By LEAH ASKARINAM, MAYA SWEEDLER and MATT BROWN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A crowded primary season in Illinois is shaping up as the next test for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful advocacy organization that’s generating fresh turmoil over the Democratic Party’s relationship to Israel and the role of undisclosed campaign cash in this year’s midterm elections.

Related Articles

What to watch as the midterms begin with Tuesday’s primaries

House Democrats say they’re headed back to power. Their agenda is a work in progress

Trump heads to Texas, where 3 supporters are battling it out in the Senate Republican primary

US moves to legally control tanker and 2M barrels of oil seized off Venezuela’s coast in December

Bill Clinton says he ‘did nothing wrong’ with Epstein as he faces grilling over their relationship

AIPAC, which was founded decades ago to lobby for U.S. support for Israel, has reserved at least $1.9 million in advertisements through its super PAC in the race to replace Rep. Danny Davis, a veteran politician who is retiring. The organization hopes to boost Melissa Conyears-Ervin, the city treasurer in Chicago, to victory over a dozen other candidates in the March 17 primary.

Other organizations that critics believe are tied to AIPAC are also spending heavily in Illinois, a source of bitterness and recriminations in a state already known for its bare knuckled brand of politics.

The aggressive spending comes after AIPAC put almost $2 million into a recent Democratic primary for a special election in New Jersey, an effort that’s widely considered to have backfired. AIPAC targeted Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who narrowly lost to progressive candidate Analilia Mejia — who has been outspoken in criticism of Israel.

But AIPAC appears undaunted by the experience, despite an outpouring of criticism from across the political spectrum.

“We expect to be involved in dozens of races both in primaries and general elections this cycle,” said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project, or UDP.

AIPAC has more urgently pursued its mission as Democratic skepticism and even hostility toward the U.S.-Israel relationship increases because of the war in Gaza, jeopardizing traditional bipartisan support for military assistance to a historic ally. But the group’s assertive interventions in this year’s primaries, which are expected to expand in the months to come, also risk further fracturing the party and eroding any remaining goodwill.

AIPAC has been dividing line in Illinois primary

Campaign finance laws involving super PACs make it nearly impossible to ascertain who is behind much of the money being spent in Illinois. Although UDP is open about its affiliation, recently created groups like Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now haven’t yet been required to disclose the sources of their money.

Neither group is obligated to disclose its funding until after the Illinois’ primary. Critics suspect they’re conduits for AIPAC money, and AIPAC has declined to say whether there’s any connection.

UDP, Elect Chicago Women and Affordable Chicago Now are three of the top four spenders on advertisements in House races so far, with almost $11 million total, and the majority going to Illinois. Financial numbers are drawn from AdImpact, a nonpartisan ad-tracking service.

None of the organizations mention Israel in their campaign messaging, a strategy that AIPAC-affiliated groups have used in the past as well.

For example, the United Democracy Project assailed Malinowski in New Jersey as sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts, undermining him with liberal voters. In Illinois, it is promoting Conyears-Ervin to replace Davis in the 7th congressional district by saying she will fight to lower costs and protect healthcare.

The strategy has contributed to speculation and angst about AIPAC’s influence in politics. Supporters of Israel accuse critics of using antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty, and others say the focus on AIPAC is misplaced.

“I think the folks who are talking the most about AIPAC are seeking to demonize Israel and create a break in the U.S.-Israel relationship,” said Rep. Brad Schneider, a Democrat who represents Illinois’ 10th district.

“The problem is Citizens United and the decision to allow dark money,” said Schneider, the co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus. “The problem is the rules. Let’s fix the rules.”

Candidates have been criticizing each other for their perceived willingness to accept help from AIPAC. Four progressive candidates vying for different Illinois congressional seats jointly condemned the organization’s role in the state’s primaries during a press conference in February. Another candidate is selling shirts on her website with anti-AIPAC messaging.

AIPAC has increased its campaign spending in recent years

Malinowski is still raw over his experience as AIPAC’s target in New Jersey, and he said that he won’t support any candidates backed by the organization this year. He described himself as pro-Israel even though he opposed unconditional assistance for the country, a stance that drew AIPAC’s ire.

“Obviously, we were going to talk about Israel and Gaza in the campaign because many voters would be asking questions about it,” Malinowski said. “But I wanted those discussions to be about the substance, not colored by baggage of endorsements from groups that are controversial now.”

AIPAC said in a statement that Mejia’s success in the primary was “an anticipated possibility,” suggesting they had no regrets that their role could have helped pave the way for a candidate who has described Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.

Although AIPAC has always been politically active, it began spending directly on campaigns during the 2022 midterms.

Since then, it has spent more than $221 million through its traditional PAC and its super PAC, according to Federal Election Commission filings between December 2021 and January 2026.

The super PAC has mostly focused on Democratic primaries. In the 2022 and 2024 cycles, UDP spent at least $1 million supporting or opposing 18 candidates, 16 of whom were Democrats. Many of those candidates were running in open races.

Traditional PACs are allowed to raise and donate up to $5,000 per candidate per election, and may coordinate directly with campaigns. Super PACs don’t have fundraising or spending limits but are not allowed to make direct or in-kind contributions to candidates nor coordinate communications.

In 2024, UDP’s biggest investments were made in support of centrist challengers to progressive incumbents. It spent more than $13 million in the 2024 Democratic primary in New York’s 16th District, in which current Rep. George Latimer defeated former Rep. Jamaal Bowman. It also spent $8.5 million opposing former Rep. Cori Bush, who lost her primary to Rep. Wesley Bell.

By ALEXANDRA OLSON, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — A U.S. civil rights agency has determined that the federal government can bar transgender employees from using bathrooms aligned with their gender identity, dismissing an appeal from a transgender woman who worked for the U.S. Army.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided Thursday against a civilian IT specialist who worked for the Army at Fort Riley, Kansas. The EEOC repeatedly declared her to be man even though the worker informed her managers that she identified as a woman in the summer of 2025 when she asked to use bathrooms and locker rooms aligned with her gender identity. Her request was declined and she filed a complaint with the Army, which was dismissed.

The employee, who was not identified, appealed to the EEOC, which decided against her, citing President Donald Trump’s executive order saying the federal government would only recognize two immutable sexes, male and female. The EEOC’s sole Democratic commissioner, Kalpana Kotagal, dissented in the 2-1 decision.

The opinion retreated from the EEOC’s landmark finding a decade ago that another transgender Army employee had been discriminated against because her employer refused to use her preferred pronouns or allow her to use bathrooms based on her gender identity. In its new finding, the EEOC found that the Army’s decision did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion and national identity.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas has aggressively moved to implement Trump’s orders concerning gender identity, dropping lawsuits on behalf of transgender and nonbinary workers who were fired or harassed, and amending harassment guidelines to exclude language stating that deliberately misgendering workers or barring them from bathrooms aligned with their gender identity could constitute harassment. Many Republican lawmakers have welcomed her decisions and criticized the EEOC under previous administrations for overstepping its authority on gender identity issues.

“Today’s opinion is consistent with the plain meaning of ‘sex’ as understood by Congress at the time Title VII was enacted, as well as longstanding civil rights principles: that similarly situated employees must be treated equally,” Lucas said in a statement. “Biology is not bigotry.”

The EEOC’s argued that interpreting Title VII as allowing “trans-identifying” employees into bathrooms of their gender identity would be tantamount to doing away with single-sex facilities.

“All bathrooms would be mixed-sex by law, and every employee would be required to perform bodily and other private functions in the presence of the opposite-sex,” the EEOC wrote.

Kotagal condemned the decision in a statement posted on her LinkedIn page.

“I strongly disagree with the decision’s substance and tone. The decision rests on the false premise that transgender workers are not worthy of the agency’s protection from discrimination and harassment and that protecting them threatens the rights of other workers. Worse, it suggests that transgender people do not exist,” Kotagal said.

Several transgender and gender nonconforming federal employees have filed formal discrimination complaints over the Trump administration’s policies, which have included stripping government websites of “gender ideology” and reinstituting a ban on transgender service members in the military.

In a quasi-judicial function, the EEOC handles appeals by federal employees whose complaints have been dismissed by their agency’s civil rights offices.

Thursday’s decision applies to all federal agencies but not to private employers, and it does not set a precedent that U.S. courts must follow. In the case of private sector workers, the EEOC investigates complaints and can decide whether to file lawsuits on their behalf, but does not issue decisions.

The Army employee can file a request with the EEOC for reconsideration within 30 days, or she can file a new case in federal district court with 90 days, according to the EEOC.

In her statement, Kotagal argued that a landmark 2020 Supreme Court ruling, Bostock V. Clayton Country, reinforced that Title VII protects transgender workers from discrimination, and she criticizes the EEOC for “rushing” its decision while a federal district court is addressing similar issues in a class action case filed federal employees.

But in its decision, the EEOC argued that Bostock only established that employers cannot fire transgender employees or refuse to hire them based on their gender identity, making no decision on the issue of bathrooms or locker rooms or on the definition of sex.

Related Articles

Colin Gray testifies in trial after his son was accused of Georgia high school shooting

A nearly blind refugee is found dead after Border Patrol agents drop him at Buffalo doughnut shop

OpenAI gets $110 billon in funding from a trio of tech powerhouses, led by Amazon

Transgender youths are targeted in Scouting America changes pushed by the Pentagon

A new Gallup poll shows how Americans’ sympathies have shifted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Echoing a stance long held by Lucas, the EEOC argued that allowing transgender workers into bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice would be dangerous to women, violating their expectations for privacy in such spaces. That reasoning rested on the EEOC’s repeated argument that the U.S. Army employee is not a woman and in fact was demanding “special treatment” by asking to be allowed into a bathroom of “the opposite sex.”

The EEOC cited Trump’s executive order and various dictionary entries in an extensive explanation of its insistence that “the complainant’s sex is male, from the moment of his conception and continuing even after he began to identify as transgender.”

Social conservatives have applauded that view but the American Medical Association and other mainstream medical groups have said extensive scientific research suggests sex and gender are better understood as a spectrum than as an either-or definition. Some biologists have criticized Trump’s executive order as scientifically unsound because among other problems, it sidesteps variations that include intersex people, who have physical traits that don’t fit typical definitions for male or female categories. In a footnote, the EEOC said intersex individuals present “rare and unique circumstances” that “can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

The Congressional Equality Caucus and several civil rights advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign and the National Women’s Law Center, condemned the decision

“Andrea Lucas has spent her time leading EEOC undermining enforcement of minority workers’ rights — she’s exactly who the Commission was designed to fight back against,” said Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus.

The Defense Department referred questions to the Department of Justice and the Army, which did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

AP Business Writer Claire Savage contributed to this report from Chicago.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. 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.

Minnesota’s budget outlook for the current two-year budget cycle has improved considerably, even as longer-term projections still show a shortfall to come.

The projected budget surplus for 2026 and 2027 is now $3.7 billion, which is $1.3 billion higher than November estimates, thanks to higher revenues coming in from some of the state’s more “volatile” sources, according to the Minnesota Management and Budget office. For lawmakers, that’s the good news.

And the bad? Forecasts still show spending growth outpacing revenue growth by fiscal year 2029, leading to a “significant structural imbalance,” according to MMB. The projected general fund balance for the 2028-2029 biennium is now $377 million. Previous estimates had foreseen a shortfall of as much as $6 billion by then, but that worrisome number has shrunk due to spending cuts and new revenue forecasts. It’s still not looking rosy in the eyes of state lawmakers.

Then there’s the question of shifting policies at the federal level — including what Gov. Tim Walz has described as punitive measures — as well as “missing or incomplete data due to recent federal government shutdowns” which “introduce significant uncertainty to the projections,” according to MMB.

On Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance announced that the Trump administration would “temporarily halt” nearly $260 million in Medicaid funding to the state of Minnesota over fraud concerns — an announcement that came even as the Walz administration and lawmakers rolled out new anti-fraud measures this week.

Medicaid is a healthcare safety net for low-income residents and helps pay for a wide range of services, from routine and emergency medical care to nursing home care and housing services. State officials have said they believe the intent of the federal government is to “defer payment” until a review of 14 high-risk Medicaid programs is complete, but that process could go on for months.

Rising health care costs, slower growth

Rising health care costs and slow economic growth have become budget albatrosses, with the Department of Health and Human Services experiencing some of the greatest spending increases, according to state officials. Among the biggest drivers of state costs at the March forecast were special education and long-term disability waivers. The state has already identified special education transportation reimbursements as a target for cuts.

Minnesota’s difficult state budget forecasts over the past few fiscal quarters have represented a turn-around from late 2022, when MMB projected a nearly $18 billion surplus in the coming biennium.

The Democratic-Farmer-Labor-controlled state government passed a more than $70 billion state budget the following year that grew spending by nearly 40%, though much of that stemmed from one-time spending.

In June of last year, the Legislature — which is divided closely between DFL and Republicans — passed a $66 billion two-year budget, close to $5 billion less than the 2023 budget.

“Today’s forecast is a reminder that when our economy grows, the state’s budget outlook improves and creates more opportunities for all Minnesotans,” said Doug Loon, president and chief executive officer of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, in a written statement. “It’s concerning that spending growth continues to outpace revenue growth. Enacting policies that grow our economy can help eliminate this gap and reduce pressure on taxpayers.”

Walz and elected leaders from both major parties were expected to deliver remarks after the full budget forecast is presented early Friday afternoon.

Also Friday, student protesters against Immigration and Customs Enforcement action planned a walk-out and sit-in at the state Capitol rotunda around 1 p.m.

Past state budgets

Here’s a rundown of the past two-year budgets:

• 2025 — $66 billion.

• 2023  — $72 billion.

• 2021 — $52 billion.

• 2019 — $48 billion.

• 2017 — $46 billion.

• 2015 — $41.5 billion.

• 2013 — $38 billion.

• 2011 — $35.7 billion.

This story will be updated.

Related Articles

Gov. Tim Walz introduces anti-fraud package, calls federal Medicaid pause ‘illegal and unprecedented’

MN legislators hear bill that would allow lawsuits against federal agents

Minnesota House DFL unveils fraud package as impasse over inspector general continues

DFLers, Annunciation families call for gun control, but prospects still dim

Gov. Tim Walz fraud czar: ‘Inadequate accountability’ fed problem for decades

By MARCIA DUNN

NASA said Friday it’s adding an extra moon mission by Artemis astronauts before attempting a high-risk lunar landing with a crew.

Related Articles

A total lunar eclipse will turn the moon blood red on Tuesday across several continents

NASA’s Mike Fincke identifies himself as the ailing astronaut who prompted space station evacuation

The surprising complexity behind the squeak of basketball shoes on hardwood floors

Swirling beauty of the Milky Way galaxy’s heart is captured in a new telescope picture

NASA moves its Artemis II moon rocket off the launch pad for more repairs

The shake-up in the flight lineup and push for a faster pace came just two days after NASA’s new moon rocket returned to its hangar for more repairs and a safety panel warned the space agency to scale back its overly ambitious goals for humanity’s first lunar landing in more than half a century.

Artemis II — a lunar fly-around by four astronauts — is off until at least April because of rocket problems.

The follow-up mission — Artemis III — had been targeting a landing near the moon’s south pole by another pair of astronauts a year or two later. But with long gaps between flights and concern growing over the readiness of a lunar lander and moonwalking suits, NASA’s new administrator Jared Isaacman announced that mission would instead focus on launching a lunar lander into orbit around Earth for docking practice by Orion capsule astronauts in 2027.

The new plan calls for a moon landing — potentially even two moon landings — by astronauts in 2028.

“This is going to be our pathway back to the moon,” Isaacman said.

NASA’s Artemis II SLS (Space Launch System) moon rocket with the Orion spacecraft slowly rolls back towards the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center, Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026, in Cape Canaveral, Fla. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

The first Artemis test flight was plagued by hydrogen fuel leaks and helium flow problems before liftoff without a crew in 2022, the same things that struck the Space Launch System rocket on the pad at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center earlier this month.

Isaacman stressed that “it should be incredibly obvious” that three years between flights is unacceptable and that he’d like to get it down to one year or even less.

During NASA’s storied Apollo program, he said, astronauts’ first flight to the moon was followed by two more missions before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. What’s more, he said, the Apollo moonshots followed one another in quick succession, just as the earlier Projects Mercury and Gemini had rapid flight rates, sometimes coming just a few months apart.

“No one here at NASA forgot their history books,” Issacman said. “We shouldn’t be comfortable with the current cadence. We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know works.”

NASA’s Artemis II SLS (Space Launch System) moon rocket with the Orion spacecraft slowly rolls back towards the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center, Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2026, in Cape Canaveral, Fla. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

To pick up the pace and reduce risk, NASA will standardize Space Launch System moon rockets moving forward, Isaacman said.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommended this week that NASA revise its objectives for Artemis III “given the demanding mission goals.” It’s urgent the space agency do that, the panel said, if the United States hopes to safely return astronauts to the moon. Isaacman said the revised Artemis flight plan addresses the panel’s concerns and is supported by industry and the Trump administration.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.