Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., sparred during a hearing on federal judges' nationwide orders against the Trump administration, and the Democrat dismissed her colleague's claims of "lawfare."

"Understand this is the second phase of lawfare," Cruz said during the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing, "Rule by District Judges II: Exploring Legislative Solutions to the Bipartisan Problem of Universal Injunctions." 

"Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from re-electing him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical judges," the Texas Republican claimed. 

GOP DEFECTORS HELP SENATE ADVANCE RESOLUTION TO CANCEL TRUMP TARIFFS DESPITE WHITE HOUSE VETO WARNING

Klobuchar disputed this, telling Cruz the injunctions from federal judges were a result of President Donald Trump "violating the Constitution."

"Why would Trump-appointed judges …," the Minnesota Democrat began before being interrupted by Cruz.

SENATE DEMS FORESHADOW MORE FORCED VOTES TO BLOCK TRUMP'S EMERGENCY ORDERS

"Why don't you file them in red districts?" Cruz asked. "Why are the Democrat attorneys general seeking out left-wing, blue swing districts?"

Klobuchar claimed the spike in nationwide injunctions from district judges halting Trump administration actions are not because "these judges are crooked or lunatics or evil." And she warned that making such claims could instigate threats and violence against them. 

SCOOP: LINDSEY GRAHAM AMENDMENT SIGNALS GOP BUDGET BREAKTHROUGH, SETS STAGE FOR TRUMP AGENDA

Cruz criticized Democrats for not sufficiently denouncing threats against conservative Supreme Court justices in recent years. But Klobuchar called that a lie, explaining, "We came together and got more funding for the judges and changed things so that they had more protection."

While multiple Democrats criticized "judge shopping" during the hearing, they were careful not to get behind Republican bills to end all nationwide injunctions. 

"It's impossible to separate the hearing from President Trump's record in office," said ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

TRUMP, SENATE GOP BUDGET LEADERS HUDDLE AT WHITE HOUSE ON RECONCILIATION BILL

But ending judge shopping, as Democrats have proposed in the past, wouldn't completely address the issue, said majority witnesses John N. Matthews, a law professor at Notre Dame Samuel Bray, and Jesse Panuccio, partner at Boies Schiller Flexner. He was previously the acting associate attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ), chairman of the DOJ’s Regulatory Reform Task Force and vice chairman of the DOJ’s Task Force on Market Integrity and Consumer Fraud. 

"I think the incentive for forum shopping is that you think you can get a judge who can be a ruler for the whole nation. So, fix the problem of judges overreaching," Panuccio. 

• Vice presidents started traveling by plane via Air Force Two in 1959.
• Vice President JD Vance flies in a C-32, a custom military version of a commercial jetliner.
• It features a communications center, stateroom, and 32 seats for journalists.

For vice presidents of the United States, frequent travel is in the job description. Luckily, they get to travel in style.

While traversing the country and the world, Vice President JD Vance flies in a custom C-32 plane featuring an advanced communications center, conference room, and private stateroom.

The plane measures 155 feet long and can fly 5,500 nautical miles without refueling. When Vance is on board, it's known as "Air Force Two."

Take a look inside the vice president's plane.

Any Air Force plane carrying the US vice president is called "Air Force Two."

Similar to the president aboard "Air Force One," the designation of "Air Force Two" refers to any Air Force plane carrying the vice president, not a specific jet or model.

Over the years, several different planes have carried the Air Force Two title, transporting vice presidents and their staff around the world. The most commonly used jet is a C-32, a customized military version of a commercial Boeing 757-200 plane.

The vice president is generally prohibited from flying on "Air Force One," a plane carrying the president.

The president and vice president don't travel together for security reasons.

It's customary for presidents and vice presidents to salute service members as they board and disembark presidential planes.

Service members are required to salute the president as commander in chief, but not the vice president. Still, it's customary for troops to salute vice presidents, as well.

Richard Nixon was the first vice president to travel internationally via jet on official business, visiting what was then the USSR in 1959.

Nixon, who served as President Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice president, flew on a Boeing VC-137A Stratoliner to visit the USSR in 1959. 

Beginning with the Ford administration in 1975, this DC-9 jet flew as Air Force Two until 2005.

The jet was first used by President Gerald Ford's vice president, Nelson Rockefeller.

It featured a VIP cabin with 10 seats and a main cabin with 32 first-class seats.

The plane was retired from service during the Bush administration in 2005 and placed up for auction by the General Services Administration in 2013.

Vice President Al Gore decorated the VIP cabin with family photos.

Gore worked on his acceptance speech for the 2000 Democratic National Convention aboard Air Force Two.

The cabin also featured a clock with different time zone displays.

The clock featured the time in Washington, DC, and whatever destination Air Force Two was bound for.

The updated C-32 plane most commonly used by vice presidents first deployed in 1998.

With a wingspan of nearly 125 feet, each engine features 41,700 pounds of static thrust, according to the Air Force.

As vice president, Joe Biden hung a map of the world in his Air Force Two work area.

Biden traveled over one million miles on Air Force Two during his time as vice president.

Mike Pence's staff decorated Air Force Two for his birthday in 2017.

Staffers celebrated the vice president's birthday with streamers and balloons aboard the jet.

Kamala Harris also celebrated birthdays on the plane.

Harris brought cupcakes and sang "Happy Birthday" to her domestic policy advisor, Kate Childs Graham, in 2021.

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff traveled aboard Air Force Two, as well.

Air Force Two is occasionally used by the first lady and Cabinet members.

Emhoff filled out his March Madness basketball bracket en route to Las Vegas in March 2021.

The back of Air Force Two contains 32 business-class seats for members of the press.

Vice presidents and staff occasionally hold informal briefings with reporters known as "press gaggles" aboard Air Force Two.

The press area features TV screens that can play cable news.

The rear cabin also contains a galley, two bathrooms, and closets.

Vice President JD Vance has taken several international trips on Air Force Two, including to France, Germany, and Greenland.

In February, Vance visited France and Germany with his wife, Usha Vance, and their three children. Vance attended the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris and the Munich Security Conference.

In March, the vice president and second lady toured Pituffik Space Base, the only US military base in Greenland. Usha Vance was originally scheduled to visit historical sites and attend Greenland's national dogsled race on a solo trip. The visit was scaled back amid tensions between the US, Greenland, and Denmark as President Donald Trump doubled down on his longtime goal of acquiring Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, in the interest of national security.

• Sometimes, a story needs three installments to be told fully.
• Other times, a movie is such a big hit that the story is stretched out over three films.
• Or, in the case of "The Hangover," the same story is told three times in a row.

It's no secret that intellectual property is one of the most important commodities in Hollywood. The top 10 grossing movies of 2024 internationally were all sequels (except for "Wicked," which is based on the Broadway musical).

One of those films, "Deadpool & Wolverine," was the third installment of a much-beloved trilogy of superhero films. It was a huge hit with critics and fans, making $1.3 billion worldwide.

That's the best-case scenario.

Just as often, a series will be let down by its final installment or audiences find it didn't need to be turned into a trilogy at all. In one case, a series wasn't even supposed to be a trilogy, but the third film performed so poorly that the fourth film never materialized.

Here are the worst, most unnecessary trilogies in movie history.

"Divergent" (2014-2016)

Based on a book series, "Divergent" was supposed to be a four-film story, but "Allegiant" was so poorly received the studio only made three.

After the success of movie series like "Harry Potter," "The Hunger Games," and "Twilight," studios were on the hunt for the next big YA book-to-movie adaptation.

Enter "Divergent" in 2014, a film that takes place in a dystopian world where society is split into five factions, each dedicated to a specific personality trait. People who fit into more than one category are called divergent and are considered dangerous.

If you're confused, we understand — the lore of these movies is borderline incomprehensible. Not even actors like Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Miles Teller, Zoë Kravitz, and Kate Winslet could make this movie interesting.

The first film did well enough, making almost $290 million worldwide, so a second film, "Insurgent," was made in 2015. When it didn't make much more than "Divergent," it became clear the series was in trouble.

"Allegiant" was released in 2016 and made less than its predecessors. It was also poorly received by fans and critics alike.

It was announced that the final installment, "Ascendant," would go straight to streaming, but some cast members reportedly weren't on board with that move, so the story of Tris (Woodley) will forever remain unfinished on screen.

That might be a good thing — fans widely reviled the conclusion of the book series.

"The Hobbit" (2012-2014)

It stings that "The Hobbit" movies are so boring, because "The Lord of the Rings" is one of the best trilogies of all time.

"The Lord of the Rings" is based on a behemoth of a book series by J.R.R. Tolkien. Whole characters and plotlines had to be cut from the books when director Peter Jackson adapted them to the big screen.

On the other hand, the prequel story "The Hobbit" is told in around 290 pages, give or take the edition you have.

So, why did they stretch this positively breezy story to three movies released from 2012 to 2014?

Yes, these three movies did make $1 billion altogether, but they're not well-regarded by all fans and have nowhere near the cultural staying power that the original trilogy does.

Stick with the story of Frodo and the Fellowship — trust us.

"Cars" (2006-2017)

"Cars" is only one of two Pixar movies that received more than one sequel, and we don't understand why.

"Toy Story" is the only other Pixar franchise that has more than two installments. "Toy Story"! One of the most beloved Pixar films of all time!

And then there's "Cars," released in 2006.

"Cars 2" (2011) is perhaps a nadir for Pixar, and then, instead of letting Lightning McQueen and Co. drive off into the sunset, we got "Cars 3" in 2017, the lowest-grossing film of the franchise.

Why couldn't we get "Incredibles 3" instead? In fact, it seems like Disney heard us, because "Incredibles 3" was finally announced in 2024.

"Chronicles of Narnia" (2005-2010)

Did you even know that they made three "Chronicles of Narnia" films?

From 2005 to 2010, three "Narnia" films were released: "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" in 2005, "Prince Caspian" in 2008, and "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" in 2010.

A fourth film was planned but never materialized, and now that Greta Gerwig will be directing a reboot for Netflix, as reported by Deadline, we'll probably never think about these movies again.

We're thankful that this series gave us two things: James McAvoy as Mr. Tumnus, and a hilarious meme about Aslan telling someone not to cite the deep magic to him since he was there when it was written.

"Fifty Shades of Grey" (2015-2018)

The "Fifty Shades of Grey" trilogy was more well-known for its soundtracks than its films.

The only person who hated their own franchise more than Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson apparently hated being in "Fifty Shades" is "Twilight's" Robert Pattinson, which is ironic since "Fifty Shades of Grey" and its two sequels are based on "Twilight" fan-fiction.

"Love Me Like You Do," "I Don't Wanna Live Forever," and "Earned It," which came from the first two film's soundtracks, were great songs and, ultimately, hits.

But by the time "Fifty Shades Freed" rolled around in 2018, the lead single was by Rita Ora and Liam Payne — it just didn't hit like the earlier bops by Taylor Swift, Zayn, The Weeknd, and Ellie Goulding.

"The Hangover" (2009-2013)

There's not much to say other than: How is it possible that the same group of friends keep blacking out around the world?

Why did we need high-concept sequels to a hilarious yet very simple film?

"The Kissing Booth" (2018-2021)

Jacob Elordi would prefer you forget the "Kissing Booth" trilogy, which was released between 2018 and 2021.

Elordi, star of "Saltburn," "Euphoria," and "Priscilla," made headlines when he called "The Kissing Booth" movies "ridiculous" in a 2023 interview with British GQ.

Much has been written about how problematic (at best) these films are, so all we have to add is that a huge component of these movies is a love of the video game "Dance Dance Revolution," which was initially released in the late 1990s.

Does Gen Z even know what "DDR" is?

"Fantastic Beasts" (2016-2022)

There are supposed to be more "Fantastic Beasts" movies, but it's not looking good — perhaps no franchise is more cursed than "Fantastic Beasts."

JK Rowling has been called out for her transphobic rhetoric, star Johnny Depp was fired from the second film after many controversies, and the third film is based on the mystery of a character played by Ezra Miller, who is also a problematic figure in pop culture right now.

The third film, "Secrets of Dumbledore," also managed to anger fans with a final reveal that disrupts years of canon and is the lowest-grossing Wizarding World movie to date.

We'll potentially never get those fourth and fifth "Fantastic Beasts" movies — instead, Warner Bros. is pivoting toward a rebooted "Harry Potter" series on Max.

"Taken" (2008-2014)

It's hard to suspend your disbelief for one "Taken" movie, let alone three.

"Taken" was a surprise hit upon its release in 2008, making over $226 million against a $25 million budget.

But did we really need a sequel where Liam Neeson's character Bryan has to, yet again, show off his particular set of skills to a new group of kidnappers in 2012's "Taken 2"?

We certainly didn't need 2014's "Taken 3," where Bryan has to deal with the death of his ex-wife and his daughter Kim getting kidnapped again.

"A Christmas Prince" (2017-2019)

When "A Christmas Prince" dropped on Netflix in 2017, people were delighted with how ridiculous it was. None of the journalism in the movie makes sense, no one acts like a human, and it has the predictable happy ending of the Hallmark holiday movies that it's clearly indebted to.

However, the campiness had diminishing returns in 2018's "The Royal Wedding," which deals with financial corruption, and in 2019's "The Royal Baby," which adds international relations and an immense amount of debt.

Huh?

• Global markets plummeted after Trump announced sweeping tariffs on all trading partners.
• Wall Street is already hurting after its worst quarter since 2022 amid tariff whiplash.
• Gold hit new highs as investors looked for safe havens amid the uncertain impact of an escalating trade war.

Global markets tumbled Wednesday after President Donald Trump unveiled his long-anticipated tariffs in an address at the White House Rose Garden, sending shockwaves through stock indexes and hammering shares of companies reliant on global supply chains.

US stock futures, which indicate the direction of the market once regular trading commences on Thursday, reacted instantly. S&P 500 futures dropped 3.5%, while Nasdaq 100 futures tumbled more than 4.3%. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures cratered as much as 1,000 points.

Fueled by anxiety over Trump's often on-again, off-again tariff policy, Wall Street is already licking its wounds after wrapping up the worst quarter since 2022.

The market climbed slightly ahead of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements, with investors eyeing the potential for a milder approach to trade policy. But they were caught off guard by the scope of a blanket 10% tariff on all trading partners, alongside what Trump labeled as "kind reciprocal" tariffs exceeding 20% on some countries.

Share of companies reliant on global supply chains were hit hard.

In after-hours trading, shares of Apple Walmart, and Nike dropped 7%, while Amazon fell 6%. Nvidia, which relies on overseas manufacturing for some of its advanced chips, was down almost 6%.

Regarding the after-hours market reaction, CNBC host Jon Fortt said he had "never seen anything like it."

"This — I think, fair to say — is worse than the worst-case scenario of the tariffs that many in the market expected the president to impose," said Fortt.

Gold hit a new record of nearly $3,160 an ounce as bullion — one of the few commodities exempted from the tariffs, according to a White House factsheet — rose as much as 0.8% at Thursday's open in Asia. Investors have flocked to the precious metal in 2025 in a flight to safety amid rising macroeconomic uncertainty.

Mexico and Canada were not hit with any fresh tariffs, though previous ones remain in place. Goods from Mexico and Canada that meet the requirements of the USMCA trade agreement will also generally still be exempt from tariffs, with the exception of auto imports, as well as steel and aluminum, which are subject to earlier tariffs implemented in March.

It's unclear how the administration calculated the tariffs other countries impose on the US, or if the tariffs are truly "reciprocal." There is no official record showing the European Union has a 39% tariff on US goods, or that Japan has a 46% duty on products from the US, among the dozens of other figures unveiled Wednesday.

Last month, Google renamed Gemini Extensions and previewed an upcoming Google Photos “app,” with more details on how it works now available. 

Maggie Gyllenhaal took quirky fashion to another level.

Gyllenhaal, 47, showed off an avant-garde accessory while promoting her The Bride, which she directed, at CinemaCon in Las Vegas on Tuesday, April 1. She wore a black Schiaparelli suit from the Spring 2025 line, featuring a tailored blazer equipped with a gold key lock enclosure and straight-leg trousers for the occasion. She contrasted the look with a white dress shirt and a cherry red manicure.

The most head-turning part of her ensemble, however, was easily her $2200 Schiaparelli tie, which was fashioned out of a large lock of faux hair. The ombré tresses cascaded past her waist and were styled in a neat braid.

Gyllenhaal matched the accessory to her own brunette locks, which was parted to the side and styled in textured waves. The actress opted for soft makeup, matching her lipstick with her nails. She tied her glam together with soft brown eyeshadow, feathered eyebrows and a healthy swirl of blush.

The Top 10 Viral Red Carpet Fashion Moments of 2024

While Gyllenhaal can effortlessly slay with an offbeat look, she has no shortage of soigné ensembles, too. In October 2024, she donned an elegant black gown by The Row at the Academy Museum Gala in Los Angeles. The knit design was equipped with a gold hoop neckline, cut-outs at the sleeves and a column skirt. Gyllenhaal chose effortlessly understated jewelry for the evening, including a simple gold bangle and emerald beaded earrings.

One year prior, she buttoned up in a Giorgio Armani three-piece suit at the 80th Venice International Film Festival. Her timeless ensemble was complete with a velvet vest, which exposed just the right amount of skin, a fitted blazer and sleek pants.

The Best Fashion at the 2024 Venice Film Festival: Lady Gaga, More

The Dark Knight actress teamed her look with velvet slippers, also by Giorgio Armani, to tie the look together from top to toe, literally.

Jason and Travis Kelce got into the weeds about what body part of theirs they would like to make detachable.

“From Em, no dumb questions. If you could make one of your body parts detachable, which would it be and why?” Jason, 37, said on the Wednesday, April 2, episode of the brothers’ “New Heights” podcast. “It’s a very weird question Em.”

Jason encouraged Travis, 35, to answer first, prompting the Kansas City Chiefs player to take a minute to process the question before responding.

“I don’t know, maybe my ears so I wouldn’t have to hear people?” Travis responded, which Jason agreed would be a good option.

Why Kylie Kelce Says Jason Kelce Has a ‘Chicken Ass’

Travis went on to add that a detachable nose would be a good option, too.

“You’re going sense,” Jason noted. “If there’s mayonnaise in the area, you don’t want to smell that.”

Travis agreed, sharing that he didn’t want to smell that particular odor.

“I’m going senses though, I’m going ears or nose,” Travis said of his final answer.

Jason acknowledged that removing a person’s ears would be “nice,” especially when it was time for bed.

“[You’re] trying to get some shut-eye, trying to go to sleep, just take your ears off. Sleep tight,” he said.

However, Travis pointed out that waking up from a slumber could be an issue, and that he would need something in the room to jolt him awake. Then the conversation went off the rails when Jason added a new hypothetical into the mix.

“Alright, I’m just going to throw it out there. I mean if we’re being honest it usually just gets in the way,” Jason said joyfully without naming the body part. “It’s an inconvenient appendage at times … I mean I’m very happy I have one.”

Jason Kelce Hasn’t Washed His Hair in Months: 'Completely Unnecessary'

Travis picked up what his brother was putting down and asked if Jason was referring to “the ball and chain.”

“I think it’s a one-stop shop,” he countered. “I think it’s all one appendage”

Travis attempted to shut down Jason’s logic saying, “I don’t think that’s how it works.”

Jason, for his part, continued down his rabbit hole of male genitalia.

“If you could just take it all off it would eradicate … it just gets in the way sometimes. You know what I mean?” he explained. If you’re running, you gotta think there’d be less friction without that in between your legs to play sports.”

Travis cut in to point out he’s never had that issue, but Jason went further down the proverbial rabbit hole.

“If you could detach it, that means you could probably attach an upgraded one. I mean you could go bigger,” he said. “Assuming it is a universal connection point, I could attach another one.”

Travis erupted in laughter.

“You’re a f***ing psychopath man,” Travis said in between laughs. “I was waiting for you to make it make sense and you never disappoint.”

Jason called Intern Brandon to ask the Perplexity search engine to weigh in on what would be the best body part to make detachable. The result included practical options, like the appendix and tonsils, before offering creative options, like an arm, leg and head. The idea of a detachable head caught Jason’s attention, reminding him of Futurama.

“I wouldn’t mind that … why would I make my d**k detachable if I could just make my head detachable and put it on somebody with a bigger d**k,” he quipped.

Jason was then reminded of an old saying that their dad, Ed Kelce, used to tell them.

“What would Dad say? You’d lose your d**k if it wasn’t attached?” he asked. “I think that’s what he used to tell us.”

Travis agreed that he remembered hearing that from Ed back in the day.

Travis Kelce and Jason Kelce's Most Supportive Quotes About Each Other

“Maybe that’s why I thought of this immediately.” Jason reflected. “You’re right dad, I don’t want this to be detachable cause I would definitely lose that motherf***er.”

After coming up with multiple scenarios where Jason could potentially lose the body part, he agreed making it detachable was not a good idea.

“Yeah, you’re right — we don’t want that to be detachable, it’s got to stay on,” he said. “I’m not responsible enough to have a detachable d**k.”