WASHINGTON (AP) — Denver Mayor Mike Johnston regularly games out responses to threats like destructive tornadoes or hazardous waste leaks. He’s added a new potential menace: the federal government.

When President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to some U.S. cities last year over the objection of local leaders, Johnston said his tabletop exercises expanded to consider what might happen if federal officials took aim at Denver, which the Trump administration has sued for limiting cooperation on deportations. The city now prepares for the impact of federal activity on everything from access to schools and hospitals to interference with elections.

“We used to prepare for natural disasters,” Johnston, a Democrat, said in an interview. “Now we prepare for our own federal government.”

A half-dozen state and local officials from both major political parties over the past week described an increasingly hostile relationship with Washington. While there’s inherent tension between city, state and federal governments over power, politics and money, the current dynamic is unlike anything they’ve experienced, particularly after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis last month.

While partnerships are still in place, the officials said the Minneapolis killings have hardened opposition to excessive federal power.

“This is unprecedented,” said Jerry Dyer, the Republican mayor of Fresno, California, and a former police chief. “I’ve never seen federal law enforcement come to the cities, whether it’s National Guard or ICE, and police cities without a level of cooperation from local police.”

GOP long sought to empower local governments

The tensions have upended longtime Republican arguments that the federal government should leave local governance to the states under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Now a Republican president is articulating a muscular federal approach over the protest of Democrats.

“There’s no question that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated the Constitution and how it deals with states,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said in an interview.

“My hope,” he added, “is that we are quickly approaching our McCarthyism moment where even Donald Trump’s supporters are going to recognize this has gone too far.”

Trump has expressed frustration at reflexive resistance from Democratic mayors and governors, insisting this week that he doesn’t want to force federal law enforcement on communities. He prefers to work with officials like Louisiana GOP Gov. Jeff Landry, who requested National Guard troops to patrol New Orleans.

The president’s willingness to use federal power is often issue-based, favoring states in areas like abortion or education while embracing a strong federal role on immigration and elections.

Trump said this week that Republicans should “nationalize” elections, a power the Constitution expressly gives to states. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said he was referring to a push that voters prove they are U.S. citizens, though Trump still described states as an “agent for the federal government.”

“That’s not what the Constitution says about elections,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told MS NOW.

Beshear and the 23 other Democratic governors released a statement Thursday objecting to “interference from the federal government.” In the interview, Beshear pointed to Paul’s comments as an example of bipartisan agreement.

“Rand and I don’t agree on a lot,” he said.

Paul and some other Republicans, including Govs. Phil Scott of Vermont and Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, have also expressed concern about the immigration operation in Minnesota.

Preliminary steps to ease tensions

Trump has taken preliminary steps to ease tensions, replacing Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security leaders in Minneapolis with Tom Homan, the administration’s border czar. Homan is withdrawing 700 of the roughly 3,000 federal officers deployed around Minneapolis, though Trump and Vice President JD Vance reject any suggestion of a federal drawdown.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the continued presence in the Twin Cities of thousands of federal officers contradicts his demand that the administration end its operation there. In a sign of the frustration between local and federal officials there, the rhetoric has taken on militaristic tones.

Trump has referred to federal law enforcement in Minneapolis as “soldiers.” Homan has described agents as being “in theater,” a military phrase typically used in reference to a conflict zone. During a quick trip to Washington last week to address fellow mayors, Frey spoke of an “invasion” and “occupation” in his city.

“We are on the front lines of a very important battle,” he said.

At the same event, Elizabeth Kautz, the Republican mayor of suburban Burnsville, Minnesota, said she now carries her passport around the city she’s led since 1995.

“With the introduction of ICE, our cities are no longer safe,” she said.

That’s also how it feels to leaders in places far from Minneapolis, even if they haven’t been targeted by ICE.

“What I can’t tolerate is the approach to immigration operations in a place like Minneapolis that are causing people to look over their shoulder in cities like Allentown,” said Matt Tuerk, the Democratic mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, which has a large Latino population. “Even though you’re not in Allentown, you’re having an impact.”

Reshaping Washington’s priorities

The immigration crackdown is one element of Trump’s work to dramatically reshape the U.S. government’s priorities and operations at home and abroad. Trump and his supporters describe a need to strictly enforce immigration laws in the U.S. and end social safety net programs they say are prone to fraud. The president’s foreign policy has shown little patience for longstanding alliances or diplomatic niceties that are seen as out of step with U.S. interests.

That’s manifested most clearly in Trump’s push for Denmark to cede control of Greenland to the U.S., a demand that brought the NATO alliance to the brink in January. Canadian prime minister Mark Carney spoke at the time of a “rupture” between the U.S. and its allies that would be difficult to repair.

For some local leaders in the U.S., that sense of a seismic shift felt familiar.

“It’s profoundly changed,” Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval, a Democrat, said of his views toward the federal government. “Given that the administration has used partisan politics and used the power of the federal government and its various agencies to put pressure on mayors and local officials not to follow the law but to follow their politics is absolutely new and it’s absolutely affecting trust at every level.”

While foreign leaders can explore a shift in alliances, as some are actively considering, that’s nearly impossible for local leaders in the U.S., whose budgets are tied to federal funding. Those funds have been unstable during Trump’s second term as Washington has canceled grants that he considered wasteful or out of line with the administration’s priorities, prompting some mayors to turn to philanthropy for help.

But nothing can replace the power of the federal government, said Tuerk, who described defending grants by connecting the money to the administration’s priorities, including job creation.

“When we’re like, ‘Hey, don’t take away this grant that is designed to get people to work,’ I hope that message is getting through,” he said.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the federal shift “absolutely historic.” Trump has fiercely criticized her, issuing an executive order last month deriding her wildfire response and pressing to “cut through bureaucratic red tape” to speed up reconstruction.

In an interview, Bass, a former member of Congress, said she turns to administration officials she knew from her time in Washington.

“I’m fortunate,” she said. “I have an ability to have a relationship.”

But as January came to a close, local officials in Minnesota seemed exhausted.

“You think about, ‘Why us?’” said Jim Hovland, the nonpartisan mayor of the Minneapolis suburb Edina. “We’ve had a historically really good relationship with the federal government, and it’s really sad to see it fray.”

Copyright
© 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

SEATTLE — A bill aimed at regulating automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras has successfully passed the Washington State Senate with a 40-9 vote.

Sponsored by Sen. Yasmin Trudeau (D-Tacoma), SB 6002 seeks to establish clear guidelines for the use and retention of data collected by ALPR cameras, which are used by law enforcement and other government agencies to scan license plates and gather data.

RELATED | Washington lawmakers push for privacy regulations on Flock cameras

Currently, Washington state lacks specific legislation governing ALPR cameras.

“My goal with this bill has always been about community safety and trust,” Trudeau said. She emphasized the state’s constitutional obligation to protect personal privacy while responding to community concerns about surveillance technology.

The bill aims to balance these concerns by ensuring that law enforcement has the necessary tools to solve serious crimes while protecting individual privacy.

Key provisions of the bill include setting a 21-day retention period for ALPR data, prohibiting its use for immigration enforcement or tracking protected activities such as free speech protests, and banning the placement of ALPR cameras near schools, places of worship, courthouses, or food banks.

RELATED | Use of Flock Safety cameras growing across western Washington, raising privacy concerns

The bill also mandates logs of all data access to monitor compliance and prohibits data sharing with other agencies except in judicial proceedings.

The 21-day retention period, extended from an initially shorter duration based on law enforcement feedback, would be the second-shortest in the nation and the shortest among states with ALPR cameras in operation. “This would be the best and strongest license plate reader law of any state in the nation,” Trudeau stated, highlighting the bill’s provisions for transparency and accountability.

Recent reports have raised concerns about the misuse and unauthorized sharing of ALPR data in Washington state.

Research from the University of Washington revealed that at least eight local law enforcement agencies have shared ALPR data with U.S. Border Patrol, and Border Patrol has accessed data from at least 10 additional agencies without formal agreements.

RELATED | UW report finds police unknowingly shared license plate data with Border Patrol

Additionally, there have been instances of ALPR data being used for purposes such as firearms enforcement and tracking individuals for abortion-related investigations.

The bill now moves to the House of Representatives for further consideration.

Inside the Capitol Building on Tuesday during Ted Sarandos’ appearance before the U.S. Senate’s antitrust subcommittee sat the Monopoly man, complete with a white mustache, top hat and red bowtie. The message, shared by some consumers and large swaths of Hollywood, to lawmakers was unmistakable: Netflix is poised to become an entertainment behemoth if it’s allowed to complete a $82.7 billion deal for Warner Bros. and HBO.

Just ahead of him was a cadre of Warner Bros. Discovery executives and lawyers in attendance to observe Sarandos’ testimony on the impact of the merger. The battle for the company will almost surely be fought in court, but the hearing turned into something of a legal session, with both Democratic and Republican senators pressing the executive on finer points of the acquisition as they relate to antitrust laws. Of specific interest was the market Netflix operates in, who it competes against and concerns that another media megamerger could undercut labor — key issues that may decide the fate of the deal if the Justice Department sues.

Sarandos appeared confident but friendly and answered questions directly, though he hedged when asked whether he would commit to restoring “full residuals.”

“It’s a very complicated answer,” Sarandos replied. His performance saw Netflix stock remain relatively flat as it continues to decline since the announcement of the deal.

He pushed a narrative that Netflix buying Warner Bros. will help save a storied Hollywood studio from the “deep-pocked tech companies trying to run away with the TV business.” Those tech firms, he said, are Netflix’s true competitors, name-checking YouTube at several points during his testimony. “YouTube is not just cat videos anymore,” he explained. “YouTube is TV.”

That message was echoed by Warner Bros. Discovery chief revenue officer Bruce Campbell, who went a step further in arguing that Netflix can’t be pigeonholed to film and TV. “Consumers are experiencing a flood of options, including expanded social media platforms, digital and interactive games, and dozens of other entertainment options that compete for consumers’ interest and attention,” he said in his opening remarks.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), chairman of the subcommittee, immediately zeroed in on the issue, saying that YouTube doesn’t produce original content and that the Google-owned company is “not in the same business.”

“They are a subscription service that has ad free and subscriptions options. It’s the exact same content,” Sarandos replied. “When we talk about competition, we’re competing for the same viewers, the same ad dollars and, sometimes, it’s the exact same programming.” The executive referenced the box office success of indie pic Iron Lung from Mark Fischbach (aka Markiplier) of YouTube gaming fame. The movie made nearly $17.9 million domestically and $21 million globally over the Jan. 30-Feb. 1 weekend.

“I’m struggling to grasp how it’s the same exact content,” Lee replied.

Sarandos didn’t back down, responding that half of all YouTube engagement happens in the living room on the TV. “It’s a zero sum game,” he said. “If you’re watching YouTube, you’re not watching HBO. You’re not watching Netflix.”

If it does get to court, the biggest battleground will be defining the market in which Netflix is a competitor. The company will look to define it as broadly as possible, likely arguing that it competes against the YouTubes and TikToks of the world. By Netflix’s thinking, it’s a competition for time and attention rather than for viewers solely looking to watch movies and TV shows.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, will look to keep the confines of the fight to streaming. A Netflix, Warner Bros. Discovery rollup would give the combined company more than 30 percent of the streaming market according to some measures, a key threshold typically viewed as problematic under antitrust law. Still, it’s a far cry from the 50 percent marketshare benchmark that triggers a presumption of monopoly power by the courts.

At several points in the hearing, Sarandos stressed that Netflix has roughly 9 percent of total TV viewing, behind YouTube and Disney. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) challenged the assertion. “That’s defining the market how you want,” he said. “In the streaming market, what percent do you have of the market.”

Sarandos shot back, “For us, that would be a fantasy construct.”

When only including streaming services, Netflix accounts for roughly 19 percent of viewing. That figure would increase to around 21 percent if it’s allowed to purchase Warner Bros.

Another avenue the government could pursue to block the deal is a monopsony theory, or whether the combined company would have too much power over creators and talent. Sarandos and Campbell were the only streaming executives who testified, but they were treated as stand-ins for the entire media and entertainment industries, which have seen significant consolidation over the last two decades, slowly whittling away at labor’s leverage.

In a sharp exchange, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked Sarandos to commit to restoring “full residuals.” Sarandos, appearing slightly flustered, said it’s “very complicated” and that “we prepay,” to which Hawley interjected to say “that’s usually a way of saying no.”

Netflix said in a statement it already pays residuals. “According to the WGA, residuals have reached an all time high of $493.9M (up 5% from ‘20 to ‘23) — streaming accounts for ~45%, of which the lions’ share comes from Netflix,” it said.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) pressed Sarandos, who committed to a 45-day theatrical window, on the fewer paths creators will have for the acquisition of their content with one less company in play.

Sarandos said Netflix has multiple purchasing arms within the company, including for family, comedy and drama content. “You can pitch to all three teams,” he explained. “One may pass and one may take it.” If the deal is greenlit, the executive said buying entities within Warner Bros. and Netflix will remain independent.

Some of the most aggressive questions came from Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who pressed Sarandos and Campbell on the companies “promoting DEI and wokeness” while pointing to content that portray vikings and Cleopatra as Black — content that some conservatives have used as examples of Hollywood pushing a political agenda. “Why in the world would we give the seal of approval to make you the largest behemoth in the planet related to content,” he said. “It seems as though you’ve engaged in not only creating content but the wokest content in the history of the world.”

Sarandos asserted that Netflix caters to all viewers, who are an even 40% split of conservatives and liberals.

One notable person absent from the hearing: Paramount CEO David Ellison, who met with lawmakers privately but declined to make an appearance as he pursues a hostile bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to Booker. The lawmaker said he has “serious concerns” with Paramount’s involvement in the deal due to allegations of “political favoritism” by President Donald Trump.

“Does that strike you as improper,” Booker asked Campbell, referencing Ellison’s meeting with Trump, after which a deal was reached to resolve a lawsuit over a 60 Minutes interview with former vice president Kamala Harris.

“It was unusual, yes,” Campbell said.