Law enforcement officials identified the suspect as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, and said he was armed with multiple weapons before being stopped by Secret Service personnel near the event’s main security perimeter.

One law enforcement officer was struck in a bullet-resistant vest and is expected to recover, according to officials cited by The Associated Press.Addressing reporters later at the White House, Trump said the suspect had been carrying several weapons and described the officer’s survival as the result of close-range protective gear performance.

“He was shot from very close distance with a very powerful gun, and the vest did the job,” Trump said.The incident unfolded just as Trump was preparing to deliver remarks at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, his first attendance at the annual event as president.

Guests inside the subterranean ballroom reported hearing between five and eight shots before Secret Service agents rushed toward the president.Witnesses said agents surrounded Trump onstage as guests ducked beneath tables and shouted warnings echoed through the hall.

During the evacuation, Trump briefly stumbled and was helped to his feet by security personnel before being escorted out.The banquet hall, filled with journalists, political leaders and public figures, was immediately placed under lockdown. National Guard personnel and law enforcement officers secured exits while helicopters circled overhead and surrounding streets were sealed off.

Among those evacuated were Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and House Speaker Mike Johnson.Johnson later said he and his wife were “praying for our country tonight,” while House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said “The violence and chaos in America must end.”

Republican Representative Mike Lawler of New York, who attended the dinner, said the uncertainty in the room escalated quickly after the first loud noise.“We didn’t know what the hell it was,” Lawler said, adding that threats against public officials have become increasingly common.

The event briefly appeared likely to resume as staff reset tables, refilled water glasses and prepared Trump’s teleprompter. However, White House Correspondents’ Association President Weijia Jiang later announced the dinner would be canceled and rescheduled.“We will do this again,” Jiang told attendees.

The annual dinner, traditionally attended by presidents, journalists, lawmakers and celebrities, has long served as one of Washington’s most visible intersections of politics and media. Trump had not attended during his first term or the first year of his second term, making Saturday’s appearance particularly notable given his administration’s strained relationship with the press.

In recent months, Trump’s administration has clashed repeatedly with major media organizations including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press, while facing criticism over restrictions on press access and legal disputes involving journalists.

Ahead of the dinner, nearly 500 retired journalists signed a petition urging the correspondents’ association to take a stronger stand against what they described as threats to press freedom.Outside the hotel, a small group of protesters gathered before the event, some carrying signs criticizing the administration’s treatment of the media.

Authorities have not yet released further details about the suspect’s motive or how he reached the security perimeter of one of Washington’s most heavily protected political events.

The suggestion was attributed to Paolo Zampolli, a U.S. special envoy for global partnerships, who according to the Financial Times raised the possibility with U.S. President Donald Trump and FIFA president Gianni Infantino as a contingency plan should Iran withdraw.

Zampolli told the Associated Press the proposal was not political and framed it as a hypothetical scenario. “My request was for the Italian people and the American-Italian people,” he said, adding that Italy’s four World Cup titles could justify its inclusion.Italian officials rejected the idea.

Sports Minister Andrea Abodi said “it’s not possible” and “not a good idea,” while Luciano Buonfiglio said participation in the tournament must be earned on merit. Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti described the suggestion as “shameful.”Iran has not withdrawn from the World Cup and is preparing to play matches scheduled in U.S. cities including Los Angeles and Seattle in June.

FIFA has maintained that Iran’s fixtures will proceed as planned and has declined to comment on proposals to alter the lineup.Speaking at the White House, Trump said he had not given the matter much thought but called it “an interesting question.”

He deferred to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said no U.S. decision had been made to bar Iranian players from entering the country.Rubio indicated that concerns, if any, would relate to non-athlete personnel accompanying the team.

“The problem with Iran would be, not their athletes. It would be some of the other people that they want to bring with them,” he said, adding that authorities might restrict entry to certain individuals.Iran’s embassy in Rome criticized the proposal, saying in a statement on X that football “belongs to the people, not to politicians,” and describing any attempt to exclude the team as unjustified.

Iran secured qualification through the Asian Football Confederation and has publicly affirmed its intention to participate. An Iranian government spokesperson said this week that the national team is preparing for “proud and successful participation.

”Italy failed to qualify for the World Cup for a third consecutive time, following a campaign that led to the resignation of its national team coach and football federation president.

FIFA regulations state that in the event of a team’s withdrawal, a replacement may be selected from another association, though the rules do not explicitly require the substitute to come from the same continental confederation.

The remarks originated from U.S. conservative radio host Michael Savage during an episode of his show “The Savage Nation,” in which he criticized birthright citizenship in the United States and referred to countries including India and China in derogatory terms.

Trump reposted a transcript of the comments on his Truth Social platform on Thursday without adding his own remarks.

India’s foreign ministry responded strongly, with spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal saying the remarks were “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” and did not reflect the longstanding relationship between the two countries.

“The remarks certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-U.S. relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests,” Jaiswal said in a statement.

The U.S. embassy in New Delhi cited Trump as having previously described India as “a great country,” seeking to underscore the broader context of ties between the two nations.The comments come amid ongoing debate in the United States over birthright citizenship, with Trump pursuing restrictions that are currently under legal challenge in the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a rare presidential visit to the court.India’s main opposition Indian National Congress condemned the remarks as “extremely insulting,” urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to formally raise the issue with Washington.

Government data show approximately 5.5 million people of Indian origin reside in the United States, forming one of the largest Asian-origin communities alongside Chinese Americans.Despite the diplomatic friction, both countries have been engaged in efforts to strengthen economic ties.

Following a period of trade tensions, including the imposition of high U.S. tariffs on Indian goods last year, New Delhi and Washington are currently working toward a trade agreement aimed at boosting bilateral commerce and avoiding further tariff escalations.

The settlement resolves claims brought by Page, a former adviser to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, who argued in a 2020 lawsuit that he was subjected to improper monitoring by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Page denied any ties to Russia and was never charged with a crime. His lawsuit cited errors and omissions in surveillance applications submitted by FBI and Justice Department officials in 2016 and 2017, which sought authorization to monitor him as a suspected foreign agent.

The agreement was disclosed in a filing to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Page had appealed after lower courts dismissed his claims as untimely. The filing did not specify the financial terms, but a person familiar with the matter confirmed the $1.25 million figure.

The settlement does not extend to claims Page filed against individual former FBI officials, which remain separate.The lawsuit followed a critical report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, which identified significant flaws in the surveillance applications.

Former officials involved in approving the warrants later said they would not have done so had they been aware of the full extent of the issues, while the FBI has since implemented more than 40 corrective measures to strengthen oversight and accuracy.

The surveillance of Page constituted only a limited part of the broader inquiry into links between Trump’s campaign and Russia. That investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller, found that Russia interfered in the election in Trump’s favor but did not establish sufficient evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy between the campaign and Moscow.

In a related development, the Justice Department reached a separate settlement last month with Michael Flynn, agreeing to pay approximately $1.2 million.

Flynn had pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about contacts with a Russian diplomat before later receiving a presidential pardon.

The complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick and challenges an article published on Friday that cited anonymous sources describing what it called “conspicuous inebriation” and erratic availability during Patel’s tenure.

Patel denied the allegations in comments to Reuters, calling the report “a lie” and accusing the publication of knowingly printing false information despite receiving prior denials. “They were given the truth before they published, and they chose to print falsehoods anyway,” he said.

The article, which was later retitled online, reported that early meetings had been rescheduled due to late-night drinking and that Patel was frequently unreachable, delaying investigative decisions. The report included denials from the White House, the Department of Justice and Patel himself.

In a statement, The Atlantic said it stands by its reporting and would “vigorously defend” against what it described as a meritless lawsuit.The lawsuit alleges the publication acted with “actual malice,” a legal standard requiring public figures to prove that false information was knowingly published or recklessly disregarded.

Patel’s filing argues that editors failed to adequately consider detailed rebuttals provided before publication and did not allow sufficient time for response.Legal experts note that U.S. defamation law sets a high threshold for public officials.

Deanna Shullman said proving actual malice is difficult and that failing to obtain comment alone is generally insufficient to meet the standard.The complaint also references a letter sent by Patel’s attorney, Jesse Binnall, shortly before publication requesting more time to respond to multiple allegations.

The lawsuit claims the article was published without addressing those objections.The case adds to a series of legal actions by figures linked to the administration of Donald Trump against media organizations, though courts have previously dismissed several similar defamation claims.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit put on hold a preliminary injunction issued a day earlier by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, granting the Justice Department’s request for interim relief while the appeal proceeds. The panel scheduled oral arguments for June 5 to determine whether construction should remain paused during the broader legal review.

The appeals court’s brief order did not address the underlying legal merits of the dispute, which centers on whether the executive branch had the authority to demolish the historic East Wing and proceed with new construction without explicit approval from Congress.

The lawsuit was filed in December by the National Trust for Historic Preservation against the Trump administration and several federal agencies. The group argued that the demolition of the East Wing and the planned ballroom project violated federal preservation laws and exceeded the authority of both the president and the National Park Service.

Judge Leon, in his earlier ruling, sided with the plaintiffs’ argument that the project could not proceed lawfully without congressional authorization, prompting the administration to seek immediate relief from the appeals court to avoid construction delays.

The White House has defended the project as a privately funded initiative backed by donors, describing it as part of a broader effort to modernize the presidential residence while enhancing security infrastructure.

Trump has repeatedly framed the ballroom as a signature addition to the White House complex.Neither the National Trust for Historic Preservation nor the White House responded immediately to requests for comment following the appeals court’s decision issued late Friday.

The case highlights tensions between executive authority and statutory protections governing historic federal properties, with potential implications for how future administrations undertake structural changes to nationally significant sites.

In a social media post, Trump said the pope should “stop catering to the Radical Left,” adding that Leo was “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.” Speaking to reporters later at Joint Base Andrews after arriving on Air Force One, Trump reiterated his criticism, saying, “I’m not a fan of Pope Leo.”

The remarks followed comments by Pope Leo over the weekend condemning what he described as the “delusion of omnipotence” driving the U.S.-Israel war in Iran, and calling on political leaders to pursue negotiations to end the conflict.

The pope delivered his message during an evening prayer service at St. Peter’s Basilica, coinciding with the start of direct talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan under a fragile ceasefire arrangement.

While Leo did not explicitly mention Trump or the United States, his remarks were widely interpreted as directed at U.S. leadership, which has defended military actions and emphasized American strategic strength in the region.

The exchange marks a rare public dispute between a U.S. president and a sitting pope, and underscores broader divisions over foreign policy and the role of military force in resolving international conflicts.

Recent remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding Iran have prompted renewed discussion among some Democratic lawmakers about the potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting president from office.

The debate, however, reflects more of a political signal than a viable constitutional pathway, given the significant institutional and partisan barriers involved.The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, was designed to clarify presidential succession and ensure continuity of executive authority.

It addressed longstanding gaps in the Constitution, particularly the absence of a clear mechanism for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service indicates that between 1789 and 1967, the vice presidency remained vacant for a cumulative total exceeding 37 years due to deaths, resignations, or succession.

The amendment comprises multiple sections, but current political discussion has centered on Section 4, which outlines a process for involuntarily transferring presidential powers if the president is deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office. Under this provision, the vice president, together with a majority of the cabinet or another congressionally designated body, can declare the president unfit.

If the president contests the determination, Congress must convene within 48 hours, and a two-thirds majority in both chambers is required to uphold the decision.While Section 3 of the amendment has been used in limited circumstances, primarily involving temporary medical incapacitation, Section 4 has never been invoked.

In 2021, then-President Joe Biden temporarily transferred authority during a medical procedure, illustrating the amendment’s routine procedural application rather than its more controversial provisions.

Calls to consider Section 4 have surfaced previously, most notably after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, when some Democratic leaders urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to initiate the process. Among those advocating such action were Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Those efforts did not advance, reflecting both political constraints and the high constitutional threshold required.The current discussion emerges in a similarly constrained environment. Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, making bipartisan cooperation essential for any attempt to proceed.

Analysts note that without substantial defections from within the president’s party, the two-thirds congressional requirement effectively renders the mechanism unattainable under present conditions.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, characterized the prospect as politically unworkable, citing the improbability of sufficient Republican support.

Public opinion data further underscores this dynamic, with approximately 82 percent of Republican voters expressing approval of Trump’s presidency, reinforcing party cohesion at a critical juncture.The political risks for Democrats are also significant.

Previous efforts to remove Trump through impeachment during his first term failed to secure conviction in the Senate, despite passage in the House. Those experiences continue to inform strategic calculations within the party, particularly as lawmakers prepare for upcoming midterm elections in which control of Congress remains contested.

Some Democratic legislators have indicated a preference to prioritize policy initiatives over procedural challenges to the presidency. Representative Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania stated that pursuing impeachment or similar measures at this stage may not represent the most effective use of legislative time, emphasizing instead issues such as economic policy, inflation, and childcare access.

Republican leaders have responded critically to the renewed focus on the amendment. House Speaker Mike Johnson described the discussion as politically motivated, arguing that it reflects a lack of substantive policy direction among Democratic lawmakers.

The exchange highlights the broader partisan divide that shapes both the feasibility and the framing of constitutional mechanisms in contemporary U.S. politics.

The renewed attention to the 25th Amendment illustrates its enduring relevance as a constitutional safeguard, while also underscoring the practical limitations of its most consequential provisions.

Although designed to address extraordinary circumstances, its application remains contingent on political consensus at the highest levels of government, a condition that appears absent in the current landscape.

The proposed “Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office” would create a 17-member body empowered to assess whether a president is fit to remain in office under criteria including physical or mental incapacity, or impairment due to substance use.

The initiative revives legislation first introduced by Raskin in 2020 during Trump’s first term.The move comes as some Democrats in Congress have renewed discussions about possible impeachment proceedings or invoking the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides a mechanism to transfer presidential powers if a leader is deemed unable to perform official duties.

Raskin’s proposal is unlikely to advance in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where Speaker Mike Johnson has been a strong supporter of Trump. Republican lawmakers in both chambers have also blocked separate Democratic efforts to pass a resolution aimed at ending recent U.S. military actions in Iran that were not formally authorized by Congress.

Political tensions have escalated following Trump’s recent warning that “a whole civilization will die” unless Iran permits free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a key global shipping route. The statement came after U.S. forces, alongside Israel, launched military operations against Iran beginning February 28, raising concerns among lawmakers about the scope and objectives of the intervention.

Trump, who is serving his second term, was impeached twice during his first presidency but was acquitted on both occasions by the Senate.

While many Democrats had previously avoided renewed impeachment efforts, recent developments have prompted some within the party to revisit options for challenging Trump’s continuation in office, though views remain divided within the caucus.

Renderings released by the administration depict a large white arch topped with gilded sculptures, including a winged Lady Liberty flanked by two eagles, along with gold inscriptions reading “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All.”

The proposed structure would be located on Columbia Island in the Potomac River, positioned at the end of Arlington Memorial Bridge and visible from Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia.

At 250 feet, the proposed monument would surpass Mexico City’s Monument to the Revolution by approximately 30 feet, making it the tallest triumphal arch globally, according to figures cited in the proposal. It would also exceed the height of the nearby Lincoln Memorial, which stands at 99 feet.

Trump described the project in a social media post as “the greatest and most beautiful triumphal arch” and said it would serve as a lasting addition to the capital.

The initiative forms part of a broader set of architectural and renovation efforts undertaken during his second term, including plans for a new White House ballroom and changes to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The design has been submitted to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the federal body responsible for advising on matters of design and aesthetics in the capital. The administration previously replaced members of the commission in October, appointing new figures as it advanced multiple construction and redesign proposals across Washington.

The arch proposal coincides with preparations for the United States’ semiquincentennial in 2026, commemorating the 1776 Declaration of Independence from Britain.

The same commission recently approved the design of a commemorative gold coin bearing Trump’s likeness as part of the anniversary initiatives.