(WASHINGTON) -- Kid Rock and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took a ride in AH-64 Apache attack helicopters around the Washington, D.C., area on Monday, just weeks after the Army drew scrutiny for allowing the same type of aircraft to hover near the pro-Trump musician's home.

Both helicopters are assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, according to a U.S. official, the same formation whose aircraft initially flew near Kid Rock’s Nashville-area home, where the musician later posted video of himself waving at and saluting the Apaches as they hovered near his backyard.

"Joined my friend @KidRock — and some of our great @USArmy Apache pilots — for a ride this morning. (More to come on that!),” Hegseth said in a statement on social media. “Kid Rock is a patriot and huge supporter of our troops.”

After the Apaches visited the home of Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, in March, the pilots were initially suspended. Hegseth immediately intervened, saying at the time, “No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots."

One U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said that the flight on Monday will be made into a promotional video for the Pentagon. 

ABC News has reached out to Kid Rock for comment.

The reversal of the suspension marked an unusual end run around the military’s normal chain of command and investigative process. Hegseth has repeatedly sidestepped traditional Pentagon channels, much of it aimed at the Army, where he has had internal clashes with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. 

Driscoll, who is relatively popular in national security spaces and Capitol Hill, has long been rumored as a potential successor should Hegseth be fired or depart the Pentagon. Hegseth also recently blocked the promotions of four Army colonels to brigadier general and fired the service’s top officer, Gen. Randy George, without public explanation. 

Kid Rock, the rock musician and conservative activist, has become one of President Donald Trump’s most visible celebrity allies, regularly appearing at campaign rallies and other political events.

Military flyovers are not unusual, but they are generally coordinated for major public events, including sporting events, air shows or large ceremonial gatherings, rather than conducted in close proximity to private residences.

“The visit today provided an opportunity for Kid Rock to thank service members, highlight the professionalism of the men and women supporting the mission, and recognize their continued sacrifice in honor of our nation,” Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Senate Republicans unveiled a bill on Monday that would provide $400 million for President Trump's White House ballroom project, arguing that such a space is needed following the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, revealing their plans hours before the Department of Justice filed a scathing response to a judge's injunction on the project.

Senior leadership of the Justice Department overnight filed a motion demanding U.S. District Judge Richard Leon dissolve the injunction he put in place in March, a ruling that said Trump couldn't build the planned ballroom without authorization from Congress.

In an extraordinary filing, parts of which echo President Donald Trump's social media post style, the DOJ officials repeatedly accuse the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit of suffering from "TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" and describes Leon's injunction as "intolerable," "unsustainable" and "indefensible." It also makes a side reference to former President "Barack Hussein Obama," using his full name in the way Trump often does.  

That filing was submitted to the court hours after Republicans proposed a bill that would provide $400 million in funding for the facility, which they officials have said would feature a newly built ballroom along with military and secret service security infrastructure beneath it.

Trump has said repeatedly that the ballroom would be privately funded.

Both the court filing and the proposed legislation used Saturday's incident, during which a suspect allegedly rushed through security at the Washington Hilton during an event where Trump was present, as part of their rationale. The suspect, Cole Allen, was charged on Monday with the attempted assassination of the president. Allen did not enter a plea during a court appearance.

"I am convinced if there had been a presidential ballroom adjacent to the White House the guy never would have gotten in," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is sponsoring the legislation, said in reference to the alleged perpetrator.

Graham said it would be "insane" to hold the dinner in the Hilton in the future.

"Anybody who suggests that we have an event like this in the times in which we live in a facility like Hilton, that's crazy," he said. "We are going to have to accommodate the times in which we live."

The motion was filed following a warning from the leader of DOJ's Civil Division, Brett Shumate, to plaintiffs in a letter that was posted on Sunday on social media by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

ABC News asked Blanche on Sunday during a news conference about some of DOJ's statements in the letter -- specifically their determination that the Washington Hilton was a "demonstrably unsafe" site for the president and his Cabinet and whether that was evaluated prior to Saturday's dinner.

"When he says demonstrably, it's demonstrated by what happened on Saturday night," Blanche responded. "So it doesn't mean that the Secret Service were --would ever let the president go into to an unsafe environment. I know that the director of the Secret Service will be focused on making sure that we always keep him safe. And by the way, as we said before, and as anybody that was in that room knows we were safe. We were safe."

Blanche on Sunday said that "law enforcement did not fail," with hundreds of armed agents between the alleged would-be assassin and the president, but the overnight filing included an assertion on its fourth page that the suspect "came horrifically close."

In their motion to the court, however, the DOJ's top officials argued that a secure space for the president to attend large gatherings in Washington "currently does not exist" and -- even though the proposed ballroom plan schedule has said it would not be completed until at least 2028 -- current national security issues require it to continue construction "immediately."

The ballroom, according to the senators who are proposing additional funding, could be a secure facility where events like Saturday's gala could take place in the future. Graham said it would ultimately be up to the White House Correspondents' Association whether they'd want to use the ballroom for the event, but their bill aims to give them the choice about whether to do so.

"We are going to build this facility, and I would suggest to the next president don't go to the Hilton don't do an event at the Hilton or any other facility outside the White House given the times in which we live," Graham said. "The problem is you don't have a choice. We are going to give people that choice."

The senators are proposing to offset the cost of the ballroom by using customs fees. Their proposal follows months of assertions by Trump that the ballroom -- a proposed 89,000-square-foot expansion of the White House -- would be funded "at no charge to the taxpayer." The initial proposal for the ballroom placed construction costs at an estimated $200 million, according to the White House.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Al., said on Sunday that the ballroom was about protecting future presidents, not just Trump, since it isn't expected to be completed until near the end of his term.

"This isn't even about him. This will not be done until the end of his term. This is about future presidents," Britt said. "This isa bout our nation having a place to gather where the president of the united states of America can be a part of it. This is about presidents both now and in the future."

The funding bill would require 60 votes to pass a bill to fund the ballroom in the Senate. It seems unlikely Democrats would furnish those votes, but Graham said he'd like to put the bill up for a vote to put everyone on the record.

-ABC News' Steven Portnoy and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump’s attempt to remake the Kennedy Center faces a critical legal test on Tuesday morning.

A federal Judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hear arguments about an attempt by Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, to block the renaming, planned closure and renovation of the performing arts center.

Beatty, an ex officio trustee of the Kennedy Center, initially brought her lawsuit last year to challenge its renaming to the Trump-Kennedy Center, an action she described as "more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic."

"This is a flagrant violation of the rule of law, and it flies in the face of our constitutional order. Congress intended the Center to be a living memorial to President Kennedy—and a crown jewel of the arts for all Americans, irrespective of party," her lawsuit said.

In the months since her lawsuit was filed, the board of the Kennedy Center – handpicked by Trump, who serves as the chairman of the board – voted to shutter the famed institution for a two-year renovation project.

Beatty’s lawsuit has grown to cover both the renaming and the closure of the center, arguing the moves were unlawful and violated the duties of the organization’s board.

"Turning the Kennedy Center into a lifeless husk for two years would also constitute a fundamental breach of Defendants' most basic fiduciary obligations as trustees," lawyers for Beatty argued in a court filing.

Lawyers for the Trump administration pushed back on the lawsuit and argued that the renovation is in the best interest of the Kennedy Center.

"Renewal will affirmatively fulfill the Board's responsibilities to repair and improve the Center in a manner consistent with 'high quality operations' while minimizing costs to taxpayers and reducing safety risks that result from conducting renovations during public operations," lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.

Judge Christopher Cooper handed Beatty a win last month when he ruled that she is entitled to a "meaningful opportunity to provide input" and should not be "categorically barred" from speaking during board meetings. However, Judge Cooper stopped short of ruling on the weightier questions of Beatty’s ability to vote during board meetings or the legality of the changes to the Kennedy Center.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday unveiled a proposed new congressional map for the Sunshine State that his office indicates could let Republicans flip up to four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It's a move that could help the party gain seats and counter Democrats' recent redistricting victory in Virginia, if the map passes the Legislature and survives likely legal challenges. But some in the state are concerned about how a new map might backfire on the GOP. It is also another volley in mid-decade redistricting around the country, as another state starts the process usually only done once a decade in the wake of Texas, California and other states doing so.

The new map, provided to ABC News by the governor's office, appears to aim to allow Republicans to flip up to four seats in the U.S. House, leaving just four Democratic-held districts in the state.

The office did not provide any details on how it conducted its analysis, and DeSantis said the redraw is about representation. "Florida got shortchanged in the 2020 Census, and we've been fighting for fair representation ever since. ... Our new map for 2026 makes good on my promise to conduct mid-decade redistricting, and it more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today," DeSantis told Fox News Digital, which was first to report on the new map being unveiled.

Dave Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, wrote on Monday that the map appears to target Democratic Reps. Darren Soto, Kathy Castor, Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Soto wrote on X, "Gerrymander or Dummymander? This map is an absolutely unlawful violation of the Florida Constitution. The Legislature should reject it. The courts should strike it down. That being said, there are 12+ seats that Democrats could still win under this map in this cycle."

Florida currently has 20 Republican U.S. House members and 7 Democratic ones, as well as one vacant Democratic-leaning district.

The speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Daniel Perez, confirmed in a memo on Monday that the state House had received the new map and would begin considering it on Tuesday.

An aggressive approach

DeSantis has said Florida's potential redistricting has nothing to do with Virginia's efforts to redraw its congressional map, which passed last week and could net Democrats four congressional seats if it survives court challenges.

Some within the Republican Party have said Florida should aggressively redraw its map to counter Virginia, although others have hedged.

President Donald Trump, for instance, was asked by Fox News in an interview on Sunday about his reaction to Virginia's redistricting and if Florida should 'make a go at it.' (Florida is Trump's home state.) "I do, but that Virginia case is terrible," Trump responded. 

A Republican strategist in Florida told ABC News, "I think the people who are interested in taking the most aggressive, fighteresque approach ... feel a bit emboldened" by what happened in Virginia. "The people taking a more strategic, long-term take on this whole process -- I don't think what happened in Virginia changes their opinion at all."

Democrats ready to counter

DeSantis had called a special session that's currently set to begin Tuesday that will include considering mid-decade redistricting, although he had previously delayed the initial date of the session by a week and expanded it to add other issues.

The Legislature also has a complex relationship with the governor, and legislators have been relatively tight-lipped over how it will vote.

The governor has spoken often about mid-decade redistricting in Florida in recent months, but framed his thoughts in terms of Florida needing to redraw its maps due to population reasons -- not for political gain.

But Democrats, flush off of a victory in Virginia, say that they're ready to counter GOP moves. The Virginia election's certification is currently being litigated in courts.

Could it backfire?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, during a press conference last Wednesday, called potential redistricting in Florida a "DeSantis dummymander" that would backfire on the GOP by weakening seats they currently hold. 

"Our message to Florida Republicans is, 'F around and find out'," Jeffries said. "If they go down the road of a 'DeSantis Dummymander', the Florida Republicans are going to find themselves in the same situation as Texas Republicans who are on the run right now."

DeSantis, responding to Jeffries on Wednesday without bringing up redistricting, taunted, "There's nothing that could be better for Republicans in Florida than to see Hakeem Jeffries everywhere around this state ... please, be my guest to come down in Florida. We would love to have you." 

Some Republicans, however, have openly expressed concerns that any new map in Florida would endanger GOP-held districts because it would weaken those districts politically as it tries to flip other ones, due to how voters could be moved around or respond to redistricting. It's a key concern in Florida for the GOP, where Hispanic voters -- a major bloc -- who had moved towards the GOP in 2024's elections now appear to be moving towards Democrats.

Democrats have also overperformed in Republican-held districts or even flipped seats in recent Florida special legislative elections, including one held in the district that includes Trump's home of Mar-a-Lago.

"Don't do it. I've said it from the beginning. I've been around enough reapportionments to know it's a slippery slope," Florida Rep. Daniel Webster told Punchbowl News last week.

And Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar told NBC News last week, "Look, I may be at a disadvantage, because my lines in district number 27 in the state of Florida may be moved, but there's nothing I can do about it. And I always look at the bright side. This is American democracy. This is the American electoral system." 

The law and Florida's Constitution

There are legal considerations at play as well that were not the case in other states such as Texas, California and Missouri that redistricted -- as Florida's state Constitution also has strict restrictions on redrawing constitutional maps for political gain, thanks to provisions known as the Fair Districts Amendments that voters approved in 2010. 

The state's Constitution says that "In establishing congressional district boundaries ... No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent." 

"It imposes an explicit prohibition on intentionally redrawing districts to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent," Jonathan Marshfield, a state constitutional law expert at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, told ABC News.  

"And so this is significant in Florida, because the United States Supreme Court has held ... that these were sort of partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court; [there's] essentially no recourse in the same way in federal court as there is in a state court. One of the challenges, I can imagine, is that these new congressional maps are going to be challenged as not complying with the Fair District Amendment of 2010."

Marshfield added that "the law is structured such that challenges will, in fact, focus on their actual intent in drawing the lines where they draw them. And so that is a legally relevant inquiry that will be investigated in the course of the litigation.

DeSantis did not address the amendments in his comments to Fox News. But his general counsel, David Axelman, in a letter sent to the Florida Legislature along with the proposed map, argued that the amendments themselves may be unconstitutional.

"Florida's representation in the U.S. House has also been distorted by considerations of race. Passed in 2010, the Fair Districts Amendments (FDA) to the Florida Constitution require the Legislature to account for race when drawing congressional districts ... This requires the use of race in redistricting-something that the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled is unconstitutional."

A strategist working with Florida House Democrats told ABC News that Democrats in the Legislature don't have procedural mechanisms or leeway to slow down the process of passing a map, unlike in Texas in 2025 where Democrats were able to depart the state and break "quorum" in order to hold up legislation. But the strategist said that won't matter, and that it doesn't matter if the new map benefits Republicans or not.

A strategist working with Florida House Democrats told ABC News that Democrats in the Legislature don't have the same procedural mechanism or leeway to slow down the process of passing a map, unlike in Texas in 2025 where Democrats were able to depart the state and break "quorum" in order to hold up legislation. But the strategist said that won't matter, and that it doesn't matter if the new map benefits Republicans or not.

"Regardless of if it backfires or not, it's still illegal," the strategist argued.

But Marshfield said that those drawing the map will likely have taken the amendment into account: "I'm sure in light of that, that the people drawing the lines, I would assume -- I think the courts assume -- that they have taken care to comply with the law, so that they are taking care to draw the lines in ways that comply with that amendment."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- For generations, cops have obtained warrants to lawfully seek information from a specific suspect in a crime.

The Supreme Court on Monday is considering whether investigators can also use so-called "geofence warrants" to do the reverse -- scanning cell phone data of thousands of innocent individuals in hopes of finding a suspect to apprehend.

The landmark case is the first time the justices will consider whether the controversial practice of digital dragnets, which have grown in popularity among law enforcement with advances in technology, violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

Critics say the warrants intrude on Americans' reasonable expectation of privacy by compelling service providers to turn over broad swaths of user location history and time stamps within a specified area over a specified timeframe.

Advocates for geofence warrants call them a critical tool that will help police more quickly solve crimes, in turn making communities safer. They also emphasize that most cellphone users knowingly transmit location data to third-party tech companies already.

The petitioner in the case, Okello Chatrie, was indicted on charges related to an armed robbery of a Virginia credit union in 2019 and wants key cellphone location evidence against him thrown out.

Authorities relied heavily on data obtained from Google under a geofence warrant that placed Chatrie's cellphone within 150 meters of the bank during the crime.

The Trump administration, which is defending the law enforcement tool and Chatrie's prosecution, argues that by sharing location information with apps and service providers like Google, a person forfeits any expectation of privacy.

A decision in the case -- Chatrie v U.S. -- is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) --  Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday that "the system worked" and kept President Donald Trump and other leaders safe from a shooting outside of the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday night that they were attending.

"The system worked; law enforcement and the Secret Service protected all of us. The man barely got past the perimeter. And so when you have a perimeter designed to keep people safe, like President Trump, and it works -- that's something that should be applauded," Blanche told "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos when asked about the fact that the president and many members of the presidential line of succession were there.

"Secondly, as President Trump said, we are not going to stop doing what we're doing. We're not going to stop living; we're not going to stop being out there," Blanche added. "President Trump is going to continue communicating with the American people in public, and the fact that the vice president and other leadership were there last night in one room, is why we had such a robust security [operation] surrounding the place, inside the place, and it's why we are all safe."

Blanche spoke to Stephanopoulos the morning after a shooting incident outside the dinner. 

The incident took place near the main magnetometer screening area at the event, according to the Secret Service. A suspect, whom law enforcement sources identified to ABC News as Cole Allen of Torrance, California, is in custody, officials said.

Blanche said the suspect was likely acting alone, although investigations are ongoing, and that "we believe that he traveled by train from Los Angeles to Chicago and then Chicago to Washington, D.C."

Asked by Stephanopoulos how the suspect may have gotten a firearm into the hotel, Blanche replied, "It's a good question. And listen, I'm not sure. It appears that he checked in on the 24th [of April] to the hotel, and we're still looking at video surveillance and footage of where he walked and how he got in and how those firearms got in, but at the end of the day, I expect we'll have a lot more about that in the coming days."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump and other dignitaries were removed by security after an shooting incident outside the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in Washington, D.C., on Saturday night.

The incident took place near the main magnetometer screening area at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, according to the Secret Service.

Trump and the other dignitaries who were evacuated were safe, according to the Secret Service. The Secret Service and the president said that a suspect has been apprehended.

Law enforcement is continuing to conduct the investigation.

This was the first correspondents' dinner that Trump attended as president. He was scheduled to speak.

Other dignitaries who were escorted out included House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Vice President JD Vance.

Trump praised the Secret Service for their work.

"Quite an evening in D.C. Secret Service and Law Enforcement did a fantastic job. They acted quickly and bravely," he said in a social media post.

Trump added the he "recommended that we “LET THE SHOW GO ON” but, will entirely be guided by Law Enforcement."

"They will make a decision shortly. Regardless of that decision, the evening will be much different than planned, and we’ll just, plain, have to do it again," he said.

White House Correspondents' Association President Weijia Jiang told the crowd at the Washington Hilton ballroom that the program would continue at some point.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge is raising concerns about whether Donald Trump's attempt to sue the IRS for $10 billion can proceed, signaling she could throw out the case because the president oversees the government entities he is suing.

Judge Kathleen Williams raised the issue in an order on Friday denying a request to delay the case amid possible settlement talks.

She noted that Trump and the defendants -- the Treasury Department and IRS -- may not be "sufficiently adverse" to one another for the case to proceed. 

"Moreover, although President Trump avers that he is bringing this lawsuit in his personal capacity, he is the sitting president and his named adversaries are entities whose decisions are subject to his direction. Indeed, President Trump's own remarks about this matter acknowledge the unique dynamic of this litigation," she wrote.

Williams ordered both Trump's lawyers and the Department of Justice to submit briefs about why the case should proceed and set a hearing for next month. For the case to proceed, Trump's lawyers and the DOJ need to establish that the lawsuit is "a dispute between parties who face each other in an adversary proceeding."

"Typically, adverseness is found in a situation where one party is asserting its right and the other party is resisting," she noted.

But with Trump in charge of the very government entities he is suing, Williams noted that the required adverse relationship between the parties may not exist. She added that Trump has signed multiple executive orders tightening the president's control over the executive agencies like the Department of Justice.

"One such employee of the executive branch, the Attorney General, has a statutory obligation to defend the IRS when it is hailed into court, but then is ostensibly required by executive mandate to adhere to the President's opinion on a matter of law in such a case. This raises questions over whether the Parties here are truly antagonistic to each other," Williams noted. 

Trump, his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department in January related to the unauthorized disclosure of tax information during Trump's first term.

A government contractor with the IRS pleaded guilty in 2023 to stealing the tax information of Donald Trump and other wealthy Americans and leaking it to media outlets in 2019 and 2020. 

In a court filing last week, lawyers for the Trumps said that they were "in discussions" with the Department of Justice to potentially resolve the lawsuit and requested a deadline extension so they can "engage in discussions designed to resolve this matter and to avoid protracted litigation."

The filing said both sides agreed to the 90-day extension. The Department of Justice had not yet responded to the lawsuit and faced an impending deadline this month.

The Trumps, in the suit, argued that the IRS and Treasury Department should have had "appropriate technical, employee screening, security, and monitoring" to prevent the theft of tax information.

A group of former government officials last month filed an amicus brief with the court to raise concerns about the ethics of the president suing his own government for billions.

"This case is extraordinary because the President controls both sides of the litigation, which raises the prospect of collusive litigation tactics," the amicus filing said. "To treat this case like business as usual would threaten the integrity of the justice system and the important taxpayer and privacy protections at the heart of this case."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- An appeals court on Friday affirmed a district court's ruling that an executive order invoked by President Donald Trump to suspend immigration asylum claims is unlawful.

In a divided 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a court order saying the Immigration and Nationality Act allows migrants who cross the southern border apply for asylum. 

"The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making," the court wrote. "Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs' right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs' access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs' Convention Against Torture claims."

On Day 1 of his second term in office, President Trump issued an executive order he called "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," which aimed to block immigrants from seeking asylum and other forms of relief once they enter the United States and to allow for their swift removal from the country.

Friday's ruling means that migrants who make it to U.S. soil, whether at a legal port of entry or in between, can legally seek asylum as has been allowed in previous administrations. 

The Trump administration will likely appeal the decision, which could set up a possible showdown at the Supreme Court.

"This decision will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration's horrific asylum ban," said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said they "strongly disagree" with the ruling and that "this will not be the last word on this matter."

"America's asylum system was never intended to be used as a de facto amnesty program or a catch-all, get-out-of-deportation-free card. President Trump's top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States," the spokesperson said. "We will use all of the tools in our toolbox to ensure that the integrity of our legal immigration system is upheld, fraud is uncovered and expeditiously addressed, and illegal aliens are removed from the country."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump, responding to the arrest of an American soldier for allegedly betting on the capture of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, said the world "has become somewhat of a casino."

Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday he was unaware of the arrest of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, which was first reported by ABC News, but that he'd "look into it."

Federal investigators said Van Dyke bet more than $33,000 on the prediction market Polymarket just days before President Trump announced Maduro's capture by U.S. special forces in early January. In total, Van Dyke's series of bets won more than $409,000, the Justice Department said on Thursday.

Trump was asked on Thursday if he was concerned about online prediction markets, through which bets are regularly placed on geopolitical events, such as the war in Iran, and the potential for insider trading.

"Well, you know, the whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino," Trump responded. "And you look at what's going on all over the world, in Europe and every place, they're doing these betting things. I was never much in favor of it. I don't like it conceptually, but it is what it is."

"No, I think that I'm not happy with any of that stuff," the president continued. "But they have all these different sites. They have predictive markets. It's a crazy world. It's a much different world than it was."

One of Trump's namesake companies, Trump Media and Technology Group, announced last year that it would launch a prediction betting marketplace called Truth Predict. The White House has said all of President Trump's assets, including his majority stake in Trump Media and Technology Group, are being held in a trust controlled by his sons.

Polymarket has cultivated close ties to the Trump family, announcing last August that the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., would join its advisory board. Trump Jr.'s venture capital firm, 1789 Capital, also invested in Polymarket.

ABC News on Friday reached out to the White House for comment on Truth Predict and Trump Jr.'s involvement in Polymarket.

Polymarket on Thursday said they referred Van Dyke's suspicious trades to the Justice Department and cooperated with its investigation. "Insider trading has no place on Polymarket. Today's arrest is proof the system works," their statement said.

Van Dyke, who was involved in Maduro's capture, was charged with unlawful use of confidential information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud and wire fraud.

He appeared in court on Friday and was expected to be released on $250,000 bond. He is set to make another court appearance on April 28 in Manhattan federal court, where the complaint was filed.

On Thursday, Trump appeared to compare Van Dyke's arrest to the betting scandal baseball great Pete Rose faced.

"That's like Pete Rose betting on his own team," Trump said in the Oval Office.

Rose, who died in 2024, was a Cincinnati Reds star and later the team's manager who received a lifetime ban from the sport after betting on games, including Reds games.

"Pete Rose they kept him out of the hall of fame because he bet on his own team," Trump said on Thursday. "Now, if he bet against his team, that would be no good, but he bet on his own team."

There are already two Republicans who are calling for a pardon for Van Dyke.

"I don't agree with what he did and he should be required to disgorge all the profits however, unless the DOJ plans on doing Congress next, this is not justice," Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna wrote on X.

ABC News' Lucien Bruggeman, Peter Charalambous and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Republican Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. of New Jersey has missed votes in the House for more than a month without personally providing his constituents with an explanation. 

Kean, 57, cast his last vote on March 5. Since then, he's missed 50 roll call votes.

As House Speaker Mike Johnson navigates a narrow majority, a Republican member's prolonged absence could impact the ability to move must-pass legislation and President Donald Trump's agenda.

Johnson is currently trying to pass Department of Homeland Security funding, a long-term extension of FISA and the farm bill -- all relying on Republican votes. Johnson can only afford to lose two votes on any party-line bill, and that's if all members are present and voting.

Speaker Johnson said in a statement provided to ABC News that he spoke to Kean by phone on Thursday, and that he is dealing with an unspecified "personal health matter."

"I was happy to speak to Tom Kean, Jr. this afternoon by phone. He is attending to a personal health matter and expects to be back to 100% very soon. Tom is one of the most dedicated and hardest-working Members of Congress, and I am grateful for all he does and will continue to do to serve New Jerseyans and our country," Johnson said. 

Noelle Berriet, Kean's congressional spokeswoman, did not reply to multiple inquiries asking about the congressman missing votes.

Harrison Neely, a strategist for Kean, told ABC News on Friday, "The congressman is dealing with a personal medical issue. He's going to be 100% fine and he's going to be back with a full schedule soon." 

Neely did not share when Kean would return to Congress.

Kean, who was first elected in 2022, also faces a tough reelection campaign this year. Republicans are seeking to maintain majority control in Congress in this year's midterm elections, a cycle that is historically unfavorable to the president's party.

His district, New Jersey's 7th, is rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report and is expected to be a top target for Democrats. Kean does not face any challengers in the Republican primary slated for June 2.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Senate Republicans early Thursday morning approved a blueprint for their budget bill to fund immigration enforcement after an all-night voting marathon.

The vote marks the first step in a new plan to reopen the Department of Homeland Security, which has been shut down since mid-February -- making it the longest shutdown in U.S. history.

The budget resolution, which kicks off the drafting process of a bill that Republicans said would provide billions of dollars to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, was approved by a vote of 50-48.

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul joined with the Democrats in voting against the resolution. All other Republicans voted in favor of it, except for Sen. Chuck Grassley, who missed the vote as he recovers from a procedure to remove gallstones.

The Senate approved the resolution at about 3:36 a.m. after a vote-a-rama that lasted approximately six hours. 

During that time, the Senate considered 17 amendments. Democrats, as promised, forced a number of votes on affordability-related items. Their amendments aimed at lowering the cost of everyday expenses -- ranging from health care to electricity to childcare to gas prices.

Though a number of Democratic amendments won the occasional Republican supporter, Republicans ultimately defeated every Democratic-led amendment.  

"What kind of bubble are they living in? How apart are they from people's real needs? And instead, take that money, which should have gone to lowering people's costs, and giving it to an agency that everyone knows needs reform," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said on the Senate floor after the GOP budget blueprint passed.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, vowed that Republicans are going to work to "get the job done" by June 1 -- the deadline publicly set by President Donald Trump for Republicans to fund the immigration enforcement agencies.

"The vast majority of Republicans stuck together to do something Democrats are refusing to do: Fully fund the Border Patrol and ICE for three and a half years through the Trump presidency," Graham said in a statement Thursday morning.

But the overnight vote-a-rama was just the first step in what could be a lengthy reconciliation process.

The GOP's budget resolution now heads to the House where Speaker Mike Johnson hopes his rank and file will sign off on the Senate’s resolution next week. If approved, House members may begin directing committees to craft their bill that meets the instructions in the budget resolution. If House and Senate Republicans agree on legislation, both chambers will have to pass it again. That will include a second vote-a-rama in the Senate. 

The GOP's funding push for ICE and CBP comes amid the record-long DHS shutdown, now in its 68th day.

Many federal employees across DHS, including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have gone without pay as Congress struggles to advance a funding deal. Throughout the shutdown, ICE and CBP have continued to receive funds due to an influx of cash provided in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill passed by Congress last summer, and the administration has redirected other funding to support TSA workers.

Democrats have said they won't support funding for ICE and CBP without reforms to their operating procedures, after two American citizens in Minneapolis were fatally shot by federal agents earlier this year.

Republican leaders, meanwhile, are expected to hold off on passing a full DHS funding bill until they can successfully fund the two immigration enforcement agencies.

"We've got to make sure that we don't isolate and, as I say, make an orphan out of key agencies of the department. And there's some concern on our side that if you do the bulk of the department first before that, then they could be left out. We can't allow for that," Speaker Johnson said earlier this week.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed the Iranian regime was "seriously fractured" as part of his pretext for indefinitely extending the ceasefire with Iran a day before the previous one was set to expire.

"Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal," Trump wrote in a social media post Tuesday afternoon in which he announced he was prolonging the current ceasefire for an indeterminate period of time. 

Before that, however, Trump repeatedly telegraphed as recently that the U.S. was negotiating with "rational" and "reasonable" individuals in Tehran's government after U.S. and Israeli strikes killed several of Iran's senior leaders.

In the preceding days and weeks, the president praised what he portrayed as a new Iranian regime as a better negotiating partner than that which existed prior to the war. 

Even in the hours before his post on Tuesday, Trump said in an interview with CNBC that the leaders now in charge of Iran were "much more rational."

"It is regime change, no matter what you want to call it, which is not something I said I was going to do, but I've done it," Trump said. 

It's a sentiment that the president has repeatedly conveyed. 

"Now it's a new regime, OK, and we find them pretty reasonable, to be honest with you, by comparison pretty reasonable. It really is a new regime, and I think we're doing very well," Trump said in an interview on Fox News on April 15. "We have had regime change, because the people we dealt with yesterday were, frankly, very smart, very sharp, very good, very good."

He followed up those remarks the next day, telling reporters as he departed the White House that Iran has "a new set of leaders, and we find them very reasonable."

In a phone call on April 17 with ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Trump said he believed he could trust the Iranians and that this will all be resolved "very soon."

On April 7 as Trump's deadline for Iran to open up the Strait of Hormuz approached, he threatened "A whole civilization will die tonight," but said "now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS." Hours later, he extended the deadline for another two weeks.

But since then, tensions have continued in the Strait of Hormuz and an effort to restart peace talks in Islamabad this week fell apart.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Wednesday that Tehran would return to the negotiating table when "necessary and logical grounds" are met, according to Iranian state television.

"Diplomacy is a tool for securing national interests and security, and whenever we reach the conclusion that the necessary and logical grounds for using this tool to realize national interests and consolidate the achievements of the Iranian nation in thwarting the enemies from achieving their sinister goals, we will take action," Baghaei said.

Asked Wednesday by the New York Post in a text message if talks with Iran could resume by Friday as its sources were telling it, Trump replied, "It’s possible! President DJT."

At the same time, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who Trump had said was "much more reasonable" than the previous regime, said a ceasefire is only "if it is not violated by the maritime blockade and the hostage-taking of the world’s economy, and if the Zionist warmongering across all fronts is halted."

Ghalibaf said opening the Strait of Hormuz is "impossible with such a flagrant breach of the ceasefire."

"They did not achieve their goals through military aggression, nor will they through bullying. The only way forward is to recognize the rights of the Iranian nation."

ABC News' Desiree Adib contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A cryptocurrency mogul who has invested tens of millions of dollars in various enterprises tied to President Donald Trump and his family filed suit against the Trump family's flagship crypto venture late Tuesday for, among other claims, alleged breach of contract and fraud -- a major escalation of a feud that erupted on social media earlier this month. 

Justin Sun, a Chinese-born billionaire who has cultivated deep ties to the Trumps, filed the lawsuit late Tuesday in a California federal court, accusing World Liberty Financial of freezing his investment in the firm's digital tokens in a bid to "ratchet up pressure" on Sun to promote another one of the company's offerings.  

Sun "has long been (and remains) an ardent supporter of President Trump and the Trump family" and has invested roughly $45 million in World Liberty Financial at least in part "because of the Trump family's association with the project," Sun's lawyers wrote. 

But Sun's lawsuit accused other World Liberty "operators" of "engaging in an illegal scheme to seize property ... [causing] Mr. Sun and his companies to incur hundreds of millions of dollars in damages," his lawyers wrote. 

A World Liberty Financial spokesperson directed ABC News to posts on X from Eric Trump, who called the suit "ridiculous," and World Liberty co-founder Zach Witkoff called the claims in the suit "entirely meritless." 

"World Liberty looks forward to getting the case thrown out promptly," Zach Witkoff wrote. 

Eric Trump, the son of President Trump, and Zach Witkoff, the son of the president's special envoy Steve Witkoff, helped launch World Liberty Financial in 2024, shortly before Donald Trump’s election. 

Sun gained notoriety in part for his purchase of a $6 million banana art piece -- an actual piece of fruit duct-taped to a wall -- and has since invested in both World Liberty Financial and the president's meme coin, called $TRUMP. He attended a gala last year for the top investors in the meme coin and currently sits atop the leaderboard for a luncheon scheduled for this weekend at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

Earlier this year, Sun agreed to pay $10 million to resolve a civil fraud case brought by the Biden-era Securities and Exchange Commission. 

In his lawsuit filed Tuesday, Sun accused executives at World Liberty Financial -- excluding members of the Trump family -- of using the firm "as a golden opportunity to leverage the Trump brand to profit through fraud."

He accused the firm of seizing his coins as leverage to persuade Sun to promote World Liberty Financial's stablecoin, called USD1, and "mint" it on his own platform, called TRON -- a strategy he called "a pressure tactic that itself qualifies as criminal extortion." 

Sun first raised these concerns on social media earlier this month. World Liberty Financial at the time denied the allegations and added in a post on X, "See you in court pal." 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a U.S. Army veteran wounded in a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan, allowing him to sue a military contractor for damages after it allegedly failed to supervise the attacker who was an employee.

The 6-3 decision reverses lower court rulings which had said the contractor, Fluor Corporation, was immune from lawsuits because it was operating on behalf of the U.S. government and opens the door to other damages suits against war-zone contractors for activities outside the bounds of their responsibility.

The attacker, Ahmad Nayeb, was employed by Fluor to work in a nontactical vehicle yard on Bagram Air Base under an Army contract that required the company to ensure all personnel complied with base security policies, which included their confinement to works sites and "constant view of them."  

In November 2016, Nayeb roamed the base freely for nearly an hour and used U.S. government tools to make his bomb inside the secure base, according to an Army investigation cited in court documents.

The explosion killed five and wounded 17, including then-Army Spc. Winston Hencely, who confronted the attacker just as he detonated his suicide vest. Nayeb was killed; the explosion fractured Hencely's skull and resulted in permanent disability.

While damages claims against the U.S. government and its military contractors arising out of combatant activities are generally prohibited by federal law, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court's majority, concluded immunity does not apply to cases when "the contractor was not required or authorized to take the action at issue."

"The government required Fluor to hire Afghan employees and to provide logistics for Bagram Airfield. But, it did not, Hencely contends, require Fluor to leave Nayeb unsupervised, allow him to walk alone for an hour after his shift, or permit him to obtain unauthorized tools with which he could build a bomb," Thomas wrote.

The decision clears the way for Hencely to pursue a damages case against the company in federal court.

In dissent, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts said while they believe Hencely deserves "a full measure of support from the American people," a damages lawsuit is "not the way to give the petitioner what he is due."

Alito wrote, "War is the exclusive domain of the Federal Government, but the Court [today] allows state (or foreign law) to encroach on that domain. The Constitution precludes that encroachment."

Fluor Corp, which disputes liability for the bombing, did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment on the court's decision. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Veteran Democratic Rep. David Scott of Georgia has died. He was 80 years old.

Scott, who served as the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee from 2021 to 2025, served in the House for more than 23 years, taking office in 2003.

He was in the Capitol on Tuesday when he cast his final vote as a member.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Tuesday that the annual flu vaccine will now be optional for all U.S. military personnel, both active and reserve.  

Previously, the flu vaccine had been mandatory. The new policy is in line with a previous change of making the COVID-19 vaccine optional.

Hegseth announced the change in a video posted on social media.

"The notion that a flu vaccine must be mandatory for every service member, everywhere, in every circumstance, at all times, is just overly broad and not rational," Hegseth said.

"Our new policy is simple: If you, an American warrior entrusted to defend this nation, believe that the flu vaccine is in your best interest, then you are free to take it; you should. But we will not force you," Hegseth added.

Referring to the COVID-19 vaccine that led to the dismissal of 8,000 service members who refused to take it, Hegseth said, "Our men and women in uniform were forced to choose between their conscience and their country, even when those decisions posed no threat to our military readiness."

"That era of betrayal is over," Hegseth continued.

The flu vaccine has been required for the military since 1945, at the end of World War II, partly tied to the threat of biological warfare use by rival nations and as well as the devastation that the flu pandemic of 1918 wreaked on U.S. troops, according to a 2022 analysis from Wright State University in Ohio and the U.S. Air Force.

It's estimated that between 20% and 40% of Army and Navy personnel fell ill, with more than 26,000 deaths among U.S. soldiers.

After researchers noticed the effectiveness of the vaccine fading, the mandate was withdrawn in 1949. This was later found to be caused by abrupt and major changes to the flu virus -- and the mandate was reinstated in the early 1950s after the changes became "clearer and combatable," according to the analysis.

Compliance among military health care personnel has exceeded 95% in past years, compared to less than 75% among civilian health care personnel.

Hegseth said soldiers can take the vaccine if they so choose, calling it an attempt to "restore freedom and strength to our joint force."

While the move is framed as expanding personal choice, health experts warn it could quietly erode military readiness. 

"As a military veteran and nurse practitioner, I believe Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's decision to end the annual flu-vaccine requirement for U.S. troops is a serious lapse in judgment," Dr. Richard Riccardi, a professor and executive director of the Center for Health Policy and Media Engagement at The George Washington University, said in a statement.

Riccardi, who served on active duty in the U.S. Army for 31 years, said not making the flu vaccine will lead to more illnesses and, as a result, more missed duty days and more hospitalizations.

"In the military, vaccination is not political theater. It is force protection. Troops live and work in close quarters, where influenza can spread quickly and sideline otherwise healthy service members, said Riccardi. "The CDC continues to recommend annual flu vaccination for everyone 6 months and older because it remains the best way to reduce the risk of flu and serious complications.

So far during the 2025-26 season, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there have been at least 31 million illnesses, 380,000 hospitalizations and 23,000 deaths from flu.

Of those deaths, 143 have been among children, 85% of whom were not fully vaccinated against influenza, according to the CDC.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The sprawling UFC Freedom 250 event being held on the South Lawn of the White House and the Ellipse event in June are receiving the highest level of security possible, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told ABC News.

"The 'UFC Freedom 250' event held on the South Lawn of the White House and the Fan Festival on the Ellipse on June 13-14, 2026, are designated SEAR 1 events," a department spokesperson said to ABC News. 

Other SEAR 1 events include the Super Bowl, the Chicago Marathon and the Rose Bowl Game.

In years past, the federal coordinator for the SEAR 1 events was an agent from Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) or the U.S. Secret Service. This year's  Super Bowl security posture in San Francisco was led by the lead HSI agent from the San Francisco Field Office.

The event is not a National Special Security Event, which is designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security and includes events like the Presidential Inauguration and the 250 Military Parade. 

UFC Freedom 250 -- a UFC fight taking place on the South Lawn was an idea that President Donald Trump has been deeply involved in helping plan. UFC President Dana White announced that in addition to the fight, there will be a fan fest on the ellipse and events through the National Mall, including a press conference at the Lincoln Memorial.

The threat landscape has also never been more dynamic, according to law enforcement sources.

A March alert sent to law enforcement partners around the country from DHS talked about the threat of lone actors. 

"Lone offenders in the Homeland have not historically been motivated by issues related to Iran, the IRGC, or Shia violent extremism; however, the existential threat to the Iranian regime and increased US or Israeli actions could prompt some US-based violent extremists or hate crime perpetrators to attack targets perceived to be Jewish, pro-Israel, or linked to the US government or military," the bulletin says. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick resigned from Congress on Tuesday afternoon, just before she was to face a House Ethics Committee sanction hearing.

The committee was set to hold a rare public hearing to determine what sanction would be appropriate for it to recommend to the full House against Cherfilus-McCormick.

Last month, Cherfilus-McCormick was found guilty of 25 House ethics violations, including acceptance of improper campaign contributions and commingling of campaign and personal funds. The congresswoman was indicted in November 2025 by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her successful 2021 congressional campaign.

Cherfilus-McCormick has denied wrongdoing, excusing the allegations as an accounting error.

In her resignation announcement, the congresswoman called the process a "witch hunt."

"By going forward with this process while a criminal indictment is pending, the Committee prevented me from defending myself," she said. "I simply cannot stand by and allow my due process rights to be trampled on, and my good name to be tarnished."

Ethics Committee Chairman Michael Guest read out loud the congresswoman's resignation letter after the committee briefly convened and said the committee had lost jurisdiction over Cherfilus-McCormick with her resignation.

"I will tell you that the committee has worked diligently to investigate this matter, that this was not a rush to judgment, as some would claim, that this was a very deliberate process to gather information into allegations that were extremely serious and extremely complicated," Guest said.

Ranking Democrat Mark DeSaulnier told the committee, "Nobody's happy. I don't think any of us are happy at what we've gone through, but I am extremely proud of being associated with all of you."

She is the third member of the House to resign in a week, following Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas and Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, who were accused of sexual misconduct and were about to face efforts by their colleagues to have them expelled.

Expelling a member of the House is a rare occurrence. A two-thirds majority is required to remove a member.

Only six House members in U.S. history have been expelled from the lower chamber. Former New York Republican Rep. George Santos was the most recent lawmaker expelled from the House in 2023.

The committee could have recommended a range of sanctions, including expulsion, censure, reprimand, fine -- and even denial or limitation of any right, according to House rules. The House may punish its members and may expel its members by a two-thirds vote, according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

The sanction recommendation against Cherfilus-McCormick was expected to be announced in writing after the hearing. Afterward, the panel was to break into executive session to conclude its deliberations and reach a judgment.

Before Cherfilus-McCormick announced her resignation, Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube said he would move to force a vote to try to expel the congresswoman following the sanction hearing. Steube was expected to make the expulsion resolution privileged, which required Speaker Mike Johnson to hold a vote on the matter within two legislative days.

The speaker signaled last week that expelling Cherfilus-McCormick over her alleged crimes would be "appropriate."

Though he initially insisted that Democrats would not help Republicans expel Cherfilus-McCormick, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on Monday that Democrats would convene a caucus meeting to determine how they'll handle the the bipartisan Ethics panel's recommendations.

After her resignation, Steube called on the Department of Justice to put Cherfilus-McCormick in prison.

"This is a victory for our institution and the great state of Florida," Steube wrote on X. "Thank you to everyone who stayed involved and kept the pressure on. Now it's on the DOJ to put her in prison."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(RICHMOND, Va.) -- Voters in Virginia head to the polls Tuesday to vote on a redistricting ballot measure referendum that could have major implications for the midterm elections.

The referendum will decide if the Democratic-controlled legislature should be allowed to redraw the state's congressional map. That would allow the legislature to implement a map that would reconfigure four congressional seats to favor Democrats, which could have major implications for control of the U.S. House after November’s midterm election.

Democrats have said they need the measure in Virginia to pass in order to continue to counter previous mid-decade redistricting that benefited Republicans in Texas and other states. But Republicans have called it a power grab in a state that is relatively split even politically, and say it sidelines a redistricting commission voters previously approved. 

Surrogates for both sides of the measure have been campaigning in full force ahead of election day, and President Donald Trump weighed in on Monday night in a rally held by telephone.

“This referendum is a blatant partisan power grab… if it passes, Virginia Democrats will eliminate four out of five congressional seats [held by Republicans in Virginia], so you're going to get just wiped out in terms of representation in Washington,” Trump said on Monday.

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., a strong proponent of the measure, said earlier Monday that the redistricting was because of Trump, who encouraged Texas and other states to redistrict in 2025.

“We believe that it's the voters of Virginia and the people of this country who should decide which party is in the majority… not Donald Trump and his extreme MAGA sycophants in state legislative bodies across the country who were ordered by Donald Trump to gerrymander the national congressional map as part of the effort to rig the midterm elections,” he told reporters on Monday.

During mid-decade redistricting in 2025, nine seats were redrawn to benefit Republicans, while six seats were redrawn to benefit Democrats. If Democrats add four seats to their count, then Democrats might only net one new seat if all seats flip as expected in November. But Florida is also set to consider mid-decade redistricting, which is expected to help Republicans bolster their count.

In the Virginia election, the Democratic-supported side of the measure far outfundraised and outspent the main group supporting a “no” vote, according to campaign finance filings, although both sides raised and spent millions. As of April 10, Virginians for Fair Elections, the flagship organization campaigning in favor of redistricting, has raised over $64 million, while Virginians for Fair Maps Referendum Committee, the largest organization campaigning against redistricting, has raised under $20 million.

While Democrats framed many of their arguments in favor of the redraw as meant to counter Trump, the president himself did not campaign for the “no” side in person and did not engage much with the election until the day before Election Day. 

Former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, asked by ABC News outside of an anti-redistricting campaign event in Leesburg, Virginia, on Monday if he thinks Trump or national Republicans should have gotten more involved with the race, downplayed the need for that, saying that the opposition to redistricting could go across party lines.

“I think what we've seen is that, first of all, it's been a grassroots effort across the Commonwealth,” Youngkin told ABC News. “There are so many [vote] ‘no’ signs around the Commonwealth… and at the heart of it, that's Virginians standing up, not just Republicans.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.