Federal judges on Tuesday blocked Alabama’s plan to use a congressional map that could give Republicans an advantage in a key U.S. House race in the midterm elections.

A three-judge panel in the state’s long-running redistricting case issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from switching maps, ruling that the Republican-backed plan “intentionally discriminated based on race” by including only one Black-majority district. The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents compose a majority or close to it.

“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the judges wrote.

The ruling is a setback for Republicans, who want to use a map for the November midterms that would give the GOP a chance to reclaim the seat now held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, said the state will immediately appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He contended the judges had no basis for their decision to block what he described as a “blandly unobjectionable congressional map.”

“Know this — in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when,” Marshall said.

Figures said he is pleased with the ruling, adding: “This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled.”

The court order is the latest development in the twisting legal and political saga following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Donald Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, voters cast ballots in Alabama’s May 11 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch.

Upon further review, the judicial panel said there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination. It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The decision to temporarily block the map switch came after a seven-hour hearing Friday in which judges sharply questioned state lawyers about the timeline and the impact of the Louisiana ruling.

Using the same districts that had been in place for the previous election would prevent “an expensive, aggressive, and perhaps logistically impossible voter reassignment effort,” the judges wrote.

“Candidate and voter confusion is troublesome and warrants significant consideration, but we do not see that a preliminary injunction will worsen it. To the contrary, we expect a preliminary injunction to lessen it,” the judges said.

Deuel Ross, director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said the court ruling “again vindicated the constitutional rights of voters in the Black Belt, and our clients look forward to voting under a fair map this fall.”

Other states also have considered adjustments to their primary elections to allow time for congressional redistricting after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affecting the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana’s congressional primaries, scheduled for May 16, were postponed until later this summer by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry so that state lawmakers could consider a new U.S. House map that would eliminate a majority-Black district.

In South Carolina, the Republican-led legislature is considering a plan that could throw out the votes from its June 9 congressional primary and instead hold a new primary in August under revised districts that could improve Republicans’ chances of winning an additional seat.

Tennessee also moved quickly to enact new U.S. House districts after the Supreme Court’s ruling, carving up a Black-majority district based in Memphis that had elected the state’s only Democratic representative. The new map gives Republicans a chance to sweep all nine of the state’s seats. As part of the plan, Tennessee temporarily reopened the candidate qualifying period for its August congressional primaries, allowing new candidates to enter the race and existing ones to either switch districts or drop out.

Since Trump first urged Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last summer, about a half-dozen Republican-led states have enacted new voting districts, though some still face legal challenges. Democrats countered with new districts in California and also expect to gain a seat from new court-imposed districts in Utah.

By Joseph Ax

May 26 (Reuters) – A panel of three U.S. judges blocked Alabama on Tuesday from using an electoral map that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black U.S. House of Representatives districts, a setback for Republican efforts to retain control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.

In a 79-page ruling, the judges said the Republican-backed map intentionally discriminated against Black voters and could not be used for the 2026 elections. Republican officials in Alabama are expected to appeal the decision to the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court. 

Black voters typically support Democratic candidates. President Donald Trump’s Republicans are defending a narrow House majority in the midterms.

Republican Alabama Governor Kay Ivey previously postponed to August the party primary elections for four U.S. House districts that were redrawn as part of the disputed map.

The ruling was the latest development in a new and frenzied round of congressional redistricting that has unfolded across the South, as Republican-led states have scrambled to take advantage of an April Supreme Court decision that severely weakened the Voting Rights Act, a 1965 law intended to prevent discrimination in voting.

Tennessee and Louisiana have each dismantled a majority-Black U.S. House seat, while South Carolina’s Senate is poised on Tuesday to approve a plan that would take apart the district of U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn, a Black Democrat who has held the seat since 1993. 

In Alabama, Republican state legislators are trying to return to a map they approved in 2023 that the same three-judge panel previously had deemed discriminatory.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted the state’s request to lift the lower court’s prior ruling blocking Alabama from using the map, which erases one of the state’s two majority-Black districts. The state has seven U.S. House seats in total. Black people make up about a quarter of Alabama’s population.

The Supreme Court ordered the three-judge panel to reconsider its findings in light of the Voting Rights Act decision, which raised the bar for challenging congressional maps on the basis of race.

But the panel said it had reached the same conclusion: that the map purposefully and unlawfully targeted Black voters.

“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” wrote the panel, which includes two judges appointed by Trump and one appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton.

The decision, for now, means that the August special primaries will go forward under the remedial map that the court installed in 2023, which includes two majority-Black districts, both currently held by Democrats.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

By Courtney Rozen

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday proposed asking federal employees to sign non-disclosure agreements with the goal of preventing them from sharing confidential information with journalists. 

The Office of Personnel Management, the human resources office for the U.S. government, released a draft non-disclosure agreement designed for federal agencies to use with new and existing employees. Under the draft agreement, the administration could pursue civil and criminal penalties against employees who violate it. The U.S. government would be entitled to all “royalties” that employees receive from disclosing information that violates the agreement, according to the draft. The OPM did not immediately offer further explanation.

The draft form is the latest step in the president’s effort to exert more control over U.S. government workers and the flow of information to the public.

“This move is rooted in concerns that unauthorized disclosures of sensitive government information are disrupting agency operations and eroding trust across government,” said OPM spokesperson McLaurine Pinover in an email to Reuters. 

Former government employees would need “written permission from an authorized agency official” to speak to journalists about information the Trump administration deems “confidential” after leaving their jobs, according to the draft. Former employees who violate that rule could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, according to the draft. 

Federal law prohibits government retaliation against federal workers who disclose fraud, abuse and misconduct in their workplaces to internal government watchdogs and Congress. The NDA would not apply to those disclosures, according to the draft agreement.

Since taking office for the second time, Trump has waged an aggressive campaign against news outlets and media figures he sees as too critical of him. He has filed lawsuits against news outlets, dismissed coverage as “fake news,” and personally attacked journalists. His administration banned the Associated Press from the White ​House press pool and restricted reporters’ access at the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. military, among other moves.

(Reporting by Courtney Rozen; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Rod Nickel)

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Tuesday with President Donald Trump’s administration in a dispute involving a free-speech challenge by federal immigration judges to a U.S. government policy restricting what they can publicly say about immigration.

The court’s ruling did not address the legality of the policy’s speech restraint, which was first implemented in 2017 during Trump’s first term as president, and appeared to leave the door open for an association representing the judges to continue pursuing their legal challenge in a lower court. 

Trump’s administration appealed to the justices after the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered findings on whether his firings of the heads of agencies overseeing federal worker complaints had stripped these agencies of the independence from White House control that Congress had intended. 

Such a finding, the 4th Circuit said, might entitle the immigration judges to their day in court, rather than channel the dispute into agency proceedings, as Trump’s administration argued for in its appeal.

The Supreme Court, in an unsigned ruling, reversed the 4th Circuit’s decision and returned the case to that court for further proceedings. The justices faulted the 4th Circuit for basing its ruling on an argument that had not been raised by the National Association of Immigration Judges, violating what is known as the “party-presentation” principle.

Alex Abdo, a lawyer at the Knight First Amendment Institute that represents the association, expressed disappointment at the outcome on Tuesday.

“Forcing public employees to wade through cumbersome and potentially futile administrative proceedings before challenging prior restraints allows unconstitutional censorship to persist,” Abdo said.

“Now more than ever, we need the insights of the nation’s immigration judges and other public employees to understand the work of our government,” Abdo added.

The speech policy underlying the dispute requires immigration judges to get prior approval before any “official” remarks. Such speaking engagements are those in which a judge “is invited to participate in an event because of their official position, is expected to discuss agency policies, programs or a subject matter that directly relates to their official duties or otherwise appear on behalf of the agency,” according to court records.

The association sued in 2020 aiming to block the policy, arguing it violated the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, the U.S. agency that employs some 750 immigration judges and oversees the nation’s immigration courts, enacted the policy. The policy subsequently was reviewed but left in place by Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration and maintained by Trump’s current administration.

A Virginia-based federal judge in 2023 dismissed the court challenge, saying a 1978 U.S. law called the Civil Service Reform Act dictated that its challenge should be brought before the independent U.S. agencies that typically handle federal worker complaints, rather than in court. 

Under that law, certain federal worker complaints are reviewed by the Office of Special Counsel, which decides whether to bring the case to the Merit Systems Protection Board to adjudicate the claim.

But the 4th Circuit last year said that Trump’s firing of the heads of these agencies had raised serious questions about whether the immigration judges could get a fair hearing before the agencies. It ordered the judge to conduct fact-finding on that question, prompting the Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Trump has removed numerous independent agency heads despite laws shielding these officials from being fired at will. 

The Supreme Court in a separate case is expected to resolve by the end of June the Trump administration’s argument that such removal protections unconstitutionally constrain presidential power.

The Supreme Court has backed Trump in several immigration-related rulings issued on an emergency basis since his return to the presidency, including allowing him to deport migrants to countries other than their own and to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.

The court also is expected to rule by the end of June on the legality of Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States and the administration’s bid to revoke temporary legal protections for more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians living in the United States. 

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

By Andrew Chung

May 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a bid by Meta Platforms to avoid a lawsuit brought by Vermont’s attorney general accusing the company of designing its Instagram social media app to be addictive to young users, as big technology companies face mounting legal risks over child and teen safety.

The justices turned away Meta’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that let the lawsuit proceed, rejecting the company’s argument that courts in Vermont lack jurisdiction over the dispute.

The case ​is part of a wave of litigation by individuals, municipalities, states and school districts nationwide amid a global backlash over the effects of social media on young users, with lawsuits focusing on the way companies designed and operated their platforms.

Vermont argued that Instagram was designed to “exploit teenagers’ developing brains” to foster addiction and sell more advertising space, including ads that target Vermont markets and teens, and that Meta also intentionally misled consumers about the safety of its product.

Meta said the state did not allege that it designed the app or its features in Vermont, or that any of the alleged misrepresentations about Instagram’s safety or addictiveness were made in Vermont. Testifying in February at a youth social media addiction trial in California, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied that Instagram targets kids.

Vermont’s Democratic Attorney General Charity Clark sued Meta in 2023 in state court under the state’s consumer protection law, claiming that Instagram has even studied teens’ neurological, cognitive and psychological vulnerabilities to cause them to use the app compulsively and excessively, harming their mental health.

The lawsuit was part of a coordinated effort involving 42 state attorneys general filing enforcement actions in both state and federal courts around the country.

Meta sought to have the Vermont case dismissed. Meta has argued that allowing the case to proceed in Vermont is unfair, violating its right to due process under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, because it could subject the company to such legal challenges in all 50 states.

The Vermont Supreme Court rejected this concern in 2025, noting that because the state sued Meta for allegedly pushing a harmful design and misleading users about it – harnessing personal information and generating revenue as a result – any due process concerns are “clearly extinguished.”

“A company that reaches out and purposefully avails itself of a forum state’s market for its own economic gain can expect to be haled into court in that jurisdiction to account for its conduct related to those business activities,” the Vermont Supreme Court said.

Meta’s appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court follows recent, unfavorable outcomes for the company in state courts.

In April, the top court in Massachusetts ruled that Meta must face a similar youth addiction lawsuit ​by that state’s attorney general.

In March, a jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million in civil penalties in a lawsuit by New Mexico’s attorney ​general, accusing the company of misleading ​users about the safety of ⁠Facebook and Instagram and of enabling child sexual exploitation on those platforms.

Also in March, a separate jury in Los Angeles found Meta and Alphabet’s Google negligent for designing social media platforms that are harmful to young people, awarding a combined $6 million to a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child.

In May, Meta settled a lawsuit brought by a school district in Kentucky, one of thousands seeking to make social media companies cover the costs that schools say they have incurred to combat a mental health crisis allegedly fueled by platforms.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung ni New York; Editing by Will Dunham)

By Nolan D. McCaskill

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) – Even the elections are bigger in Texas.

Voters will choose their nominee for U.S. Senate on Tuesday in a race that could help decide control of the chamber and may become one of the most expensive in history.

John Cornyn, a 74-year-old four-term senator backed by Republican leadership, is locked in the fight of his political life against Ken Paxton, a 63-year-old, scandal-plagued attorney general who won President Donald Trump’s endorsement last week.

Paxton has led Cornyn in most public opinion polls, putting him on a collision course to face the Democratic nominee – 37-year-old state Representative James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian and leading fundraiser whose campaign has appealed to independent and moderate voters.

Senate Republicans’ campaign arm warned in an internal memo last year that a Paxton nomination “would hand Democrats an opening to flip Texas and cause Republicans to divert hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise be spent winning key battlegrounds.”

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate over Democrats, who would need to net four seats in this November’s election to take control of the chamber. Democrats are on defense in two states Trump won in 2024 – Georgia and Michigan – but could win the chamber by holding those two seats and flipping North Carolina, Maine, Ohio and Alaska.

A competitive race in Texas, where no Democrat has won statewide since 1994, would expand the party’s path to a majority and potentially force Republicans to redirect investments from more competitive battlegrounds to protect their nominee in a state Trump carried by nearly 14 percentage points in 2024.

In backing Paxton a week from the runoff, Trump chose loyalty over electability as he continues to flex his iron grip over Republican voters. This month, challengers backed by him ousted intraparty opponents including Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

“Donald Trump just endorsed a man who was impeached by his own party, indicted for felony fraud, reported to the FBI by his own staff, ordered to pay $6.6 million to the whistleblowers he tried to destroy, and whose wife is divorcing him on biblical grounds,” said Lauren French, a spokesperson for Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC. Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.

LOYALTY TRUMPS ELECTABILITY

The runoff winner will face Talarico, who got a three-month head start on his general election campaign after defeating U.S. Representative Jasmine Crockett on March 3.

Talarico’s initial lead in the opinion polls has evaporated, with the most recent survey showing the race in a dead heat regardless of whether he is competing against Cornyn or Paxton, with 8% of likely voters undecided.

In a three-way primary in March, Cornyn had a slim lead over Paxton and the two then proceeded to the May runoff.

Political experts say Tea Party and MAGA voters are the Republicans most likely to turn out in primaries and runoffs, an electorate that favors Paxton.

Trump contrasted Paxton’s “extreme” loyalty with Cornyn’s wavering support. But Cornyn said he was putting his trust in Republican voters, who will “decide if they want a strong nominee to help our GOP candidates down ballot and defeat Talarico in November, or a weak nominee who jeopardizes everything we care about.”

Cornyn’s campaign has attacked Paxton’s character from the beginning. The onslaught of attacks on “Crooked Ken” includes a dating game that allows users to swipe on Paxton’s alleged mistresses.

Paxton challenged Cornyn to stop the negative ads “for the good of our party.”

“We have already changed our TV ad traffic … to ensure our campaign ends on a positive note (so) that we can focus on beating the leftist lunatic in the fall,” Paxton wrote on X last week. 

HOUSE RUNOFFS IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS

Voters across the state will also choose their nominees in more than a dozen congressional districts. Both parties’ nominees will be chosen in the San Antonio-area 35th district, an open seat Democrats are hoping to flip.

Republicans will choose between state Representative John Lujan and U.S. Air Force veteran Carlos De La Cruz. 

Democrats’ preferred candidate is Johnny Garcia, a public information officer for Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar.

Democrats have accused Republicans of meddling in their primary through a Republican-aligned political committee called Lead Left PAC that has spent funds on boosting Garcia’s opponent, Maureen Galindo, a fringe candidate who has been widely condemned for antisemitic comments.

(Reporting by Nolan D. McCaskill. Editing by Michael Learmonth and Rosalba O’Brien)

By Yasmeen Abutaleb, Emma Rumney and Chris Prentice

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) – The U.S. FDA’s new, looser regulation of new vapes and nicotine pouches will potentially unleash hundreds more such products on the market in the coming weeks and months, according to three current and former Trump administration officials.

The Food and Drug Administration said earlier this month it will use ‘enforcement discretion’ to look the other way when manufacturers sell unauthorized vaping products as long as their license applications meet certain standards. It had for years required a pre-marketing authorization for the products, partly to limit youth vape access.

The Trump Administration’s swift policy change – announced days before FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned – circumvented months of public comment typical for such sweeping changes, two former FDA tobacco chiefs said, and raised questions about the risk to public health and consumers.

Tobacco executives have aggressively lobbied President Donald Trump for change, including in a meeting earlier this month where they argued that the FDA’s previous policy allowed a vast illegal market of mostly Chinese vapes, according to one of the officials briefed on the meeting.

Around 100 to 200 products could immediately benefit from the new policy, the official said. A source briefed on the FDA’s process said around 1,000 applications are currently at the scientific review stage, indicating they have already presented enough data to be considered for the new policy.

The number of products in position to benefit has not been reported elsewhere.

The FDA change mirrors “a longstanding ask by industry,” said Brian King, who ran the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products and is now at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The group said the new guidance puts children at risk by allowing the legal sale of more flavored vapes, which can be enticing to them.

Some 1.4 million U.S. teens, or around 5%, acknowledged vaping last year, according to FDA data, down from a peak of over 6 million in 2019.

“Clearly, we want to keep nicotine out of the hands of young people, but for adults who smoke, we need alternatives,” said Vaughan Rees of Harvard University’s School of Public Health, who said he does not receive industry funds.

Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon said the new guidance strengthens enforcement against the flood of illegal and unauthorized nicotine products and supports a more orderly transition to a regulated marketplace.

“President Trump consistently pledged to expand access to vapes and nicotine pouches in light of an abundance of evidence finding that these products are beneficial for Americans trying to quit smoking,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “The only guiding factor behind the Trump administration’s health policymaking is Gold Standard Science.”

Tobacco companies and market research firm Euromonitor say at least 70% of U.S. vape sales are illegal, with one estimate valuing them at $8 billion in 2024.

TRUMP AND FLAVORED VAPES

Trump’s interest in flavored vapes dates back to his first term, and he still believes vapes are critical to maintaining support among young men, according to three officials. His first FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, proposed banning most flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes after vape brand Juul turbo-charged youth use.

Trump initially allowed the policy to move forward, but reversed course after Gottlieb left and blasted then-Health Secretary Alex Azar for banning fruit-flavored vapes, fearing it would hurt him in the 2020 presidential election, according to a former official.

Since 2024, tobacco companies and other industry groups have worked to curry favor with Trump via donations to his campaign, inauguration and ballroom, official records show, as well as via influential connections in Washington.

In his second term, the Trump administration has killed a plan to ban menthol cigarettes, launched efforts to fast-track FDA reviews and cracked down on unauthorized Chinese vapes.

In the days before the May meeting, Reynolds American, a unit of British American Tobacco, donated $5 million to Trump-aligned super PAC Maga Inc, campaign finance filings show.

After the meeting with tobacco executives, Trump called Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who directed FDA and HHS staff to make the change, one official said.

Reynolds did not respond to requests for comment on its lobbying.

A WIN FOR TOBACCO COMPANIES

Barclays analyst Pallav Mittal said the shift will catalyse sales for the industry. Barclays expects Philip Morris International to sell up to an additional 12 million of its best-selling Zyn nicotine pouches this year since it will likely launch a new version, he said.

Reynolds may look to launch flavored versions of its vape brand Vuse, analysts said. Reynolds said it was reviewing the change, while Philip Morris did not comment on plans for its not-yet-licensed products.

Tony Abboud, head of the Vapor Technology Association, said it was unclear whether members of the group, which does not represent tobacco companies, would benefit from the shift.

Abboud argues flavored vapes help adult smokers switch, while youth vaping has fallen despite illegal sales. He met with White House officials, and Makary, before the policy decision.

Former FDA tobacco head Mitch Zeller said under the new policy, adult smokers may use untested products that could later be found to contain harmful levels of chemicals or offer limited benefits for quitting.

The political influence on the FDA is “really bad for public health,” he said, “and it’s really bad for the public’s faith in government.”

(Reporting by Emma Rumney in London, Yasmeen Abutaleb in Washington and Chris Prentice in New York; Editing by Caroline Humer and Bill Berkrot)

By Bo Erickson

WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump, who turns 80 next month, arrived on Tuesday at Walter Reed National Military Medical ​Center for his annual physical, following a year of public attention on apparently minor health issues.

Trump frequently casts himself as more energetic and fitter than Joe Biden, his Democratic predecessor who left office last year at age 82 after facing questions about his fitness for the job. 

Still, recent photographs showing a blotchy neck rash have added to questions about Trump’s health, following images in July 2025 of swollen ankles and a bruised hand concealed with makeup.

Trump, whose birthday is June 14, became the oldest person to assume the presidency when he began his second term in January 2025.

The visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center was Trump’s third in 13 months.

Trump maintains an active golf schedule, but joked about his relative lack of exercise at a recent Oval Office event where his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, said the president walks nine miles (14.5 km) every time he goes golfing. 

“When I am not using the cart,” Trump said.

White House physician Sean Barbabella has said Trump is using ​a common cream as “a preventative skin treatment” to address the neck rash, but he has not given details of the condition being treated.

After the photographs of the president’s legs and hands were published last July, Barbabella said in a letter that the ailments were benign and that there was no evidence of deep vein thrombosis or arterial disease.

Trump’s leg swelling was from a “common” vein condition, and his hand was bruised from shaking so many hands, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters. 

Trump said last October that he had received a magnetic resonance imaging exam that month. The White House initially declined to share further details on the reason for the scan. Leavitt said only that it indicated “exceptional physical health” for Trump.

The president later told reporters he got the MRI as part of a second physical exam. 

“Getting an MRI is very standard. What, you think I shouldn’t have it? Other people get it. … I had an MRI. The doctor said it was the best result he has ever seen as a doctor,” Trump said.

Medical experts noted that MRIs are not typically part of a routine physical and are usually prescribed to get detailed images of the body.

In a memo after the second exam, Barbabella said the president’s cardiac age – a validated measure of cardiovascular vitality via ECG – was found to be approximately 14 years younger than his chronological age.

Trump has also faced questions after appearing to fall asleep during several meetings, including a session with his Cabinet. 

“Some people said, he closed his eyes. Look, it got pretty boring,” Trump told laughing officials in February. “I didn’t sleep. I just closed them because I wanted to get the hell outta here.”

Biden last year was diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer that spread to his bones, and underwent radiation therapy.

(Reporting by Bo Erickson; Editing by Ross Colvin and Will Dunham)

PLANO, Texas (AP) — Texans are choosing a Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Tuesday’s runoff election, bringing to a close the extended, bitter and expensive primary where President Donald Trump weighed in late to tip the race in another effort to rid the GOP of leaders less devoted to him.

Trump’s endorsement of state Attorney General Ken Paxton over four-term Sen. John Cornyn gives the challenger a late boost and puts Cornyn at risk of becoming the first Republican senator in Texas history to seek the party’s nod and lose.

That’s despite Cornyn’s campaign and allied groups spending roughly $90 million in advertising since last year, the vast majority of it attacking Paxton.

It’s the latest GOP contest where Trump has sought to punish a Republican he sees as insufficiently loyal. This month, he has successfully backed challengers to incumbents in Louisiana, Kentucky and Indiana, a sign of his enduring influence among primary voters.

Paxton’s campaign and a pro-Paxton super PAC began airing ads promoting the endorsement within 24 hours of Trump’s announcement. Cornyn acknowledged Trump’s move would have an impact but said he wasn’t giving up.

“I know who gets to choose our senators, and it’s the people of Texas,” he said hours after the endorsement.

The winner will run in November against Democratic state Rep. James Talarico.

Tuesday’s runoffs also will decide Democratic U.S. House nominees for districts in Dallas and Houston that overwhelmingly support Democrats, and a San Antonio-area seat the party hopes to flip.

Cornyn led Paxton in the March primary but failed to win a majority in the three-way contest that also included U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt, who finished in a distant third.

That was after Cornyn’s campaign and allied groups waged a monthslong ad campaign, mostly attacking Paxton for ethical and personal questions. The two-term attorney general was acquitted in a 2023 impeachment trial when allegations of extramarital affairs surfaced. Last year, Paxton’s wife filed for divorce, citing “biblical grounds.”

The alliance of pro-Cornyn groups have continued its attack, outspending Paxton’s campaign and two allied super PACs $16.5 million to $5.9 million since March 3, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

Trump promised to endorse immediately after the primary, asking the unchosen candidate to withdraw. But he didn’t act until after early voting began on May 18.

“Ken Paxton has gone through a lot, in many cases, very unfairly, but he is a Fighter, and knows how to win,” Trump wrote in a social media post endorsing him. “Our Country needs Fighters, and also Loyalty to the Cause of Greatness.”

Pro-Cornyn groups lately have been airing ads criticizing the attorney general office’s handling of a Waco sex abuse case. Pro-Paxton groups had seized on Cornyn’s awkward relationship with Trump.

The negative tenor could diminish turnout in an election already complicated by coming a day after Memorial Day, Texas Republican strategist Tyler Norris said. About 2 million of Texas’ 18.7 million voters participated in the GOP primary.

The dynamic could favor Paxton, whose support draws from more of the most loyal Trump base in Texas, said Norris, who isn’t affiliated with either campaign.

“The defining battle lines are based around hyper-negative messaging, which dampens turnout to begin with,” he said. “So who is going to show up is the hardest of the hard core.”

Trump in his endorsement also poked at Cornyn, as he has done with other Republicans who are not in lockstep with the president.

He blasted Republican Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy as “a Disloyal Disaster” on May 16, before Cassidy lost a GOP primary for the office he has held since 2015. The two-term senator had voted to convict Trump after his 2021 impeachment trial over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump backed U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, who advanced to a runoff with John Fleming, the state treasurer. Cassidy finished well behind them.

Last week, Trump celebrated as Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a critic of the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, lost his primary to Ed Gallrein. Trump called Massie “the worst congressman in the history of our country.”

In endorsing Paxton, Trump said Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough” and that “John was very late in backing me.”

Cornyn suggested in 2023 that Trump could not win the presidency again in 2024 and that his “time has passed him by.” He also was an early critic of Trump’s plan for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — a project he now supports.

Senate GOP leaders backed Cornyn, saying he would be stronger in the general election. Some GOP strategists have argued a Paxton nomination would cost millions of dollars more to promote in the fall, when money could be spent defending Republican seats in more competitive states. Democrats need to gain a net of four seats to take the majority.

Newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee and veteran Rep. Al Green are vying for the party nod in Texas’ 18th District, which the Republican-led Texas Legislature redrew last year to help the GOP. The new map led to a contest between incumbents and marks the end of a dizzying series of elections in the Houston area. Menefee was elected in a special runoff in January to the seat that had been held by the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, who died in March 2025.

Menefee finished narrowly ahead of Green in the March 3 primary but didn’t win a majority to avoid the runoff.

Former Rep. Colin Allred and U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson are competing in the Dallas-area 33rd District. Johnson was elected to the seat in 2024, the year Allred lost his U.S. Senate challenge to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Allred was running for Senate again this cycle but dropped his bid and instead is looking to return to the House.

Near San Antonio, Democratic leaders are trying to prevent Maureen Galindo, who has expressed antisemitic views, from winning the party’s runoff with Johnny Garcia. While Texas lawmakers redrew the 35th District to help Republicans, Democrats view it as within reach and don’t want Galindo’s past comments to impede them.

___

Bedayn reported from Austin, Texas.

Memorial Day is a U.S. holiday that is officially about mourning the nation’s fallen service members, but it has come to signal the unofficial start of summer and a long weekend of travel and discounts on anything from mattresses to lawn mowers.

Here is a look at the holiday and how it has evolved:

When is Memorial Day?

It falls on the last Monday of May. This year, it is May 25.

Why is Memorial Day celebrated?

It’s a day of reflection and remembrance of those who died while serving in the U.S. military, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The holiday is observed in part by the National Moment of Remembrance, which encourages all Americans to pause at 3 p.m. for a moment of silence.

What are the origins of Memorial Day?

The holiday’s origins can be traced to the American Civil War, which killed more than 600,000 service members, Union and Confederate, between 1861 and 1865.

The first national observance of what was then called Decoration Day occurred May 30, 1868, after an organization of Union veterans called for decorating war graves with flowers that were in bloom.

The practice was already widespread. Waterloo, New York, began a formal observance on May 5, 1866, and was later proclaimed to be the holiday’s birthplace.

Yet Boalsburg, Pennsylvania, traced its first observance to October 1864, according to the Library of Congress. And women in some Confederate states decorated graves before the war’s end.

David Blight, a Yale history professor, points to May 1, 1865, when as many as 10,000 people, many of them Black, held a parade, heard speeches and dedicated the graves of Union dead in Charleston, South Carolina.

A total of 267 Union troops had died at a Confederate prison and were buried in a mass grave. After the war, members of Black churches buried them in individual graves.

“What happened in Charleston does have the right to claim to be first, if that matters,” Blight told The Associated Press in 2011.