NEW YORK (AP) — A controversial bid to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade seemed on its way to passing as the Republican tax cut and spending bill championed by President Donald Trump worked its way through the U.S. Senate.

But as the bill neared a final vote, a relentless campaign against it by a constellation of conservatives — including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks and social groups — had been eroding support. One, conservative activist Mike Davis, appeared on the show of right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon, urging viewers to call their senators to reject this “AI amnesty” for “trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.”

He said he also texted with Trump directly, advising the president to stay neutral on the issue despite what Davis characterized as significant pressure from White House AI czar David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and others.

Conservatives passionate about getting rid of the provision had spent weeks fighting others in the party who favored the legislative moratorium because they saw it as essential for the country to compete against China in the race for AI dominance. The schism marked the latest and perhaps most noticeable split within the GOP about whether to let states continue to put guardrails on emerging technologies or minimize such interference.

In the end, the advocates for guardrails won, revealing the enormous influence of a segment of the Republican Party that has come to distrust Big Tech. They believe states must remain free to protect their citizens against potential harms of the industry, whether from AI, social media or emerging technologies.

“Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,” said Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer first proposed the idea of the AI moratorium last year. He noted “the animus surrounding Big Tech” among many Republicans.

“That was the differentiating factor.”

Conservative v. conservative in a last-minute fight

The Heritage Foundation, children’s safety groups and Republican state lawmakers, governors and attorneys general all weighed in against the AI moratorium. Democrats, tech watchdogs and some tech companies opposed it, too.

Sensing the moment was right on Monday night, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who opposed the AI provision and had attempted to water it down, teamed up with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington to suggest striking the entire proposal. By morning, the provision was removed in a 99-1 vote.

The whirlwind demise of a provision that initially had the backing of House and Senate leadership and the White House disappointed other conservatives who felt it gave China, a main AI competitor, an advantage.

Ryan Fournier, chairman of Students for Trump and chief marketing officer of the startup Uncensored AI, had supported the moratorium, writing on X that it “stops blue states like California and New York from handing our future to Communist China.”

“Republicans are that way … I get it,” he said in an interview, but added there needs to be “one set of rules, not 50” for AI innovation to be successful.

AI advocates fear a patchwork of state rules

Tech companies, tech trade groups, venture capitalists and multiple Trump administration figures had voiced their support for the provision that would have blocked states from passing their own AI regulations for years. They argued that in the absence of federal standards, letting the states take the lead would leave tech innovators mired in a confusing patchwork of rules.

Lutnick, the commerce secretary, posted that the provision “makes sure American companies can develop cutting-edge tech for our military, infrastructure, and critical industries — without interference from anti-innovation politicians.” AI czar Sacks had also publicly supported the measure.

After the Senate passed the bill without the AI provision, the White House responded to an inquiry for Sacks with the president’s position, saying Trump “is fully supportive of the Senate-passed version of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.”

Acknowledging defeat of his provision on the Senate floor, Cruz noted how pleased China, liberal politicians and “radical left-wing groups” would be to hear the news.

But Blackburn pointed out that the federal government has failed to pass laws that address major concerns about AI, such as keeping children safe and securing copyright protections.

“But you know who has passed it?” she said. “The states.”

Conservatives want to win the AI race, but disagree on how

Conservatives distrusting Big Tech for what they see as social media companies stifling speech during the COVID-19 pandemic and surrounding elections said that tech companies shouldn’t get a free pass, especially on something that carries as much risk as AI.

Many who opposed the moratorium also brought up preserving states’ rights, though proponents countered that AI issues transcend state borders and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Eric Lucero, a Republican state lawmaker in Minnesota, noted that many other industries already navigate different regulations established by both state and local jurisdictions.

“I think everyone in the conservative movement agrees we need to beat China,” said Daniel Cochrane from the Heritage Foundation. “I just think we have different prescriptions for doing so.”

Many argued that in the absence of federal legislation, states were best positioned to protect citizens from the potential harms of AI technology.

“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X.

A call for federal rules

Another Republican, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, wrote to Cruz and his counterpart, Sen. John Cornyn, urging them to remove the moratorium.

She and other conservatives said some sort of federal standard could help clarify the landscape around AI and resolve some of the party’s disagreements.

But with the moratorium dead and Republicans holding only narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, it’s unclear whether they will be able to agree on a set of standards to guide the development of the burgeoning technology.

In an email to The Associated Press, Paxton said she wants to see limited federal AI legislation “that sets some clear guardrails” around national security and interstate commerce, while leaving states free to address issues that affect their residents.

“When it comes to technology as powerful and potentially dangerous as AI, we should be cautious about silencing state-level efforts to protect consumers and children,” she said.

___

Associated Press writer Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

Ali Swenson, The Associated Press

BOSTON (AP) — In the state that served as the model for Obamacare, advocates and health care workers fear the Trump administration is trying to dismantle piece-by-piece a popular program that has provided insurance, preventive care and life-saving medication to hundreds of thousands of people.

Provisions contained in both the Senate and House versions of the massive tax and spending cuts bill advancing in Congress — a centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s agenda — could strip health insurance from up to a quarter of the roughly 400,000 people enrolled in the Massachusetts Health Connector, according to state estimates.

The changes would create anew the coverage gaps state leaders were working to close when Massachusetts in 2006 became the first U.S. state to enact a law requiring nearly every resident to have health insurance, state officials say. Beyond the effect on residents’ health, losing care could have broader repercussions — both for the program’s finances and residents’ ability to make a living.

“The idea of needing to unwind that now and pull back on that promise and commitment is really frustrating and heartbreaking and cruel and counterproductive,” said Audrey Morse Gasteier, executive director of Massachusetts’ health insurance marketplace.

Trump and Republican supporters in Congress say the changes, which include new documentation requirements and limitations on who can apply for tax credits to help pay for insurance, are necessary to root out what they call fraud, waste and abuse. The Affordable Care Act changes proposed in both versions of the bill, along with massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs, would eliminate roughly $1.1 trillion in health care spending over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

In Lawrence, a mill community of around 90,000 people on the Merrimack River, where more than 80% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, Kesia Moreta said she’s already seeing people slip out of the state’s health care network because of the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to crack down on illegal immigration.

Moreta, who manages a program created under the ACA that helps people sign up for coverage, said clients have been missing meetings out of fear that being enrolled for health insurance will harm their effort to stay in the U.S. legally.

Recently, a father of a U.S.-born teenage son with epilepsy deleted every email related to his health plan and stopped answering calls from the Connector after watching reports about deportations on social media. When his son’s medication ran out, Moreta said the father finally reached out, whispering over the phone, “Is this going to get me deported?”

“That breaks our hearts,” Moreta said.

Proposed changes

More than 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, the lowest rate of uninsurance in the country, according to the Massachusetts Health Insurance Survey.

Vicky Pulos, an attorney for the Mass Law Reform Institute who helps low-income people gain access to health care, said Republicans who tried and failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act during the first Trump administration have decided to take it apart incrementally despite its growing popularity.

“It really seems like this is just a less transparent way of effectively dismantling the accomplishments of the Affordable Care Act in both Medicaid and the marketplace,” Pulos said.

The changes, she added, “will massively drive up the number of uninsured but without openly repealing the ACA.”

Another provision included in both the House and Senate bills would require people applying for or renewing coverage to provide more documentation of their income, household size and immigration status to be eligible for premium tax credits when the state marketplace already has that information, which Morse Gasteier said would cause “friction, red tape and delays.”

The Trump administration has said the proposals will “put a stop” to immigrants “stealing taxpayer-funded health care benefits meant for American citizens.”

No states use federal money to provide health insurance to people who are in the U.S. illegally. Some, like Massachusetts, use state tax dollars to do so to provide basic primary care services for a small population of vulnerable residents, like children.

No undocumented immigrants receive insurance through the state marketplace.

Of the 400,000 enrolled in the state marketplace, around 60,000 are noncitizens who are in the U.S. legally and would lose access to federal premium tax credits if either chamber’s version of the bill becomes law. The number includes domestic violence and human trafficking victims, refugees, people granted asylum or humanitarian parole, temporary protected status and other work-authorized immigrants.

Without the credits, premiums will cost upwards of $500 or $600 — an increase many people can’t afford, Morse Gasteier said. Around half are green-card holders with an annual income of $15,000 a year or less.

The remaining 40,000 people expected to lose coverage are U.S. citizens Morse Gasteier said could be stymied in applying or recertifying coverage by provisions like the increased documentation requirements.

Fears of trust l

ost

Morse Gasteier said Massachusetts’ marketplace worked “tirelessly” to enroll vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations after the state program — formed under the leadership of then-Gov. Mitt Romney and known as “Romneycare” — was created.

She worries that if people hear help is no longer available, “entire populations will just sort of give up on health insurance.”

In addition to affecting residents’ health, that could have an economic impact in the state.

Immigrants with legal status enrolled in the state marketplace tend to be younger than the rest of the population, Morse Gasteier said. Their presence brings premiums down for others because they tend to be healthier.

In Lawrence, advocates who help people obtain insurance coverage though the ACA marketplace say the burden would fall disproportionately on people with chronic health issues like diabetes and chronic heart disease.

The Greater Lawrence Community Action Council assists around 10,000 people a year with either signing up for or renewing health insurance.

“If you’re not healthy, let me tell you, you can’t work. If you can’t work, you can’t pay your bills. It’s just as simple as that,” said GLCAC CEO Vilma Martinez-Dominguez.

Moreta said one man who called her from the emergency room recently said he discovered his health insurance had lapsed. Moreta said she could help him renew it, and urged him to wait at the hospital.

He told her not to do anything. He was leaving the hospital. She has no idea what became of him.

Leah Willingham, The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — President Donald Trump has a new political foil: New York’s Democratic nominee for mayor, Zohran Mamdani.

The president, who has a history of spewing sometimes vile insults at rivals, has in recent days escalated his attacks against the 33-year-old self-described democratic socialist. Trump has threatened to arrest Mamdani, to deport him and even to take over the country’s largest city if he wins the general election in November.

“As President of the United States, I’m not going to let this Communist Lunatic destroy New York. Rest assured, I hold all the levers, and have all the cards,” Trump wrote in an ominous message on his Truth Social site Wednesday morning. “I’ll save New York City, and make it ′Hot′ and ′Great′ again, just like I did with the Good Ol’ USA!”

Mamdani’s surprise victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has given Republicans a new target as they seek to paint the entire Democratic Party as extreme and out of touch with voters heading into elections this fall in New Jersey and Virginia and next year’s high-stakes midterm elections. Since Mamdani’s win, they have repeatedly highlighted his most controversial past comments and positions, casting him as dangerous, a communist, and an antisemite, and trying to tie him to all other Democratic officials.

That has included intense criticism of his platform, as well as blatantly xenophobic and Islamophobic attacks.

If Mamdani wins, he would become the city’s furthest-left mayor in modern history. He ran on a platform that included opening city-run grocery stores, making buses free, freezing rent on rent-stabilized apartments, and raising property taxes on “ richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

Though he softened his stance as he campaigned, he called the New York Police Department “racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety” in a 2020 social media post, and in others, called for abolishing the entire prison system.

He has also drawn intense criticism from members of both parties over his pro-Palestinian advocacy. That has included describing Israel’s war in Gaza as “genocide,” his refusal to disavow use of the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which is seen as a call to violence for many Jews. Also, for his refusal to support the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

His rise has sparked infighting and highlighted divisions among national Democratic officials, donors and political operatives. While many progressives have celebrated, seeing him as the future of a party aligned with leaders like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, moderates have bemoaned the election’s outcome as a setback in their quest to broaden Democrats’ appeal and move past the more controversial policies that appears to have alienated some voters in recent elections.

Trump threatens Mamdani’s citizenship

Trump unleashed some of his sharpest threats against Mamdani Tuesday, during a visit to a new migrant detention center in the Florida Everglades.

If Mamdani blocks ICE agents from making arrests in the city, “Well, then we’ll have to arrest him,” he said. “Look, we don’t need a communist in this country. But if we have one, I’m going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation.”

Trump also amplified a false allegation that Mamdani, who was born in Uganda to Indian parents and came to New York when he was 7, is in the country illegally.

“A lot of people are saying he’s here illegally. We’re going to look at everything,” he said.

Mamdani, who is Muslim, became a naturalized American citizen a few years after he graduated from college. If elected, he would be the city’s first Muslim and Indian American mayor.

Mamdani addressed the criticism during an appearance Wednesday, telling reporters that Trump is focusing on him to distract the public from the Republican mega tax and spending cuts bill that is moving through Congress.

“Donald Trump said that I should be arrested. He said that I should be deported. He said that I should be denaturalized. And he said those things about me … because he wants to distract from what I fight for,” he said. “I fight for the same people that he said he was fighting for. This is the same president who ran on a campaign of cheaper groceries, who ran on a campaign about easing the suffocating cost of living crisis. And ultimately, it is easier for him to fan the flames of division than to acknowledge the ways in which he has betrayed those working-class Americans.”

Conservatives have turned their focus on Mamdani

Until Mamdani’s win, Trump and other Republicans had struggled to find a compelling foil. He frequently invokes his predecessor, Joe Biden. But with Democrats out of power and without a clear party leader, Trump has bounced from one official to the next, recently focusing his ire on Texas progressive Rep. Jasmine Crockett.

Since Mamdani’s national rise and toppling of Cuomo, conservative politicians and commentators have turned their focus on him.

That effort was on display Wednesday, when Republicans blasted House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries for defending Mamdani.

“Leader’ Jeffries Just Bent the Knee to Commie Mamdani,” the National Republican Congressional Committee wrote in an email blast, adding: “This radical platform is the future of the Democrat Party, and voters should be terrified.”

The attacks have been brewing.

Weeks before the primary, Vickie Paladino, a Republican member of the New York City Council, called for Mamdani to be deported. After Mamdani declared victory over Cuomo last week, Rep. Randy Fine, a Florida Republican, wrote on X that “If Mamdani has his way, NYC classrooms won’t be teaching the Constitution in civics class. They’ll be teaching Sharia Law.”

Another Republican congressman, Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, circulated a video of Mamdani eating a rice dish with his hands on X and wrote, “Civilized people in America don’t eat like this. If you refuse to adopt Western customs, go back to the Third World.”

Republican Rep. Andy Ogles, of Tennessee, has referred to Mamdani as “little muhammad” and late last month wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi calling for the Justice Department to investigate whether Mamdani should be denaturalized as a citizen.

___

Jill Colvin And Anthony Izaguirre, The Associated Press

The Trump administration has accused states and schools of using federal education grants earmarked for immigrants’ children and low-income students to help fund “a radical leftwing agenda.”

The administration this week withheld more than $6 billion intended for after-school and summer programs, English language instruction, adult literacy and more, saying it would review the grants to ensure they align with President Donald Trump’s priorities. The freeze sent schools and summer camp providers scrambling to determine whether they can still provide programs like day camps this summer or after-hours child care this fall.

On Wednesday, the Office of Management and Budget said an initial review showed schools used some of the money to support immigrants in the country illegally or promote LGBTQ+ inclusion. The administration said it hadn’t made any final decisions about whether to withhold or release individual grants.

“Many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.

It said New York schools had used money for English language instruction to promote organizations that advocate for immigrants in the country illegally. Washington state used the money to direct immigrants without legal status toward scholarships the Trump administration says were “intended for American students.” Grant funds also were used for a seminar on “queer resistance in the arts,” the office said.

Officials from New York and Washington state didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Advocates for low-income and immigrant children connected the grant freeze to the Trump administration’s larger crackdown on immigrants. Two of the five federal programs put on hold were appropriated by Congress to help support English proficiency of students still learning the language and migrant children who move with their parents to follow agricultural and other jobs.

School districts use the $890 million earmarked for English learners in a wide range of purposes, from training teachers’ aides who work with English learners, to running summer schools designed for them, to hiring family liaisons who speak the parents’ native languages. The $375 million appropriated for migrant education is often used to hire dedicated teachers to travel close to where students live.

By “cherrypicking extreme examples,” the administration is seeking to conflate all students learning English with people who are in the country illegally, said Amaya Garcia, who directs education research at New America, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.

In reality, the majority of English learners in public schools were born in the United States, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute.

“The way they’re framing it is that we’re using this money for undocumented students and families,” said Margarita Machado-Casas, president of the National Association of Bilingual Educators. “It’s a distraction. A distraction from what’s actually happening: that 5.3 million English learners who speak lots of different languages, not just Spanish, will suffer.”

Even if the students lack legal status, states may not deny public education to children in the country illegally under a 1982 Supreme Court decision known as Plyler v. Doe. Conservative politicians in states such as Oklahoma, Texas and Tennessee have pursued policies that question whether immigrants without legal residency should have the right to a public education, raising the possibility of challenges to that landmark ruling.

Meanwhile, states and school districts are still trying to understand what it will mean for their students and their staff if these funds never arrive.

In Oregon, eliminating grants for English learners and migrant students would “undermine the state’s efforts to increase academic outcomes for multilingual students, promote multilingualism, close opportunity gaps and provide targeted support to mobile and vulnerable student groups,” said Liz Merah, spokeswoman for the state’s Department of Education.

____

Associated Press writer Collin Binkley contributed from Washington.

_____

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

Bianca Vázquez Toness, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon is pausing shipments of weapons to Ukraine again after more than three years of deliveries meant to bolster the country’s defenses against invading Russian forces.

The Trump administration’s decision comes as Ukraine is facing intensified attacks by Russia against its civilians, and withholding that assistance could reduce Kyiv’s ability to counter deadly incoming ballistic missile attacks.

Officials said the decision was prompted by concerns that U.S. stockpiles were getting too low.

Here’s a look at what the U.S. has provided Ukraine to date and why it’s concerned about pressure on its own arsenal:

What weapons has the U.S. provided to Ukraine to date?

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the U.S. has provided more than $67 billion in weapons and security assistance to Kyiv.

That ranges from more than 500 million bullets and grenades to 31 Abrams tanks, more than 3 million 155mm artillery rounds and more than 5,000 Humvees. It’s also provided scores of critical drones and drone defense systems.

But Ukraine’s constant need has been for air defense — from taking out Russian aircraft in the early days of the conflict to having to defend itself against long-range missiles now.

In response, the U.S. has provided Patriot air defense batteries, National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems and HAWK air defense systems — and still more is sought.

But those demands are butting up against demands for similar air defenses in the Middle East and the reality that the U.S. military does not have enough munitions on hand to sustain a high rate of deliveries, while providing troops with equipment to train on and build up a stockpile for a potential future conflict. That’s especially true if it’s put in a position where the U.S. has to defend Taiwan against China.

How will the new weapons pause affect Ukraine?

This is the second time the Trump administration has paused weapons shipments to Ukraine, but for different reasons.

After an explosive Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in March, President Donald Trump paused weapons that were funded under the Biden administration and still flowing into Ukraine. That pause was short-lived after Republican lawmakers pressed for Ukraine aid to resume.

The new pause affects high-demand munitions the U.S. has sent to Ukraine, including Patriot missiles, the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile and shorter-range Stinger missiles.

Ukraine has relied on the AIM-7 Sparrow to counter incoming missiles and shorter-range Stinger missiles to knock down Russian aircraft or counter drone attacks. The Patriot missiles are used against Russia’s frequent ballistic missile attacks.

The pause could have deadly consequences for Ukraine, said Brad Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

“If we deprive Kyiv of PAC-3 (Patriot) interceptors it means more Russian missiles getting through and more dead Ukrainians,” Bowman said.

Rather than cutting off Ukraine, Bowman said the administration needs to look at “whether we are taking all the steps we can to procure the max quantity that industry can produce.”

Does the U.S. face stress on its weapons stockpile?

The Trump administration’s pause is part of a global review by the Pentagon on what munitions it is providing and where it is sending them, and the impact on its own stockpiles.

“We can’t give weapons to everybody all around the world,” Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said in a briefing Wednesday. “We have to look out for Americans and defending our homeland and our troops around the world.”

Adm. Samuel Paparo, head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, has previously warned that the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East were putting pressure on his stockpile levels.

As Iran launched a retaliatory ballistic missile attack last month, troops defended Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar with scores of Patriot air defense missiles — a high-demand munition the U.S. only has in limited supply.

The Navy also has defended ships in the Red Sea by striking Houthi weapons and launch sites in Yemen with Tomahawk missiles. In one day in January 2024, it fired more Tomahawks than the Navy had purchased the prior year, said Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior defense fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

“Everybody’s worried — and the thing is, they have a reason to be worried,” Eaglen said. “Air defense is a key capability of the most concern.”

Is the U.S. producing enough weapons?

A $60 billion Ukraine aid bill passed by Congress last year contained billions for U.S. weapons manufacturers to expand their production capacity.

Despite the billions spent on defense contracts each year, the number of weapons in the U.S. can quickly dwindle — particularly for some of the complex air defense munitions — if a major conflict breaks out. That’s because of the time it takes to build each missile.

For example, despite an influx of investment since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the rate of production for Patriot missiles — one of the military’s most important air defenses for its bases overseas — has increased to just 48 per month. That is compared to 21 per month prior to the invasion.

While the total number of Patriot munitions the U.S. has is unknown, the number of entire Patriot missile defense systems is in such limited supply that providing one to a new location often means taking it from somewhere else. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he needs the systems to help defend his country’s electrical grid and cities from the thousands of missile and drone attacks it faces daily.

And defending a large overseas base like Al Udeid can also require firing scores of the missiles, which cost $4 million a piece. For other munitions that have been critical to Ukraine’s defenses — like the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS — production has increased from just 5 per month pre-invasion to 8 per month now, according to a Defense Department fact sheet.

Elbridge Colby, Defense Department undersecretary for policy, said Pentagon officials have aimed to provide Trump “with robust options to continue military aid to Ukraine” but also are “rigorously examining” that approach while “preserving U.S. forces’ readiness for administration defense priorities.”

___

Tara Copp, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A declassified CIA memo released Wednesday challenges the work intelligence agencies did to conclude that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election because it wanted Republican Donald Trump to win.

The memo was written on the orders of CIA Director John Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist who spoke out against the Russia investigation as a member of Congress. It finds fault with a 2017 intelligence assessment that concluded the Russian government, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, waged a covert influence campaign to help Trump win.

It does not address that multiple investigations since then, including from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020, reached the same conclusion about Russia’s influence and motives.

The eight-page document is part of an ongoing effort by Trump and close allies who now lead key government agencies to revisit the history of a long-concluded Russia investigation, which resulted in criminal indictments and shadowed most of his first term but also produced unresolved grievances and contributed to the Republican president’s deep-rooted suspicions of the intelligence community.

The report is also the latest effort by Ratcliffe to challenge the decision-making and actions of intelligence agencies during the course of the Russia investigation.

A vocal Trump supporter in Congress who aggressively questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his 2019 testimony on Russian election interference, Ratcliffe later used his position as director of national intelligence to declassify Russian intelligence alleging damaging information about Democrats during the 2016 election even as he acknowledged that it might not be true.

The new, “lessons-learned” review ordered by Ratcliffe last month was meant to examine the tradecraft that went into the intelligence community’s 2017 assessment on Russian interference and to scrutinize in particular the conclusion that Putin “aspired” to help Trump win.

The report cited several “anomalies” that the authors wrote could have affected that conclusion, including a rushed timeline and a reliance on unconfirmed information, such as Democratic-funded opposition research about Trump’s ties to Russia compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele.

The report takes particular aim at the inclusion of a two-page summary of the Steele dossier, which included salacious and uncorroborated rumors about Trump’s ties to Russia, in the intelligence community assessment.

It said that decision “implicitly elevated unsubstantiated claims to the status of credible supporting evidence, compromising the analytical integrity of the judgment.”

But even as Ratcliffe faulted top intelligence officials for a “politically charged environment that triggered an atypical analytic process,” his agency’s report does not directly contradict any previous intelligence.

Russia’s support for Trump has been outlined in a number of intelligence reports and the conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee, then chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio, who now serves as Trump’s secretary of state. It also was backed by Mueller, who in his report said that Russia interfered on Trump’s behalf and that the campaign welcomed the aid even if there was insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy.

“This report doesn’t change any of the underlying evidence — in fact it doesn’t even address any of that evidence,” said Brian Taylor, a Russia expert who directs the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University.

Taylor suggested the report may have been intended to reinforce Trump’s claims that investigations into his ties to Russia are part of a Democratic hoax.

“Good intelligence analysts will tell you their job is to speak truth to power,” Taylor said. “If they tell the leader what he wants to hear, you often get flawed intelligence.”

Intelligence agencies regularly perform after-action reports to learn from past operations and investigations, but it’s uncommon for the evaluations to be declassified and released to the public.

Ratcliffe has said he wants to release material on a number of topics of public debate and has already declassified records relating to the assassinations of President John Kennedy and his brother, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, as well as the origins of COVID-19.

David Klepper And Eric Tucker, The Associated Press