A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers pushed for more military-to-military dialogue in a meeting Sunday with China’s Premier Li Qiang, a rare congressional visit since the U.S.-China relations soured.

The last trip by a group of senators was in 2023, and Sunday’s delegation was the first from the House of Representatives to visit Beijing since 2019.

Li welcomed the delegates led by Rep. Adam Smith and called it an “icebreaking trip that will further the ties between the two countries.”

“It is important for our two countries to have more exchanges and cooperation, this is not only good for our two countries but also of great significance to the world,” Li said.

Smith, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said both sides were in agreement on the overarching aim of the visit.

“Certainly, trade and economy is on the top of the list ... (but also) we’re very focused on our military-to-military conversations,” he said in opening remarks. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I’m deeply concerned that our two militaries don’t communicate more.”

The delegation also included Michael Baumgartner, a Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as Ro Khanna and Chrissy Houlahan, both Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee. The lawmakers are in China until Thursday.

U.S.-China relations have taken a downturn since President Donald Trump’s first term and have been hobbled by trade tensions, the status of the self-ruled island of Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, Beijing’s support for Russia and China’s vast claims in the disputed South China Sea.

“China and the U.S. are the two most powerful and influential countries in the world, it’s really important that we get along, and we find a way to peacefully coexist in the world,” Smith said. “I really welcome your remarks about wanting to build and strengthen that relationship.”

Trump said he would meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping at a regional summit taking place at the end of October in South Korea and will visit China in the “early part of next year,” following a lengthy phone call between the two on Friday.

The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors.

The Republican administration turned to the high court after an appeals court refused to go along with ousting Cook, part of President Donald Trump’s effort to reshape the Fed’s seven-member governing board and strike a blow at its independence.

The White House campaign to unseat Cook marks an unprecedented bid to reshape the Fed board, which was designed to be largely independent from day-to-day politics. No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the agency’s 112-year history.

Cook, who was appointed to the Fed’s board by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, has said she won’t leave her post and won’t be “bullied” by Trump. One of her lawyers, Abbe Lowell, has said she “will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor.”

Separately, Senate Republicans on Monday confirmed Stephen Miran, Trump’s nominee to an open spot on the Fed’s board. Both Cook and Miran took part in Wednesday’s vote in which the Fed cut its key interest rate by a quarter-point.

The next opportunity for Cook to cast a vote will be at the meeting of the Fed’s interest rate setting committee, scheduled for Oct. 28-29.

Trump sought to fire Cook on Aug. 25, but a federal judge ruled last week that the removal probably was illegal and reinstated her to the Fed’s board. Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud because she appeared to claim two properties, in Michigan and Georgia, as “primary residences” in June and July 2021, before she joined the board. Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself ? and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his Supreme Court filing.

But Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime. According to documents obtained by The Associated Press, Cook did specify that her Atlanta condo would be a “vacation home,” according to a loan estimate she obtained in May 2021. And in a form seeking a security clearance, she described it as a “2nd home.” Both documents appear to undercut the Trump administration’s claims of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration had not satisfied a legal requirement that Fed governors can only be fired “for cause,” which she said was limited to misconduct while in office. Cook did not join the Fed’s board until 2022.

Cobb also held that Trump’s firing would have deprived Cook of her due process, or legal right, to contest the firing.

By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington rejected the administration’s request to let Cook’s firing proceed.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that even if the conduct occurred before her time as governor, her alleged action “indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy.”

Trump has previously won orders from the court’s conservative majority to fire the presidentially appointed leaders of other independent federal agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission, even as legal fights continue.

Those firings have been at will, with no cause given. The Supreme Court has distinguished the Federal Reserve from those other agencies, strongly suggesting that Trump can’t act against Fed governors without cause.

In its new filing to the Supreme Court, the administration is asking Chief Justice John Roberts for a temporary order that would effectively remove Cook from the board and a more lasting order from the whole court that would be in place while her legal case continues.

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

The states have argued Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to “being vindicated on appeal.”

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was “thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.”

“American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history,” he added. “The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”

Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be “tailored to the States’ purported financial injuries.”

Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work.

“That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,” the judge wrote. “In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants’ position in this regard defies both law and logic.”

Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration “are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,” Sorokin wrote. “But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.”

The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump’s efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise.

A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect.

On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president’s executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court’s nationwide block.

A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off.

The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”

They also argue that Trump’s order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to “provide essential services” — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to “early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.”

At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn’t a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed.