Moderate Democrat David Crowley won the Wisconsin primary for governor, defeating a democratic socialist who fell short while trying to deliver another win for progressives in a battleground state.

Crowley, the Milwaukee county executive, is vying to become Wisconsin's first Black governor and pitched himself as the candidate best positioned to win in November against Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who is endorsed by President Donald Trump.

Crowley narrowly defeated democratic socialist Francesca Hong, who was hoping to ride the wave of recent victories by progressive candidates, including Abdul El-Sayed in neighboring Michigan's U.S. Senate race last week.

El-Sayed's win was the movement's first major success in a purple state. It also fed fears in the party's leaders that such candidates, farther afield and often carrying political baggage of past stances such as defunding the police, would struggle to beat Republicans and imperil the party's hopes of recapturing control of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House.

Crowley didn't address supporters Tuesday night but was expected at a unity event later Wednesday.

"Now, David is focused on bringing people together, earning the support of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and anyone who believes Wisconsin is at its best when we work together and deliver results," Crowley's campaign manager Garren Randolph said in a statement.

Hong's loss in Wisconsin may have doused the momentum, but it's far from snuffing it out. A democratic socialist coming close to victory in a battleground state sends a clear message: There's unignorable angst among the party's voters.

"We have built something that will change politics forever," Hong told supporters as the outcome of the race hung in the balance late Tuesday. "The work we have done will be remembered forever. I know we don't have the final results right now, but what I do know is we are ready to keep fighting."

Her campaign manager Becky Cooper said after Hong conceded that she was "proud of the race we ran."

"Our team campaigned clean, our souls are intact and we really made meaningful change for the progressive movement," she said.

The Associated Press declared Crowley the winner once Hong's concession removed the possibility of a recount in the exceptionally close race.

Hong could have requested a recount since Crowley's margin of victory was less than 1 percentage point. But because it was wider than 0.25 points, Hong's campaign would have had to pay for it.

Sanders and other top progressives stayed out of the Wisconsin race

Progressives had wanted to notch a clear win, but national progressive leaders, most notably Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, sat out the race and did not endorse.

The movement is not entirely aligned. Not all candidates are democratic socialists or have endorsements from Sanders, but they are often tilling similar voter anger with politics and the party: over military aid to Israel, the amount of money wielded in campaigns, the Trump administration's immigration raids and the high cost of daily life.

In New York City in the June primary elections, two democratic socialist candidates and a progressive came out on top, booting two Democratic incumbents from Congress in the process. All three were backed by the city's mayor, Zohran Mamdani, himself a democratic socialist who framed the upsets as a question of electing "better Democrats."

Democrats in Wisconsin are hoping to capitalize on low approval ratings for Trump in a state he won in 2016 and 2024 to retain control of the governor's office and flip both chambers of the Legislature to earn full control of Wisconsin state government for the first time since 2010.

Lawmakers said Kathryn Ruemmler, the former top lawyer at Goldman Sachs and White House counsel to President Barack Obama, was not being truthful Wednesday about her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, rejecting her testimony that Epstein had merely "used" her.

Ruemmler in her opening remarks told members of the House Oversight Committee that "it was a mistake to deal with" Epstein, but she insisted she never witnessed criminal activity. She said Epstein "used me and other respectable people to legitimize his standing."

Democrats emerged from questioning Ruemmler saying she was not being forthcoming about her ties to Epstein.

"It is difficult to see how she's being completely truthful in there with the answers she's given the committee," Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters.

Jennifer Connelly, a spokeswoman for Ruemmler, said in response that Ruemmler had "testified openly and truthfully for six hours and answered every question the committee asked."

Ruemmler is the latest prominent figure called before the House Oversight Committee as lawmakers investigate the network of powerful people connected with Epstein. The bipartisan inquiry has already included testimony from more than a dozen high-profile witnesses, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and former President Bill Clinton, as lawmakers examine how Epstein's wealth and influence may have helped shield him from scrutiny.

Ruemmler served as White House counsel under Obama from 2011 to 2014 and was briefly considered for attorney general. She served as Goldman Sachs' general counsel for six years before announcing in February that she would step down amid backlash over her correspondence with Epstein. Although she said she would step down on June 30, she remains employed by Goldman Sachs.

Lawmakers have focused on Ruemmler's close relationship with Epstein in the final years of his life, pointing to affectionate communications between the two.

"For her to deny that there was any type of real relationship there, I just don't buy it," Garcia said. "And so, again, the fact she is not under oath is very problematic."

While Ruemmler has tried to downplay their relationship in more recent statements, thousands of documents released by the Justice Department showed that Ruemmler and Epstein had an extensive relationship. The files included personal emails, social plans and gifts that extended beyond formal legal work. Documents showed she had called Epstein "Uncle Jeffrey" in emails and said she adored him.

Ruemmler said in her opening remarks that she first met Epstein in 2014 regarding potentially working with him and Gates "to set up a large donor-advised fund." Soon after, according to Ruemmler, she learned about Epstein's 2008 conviction on sex crimes, when he became a registered sex offender.

She said Epstein expressed remorse about it, and that he did not know the women were underaged. She said she "relied on the resolution reached by federal and state prosecutors and validated by a judge as being a proportionate and final resolution of his criminal conduct."

Comer said Wednesday that Ruemmler is the 18th person to testify as part of their broader investigation.

Billionaire investor Leon Black was subpoenaed last month after lawmakers said he refused to answer some questions about his yearslong relationship with Epstein.

Comer said Wednesday that Black will appear for a formal deposition on Sept. 3 but that he expects to have Black's nondisclosure agreements by "the end of the week."

The committee has also expressed interest in questioning acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose nomination to permanently lead the Justice Department is pending before the Senate.

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.

The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission's key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.

The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.

The companies argued that the FCC's process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury.

The administration defended the fines as an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies' favor.

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC's power to order fines when challenges are still available.

"The orders at issue did not settle the carriers' legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said he would have given the two telecom companies a clearer path to recouping the fines they already paid.

Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.

The environmental group Earthjustice applauded the ruling, saying it has direct implications for other agencies and a key energy-efficiency case.

"By rejecting this unsupported attack on agency authority, the Court's decision safeguards the government's ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment," said Caroline Flynn, the group's Supreme Court counsel.

The libertarian-leaning New Civil Liberties Alliance was disappointed by the decision, but expected it to help other companies in the future. "In fact, it may even buttress their willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties," said the alliance's president, Mark Chenoweth.

A few more carriers may decide to litigate, but the decision leaves the FCC with the power to "publicly announce large fines with much fanfare," said Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney. "It will be interesting to see what happens going forward."

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has sided against federal agencies and limited their power before. That includes overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a push to avoid a lawsuit alleging that Facebook and Instagram harmed young users, a decision that comes as social media companies increasingly face legal scrutiny.

Parent company Meta Platforms Inc. appealed after Vermont's highest court allowed a suit filed by its attorney general in 2023 to move forward. The company is facing similar lawsuits from states across the country, accusing it of knowingly designing addictive features.

Meta had argued that it can't be sued in Vermont court because neither the company nor the app design has specific ties to the state. Vermont countered that the sites' large number of teen users gives its courts jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. The procedural decision comes after court losses for Meta and YouTube in social media addiction lawsuits in California and New Mexico.

Vermont's lawsuit was filed after an investigation by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in several states. Newspaper reports based on Meta's own research also found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers — especially teen girls — when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.

Almost all teens ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. report using a social media platform, with about a third saying they use social media "almost constantly," according to the Pew Research Center.

Meta, for its part, has said that it has already introduced dozens of tools to support teens and their families and suggested it would have worked with the states on standards for youth social media use.

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark applauded the decision, saying it affirms "that companies that choose to do business in Vermont, like Meta, can be held accountable when they harm kids."

Two U.S. families went to Italy's highest court Tuesday to challenge the scope of a year-old law passed by Giorgia Meloni's government limiting citizenship claims to Italian descendants removed by more than two generations.

Their lawyer, Marco Mellone, argued before the Cassation Court that the law should apply only to people born after it took effect, potentially opening a pathway to citizenship for millions of people living in the United States and parts of Latin America. Another lawyer represented Italian descendants from Venezuela.

A decision by an expanded panel, which makes the ruling binding in lower courts, is expected in the coming weeks.

A decree by the conservative government in March 2025 put the brakes on previous rules allowing anyone who could prove ancestry after Italy's formation in 1861 to seek citizenship. Italy's constitutional court last month ruled the new law is valid, but Mellone said the supreme court has the power to clarify the scope of the law.

"The families involved in this case are simply descendants ... from an Italian ancestor who emigrated in the late 19th century to the United States, like millions of other people, of other Italians," Mellone said before the hearing. "Today they are invoking their right to Italian citizenship."

Mellone's case would clarify the citizenship rights of the descendants of some 14 million Italians who emigrated between 1877 and 1914, according to Foreign Ministry statistics, and beyond.

While Mellone's case involves two families, another dozen people whose citizenship claims were stopped by the law were present outside the courthouse in solidarity.

Karen Bonadio said she hopes one day to move to Italy on the strength of her ancestry. She brought photos of her as a young girl alongside her Italian-born great-grandparents, who emigrated from Basilicata in southern Italy to upstate New York, along with their birth certificates.

"The new law says, 'all these great-grandchildren didn't know their great-grandparents.' This is from 1963, I think I was 3 1/2," she said, showing the photograph.

At least one of Mellone's cases had been rejected in lower courts before the new law, hinging partially on rulings that Italian emigrants who took on another citizenship before having children cannot pass on Italian citizenship.

Jennifer Daley's case has been working its way through the Italian bureaucracy for nearly a decade. Her grandfather, Giuseppe Dalfollo, immigrated to the U.S. in 1912 from the northern province of Trento when it was under Austro-Hungarian control. He later married an Italian woman and brought her over, and at some point became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Daley said she always had a strong Italian identity that transcended her last name anglicized by U.S. immigration officials. She petitioned for citizenship because "it is truly a recognition of who I am, where I am from. It's so much more than citizenship. It's everything," Daley, a historian, said by phone from Salina, Kansas.

Outside the courthouse, Alexis Traino said great-grandparents on both her maternal and paternal sides had come from Italy, where she now lives, mainly in Florence.

"My entire life, I grew up knowing — and my parents always emphasized — that I was Italian. I had a very, very strong connection with Italy," said Traino, 34, who was waiting for documents from Italy and the U.S. when the law passed, blocking her case.