separate from ByteDance, Mr. Trump issued an extension — the fourth this year — to mid-December. With the president’s suggestion on Friday of a deal approval, the extension could prove to be the final one.Ana Swanson contributed reporting.Sept. 19, 2025, 11:34 a.m. ETAna Swanson and Tyler PagerTrump says he has completed his call with President Xi Jinping of China, and the two leaders agreed to meet next month in South Korea at the APEC summit. In a post on Truth Social, Trump also said he would travel to China “in the early part of next year.”Trump says the two leaders discussed a range of issues in addition to TikTok, including trade and the Russia-Ukraine war. He also said that Xi agreed to visit the United States “at an appropriate time.”According to Chinese state media, Xi urged the two sides to work together, and said the United States should refrain from “unilateral trade restrictive measures” that would undermine the progress of their recent meetings.Sept. 19, 2025, 11:08 a.m. ETThe Supreme Court has requested a response in the emergency application involving President Trump’s efforts to remove Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve governor, a key test of presidential power that could have enormous economic consequences. The chief justice has requested a response by Thursday at 4 p.m.Sept. 19, 2025, 10:46 a.m. ET“House Democrats are willing to work with anyone, anywhere, at any time in order to make life better for the American people, and lower the high cost of living,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, said on Friday before the vote.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesSenate Democrats on Friday blocked Republicans’ plan to keep federal funding flowing past a Sept. 30 deadline, demanding concessions on health care and other issues in exchange for their support for a measure needed to avert a government shutdown.In a pair of back-to-back votes, each party blocked the other’s stopgap spending proposal, escalating a showdown and ramping up the likelihood of a lapse in funding that would close the government at the end of the month.Republicans have offered a plan to keep federal spending mostly at current levels through Nov. 21 and provide $88 million in emergency funding to bolster security for the members of the executive branch, the Supreme Court and Congress after the assassination of the right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The House passed that plan on Friday in a 217-to-212 vote, with all but one Democrat in opposition.Democrats have put forward an alternative that would extend funding through Oct. 31 and add more than $1 trillion to extend Obamacare subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year and roll back Medicaid and other health program cuts that Republicans included in their marquee tax cut and domestic policy law enacted over the summer.But on Friday, neither bill could muster the 60 votes necessary to move ahead, with each party dug in against the other’s measure. If they fail to break their impasse and enact at least a temporary spending plan by Sept. 30, the government will shut down.The Democratic plan failed in a 47 to 45 vote. The Republican plan failed in a 44 to 48 vote.All Democrats but one, Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, opposed the G.O.P. proposal. Two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky, joined Democrats to oppose their party’s bill.Democrats refused to provide the votes to move forward with the Republicans’ plan because, they said, the G.O.P. has not negotiated with them on what should be included at a time when President Trump has sought to usurp congressional spending power.“Republicans cannot expect that another take-it-or-leave-it extension of government funding that fails to address health care costs is going to cut it for the American people,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. “What we should do instead is move forward with our Democratic proposal to work to keep the government open, to lower people’s premiums, protect people’s health care.”Republican leaders have said there is nothing to negotiate because their funding bill, known as a continuing resolution or “C.R.,” keeps spending levels flat and has no policy changes attached.“The Republican bill is a clean, nonpartisan, short-term continuing resolution to fund the government to give us time to do the full appropriations process,” said Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader. “And the Democrat bill is the exact opposite. It’s what you might call not a clean C.R.; a dirty C.R. laden down with partisan policies and appeals to the Democrats’ leftist base.”Democrats argue that their plan includes vital measures to help Americans deal with health care costs.If the Obamacare tax credits are allowed to lapse, around four million people are projected to lose coverage starting in 2026, and prices would go up for around 20 million more. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that 10 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 as a result of the health cuts in the new tax law.Democrats’ stopgap spending plan also would restrict the Trump administration’s ability to unilaterally claw back funding Congress previously approved, a power that Mr. Trump has repeatedly invoked.And it would provide far more funding to strengthen security measures for government officials than House Republicans have proposed — $326 million in total, compared to the $88 million boost sought by the G.O.P.In March, the last time Congress faced a government funding deadline, Senate Democrats agonized for days over whether to allow Republicans’ stopgap measure to move forward. They ultimately allowed it to advance, prompting an outpouring of anger from liberal voters and activists who had urged their leaders to deny their votes in protest of Mr. Trump’s assault on the federal bureaucracy and unilateral defunding of programs.This time, Democrats have not hesitated to signal their refusal to go along with Mr. Trump and Republicans, arguing that they are in a much different position after passage of the tax cut and domestic policy bill.That measure, Mr. Schumer said, “is highly unpopular with the American people.“Democrats are unified,” he went on. “We have been strong on the same message for a very long time, which is: We need to help the American people lower their costs, particularly on health care.”Sept. 19, 2025, 9:30 a.m. ETEmmett Lindner and Tyler PagerA phone call between President Trump and Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, began around 8 a.m. Eastern, according to the White House and a statement released by a Chinese state-run news agency. The Trump administration declined to provide details about the call, but the two are expected to confirm the outline of a deal that would separate TikTok from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, to avoid a ban in the United States.Sept. 19, 2025, 9:08 a.m. ETSecretary of State Marco Rubio will be in New York to attend the annual United Nations General Assembly session from Monday to Friday, the State Department said. He plans to accompany President Trump for part of that time and intends to meet with foreign counterparts on security issues.The department added that Rubio would “discuss the need for the U.N. to get back to basics, reorienting the organization to its origins as an effective tool for advancing peace, not a bloated bureaucracy that compromises national sovereignty and pushes destructive ideologies like D.E.I.” The department did not say why he thinks promoting diversity is destructive.Credit...Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesSept. 19, 2025, 8:26 a.m. ETRussian state media reported on Friday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia are expected to meet during next week’s session of the U.N. General Assembly.When President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia met in August, Mr. Trump did not come away with a deal to end the war in Ukraine. On Thursday, during his state visit to Britain, Mr. Trump expressed frustration with the Russian president.Sept. 19, 2025, 5:30 a.m. ETThe Trump administration has described its strikes against Venezuelan boats as part of a campaign against drug cartels.Credit...Eric Lee for The New York TimesTwo Senate Democrats, alarmed by a pair of military strikes on Venezuelan boats this month, have filed a joint resolution calling for the United States to stop engaging in hostilities that have not been specifically authorized by Congress.The measure, which was filed on Friday by Senators Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia, both Democrats, follows military strikes on Sept. 2 and Sept. 15 that killed a total of 14 people. The White House has described the strikes as part of a campaign against Venezuelan drug cartels that it accuses of smuggling fentanyl into the United States.But some legal specialists have condemned the U.S. military actions as illegal, and lawmakers say they have been provided insufficient evidence about the nature of the threat or the legal basis for the use of force. The Trump administration has not offered a detailed legal theory about why it is lawful.“While we share with the executive branch the imperative of preventing and deterring drugs from reaching our shores, blowing up boats without any legal justification risks dragging the United States into another war and provoking unjustified hostilities against our own citizens,” Mr. Schiff said in a statement. “This unauthorized and illegal use of our military must stop.”Mr. Kaine, who has pressed for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over matters of war, also rebuked the military campaign.“President Trump has no legal authority to launch strikes or use military force in the Caribbean or elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere,” he said in a statement. The Trump administration has refused to give basic information about the strikes to Congress, including why it was necessary to put the lives of U.S. military personnel at risk, Mr. Kaine said.The Pentagon convened a classified briefing with members of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday to discuss the two strikes, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Democrats emerged dissatisfied and continue to say that the administration has failed to provide clear justification for why lethal force was used instead of traditional measures to intercept the boats.The resolution from Mr. Schiff and Mr. Kaine made clear that they did not seek to prevent the president from ordering strikes to defend from an “armed attack” or potential “imminent armed attack,” and reaffirmed support for counternarcotics operations. But it emphasized that “the trafficking of illegal drugs does not itself constitute such an armed attack or threat.”The introduction of the challenge to Mr. Trump’s war powers comes as legislation is circulating inside the White House that would seek broad congressional authorization for the president to use military force against groups the administration identifies as transporting narcotics.Sept. 19, 2025, 5:03 a.m. ETPresident Trump has claimed that the Constitution gave him the power he needed to authorize two deadly strikes against boats in the Caribbean this month.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York TimesDraft legislation is circulating at the White House and on Capitol Hill that would hand President Trump sweeping power to wage war against drug cartels he deems to be “terrorists,” as well as against any nation he says has harbored or aided them, according to people familiar with the matter.A wide range of legal specialists have said that U.S. military attacks this month on two boats suspected of smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea were illegal. But Mr. Trump has claimed that the Constitution gave him the power he needed to authorize them.It was not clear who wrote the draft congressional authorization or whether it could pass the Republican-led Congress, but the White House has been passing it around the executive branch.The broadly worded proposal, which would legally authorize the president to kill people he deems narco-terrorists and attack countries he says helped them, has set off alarm bells in some quarters of the executive branch and on Capitol Hill, according to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity about sensitive internal deliberations.Three people familiar with the matter said that Representative Cory Mills, a Florida Republican and combat veteran who sits on the Armed Services Committee, was involved in developing the draft. Mr. Mills, a staunch Trump ally, declined to comment on the potential legislation or his role. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, declined to comment, citing a policy against discussing “drafts that may or may not be circulating.”An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters, said the draft originated with a member of Congress who had asked for technical assistance in improving it. The official portrayed its circulation for input by executive branch agencies as a routine courtesy that should not be interpreted as support for the idea.The measure has emerged amid an escalating debate in Washington over the president’s war-making power and Congress’s role in authorizing the use of American military force, after the Trump administration opened a deadly campaign against the boaters.The two boat attacks — killing what Mr. Trump has said were 14 people he accused of smuggling drugs toward the United States — were the latest in a series of military operations the president has taken without congressional authorization, raising constitutional concerns among some lawmakers in both parties, who say their branch should play a greater role in such decisions.Critics have also said that Mr. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have given illegal orders, causing Special Operations troops to target civilians — even if they are suspected of crimes — in apparent violation of laws against murder.The U.S. Coast Guard, with help from the Navy, has long treated drug trafficking as a law enforcement problem, interdicting boats and arresting their crews if a search confirmed suspicions of drug smuggling. Regular forces repeated that approach with a Venezuelan fishing boat last week, releasing its crew after the suspicions apparently proved to be inaccurate.But the administration has insisted that Mr. Trump has legal authority, under his constitutional power as commander in chief, to direct Special Operations forces to instead summarily kill those suspected of drug running as if they are combatants on a battlefield. Citing the roughly 100,000 overdose deaths of Americans each year, the administration has invoked self-defense and the law of armed conflict.Congress has not authorized any armed conflict with drug cartels. The draft legislation, which the White House Office of Management and Budget has circulated within the executive branch for comment, would address that potential weakness in the administration’s argument — at least as a matter of domestic law.Following the first boat strike, on Sept. 2, Democrats and some Republicans expressed concern about the White House’s legal basis for the attack, even as administration officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is also Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, said there would be more to come.Members of a Marine fighter attack squadron in Puerto Rico last week. Credit...Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesSenator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, said he would introduce a measure under the War Powers Resolution, a 1973 law aimed at checking a president’s power to wage war without the consent of Congress, that directs the executive branch to curtail the operation.Before Mr. Schiff did so, Mr. Trump on Monday announced a second deadly strike against what he described as a Venezuelan boat in international waters. Together with Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, Mr. Schiff on Friday morning introduced the measure, which would direct the administration to end any additional planned strikes and reassert congressional authority over the use of military force.The resolution also states that Congress has received insufficient information about the vessels, their threat level or the legal basis for using force against them. It also reaffirms a commitment to funding intelligence gathering, diplomatic tools and counternarcotics efforts to fight drug trafficking.At a Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing on Thursday, several Democrats asked questions about the legal authority for the military strikes. But a Pentagon nominee said he was unable to answer them. At the end of the hearing, the Republican chairman of the panel, Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said the administration must respond.“The questions about what happened in the Caribbean are going to have to be answered,” Mr. Wicker said. “This committee has congressional oversight responsibility. Members are entitled to ask the questions that they’ve asked, and answers will be given. And I just think it’s important for every American to understand that obligation.”Some Republicans have discussed ways to shore up Mr. Trump’s legal authority. Mr. Mills, who served during conflicts in Kosovo and Iraq, advised the Pentagon in Mr. Trump’s first term before launching his bid for Congress in 2021 and winning election the following year.The draft, which was described to The New York Times, would cover groups that the executive branch designates as terrorists and that Mr. Trump determines, in consultation with Congress, have either trafficked in drugs to finance terrorist activities or used terrorist tactics to advance narcotics-related enterprises. Nations that harbored such groups would also be covered.It does not define what constitutes sufficient consultation with Congress or what counts as terrorist tactics.Such an authorization would amount to giving Mr. Trump “a blank check,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and a former senior Justice Department official in the Bush administration.“It’s insanely broad,” Professor Goldsmith said. “This is an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries, organizations and persons that the president could deem within its scope.”Professor Goldsmith said that Congress had the authority, as a matter of domestic law, to authorize the use of military force against nonstate groups. But deliberately killing civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities — even those suspected of being criminals — would still violate international law, he added.The draft appears to be modeled on the broad authorization that Congress granted President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Like that one, it does not name a specific enemy — empowering the president to decide whom to target — and is not confined to geographical limits.The 2001 law was originally understood to target Al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan. But over the years, as the original Al Qaeda splintered and morphed, administrations of both parties stretched it into standing legal authority to fight related groups of Islamist militants, like the Islamic State and Al Shabab, in places like Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.The draft has one key difference: It would expire after five years if Congress did not act to extend it. The 2001 law will remain on the books until lawmakers repeal it. Repeated efforts in Congress to do so have foundered over disagreements about what should replace it.Any decision to push the draft legislation to Congress is likely to set off a pitched political fight over how to weigh a serious problem against fatigue with open-ended “forever wars,” and the wisdom of what would be a massive expansion of Mr. Trump’s ability to use the military as he sees fit. It would also raise the question of whether Congress was effectively giving Mr. Trump the authority to wage a regime-change war in Venezuela.Mr. Trump’s administration has been ratcheting up pressure on Venezuela and its president, Nicolás Maduro, calling him an illegitimate leader and accusing him of directing the actions of criminal gangs and drug cartels.Starting in February, the Trump administration broke new ground by labeling various Latin American criminal gangs and drug cartels as “terrorist” organizations, including some from Venezuela. That label and status has traditionally been given only to violent groups with religious or ideological ends, as opposed to criminals seeking illicit profits.Mr. Trump claimed the right to use an 18th-century wartime deportation law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily remove Venezuelans suspected of belonging to one of the criminal gangs his administration had deemed to be terrorists, Tren de Aragua, without due process hearings.To invoke the law, Mr. Trump claimed that Tren de Aragua was committing crimes in the United States under the direction and control of Mr. Maduro. But the U.S. intelligence community, weighing the available evidence about the gang, believed that accusation was false, a memo declassified in May showed.The Trump administration has been ratcheting up pressure on Venezuela and its president, Nicolás Maduro, calling him an illegitimate leader and accusing him of directing the actions of criminal gangs and drug cartels. Credit...Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/ReutersMr. Trump used the law to send several planeloads of Venezuelan migrants to a notorious Salvadoran prison. But courts have for now blocked more such transfers, and have raised doubts about whether the law could be legitimately invoked under present circumstances.A congressionally authorized armed conflict, however, would provide a new basis for the administration to claim a right to resume using it for summary deportations.In July, Mr. Trump signed a still-secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American criminal gangs and drug cartels, while stepping up rhetorical attacks on Mr. Maduro. And in August, the U.S. Navy sent a heavy amount of firepower into the southern Caribbean Sea, leading to the Sept. 2 and Sept. 15 attacks.This week, before Mr. Trump announced the second boat strike, Mr. Maduro condemned the Sept. 2 attack as a “heinous crime” and “a military attack on civilians who were not at war and were not militarily threatening any country.”He said that if the United States believed that the boat’s passengers were drug traffickers, they should have been arrested. He accused the administration of trying to start a war.Helene Cooper and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.Sept. 19, 2025, 4:17 a.m. ETA U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter after takeoff from Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan, in May 2021.Credit...Jim Huylebroek for The New York TimesTaliban officials late Thursday rejected a suggestion by President Trump that the United States might regain control of the last major base it abandoned during its withdrawal from Afghanistan, but they left open the possibility of talks to improve ties between the two countries.During a news conference on Thursday with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, Mr. Trump said that his administration had been working to reclaim the facility, the Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, which U.S. forces abandoned in 2021 shortly before the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan.“We’re trying to get it back because they need things from us,” Mr. Trump said. He added that Bagram was strategically important for the United States because “it’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons.”Mr. Trump has said in the past that the United States should not have abandoned the air base, but his comments on Thursday were the first public acknowledgment that negotiations to reclaim it might be underway.The Taliban government was quick to respond, suggesting that it was open to conversation but not the return of U.S. security personnel.“Without the U.S. having any military presence in Afghanistan, both Afghanistan and the U.S. need to engage with each other, and they can have political and economic relations based on mutual respect and shared interests,” Zakir Jalaly, an Afghan foreign ministry official, said on social media.“Afghans have never accepted the military presence of anyone throughout history,” Mr. Jalaly added. “But for other kinds of engagement, all paths remain open for them.” He called Mr. Trump “a good businessman and negotiator, more than just a politician.”Other officials were less diplomatic. Muhajer Farahi, a deputy minister, posted part of a poem on X: “Those who once smashed their heads against the rocks with us, their minds have still not found peace.” He ended his post with “Bagram, Afghanistan.”Mr. Trump did not specify in his comments on Thursday what he envisioned for Bagram. The United States has kept a minimal level of public engagement with Afghanistan since the Taliban takeover, restricting it to hostage negotiations. In a rare visit to Afghanistan last week, Adam Boehler, the Trump administration’s special envoy for hostage response, met with the Afghan foreign minister, Amir Khan Muttaqi, in Kabul.The State Department referred any comment about Bagram to the White House, which referred comments to the Department of Defense. It said in a statement on Thursday that “we are always ready to execute any mission at the president’s direction.”In Washington, congressional Democrats assailed Mr. Trump’s comments.“It’s deeply, deeply troubling that the president of the United States can be that idiotic,” Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in an interview.Afghanistan has remained largely isolated on the global stage since the Taliban took control, in August 2021. The Taliban government has not been recognized by any country other than Russia. Its economy is struggling to attract foreign support and private investments. And as high-level meetings at the United Nations General Assembly are set to begin on Monday, Afghanistan will once again not be represented because its officials face a U.N. travel ban.Bagram, which sits 25 miles north of Kabul and was built by the Soviet Union in the 1950s, was the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan during its 20-year occupation of the country.Mr. Trump said in March that the United States should have stayed at Bagram “not because of Afghanistan but because of China, because it’s exactly one hour away from where China makes its nuclear missiles.” At the time, he claimed that Bagram was “now under China’s influence,” which the Taliban denied.The 2020 deal signed between the Taliban and United States under the first Trump administration contained no provision to retain Bagram Air Base or any other foothold. It stated that the United States would “withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States.”During its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the United States left behind thousands of weapons and other pieces of military equipment and a sprawling embassy compound that sits vacant in the center of Kabul. U.S. military uniforms and shoes can still be found in Kabul’s bazaars, and a message in graffiti greets international visitors coming from the airport: “Our nation defeated America with the help of God.”Tyler Pager and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington D.C., and Safiullah Padshah from Kabul, AfghanistanSept. 18, 2025, 5:04 a.m. ETDr. Martin Kulldorff, right, chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, during the meeting in Atlanta on Thursday.Credit...Alyssa Pointer/ReutersIn a meeting that devolved into confusion and near chaos, federal advisers on Thursday voted 8 to 3 against vaccinating children under 4 years old with a combination shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox.The meeting ended without a planned vote on whether newborns should receive the vaccine against hepatitis B, a highly infectious disease that damages the liver, as is currently the standard. That vote was postponed until Friday.About half of the panel’s members were appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this week. In a sign of how hastily the committee was put together, many of the members needed explanations of the usual protocol for these meetings, the design of scientific studies, and critical flaws in the data they suggested including.Many of the panelists also seemed unsure about the purpose of the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free shots to roughly half of all American children. Approving which vaccines the program should cover is a key function of the committee.The decision to rescind the M.M.R.V. recommendation is unlikely to have widespread consequences. The recommendations for other vaccines given separately to protect against those diseases — the more common practice — remain unchanged.In a bizarre twist, the members also voted 8 to 1 to have the Vaccines for Children program continue to cover the M.M.R.V. vaccine for children under 4. It was unclear whether the members all understood what they were voting for. Three members abstained altogether, one of them explicitly citing his confusion as the reason.Still, the vote is likely to have yielded the first of many changes to the official recommendations for routine immunizations.In an hourslong discussion, the committee members seemed inclined to restrict the hepatitis B vaccine to newborns whose mothers are known to be infected, and to other babies only after they are at least one month old.But experts said that doing so would increase the risk to newborns. Many hepatitis B infections in pregnant women are missed, despite a longstanding recommendation to test them routinely. Infected women may also not be identified because of inaccurate results or because of problems reporting or interpreting the results.“It will be challenging to identify all positive moms, and ensure that a birth dose is available to those infants in hospitals, especially for those who do not receive prenatal care,” said Chari Cohen, president of the Hepatitis B Foundation.“So it is likely that many babies born to positive moms will be missed,” she said. “We will likely see new chronic hepatitis B infections among some new babies.”A separate vote on Covid vaccine recommendations is also scheduled for Friday.The panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also established two new work groups, according to its chair, Martin Kulldorff: one to analyze vaccine use in pregnancy, the other to review childhood and adolescent vaccination schedules.That the new administration might make significant changes to the childhood vaccine schedule has alarmed many public health experts, who said they feared that restricting the use of certain vaccines would result in a resurgence of long-vanquished diseases.“If people cannot access vaccines, we will see the return of diseases that once caused serious health issues for children,” said Dr. Sean T. O’Leary, chair of the infectious diseases committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics.“These diseases are now almost entirely preventable, and as a pediatrician it is heartbreaking to see a child and family suffer in this way,” he said.Vaccine recommendations under reviewAt birthHepatitis B 1st dose1 monthHepatitis B 2nd2 monthsDiphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (DTaP) 1st doseHib 1st dosePolio 1st dosePneumococcal (PCV) 1st doseRotavirus (RV) 1st dose3 monthsDTaP 2ndHib 2ndPolio 2ndPCV 2ndRV 2nd6 monthsPCV 3rdDTaP 3rdPolio 3rdHepatitis B 3rdCovid-19 Available for high-risk children or after consultation with a doctor.12 monthsHepatitis A 1st doseHib 3rdPCV 4thMeasles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) 1st doseVaricella (Chickenpox) 1st doseor Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella (MMRV) 1st dose This combination shot is less commonly used than the individual doses for MMR and chickenpox.15 monthsDTaP 4th18 monthsHepatitis A 2nd4 yearsDTaP 5thPolio 4thMMR 2ndChickenpox 2ndor MMRV 2nd11 yearsHPV 1st doseHPV 2ndMeningococcal 1st doseTetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap)16 yearsMeningococcal 2ndAnnualFlu Starting at 6 months of age.The M.M.R.V. vaccine has been available since 2005. It is an alternative to administering two separate shots: the M.M.R. shot, against measles, mumps and rubella; and the shot that immunizes children against varicella, or chickenpox.At the meeting on Thursday, scientists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented data showing that the combination vaccine slightly increases the risk of seizures caused by a fever. Such seizures also can occur with any childhood illness, including ear infections, but do not cause lasting harm.The C.D.C. had long recommended administering the shots for M.M.R. and chickenpox separately in children under 4, because of the risk of seizures.Still, pediatricians and parents sometimes opted for the combination M.M.R.V. shot to lessen the number of clinic visits and injections. The panel’s recommendation against the shot was intended to eliminate that choice.Experts from other medical organizations objected vehemently to the panel's decision.A hepatitis B shot being prepared for a 1-month-old patient. Credit...Kristian Thacker for The New York TimesThe M.M.R.V. discussion on Thursday did not include the usual detailed presentations on the feasibility and acceptability of the decision, the cost-benefit ratio or equity concerns, said Dr. Amy Middleman, who heads pediatrics and adolescent medicine at Case Western Reserve University. She is a liaison to the committee from the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.“I would urge the committee to follow the methodical process of an evidence-to-recommendation process before voting on something that affects the public health to this degree,” Dr. Middleman said.On Wednesday, Susan Monarez, who was ousted from the C.D.C. after less than a month as its director, told lawmakers that Mr. Kennedy had directed her to approve every recommendation from the panel “regardless of the scientific evidence.”The advisory panel’s decisions have typically guided state vaccine mandates. And insurance companies are required to cover any shot the panel recommends. But its recent decisions appear to have eroded its standing.After the committee’s first meeting in June, several medical organizations broke their decades-long partnership with the panel to issue their own recommendations.And on Tuesday, most major insurers said they would continue to cover routine shots through 2026, even if the panel voted to restrict their use. On Wednesday, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana and chair of the Senate health committee, said Americans should not trust the panel’s moves to revise childhood vaccine recommendations.The M.M.R.V. discussion revealed tensions among the panelists.“What we’re saying is, We don’t trust parents to make a decision,” said Dr. H. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, widely considered to be the most qualified panelist on vaccine science and practice.If the panel votes against the combination vaccine, the shot “won’t be an option,” he said.Most of the panelists are first-time members. In June, Mr. Kennedy fired all 17 previous members of the committee, and appointed seven new members, most of whom generally agreed with his skeptical stance on vaccines. He announced another five members earlier this week. Members of A.C.I.P. are typically vetted for months to years before they are invited to join.When the seven panelists met in June, they announced that they would scrutinize all the vaccinations recommended for children and adolescents. They also voted to rescind a longstanding recommendation for a small subset of flu shots that contain a preservative called thimerosal, which many antivaccine groups have falsely said causes autism.Robert Malone, a member of the vaccine panel, abstained from votes on the M.M.R.V. vaccine.Credit...Elijah Nouvelage/Getty ImagesThe panelists were also expected to revise the recommendations for hepatitis B on Thursday. They instead deferred the decision to Friday because of a “small discrepancy” in the language of the vote, according to a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. Neither he nor Dr. Kulldorff would elaborate further.The first dose of the vaccine is given to newborns within 24 hours of birth. The shot is credited by public health experts with nearly eliminating maternal transmission of the disease in the United States, slashing the incidence to fewer than 20 cases a year from about 20,000 a year before 1991.Untreated hepatitis B can damage the liver, leading to cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. Babies infected at birth have a 90 percent chance of developing chronic hepatitis B, and 1 in 4 of those children go on to have severe complications or die from the disease.Mr. Kennedy and his allies have argued that hepatitis B is transmitted only through sexual contact or shared needles and that, therefore, only babies of infected women should be immunized at birth.Dr. Noele P. Nelson, a senior author on the current guidelines for the vaccine and a former leader of the C.D.C.’s hepatitis vaccines work group, said that a pregnant woman’s hepatitis B status may not always be known.An infection may also be missed if a test yields inaccurate results, she said.“Hepatitis B vaccination at birth for all newborns provides an effective safety net,” she added, “ensuring that infants born to mothers with unknown or inaccurate infection status are protected.” Dr. Nelson resigned from the C.D.C. in July.Hepatitis B, a highly contagious virus, can be spread in other ways besides sexual transmission, including by household objects that have been used by someone else, like toothbrushes, razors or combs, said Dr. James Campbell, the vice chair of the infectious disease committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics.“We’ve had, in the past, risk-based hepatitis B vaccination recommendations, and they did not reduce the overall burden,” he said, referring to vaccinating only at birth when a mother is infected. “That’s why we have universal recommendation now.”Mr. Kennedy has questioned the safety of the hepatitis B vaccine and has claimed, incorrectly, that it was not tested properly. In his confirmation hearing in January, he refused to say that the hepatitis B vaccine does not cause autism, a fact widely accepted among scientists.But Dr. Claudia A. Hawkins, who cares for patients with hepatitis B and hepatitis C at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, said hepatitis B vaccines are “very safe, with no reports of any serious side effects in babies, children or adults since their introduction.”“There is no reason to delay the hepatitis B vaccine,” she said.A correction was made on Sept. 18, 2025: An earlier version of this article misstated the date that AHIP, the national trade association representing the health insurance industry, said health plans would continue to cover all immunizations recommended as of Sept. 1. It was Tuesday, Sept. 16, not Wednesday.When we learn of a mistake, we acknowledge it with a correction. If you spot an error, please let us know at nytnews@nytimes.com.Learn more