President Donald Trump continued on Monday to sow unfounded doubt about mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections, despite encouraging Republicans to vote any way they can. 

Trump’s remarks came amid a meeting at the White House with the 2020 election denier Tina Peters on Monday, sources confirmed to ABC News. Peters, the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado, was convicted on state charges in a scheme to breach the state’s voting systems as she hunted for evidence of election fraud in 2020.

The state's Democratic governor, Jared Polis, earlier this year granted Peters clemency following repeated calls from the president urging the state to let her go. Peters was released from prison in June.  

During a gaggle on the White House South Lawn en route to Nebraska on Monday, where he attended a political rally, Trump pushed back when asked why he was telling Republicans to vote by mail despite his repeated assertions that it is fraudulent. 

"No, vote by mail or vote in person. I'd rather have a vote in person. But they can vote by mail if they want, because we seem to have no choice," Trump said, going on to claim, without providing evidence, that mail-in voting is rife with cheating.

"What we're concerned about is there seems to be a lot of- not seems to be, there is a lot of cheating in vote by mail," Trump said, adding a directive to reporters that they need to examine elections in California.

"Trump is lying about California again," Gov. Gavin Newsom's press office said back in June after Trump made baseless accusations of fraud in the state’s primary election.

Trump has encouraged voters to cast their ballots by mail ahead of the critical midterm cycle, which will determine control of Congress and, ultimately, the direction of his final two years as president. 

"Vote early, vote by mail or vote in person on Election Day, November 3rd, so we can defeat the radical left Dumocrats in a midterm victory that is too big to rig," Trump said in a video posted to his social media on October 3. 

Trump has voted by mail twice in Florida elections this year, including in the state's recent primary election. He’s also voted early in elections while he was in office, including during the Florida Republican primary in 2024.

His administration this year has been involved in legal challenges to mail-in ballot rules, including the filing last month of an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to immediately implement new U.S. Postal Service mail ballot rules for November. The Supreme Court rejected that appeal, clearing the way for states to continue sending out mail-in ballots as planned ahead of the midterms.

Trump seized on Monday upon an incident in Maricopa County, Arizona, where officials said Sunday that a contractor accidentally mailed 3,126 early ballots six days before they were supposed to be sent out.

In a statement, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office said no voters were adversely affected and "upon consultation with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, it was determined that the ballots remain valid and do not need to be voided or reissued."

Still, the president, who was responding to a reporter's question, said that the country should "be ashamed of themselves."

"So Maricopa just sent out thousands of ballots in error. Maricopa County in Arizona. And they have to be ashamed of themselves," Trump said.

"By the way, there were no errors. You know that, right?" he said. 

He added: "Maricopa is a very, very dishonest county."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump suggested that Iran could "take out" Los Angeles and San Diego if it were allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, drawing condemnation from California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the remarks "deranged and dangerous."

Trump’s comments during a political rally in Nebraska on Monday come in the wake of two foiled terror plots in recent weeks, including an attack on an Israel-bound passenger flight in the Middle East and a potential attack on a U.K. airbase used by the U.S. Air Force. On Monday, prior to the rally, Trump said an Iran-linked threat to the base prompted the U.S. to move its bombers elsewhere.

The investigations into both incidents remain underway, but politicians have drawn tentative links to Tehran. U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there were "strong indications" that Iran played a role in alleged plot that would have targeted the base. Trump said he "personally" believes Iran was behind the attempt to hijack the flight. Neither Burnham nor Trump offered further details to support their statements.

In his speech on Monday, Trump sought to assuage concerns about the economic impact of the Iran war, calling it a "small price to pay for keeping the world safe" and "keeping our country safe."

Defending his war effort, Trump suggested that if Iran was to develop a nuclear weapon, they could "take out" an American city. He then went a step further, singling out two Democratic-led cities in California. 

"Let them take out Los Angeles, let them take out San Diego." The crowd cheered at the remarks.

Los Angeles is the second-most populous city in the United States, while San Diego is home to several major American military installations, including the Naval Base San Diego -- principal homeport of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Trump then pivoted back to his messaging on the war, assuring the crowd that the conflict was a "small price to pay" in the grand scheme of things and that the war was "essentially almost over with." "And they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it, let me tell you they need it. But it's going to end very soon, and it'll end one way or the other," he added.

The remarks drew swift condemnation from state leaders, including Newsom and the cities’ mayors, and at least one Republican running for Congress in a battleground district.

Jim Desmond, a Republican running for an open congressional seat representing parts of San Diego County, condemned the remarks on social media.

"I vehemently disagree with President Trump’s comments. America must stand up to Iran and defend our interests, but the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland," Desmond, a Navy veteran, wrote. "No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage."

Newsom, who has often sparred with the president, repeatedly condemned Trump’s remarks Monday night, calling them "disgusting and disqualifying" in a second social media post. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called Trump's remarks "dangerous" and suggested they could "potentially compromise our safety."

"The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives," Bass said in a statement on social media. "In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria similarly denounced Trump, saying that his city "is not collateral damage."

"We are not expendable," Gloria wrote, telling Trump to "keep our city out of your reckless war talk."

Steven Cheung, the White House director of communications, addressed the criticism on Tuesday, saying, "The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality. He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn't been stopped. America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the devout Catholic conservative who has long warned of animus against religion in America, says in a new book that he believes the court's landmark decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was "perhaps the decisive point in our nation's turn against religious liberty."

Alito, who dissented sharply in the 2015 case, made the claim at Catholic University of America three years after Obergefell v Hodges in a speech that was not open to the public or widely covered at the time. The remarks were published this month in "So Ordered," a collection of Alito speeches that he says reflect his judicial philosophy and outlook on the country.

"In dissent from that ruling," he said in the 2018 address, "I expressed my worry that equating the expression of certain views with bigotry -- or, if you like, with dignitary harm -- would drive believers out of public life."

Alito suggests that his prediction has come to pass.

"Quite suddenly, religious liberty has become controversial," Alito said in a newly published 2022 speech to the Magnificat Foundation, a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting Catholic culture and traditions.

Throughout the book, the justice cites a string of lawsuits to reach the Supreme Court in recent years as evidence that "support for religious liberty has cratered."

The cases involve businesses threatened with punishment for refusing to provide services for gay weddings and faith-based organizations harmed by government health or employment regulations without any religious exemption.

"What we see in these and other cases," Alito says in the 2022 speech, "is a refusal to live in peace with those who violate the new moral code." He says the dynamic will "virtually guarantee that the Supreme Court will continue to see a steady stream of religious-liberty cases."

Court sided with religiously affiliated parties

In nearly all the cases Alito cites as examples of religious animus, the court ultimately sided with the religiously affiliated parties over their opponents.

The court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who was sued for refusing to create a wedding cake for a gay couple and later defended a Christian wedding website designer who objected to creating sites for same-sex ceremonies.

When the Affordable Care Act mandated that employers provide insurance plans with no-cost contraceptive coverage, the high court ruled that some private employers can opt-out as a matter of faith and that federal agencies must be allowed to exempt religious employers from the rule.

The court recently ruled that states must allow religiously affiliated private schools to participate in state-funded private tuition programs and tax credit initiatives. Last year, it gave parents the right to opt-out their kids from teachings that conflict with sincere religious beliefs.

The conservative majority blocked a bid by the city of Philadelphia to exclude Catholic Social Services from its foster care program over LGBT discrimination and later effectively struck down state laws banning LGBT conversion therapy, which some religious advocates said amounted to a gag order against Christian teaching about human sexuality.

Recent decisions have also expanded protection for religious exercise on the job -- siding with a former public school football coach who had been disciplined for praying at midfield after games -- and mandated broader employer accommodations for the faithful who need to skip work to attend worship services.

Alito joined the majority in all of those cases and has voted in favor of faith-based interests in many others over his 20 years on the high court.

Same-sex marriage remains a flashpoint

The issue of same-sex marriage rights, which was narrowly decided 5-4, remains a flashpoint.

In 2025, Alito said publicly that while he strongly opposes the ruling, he is "not suggesting that the decision should be overruled," even as fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has openly urged his colleagues to do so.

Nevertheless, Alito suggests in his book that the marriage decision has effectively silenced Americans whose sincere religious beliefs favor limiting unions to one man and one woman, likening them to Catholics who were sidelined in post-Reformation England.

They "had been so beaten down that they were 'a people who shunned the light of day.' They were 'found in corners, and alleys, and cellars, and the housetops, or in the recesses of the country,'" he said in a newly-published speech delivered in 2021 at Thomas Aquinas College.

"What I predicted in my dissent is coming to pass," Alito said of same-sex marriage opponents.

Some advocates see differently than Alito

While many religious liberty advocates openly share Alito's concerns, some have voiced a different view of the current state of affairs.

"We continue to win unparalleled court victories at every level of the judiciary furthering the religious liberty of all Americans, resulting in more religious freedom today than at any other time in our lives," wrote Jeff Mateer, executive vice president and chief operating and legal officer of First Liberty Institute in the group's 2025 annual report. The nonprofit group calls itself the "nation's largest legal advocacy firm dedicated to defending religious liberty" and frequently brings cases to the high court.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, another high profile nonprofit religious advocacy group, says in its 2025 report on religious freedom in America that "faith in the public square is on the rise." "Americans are moving away from a timid, behind-closed-doors view of religious freedom," Becket found.

One of six Catholic justices on the current court, Alito, who calls freedom of religion a "pet issue," concedes the legal victories for religious exercise rights but maintains a critical view of threats to people of faith.

"It says a lot that the parties whose free-exercise rights were violated had to take their claims all the way to our Court," he said at the 2021 event.

The book also highlights the justice's views on originalism and textualism; the role of judges in American life; and what he calls "threats" to the Constitution.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump said Monday night that he will no longer use taxpayer funds to pay for a multimillion-dollar pro-Trump ad blitz ahead of the midterm elections, saying his super PAC will now pay for them. 

While he dismissed criticism of the ads as "a rather standard thing to do," he said he had decided to run them on his own dime rather than that of the U.S. government in a post on his social media platform.

"I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc," Trump wrote, referring to his super PAC.

The move comes after the U.S. government bankrolled a series of ads that aired nationally and heavily featured the president. One of the ads was a direct copy of a spot Trump's campaign ran in 2024.

A White House official confirmed to ABC News Monday night that MAGA Inc. will pay for ads moving forward but defended them as something previous administrations have used.

"Presidential Public service announcements are nothing new. Administrations of both parties have used public service announcements to explain policy and make the case for the nation’s direction," the official said.

Earlier Monday, Vice President JD Vance defended using taxpayer money to run the ads, claiming they are "public service announcements."

"They're not partisan. They're not -- you know, it's not like we're advocating for a particular candidate. We're trying to tell a story, I think, about how great the United States of America is," Vance said.

Trump defended the ads last week at an event in the Oval Office, saying they were "for the spirit of our country" and not a political endorsement for Republican candidates on the ballot this November or for his administration's policies.

"You have to understand; I'm not promoting a candidate. I'm not promoting myself because I'm not running for office. I'm promoting the country," Trump said. 

"Now, if somebody said that that's wrong, I'll gladly pay the money. But these are ads for the country," he said.

Trump has implored Republican voters to "pretend" that he is on the ballot in the November midterm elections to boost voter turnout for GOP congressional candidates.

The federal government has spent at least $2.5 million to air the TV ads, according to an estimate from AdImpact, an advertising agency that analyzes ad spending across television.

A total of $20 million from the Department of Homeland Security's budget had been allocated for the effort.

Ethics watchdogs and several Congressional Democrats -- as well as some Republicans -- have said the ads are inappropriate. Some critics have said the ads could violate federal propaganda law.

Four ads have been aired over the last two weeks. One features Trump in monochrome, slowly walking down a hallway, describing "the final battle" against "the deep state," "the globalists," and "the sick political class that hates our country."

Another ad includes a montage of clips and images of Trump at events and rallies featuring onscreen text about the "largest tax cuts in history."

The latest ad, released last week, focuses on the U.S. war with Iran, now in its eighth month. Audio of Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth plays in the background as U.S. military footage, including unclassified strikes, is displayed.

The video in the ad appears to be the same as one played during the Republican midterm convention last month. And it played last Wednesday before Hegseth addressed 600 service members in his State of the Force speech at the Marine Corps base at Quantico, Virginia.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The Supreme Court appeared divided and searching for consensus Monday in a major case involving climate change that could determine whether local governments can sue producers of fossil fuels for potentially billions of dollars in damages over alleged marketing deception and the impacts of global warming. 

Boulder, Colorado, which brought the case against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, needs only four votes to win after Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case without explanation. A victory for the city would clear the way for its claims -- and dozens of similar cases elsewhere -- to move forward in state courts but would likely not be the final word in the dispute. 

"This case involves an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct," argued Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the energy companies. "If Boulder's claims are allowed to go forward, some 90,000 municipalities across the country will have the ability to make national and international energy policy by asking juries to impose catastrophic damages on selected fossil-fuel producers."

During nearly two hours of oral argument, Shanmugam argued that the Constitution, federal law and Supreme Court precedent make clear that matters of air and water pollution are subject to federal law (and the EPA) -- not state-by-state rules.  

The city and county of Boulder counter that the pursuit of financial damages is not about "regulating" or shutting down the companies but instead about recouping costs from alleged harms inflicted by deceptive marketing and dangerous side-effects of fossil fuels. 

"When somebody in New York defames a citizen of Boulder on national television or somebody in California releases a computer virus on the Internet or a biological virus into the world and it causes mass damage in Colorado, it has never been thought that only federal law can provide a remedy," the city's attorney Kevin Russell argued. 

Both sides also tangled over whether the Supreme Court should even be reviewing the case at all, since it has not yet gone to trial in Colorado. If the court were to gridlock 4-4, the case would proceed in state court and potentially return to the justices again later. 

The court could also choose to make clear that state-law damages claims could go forward, or that federal law preempts the claims altogether. 

Most of the justices appeared torn over what kind of decision to write. 

Justice Elena Kagan, appearing sympathetic to Boulder's argument, likened the lawsuit to major class-action cases against tobacco companies and opioid drug manufacturers in states hit hard by fallout from widespread use of those products. 

"I'm waiting to see the distinction," said Kagan, "because this complaint talks a lot about misrepresentations that are made by [the energy companies]."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared most inclined to side with Exxon and Suncor, citing what he called a "wall of precedent" that supports blocking state lawsuits against the companies because air and water transcend state boundaries.  

"We don't have to reinvent the wheel," Kavanaugh said, "because we've said this multiple times, and Congress presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this court's precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise."

Chief Justice John Roberts asked tough questions of both sides.

"You would concede that there are some situations in which an individual who engages in conduct in State B causes harm to somebody in State A can be sued under the law of State A, right?" Roberts asked Shanmugam, suggesting Boulder's suit could be rooted in longstanding tradition.  

"We would concede that," he replied. 

Later, however, Roberts also raised concerns about the nationwide implications of allowing Boulder's suit to proceed.

"Presumably, if you prevail," he said, "just the next day, a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit, they'll probably copy your pleadings, and then there will be at least 50, you know, different cities ... causes of action filed."

"The mere fact that there's going to be a lot -- there could be a lot of litigation, I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that says" the federal government can short-circuit the states," Boulder attorney Kevin Russell replied. 

A decision in the case -- Suncor v Boulder -- is expected by the end of June 2027. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump is heading to Grand Island, Nebraska, for a rally on Monday evening, the latest in a campaign travel swing that includes notable stops in red states and one that comes as both parties eye critical races in the state.

Last week, Trump held rallies in Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio; Nebraska is similarly red-leaning. Trump won the statewide vote in Nebraska three times by around 20 points each time. In 2020 and 2024, the Democratic candidate each time got one electoral college vote from Nebraska because Nebraska splits its electoral college votes.

But in the Senate race this year in Nebraska, incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, first elected to the Senate in 2024 in a special election after previously serving as Nebraska's governor, is facing a closely watched general election matchup against independent Dan Osborn, a union steamfitter who ran a closer-than-expected race for Senate in 2024 against GOP Sen. Deb Fischer.

Early in-person voting in Nebraska begins on Monday, the day of the rally.

Ricketts has argued that he’s best suited to keep delivering for Nebraska and that his opponent is secretly a Democrat.

There is no Democrat on the ballot for Senate in Nebraska, as the Democrat who won the Senate primary withdrew. Democrats are rallying behind Osborn as one of a few red-state independents running for Senate this year, although Osborn has insisted he won’t caucus with either party.

Ricketts has alleged that "Democrat Dan," as he nicknamed Osborn during a recent debate, is trying to mislead voters while planning to effectively serve  as a Democrat.

Ricketts has also faced newfound scrutiny after an ad released by an outside group last week featured a woman who called out his vote in 2022, while governor, to pardon a man who served a prison sentence for sexually assaulting her. Ricketts told reporters after the ad was released, "The pardon was granted nearly three decades after the crime, and anyone who knows me knows that I have always protected Nebraskans. That is my job, and it always has been."

Osborn, meanwhile, has argued that he will be a fully independent voice for Nebraska and that voters there need change.

He also recently apologized for leaked audio from a campaign event where he maligned hypothetical Trump voters as having lives that "suck," saying he was trying to discuss the anger he said Trump tapped into during his presidential runs.

ABC News has not independently obtained the audio; Osborn has not disputed the remarks.

Trump, in a recent video he posted on his social media platform, praised Ricketts as someone who "will always put Nebraska first, and he'll always put America first," while slamming Osborn as someone who "will say anything to win. He's dying to get to Washington so he can betray you, but we will not let that happen."

There's also a major U.S. House race in Nebraska, although it's not in the congressional district where Trump is going on Monday. Grand Island is in the state's 3rd District, represented by Rep. Adrian Smith and favored to remain Republican-held.

But the state’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, is a top target for Democrats. Incumbent Republican Rep. Don Bacon is retiring; Omaha City Council member Brinker Harding, a Republican, and businesswoman Denise Powell, a Democrat, are running.

Ricketts has indicated during recent interviews that he will attend Monday's rally, telling media outlets on Wednesday, "We will welcome President Trump to Grand Island on Monday, and we will be talking about the things we've done between Senate Republicans and the president to put more money back in people's pockets."

Harding, however, will not be at the rally, his spokesperson confirmed to ABC News on Thursday, because of "previously scheduled events." Harding has Trump's endorsement, although he has also sought sometimes to show where he disagrees with Trump.

Given Nebraska's agriculture industry, the rises in the prices of fertilizer and fuel because of the war with Iran hurting trade have become major issues, as has the administration’s temporary lift on beef tariffs, which both Ricketts and Osborn have criticized.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

To walk deep into the mountain forests at the doorstep of the Rocky Mountains, is to encounter the fragrant majesty of century-old ponderosa pine trees famous for lining ski slopes, National Park trails and residential neighborhoods.

Now, those iconic Colorado trees -- already under strain from record heat and prolonged drought -- are threatened by a rapidly growing outbreak of silent killers: the mountain pine beetle.

The size of a grain of rice, the native forest insect can attack a tree in a matter of weeks, feeding upon its critical tissues and effectively strangling it from within.

"Once a tree has been attacked, it's likely to die," said Sarah Hart, a forest ecologist with Colorado State University. "For managing large landscapes, we really don't have particularly effective strategies to stop it."

WATCH: Outbreak: Hidden Costs of the Climate Crisis at 7 and 9 p.m. ET Monday on ABC News Live PRIME, streaming on Hulu, Disney+ and ABC News apps.

More than 700,000 acres in Colorado are affected, officials say. Climate change is blamed for supercharging the emerging outbreak, with no end in sight.

Some state officials have called them "zombie forests": ponderosa that appear to be healthy but are under existential threats from a changing climate that may result in extinction in some areas. 

"We've had this dearth of precipitation, above-average temperatures -- It's kind of like attacking the bank when there's no security guard," said Dan West, an entomologist with the Colorado State Forest Service. "These trees are standing there with not a lot of defenses."

The cost of responding to the pine beetle outbreak, along with the financial impacts from other climate-change influenced environmental threats, are at the heart of a major Supreme Court case being argued Monday in Washington.

The City of Boulder and Boulder County, Colorado, in 2018 sued major fossil-fuel producers Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, seeking financial damages under state public nuisance law.

Their complaint alleges the companies "knowingly caused and contributed" to climate change by promoting fossil fuels "while concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers," including "devastation" to forests from an "epidemic" of mountain pine beetles.

Exxon and Suncor, which declined interviews for this story, argue in court papers that the Boulder lawsuit is based on a "dubious theory," insisting local harms from the global phenomenon of climate change cannot be pinned on individual companies.

They're asking the U.S. Supreme Court to toss the case out.

"National issues should be decided at the national stage, and that means Congress needs to be the one to decide what are the rules for who pays, who ultimately pays, what are standards for imposing those costs," said Michael Williams, solicitor general of West Virginia, which has joined 25 other states backing Exxon and Suncor.

"If these suits go forward, higher gas prices are maybe the smallest consequence. I think it's even bigger than that and you're going to see some of these industries potentially shutter entirely," Williams said.

Boulder city and county officials declined interview requests about the case.

Longtime Boulder resident Paul Chinowsky, a civil engineer specializing in climate impacts, said he doesn't want the oil companies to go bankrupt but agrees they should chip in for alleged harms from their product.

"Let's be real. We can't live today without some level of fossil fuels, but we need regulation," Chinowsky said in an interview in his neighborhood on the outskirts of Boulder.

"We see streets getting resurfaced. We see drainage systems getting updated, and we think of it all as, well, this is just a part of regular maintenance. Climate change is putting an accelerator on that," he said.

Boulder and Boulder County say in court documents that they've spent millions on road repairs, storm drainage improvements and utility upgrades to keep pace with other environmental threats amplified by climate change.

"It's become a significant element of the city's budget," said John Tayer, CEO of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. "There are direct costs associated with the change in climate. Just everything from rising heat, which leads to greater air conditioning costs. It can slow down outdoor work because of the risk to the workforce from heat exposure. It's across the board."

Then there is the mountain pine beetle.

Driving from Boulder along Interstate 70 into the Front Range, rust-colored clusters of dead ponderosa pine streak the mountainsides. From above, the scale of the crisis is even more dramatic.

Bark beetles killed more than 54 million acres of pines across the West in the early 2000s, an area the size of the state of Utah. The new outbreak is expected to be much worse for communities in fire-prone areas. 

"We've seen a lot of sporadic wildfire activity when you have a lot of dead trees like this," said Dan Gibbs, a veteran wildland firefighter who heads Colorado's Department of Natural Resources, "Bark beetle-kill timber burns differently than I would say a green, alive forest."

Teams of state foresters are scrambling to clear beetle-killed trees from hillsides near residential communities to reduce fuels for fire, one dead tree at a time. The cost to state taxpayers: $10,000 per acre, Gibbs said.

"Fire hazard, impacts to recreation, impacts to watersheds -- the [dead trees have] a huge ripple effect on almost daily life of Coloradans and visitors," he said.

If the nation's highest court allows Boulder to sue Exxon and Suncor for damages, it won't halt a pine beetle outbreak that state officials say will last from years to decades. But supporters of the case hope it brings increased accountability -- and more funding to protect Colorado's ponderosa pines and the people who love them.

"Oftentimes the people and the organisms that are facing the most dramatic impacts of climate change are not the ones who are benefiting from what's causing climate change," said Hart. "I do think that there should be greater accountability for those negative effects."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes Monday on the eve of the midterm elections to begin a new term that will confront a fresh wave of appeals from President Donald Trump and the prospect of explosive legal challenges to 2026 election results.

The first case for oral argument involves climate change and a blockbuster bid by local governments to sue energy companies for financial damages over alleged harms from fossil fuels -- the first-of-its-kind dispute to reach the justices. Potentially billions of dollars are on the line.

This year the court will also decide whether states can ban semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15; deny federal ballots to voters who don’t provide proof of citizenship on state registration forms; and block religious schools from taxpayer-funded programs when they discriminate against LGBTQ+ families.

It is also considering whether to weigh in on state laws mandating display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms; legal shields for medical providers who mail abortion pills out of state; and, regulation of prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket.

These cases are not expected to be decided before the midterms in November.

“Is the court a Republican court? Is it resolving disputes in the name of justice or some broader set of principles? I think it’s a very live question,” said Genevieve Lakier, a constitutional scholar at the University of Chicago Law School. “This term, like the last, is going to provide fuel to the fire of that question.”

The justices will decide the legality of the Trump administration’s rapid deportation of immigrants to third countries -- without giving them a chance to raise fears of persecution -- and the indefinite detention of immigrants awaiting deportation proceedings without a chance for release on bond.

The president also has personal appeals before the court. He wants the justices to invalidate an $83 million civil judgment against him in the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit; revive a conspiracy claim against Hillary Clinton and the DNC from the 2016 campaign; and allow defamation claims against CNN from the 2020 election to go forward.

“The Supreme Court's term is, in part, going to involve a lot of election drama,” said William Baude, a prominent conservative law professor at the University of Chicago and member of the Federalist Society. “The 2026 midterm elections are upon us, and the court has already had several pieces of litigation related to that, and has more to come at any moment.”

A majority of Americans believe that the justices are motivated mainly by politics in their decision-making and that this court -- with a 6-justice conservative supermajority -- rules often for Trump, a Marquette University poll found last month.

But many scholars, and the justices themselves, argue that public perception is not matched by reality.

The court ruled against Trump last term on nearly every major policy priority to reach them, striking down Trump’s sweeping global tariffs program, birthright citizenship executive order, deployment of National Guard troops to U.S. cities, removal of a Federal Reserve governor, and implementation of Postal Service mail-in ballot rules.

On dozens of other matters that reached the court on the emergency docket, however, the conservative majority has been much more deferential to the president. By one analysis, he has won about nine times out of ten.

“I don't see this as a court that is just like, ‘We're just going to rubber stamp what the current administration does.’ You know, quite the opposite,” Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal minority, told a judicial conference over the summer. “I think that that is a bad rap.”

Former Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who served in the Obama administration, said the Court has been deliberate in asserting its independence from the president.

“It’s doing so at a time in which there really is a pretty darn serious constitutional clash going on,” Verrilli said last month. “Though, I think it’s certainly right it is not a MAGA court.”

Veteran court watchers note, however, that every term comes with surprises.

“Will the court continue to hold the line against the president’s never-ending assault on the rule of law? Will the court otherwise break down 6-3 in favor of conservative positions?” said Irv Gornstein, executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law Center.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump formally announced the creation of what he called a “Super Intelligence Force,” an artificial intelligence task force that he says will work to promote AI dominance while also protecting American lives and interests. 

"The Super Intelligence Force is tasked with coordinating the effort of the Federal Government to ensure that America continues to lead the World in Super Intelligence, which many say is bigger than the Industrial Revolution, and the Internet, and will protect the interests, and improve the lives, of all Americans,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Sunday.

Trump's announcement was thin on details, with the president not outlining any specific action or oversight the task force will have on AI development -- an issue about which some tech CEOs have raised concerns and called for federal regulation. 

"The Super Intelligence Force will coordinate the Federal Government's engagement with Consumers, Public Interest Groups, Religious Organizations, Critical Infrastructure Providers, and Super Intelligence Companies," Trump added. 

An ABC News request sent to the White House for more information about the task force's objectives did not immediately receive a response.

Last month, Trump said he would create an AI task force amid rising concerns about the technology. Sunday's formal announcement comes after the president met with top tech CEOs at the White House last week, where he said he and six companies signed a "constitution" establishing standards on how to self-police their technology. 

Trump said the task force will be led by Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton, as well as Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission Andrew Ferguson, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael, and Director of the Office of Personnel Management Scott Kupor. 

Clayton, who is expected to serve as the White House's new AI czar, told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Saturday that global dominance in AI makes the U.S. more equipped to address risks from adversaries, echoing the president’s support for the technology's continued growth. 

"The risk of not being first is high," Clayton told The Wall Street Journal. “Not being first increases the identified, and unidentified, risks, particularly from our adversaries. Being first will better enable us to address those risks on behalf of the American people."

Clayton said of the AI task force, "I expect there will be mechanisms developed in dialogue, just like there are in other industries."

According to The Wall Street Journal, Clayton cited risk models for the financial industry that have been developed in conjunction with the Federal Reserve and Securities and Exchange Commission. He told the newspaper that the task force would examine current law and discuss possible actions that Congress could take. 

Clayton also expressed confidence in the group that the president has appointed to run the AI task force, citing the "diverse skill sets" and "common commitment" of its members. 

"These are all serious people who have addressed opportunities and risks in the past and are committed to doing this so that America wins the AI race and we win it through the benefit of the American people," he added.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna are heading to California to rally Saturday in support of an initiative that would place a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth of billionaires in the state.

Their efforts to barnstorm the state come as early voting begins, and millions of dollars have been spent to kill the initiative.

The measure would affect roughly 200 of California's billionaires, with the money going to cover federal Medi-Cal cuts. Gov. Gavin Newsom has become its most prominent opponent, arguing that the tax could be dodged by billionaires who could leave the state for another.

Prior to arriving in San Francisco, Khanna told ABC News that he and Newsom are "polar opposites" on the issue. Both have openly discussed that they are weighing a presidential bid in 2028.

“He [Newsom] doesn't want to offend some of the billionaires who he wants to finance his campaigns, and that's the question: Are we going to be a party for the working class? Are we going to be beholden to our donors?” Khanna said.

The congressman challenged Newsom to a debate, proposing holding town halls and talking to voters about this issue.

"I'm happy to debate him on this any time in the state," he said.

Asked by reporters earlier this week about Sanders' visit, Newsom said he has "enormous respect" for the senator, but on this specific issue, "we fundamentally disagree." 

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for Newsom said, "The Governor supports a national tax on billionaires and is proud to stand with teachers, firefighters, reproductive health clinics, and others in opposing this poorly written state measure that will harm California.”

Newsom has shared a counterproposal: a national billionaire tax focused on loans taken against assets.

Tech investors have pushed back hard on the measure. Vinod Khosla warned that the state's top wealth creators will leave, and Mark Cuban told Khanna he doesn't understand business.

Khanna pointed to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.

"Someone more successful than both of them, Jensen, is perfectly fine paying the tax, and he's driving the economy more than either of them are these days," Khanna said.

Asked about whether he was concerned about the proposed tax by Bloomberg Television, Huang said, "I've got to tell you, I have not even thought about it once. We chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes they would like to apply, so be it. I'm perfectly fine with it."

But billionaires have also been opening their wallets to fight the measure. Building a Better California, the flagship organization fighting the measure, has raised over $252 million, mostly from billionaires, according to public financial records. Top contributors include Google co-founder Sergey Brin (who has given $102 million), venture capitalist John Doerr (who has given $30 million) and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who has given $27 million).

Skeptics of Proposition 40, the official name for the billionaire tax ballot measure, say that the measure could ultimately reduce tax revenue by motivating wealthy Californians to relocate and take their wealth with them. According to an analysis from California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the tax could generate revenues in the tens of millions in the short term but cause decreases in income tax revenue in the future.

No On Prop 40, a group funded by Building a Better California, is running several digital ads. Some of the ads say that the billionaire tax would lead to a decline in tax revenue, while others claim that the measure will lead to the state legislature approving wealth taxes on non-billionaires.

No on Prop 40’s website lists dozens of groups that are members of its “coalition” opposed to the tax. Among them is the California Farm Bureau.

Steven Fenaroli, a spokesperson for the group, says he thinks the billionaire tax will end up becoming “just another tax on farmers and ranchers.”

“When my members are looking at Prop 40, they see this slippery slope that we seem to have in California,” Fenaroli told ABC News.

David Lesperance, a tax lawyer who has helped several billionaires relocate from California, said, "My multi-billionaire clients… said, 'We need to get out of here. That's over a trillion dollars that have left."

Yes on 40, the main group backing the measure, has received roughly $32.4 million, the vast majority from Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) and affiliated organizations.

Suzanne Jimenez, SEIU-UHW chief of staff, said the campaign expected to be heavily outspent.

"It was part of our plan," Jimenez told ABC News. "I think the spending is actually counteracting what they're intending to do, and it's actually helping us in our conversations with voters."

Several labor organizations, including California Professional Firefighters and California Teachers Association, are against the tax. When asked on a press call why labor groups would oppose a tax on billionaires, Sanders pointed to the media pumped out by the billionaire-backed anti-tax campaign.

“In America today, is it possible for a ballot item to win when it is being opposed by a handful of billionaires who are spending over $200 million?” Sanders asked. “That is the question. Do you still have a democracy in this country, or will billionaires rule?”

Khanna said that the fight over taxing the ultra-wealthy is already playing out in races across the country this year, "and you're going to see that fight explode in 2028."

"Will it hurt me in fundraising? Yes. Will there be powerful interests with big tech money and AIPAC money against me? Yes. Will it be enough? We'll see," he said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A group of 15 Democratic mayors governing in Republican-dominated states are building a new political operation that aims to influence national politics as a center-left alternative to both the MAGA movement and what they describe as "far-left dysfunction" from groups like the Democratic Socialists of America.

The organization -- Blue Cities/Red States -- is led by Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and will launch next week in Miami with a kickoff event hosted by its mayor, Eileen Higgins. The founding mayors lead cities including Atlanta, Jacksonville, Boise, Tulsa and Memphis -- governing more than 7 million Americans across 11 red and purple states, according to a memo for the new coalition.

In an interview with ABC News, Bibb said he hopes these mayors will emerge as a kind of testing ground for a post-2024 Democratic message. He suggested that the party can rebuild trust among voters by zeroing in on things such as public safety, affordability, economic growth -- things that these mayors often govern on, up against Republicans at times, Bibb said.

"As Democrats talk about closing the credibility gap, these 15 mayors have been closing that gap in their cities -- without the cover of a Democratic governor or a Democratic-led legislature," Bibb said.

Higgins, who was elected as Miami's mayor in December as the first Democrat to serve in 28 years, also emphasized the group's focus on working against the political extremes.

"Working for a more united states is a core theme of Blue Cities/Red States, and we do this by pushing back against extremism and promoting a more practical brand of leadership that focuses on results over rhetoric," Higgins said. "This includes balancing the need to stand up for your community against harmful policies but also finding compromise solutions that deliver results."

The group plans to have a permanent national platform, fundraising and organizational infrastructure, polling and message testing, and a national paid-media strategy heading into the 2026 and 2028 cycles, according to the memo.

Bibb claimed the group is also in talks with members of Congress about aligning their agendas.

"We want to influence the next speaker, and the next Congress, and the next president. We know what this next Congress should be focused on to address cost and affordability, to address public safety," Bibb said.

"I think long term, it's leaders like this that allows us to expand the map. As we saw in 2024, the 'blue wall' doesn't exist anymore. So if you want to win in Idaho and Nebraska and Georgia and Arizona and Missouri and Ohio, we’ve got to invest in mayors, and I think mayors represent the best future for the Democratic Party."

This group is building out just ahead of the midterms, when Democrats are expected to notch victories that could come as a result of President Donald Trump’s unpopularity rather than their own party's image, a new Wall Street Journal poll shows.

According to the poll, Democrats received some of their lowest approval ratings in decades since Trump took office last year. They have a 38% favorable rating, just behind the Republican Party’s 39% favorability rating. President Trump’s current approval rating is at 37%.

In the Wall Street Journal poll, Democratic Socialists of America had just a 24% favorable rating.

Bibb said he hopes that by boosting these red-state Democratic mayors, Republicans could learn to trust Democrats.

"You know, poll after poll after poll shows that MAGA Republicans and Democrats agree that affordability is the No. 1 issue, but when you look at Republicans -- and specifically MAGA Republicans -- they don't trust Democrats to actually execute. And this coalition is the answer to that question, and that's our value proposition long term,” Bibb said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Fresh off his visit to Texas and Oklahoma, President Donald Trump will rally supporters in Mobile, Alabama, on Friday night. It is the latest stop on a swing through deep-red states to boost midterm election turnout among Republican voters and thank them for their support, amid low approval ratings for the president.

Trump won Alabama three times: by 27.7 points in 2016, 25.5 points in 2020 and 30.5 points in 2024. On Thursday, Trump explained why he is spending time in states he has carried easily.

"I'm going because you have to thank these states that are with you 1,000%," Trump said. "And I haven't been there in a while, and I want to just thank them."

According to an AP-NORC poll, Trump's job approval rating stands at a record-low over both of his terms as president at 31%, with 69% of Americans disapproving.

Mobile was redrawn after mid-decade redistricting to be in Alabama's 1st Congressional District. The redrawn district, favoriting Republicans, would have voted for Trump in 2024 by around 40 points.

The city also holds a special place in Trump's political history. In August 2015, at his first rally in the city, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama publicly endorsed him. That endorsement became a key moment on Trump's path to the Republican nomination.

Trump came back to Mobile after winning the 2016 election and held an event at Ladd-Peebles Stadium as part of his post-election "thank you" tour.

Rep. Barry Moore, now the Republican nominee for Senate, first backed Trump at the 2015 rally when Trump was running in a crowded presidential primary field.

The rally is set to begin at 7 p.m. ET at the University of South Alabama's Mitchell Center, which holds about 10,000 people.

"President Trump knows how important it is to have rock-solid conservatives representing Alabama in Washington and Montgomery, and I'm happy to have him visit our state so close to this critical midterm election," Moore said on social media.

A Republican National Committee official made the case that Mobile was chosen partly for its reach beyond Alabama. The Mobile-Pensacola media market covers the western Florida Panhandle. The RNC said it expects the rally to energize voters and generate coverage in both states.

Several other lawmakers will join Trump. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, running for governor, and Sen. Katie Britt is expected to be there. Former Rep. Jerry Carl, the GOP nominee in the solidly Republican 1st District that now includes Mobile, called the visit a "great honor."

The House seat to watch

The race to watch in Alabama is the state's 2nd Congressional District. There, Republican state Rep. Rhett Marques, who is set to speak Friday, is challenging Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.

The district's lines changed after the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais weakened the Voting Rights Act. Following that ruling, Alabama reinstated its 2023 congressional map, which federal courts had previously found discriminatory against Black Alabamians.

Figures won the seat in 2024 with 54.6% of the vote under a court-drawn map. Now the Cook Political Report calls him the "clear underdog," and ABC News rates the race as likely Republican. It is one of several contests that could help decide control of the House.

After Alabama, the president will rally in Ohio, which is the center of a competitive Senate race between incumbent GOP Sen. Jon Husted and former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. Coast Guard announced on Friday the seizure of two ships bound for Cuba that were illegally carrying thousands of gallons of diesel fuel amid the ongoing fuel blockade to the country imposed by President Donald Trump.

The Grace, a 300-foot tanker, was seized on Sept. 5 by the Coast Guard and Mexican authorities in the Caribbean Sea between Cuba and Mexico, after it was alleged to use covert operations to traverse the high seas, according to Coast Guard officials. Another ship, carrying 200,000 gallons of fuel, was seized by the Coast Guard in June.

The ships' seizures came amid the Trump administration's fuel blockade on Cuba. That move, aimed at trying to force changes to Cuba's political system, has led to a power crisis in Cuba, marked by prolonged power outages impacting water supply, lighting, refrigeration and communications, according to U.S. officials.

The Grace was brought to Progreso, Mexico, "where a Mexican Navy (MARINA) inspection team confirmed the presence of large quantities of fuel in the vessel’s ballast tanks," according to a news release from the Coast Guard.

Video first obtained by ABC News shows Coast Guard agents equipped in tactical gear boarding the ship, guns drawn, while a separate Coast Guard boat goes alongside of it.

The Coast Guard also announced the seizure of another Cuba-bound ship, the "Jaira Provider," which they say was carrying more than 200,000 gallons of fuel when it was seized on June 28.

The Coast Guard said that the fuel in the Jaria Provider was also stored in ballast tanks, which are typically used to hold water or air to control the ship's buoyancy.

"The high seas are not a sanctuary for lawlessness," said Adm. Kevin Lunday, commandant of the Coast Guard. "Dark fleet actors who employ deceptive tactics to engage in illicit activities will not evade justice. The Coast Guard is bringing every capability to bear to interdict these vessels and uphold international law."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Kennedy Center Honors will go forward in early December, despite the uncertain future of the venue, a center spokesperson confirmed to ABC News.

The Kennedy Center's highest profile event will be held on Dec. 7 at D.C.'s Capital One Arena, the home of the Washington Wizards, Washington Capitals, Georgetown University's men's basketball team and many concerts.

There is no indication when the center will announce this year's honorees.

ABC News has reached out to the White House about whether President Donald Trump plans to attend the event.

A spokesperson also says "the program's broadcast partner" will be announced at a later date. CBS has carried the Honors every year since they were first held in 1978.

The Kennedy Center, currently closed for renovations, is at the center of a legal and political battle -- with Trump pushing to have his name restored to the outside of the building.

The Trump-aligned Kennedy Center board voted last month to close it for renovations after a federal judge's ruling blocked Trump's name from appearing on the outside of the building.

Trump has appealed the judge's order that the board cannot re-add Trump's name to the building. Trump has said his administration should be recognized for stepping in to renovate.

The performing arts center remains closed, with an internal memo from its executive director saying the building will "remain temporarily closed" pending an ongoing safety assessment.

Last month, Trump was photographed on Air Force One looking over a placard that appeared to include the words "Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED" over what appeared to be an image of a demolition.

Earlier this week, the president also refused to commit to not demolishing the performing arts center without the consent of Congress, telling TIME magazine, "We're going to see how it plays out in court."

Trump hosted the 2025 Kennedy Center Honors, held at the performing arts center. During the event, he praised the honorees he said he helped select -- Sylvester Stallone, Kiss, Gloria Gaynor, Michael Crawford and George Strait -- saying they are "among the greatest artists and actors, performers, musicians, singers and songwriters ever to walk the face of the earth."

ABC News' Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump warned Republicans that Texas and Michigan are among the states the party is “worried about” ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, while speaking to voters in Oklahoma on Thursday.

Fresh off an event in Texas, Trump told a crowd in the reliably Republican state that he was not concerned about Oklahoma but that Republicans needed to turn out voters in other states.

"I feel a little foolish, you know. I’m saying, 'go out and vote, go out and vote.' You’re gonna, they’re gonna win in the last half, but still go out and vote," Trump said. "But we’re not worried about them. We’re worried about Michigan. We’re worried about Texas. We’re worried about a few states."

Trump later said Republicans need to get the word out about the midterms, citing what he described as 35 to 40 races that the party is concerned about.

"But we have to get the word out because we have to win in those 35. Maybe you could even say 40 places, 40 races," Trump said. "You have many, you have hundreds of races, but it’s all about 40."

Trump also again urged supporters to imagine that he himself was on the ballot.

"So you have to pretend I’m on the ticket and turn out for a midterm victory that’s really too big to rig," Trump said.

Trump sought to rally Republicans by attacking Democrats over inflation and immigration, repeating claims about the number and backgrounds of migrants who entered the country during the Biden administration.

Trump has repeatedly made claims about millions of migrants entering the U.S. from prisons and mental institutions, but those claims have been disputed and are not supported by evidence showing that foreign governments emptied prisons or institutions and sent those people to the United States.

The president also said his administration was running the country well but criticized Republicans for what he called poor "public relations."

ABC News' Jon Haworth contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration is facing growing questions for spending millions of taxpayer dollars to air unusual TV ads promoting Trump and his administration in the weeks ahead of the midterm elections. 

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump defended the ads, saying they are "for the spirit of our country" and not a political endorsement for Republican candidates on the ballot this November or for his administration's policies.

"You have to understand; I'm not promoting a candidate. I'm not promoting myself because I'm not running for office. I'm promoting the country," Trump said to reporters during an event in the Oval Office. 

"Now, if somebody said that that's wrong, I'll gladly pay the money. But these are ads for the country," he said.

Trump has implored Republican voters to "pretend" that he is on the ballot in the November midterm elections to boost voter turnout for GOP congressional candidates.

At a separate event Wednesday, Trump again argued that his involvement on the campaign trail is crucial for party success. 

"I hope you can believe that I'm running. They like to say, 'Oh, nobody wants him.' Well, everybody that has me wins," Trump said.

The federal government has spent at least $2.5 million to air three different television ads, according to an estimate from AdImpact, an advertising agency that analyzes ad spending across television.

A total of $20 million from the Department of Homeland Security's budget has been allocated for the effort.

Ethics watchdogs and several Congressional Democrats -- as well as some Republicans -- have said the ads are inappropriate. Some critics have said the ads could violate federal propaganda law.

“It’s a great message, I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for by taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Monday. 

Four ads have been aired since last week. One of the ads features Trump in monochrome, slowly walking down a hallway, describing “the final battle” against "the deep state,” “the globalists,” and “the sick political class that hates our country.”

Another ad includes a montage of clips and images of Trump at events and rallies featuring onscreen text about the "largest tax cuts in history."

The latest ad, released Wednesday, focuses on the U.S. war with Iran, now in its eighth month. Audio of Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth plays in the background as U.S. military footage, including unclassified strikes, is displayed.

The video in the ad appears to be the same as one played during the Republican midterm convention last month. And it played Wednesday before Hegseth addressed 600 service members in his State of the Force speech at the Marine Corps base at Quantico, Virginia.

The ads all say "Paid for by the U.S. Government" across the bottom of the screen as they end.

The White House has defended these spots as educational public service announcements (PSAs) and has said the ads are “very clearly not campaign ads” and instead “a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it’s worth defending.”

On Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin accusing the department of “a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

In the House, Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin and George Whitesides have asked federal watchdogs to investigate the ads.

Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Whitesides wrote to the Government Accountability Office and U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Wednesday, describing the commercials as “desperate pre-election propaganda."

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr said Wednesday that the ads paid for with government funds don’t “merit any sort of FCC review.”

“It doesn’t strike me as anything at all out of the ordinary,” Carr said of the ads, during a press conference with reporters. 

Asked about allegations that the ads are “propaganda,” Carr laughed.

The White House has “explained that these are just normal-course public service announcements, PSAs, that you see all the time. I don’t think there’s anything unique or different about it,” he said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The United States knew Iran or its proxies were going to "try and do an attack, possibly on a United States asset in the [United Kingdom]," Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said Thursday of the arrest and release of five men near a Royal Air Force base used by the U.S.

Mullin told Fox News the U.S. "had already been watching" the situation with British officials and the U.S. was "giving them a heads-up."

His comments come after U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Wednesday he believes Iran "played a part" in last weekend's incident at a Royal Air Force base in England that hosts U.S. warplanes involved in the conflict with Iran.

"They were also feeding information to us, so this was something we were paying attention to already, we just didn't know where it was coming from," Mullin said, adding that Iran is always a threat to the United States and its allies.

"This was a little bit more specific, so we were on heightened alert about the direct threat we had here but didn't know where it was coming from, so when we saw it we were able to act quick," Mullin said.

Five British nationals from London between the ages of 23 and 25 were arrested early Sunday in possession of three vans near RAF Fairford, police said, which has long been a key hub for U.S. Air Force operations in the Middle East -- including in the conflict with Iran.

Police said the men were suspected of terrorism and explosives offenses, prompting speculation that the detainees were planning to target the RAF base, possibly on behalf of a foreign power.

Investigators said a search of the suspects' vehicles found no improvised explosive devices and authorities said they were released on bail on Monday after "extensive interviews."

On Thursday, the U.K. Counter Terrorism Policing unit announced it had arrested another man -- a dual U.K./Iranian citizen -- in connection with the case on suspicion of "preparation of terrorist acts." It also said a second man had been questioned "under caution" and that it had searched two properties.

Mullin expressed frustration that the five men were released, but, "It doesn't mean these individuals are just running loose. We -- as in our partners and us -- have eyes on these five individuals. We not going to let them slip through the cracks."

Asked if he planned any response to the possible attack, President Donald Trump said Wednesday the U.S. is "studying it right now. We're studying it. We're studying it very hard."

Asked about how the U.K. has responded, Trump said, "The U.K. did release a number of people that we caught wanting to blow up a base. We caught them early and I'm trying to figure out if that's for real, if they actually did it."

Burnham said Wednesday that his government believes Iran was involved.

"There are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford, but of course it remains an ongoing complex and serious police investigation, and of course we are working closely with our colleagues in the United States of America," Burnham said.

Reacting to those accusations, Iranian Foreign Minister Aragachi said, "I can confirm Iran's belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all. You're barking up the wrong tree."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration is readying its new, controversial federal school choice program that administration officials contend will “supercharge” education for millions of families nationwide, while critics worry it could undermine funding for public schools.

Officials from the Treasury and Education departments on Thursday released the rules for its Education Freedom Tax Credit, a new program that allows students and families to use taxpayer-funded scholarships for the K-12 education of their choice. The program, passed into law in 2025 as part of the Republicans' sprawling tax and spending bill, launches on Jan. 1. 

The program works by creating incentives for individuals and organizations to donate money they would otherwise owe in taxes to non-profit charities known as Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Those SGOs would in turn use the donations to fund K-12 student scholarships for students’ education, including tuition, academic services and supplies, as well as other equipment and services relevant to their enrollment in public, private, and other school options. The SGOs' money can be used for everything from private school tuition to books and supplies for public school students to homeschooling needs. All spending from the SGOs would be reimbursed by the federal government.

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service estimate the program will cost around $26 billion annually and fund as many as 2.2 million scholarships each year by 2030.

Public school advocates have expressed concern that the Education Freedom Tax Credit will steer government money away from state-funded public schools towards private schools.

The new rules are forcing skeptical Democratic governors to choose whether or not they want to opt in -- choosing to walk away could mean the loss of millions of dollars in federal funding. They have until Jan. 1 to decide.

“It will be the largest budgetary shift for K-12 [education] certainly in 11 years,” Narric Rome, managing director for government relations at education nonprofit Accelerate, told ABC News.

“For some states, and for some parts of the country, this is a ‘Help is on the way,’ and for others, it's a concern of where are their dollars going and are they going to the students that need it the most,” he said.

The Trump administration argues that if states opt-in to the program, funds can be used for both public and private school students and their educational needs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration is transforming America’s education system to “meet the needs” of each student.

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., has decried the advancement of the tax credit -- $1,700 for individuals or up to $3,400 for married couples filing jointly.

“It's not for public schools,” said Moore, whose mother was a public school educator. "People will argue that they're making an investment in education, but they're only making an investment in these private academies. 
They're not making investments in public education,” she argued.

“People are not going to get a $1,700, 100% tax credit, which doesn't exist anywhere else in tax law, which means it's a direct pull from the treasury to go into one of these corporate entities for private schools,” she argued.

Many Republican-controlled states have already opted in to the program. As 28 million children in participating states will become eligible starting next year, conservatives argue it gives “countless students” the chance to pursue the education they deserve with less bureaucracy.

So far, Democratic governors in North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and New York have indicated that they will participate.

“Education freedom is the key to unlocking opportunity and success for our next generation of students,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told ABC News in a statement.

“I am profoundly grateful to President Trump and our partners at Treasury for ensuring that every child has access to the education they need, not one limited by ZIP code, family income, or government‑imposed barriers,” she wrote.

Under the proposed rules and safe harbors, approximately 96% of children in participating states would be eligible to receive the scholarship funds, according to the agencies.

The program establishes a new, permanent, dollar-for-dollar credit of up to $1,700 for individuals for donations to non-profit scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) or up to $3,400 for married couples filing jointly, according to the Treasury Department.

The regulations released on Thursday state that families' income eligibility limit is three times the median income for the county or metro area they live in adjusted for family size. Eligibility is determined by families who live in states that have opted into the program.

There will be a 60-day comment period before final implementation of the program. Donations start Jan. 1, but states have until Feb. 15 to submit their list of SGOs.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- An email sent to Kennedy Center staff earlier this week by the center's executive director says the building will "remain temporarily closed" pending an ongoing safety assessment.

In the email, sent on Wednesday and obtained by ABC News, the center’s executive director and chief operating officer, Matt Floca, gave no indication that the building will be reopening anytime soon after the President Donald Trump-aligned Kennedy Center board voted last month to close it for renovations after a federal judge's ruling blocked Trump's name from appearing on the outside of the building.

Floca said no one can access the building's grand hallways without permission and a hard hat, pointing to an ongoing "emergency egress assessment" of the building's overhanging soffits -- the underside of the building's distinctive overhanging roof.

Floca said that the ongoing assessment will "determine whether, and under what conditions, the building can safely support occupants and be evacuated," given that certain exits would be blocked during soffit repairs.

"We currently expect the assessment to be completed within the next one to two weeks and will share an update when it is complete, or sooner if the expected timing changes,” Floca wrote in the email. "This is an assessment timeline, not a reopening date. The immediate safety determination is separate from the scope and schedule of the broader renovation program."

Floca said the main corridors of the building -- the Hall of States, Hall of Nations and Grand Foyer -- remain off limits, and that entry "requires express authorization and compliance with all prescribed safety controls, including hard hats and any other required personal protective equipment."

Wearing such safety equipment "does not, by itself, authorize entry," Floca noted.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered an update on the center's closure by Friday, and Floca is expected to provide the judge with the same information he put in his Wednesday email, which was first reported by NBC News.

Floca, in a court filing last week, cited several "documented hazards" within the building as well as corrosion on the soffits around it.

In May, Cooper issued an order blocking the planned two-year closure of the center for renovations, saying the board had not properly weighed the impact of the closure on the center’s finances and programming when it voted on the plan in March.

The Justice Department has since asked the judge to dissolve that order so planned renovations can proceed. However, Cooper has yet to rule on that motion.

Trump has appealed the judge's order that the board cannot re-add Trump's name to the building.

In a TIME magazine interview out Thursday, Trump said he would be willing to save the Kennedy Center, but that it's in "terrible, terrible shape," adding that his administration should be recognized for stepping in to renovate.

He also refused to commit to not demolishing the performing arts center without the consent of Congress.

"I'm not committing to anything," Trump told TIME. "We're going to see how it plays out in court."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- A judge on Thursday dismissed the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool vandalism case against former Olympian David Hearn with prejudice, closing the door to re-charge him in the future.

Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman wrote in an order filed in D.C. Superior Court that the "because the government’s legitimate interest in maintaining the possibility of a future prosecution seems so marginal, and because of the extraordinary possibility that Mr. Hearn will nonetheless face a meritless, politically motivated prosecution, the Court 'has an obligation to protect him from the uncertainty [that a dismissal without prejudice] entails, and from what, objectively, would be harassment.'"

Hearn, a former U.S. Olympic canoeist, was accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in a felony indictment, but after prosecutors said they found evidence that the government's own contractor was responsible for the damage, the Justice Department asked to drop the charge without prejudice -- which would allow them to prosecute Hearn in the future for the same alleged crime, bound only by a six-year statute of limitations.

President Donald Trump blasted U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro's move to drop the case, saying she "choked" and "folded like an umbrella," and continued to push allegations that vandals were responsible for cutting and tearing the pool lining.

Defense attorneys, in asking that the case be dismissed with prejudice, argued that Trump's public rejection of Pirro's decision to drop the charges against Hearn did not "provide Mr. Hearn with meaningful finality consistent with the Constitution's speedy trial and double jeopardy protections."

Judge Edelman, who in August dismissed the vandalism case against Hearn and said he would wait to determine whether to grant the dismissal with prejudice, touched on "pressure" from Trump in the order.

"... due to the pressure that the President of the United States has placed on his subordinates in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia over the past two months, [Hearn] would be prosecuted for a crime that that same Office has determined he did not commit, and that his odds of future prosecution may be heightened by the nature and extent of his political activities."

In the order out Thursday, Judge Edelman said dismissing without prejudice would expose Hearn to be charged with a crime that prosecutors have already stated did not occur.

"Today’s dismissal with prejudice ensures that the DOJ cannot bring this case against him again. This decision is a victory for the rule of law and for an innocent American seeking justice," Judge Edelman said in the order.

"The Court respects the authority of the Office of the United States Attorney to decide which cases to prosecute and which to dismiss. However, in the exceptional circumstances posed by this case, the government has no right to retain the ability to compound the errors it has already made, or even to threaten to do so, at Mr. Hearn’s expense," the order later states.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hearn's defense team said in a statement that the "dismissal with prejudice ensures that the DOJ cannot bring this case against him again. This decision is a victory for the rule of law and for an innocent American seeking justice."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.