TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — A $8 billion defense package approved by the U.S. House of Representatives over the weekend will “strengthen the deterrence against authoritarianism in the West Pacific ally chain,” Taiwan’s President-elect Lai Ching-te said Tuesday, in a reference to key rival China.

The funding will also “help ensure peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and also boost confidence in the region” Lai, currently Taiwan’s vice president, told visiting Michigan Representatives Lisa McClain, a Republican, and Democrat Dan Kildee at a meeting at the Presidential Office Building in the capital Taipei.

In the face of “authoritarian expansionism,” Taiwan is “determined to safeguard democracy and also safeguard our homeland, Lai said.”

Also known as William Lai, U.S.-educated former medical researcher is despised by Beijing for his opposition to political unification with the mainland. In recent elections, the pro-unification Nationalists won a narrow majority in the legislature, but their influence on foreign policy and other national issues remains limited.

The Senate will vote Tuesday on $95 billion in war aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

The package covers a wide range of parts and services aimed at maintaining and and upgrading Taiwan’s military hardware. Separately, Taiwan has signed billions in contracts with the U.S. for latest-generation F-16V fighter jets, M1 Abrams main battle tanks and the HIMARS rocket system, which the U.S. has also supplied to Ukraine.

Taiwan has also been expanding its own defense industry, building submarines and trainer jets. Next month it plans to commission its third and fourth domestically designed and built stealth corvettes to counter the Chinese navy. as part of a strategy of asymmetrical warfare in which a smaller force counters its larger opponent by using cutting edge or nonconventional tactics and weaponry.

Lai, of the pro-independence ruling Democratic Progressive Party, won the January election handily and takes over next month from President Tsai Ing-wen, whom Beijing has sought to isolate for the past eight years.

China is determined to annex the island, which it considers its own territory, by force if necessary and has been advertising that threat with daily incursions into waters and air space around Taiwan by navy ships and warplanes. It has also sought to pick away Taiwan’s few remaining formal diplomatic partners.

While Washington and Taipei have no formal diplomatic ties in deference to Beijing, McClain emphasized the need for the entire world to observe the strength of the relationship.

“Peace is our goal. But to do that, we have to have relationships and we value your relationship. Not only militarily, but economically,” she said.

Kildee said the timing of the visit was especially significant given the recent passage of the funding bill to “provide very important support to insure security in this region.”

“It’s important for the people of Taiwan, it’s important for the people in the United States, it’s important for the entire world,” Kildee said.

HONG KONG (AP) — Asian share benchmarks were mostly higher Tuesday after U.S. stocks clawed back a chunk of their losses from the week before.

U.S. futures were mixed and oil prices rose.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 rose 0.3% to 37,552.16, despite the country’s manufacturing activity contracting for 11 straight months while approaching the break-even point in April.

A purchasing managers survey showed sentiment at 49.9, on a scale of up to 100 where 50 marks the break between expansion and contraction The yen weakened further, hitting a fresh 34-year low of 154.85 early Tuesday.

The Hang Seng in Hong Kong added 1.6% to 16,771.17 while the Shanghai Composite index slipped 0.8% to 3,019.64.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 climbed 0.4% to 7,683.50. South Korea’s Kospi dropped 0.2% to 2,624.73.

On Monday, the S&P 500 gained 0.5% to 5,010.60 to recover more than a quarter of last week’s rout. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.7% to 38,239.98, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 1.1% to 15,451.31.

The rally was widespread, and most stocks across Wall Street rose. In the S&P 500, technology stocks led the way to bounce back from their worst week since the COVID crash of 2020.

Nvidia leaped 4.4%, and Alphabet climbed 1.4% as Treasury yields stabilized in the bond market. Last week, a jump in yields cranked up the pressure on stocks, particularly those seen as the most expensive and making their investors wait the longest for big growth.

Bank stocks were also strong following some encouraging profit reports. Truist Financial rallied 3.4% after its profit for the start of the year topped analysts’ expectations.

They helped offset a 3.4% drop for Tesla, which announced more cuts to prices over the weekend. Elon Musk’s electric vehicle company has seen its stock drop more than 40% already this year, and it will report its first-quarter results later in the day.

It’s a big week for earnings reports generally, with roughly 30% of the companies in the S&P 500 scheduled to say how much they made during the year’s first three months. That includes companies that have come to be known as part of the “Magnificent Seven,” beyond Tesla and Alphabet.

The difference in growth between the Magnificent Seven and the rest of the S&P 500 should close by the end of the year, strategists Ohsung Kwon and Savita Subramanian said in a BofA Global Research report.

Verizon Communications helped kick off this week’s reports by disclosing a drop in profit that wasn’t as bad as analysts expected. It cited price increases and other measures to support its revenue. Verizon’s stock swung from an early gain to a loss of 4.7% after it reported weaker revenue for the first quarter than expected and kept its forecast for full-year profit the same.

Even more pressure than usual is on companies broadly to deliver fatter profits and revenue. That’s because the other big factor that sets stock prices, interest rates, looks unlikely to offer much help in the near term.

Top officials at the Federal Reserve warned last week that they may need to keep interest rates high for a while in order to ensure inflation is heading down to their 2% target. That was a big letdown for financial markets, dousing hopes that had built after the Fed signaled earlier that three interest-rate cuts may come this year.

Lower rates had appeared to be on the horizon after inflation cooled sharply last year. But a string of reports this year showing inflation has remained hotter than expected has raised worries about stalled progress.

In oil trading, U.S. benchmark crude picked up 16 cents to $82.06 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, gained 18 cents to $87.18 per barrel.

The U.S. dollar slipped to 154.78 Japanese yen from 154.84 yen. The euro fell to $1.0646 from $1.0653.

An independent panel that reviewed the neutrality of the U.N. agency helping Palestinian refugees, after Israel alleged that a dozen of its employees in Gaza had participated in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks, released its report on Monday.

Here are some of its key recommendations to strengthen the neutrality of the agency, known as UNRWA.

— UNRWA, established by the U.N. General Assembly in 1949, does not have an executive board but it does have an advisory body, which must put neutrality on its agenda at all meetings and create a working group on neutrality and integrity issues.

— UNRWA faces challenges due to increased politicization of its staff and must announce procedures to deal with future allegations of neutrality breaches, and identify and implement additional ways to screen staff early in the recruitment process.

— UNRWA should reinforce its regular sharing of digital staff lists with host countries and Israel by ensuring the inclusion of additional information, including ID numbers and jobs. In response, host countries and Israel must provide UNRWA with results of their screening and “any red flags.”

— UNRWA’s international staff in Gaza is less than 1% of its total staff and there needs to be more senior international staff in the field to provide oversight on neutrality issues.

— UNRWA’s management and internal oversight reform efforts “are commendable and should be expanded,” including by creating a centralized neutrality investigation unit.

— UNRWA must implement “a zero-tolerance policy” on school textbooks used in its schools spreading antisemitic views or promoting discrimination and incitement to hatred.

— The politicization of UNRWA staff unions is “one of the most sensitive neutrality issues” and the agency should request an independent body to vet every staff union representative on their neutrality.

— It is “imperative” for UNRWA to enhance its engagement with donor nations to promote trust and strengthen their partnership.

— The international community has a responsibility to help and support UNRWA in addressing neutrality issues.

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primaries will cement the lineup for a high-stakes U.S. Senate race between Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and Republican challenger David McCormick, a contest that is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and could help decide control of the Senate next year.

Casey, seeking his fourth term, is perhaps Pennsylvania’s best-known politician and a stalwart of the presidential swing state’s Democratic Party — the son of a former two-term governor and Pennsylvania’s longest-ever serving Democrat in the Senate.

McCormick is a two-time Senate challenger, a former hedge fund CEO and Pennsylvania native who spent $14 million of his own money only to lose narrowly to celebrity heart surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz in 2022’s seven-way GOP primary. Oz then lost to Democratic Sen. John Fetterman in a pivotal Senate contest.

This time around, McCormick has consolidated the party around his candidacy and is backed by a super PAC that’s already reported raising more than $20 million, much of it from securities-trading billionaires.

McCormick’s candidacy is shaping up as the strongest challenge to Casey in his three reelection bids. McCormick, intent on shoring up support in the GOP base, told an audience of conservatives in suburban Harrisburg earlier this month that he tells people “you’re going to agree with about 80% of what I say … but we disagree 90% of the time with the crazy progressive left that’s destroying our country.”

The Senate candidates will share a ticket with candidates for president in a state that is critical to whether Democrats can maintain control of the White House and the Senate. President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are expected to win their party nominations easily now that all major rivals have dropped out.

Of note, however, could be the number of “ uncommitted ” write-in votes cast in the Democratic primary to protest Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

In the Senate contest, Democrats have attacked McCormick’s opposition to abortion rights, his frequent trips to Connecticut’s ritzy “Gold Coast ” where he keeps a family home, and the focus on investing in China during his dozen years as an executive at the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, including as CEO.

Casey has been a key player for Democrats trying to reframe the election-year narrative about the economy by attacking “greedflation” — a blunt term for corporations that jack up prices and rip off shoppers to maximize profits — as fast-rising prices over the past three years have opened a big soft spot in 2024 for Democrats. Recent indications that the U.S. economy avoided a recession amid efforts to manage inflation have yet to translate into voter enthusiasm for giving Biden a second term.

McCormick, meanwhile, has accused Casey of rubber-stamping harmful immigration, economic, energy and national security policies of Biden, and made a bid for Jewish voters by traveling to the Israel-Gaza border and arguing that Biden hasn’t backed Israel strongly enough in the Israel-Hamas war.

Casey is one of Biden’s strongest allies in Congress.

The two men share a hometown of Scranton and their political stories are intertwined. Biden — who represented neighboring Delaware in the Senate and roots for Philadelphia sports teams — has effectively made Pennsylvania his political home as a presidential candidate. Long before that, Biden was nicknamed “Pennsylvania’s third senator” by Democrats because he campaigned there so often.

McCormick and Trump have endorsed each other, but are an awkward duo atop the GOP’s ticket. Trump savaged McCormick in 2022’s primary in a successful bid to lift Oz to his primary win. And McCormick, for his part, has told of a private meeting in which he refused Trump’s urging to say that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, a disproven claim the former president has never abandoned.

Democrats currently hold a Senate majority by the narrowest of margins, but face a difficult 2024 Senate map that requires them to defend incumbents in the red states of Montana and Ohio and fight for open seats with new candidates in Michigan and West Virginia.

A Casey loss could guarantee Republican control of the Senate.

Elsewhere on the ballot Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will decide nominees for an open attorney general’s office and two other statewide offices — treasurer and auditor general — plus all 17 of the state’s U.S. House seats and 228 of the state’s 253 legislative seats.

For attorney general, Republicans have a two-way race while Democrats have a five-person primary field. Democrats also will decide on challengers to incumbent Republican state Treasurer Stacy Garrity and state Auditor General Tim DeFoor.

For Congress, 44 candidates are on ballots, including all 17 incumbents, just three of whom are facing primary challengers: Democratic Reps. Summer Lee in a Pittsburgh-based district and Dwight Evans in Philadelphia and Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick in suburban Philadelphia.

Lee’s primary against challenger Bhavini Patel has shaped up as an early test of whether Israel’s war with Gaza poses political threats to progressive Democrats in Congress who have criticized how it has been handled.

Voters will decide from among three would-be Republican challengers to Democratic Rep. Susan Wild, whose Allentown-based district is politically divided, and six Democratic candidates hoping to challenge Republican Rep. Scott Perry of southern Pennsylvania.

Perry has become a national figure for heading up the ultra-right House Freedom Caucus during a speakership battle and his efforts to help Trump stay in power after losing 2020’s presidential election.

___

Follow Marc Levy on Twitter at http://twitter.com/timelywriter.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Antony Blinken is starting three days of talks with senior Chinese officials in Shanghai and Beijing this week with U.S.-China ties at a critical point over numerous global disputes.

The mere fact that Blinken is making the trip — shortly after a conversation between President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a similar visit to China by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and a call between the U.S. and Chinese defense chiefs — might be seen by some as encouraging, but ties between Washington and Beijing are tense and the rifts are growing wider.

From Russia and Ukraine to Israel, Iran and the broader Middle East as well as Indo-Pacific and trade issues, the U.S. and China are on a series of collision courses that have sparked fears about military and strategic security as well as international economic stability.

Blinken “will raise clearly and candidly our concerns” during the talks starting Wednesday, a senior State Department official said.

Here’s a look at some of the key issues Blinken is expected to bring up on the trip:

The Biden administration has grown increasingly concerned in recent months about Chinese support for Russia’s defense industrial base, which U.S. officials say is allowing Moscow to overcome Western sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine and resupply its military. U.S. officials say this will be a primary topic of conversation during Blinken’s visit.

While the U.S. says it has no evidence China actually is arming Russia, officials say other activities are potentially equally problematic.

“If China purports on the one hand to want good relations with Europe and other countries, it can’t on the other hand be fueling what is the biggest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War,” Blinken said last week.

A senior State Department official said Friday that “through Chinese support, Russia has largely reconstituted its defense industrial base, which has an impact not just on the battlefield in Ukraine but poses a larger threat, we believe, to broader European security.”

U.S. officials, from Biden on down, have repeatedly appealed to China to use any leverage it may have with Iran to prevent Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza from spiraling into a wider regional conflict.

While China appears to have been generally receptive to such calls — particularly because it depends heavily on oil imports from Iran and other Mideast nations — tensions have steadily increased since the beginning of the Gaza war in October and more recent direct strikes and counterstrikes between Israel and Iran.

Blinken has pushed for China to take a more active stance in pressing Iran not to escalate tensions in the Middle East. He has spoken to his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, several times over the past six months and urged China to tell Iran to restrain the proxy groups it has supported in the region, including Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria.

Blinken told Wang in a phone call this month that “escalation is not in anyone’s interest and that countries should urge Iran not to escalate,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said of their last conversation.

The senior State Department official said Blinken would reiterate the U.S. interest in China using “whatever channels or influence it has to try to convey the need for restraint to all parties, including Iran.”

In the Indo-Pacific region, China and the United States are the major players, but Beijing has become increasingly aggressive in recent years toward Taiwan and its smaller Southeast Asian neighbors with which it has significant territorial and maritime disputes in the South China Sea.

The U.S. has strongly condemned Chinese military exercises threatening Taiwan, which Beijing regards as a renegade province and has vowed to reunify with the mainland by force if necessary. Successive U.S. administrations have steadily boosted military support and sales for Taipei, much to Chinese anger.

The senior State Department official said Blinken would “underscore, both in private and public, America’s abiding interest in maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We think that is vitally important for the region and the world.”

In the South China Sea, the U.S. and others have become increasingly concerned by provocative Chinese actions in and around disputed areas.

In particular, the U.S. has voiced objections to what it says are Chinese attempts to thwart legitimate maritime activities by others in the sea, notably the Philippines and Vietnam. That was a major topic of concern this month when Biden held a three-way summit with the prime minister of Japan and the president of the Philippines.

The U.S. and China are at deep odds over human rights in China’s western Xinjiang region, Tibet and Hong Kong as well as the fate of several American citizens that the State Department says have been “wrongfully detained” by Chinese authorities.

China has repeatedly rejected the American criticism as improper interference in its internal affairs. Yet, Blinken will again raise these issues, according to the senior State Department official, who added that China’s self-described efforts to rein in the export of materials that traffickers use to make fentanyl have yet to yield significant results.

The two sides agreed last year to set up a working group to look into ways to combat the surge of production of fentanyl precursors in China and their export abroad. U.S. officials say they believe they had made some limited progress on cracking down on the illicit industry but many producers had found ways to get around new restrictions.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has scheduled a special session to hear arguments over whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted over his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden.

The case, to be argued Thursday, stems from Trump’s attempts to have charges against him dismissed. Lower courts have found he cannot claim for actions that, prosecutors say, illegally sought to interfere with the election results.

Trump has been charged in federal court in Washington with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, one of four criminal cases he is facing. A trial has begun in New York over hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an alleged sexual encounter.

The Supreme Court is moving faster than usual in taking up the case, though not as quickly as special counsel Jack Smith wanted, raising questions about whether there will be time to hold a trial before the November election, if the justices agree with lower courts that Trump can be prosecuted.

The justices ruled earlier this term in another case that arose from Trump’s actions following the election, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court unanimously held that states could not invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment known as the insurrection clause to prevent Trump from appearing on presidential ballots.

Here are some things to know:

When the justices agreed on Feb. 28 to hear the case, they put the issue this way: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

That’s a question the Supreme Court has never had to answer. Never before has a former president faced criminal charges so the court hasn’t had occasion to take up the question of whether the president’s unique role means he should be shielded from prosecution, even after he has left office.

Both sides point to the absence of previous prosecutions to undergird their arguments. Trump’s lawyers told the court that presidents would lose their independence and be unable to function in office if they knew their actions in office could lead to criminal charges once their terms were over. Smith’s team wrote that the lack of previous criminal charges “underscores the unprecedented nature” of what Trump is accused of.

Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace nearly 50 years ago rather than face impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate in the Watergate scandal.

Both Trump’s lawyers and Smith’s team are invoking Nixon at the Supreme Court.

Trump’s team cites Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a 1982 case in which the Supreme Court held by a 5-4 vote that former presidents cannot be sued in civil cases for their actions while in office. The case grew out of the firing of a civilian Air Force analyst who testified before Congress about cost overruns in the production of the C-5A transport plane.

“In view of the special nature of the President’s constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility,” Justice Lewis Powell wrote for the court.

But that decision recognized a difference between civil lawsuits and “the far weightier” enforcement of federal criminal laws, Smith’s team told the court. They also invoked the high court decision that forced Nixon to turn over incriminating White House tapes for use in the prosecutions of his top aides.

And prosecutors also pointed to President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Nixon, and Nixon’s acceptance of it, as resting “on the understanding that the former President faced potential criminal liability.”

The subtext of the immunity fight is about timing. Trump has sought to push back the trial until after the election, when, if he were to regain the presidency, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case. Prosecutors have been pressing for a quick decision from the Supreme Court so that the clock can restart on trial preparations. It could take three months once the court acts before a trial actually starts.

If the court hands down its decision in late June, which would be the typical timeframe for a case argued so late in the court’s term, there might not be enough time to start the trial before the election.

Trump is represented by D. John Sauer, a former Rhodes Scholar and Supreme Court clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. While serving as Missouri’s solicitor general, Sauer won the only Supreme Court case he has argued until now, a 5-4 decision in an execution case. Sauer also filed legal briefs asking the Supreme Court to repudiate Biden’s victory in 2020.

In addition to working for Scalia early in his legal career, Sauer also served as a law clerk to Michael Luttig when he was a Republican-appointed judge on the Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court. Luttig joined with other former government officials on a brief urging the Supreme Court to allow the prosecution to proceed. Luttig also advised Vice President Mike Pence not to succumb to pressure from Trump to reject some electoral votes, part of Trump’s last-ditch plan to remain in office.

The justices are quite familiar with Sauer’s opponent, Michael Dreeben. As a longtime Justice Department official, Dreeben argued more than 100 cases at the court, many of them related to criminal law. Dreeben was part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and joined Smith’s team last year after a stint in private practice.

In Dreeben’s very first Supreme Court case 35 years ago, he faced off against Chief Justice John Roberts, then a lawyer in private practice.

Of the nine justices hearing the case, three were nominated by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. But it’s the presence of a justice confirmed decades before Trump’s presidency, Justice Clarence Thomas, that’s generated the most controversy.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, urged the reversal of the 2020 election results and then attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot. That has prompted calls for the justice to step aside from several court cases involving Trump and Jan. 6.

But Thomas has ignored the calls, taking part in the unanimous court decision that found states cannot kick Trump off the ballot as well as last week’s arguments over whether prosecutors can use a particular obstruction charge against Capitol riot defendants. Trump faces the same charge in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution in Washington.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is returning to Washington on Tuesday to vote on $95 billion in war aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, taking the final steps in Congress to send the legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk after months of delays and contentious internal debate over how involved the United States should be abroad.

The $61 billion for Ukraine comes as the war-torn country desperately needs new firepower and as Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped up his attacks. Soldiers have struggled to hold the front lines as Russia has seized the momentum on the battlefield and forced Ukraine to cede significant territory.

Bidentold Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday the U.S. will soon send badly needed air defense weaponry. The House approved the package Saturday in a series of four votes, sending it back to the Senate for final approval.

“The President has assured me that the package will be approved quickly and that it will be powerful, strengthening our air defense as well as long-range and artillery capabilities,” Zelenskyy said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

The legislation also would send $26 billion in wartime assistance to Israel and humanitarian relief to citizens of Gaza, and $8 billion to counter China in Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. In an effort to gain more votes, Republicans in the House majority also added a bill to the package that could ban the social media app TikTok in the U.S. if its Chinese owners do not sell their stake within a year. The foreign aid portion of the bill is similar to what the Senate passed in February with some minor changes and additions, including the TikTok bill and a stipulation that $9 billion of the economic assistance to Ukraine is in the form of “forgivable loans.”

The package has had broad congressional support since Biden first requested the money last summer. But congressional leaders had to navigate strong opposition from a growing number of conservatives who question U.S. involvement in foreign wars and argue that Congress should be focused instead on the surge of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The growing fault line in the GOP between those conservatives who are skeptical of the aid and the more traditional, “Reagan-era” Republicans who strongly support it may prove to be career-defining for the two top Republican leaders. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who has made the Ukraine aid a top priority, said last month that he would step down from leadership after becoming increasingly distanced from many in his conference on the issue and others. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who put the bills on the floor after praying for guidance, faces threats of an ouster after a majority of Republicans voted against them.

McConnell has made clear that stopping Putin is important enough for him to stake his political capital.

“The national security of the United States depends on the willingness of its leaders to build, sustain, and exercise hard power,” McConnell said after House passage Saturday, adding, “I make no apology for taking these linked threats seriously or for urging the Biden administration and my colleagues in Congress to do the same.”

Johnson said after House passage that “we did our work here, and I think history will judge it well.”

The Senate could pass the aid package, now combined back into one bill, as soon as Tuesday afternoon if senators are able to agree on the timing for a vote. If Republicans who oppose the legislation decide to protest and draw out the process, final votes would likely be Wednesday.

The legislation was first passed by the Senate in February on a sweeping 70-29 vote, and it could get even more votes this time after the House added in the loan provisions. The idea for a loan started with former President Donald Trump, who had been opposed to the aid.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a longtime GOP hawk who voted against it in February because it wasn’t paired with legislation to stem migration at the border, praised Johnson after the vote and indicated he will vote for it this time. “The idea that the United States will be safer if we pull the plug on our friends and allies overseas is wrong,” he said on X.

The revised House package also included several Republican priorities that were acceptable to Democrats to get the bill passed. Those include proposals that allow the U.S. to seize frozen Russian central bank assets to rebuild Ukraine; impose sanctions on Iran, Russia, China and criminal organizations that traffic fentanyl; and could eventually ban TikTok in the U.S. if the owner, ByteDance Ltd., doesn’t sell. That bill has wide bipartisan support in the House and Senate.

Opponents in the Senate, like the House, are likely to include some left-wing senators who are opposed to aiding Israel as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has bombarded Gaza and killed thousands of civilians. Vermont Sens. Bernie Sanders, an independent, and Peter Welch, a Democrat, both voted against the package in February.

“This bill provides Netanyahu $10 billion more in unrestricted military aid for his horrific war against the Palestinian people,” Sanders said on X just before that vote. “That is unconscionable.”

After Starbucks fired seven workers who were trying to unionize their Tennessee store, a U.S. government agency obtained a court order forcing the company to rehire them. Now, Starbucks wants the Supreme Court to curb the government’s power in such cases.

On Tuesday, justices are scheduled to hear Starbucks’ case against the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that protects the right of employees to organize. If the court sides with Starbucks, it could make it tougher for the NLRB to step in when it alleges corporate interference in unionization efforts.

The hearing comes even as the animosity between Starbucks and Workers United, the union organizing its workers, has begun to fade. The two sides announced in February that they would restart talks with the aim of reaching contract agreements this year. Starbucks and union representatives planned to meet Tuesday for their first bargaining session in nearly a year.

Workers at 420 company-owned U.S. Starbucks stores have voted to unionize since late 2021, but none of those stores has secured a labor agreement with Starbucks.

The case before the Supreme Court began in February 2022, when Starbucks fired seven employees who were leading a unionization effort in Memphis, Tennessee. Starbucks argued the employees had violated policy by reopening the store after closing time and inviting non-employees — including a television news crew — to come inside.

The National Labor Relations Board determined the firings constituted an illegal interference with workers’ right to organize. The agency found that Starbucks had routinely allowed off-duty employees and non-employees to remain in the store after hours to make drinks or collect belongings.

The NLRB asked a federal district court to intervene and require Starbucks to rehire the workers while the case wound its way through the agency’s administrative proceedings. A district court judge agreed with the NLRB and issued a temporary injunction ordering Starbucks to rehire the workers in August 2022. After the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, Starbucks appealed to the Supreme Court.

Five of the seven workers are still employed at the Memphis store, while the other two remain involved with the organizing effort, according to Workers United. The Memphis store voted to unionize in June 2022.

Starbucks said the Supreme Court should intervene because federal appeals courts don’t agree on the standards the NLRB must meet when it requests a temporary injunction against a company. Starbucks says temporary injunctions can be a major burden for companies, since the NLRB’s administrative process can take years.

Since 1947, the National Labor Relations Act — the law that governs the agency — has allowed courts to grant temporary injunctions requested by the NLRB if it finds them “just and proper.” In its review of what transpired at the Starbucks store in Memphis, the Sixth Circuit required the NLRB to establish two things: that it had reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and that a restraining order would be a “just and proper” solution.

But other federal appeals courts have required the NLRB to meet a four-factor test when seeking restraining orders, including showing it was likely to prevail in the administrative case and employees would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

Starbucks has asked the Supreme Court to establish the four-factor test as the standard all courts must follow when considering NLRB injunction cases.

“This court’s intervention is urgently needed,” Starbucks wrote in an October court filing. “National employers like Starbucks must defend themselves against years-long injunctions under materially different tests depending on where alleged unfair labor practices occur or where employers reside.”

The NLRB says it already considers its likelihood of success before taking a case to court, making whether courts apply two factors or four largely irrelevant. The agency notes that it rarely asks courts for temporary injunctions; in its 2023 fiscal year, it received 19,869 charges of unfair labor practices and authorized the filing of 14 cases seeking temporary injunctions.

“The two-part inquiry undertaken by the Sixth Circuit and other courts … subjects board petitions to meaningful scrutiny, and does not call for courts merely to ‘rubber-stamp’ agency requests,” the NLRB argued in a filing last month.

___

Durbin reported from Detroit.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is wading deeper into the fight over abortion rights that has energized Democrats since the fall of Roe vs. Wade, traveling to Florida to assail the state’s forthcoming ban and similar restrictions that have imperiled access to care for pregnant women nationwide.

Tuesday’s campaign visit to Tampa takes Biden to the epicenter of the latest battle over abortion restrictions. The state’s six-week abortion ban is poised to go into effect May 1 at the same time that Florida voters are gearing up for a ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution.

Biden is seeking to capitalize on the unceasing momentum against abortion restrictions nationwide to not only buoy his reelection bid in battleground states he won in 2020, but also to go on the offensive against Donald Trump in states that the presumptive Republican nominee won four years ago. One of those states is Florida, where Biden lost by 3.3 percentage points to Trump.

At the same time, advocates on the ground say support for abortion access cuts across parties. They’re intent on making the issue as nonpartisan as possible as they work to scrounge up at least 60% support from voters for the ballot initiative.

That could mean in some cases, Florida voters would split their tickets, backing GOP candidates while supporting the abortion measure.

“I think that normal people are aware that a candidate campaign is really different than a ballot initiative,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for Floridians Protecting Freedom, which gathered signatures to put the abortion question before voters. “You can vote for your preferred candidate of any political party and still not agree with them on every single issue.”

Brenzel continued, “This gives voters an opportunity to have their message heard on one policy platform.”

On the same day the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure could go before voters, it also upheld the state’s 15-week abortion ban. That subsequently cleared the way for the new ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, which is often before women know they are pregnant, to go into effect next week.

Organizers of the abortion ballot measure say they collected nearly 1.5 million signatures to put the issue before voters, although the state stopped counting at just under a million. Roughly 891,500 signatures were required. Of the total number of signatures, about 35% were from either registered Republican voters or those not affiliated with a party, organizers said.

State Rep. Anna Eskamani, a Democrat, said if the abortion ballot initiative becomes branded as a partisan effort, “it just makes it more challenging to reach 60%.” Eskamani, who worked at Planned Parenthood before running for political office, said she is encouraging the Biden administration to focus broadly on the impact of a six-week ban and let the ballot measure speak for itself.

“At the end of the day, the ballot initiative is going to be a multimillion-dollar campaign that stands very strongly on its own,” Eskamani said.

While in Florida, Biden is sure to go on the attack against his general election challenger, who has said abortion is a matter for states to decide.

Trump’s campaign did not respond to a question on whether the former president, a Florida voter, would oppose or support the ballot measure. In an NBC interview last September, Trump called Florida’s six-week ban “terrible.” But he has repeatedly highlighted the justices he tapped for the U.S. Supreme Court who, through the 2022 ruling that ended a constitutional right to an abortion, cleared the way for such restrictions to be written.

Trump and other Republicans are aware that voter backlash against newfound abortion restrictions could be a serious liability this fall.

Abortion-rights supporters have won every time the issue has been put before voters, including in solidly conservative states such as Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio. Last month, a Democrat in a suburban state House district in Alabama flipped the seat from Republican control by campaigning on abortion rights, weeks after in vitro fertilization services had been paused in the state.

Nikki Fried, the chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, said Florida will be a competitive state on the presidential level “because of the extremism that has come out of Florida.” There are no Democrats in a statewide elected position and no Democrat has won the state on the presidential level since 2012, but state party officials have found some glimmers of political change in vastly smaller races, such as the open Jacksonville mayor’s race last May that saw a Democrat win in what was once a solidly Republican city.

Alongside the abortion initiative, Floridians will also vote on a ballot measure on whether to legalize recreational marijuana later this fall that could also juice turnout and enthusiasm in favor of Democrats.

Republicans were dismissive of the Biden campaign and the broader Democratic Party’s efforts to use abortion as a political cudgel, arguing that other issues will matter more with voters in November.

“Floridians’ top issues are immigration, the economy and inflation; in all three areas Joe Biden has failed,” said Evan Power, the chairman of the state Republican Party. “Instead of coming to talk to Floridians about manufactured issues, he should get to work solving the real issues that he has failed to lead on.”

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — The University of Michigan is informing students of the rules for upcoming graduation ceremonies: Banners and flags are not allowed. Protests are OK but in designated areas away from the cap-and-gown festivities.

The University of Southern California canceled a planned speech by the school’s Muslim valedictorian. At Columbia University, where 100 students were arrested last week following protests, officials temporarily canceled in-person classes Monday as they work to find a resolution to the crisis.

This is commencement season 2024, punctuated by the tension and volatility that has roiled college campuses since Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel. Militants killed about 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and took roughly 250 hostages. In response, Israel has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to the local health ministry.

Since the war began, colleges and universities have struggled to balance campus safety with free speech rights amid intense student debate and protests. Many schools that tolerated protests and other disruptions for months are now doling out more heavy-handed discipline. A series of recent campus crackdowns on student protesters have included suspensions and, in some cases, expulsions.

Columbia University President Minouche Shafik said the Middle East conflict is terrible and she understands many are experiencing deep moral distress.

“But we cannot have one group dictate terms and attempt to disrupt important milestones like graduation to advance their point of view,” she wrote in a note addressed to the school community Monday.

The new measures have done little to stop protests. As recently as Monday, pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up encampments on campuses around the country, including at Columbia, the University of Michigan, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale University, where several dozen protesters were arrested after officials said they defied warnings to leave.

While the majority of protests across college campuses have been peaceful, some have turned aggressive. Some Jewish students say much of the criticism of Israel has veered into antisemitism and made them feel unsafe.

Protesters are asking universities to take a number of actions, such as calling for a cease-fire in the war, or divesting from defense companies that do business with Israel.

“The weapons being made in this country are being sent to Israel and being used in the war on Gaza, and so obviously we have to make those connections,” said Craig Birckhead-Morton, a Yale senior who was arrested Monday after refusing to leave a protest encampment. “We have to highlight the difficulties the Palestinian people are going through.”

At MIT, protesters also have asked the university to stop what they say is funding from the Ministry of Defense in Israel to university projects with military objectives.

“We believe that we have a platform that students in other universities don’t have because of our unique ties to the Israeli military,” said Shara Bhuiyan, a 21-year-old senior studying electrical engineering and computer science.

The intense emotions on both sides have created a climate that has unsettled both Jewish and Muslim students. More than half of such students, and a fifth of all college students, reported feeling unsafe on campus because of their stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a report published in March by the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

Earlier this month, the Anti-Defamation League sent an open letter to college and university presidents urging them to “take clear decisive action” to ensure graduation ceremonies run smoothly and safely.

“We remain deeply concerned regarding the possibility of substantial disruptions during commencement ceremonies,” Shira Goodman, the ADL’s senior director of advocacy, said in an emailed statement.

On Thursday, Shafik, the Columbia president, summoned New York City police to clear a pro-Palestinian tent camp from the university’s campus after student protesters had ignored repeated demands to leave — what she described as an “extraordinary step” to keep the campus safe.

All 100 or so students arrested were charged with trespassing and then several were suspended — but as of Monday, a large protest encampment was once again set up on the campus’s main lawn, the very place where graduating students and families are set to gather next month.

The arrests came a day after Shafik pledged during a congressional hearing on antisemitism to balance students’ safety with their right to free speech. Following similar testimony last year, the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania — answering accusations that universities were failing to protect Jewish students — resigned.

Several other college campuses around the country kicked off the new year with revised protest rules. In January, American University banned indoor protests. Harvard started the spring semester with guidance effectively limiting protests to outdoor areas.

The University of Michigan drafted a proposed “Disruptive Activity Policy” earlier this month. Violations of the policy, which has not yet been implemented, could result in suspension or expulsion of students and termination of university staff.

The proposal came in response to a raucous March 24 protest that halted the school’s annual honors convocation, a 100-year-old tradition preceding the May 4 graduation. Protesters interrupted a speech by university President Santa J. Ono with shouts of, “You’re funding genocide!” and unfurled banners that said: “Free Palestine,” forcing an abrupt end to the ceremony.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said in a letter to Ono that the policy “is vague and overbroad, and risks chilling a substantial amount of free speech and expression.”

But in a letter to the campus, Ono remarked that “while protest is valued and protected, disruptions are not.”

“One group’s right to protest does not supersede the right of others to participate in a joyous event,” he wrote.

At Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, more than two dozen anti-Israel demonstrators stormed the university president’s office in late March, refusing to leave for hours. Three of the students were expelled, including freshman Jack Petocz.

“It’s a very scary moment,” said Petocz, 19, who is appealing the decision. “It’s about the crackdown on free speech on campuses but it’s also about campuses becoming police states.”

Last Monday, the University of Southern California cited “substantial risks relating to security and disruption at the commencement” when it announced it would break from tradition and not allow valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a first-generation South Asian American Muslim, to deliver a speech at the May 10 commencement.

The decision sparked outrage and several days of protests on campus, prompting another unexpected shake-up days later: the cancellation of a keynote speaker for the first time since 1942.

The events at USC have raised concern that other schools will bow to pressure and erode free speech, said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, a civil rights attorney and national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

“I am worried that schools might decline to select a qualified visibly Muslim student who advocates for Palestine, to avoid what happened at USC,” he said. “Schools are going to do more harm than good if they try to censor and silence commencement speakers, and especially students who have received the honor of speaking at their graduation ceremonies.”

___

Gecker reported from San Francisco.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.