Updated at 5:42 p.m. ET

Some Democratic lawmakers on Friday sought justification from the Biden administration for Thursday’s airstrikes in Syria, marking the first significant test of President Biden’s military approach.

“The American people deserve to hear the Administration’s rationale for these strikes and its legal justification for acting without coming to Congress,” Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said in a statement. “Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances. Congress must be fully briefed on this matter expeditiously.”

The airstrikes, which targeted Iranian-backed militia groups in Eastern Syria, came in response to recent attacks and threats against Americans and coalition personnel in Iraq, the Department of Defense said.

Biden, traveling in Texas, was asked Friday what message he intended to send Iran through the airstrikes. He answered, “You can’t act with impunity.”

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki spoke earlier in the day in more detail about the matter, telling reporters traveling on Air Force One that the “president is sending an unambiguous message that he’s going to act to protect Americans, and when threats are posed, he has the right to take an action at the time, and in the manner of his choosing.”

“He also is going to take those actions in a manner that’s deliberative, and that has the objective of deescalating activity in both Syria and Iraq,” she said.

Psaki said the Department of Defense had briefed congressional leadership before the action last night. She said there would be a full classified briefing early next week at the latest.

But some Democrats questioned the legality of the military response, raising a longstanding debate over presidential and congressional authority over military action.

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont warned against the president overreaching in his powers to declare military actions.

“While the President has a responsibility to defend the people of the United States, our Constitution is clear that it is the Congress, not the President, who has the authority to declare war,” he said in a statement.

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California made a similar argument: “We cannot stand up for Congressional authorization before military strikes only when there is a Republican President,” he said. “The Administration should have sought Congressional authorization here. We need to work to extricate from the Middle East, not escalate.”

Psaki, the White House spokeswoman, said that the administration had conducted a legal review before conducting the strikes.

“As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right to self-defense as reflected in Article 50-1 of the UN Charter. The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and proportionate to the prior attacks,” Psaki said.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby also stressed to reporters that the strike fell within the president’s authority under the Constitution and the U.N. Charter, calling it “deliberate and proportionate.”

“I think President Biden has been nothing but clear, as [Defense Secretary Lloyd] Austin has been nothing but clear that we — that we know we want to end these quote unquote ‘forever wars,’ ” he added.

On the question of casualties, Kirby said an assessment was ongoing. The Iranian-backed militant group that was targeted said one of its fighters was killed; a U.S. official told NPR’s Tom Bowman three to four people may have been killed but that the review isn’t final.

In 2017, just a few months into then-President Trump’s administration, he too delivered a retaliatory airstrike on militants in Syria. At the time, the move prompted calls by Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for immediate debate over congressional authority for any future military action.

The FBI has singled out an individual seen on a video of the Jan. 6 insurrection spraying law enforcement officers, including a Capitol Police officer who died from injuries sustained while defending the building, according to a law enforcement official.

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was injured while fending off the mob of Trump supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. He died the following evening from his injuries.

The Justice Department opened a federal murder investigation into his death.

A law enforcement official says the FBI now has a video in which an individual can be seen spraying Sicknick and others during the Capitol assault.

The official cautioned that the bureau has not identified the suspect by name, and the video does not directly tie the individual to Sicknick’s death.

The Justice Department did not immediately comment on the video, and authorities have not provided the public details about Sicknick’s death, including its specific cause.

The U.S. attorney’s office for Washington, D.C., which is leading the Capitol riot investigation, has said Sicknick’s death is a top priority, and the office has devoted a specialized team to look into it.

It is just one aspect of a sprawling, nationwide investigation into the events of Jan. 6.

The acting deputy attorney general, John Carlin, told reporters Friday that more than 300 people have been charged so far in connection with the insurrection, and some 280 have been arrested.

Among those facing charges are members of extremist groups such as the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.

Nigerian authorities are searching for hundreds of schoolgirls who were kidnapped by gunmen in a raid early Friday morning, according to police in the northwestern state of Zamfara.

Police Commissioner Abutu Yaro told reporters that 317 girls had been kidnapped from Government Girls Science Secondary School in the town of Jangebe, according to its principal. He said that efforts to trace the kidnappers and retrieve the students are underway and that authorities were looking into information that they had been moved to neighboring forests.

“All of us are angry, and all of us are sad,” he said. “Despite that we need to have a coordinated response in order to [save lives] and bring the children back home.”

Yaro emphasized the importance of exercising caution and care, and urged people to remain calm. According to local media reports, scores of residents incensed by the abduction stormed the streets of Jangebe, creating roadblocks and using sticks and stones to attack vehicles carrying journalists to the school. A cameraman was injured in the process.

Citing a police spokesperson, Nigerian newspaper Punch reported that Zamfara State Police Command is working with the military to conduct joint search and rescue operations for the students, who he said were kidnapped by “armed bandits.”

An unnamed school staff member told the newspaper that the gunmen — some wearing uniforms and pretending to be security personnel — arrived at the school with pickup trucks and motorcycles around 1 a.m. on Friday (7 p.m. ET Thursday), then “broke into the students’ hostels” and “forcefully evacuated” them.

“When they came into the school, we thought they were security personnel, but to our utmost fear and dismay, they started putting the girls into Hilux vehicles and motorcycles then drove out of the school,” the staff member said.

The armed kidnappers fired sporadically during the raid, Zamfara’s information minister told Reuters.

It’s the latest in a string of abductions in northern Nigeria and comes just over a week after gunmen kidnapped 42 people at a boarding school in the north-central state of Niger in an attack that left one student dead. In December, the northwestern state of Katsina saw two mass kidnappings eight days apart.

In a statement issued Friday condemning the attack, UNICEF’s Nigeria representative Peter Hawkins acknowledged the Nigerian government’s efforts to secure the kidnapped students’ release and called on it “and all concerned” to make schools safer.

“This is a gross violation of children’s rights and a horrific experience for children to go through — one which could have long-lasting effects on their mental health and well-being,” he said.

Amnesty International called the abduction a “serious violation of international humanitarian law” that undermines the right to education for thousands of students in the region. It said the abducted students are at “serious risk of being harmed” and called on authorities to take all measures to ensure the girls’ safe return, along with that of all students still in the custody of armed groups.

Most notoriously, some 100 of the more than 270 schoolgirls abducted by militant Islamist group Boko Haram in 2014 are still missing.

“Education is under attack in northern Nigeria,” Amnesty International tweeted. “Schools should be places of safety, and no child should have to choose between their education and their life. Other children have had to abandon their education after being displaced by frequent violent attacks on their communities.”

Nearly eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, Democrats in Virginia are poised to enact state-level legislation they say would boost voter protections.

Backers of the Virginia Voting Rights Act say it’s the most comprehensive bill of its kind — and the first in the South. The legislation cleared a final vote on Thursday and now goes to Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.

“As we’ve seen on other issues, we can’t rely on the Supreme Court or the federal level always, and so states have to protect themselves,” said Democratic state Del. Cia Price, one of two sponsors of the legislation.

Price’s bill was inspired by portions of the federal Voting Rights Act that were altered by a 2013 high court ruling. Until that decision, the federal government scrutinized proposed changes to voting across nine mostly Southern states, including Virginia, and a handful of other cities and counties with a history of racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for election law changes across the South. Republican-led legislatures rushed to pass restrictions that no longer required federal approval. States purged voter rolls, added photo ID requirements, and cut nearly 1,700 polling locations, per one tally. Many states have sought to double-down on restrictive voting rules in the aftermath of the November 2020 election.

Price’s bill builds on the old federal process. It would require local election officials to get public feedback — or permission from Virginia’s attorney general — before they change voting rules. Voters or the attorney general could sue if they believe the change disproportionately affects a voter “based on his race or color or membership in a language minority group.” Any proceeds from the legal actions would go toward a voter education fund.

The legislation would require election officials to provide voting materials in foreign languages in districts with substantial populations of people whose primary language is not English. It also would prohibit at-large municipal elections if they have the effect of diluting the voting power of racial minorities.

Virginia Republicans have consistently voted against the bill in the state legislature. They’ve echoed complaints by representatives of local governments who are concerned about the potential costs of litigation and extra workload.

“It is going to make it an unwieldy, incredibly complicated process,” warned state Sen. Jill Vogel, who’s also a GOP election attorney. “It is a full employment act for lawyers.”

Some local officials — particularly Democrats — have dismissed those concerns.

“It’s not like we’re changing elections all the time,” said Justin Wilson, the Democratic mayor of the city of Alexandria. “Protecting the franchise is probably the most important thing we can do.”

There has been some movement on Capitol Hill in the wake of the 2013 Shelby v. Holder case. Democrats in the House passed legislation in 2019 that would address issues raised by the Supreme Court. It would update the formula used to determine which areas should be covered by so-called “preclearance.”

But the bill — now named after the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. — went untouched in what was then a Republican-controlled Senate. It remains unclear if any Republicans, who almost universally opposed the House measure, would join Democrats to clear the 60-vote filibuster now that Democrats hold a narrow majority.

Republicans in many state legislatures have pushed to tighten voting rules in the wake of an election that saw the highest voter turnout in 120 years. Democrats in Virginia have moved the opposition direction, adding optional Sunday voting and making ballot drop boxes permanent. The commonwealth has gone from one of the hardest states to vote in to one of the easiest, after Democrats flipped the legislature in 2019, according to a ranking from researchers at Northern Illinois University.

“I think it’s obvious that Democrats want to loosen the rules that assisted them in the last election and that so greatly contributed to undermining confidence in the election,” Republican Todd Gilbert, the minority leader in Virginia’s House, said in a press conference last month.

Voting rights advocates say Republicans are harnessing their own false claims about voter fraud to advance restricting voting policies.

Judith Browne Dianis — executive director of the Advancement Project, a national civil rights group that helped craft the Virginia VRA — said the GOP’s push reflects a broader anxiety about the growing clout of nonwhite voters.

“We need every state to pass its own voting rights law,” Dianis said.

California, Washington and Oregon have passed narrower state-level voting rights acts focused on local elections.

Virginia had some of the tightest Jim Crow-era voting restrictions in the U.S. State Sen. Jennifer McClellan, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate who also sponsored the Virginia Voting Rights Act, said the effort reflected broader shifts in what has become a reliably blue state.

“It’s poetic justice that we’d be the first state in the South to pass a bill,” McClellan said.

One of the key aims of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill is to send money to people who were already at risk of falling behind on bills or slipping into poverty.

Democrats say the relief bill set to pass the House Friday includes several new programs intended to create a new social safety net that some in the party are comparing to a new, smaller version of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

“What we’re addressing here is the economic disjunction in American life,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. “What we’re asking for here is an opportunity for people at the lower end of the economic scale, the people that we depend upon every single day in America, incidentally, to get a chance.”

The goal, the Massachusetts Democrat says, is to help families stay solvent as the economy continues to suffer. To do this, he says, some elements of the bill, such as an expanded and reimagined Child Tax Credit, would work in concert with programs like food stamps, rent and utility assistance, and health care programs such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Republicans say many of the programs included in this bill have nothing to do with addressing the specific demands of the pandemic, like reopening schools and speeding up vaccine distribution.

Indeed, on top of the small-business loans and money for health care included in previous bills, the latest round of relief includes longtime Democratic priorities.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has accused Democrats of taking advantage of their new power in Washington to make good on a plan to turn pandemic relief into an extremely expensive liberal wish list.

“It was last March, remember, when a senior House Democrat called this disaster ‘a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,’ ” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Americans are suffering, but their side sees an opportunity to ram through ideological change.”

Democrats don’t exactly disagree. They say they ran and won on a promise to exactly pass these kinds of programs. For Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro that means finally enacting what she calls a federal child allowance that would use the tax code to send families a tax credit as a monthly payment.

“We’re looking at lifting people out of poverty with the stroke of a pen,” DeLauro, D-Conn., said. “Then you’re looking at economic security for middle class families. You know, when you’re looking for big change, this is where I look.”

The legislation increases the existing child tax credit to $3,000 for children 6 to 17 and $3,600 for children under 6. The amount is gradually reduced for couples earning over $150,000 and individuals earning more than $75,000 per year. Families eligible for the full credit would get payments of $300 per child for young children and $250 for older children, per month, from July 2021 through the end of the year.

The idea is something DeLauro has been working on for 18 years and she says the bill could help half of all children living in poverty.

“You look at the statistics,” she says, rattling them off: 50% of Black children would be lifted out of poverty, she says. That figure, she adds, is 40% for Hispanic children, 61.5% of Native American children, 38% of Asian American Pacific Islander children, and 40% of white children.

The idea is essentially an experiment in basic income for families. Democrats have said the bill is aimed at helping people who have been harmed the most in the pandemic because they were already in dire financial circumstances or at risk of falling behind even in a healthy economy.

Many Democrats say the goal is to create a new network of social support programs that could become as widely accepted and widely used as Social Security.

“What this piece of legislation does is ensures that we have built the transforming architecture for something enduring for lifting families out of poverty in the United States,” DeLauro said. “We did it for seniors. We are now going to do it for children.”

Many elements of the bill, aside from a $15 minimum wage, have widespread support among Democrats and are expected to become law at least temporarily.

Democrats say their goal is to make sure they stay.

“I’m hell bent on making these credits permanent,” Neal said.

He says these tax changes, like the child tax credit expansion, may be temporary now but it will be exceedingly difficult for any politician to explain why they support ending relief that gets people, and children in particular, out of poverty.

“I think that the idea always is that once it’s in, it’ll be very difficult to remove down the road.” Neal said. “And my plan here is to make sure that the experiment is not only worthwhile, but is lasting.”

But passing permanent programs will likely be much more difficult because they will require bipartisan agreement in the Senate. Democrats are using a budget tool called reconciliation to avoid a filibuster in the Senate, but the complex rules governing budget legislation mean that expensive programs like these must either be paid for or allowed to expire.

All 50 Senate Democrats would have to vote with 10 Republicans to pass a permanent bill. And that is far from guaranteed.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has a competing plan for a monthly child benefit for families. His plan would increase the monthly payments for younger children to $350 and would include expecting parents. The maximum monthly payment would $1,250 per family and would start to phase out for single tax filers earning more than $200,000 and joint filers earning over $400,000.

Those elements might have bipartisan support, but his plan comes with more restrictions. Children would need a valid Social Security Number — which would exclude unauthorized immigrants — and he proposes ending a long list of other social safety net programs to help pay for the cost of the credit.

Romney’s plan would eliminate the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), the state and local tax deduction and the head of household tax filing status. He also proposed trimming the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Democrats are unlikely to accept the majority of those ideas. They insist that Biden is committed to these programs and they insist that there will be some other way to make them permanent — though they haven’t outlined any specific ways to forge bipartisan agreement.

“I believe with this administration, it will be permanent,” DeLauro said. “I believe that [this bill] will be an indelible mark, and we will move forward.”