The final rule will increase fuel economy by 2% per year for model years 2027 to 2031 for passenger cars, while SUVs and other light trucks will increase by 2% per year for model years 2029 to 2031, according to requirements released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The final figures are below a proposal released last year. Administration officials said the less stringent requirements will allow the auto industry flexibility to focus on electric vehicles, adding that higher gas-mileage requirements would have imposed significant costs on consumers without sufficient fuel savings to offset them.

President Joe Biden has set a goal that half all of new vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2030 are electric, part of his push to fight climate change. Gasoline-powered vehicles make up the largest single source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The 50% sales figure would be a huge increase over current EV sales, which accounted for 7.6% of new vehicle sales last year.

Even as he promotes EVs, Biden needs cooperation from the auto industry and political support from auto workers, a key political voting bloc, as the Democratic president seeks reelection in November. The United Auto Workers union has endorsed Biden but has said it wants to make sure the transition to electric vehicles does not cause job losses and that the industry pays top wages to workers who build EVs and batteries.

Biden’s likely opponent, former President Donald Trump, and other Republicans have denounced Biden’s push for EVs as unfair for consumers and an example of government overreach.

The new standards will save almost 70 billion gallons of gasoline through 2050, preventing more than 710 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by midcentury, the Biden administration said.

“Not only will these new standards save Americans money at the pump every time they fill up, they will also decrease harmful pollution and make America less reliant on foreign oil,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement. “These standards will save car owners more than $600 in gasoline costs over the lifetime of their vehicle.”

The highway safety agency said it has sought to line up its regulations so they match new Environmental Protection Agency rules that tighten standards for tailpipe emissions. But if there are discrepancies, automakers likely will have to follow the most stringent regulation.

In the byzantine world of government regulation, both agencies essentially are responsible for setting fuel economy requirements since the fastest way to reduce greenhouse emissions is to burn less gasoline.

Fuel economy figures used by The Associated Press reflect real-world driving conditions that include factors such as wind resistance, hills and use of air-conditioning. Because of those factors, the real-world numbers are lower than mileage figures put forward by NHTSA.

New passenger cars would have to average nearly 49 miles per gallon in 2031 under the new rule, up from about 36.5 miles per gallon this year.

“These new fuel economy standards will save our nation billions of dollars, help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and make our air cleaner for everyone,” said NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman.

John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a leading industry group, said the Biden administration “appears to have landed on a CAFE rule that works with the other recent federal tailpipe rules.” Bozzella was using an acronym for the fuel standards, which are officially known as the corporate average fuel economy rules.

Dan Becker at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, slammed the new rules as inadequate.

The highway safety agency is supposed to set strong standards for gas-powered vehicles, he said, “but instead it sat on its tailpipes, leaving automakers free to make cars, SUVs and pickups that will guzzle and pollute for decades to come and keep America stuck on oil.”

The administration “caved to automaker pressure, with a weak rule requiring only a 2% improvement” per year in fuel economy, Becker said, adding that the rule falls short of the agency’s own requirement to set fuel-economy standards at the maximum technologically feasible level.

Bozzella, the industry official, said the government soon might need to reconsider whether the fuel-economy standards are needed “in a world rapidly moving toward electrification” of the vehicle fleet.

The mileage standards are “a relic of the 1970s,″ Bozzella said, “a policy to promote energy conservation and energy independence by making internal combustion vehicles more efficient. But those vehicles are already very efficient. And EVs don’t combust anything. They don’t even have a tailpipe.″

Chris Harto, senior policy analyst for Consumer Reports, said the NHTSA rules were not strong enough to pressure automakers to ensure new vehicles are as efficient as possible.

“Today the administration is merely checking the box on the legal requirement” to set fuel-economy standards, he said, adding that NHTSA is hamstrung by statutory limitations that prevent it from explicitly considering EVs in setting mileage standards.

“It’s likely that this important consumer protection program will become increasingly irrelevant as EV sales continue to grow,” Harto said.

The limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled electric stations are the Democratic president’s most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector, the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

The power plant rule is among more than 60 regulations Biden and his administration finalized last month to meet his policy goals, including a promise to cut carbon emissions that are driving climate change roughly in half by 2030. The regulations, led by the Environmental Protection Agency but involving a host of other federal agencies, are being issued in quick succession as the Biden administration rushes to meet a looming but uncertain deadline to ensure they are not overturned by a new Congress — or a new president.

“The Biden administration is in green blitz mode,″ said Lena Moffitt, executive director of the activist group Evergreen Action.

It’s not just the environment

The barrage of rules covers more than the environment.

With the clock ticking toward Election Day, Biden’s administration has issued or proposed rules on a wide range of issues, from student loan forgiveness and affordable housing to overtime pay, health and compensation for airline passengerswho are unreasonably delayed, as he tries to woo voters in his reelection bid against presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

In all, federal agencies broke records by publishing 66 significant final rules in April, higher than any month in Biden’s presidency, according to George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center. More than half the rules — 34 — were considered likely to have an economic impact of at least $200 million, the center said.

That tally is by far the highest issued by a recent president in a single month, the center said. The next closest was 20 such rules issued by Trump in his final month in office.

Biden is not shying away from promoting the rules. For example, he went to Madison, Wisconsin, to promote his actions on student loan relief after the Supreme Court rejected his initial plan. More often, Cabinet officials are being dispatched around the country, often to the swing states, to promote the administration’s actions.

The problem with rules

Policies created by rulemaking are easier to reverse than laws when a new administration takes office, especially with a sharply divided Congress.

“There’s no time to start like today,” Biden said on his first day in office as he moved to dismantle the Trump legacy.

Over the course of his presidency, Biden has reinstated protections for threatened species that were rolled back by Trump. He also has boosted fuel efficiency standards, reversing the former president.

The Education Department’s gainful employment rule targets college programs that leave graduates with high debt compared to their expected earnings. And the Department of Housing and Urban Development moved to restore a rule that was designed to eliminate racial disparities in suburbs and thrown out by Trump.

It’s widely expected that Trump would move to reverse Biden regulations if he were to win in November.

Deadlines loom

The Congressional Review Act allows lawmakers to void new rules after they’re finalized by the executive branch. Congressional Republicans used the once-obscure law more than a dozen times in 2017 to undo actions by former President Barack Obama. Democrats returned the favor four years later, rescinding three Trump administration rules.

The law requires votes within 60 legislative days of a rule’s publication in the Federal Register, a shifting deadline that depends on how long Congress is in session. Administration officials say they believe actions taken so far this year will be shielded from the review act in the next Congress, although Republicans oppose nearly all of them and have filed challenges that could lead to a series of votes in the House and Senate over the next few months.

Biden is likely to veto any repeal effort that reaches his desk before his term expires.

“The rules are safe in this Congress,″ given Democratic control of the Senate and White House, said Michael Gerrard, who teaches environmental law at Columbia Law School. If Republicans take over Congress and the White House next year, ’’all bets are off,” Gerrard said.

Rule-making to establish a legacy

Besides the power plant rule, the EPA also issued separate rules targeting tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks and methane emissions from oil and gas drilling. The Interior Department, meanwhile, restricted new oil and gas leases on 13 million acres of a federal petroleum reserve in Alaska and required oil and gas companies to pay more to drill on federal lands and meet stronger requirements to clean up old or abandoned wells.

Industry groups and Republicans slammed Biden’s actions as overreach.

“This barrage of new EPA rules ignores our nation’s ongoing electric reliability challenges and is the wrong approach at a critical time for our nation’s energy future,″ said Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

In addition to climate, the EPA also finalized a long-delayed ban on asbestos, a carcinogen that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, and set strict limits on certain so-called “forever chemicals″ in drinking water. The EPA also required more than 200 chemical plants nationwide to reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer, mostly in poor and minority communities already overburdened by industrial pollution.

While recently delivered, many of Biden’s actions have been planned since he took office and reinstated or strengthened more than 100 environmental regulations that Trump weakened or eliminated.

The rules come two years after Democrats approved a sweeping law aimed at boosting clean energy that is widely hailed as the most significant climate legislation ever enacted.

Taken together, Democrats say, the climate law and Biden’s executive actions could solidify his standing with climate-oriented voters — including young people who helped put Biden in office four years ago — and help him fend off Trump in a likely rematch in November.

“Every community in this country deserves to breathe clean air and drink clean water,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “We promised to listen to folks that are suffering from pollution and act to protect them.”

‘Challenging times’

Along with votes in Congress, the rules likely face legal challenges from industry and Republican-led states, including several lawsuits that have been filed already.

“Part of our strategy is to be sure that we understand the current court culture that we’re in, and make sure that every action, every rule, every policy is more durable, as legally sound as possible,” Regan told a conference of environmental journalistslast month.

Still, looming over all the executive branch actions is the Supreme Court, where a 6-3 conservative majority has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA. A landmark 2022 ruling limited EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming, and a separate ruling weakened regulations protecting millions of acres of wetlands.

A case pending before the court could put EPA’s air pollution-fighting “good neighbor” plan on hold while legal cases continue.

“We are living in challenging times in so many ways, but we at EPA are staying focused on the mission,’′ Regan said at the April conference. “And then we have to really just defend that case in court.”

Rules issued by other agencies also face legal challenges.

Republican-led states are challenging the administration’s new Title IX rules that provide expanded protections for LGBTQ+ students and new safeguards for victims of sexual assault. They’re also suing to overturn a rule requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows and places outside stores.

Gerrard, the Columbia law professor, said the threat of executive-branch actions being overturned by Congress or the courts “makes it hard for either side to build up any momentum.” That uncertainty also makes it harder for the industry to comply, since they are not sure how long the rules will be in effect.

Staying power on climate?

Gerrard and other experts said the climate law and the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021 are more durable and will be harder for a future president to unwind. The two laws, combined with executive branch actions, will put the country on a path to meet Biden’s goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, environmentalists say.

The climate law, which includes nearly $400 billion in spending to boost clean energy, will have ripple effects on the economy for years to come, said Christy Goldfuss, executive director of the Natural Resource Defense Council and a former Obama administration official.

She pushed back on complaints by industry and Republicans that the power plant rule is a continuation of an Obama-era “war on coal.″

“It’s an attack on pollution,″ she said, adding that fossil fuels such as coal and oil are subject to the Clean Air Act “and need to be cleaned up.″

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the challenge in the 2022 Supreme Court case, said EPA was adhering to what he called Biden’s “Green New Deal” agenda.

“Unelected bureaucrats continue their pursuit to legislate rather than rely on elected members of Congress for guidance,” said Morrisey, who is the GOP nominee for governor in the state.

New limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired electric plants are the Biden administration’s most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the power sector, the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change. The rules are a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.

The rule was among four measures targeting coal and natural gas plants that the EPA said would provide “regulatory certainty” to the power industry and encourage them to make investments to transition “to a clean energy economy.” The measures include requirements to reduce toxic wastewater pollutants from coal-fired plants and to safely manage coal ash in unlined storage ponds.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the rules will reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting the reliable, long-term supply of electricity that America needs.

“One of the biggest environmental challenges facing our nation is man-made pollution that damages our air, our water and our land,” Regan said in a speech at Howard University. “Not only is this pollution a major threat to public health — it’s pushing our planet to the brink.”

Regan called the power plant rules “a defining moment” for his agency as it works to “build a cleaner and healthier future for all of us.”

The plan is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states. They have repeatedly accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and have warned of a looming reliability crisis for the electric grid. The rules issued Thursday are among at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater pollution.

Environmental groups hailed the EPA’s latest action as urgently needed to protect against the devastating harms of climate change.

The power plant rule marks the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule also would force future electric plants fueled by coal or gas to control up to 90% of their carbon pollution. The new standards will avoid 1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to the annual emissions of 328 million gas cars, the EPA said, and will provide hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and health benefits, measured in fewer premature deaths, asthma cases and lost work or school days.

Coal plants that plan to stay open beyond 2039 would have to cut or capture 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2032, the EPA said. Plants that expect to retire by 2039 would face a less stringent standard but still would have to capture some emissions. Coal plants that are set to retire by 2032 would not be subject to the new rules.

Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said that through the latest rules, “the EPA is systematically dismantling the reliability of the U.S. electric grid.”

He accused Biden, Regan and other officials of “ignoring our energy reality and forcing the closure of well-operating coal plants that repeatedly come to the rescue during times of peak demand. The repercussions of this reckless plan will be felt across the country by all Americans.”

Regan denied that the rules were aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but he acknowledged in proposing the power plant rule last year that, “We will see some coal retirements.”

The proposal relies on technologies to limit carbon pollution that the industry itself has said are viable and available, Regan said. “Multiple power companies have indicated that (carbon capture and storage) is a viable technology for the power sector today, and they are currently pursuing those CCS projects,” he told reporters Wednesday.

Coal provided about 16% of U.S. electricity last year, down from about 45% in 2010. Natural gas provides about 43% of U.S. electricity, with the remainder from nuclear energy and renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower.

Dan Brouillette, president and CEO of of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents U.S. investor-owned electric companies, said he was “disappointed” that the EPA “did not address the concerns we raised about carbon capture and storage.” While promising, the technology “is not yet ready for full-scale, economy-wide deployment,” said Brouillette, who served as energy secretary in President Donald Trump’s administration.

The rules initially included steps to curb emissions from existing natural gas plants, but Regan delayed that aspect of the rules until at least next year after some moderate Democrats and the gas industry warned that the plan could affect grid reliability. Regan also said he wanted to address complaints from environmental justice groups that the earlier plan allowed too much toxic air pollution from gas-fired plants near low-income and minority neighborhoods.

Even so, the rules issued Thursday complete “a historic grand slam” of major actions by the Biden administration to reduce carbon pollution, said David Doniger, a climate and clean energy expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The first and most important action was passage of the 2022 climate law, officially known as the Inflation Reduction Act, he said, followed by separate EPA rules targeting tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks and methane emissions from oil and gas drilling.

Together, the climate law and the suite of EPA rules “are the biggest reductions in carbon pollution we’ve ever made and will put the country on the pathway to zero out carbon emissions,” Doniger said.

The nation still faces challenges in eliminating carbon from transportation, heavy industry and more, said Abigail Dillen, president of the environmental group Earthjustice, “but we can’t make progress on any of it without cleaning up the power plants.”

Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, called the EPA rule “unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable,” adding that it faced a certain court challenge. The rule disregards the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that limited the agency’s ability to regulate carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act, Matheson said.

“This barrage of new EPA rules ignores our nation’s ongoing electric reliability challenges and is the wrong approach at a critical time for our nation’s energy future,” said Matheson, whose association represents 900 local electric cooperatives across the country.

The EPA rules would not mandate use of equipment to capture and store carbon emissions — a technology that is expensive and still being developed. Instead, the agency would set caps on carbon dioxide pollution that plant operators would have to meet. Some natural gas plants could start blending gas with other fuel sources that do not emit carbon, although specific actions would be left to the industry.

Still, the regulation is expected to lead to greater use of carbon capture equipment. Only a handful of projects are operating in the country despite years of research.

The EPA also tightened rules aimed at reducing wastewater pollution from coal-fired power plants and preventing harm from toxic pits of coal ash, a waste byproduct of burning coal.

Coal ash contains cancer-causing substances like arsenic and mercury that can leach into the ground, drinking water and nearby rivers and streams, harming people and killing fish. The waste is commonly stored in ponds near power plants. The EPA issued rules in 2015 to regulate active and new ponds at operating facilities, seven years after a disaster in Kingston, Tennessee, that flooded two rivers with toxic waste and destroyed property.

Environmental groups challenged that rule, arguing it left a large amount of coal ash waste unregulated by the federal government. The rule issued Thursday forces owners to safely close inactive coal ash ponds and clean up contamination.

A separate rule will reduce toxic wastewater pollution by 660 million pounds annually, according to federal officials. It’s a reversal of the Republican Trump administration’s push to loosen coal plant wastewater standards.

The Biden rule comes nearly a decade after former President Barack Obama first tried to set limits on carbon pollution from U.S. power plants. His 2015 Clean Power Plan was blocked by the Supreme Court and later rolled back by Trump. Trump’s plan was also blocked by a federal court.

Associated Press writer Michael Phillis in St. Louis contributed to this story.

The Interior Department’s rule raises royalty rates for oil drilling by more than one-third, to 16.67%, in accordance with the sweeping 2022 climate law approved by Congress. The previous rate of 12.5% paid by oil and gas companies for federal drilling rights had remained unchanged for a century. The federal rate was significantly lower than what many states and private landowners charge for drilling leases on state or private lands.

The new rule does not go so far as to prohibit new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, as many environmental groups have urged and President Joe Biden promised during the 2020 campaign. But officials said the proposal will lead to a more responsible leasing process that provides a better return to U.S. taxpayers and focuses oil and gas drilling in areas most likely to be developed, especially those with existing infrastructure and a high potential for oil and gas reserves.

The rule also will increase the minimum leasing bond paid by energy companies to $150,000, compared with the previous $10,000 established more than 60 years ago. The higher bonding requirement is intended to ensure that energy companies meet their obligations to clean up drilling sites after they are finished drilling or cap wells that are abandoned.

The plan codifies some provisions — including royalty hikes for competitive leases — that were already being enforced on an interim basis since the passage of the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, in August 2022. The rule also incorporates provisions in the 2021 infrastructure law and recommendations from an Interior Department report on oil and gas leasing issued in 2021. That report recommended an overhaul of the oil and gas program to limit areas available for energy development and raise costs for oil and gas companies to drill on public lands and waters.

“These are the most significant reforms to the federal oil and gas leasing program in decades, and they will cut wasteful speculation, increase returns for the public and protect taxpayers from being saddled with the costs of environmental cleanups,” Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said Friday.

Along with efforts to clean up so-called orphaned, or abandoned, wells, “these reforms will help safeguard the health of our public lands and nearby communities for generations to come,” Haaland said. The rule also will ease pressure to develop areas that contain sensitive wildlife habitat, cultural resources or recreation sites, she said.

The new royalty rate codified by the climate law is expected to remain in place until August 2032, after which it can be increased. The higher rate would increase costs for oil and gas companies by an estimated $1.8 billion in that period, according to the Interior Department.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s top lobbying group, said it was reviewing the rule to ensure Biden’s Democratic administration was encouraging “fair and consistent access to federal resources” used by oil and gas companies.

“As energy demand continues to grow, oil and natural gas development on federal lands will be foundational for maintaining energy security, powering our economy and supporting state and local conservation efforts,” API vice president Holly Hopkins said in a statement. “Overly burdensome land management regulations will put this critical energy supply at risk.”

Environmental groups hailed the rule change as a way to ensure accountability from energy companies that have long had cheap access to federal lands.

“For far too long, oil and gas companies have been profiting off of giveaways to drill on our public lands. This rule will finally curtail some of these wasteful handouts to the fossil fuel industry,” said Josh Axelrod, senior policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Communities, conservationists and taxpayer advocates have been demanding many of these changes for decades, and it’s great news that the Biden administration is acting on this today.”

The Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, faulted the administration for failing to address the climate crisis directly by phasing out drilling on public lands.

“Updating oil and gas rules for federal lands without setting a timeline for phaseout (of drilling) is climate denial, pure and simple,” said Gladys Delgadillo, a climate campaigner for the Arizona-based group. “Public lands should be places for people to enjoy nature and wildlife to roam free, not hotspots for toxic pollution.”

The change in bonding rates is a key element of the new rule, officials said. The previous rate of $10,000, established in 1960, was far too low to force companies to clean up old drilling sites and did not cover potential costs to reclaim a well, officials said. As a result, taxpayers frequently end up covering cleanup costs for abandoned or depleted wells if an operator refuses to do so or declares bankruptcy. Hundreds of thousands of orphaned oil and gas wells and abandoned coal and hardrock mines pose serious safety hazards, while causing ongoing environmental damage.

The Interior Department has made available more than $1 billion in the past two years from the infrastructure law to clean up orphaned oil and gas wells on public lands. The new rule aims to prevent that burden from falling on taxpayers in the future.

Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning, whose agency issued the new rule, said it “will help protect critical wildlife habitat, cultural resources and recreational values” while ensuring a fair return for taxpayers. The bureau manages more than 245 million acres of public lands, mainly in the West.

Lawmakers were divided by party.

Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called the rule an important step to rein in oil and gas companies.

“When Big Oil uses our public lands, it stands to reason they should be giving American taxpayers a fair return for the privilege,” he said. “That’s why Democrats worked so hard to pass reforms in the Inflation Reduction Act to return some balance to a leasing system that has favored polluters for far too long.”

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources panel, said the rule imposes unfair costs on energy companies that will result in less drilling, fewer jobs and more dependence on oil from the Middle East.

“As a candidate, Joe Biden recklessly threatened to end oil and natural gas production on federal lands,” Barrasso said. “As president, he is doing all he can to make it economically impossible to produce energy on federal lands.”

The Democratic-controlled House Oversight Committee voted 24-15 to advance contempt measures against Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, who has said he supports an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, was the sole Republican to join with Democrats.

The vote sends the contempt measures to the full House, although congressional leaders could go directly to court to try to force compliance with the subpoenas under a resolution approved earlier this week.

The committee’s action marks an escalation of Democratic efforts to use their House majority to aggressively investigate the inner workings of the Trump administration.

The vote came as the White House asserted executive privilege on the matter Wednesday. The Justice Department said officials had “engaged in good-faith efforts” to satisfy the committee’s oversight needs and labeled the contempt vote “unnecessary and premature.”

It was not clear what would happen next. A resolution approved by the House on Tuesday empowers committee chairs to sue top Trump administration officials to force compliance with congressional subpoenas without a vote of the full House, as long as they have approval from a bipartisan group of House leaders.

Action to hold Barr and Ross in contempt on the census issue would be a political blow but would not necessarily result in real punishment since the men are unlikely to go to jail or be arrested.

Democrats fear the citizenship question will reduce census participation in immigrant-heavy communities and result in a severe undercount of minority voters. They say they want specific documents to determine why Ross added the question to the 2020 census and contend the administration has declined to provide the documents despite repeated requests.

The oversight panel’s chairman, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, said he was saddened by the vote, but called it an important step to assert Congress’ constitutional authority to serve as a check on executive power.

“The census is something that is so very, very important,” Cummings told reporters after the vote. “It goes to the bedrock of our very society and our democracy. We need to make sure the census is counted and counted accurately.”

A spokeswoman for Barr said the committee’s vote defied logic and undermined Congress’ credibility with the American people.

“Despite the committee’s political games, the department will remain focused on its critical work safeguarding the American people and upholding the rule of law,” spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said.

Ross said in a statement that the committee’s vote “demonstrated its scorn for the Constitution.” He accused Democrats of “continually refusing to engage in the constitutionally mandated accommodation process.”

The administration has turned over more than 17,000 of pages of documents and Ross testified for nearly seven hours in March. The Justice Department said two senior officials were interviewed by committee staff and said officials were working to produce tens of thousands of additional pages of relevant documents.

Cummings disputed that account and said most of the documents turned over to the committee had already been made public.

“We must protect the integrity of the census and we must stand up for Congress’ authority under the Constitution to conduct meaningful oversight,” Cummings said before Wednesday’s vote.

The administration’s refusal to turn over requested documents “does not appear to be an effort to engage in good-faith negotiations or accommodations,” he said. “Instead, it appears to be another example of the administration’s blanket defiance of Congress’ constitutionally mandated responsibilities.”

Trump has pledged to “fight all the subpoenas” issued by Congress and says he won’t work on legislative priorities, such as infrastructure, until Congress halts investigations of his administration.

Ross told the committee the March 2018 decision to add the question was based on a Justice Department request to help it enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Cummings disputed that, citing documents unearthed last week suggesting that the real reason the administration sought to add the citizenship question was to help officials gerrymander legislative districts in overtly partisan and racist ways.

Computer files from North Carolina redistricting expert Tom Hofeller include detailed calculations that lay out gains Republicans would see in Texas by basing legislative districts on the number of voting-age citizens rather than the total population.

Hofeller, a Republican operative who died last year, said in the documents that GOP gains would be possible only if the census asked every household about its members’ immigration status for the first time since 1950.

The Supreme Court is considering the citizenship question . A ruling is expected by the end of the month. Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Supreme Court to hold off on a decision, arguing in a filing Wednesday that the federal judge in the case needs time to consider new evidence related to the Hofeller files.

“I think it’s totally ridiculous that we would have a census without asking” about citizenship, Trump said Wednesday, “but the Supreme Court is going to be ruling on it soon. I think when the census goes out … you have the right to ask whether or not somebody is a citizen of the United States.”

Some of the documents the committee is seeking are protected by attorney-client privilege and other confidential processes, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd said. The president has made a “protective assertion” of executive privilege so the administration can fully review all the documents, he added.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the administration has thwarted congressional efforts to obtain key documents and exercise legitimate oversight. “All we get from the administration is a middle finger” of defiance, Raskin said. “And that’s not appropriate for the power of Congress.”

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

In an appearance Tuesday in Paducah, Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., told a questioner that if a Supreme Court justice died next year, creating a vacancy on the nine-member court, “Oh, we’d fill it.”

McConnell’s comments appeared to mark a reversal from his stance three years ago, during President Barack Obama’s final year in office, when he orchestrated a blockade of Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland, a federal appeals court judge, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. McConnell said then that the choice should be left to voters in an election year.

McConnell’s change of heart drew attacks from Democrats still smarting from his success in cementing the high court’s conservative majority. Scalia’s vacancy went to conservative Neil Gorsuch while swing vote Anthony Kennedy, who retired, was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh after an acrimonious brawl last year.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said McConnell was a “hypocrite” and tweeted that his colleague “lives for GOP judges because he knows the GOP agenda is so radical & unpopular they can only achieve it in courts.”

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., the fifth-ranking House Democrat, called McConnell “a shameless individual” and accused him of “stealing a Supreme Court seat that Barack Obama had the right to present to the American people.”

McConnell spokesman David Popp said McConnell was being consistent because he took care in 2016 to say that vacancies occurring when the White House and Senate are held by different parties should be held up. Republicans now control the Senate and White House.

“You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was confirmed by the party opposite the occupant of the White House,” McConnell said in March 2016, a month after Scalia died.

There is no announced vacancy and no justice has made moves indicating they’re about to leave, but there’s internet chatter that Justice Clarence Thomas, the current court’s longest serving justice, would consider retirement if his seat could be filled by a Trump-named younger conservative. Thomas was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, a Republican.

The Senate has approved more than 100 federal judges since Trump took office, including two Supreme Court justices and 41 appeals court judges.

At the Paducah event, McConnell said confirming judges is the best way to have “a long-lasting positive impact on the country. That’s the most important thing we’ve done in the country, which cannot be undone.”

The White House said Trump will not travel to Florida on Friday for the Christmas holiday if the government is shutting down. More than 800,000 federal workers will be facing furloughs or forced to work without pay if a resolution is not reached before funding expires at midnight Friday.

The shutdown crisis could be one of the final acts of the House GOP majority before relinquishing control to Democrats in January. Congress had been on track to fund the government but lurched Thursday when Trump, after a rare lashing from conservative supporters, declared he would not sign a bill without the funding. Conservatives want to keep fighting. They warn that “caving” on Trump’s repeated wall promises could hurt his 2020 re-election chances, and other Republicans’ as well.

The House voted largely along party lines, 217-185, after GOP leaders framed the vote as a slap-back to Nancy Pelosi, who is poised to become House speaker on Jan. 3 and who had warned Trump in a televised Oval Office meeting last week that he wouldn’t have the votes for the wall.

“Now we find compromise,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said. “We have time right now to get it done.”

The government funding package, which includes nearly $8 billion in disaster aid for coastal hurricanes and California wildfires, now goes to the Senate, where its prospects are grim amid strong opposition from Democrats. Sixty votes are needed to approve the bill there.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned senators they may need to return to Washington for a noontime vote Friday.

Many senators already left town for the holidays. The Senate approved a bipartisan bill late Wednesday to keep the government temporarily funded, with border security money at current levels, $1.3 billion, and no money for the wall. The House had been expected to vote on it Thursday.

The most likely possibility Friday is that the Senate strips the border wall out of the bill but keeps the disaster funds and sends it back to the House. House lawmakers said they were being told to stay in town for more possible votes.

With Pelosi’s backing, the Senate-passed bill likely has enough support for House approval with votes mostly from Democratic lawmakers, who are still the minority, and some Republicans.

Others were not so sure. “I don’t see how we avoid a shutdown,” said retiring Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Fla.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, said he was not convinced after a White House meeting with GOP leaders that Trump would sign the Senate bill.

“I looked him in the eyes today, and he was serious about not folding without a fight,” Meadows said.

Trump’s sudden rejection of the Senate-approved legislation, after days of mixed messages, sent Republican leaders scrambling for options on Capitol Hill days before Christmas.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, exiting the hastily called meeting with Trump at the White House, said, “We’re going to go back and work on adding border security to this, also keeping the government open, because we do want to see an agreement.”

By afternoon, Trump shifted his terminology, saying he’s not necessarily demanding a border wall but “steel slats” — which is similar to the border security fencing already provided for in the bill.

“We don’t use the word ‘wall’ necessarily, but it has to be something special to do the job,” Trump said at a farm bill signing at the White House. The nuance could provide Trump a way to try to proclaim victory. The bill would keep funding at current levels for border security, including pedestrian fencing and replacement fences, but not the wall. It requires previously used designs.

Democratic leaders have made clear they will not budge on their opposition to the border wall that Trump campaigned on saying Mexico would pay for it. Mexico has refused

“The Trump temper tantrum will shut down the government, but it will not get him his wall,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Democrats favor border security, Schumer said, but he denounced the wall as “ineffective, unnecessary and exorbitantly expensive.”

McConnell met with Ryan after the House leaders returned from the meeting with Trump.

Ryan and McCarthy had endured complaints during a private morning meeting earlier Thursday from rank-and-file Republicans in the Capitol that they were closing out their majority without a fight on a major issue.

Trump interrupted the basement session with a phone call to Ryan, and then the president lashed out at Republican leaders on Twitter.

Ryan had promised a “big fight” after November’s midterm elections, but as Republicans lost House control, negotiations over the year-end spending bill have largely been between Trump and Democrats.

“I was promised the Wall and Border Security by leadership,” Trump tweeted. “Would be done by end of year (NOW). It didn’t happen! We foolishly fight for Border Security for other countries – but not for our beloved U.S.A. Not good!”

Trump has bounced back and forth with mixed messages. Just last week he said he would be “proud” to shut down the government over the wall. Earlier this week he appeared to shelve shutdown threats, with the White House saying he was open to reviewing whatever bill Congress could send him.

Before turning on fellow Republicans, Trump had been directing his ire at Democrats, tweeting that they were “putting politics over country.”

“Republicans are in a state of disarray,” said Pelosi. “Wall funding is a nonstarter.”

At issue in the current fight is money for nine of 15 Cabinet-level departments and dozens of agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, Interior, Agriculture, State and Justice, as well as national parks and forests.

Many agencies, including the Pentagon and the departments of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, are covered for the year and would continue to operate as usual if funding lapses. The U.S. Postal Service, busy delivering packages for the holiday season, would not be affected by any government shutdown because it’s an independent agency.

Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Kevin Freking in Washington contributed to this report.

The Energy Department says it considered issuing the order sought by companies seeking relief for plants it says are overburdened by environmental regulations and market stresses. But the department ultimately ruled it was unnecessary, and the White House agreed, a spokeswoman said.

The decision is a rare example of friction between the beleaguered coal industry and the president who has vowed to save it. It also highlights a pattern emerging as the administration crafts policy: The president’s bold declarations — both public and private — are not always carried through to implementation.

President Donald Trump committed to the measure in private conversations with executives from Murray Energy Corp. and FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. after public events in July and early August, according to letters to the White House from Murray Energy and its chief executive, Robert Murray. In the letters, obtained by The Associated Press, Murray said failing to act would cause thousands of coal miners to be laid off and put the pensions of thousands more in jeopardy. One of Murray’s letters said Trump agreed and told Energy Secretary Rick Perry, “I want this done” in Murray’s presence.

The White House declined to say whether Trump did initially agree to Murray’s request for help. But in a statement on Tuesday, administration spokeswoman Kelly Love wrote that the proposal was not the right way to support the coal industry.

“Whether through repealing the Clean Power Plan and the ‘Waters of the U.S. Rule,’ removing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, or signing legislation to overturn rules and policies designed to stop coal mining, President Trump continues to fight for miners every day,” she wrote in an email to the AP.

Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes said the agency was sympathetic to the coal industry’s plight, but likewise did not support the proposal.

“With respect to this particular case at this particular time, the White House and the Department of Energy are in agreement that the evidence does not warrant the use of this emergency authority,” Hynes said in a statement Sunday.

A spokesman for Murray Energy, Gary Broadbent, declined to comment on the letters or the administration’s response.

The aid Murray sought from Trump involves invoking a little-known section of the U.S. Federal Power Act that allows the Energy Department to temporarily intervene when the nation’s electricity supply is threatened by an emergency, such as war or natural disaster. Among other measures, it temporarily exempts power plants from obeying environmental laws. In the past, the authority has been used sparingly, such as during the California energy crisis in 2000 and following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration never used it. The Trump administration has used it twice in seven months in narrow instances.

Murray’s company is seeking a two-year moratorium on closures of coal-fired power plants, which would be an unprecedented federal intervention in the nation’s energy markets. The company said invoking the provision under the Power Act was “the only viable mechanism” to protect the reliability of the nation’s power supply.

Murray told the White House that his key customer, Ohio-based electricity company FirstEnergy Solutions, was at immediate risk of bankruptcy. Without FirstEnergy’s plants burning his coal, Murray said his own company would be forced into “immediate bankruptcy,” triggering the layoffs of more than 6,500 miners. FirstEnergy acknowledged to the AP that bankruptcy of its power-generation business was a possibility.

Murray urged Trump to use the provision in the Federal Power Act to halt further coal plant closures by declaring an emergency in the electric power grid.

After a conversation with Trump at a July 25 political rally in Youngstown, Ohio, Murray wrote, the president told Perry three times, “I want this done.” Trump also directed the emergency order be given during an Aug. 3 conversation in Huntington, West Virginia, he said.

“As stated, disastrous consequences for President Trump, our electric power grid reliability, and tens of thousands of coal miners will result if this is not immediately done,” he wrote.

Murray’s claims raise the possibility that Trump was warned against the move by his advisers — some of whom are known to be more cautious — or that he simply made assurances to Murray to avoid immediate confrontation. The people who worked on the decision most directly were Perry, Michael Catanzaro, who works under National Economic Council director Gary Cohn as the top White House energy adviser, and Perry’s chief of staff, Brian McCormack, U.S. officials told the AP. They spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal policy considerations by name.

Murray and his company have been impassioned supporters of Trump, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign and inauguration, hosting fundraisers and embracing him as the rescuer of the Appalachian coal industry. The friendliness has been mutual: When Trump repealed an Obama administration regulation barring coal companies from dumping mine waste in streams, Murray and his sons were invited for the signing.

The Energy Department has already informed Murray it will not invoke the law, an official with knowledge of the decision told the AP.

Coal has become an increasingly unattractive fuel for U.S. electricity companies, which have been retiring old boilers at a record pace. At least two dozen big coal-fired plants are scheduled to shut down in coming months as utilities transition to new steam turbines fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas made more abundant in recent years by new drilling technologies.

Trump, who rejects the consensus of scientists that burning fossil fuels is causing global warming, has made reversing the coal industry’s decline a cornerstone of his administration’s energy and environmental policies. Since taking office, he announced that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, and he has moved to block or delay Obama-era regulations seeking to limit carbon emissions.

Other coal executives have urged similar government intervention to save their businesses. In a speech last week, the CEO of Peabody Energy Corp., the nation’s largest coal producer, also said a two-year moratorium on coal-plant closures was needed.

Perry has already twice invoked the Federal Power Act in narrow ways at the request of utilities seeking to keep old coal-burning plants online past their planned retirement dates. In both cases, the utilities were allowed to continue operations at plants amid concerns that shutting them down could lead to regional shortages in electricity.

Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

One bill would strip federal dollars from self-proclaimed “sanctuary” cities that shield residents from federal immigration authorities, while a separate measure would stiffen punishments for people who re-enter the U.S. illegally.

The sanctuary measure was approved 228-195, while the bill to punish deportees was approved 257-167. Three Democrats joined all but seven Republicans to pass the sanctuary measure, while 24 Democrats backed the deportee bill. Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan was the only Republican who opposed the deportee bill.

The bills now go to the Senate.

Trump, who often railed against illegal immigration during his presidential campaign, hailed passage of the House bills and urged the Senate to act “save American lives.” Trump met at the White House this week with more than a dozen family members of those killed by people in the country illegally.

“Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk,” Trump said.

One of the bills, known as “Kate’s Law,” would impose harsher prison sentences on deportees who re-enter the United States. The bill is named after 32-year old Kathryn Steinle, who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015 by a man who was in the country illegally. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who pleaded not guilty to the crime, had been released by sheriff’s officials months earlier despite a request by immigration officials to keep him behind bars.

The second bill would bar states and localities that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving certain Justice Department and Homeland Security grants, including some related to law enforcement and terrorism.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the two bills would help “avoid the kind of tragic circumstances that have totally involved the lives of the people who were at the White House … speaking up for their loved ones.”

The sanctuary measure follows “a simple principle that if you’re going to receive taxpayer dollars from the federal government to keep people safe, that you’ve got to follow the law and keep them safe,” Goodlatte said.

Democrats said the bills were feel-good measures intended to make lawmakers look tough on crime.

“We’re not doing bumper stickers here. We are doing laws,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

She and other Democrats said the sanctuary measure was “about telling people how to police their cities” and telling local officials that “we in Washington, D.C., know better than you do.”

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said he appreciates Congress’ effort to “address the dangers of sanctuary cities and illegal immigrant offenders.”

At a news conference at the Capitol with House Speaker Paul Ryan, Kelly said his agency “will enforce the laws that are passed by Congress,” adding, “I am offended when members of this institution put pressure and often threaten me and my officers to ignore the laws they make.”

A spokesman said later that Kelly “will continue to push back against any attempt — pressure, threat or otherwise — to ignore the enforcement of immigration law.”

“Enforcement is not selective, occasional or arbitrary, it’s the law,” spokesman David Lapan said.

The Justice Department’s inspector general has identified California and major cities such as Chicago, New York and Philadelphia as locales with barriers to information-sharing among local police and immigration officials. The Trump administration warned nine jurisdictions in late April that they could lose coveted law enforcement grant money unless they document cooperation.

and Attorney General Jeff Sessions met with the families Thursday.Sessions said Steinle “would still be alive today if only the city of San Francisco had put the public’s safety first. How many more Americans must die before we put an end to this madness?”

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said “Kate’s Law” would not have had an impact on the Steinle case, noting that Steinle was killed in July 2015 by an immigrant who had been mistakenly released by the federal Bureau of Prisons.

The proposed bill “would not have kept Kate Steinle’s killer off the streets,” Gutierrez said. “Instead, we are voting on a bill to put other people — in different circumstances — in jail for longer periods of time. It is a bait-and-switch strategy: Use a horrible tragedy to sell a policy that would not have prevented that death, so that you put more immigrants in jail for longer periods of time.”

Rep. Greg Gianforte of Montana, who was sworn in Wednesday, immediately made waves as he pledged to “drain the swamp” in his initial speech to Congress, an echo of President Donald Trump’s campaign promise. The 56-year-old former software executive earned national notoriety last month after he body-slammed a reporter who had questioned him about the GOP health care bill.

In his speech Wednesday to a crowded House chamber, Gianforte also called for term limits and a ban on lobbying by former members of Congress. Boos from the Republican side were heard as Gianforte spoke about members’ salaries, and an audible buzz grew louder as he concluded his brief remarks.

In an interview later, Gianforte said he was excited to serve in Congress and “humbled and honored.”

While his arrest last month on assault charges made national and even international news, Gianforte said he was greeted “very warmly” by colleagues in both parties.

“I am really excited to be sworn in today and I’m ready to go to work,” he said.

He declined to answer a question about his call for increased civility in politics in the wake of his conviction for assaulting the reporter the day before winning a special congressional election.

Gianforte, 56, won a May 25 special election to serve the remaining 18 months in the House term vacated by now-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Gianforte, who already has filed for re-election, was sworn in by House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called Gianforte “a do-er” and said, “We’re happy to have him here.”

With Gianforte in the House, Republicans have 239 members to 193 for Democrats. Winners of three elections will be sworn in at later dates.

Gianforte told The Associated Press last week that he is keenly aware he will carry with him the distinction of being the congressman who beat up the reporter.

“I can’t erase it, but I did do everything in my power once the event was over to take responsibility,” he said.

Members of Congress have an obligation to ratchet down the vitriol in politics, especially after last week’s shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise during a Republican congressional baseball practice, Gianforte said. The shooter had volunteered for Bernie Sanders’ Democratic presidential campaign and expressed grievances online about President Donald Trump and Republicans.

“I believe that good things can come out of bad,” Gianforte said. “It’s important to make sure we reach out to all parties and hear their voice. I think the other parties have an obligation, as well, to be respectful and in that dialogue.”

Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs said Gianforte body-slammed him to the ground and broke his glasses after Jacobs asked about the health care bill that had recently passed the Republican-controlled House. Audio taken by Jacobs recorded the sounds of a scuffle followed by Gianforte yelling, “Get the hell out of here!”

Gianforte was ordered to pay a fine, perform community service and take anger management training, but he received no jail time. He also avoided a civil lawsuit by writing a letter of apology to Jacobs and donating $50,000 to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

In a statement Wednesday, Jacobs said he welcomed Gianforte to Capitol Hill, “where I’m confident he will live up to his pledge to champion a free press and the First Amendment. In the courtroom last week, he openly offered to do an interview with me when he came to Washington and I look forward to taking him up on that in the coming days.”

Bobby Caina Calvan in Helena, Montana, contributed to this report