HONOLULU (AP) — The Maui Fire Department is expected to release a report Tuesday detailing how the agency responded to a series of wildfires that burned on the island during a windstorm last August — including one that killed 101 people in the historic town of Lahaina and became the deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century.

The release comes one day before the Hawaii Attorney General is expected to release the first phase of a separate comprehensive investigation about the events before, during and after the Aug. 8 fires.

The reports could help officials understand exactly what happened when the wind-whipped fire overtook the historic Maui town of Lahaina, destroying roughly 3,000 properties and causing more than $5.5 billion in estimated damage, according to state officials.

The Western Fire Chiefs Association produced the after-action report for the Maui Fire Department. After-action reports are frequently used by military organizations, emergency response agencies, government entities and even companies to help identify the strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s response to an emergency.

A similar after-action report was released by the Maui Police Department in February. It included 32 recommendations to improve the law enforcement agency’s response to future tragedies, including that the department obtain better equipment and that it station a high-ranking officer in the island’s communications center during emergencies.

Hawaiian Electric has acknowledged that one of its power lines fell and caused a fire in Lahaina the morning of Aug. 8, but the utility company denies that the morning fire caused the flames that burned through the town later that day. But dozens of lawsuits filed by survivors and victims’ families claim otherwise, saying entities like Hawaiian Electric, Maui County, large property owners or others should be held responsible for the damage caused by the inferno.

Many of the factors that contributed to the disaster are already known: Strong winds from a hurricane passing far offshore had downed power lines and blown off parts of rooftops, and debris blocked roads throughout Lahaina. Later those same winds rained embers and whipped flames through the heart of the town.

The vast majority of the county’s fire crews were already tied up fighting other wildfires on a different part of the island, their efforts sometimes hindered by a critical loss of water pressure after the winds knocked out electricity for the water pumps normally used to load firefighting tanks and reservoirs. County officials have acknowledged that a lack of backup power for critical pumps made it significantly harder for crews to battle the Upcountry fires.

A small firefighting team was tasked with handling any outbreaks in Lahaina. That crew brought the morning fire under control and even declared it extinguished, then broke for lunch. By the time they returned, flames had erupted in the same area and were quickly moving into a major subdivision. The fire in Lahaina burned so hot that thousands of water pipes melted, making it unlikely that backup power for pumps would have made a significant impact.

Cellphone and internet service was also down in the area, so it was difficult for some to call for help or to get information about the spreading fire — including any evacuation announcements. And emergency officials did not use Hawaii’s extensive network of emergency sirens to warn Lahaina residents.

The high winds made it hard at times for first responders to communicate on their radios, and 911 operators and emergency dispatchers were overwhelmed with hundreds of calls.

Police and electricity crews tried to direct people away from roads that were partially or completely blocked by downed power lines. Meanwhile, people trying to flee burning neighborhoods packed the few thoroughfares leading in and out of town.

The traffic jam left some trapped in their cars when the fire overtook them. Others who were close to the ocean jumped into the choppy waters to escape the flames.

___

Boone reported from Boise, Idaho.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama voters are set to cast their ballots Tuesday to decide party nominees for the state’s 2nd Congressional District, which was redrawn by a federal court to boost the voting power of Black residents.

The outcome of the hotly contested runoffs will set the match for the closely watched November race. Democrats are aiming to flip the Deep South seat, and Republicans, with control of the U.S. House of Representatives on the line, will try to keep it under the GOP column.

A federal court redrew the district in October after ruling that the state’s previous congressional map — which had only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state that is about 27% Black — illegally diluted the voting power of Black residents. The new district stretches the width of the state, including Mobile, the capital of Montgomery and the state’s Black Belt.

For the Democratic nomination, Shomari Figures, former deputy chief of staff and counselor to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, faces off against state Rep. Anthony Daniels, the minority leader of the state House. On the Republican side, former state Sen. Dick Brewbaker faces real estate attorney and political newcomer Caroleene Dobson to decide the party’s nomination.

The non-partisan Cook Political Report rated the district as “likely Democrat,” meaning that it favors the Democratic candidate in November but isn’t considered a sure thing. The November race could lead to Alabama having two Black congressional representatives in its delegation for the first time in history.

Figures and Daniels, who are both Black, were the top two vote-getters in the crowded field of 11 Democrats who sought the nomination. Both men have stressed their experience — Figures in Washington and Daniels in Montgomery.

Figures, an attorney, also served as an aide to former President Barrack Obama, serving as domestic director of the Presidential Personnel Office, and as a congressional staffer for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. He is the son of two prominent Alabama legislators, long-time state Sen. Vivian Davis Figures and the late Senate President Pro Tem Michael Figures. Figures moved back to Mobile from Washington D.C. to run for the congressional seat.

Daniels, a former teacher and business owner, was elected to the Alabama Legislature in 2014. He was elected minority leader in 2017, becoming the first Black man to hold the post. He lives in Huntsville, which is outside the 2nd District, but his campaign has emphasized that he grew up in the district and has worked on legislative issues for the entire state.

Figures led in the initial round of voting, capturing about 43% of the vote. Daniels finished second at about 22%.

Runoffs are required in both races because no candidate captured more than 50% of the vote in the March 5 primary.

Brewbaker led in the March primary, capturing 37% of the vote to Dobson’s 24.76%.

Dobson, who was raised in Monroe County, lived and practiced law in Texas before returning to Alabama and joining the Maynard Nexsen law firm in 2019. She is a member of the Alabama Forestry Commission.

Brewbaker, a businessman and owner of a Montgomery car dealership, served a term in the Alabama House and two terms in the Alabama Senate. He did not seek reelection in 2018.

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — A movie weapons armorer received the maximum sentence of 18 months in jail for involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer by Alec Baldwin on a Western movie set, as authorities now turn their focus on prosecution of Baldwin himself.

A New Mexico judge on Monday found that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed’s recklessness amounted to a serious violent offense, while noting few indications of genuine remorse from the defendant since her conviction in March. Prosecutors blame Gutierrez-Reed for unwittingly bringing live ammunition onto the set of “Rust,” where it was expressly prohibited, and for failing to follow basic gun-safety protocols .

Attention now turns to Baldwin’s upcoming trial on a charge of involuntary manslaughter in the October 2021 death of Halyna Hutchins at a movie ranch on the outskirts of Santa Fe.

Baldwin, the lead actor and co-producer of the film, was pointing a gun at Hutchins during a rehearsal when the gun went off, killing her and wounding director Joel Souza. Baldwin has pleaded not guilty and says he pulled back the hammer — but not the trigger — and the gun fired.

Here are some things to know as the “Rust” case against Baldwin nears:

Prosecutors on Monday described a “cascade of safety violations” on the movie set that only start with Gutierrez-Reed.

At sentencing, Gutierrez-Reed said she had tried to do her best on the set despite not having “proper time, resources and staffing,” and that she was not the monster that people have made her out to be.

But Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said the maximum sentence was appropriate given Gutierrez-Reed’s recklessness. She said remorse was lacking and rejected a request by defense attorneys for leniency and a conditional discharge that would have avoided further jail time.

The judge ticked through a checklist of safety failures by Gutierrez-Reed, pointedly answering her own questions.

“Did she have enough time to load the weapon safely? Plenty,” the judge said. “Did you load the weapon? Yes — with dummies and a live round. Did she check what she was loading? No.”

Hutchins, who was 42 when she died, grew up on a remote Soviet military base and worked on documentary films in Eastern Europe before studying film in Los Angeles and embarking on a promising movie-making career.

At the sentencing hearing, friends and family members described Hutchins as courageous, tenacious and compassionate.

Courtroom testimonials also included calls for justice and a punishment that would instill greater accountability for safety on film sets.

Ukrainian relatives of Hutchins are seeking damages in her death from Baldwin in connection with the shooting. Attorney Gloria Allred is representing Hutchins’ parents and sister and says that the family supports the criminal prosecution of Baldwin.

“No one has ever come to me to apologize,” Hutchins’ mother Olga Solovey said in a tearful video testimonial shown at the sentencing of Gutierrez-Reed.

The filming of “Rust” moved to Montana after Hutchins’ death under an agreement with her husband, Matthew Hutchins, that made him an executive producer.

Prosecutors dismissed an earlier involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin after being told the gun he was holding might have been modified before the shooting and malfunctioned.

A new analysis of the gun opened the way for prosecutors to reboot the case. A grand jury indicted Baldwin on the same charge in January. The indictment alleges Baldwin caused Hutchins’ death — either by negligence or “total disregard or indifference” for safety.

If he’s convicted, the charge carries a potential prison sentence of up to 18 months.

Defense attorneys for Baldwin are urging the judge to dismiss the grand jury indictment, accusing prosecutors of “unfairly stacking the deck” in grand jury proceedings that diverted attention away from exculpatory evidence and witnesses.

Special prosecutors deny those accusations and accuse Baldwin of “shameless” attempts to escape culpability, highlighting contradictions in Baldwin’s statements to law enforcement, workplace safety regulators and the public in a televised interview.

An FBI expert testified at Gutierrez-Reed’s trial that the revolver used by Baldwin was fully functional with safety features when it arrived at an FBI laboratory. The expert said he had to strike the fully cocked gun with a mallet and break it in order for it to fire without depressing the trigger.

Defense attorney Jason Bowles said Gutierrez-Reed will appeal the judge’s judgment and sentence against her.

Bowles said at sentencing that “there were multiple system failures by multiple people. Some of those people have come before the court. … Some have yet to come before the court. At least one individual is going to be tried in July.”

Gutierrez-Reed was acquitted of an evidence tampering charge at trial, but still confronts another felony charge in separate proceedings on allegations she brought a gun into a bar in downtown Santa Fe.

At her sentencing, Gutierrez-Reed teared up as Hutchins’ agent, Craig Mizrahi, spoke about the cinematographer’s creativity and described her as a rising star in Hollywood.

But special prosecutor Kari Morrissey says she reviewed nearly 200 phone calls that Gutierrez-Reed had made from jail over the last month. She said she was hoping there would be a moment when the defendant would take responsibility for Hutchins’ death or express genuine remorse but “that moment has never come.”

SPARROWS POINT, Md. (AP) — Nearly three weeks since Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed under the impact of a wayward cargo ship, crews are using the largest crane on the Eastern Seaboard to haul the wreckage to a nearby salvage yard.

The heaviest section so far weighed about 450 tons (408 metric tons). In the salvage yard Monday morning, workers disassembled the metal trusses by attacking them with propane torches and a pair of giant shears that sliced them into more manageable pieces. Rising from the water nearby was the Chesapeake 1000, a floating crane with a storied history that includes helping the CIA retrieve part of a sunken Soviet submarine.

The Key Bridge took five years to construct in the 1970s. Now, it’s a race against the clock to dismantle the remnants of a fallen Baltimore landmark.

On March 26, six construction workers plunged to their deaths in the collapse. Four bodies have since been recovered.

Salvage crews are hoping to recover the two remaining bodies once more of the debris has been removed. They’re also working toward their goal of opening a temporary channel later this month that would allow more commercial traffic to resume through the Port of Baltimore, which has remained largely closed since the March 26 collapse. Officials plan to reopen the port’s main channel by the end of May.

So far, over 1,000 tons (907 metric tons) of steel have been removed from the waterway. But the work is tedious, dangerous and incredibly complex, leaders of the operation said Monday during a visit to the salvage yard at Tradepoint Atlantic, the only maritime shipping terminal currently operating in the Port of Baltimore.

The facility, which occupies the site of a former Bethlehem Steel plant northeast of Baltimore, has ramped up operations to accommodate some of the ships originally scheduled to dock at the port’s other terminals.

Before removing any pieces of the bridge, divers are tasked with surveying the murky underwater wreckage and assessing how to safely extract the various parts. Coming up with a roadmap is among the biggest challenges, said Robyn Bianchi, an assistant salvage master on the project.

“There’s a lot of debris, there’s rebar, there’s concrete,” she said. “We don’t know what dangers are down there, so we have to be very methodical and slow with that.”

At the same time, crews are working to remove some containers from the cargo ship Dali before lifting steel spans off its bow and refloating the vessel.

“It presents a dynamic hazard,” said Joseph Farrell, CEO of Resolve Marine, which is working on refloating the ship. He said once that happens, the Dali will return to the Port of Baltimore. “Getting it out of there is a priority.”

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Democratic lawmakers are hoping to win back a majority in the deadlocked Michigan House and regain control of the state government in two special elections on Tuesday.

Democrat Mai Xiong is taking on Republican Ronald Singer in District 13, while Peter Herzberg, a Democrat, faces Republican Josh Powell in District 25. Both districts are located just outside Detroit and are heavily Democratic, with the previous Democratic incumbents each having won by over 25 percentage points in 2022.

The lower chamber has been tied 54-54 between Democratic and Republican lawmakers since November, when two Democratic representatives vacated their seats after winning mayoral races in their hometowns. Democrats previously held a majority in both chambers along with control of the governor’s office.

“These special elections will determine who controls the House here in Michigan and set the tone for November, when we will decide whether Democrats hold on to the state House,” said Michigan Democratic Party Chair Lavora Barnes.

Democrats flipped both chambers in the 2022 midterms while maintaining control of the governor’s office to win a trifecta for the first time in 40 years. They moved quickly to roll back decades of Republican measures and implement the party’s agenda in their first year, including overhauling the state’s gun laws.

Since the House deadlocked, Republicans have pushed to pass legislation they say is bipartisan, such as a government transparency package, which would open the Legislature and governor’s office up to public record requests. But very little legislation has been passed. Democrats have been unwilling to accept a joint power-sharing agreement proposed multiple times by Republican House Leader Matt Hall over the past few months.

If both Democratic candidates win Tuesday, the party will regain control through the end of the year, with each seat in the House up for reelection in November. Either party would need to win both seats to gain a majority.

Xiong is a Macomb County commissioner who was endorsed in the primary by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Her opponent, Singer, ran for the seat in 2022 and lost to former state Rep. Lori Stone by 34 percentage points.

In the 25th, Herzberg, a Westland City Council member, will take on Powell, a veteran who has said in his campaign that he would support less government, less regulation and lower taxes. Former Rep. Kevin Coleman, a Democrat, won the district by 26 percentage points in 2022.

Michigan Republican Party Chair Pete Hoekstra said Republicans still “forced the candidates and Democrat committees to spend money to protect these seats.”

“Win or lose, I’m more convinced than ever that Republicans are motivated and the Democrats are not,” Hoekstra said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

After Tuesday’s special elections, lawmakers are expected to turn their focus to a state budget with a self-imposed July 1 deadline. Whitmer used her January State of the State speech to propose an $81 billion budget that would provide free community college for all high school graduates and preschool for 4-year-olds.

In recent months, Democrats have also considered expanding the state’s hate crime law and enacting a comprehensive school safety package spurred by the 2021 mass shooting at Oxford High School. A majority in the House would let them more easily move those proposals.

But lawmakers will be working against the clock if the deadlock ends Tuesday. They are set to take a summer break at the end of June and representatives will soon begin campaigning for reelection this fall in their districts.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Mike Johnson says he is sending impeachment charges against Alejandro Mayorkas to the Senate on Tuesday, forcing senators to convene a trial on the allegations that the Homeland Security secretary has “willfully and systematically” refused to enforce existing immigration laws. But the proceedings may not last long.

While the Senate is obligated to convene a trial under the rules of impeachment once the charges are walked across the Capitol, Democrats are expected to try to dismiss or table the charges before the arguments get underway.

Majority Democrats have said the GOP case against Mayorkas doesn’t rise to the “high crimes and misdemeanors” laid out as a bar for impeachment in the Constitution, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., likely has enough votes to end the trial immediately if he decides to do so. The proceedings will not begin until Wednesday.

Opening the Senate for the week, Schumer said he wants to “address this issue as expeditiously as possible.”

“Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement,” Schumer said. “That would set a horrible precedent for the Congress.”

Senators will be sworn in Wednesday as jurors, turning the chamber into the court of impeachment. The Senate will then issue a summons to Mayorkas to inform him of the charges and ask for a written answer. He will not have to appear in the Senate at any point.

What happens after that is is unclear. Impeachment rules generally allow the Senate to decide how to proceed.

Republicans have argued there should be a full trial. As Johnson signed the articles Monday in preparation for sending them across the Capitol, he said Schumer should hold a trial to “hold those who engineered this crisis to full account.”

“Senator Schumer is the only impediment to delivering accountability for the American people,” Johnson said. “Pursuant to the Constitution, the House demands a trial.”

The House narrowly voted in February to impeach Mayorkas for his handling of the border. House Republicans charged in two articles of impeachment that Mayorkas has not only refused to enforce existing law but also breached the public trust by lying to Congress and saying the border was secure. It was the first time in nearly 150 years a Cabinet secretary was impeached.

Since then, Johnson has delayed sending the articles to the Senate for weeks while both chambers finished work on government funding legislation and took a two-week recess. Johnson had said he would send them to the Senate last week, but punted again after Senate Republicans said they wanted more time to prepare.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, has said the Senate needs to hold a full trial where it can examine the evidence against Mayorkas and come to a final conclusion.

“This is an absolute debacle at the southern border,” Thune said. “It is a national security crisis. There needs to be accountability,” he said.

Schumer could call a vote to table the charges and end the trial as soon as Wednesday. Before a vote to dismiss, though, a group of House managers — members who act as prosecutors and are appointed by the speaker — will walk the articles across the Capitol and deliver the impeachment charges to be read on the Senate floor.

House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green, a Tennessee Republican who is one of the impeachment managers, said earlier this month that he believes Democrats “have failed to meet the moment when it comes to ending this crisis and resolving the chaos at our borders.”

“Conducting an impeachment trial represents a unique opportunity to correct course,” he said.

Other impeachment managers appointed by Speaker Johnson are Michael McCaul of Texas, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Ben Cline of Virginia, Andrew Garbarino of New York, Michael Guest of Mississippi, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Laurel Lee of Florida, August Plfuger of Texas and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.

After the jurors are sworn in, Senate Republicans are likely to try to raise a series of objections if Schumer calls a vote to dismiss or table, an effort to both protest and delay the move. But ultimately they cannot block a dismissal if majority Democrats have the votes.

While most Republicans oppose quick dismissal, some have hinted they could vote with Democrats.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said last week he wasn’t sure what he would do if there were a move to dismiss the trial. “I think it’s virtually certain that there will not be the conviction of someone when the constitutional test has not been met,” he said.

At the same time, Romney said he wants to at least express his view that “Mayorkas has done a terrible job, but he’s following the direction of the president and has not met the constitutional test of a high crime or misdemeanor.”

In any case, Republicans would not be able to win the support of the two-thirds of the Senate that is needed to convict and remove Mayorkas from office. Democrats control the Senate, 51-49, and they appear to be united against the impeachment effort. Not a single House Democrat supported it, either.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who is facing a tough reelection bid in Ohio, called the impeachment trial a “distraction,” arguing that Republicans should instead support a bipartisan border compromise they scuttled earlier this year.

“Instead of doing this impeachment — the first one in 100 years — why are we not doing a bipartisan border deal?” he said.

If Democrats are not able to dismiss or table the articles, they could follow the precedent of several impeachment trials for federal judges over the last century and hold a vote to create a trial committee that would investigate the charges. While there is sufficient precedent for this approach, Democrats may prefer to end the process completely, especially in a presidential election year when immigration and border security are top issues.

If the Senate were to proceed to an impeachment trial, it would be the third in five years. Democrats impeached former President Donald Trump twice, once over his dealings with Ukraine and a second time in the days after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The Senate acquitted Trump bothtimes.

At a trial, senators would be forced to sit in their seats for the duration, maybe weeks, while the House impeachment managers and lawyers representing Mayorkas make their cases. The Senate is allowed to call witnesses, as well, if it so decides, and can ask questions of both sides after the opening arguments are finished.

Mayorkas told reporters last week he was not focused on the Senate proceedings. In a twist, he’ll be testifying about his budget request Tuesday to the same House committee that led the impeachment effort.

“It is my hope that my time is not taken away from my work,” Mayorkas said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — After several difficult years, the Army and Air Force say they are on track to meet their recruiting goals this year, reversing previous shortfalls using a swath of new programs and policy changes. But the Navy, while improving, expects once again to fall short.

The mixed results reflect the ongoing challenges for the U.S. military as it struggles to attract recruits in a tight job market, where companies are willing to pay more and provide good benefits without the demands of service and warfighting. And even those who are meeting their goals say they are still finding it difficult to attract the dwindling number of young people who can meet the military’s physical, mental and moral standards.

With half a year to go in the recruiting year, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said she is optimistic about hitting the 55,000 enlistment goal and getting an additional 5,000 recruits for the delayed entry pool that would come in during the next year or so.

“Right now we are 5,000 contracts ahead of where we were compared to this time last year,” Wormuth said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I don’t want to set expectations too high right now, but I’m feeling good.”

For the Army, it is a bright spot in what has been a long slog of low numbers and lengthy deliberations on how to reverse the momentum.

Last fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the Navy, Army and Air Force all failed to meet their recruitment goals. The Marine Corps and the tiny Space Force have consistently hit their targets, although the Marines have struggled a bit. The previous fiscal year, the Army fell 15,000 short of its enlistment goal of 60,000, and the other services had to dig into the pools of delayed entry candidates in order to meet their recruiting numbers.

Now, with six months of recruiting under their belts — including the historically meager winter months — the Air Force and Army are optimistic they’ll meet their goals.

A key success, said Wormuth, has been the Army’s future soldier prep course, which has graduated about 17,000 soldiers since it was started in August 2022, including about 5,300 so far in this current fiscal year. The prep course, which is now at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and Fort Moore, Georgia, gives lower-performing recruits up to 90 days of academic or fitness instruction to help them meet military standards and go on to basic training.

“Not only are the graduation rates very high, but the number of graduates from the program who then are selected for leadership roles when they’re in basic training or who do particularly well in basic is notable,” said Wormuth, adding that 34% of the leadership posts in basic training are filled by soldiers who attended the prep course.

“We still have six months to go, so I don’t want to be overconfident,” said Wormuth. But recruiting was high in February and March, usually the most difficult months. “Now we’re starting to move into the spring and summer months, which are the traditionally better recruiting months.”

The Air Force is also upbeat, after making a number of policy changes, relaxing tattoo rules, boosting bonuses and expanding efforts to recruit lawful permanent residents. The service missed its active-duty recruiting mission of more than 26,800 last year by about 3,000 airmen, but has exceeded its goal so far this year. Buoyed by the progress, the Air Force has just increased its active-duty enlistment target for the year to 27,100, a boost of about 1,200.

Brig. Gen. Christopher Amrhein, who heads the Air Force’s recruiting, said while he’s “cautiously optimistic” about making their goal, “we cannot take our foot off the gas.” He said the service needs to keep looking at policy changes and other adjustments.

Navy leaders, however, say that while they’re doing better than last year, they expect to miss their recruiting goal of about 40,600 by roughly 6,700.

“We continue to face challenges in the current and forecasted economic environment and tough labor market,” said Vice Adm. Rick Cheeseman, head of Navy personnel. “The Navy continues to explore and evaluate new methods for attracting qualified, motivated and capable applicants.”

The Navy has started its own recruit prep course, and earlier this year began to enlist people who didn’t graduate from high school or get a GED, as long as they score 50 or above (out of 99) on the Armed Services Qualification Test. It was the second time in about a year that the Navy opened the door to lower-performing recruits. In December 2022 it started recruiting a larger number of sailors who scored very low on the test.

Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations, made clear last week that the recruiting challenges are having a direct impact on the Navy’s maritime mission. She told Congress that the Navy is about 18,000 short of the number of sailors needed for operations at sea, and about 4,000 short for shore-based jobs.

The bulk of those would be filled by incoming recruits, and the shortfall comes as Navy ships in the Middle East are under persistent pressure, countering attacks by the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

The Marine Corps, meanwhile, hasn’t missed its enlistment goal, but did have to tap into its pool of delayed entry recruits in order to meet the target two years ago.

“We continue to make mission without ever diminishing our standards,” Gen. Eric Smith, commandant of the Marine Corps, flatly told Congress earlier this month. The Corps is on pace to meet this year’s goal of 31,100, including active duty and reserves.

The other services have begun to duplicate what has been a longstanding Marine program — the use of high-performing service members and up-and-coming commanders to serve as recruiters.

Army leaders have begun an extensive reorganization of its recruiting force, creating a professional job classification and doing reviews to weed out recruiters who aren’t doing well and would be better off in another job. And the service is finding other perks that work.

For example, about 25% of new recruits are opting to choose their first duty station, according to Gen. Randy George, chief of staff of the Army. Until recently recruits did not have that option. The key, said Wormuth, is figuring out which incentives work.

Right now, she said, the Army is trying to juggle both the short-term enlistment goals and the long-term changes in how the service recruits.

“The biggest challenge is maintaining our focus on making this year’s mission, keeping all of the wheels turning that we already have set in motion while at the same time building out the more transformational work that we’re doing,” said Wormuth. “We’re building the plane while it flies.”

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana allows so few abortions that health officials stopped releasing individual reports to protect patient privacy — a move some Republicans are now fighting to reverse.

The Republicans, including prominent candidates for office this year, want access to reports detailing each abortion still performed in the state. Advocates for abortion rights and some state officials warn that would jeopardize the privacy of physicians and patients who can only receive abortions under strict circumstances.

The state bans abortions except within limited time frames in cases of rape, incest, lethal fetal anomaly and serious health risks to the patient. Like many states, Indiana has long collected data on abortions, but the Department of Health last year decided to keep the individual reports from public record and only release its regular summary data four times a year to make it harder to potentially identify patients.

Indiana law requires physicians to submit “terminated pregnancy reports” with demographic and medical history information to the health department. The reports do not name patients but can list their zip code and county of residence, and they’re rarely released in states that collect them, according to experts.

In the days following the overturn of Roe v. Wade, an individual record obtained by the Indianapolis Star through a public records request confirmed an abortion provided to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio.

The topic has gradually become a political football as Indiana’s competitive primary for governor approaches in early May.

In January, Republican gubernatorial candidate and former Attorney General Curtis Hill called on the health department and Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb to allow the release of individual reports. Republican Lt. Gov. and gubernatorial candidate Suzanne Crouch pledged in a March post to X to make the reports public record if she is elected.

And on Thursday, Attorney General Todd Rokita, who is running for reelection, issued an advisory opinion arguing the reports should be public record. The opinion doesn’t change any practices but was in response to an inquiry from state Sen. Andy Zay, a congressional candidate, Rokita’s office said.

Voters should ask the field of gubernatorial candidates to take a stance, Rokita said during a Thursday news conference.

After Rokita released his opinion, the health department said the reports are not public record, and pointed to an informal opinion written by an appointed open records official in December.

Rokita argued the reports are not medical records and could show whether an abortion was performed legally. Without the reports, he said, “there is no effective way” to enforce the state’s near-total ban.

The Legislature should act next year if the department doesn’t, Zay said Thursday.

“We can use them as tools to hold those around the periphery of abortion clinics and abortion doctors accountable,” Zay said of the reports.

The individual reports ask patients for information including zip code, age, race, ethnicity, educational attainment, marital status, previous pregnancies, the date of their last period and the father’s age, according to the most recent quarterly summary. Patients may refuse to answer questions, the department said.

Physicians report information on the type of procedure, the reason for the abortion and an estimate of the length of the pregnancy. The individual reports also include the name of the physician, the name of the facility and the date of the abortion.

Indiana’s ban went into effect in August. From October to December, 46 terminated pregnancy reports were filed with the health department compared to 1,724 in the same period in 2022.

It is not common for states to release individual abortion reports, said Rachel Jones, principal research scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, a science-based research group that supports abortion rights.

Jones said seeking individual reports is an effort to intimidate health care providers and patients.

“There’s no public health or even legal purpose for trying to impose this,” Jones said.

Rokita denied that the small number of reports makes it easier to identify patients and said that the health department can redact some information before making reports public.

The attorney general has taken up multiple legal battles focused on abortion. He gave a televised interview criticizing an Indianapolis OBGYN who provided an abortion to the 10-year-old from Ohio. The Indiana Supreme Court found last year that some of Rokita’s statement violated rules of professional conduct for attorneys.

Rokita is weaponizing the reports, said Rebecca Gibron, CEO of the Planned Parenthood region that includes Indiana.

“Denying abortion as health care is an abuse of power, aiming to stigmatize vital services for political gain at the expense of Hoosier’s access to essential health care — even now when it is only accessible in the rarest of circumstances,” Gibron said in a statement.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday is taking up the first of two cases that could affect the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his election loss in 2020. Hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot also are at stake.

The justices are hearing arguments over the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding. That charge, stemming from a law passed in the aftermath of the Enron financial scandal more than two decades ago, has been brought against 330 people, according to the Justice Department. The court will consider whether it can be used against those who disrupted Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

The former president and presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination is facing two charges in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington that could be knocked out with a favorable ruling from the nation’s highest court. Next week, the justices will hear arguments over whether Trump has “absolute immunity” from prosecution in the case, a proposition that has so far been rejected by two lower courts.

The first former U.S. president under indictment, Trump is on trial on hush money charges in New York and also has been charged with election interference in Georgia and with mishandling classified documents in Florida.

In Tuesday’s case, the court is hearing an appeal from Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who has been indicted on seven counts, including obstruction, for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a bid to keep Biden, a Democrat, from taking the White House. Lawyers for Fischer argue that the charge doesn’t cover his conduct.

The obstruction charge, which carries up to 20 years behind bars, is among the most widely used felony charges brought in the massive federal prosecution following the deadly insurrection.

Roughly 170 Jan. 6 defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal is pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court rules against the Justice Department. That includes Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The high court case focuses on whether the anti-obstruction provision of a law that was enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp. can be used against Jan. 6 defendants.

Fischer’s lawyers argue that the provision was meant to close a loophole in criminal law and discourage the destruction of records in response to an investigation. Until the Capitol riot, they told the court, every criminal case using the provision had involved allegations of destroying or otherwise manipulating records.

But the administration says the other side is reading the law too narrowly, arguing it serves “as a catchall offense designed to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding,” including Fischer’s “alleged conduct in joining a violent riot to disrupt the joint session of Congress certifying the presidential election results.”

Smith has argued separately in the immunity case that the obstruction charges against Trump are valid, no matter the outcome of Fischer’s case.

Most lower court judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

While it’s not important to the Supreme Court case, the two sides present starkly differing accounts of Fischer’s actions on Jan. 6. Fischer’s lawyers say he “was not part of the mob” that forced lawmakers to flee the House and Senate chambers, noting that he entered the Capitol after Congress had recessed. The weight of the crowd pushed Fischer into a line of police inside, they said in a court filing.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia are among 23 Republican members of Congress who say the administration’s use of the obstruction charge “presents an intolerable risk of politicized prosecutions. Only a clear rebuke from this Court will stop the madness.”

The Justice Department says Fischer can be heard on a video yelling “Charge!” before he pushed through a crowd and “crashed into the police line.” Prosecutors also cite text messages Fischer sent before Jan. 6 saying things might turn violent and social media posts after the riot in which he wrote, “we pushed police back about 25 feet.”

More than 1,350 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Approximately 1,000 of them have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury or judge after a trial.

___

Associated Press writers Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington and Michael Kunzelman in Silver Spring, Maryland, contributed to this report.

NEW YORK (AP) — It’s a moment in history — the first U.S. president facing criminal charges in an American courtroom. Yet only a handful of observers are able to see or even hear what is going on.

Instead, most of the nation is getting news of former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial secondhand. Starting with preliminary motions and jury selection Monday, reporters in a Manhattan courtroom must convey what is being said to the outside world after the fact.

That’s all because New York state law regarding media coverage of court proceedings is one of the most restrictive in the country. Last week’s death of O.J. Simpson, whose murder trial beamed live from a California courtroom captivated a nation three decades ago, was a telling reminder of how New York is behind the times — or, at least, a holdout.

Regulations limiting media coverage in courtrooms date back nearly a century, when the spectacle of bright flashbulbs and camera operators standing on witness tables during the 1935 trial of the man accused of kidnapping and killing Charles Lindbergh’s baby son horrified the legal community, according to a 2022 report by the New York-based Fund for Modern Courts.

Rules to enforce decorum spread nationally, amended to account for the invention of television, as defense lawyers worried that video coverage would harm their cases, the report said.

Yet an interest in open government chipped away at these laws and — slowly, carefully — video cameras began to be permitted in courts across the country, often at the discretion of judges presiding in individual cases.

New York allowed them, too, on an experimental basis between 1987 and 1997, but they were shut down. Lobbyists for defense lawyers remain strong in New York and hold particular sway among lawyers in the state Assembly, said Victor Kovner, a former New York City corporation counsel who advocates for open courtrooms.

New York and Louisiana are the only states remaining that completely restrict video coverage, the Fund for Modern Courts said.

To Kovner and others, that’s outrageous.

“We’re the media capital of the world, we like to think, and the fact that cameras aren’t permitted in one of our three branches of government is unacceptable,” said New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal, who has sponsored a bill to try to change that.

“It’s one of the most consequential trials of our modern age,” the senator said. “I think the public has a right to see exactly what happens in that courtroom.”

That’s because the presiding judge, Juan M. Merchan, permitted a handful of still photographers to shoot photos of Trump before the day’s proceedings started. Once court was called into session, courtroom sketch artists — a dying communications form — hold sway.

There is actually some video coverage of the trial, available on monitors in an overflow room adjacent to the main courtroom. It was packed Monday with reporters, court officers and a few members of the public, including Ron Sinibaldi, a former accountant from Long Island who lined up outside the courthouse before midnight for a seat.

“I read presidential biographies,” Sinibaldi said. “I go to presidential libraries. I’m here for the history.”

In a hallway outside of the courtroom, a limited number of cameras and a small pool of reporters are positioned to capture remarks of anyone involved in the trial who want to address the outside world. That included Trump, even before the proceedings started.

Absent live coverage of the trial, how often the former president chooses to take advantage of those cameras and whether news organizations carry his remarks either live, taped or not at all will play a big role in how the case is perceived publicly.

MSNBC carried his remarks live on Monday morning. “They’re trying to grab the narrative regardless of the outcome,” CNN reporter Phil Mattingly said of the Trump defense team.

With some difficulty. CNN stationed a team on the streets of Manhattan outside the courtroom, where a truck festooned with pro-Trump flags frequently drove by, blaring horns and music from loudspeakers. Reporters sometimes struggled to be heard. “It is kind of a circus down here,” CNN’s Kaitlan Collins said.

Commentators and experts, many of them with experience in jury selection, offered opinions from outside the courtroom or from studios. Fox News analyst Jonathan Turley said “most cities, at least those outside of New York,” will see the case as a weaponization of criminal justice.

With estimates that jury selection could take two weeks, and no way of showing it, journalists will have a lot of time to fill unless they turn their attention elsewhere.

Georgia, where Trump faces charges of election meddling, gives judges discretion over whether to allow television cameras. Superior Court of Fulton County Judge Scott McAfee has said he will make all hearings and trials in that case available for broadcast. That has already included hearings on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis would be allowed to argue the case.

Federal courts do not allow cameras in criminal cases. Trump is facing separate federal cases for election interference and mishandling classified documents, although it is not clear when, or if, trials will take place.

The feds offer one glimmer of hope: The U.S. Supreme Court permits audio of oral arguments to be broadcast outside of the courtroom. But there’s no indication that this would apply to Trump’s case. New York’s law does not allow audio coverage of his hush money trial.

Proponents of legislation to open up New York courts to electronic media coverage are hoping the attention paid to the Trump case may boost their proposals. The idea is being considered as part of current negotiations over the New York state budget so, theoretically, a new law could even affect the Trump trial if it is passed and goes into effect immediately.

Given New York state’s history, it’s best not to count on it.

___

Associated Press correspondent Jennifer Peltz and Jake Offenhartz in New York, and Anthony Izaguirre and Maysoon Khan in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder.