Report: 2025 third most violent year on record for American Jews

SCOBEY, Mont. – A crash involving an overturned semi truck blocked Highway 13 at mile marker 26 in both directions, according to Montana Highway Patrol. 

The crash happened south of Scobey on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. 

Patrol shared a picture of the overturned truck, showing it on its side and blocking the entire highway.

(The Center Square) – The bid of Roy Cooper to the U.S. Senate is getting a $31.4 million infusion for television advertising, the Senate Majority PAC told The Center Square on Wednesday morning.

Cooper is bidding to become the first Democrat since 2008 in North Carolina to win a U.S. Senate seat, and the first to do so at the midterms since 1998. He faces Republican Michael Whatley and Libertarian Shannon Bray on Nov. 3.

"Michael Whatley has made it clear that his priority as senator will be acting as a rubber-stamp for Donald Trump's costly agenda," said Lauren French, speaking for the political action committee. "Nowhere is that truer than when he failed to secure real relief for North Carolinians after Helene or stand up for families being crushed by higher prices. Roy Cooper is putting North Carolina first – above special interests and partisan politics to ensure every North Carolinian has a senator fighting for them."

The committee is also investing $46.4 million in Ohio and $33.4 million in Maine – a $111.2 million spend.

The Senate Majority PAC is a Democratic super political action committee founded in 2011. Its purpose is to promote a majority in the upper chamber of Congress and oppose “the rise of the Republican dark money network,” its website says.

Dark money refers to organizations that spend money to influence elections and policy without disclosing donors. The Senate Majority PAC is affiliated with such groups; Whatley's campaign also has similar connections.

Cooper was twice elected governor and four times elected attorney general. Prior to that, he was a member of both the state Senate and House of Representatives, amassing a 13-0 record in elections that includes six statewide.

Polling has consistently favored Cooper, including an April poll lead of 50.4%-41.4% and a March sampling at 48.9%-41.1%. At the close of the first quarter filing with the Federal Elections Commission, he also held a cash on hand advantage of $18.4 million to $2.5 million.

North Carolina’s historical patterns yield as much intrigue as the race’s expense forecast of $750 million to $1 billion. The state has picked just three Republicans as governor since 1900. Yet federally, it has backed only two Democrats for president in 60 years and has sent only four Democrats to the U.S. Senate in 50 years.

None of the presidents (Jimmy Carter, Barrack Obama) won the state in their reelection bids, and none of the senators won a second term.

(The Center Square) – Two small businesses that won a court ruling against President Donald Trump's tariffs must continue paying them for now, after a federal appeals court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the decision while it considers the administration's appeal.

It's the second time courts have allowed the administration to keep collecting tariffs a federal trade court found unlawful – the same pattern that played out when the Supreme Court struck down Trump's earlier tariffs, leaving businesses waiting more than a year for refunds.

American businesses have paid about $8 billion in Section 122 tariffs since the proclamation took effect in February. The appeal could take months, and experts have said the case is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court that handles trade disputes, ruled 2-1 on May 7 that Trump exceeded his authority when he invoked a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% global import duty. The court found that the president relied on trade and current account deficits rather than the specific balance-of-payments measures Congress had in mind when it wrote the statute.

The ruling applied only to three plaintiffs – Burlap & Barrel, a New York-based spice importer, Basic Fun, a Florida-based toy company, and the State of Washington – allowing the government to continue collecting the tariffs from all other importers while the litigation proceeds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday consolidated two appeals of that ruling and temporarily stayed the injunction while it considers the administration's request for a full stay pending appeal. Plaintiffs have seven days to respond.

The Court of International Trade said Tuesday it will hold the administration's separate stay request at that court in abeyance while the Federal Circuit considers the appeal. The trade court set a May 22 deadline for plaintiffs to respond to that motion.

Burlap & Barrel expected to pay about $60,000 in Section 122 tariffs over the 150-day period covered by the law, while Basic Fun, which imports toys and components from China, faced about $690,000 in tariff costs, according to court records.

The stay leaves the two businesses in the same position that confronted importers during the earlier tariff fight – paying taxes a court has found unlawful while waiting for an appeal to run its course.

VOS Selections, a New York-based wine importer, was the lead plaintiff in the earlier tariff case. The Liberty Justice Center confirmed Wednesday that VOS received $110,000 in refunds. The repayment came more than a year after the company first sued, illustrating how long importers can wait even after prevailing in court.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the two businesses, said the administration would face little harm if the injunction remained in place for the three plaintiffs.

"On the other hand, it is extremely burdensome on our clients to have to pay the tariffs," Schwab told The Center Square.

The administration argued in declarations filed in court Monday that suspending the tariffs would disrupt trade negotiations and trigger a surge in imports. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer warned in his declaration that if trading partners walk away from negotiations, "these negotiations may never resume."

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick echoed that concern, warning that removing the tariffs during the appeal would cause immediate economic disruption that "cannot be repaired later."

Meanwhile, the administration is pressing ahead with a separate round of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in April the new tariff regime could take effect as early as July – around the same time the Section 122 tariffs are set to expire under the law's 150-day limit. The administration has opened investigations involving 16 major U.S. trading partners, with hearings concluding last week.

Polling shows Americans remain divided on who ultimately pays tariffs. A March Center Square Voters' Voice Poll found 42% of voters believe U.S. consumers bear most tariff costs, while just 12% said foreign countries primarily pay them.

Several economic studies, including analyses from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and Duke University, have similarly concluded that Americans pay nearly the entire cost of tariffs.

(The Center Square) - Top private nonprofit universities that receive government funding pay some of their top leaders millions of dollars and one even received a $20 million longevity bonus, an investigation by The Center Square found.

That is despite political leaders and others questioning the way the schools are funded and their political policies. 

President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of the country's elite private universities, most recently alleging that some harbor "radical left" policies and stoke antisemitism.

Others have long questioned the fairness of federal policies that allow the schools to skirt tax liabilities while they amass tens of billions of dollars in assets, develop patented technologies with government support that are worth hundreds of millions and pay their leaders handsomely.

"We're sort of in a race -- almost like an arms race -- in terms of presidential compensation," said James Finkelstein, professor emeritus of public policy at George Mason University, a public research university in Virginia.

His research found that over a recent 10-year period, the inflation-adjusted pay for college leaders has increased more than 50 percent.

Further, colleges can obscure the total compensation of their top leadership with agreements that delay part of their salary payments until the end of their tenures. The schools have purportedly used it as a retention tool to keep their presidents from going elsewhere, but it can also hide their true salaries for years.

The Center Square obtained a database of all nonprofits what received government money and used it to analyze the salaries of top University leaders. 

The $20 million payout

The year Amy Gutmann left her post as president of the University of Pennsylvania -- ending in 2022 -- the university paid her a total of nearly $23 million, according to nonprofit filings reviewed by The Center Square.

That included a base salary of about $1.6 million, a bonus of $1 million, and a deferred compensation payment of more than $20 million that had accumulated over the course of her 18-year tenure.

Government grants to the university exceeded $1 billion in a recent year, records show.

Such deferred compensation arrangements were developed in the private sector, Finkelstein said, where they have acted as so-called "golden handcuffs" to discourage executives from leaving their jobs and as a tax benefit for the corporations.

That same tax benefit doesn't exist for nonprofits, so "the only benefit is it doesn't have to be reported until it's paid," Finkelstein told The Center Square.

"The real reason is to obscure the annual compensation," he said.

The University of Pennsylvania did not respond to a request to comment for this article. Gutmann could not be reached for comment.

Gutmann's successor, Dr. Larry Jameson, was paid more than $5 million in the most recent year that the university has reported to the government. His compensation was routinely higher than Gutmann's while she was president as he helped oversee the university's multi-hospital health system.

University hospital pay

University hospital executives are often paid more than presidents, according to The Center Square's review of nonprofit data. For example, in 2023 when Dr. Robert Grossman was the chief executive of New York University's health system and dean of one of its medical schools, he was paid more than $15 million.

Recent nonprofit filings reveal numerous examples of presidential pay that exceeds $1 million annually. Lee Bollinger at Columbia University was paid $4.4 million, and Carol Folt at the University of Southern California was paid $4 million.

Columbia receives more than $1 billion of government grants each year, and the University of Southern California gets more than a half billion.

Also among the highest-paid is Paula Wallace, the president and co-founder of the Savannah College of Art and Design, in Georgia. She was paid about $2.6 million in a recent year. Her compensation peaked in 2020 at about $5 million thanks to a hefty bonus.

Her husband, Glenn Wallace, is the college's chief operating officer and has a salary of about $800,000.

Finkelstein, the public policy researcher, attributes the overall rise in university executive pay to bonuses that resemble those that are bestowed on successful athletic coaches, and to university governing boards that are stocked with members who make vast wages in private-sector jobs and are more amenable to high salaries.

"This notion that university executives should be compensated like their counterparts in the private sector, it distorts what the purpose of a university is," he said. "We're not a business."

The universities pay federal payroll taxes but not most income and property taxes.

Federal lawmakers targeted high salaries at nonprofits in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act by expanding a 21-percent excise tax on salaries that exceed $1 million. Previously, the tax was applicable to up to five top-paid employees, but the bill eliminated that limit and applies it to all employees earning that much.

Tax-exempt property

In August the Trump administration demanded a list of Harvard University's patents that were supported by federal research grants as part of a review to determine whether they are sufficiently benefitting the public, as required by law. Harvard's presidents have earned in excess of $1 million annually in recent years.

The university drew Trump's ire earlier that year for refusing his demands to overhaul its policies, especially those that might give preference in hiring and admissions based on race and gender.

Other colleges capitulated, but Harvard refused. Trump responded by withholding more than $2 billion in research funding, which a federal judge later ruled was illegal.

Harvard received about $670 million in government grants in fiscal year 2024, according to The Center Square's review of its most recent nonprofit filings. That was a 15 percent increase from 2020, when it received about $584 million.

Meanwhile, the school's net assets have jumped to about $62 billion, a 28 percent increase during that same time frame.

And yet Harvard has repeatedly failed to meet the relatively meager requests from the city of Boston to help fund its public services.

For more than a decade Boston has asked nonprofits with sizable, tax-exempt property to voluntarily contribute money to city services -- such as police and fire departments -- that are funded by property taxes.

The city's Payment In Lieu of Tax program requests about a quarter of what the nonprofits would pay in taxes if their properties weren't exempt. And half of the amount can be paid in community benefits, such as free dental and legal services for residents the universities were already providing.

Boston's total request for Harvard for the last fiscal year was about $14.6 million. It received community benefit credit for half of the amount and paid about $4 million of the remaining $7 million cash request, according to an annual city report.

Harvard has never met the full cash request, but it's not alone. Boston University, which has the largest amount of tax-exempt property in the city, paid about $6 million cash of the $12 million sought by the city in the last fiscal year.

Harvard did not respond to a request to comment for this article.

Other large cities in the Northeast have implemented similar voluntary programs to offset property tax losses, but the idea has not spread widely to the rest of the country, said Matthew Putnam, a policy manager for the National Taxpayers Union.

"It's pretty effective if the intention is just to address that property tax issue and the essential services that universities are using," Putnam told The Center Square.

(The Center Square) – After a record number of border crimes were reported during the Biden administration, criminal investigations and prosecutions are ongoing. 

In the Midwest, prosecutors are also hoping to put behind bars alleged members of a South American Theft Group who were allegedly targeting residents in the Green Bay area.

As the Biden administration border crisis worsened, law enforcement across the country identified a pattern occurring nationwide: high-end burglaries being committed by foreign perpetrators targeting specific communities and then quickly leaving.

The Center Square first reported on the new phenomenon of SATG burglaries in late 2023 after NFL players’ homes were being increasingly targeted in multiple states. By January 2024, authorities in Texas were responding to a string of SATG crimes and authorities in New York expressed alarm, testifying before Congress. 

SATG crime is being orchestrated by Chilean and Columbian nationals who illegally enter the U.S. and/or exploited visa programs, authorities have found. They frequently use rental vehicles, rely on fake IDs and documents and use multiple burner phones and signal jammers to evade capture, the FBI says. They sell the stolen goods, send some of it to Chile or Colombia and wire most of the profits overseas, the FBI found.

In the Green Bay case, the alleged perpetrators were in the country illegally and citizens of Chile with assistance from a Venezuelan national illegally living in Florida, authorities found.

On Tuesday, a federal grand jury in Eastern Wisconsin indicted three Chilean nationals, Luciano Alexis Silva Cifuentes, Enjerbet Alejandro Rojas Silva, and Leandro Felipe Pino Uribe, and one Venezuelan national, Nobuaki Jesus Lara Watay. They were charged with conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, interstate and foreign transportation of stolen property, and conspiracy to launder criminal proceeds, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin announced. 

According to the charges, they used Wi-Fi jammers to disable security systems and targeted homes bordered by wooded areas, according to court documents. The Chileans were arrested four months ago in Waukesha County, held on a $250,000 bond, and had U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer holds placed on them.

The Waukesha County Sheriff’s Office led a multi-agency investigation and found the perpetrators illegally entered the U.S. from South America with the intent of committing burglaries across the country, according to the complaint. They also found the men were allegedly tied to more than a dozen completed and attempted residential burglaries in three states: Florida, Minnesota and Wisconsin. They also found the perpetrators allegedly stole more than $1 million worth of U.S. currency, jewelry, firearms, precious metals, and rare coins. 

The Chilean suspects repeatedly traveled from Florida to Wisconsin and Minnesota using a rental car, investigators said. Watay helped organize the break-ins from Florida, where he was illegally living, investigators found. He “reserved Airbnb rentals for the burglary crew, posted their bail when needed, and conducted financial transactions on the group’s behalf,” investigators found.

If convicted on all charges, they face decades in prison. 

The sheriff’s offices of Brown, Dane and Ozaukee counties and Mequon Police Department in Wisconsin; police departments of Edina, Mendota Heights and Orono in Minnesota; Plantation Police Department in Florida, and North Central High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area were involved in the investigation. 

The Milwaukee area Homeland Security Task Force, including the DOJ, FBI, Homeland Security Investigations and IRS–Criminal Investigation were also involved in the investigation. 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin is prosecuting the case.

(The Center Square) – Medical watchdog Do No Harm sent a letter to social work accreditor the Council on Social Work Education Wednesday urging that it remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion related requirements, stating such ideologies are harmful to medical education. 

Chairman of Do No Harm Dr. Stanley Goldfarb wrote to the Council on Social Work Education’s (CSWE) President and CEO Dr. Halaevalu F.O. Vakalahi: “Do No Harm asks CSWE to commit unequivocally to removing all references to anti-racism, DEI, and other related concepts from its accreditation standards.”

Goldfarb wrote that CSWE promotes standards that “encourage social work education programs to treat students as activists-in-training, at the expense of clinical education, and promote a toxic ideology that is antithetical to core principles of healthcare.”

For instance, Goldfarb said that CSWE’s 2022 Education Policy and Accreditation Standards “include two competencies explicitly promoting DEI.”

“Competency 2 mandates that programs ensure students ‘Advance Human Rights and Social, Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice,’” Goldfarb wrote, “while Competency 3 is aimed at ensuring future social workers ‘demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice at the individual, family, group, organizational, community, research, and policy levels.’”

“Social work programs are forced to integrate ‘anti-racism,’ and ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion principles’ across their curricula,” Goldfarb said.

Additionally, CSWE’s Competency 4 “states that social workers should understand ‘anti-racist, and anti-oppressive approaches in conducting research and building knowledge,’” Goldfarb said.

Competency 5 “states that ‘[s]ocial workers actively engage in and advocate for anti-racist and anti-oppressive policy practice to effect change in those settings,’” Goldfarb said.

Meanwhile, Competency 9 “notes that ‘[s]ocial workers apply anti-racist and anti-oppressive perspectives in evaluating outcomes,’” Goldfarb wrote.

Beyond Competencies, CSWE’s Educational Policy 4.3: Administrative and Governance Structure “requires that programs develop ‘an administrative and leadership structure that reflects and affirms respect for anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” Goldfarb said.

Goldfarb reminded CSWE of President Donald Trump’s April 2025 executive order Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education that targeted “DEI mandates in higher education accreditation.”

Goldfarb also said that “federally funded educational institutions are subject to numerous prohibitions, forbidding discrimination based on race, color, ethnicity, and national origin.”

“Mandating that these educational entities pursue discriminatory practices and policies is, in effect, a mandate that they violate federal law,” Goldfarb stated.

Goldfarb also noted revisions the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) made to remove requirements that forced medical schools to push “divisive, ideological” content in their curricula, as well as revisions that removed diversity related requirements.

“These mandates actively harm healthcare education, and their removal is long overdue,” Goldfarb wrote.

“Many other medical and healthcare education accreditors have over the past year taken a similar approach to their standards and removed or suspended DEI-oriented requirements,” Goldfarb stated. “Your organization, however, has not.”

“My letter today asks one question,” Goldfarb said. “Will CSWE commit to removing all requirements related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from its accreditation standards?”

Do No Harm’s letter was also sent to Dr. Nasser H. Paydar, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

(The Center Square) - Voters in Nebraska elected incumbent candidates in races throughout the state on Tuesday.

Incumbent U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts was nominated in the Republican primary, and he will likely face off against a popular independent candidate in November. Candidates also secured partisan victories in the race to fill Rep. Don Bacon’s seat and Gov. Jim Pillen advanced to the general election.

Here are some unofficial results from Nebraska.

U.S. Senate

Republican incumbent Ricketts held out against five primary challengers to keep the party’s nomination for U.S. Senate, according to multiple outlets. Ricketts was endorsed by President Donald Trump in April 2025.

Trump endorsed Ricketts and slammed Dan Osborn, an independent candidate who was not on the ballot Tuesday. Osborn has made waves saying that he will challenge Ricketts in the November general election.

“Pete is one of the strongest Senators in the Country on Border Security, whereas his potential Opponent, Dan Osborn, is a Radical Left Open Border Extremist, who will put our Country, and Safety, LAST,” Trump wrote on social media.

Cindy Burbank secured the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, despite announcing she would drop out of the race if she won the primary to make a pathway for Osborn in November’s general election. Osborn must gather enough signatures by July 2 to run in the general election.

According to the latest campaign filings, Osborn has raised more than $3.8 million. Ricketts has collected more than $4.8 million, according to campaign filings.

Tuesday’s primary results set up a unique challenge in November for Ricketts as he looks to defend his seat. 

Governor

Incumbent Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen fended off four challengers for the GOP nomination on Tuesday night. He is set to face off against Democrat Lynne Walz in November, according to multiple outlets. 

Pillen, a Trump-endorsed governor, has seen tough competition from Walz, who has criticized him for his immigration policies and financial integrity.

“Our elected leaders need to lead with honesty and integrity, not looking to line the pockets of themselves and their buddies,” Walz wrote.

Voters in the Cornhusker State will head to the polls again in November to select candidates who will represent them across the state and decide the partisan makeup of Congress.

Mizzou women's golf carded an even par in the second round of the NCAA Regional Championships on Tuesday in Stanford, California, and it rose to sixth place overall at 6-over.

Senior Melanie Walker headlined the Tigers behind a 3-under par performance, and she rose 12 spots to tie for 12th overall at 2-under.

Junior Fleur van Beek went 1-under with a pair of birdies after subbing in for sophomore Alexandra Berglund to rise to 64th.

Freshman Ebba Liljeberg is tied for 28th after carding a 1-over and jumping up seven spots. Senior Jade Zamora plummeted 18 spots to tie for 23rd after posting 4-over. Senior Addie Dobson jumped up five spots after going 3-over to tie for 45th.

The top five finishing teams from stroke play, as well as the lowest individual not on an advancing team, will advance to compete in the NCAA Women's Championship on May 22-27 at Omni La Costa Resort in Carlsbad, California.

The Tigers return to Stanford Golf Course on Wednesday morning with hopes of advancing with a top-five finish.

CC softball's season ends in NAIA Opening Round

Columbia College softball saw its season come to an end Tuesday afternoon after an extra-inning 3-2 loss to No. 18 Coastal Georgia in the NAIA Opening Round in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. 

Ella Schouten worked all 11.2 innings for the Cougars, striking out 13 on 202 pitches while allowing two earned runs.

CC leapt to an early 2-0 lead. Abigail Zismer singled and Taryn Hagardt moved her to second with a sacrifice bunt before a fielder's choice and an error brought Zismer home.

In the second, Layla Underwood reached first on an error, and Kylee Page drew a walk while Eleanor Schudel hit a bunt single to plate Underwood and double the Cougars' score.

CC held that lead before Coastal Georgia knotted it at 2-2 in the seventh. Both teams traded zeros until the bottom of the 12th, when Coastal Georgia put a runner on base with a leadoff error and a walk-off sacrifice fly to send the Cougars home.

CC finished the season 27-15 with their 25th appearance in program history in the NAIA Tournament.

(The Center Square) — The U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislation aimed at stopping American taxpayer dollars from helping finance foreign shrimp operations that Gulf Coast lawmakers say have undercut domestic shrimpers for decades.

The Save Our Shrimpers Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, would require U.S. representatives at international financial institutions to oppose financial assistance for projects supporting shrimp farming, shrimp processing or shrimp exports in borrowing countries.

The bill passed the House without a recorded vote against it, sending the measure to the Senate.

“By passing my bill, we are standing up for American shrimpers who wake up before dawn to help feed our country and the world,” Nehls told The Center Square in a statement. “This is a huge win for our Gulf Coast and coastal communities that depend on shrimping to survive, and I urge the Senate to take up my bill and pass it as soon as possible.”

The legislation targets institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, where U.S. officials exercise voting power through executive directors. The Congressional Budget Office said the bill would require those officials to oppose assistance for shrimp-related projects, with the requirement expiring seven years after enactment.

The issue is especially significant in Gulf Coast states including Louisiana, Texas and Alabama, where shrimpers have struggled with low dockside prices, rising fuel and labor costs, and competition from cheaper imported shrimp. Industry groups say imports account for more than 90% of shrimp consumed in the United States, much of it produced through aquaculture in countries such as In

In February 2025, The Center Square reported that nearly half a billion U.S. dollars had gone to shrimp-related projects overseas through international development financing, including projects in countries that compete directly with U.S. shrimpers. One project in India, the largest shrimp supplier to the U.S. market, totaled about $200 million.

Existing federal law already gives U.S. officials some authority to oppose international financial institution assistance for foreign commodity projects. Under 22 U.S.C. § 262h, the Treasury secretary must instruct U.S. executive directors at several international financial institutions to use the U.S. “voice and vote” to oppose assistance for production or extraction of an export commodity if the commodity is in surplus on world markets and if the export would cause substantial injury to U.S. producers.

But that protection is conditional. To block assistance for a foreign shrimp project under current law, federal officials would first have to treat shrimp as a surplus commodity and determine that the exports would substantially injure U.S. producers.

The Save Our Shrimpers Act removes that extra step for shrimp. The bill would create a categorical instruction: U.S. executive directors at international financial institutions must oppose financial assistance for any project supporting shrimp farming, shrimp processing or shrimp exports in a borrowing country. 

That distinction makes the bill narrower but stronger than current law. It does not rewrite trade law, impose tariffs or ban shrimp imports. Instead, it targets development financing, ensuring U.S. representatives oppose international loans, grants or other assistance that could expand foreign shrimp production.

The bill has bipartisan support from Gulf Coast and seafood-state lawmakers. Its original cosponsors included U.S. Reps. Clay Higgins, R-La., Troy Carter, D-La., Julia Letlow, R-La., Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, and several members from Texas, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and the Carolinas. The House Financial Services Committee reported the bill in March after approving it 42-1.

Tthe legislation was first introduced in the previous Congress and reintroduced in March 2025. Nehls said U.S. officials voted against an international financial institution shrimp aquaculture project for the first time in April 2025, but supporters say the bill is needed to make that posture permanent rather than discretionary.

Shrimp industry advocates have backed the measure as part of a broader push against foreign seafood imports, which they say are produced under looser standards and sold at prices domestic boats cannot match. Separate seafood legislation has focused on import inspections, country-of-origin labeling and food safety.

The Save Our Shrimpers Act would not immediately raise shrimp prices or provide direct aid to shrimpers. Its impact would depend on whether international financial institutions are considering future shrimp projects, how often Treasury uses the waiver and whether the Senate takes up the bill.

(The Center Square) – The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that President Donald Trump's Golden Dome missile defense shield could cost American taxpayers as much as $1.2 trillion over 20 years, far exceeding the Pentagon's public estimate of roughly $185 billion through 2035.

The estimate, requested by Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., found acquisition costs alone could top $1 trillion, with a planned space-based interceptor layer accounting for about 60% of the total.

The CBO cautioned that the estimate carries substantial uncertainty because the Pentagon has not publicly released details about the system's final architecture or force structure.

Instead, the agency said it based its analysis on the requirements outlined in Trump's January 2025 executive order directing the Pentagon to defend against "ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks from peer, near-peer, and rogue adversaries."

That uncertainty appears to be at the center of the gap between the CBO's estimate and the Pentagon's projections.

Just two weeks ago, Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, the director of Golden Dome for America, told the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee the program would be delivered "on time and on budget" at about $185 billion through 2035.

The Pentagon has not publicly explained whether that figure reflects a narrower system than the one envisioned in Trump's executive order, excludes certain long-term costs or relies on funding streams outside the program itself.

When asked about outside cost estimates during a House Armed Services subcommittee hearing last month, Guetlein rejected comparisons that projected significantly higher totals.

"They are not estimating what I'm building," he said. "They are estimating the modernization or the continuation of the legacy systems that we already have and they just take the cost of a legacy system and they multiply it out and they get these really large numbers and they say, well, that must be it. That is not what Golden Dome is doing."

Congress has already approved $25 billion for Golden Dome in last year's reconciliation bill, a fraction of the CBO's projected long-term cost. The Pentagon is now asking lawmakers to approve an additional $17 billion in a new reconciliation package this year.

The CBO also warned that even a fully built Golden Dome system would not provide an impenetrable shield against large-scale missile attacks from adversaries such as Russia or China and could encourage those countries to expand their offensive missile arsenals in response.

"The system could be overwhelmed by a full-scale attack mounted by a peer or near-peer adversary," according to the CBO report. "Furthermore, 'fully engage' is not the same as 'fully defeat' because no defense works perfectly every time."

In a September 2025 working paper for the American Enterprise Institute, defense analyst Todd Harrison described the concept as "technically feasible and strategically sound overall" but warned it could become "the poster child for waste and inefficiency in defense" if Congress eventually cancels the program before completion.

Merkley called the program "a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans," adding that it "will do little to advance American national security."

The House Armed Services Committee's Republican press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment after 5 p.m. Tuesday.

A Pentagon spokesperson referred questions about the CBO estimate to Guetlein's April 15 House testimony, in which he said outside cost estimates "are just not estimating what I am building."