In an extraordinary ramping-up of his ongoing efforts to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, President Donald Trump has ordered a committee to investigate mortgage fraud allegations against her, culminating in a closed-door, in-person hearing at the White House next month.

The move, laid out in a memo signed by the president and announced on Friday, creates a three-person "committee of inquiry" to hear the charges against Cook and allow her an opportunity to respond at the Nov. 5 hearing.

"Governor Cook shall appear at the hearing and be examined by the Committee, its representatives, and her legal counsel, if any," Trump's memo states.

No president prior to Trump had ever attempted to remove a Federal Reserve governor in the 112-year history of the central bank. The law allows for a governor's removal "for cause," but that term is not defined in the statute.

Trump's memo directs the panel to provide him with "written findings of fact and conclusions of law," along with a recommendation of "whether there is cause to remove Governor Cook."

The committee will be composed of top Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair Andrea Lucas and Keith Sonderling, the acting director of the Office of Government Ethics.

Trump's memo sets the terms of the panel's review and allows Cook to "present argument, written evidence, and written witness statements regarding the evidence and allegations."

The announcement of the hearing comes more than three months after the Supreme Court rejected Trump's initial attempt to fire Cook, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for a divided court that a final decision on Cook's dismissal could only be made after she "has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her."

Cook sued Trump to block his ill-fated attempt to fire her last year over the mortgage fraud allegations, insisting she has committed no wrongdoing. Her attorneys claim Trump’s attempt to oust her was based on her refusal to lower rates.

Lawyers for Cook said in a statement that they have "grave doubts" that the hearing will prove to be legitimate and legal.

"But if it is anything close to objective, the conclusion will be that Governor Cook did not commit mortgage fraud, leaving no cause to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board," Cook's attorneys, Abbe Lowell and Norm Eisen, said in their statement.

Cook's lawyers says they're evaluating whether the process laid out by Trump’s order "has a possibility of being a genuine one and not simply a box checking exercise."

"Governor Cook welcomes the opportunity to present the facts so she can clear her name and demonstrate there is no legal basis to fire her," the attorneys said.

Trump's order says the hearing will be closed to the public but transcribed.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The leader of the "764" network, which seeks to exploit minors online, pleaded guilty Thursday to conspiracy to sexually exploit minors.

For nearly four years, Prasan Nepal, 21, also known by the online moniker “Trippy,” led the network, which operated as "a nihilistic violent extremist network" and "engaged in a wide range of criminal conduct across the United States and abroad — including coordinated efforts to exploit minors, extort vulnerable victims, and inflict psychological harm as part of an organized ideology promoting chaos and societal destabilization," the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia said in a news release.

Nepal used encrypted apps to exploit minors through "rules," which were needed for the child to join the so-called network, and leaders would force minors "to engage in self-mutilation, online and in-person sexual acts, harm to animals, sexual exploitation of siblings and others, acts of violence, threats of violence, suicide, and murder," according to the news release.

ABC News reported in May that the FBI was conducting 250 investigations across the country tied to 764 and similar networks. In the six months since, the FBI has opened at least 100 more investigations, it said.

Nepal and his co-conspirators used child sexual abuse material to trade with other members of the group, and Nepal took advantage of at least eight minors as young as 13, U.S. Attorney Jeannie Pirro said.

“This case exposes a world where cruelty is currency, violence is entertainment, and children are treated as targets in a game of domination and control,” Pirro said. “What Nepal and his co‑conspirators built was not just a criminal operation, it was a deliberate campaign to corrupt the vulnerable and dismantle the guardrails of civilized society. Today’s plea is a victory for every child they sought to harm, and a warning to anyone who believes they can hide behind an encrypted screen: we will find you, and we will stop you.” 

Nepal faces between 15 and 30 years in prison and is expected to be sentenced in May 2027.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Bernadette Greene-Placentia, a Democratic candidate for Congress who said she was raped while fixing a campaign sign in August, told ABC News on Thursday that she was motivated to speak up because of the arguments she was making on the campaign trail. 

"I was talking to some seniors about fighting for reinstating and funding the [Veterans Administration] and fixing Social Security, actually addressing the issues" amid federal government cuts or healthcare changes that impacted them, Greene-Placentia told ABC News Live anchor Kyra Phillips.

"It just crossed my mind at that point -- like, wow, I'm kind of being a hypocrite because I'm saying I'm going to fight for Arizonans. I'm going to fight for these folks, but I'm not fighting for women who've been victims of sexual assault, and that's just not how I was raised," she said. "So afterwards, I told my husband and my team, I was like, this is really going to suck, but I have to speak up."

Greene-Placentia, a former truck driver who is running in the state's 8th District to try to unseat Republican Rep. Abe Hamadeh, told Phoenix New Times, a local news outlet, in a story published Wednesday that she was attacked around 2 a.m. as she was walking toward a campaign sign in a parking lot north of Phoenix. She said she had been subdued and then woke up to find that she was being raped by an unknown assailant.

Greene-Placentia told the news outlet she reported the assault to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which confirmed to ABC News that a report was filed on Aug. 31 and that there is an ongoing investigation, but said the office could not comment further on the investigation.

She told ABC News on Thursday that she thinks it was a "crime of opportunity" and that she was not necessarily targeted, but she mentioned that her face is on campaign signs and "I'm pretty sure they knew who I was. Whether it was for political reasons or whatever, I mean, it was an attack on a woman, and no woman should be targeted, regardless of whether it's for political reasons or just because they're predators." 

It hadn't initially worried her to go out so late to fix campaign signs. 

"I mean, I have about 4 million miles across the country, and, you know, I've learned how to take care of myself ... it's just easier to do it [fix signs] at night. And usually I would go out with my husband or a staffer or a volunteer. But if I saw one that was just hanging by the rebar or somethin. ... I never heard [the attacker] coming," she said.

"And it's frustrating to me because I like to think I have pretty good situational awareness, but obviously when someone deliberately sneaking up on you, it's hard to defend yourself."

Greene-Placentia said she does not remember coming home and has little memory of the next day, although said there is video of her landlord in the driveway.

"She saw me standing out there, and I guess I was just literally, like, staring off into space or something. And she's like, Bernadette, Bernadette, are you Ok? Are you Ok? And I just looked, you know, horrible."

She said she did not say anything to her campaign staff at first, and took a few days before she told her husband.

Asked what she wants voters to know about her in addition to her taking her story to Capitol Hill, Green-Placentia told ABC News she wants voters, including survivors of sexual assault, to know she was going to "fight" for them.

"I want people to know that I'm going to stand up. I'm going to fight for you. I'm going to fight for everybody because -- I got into politics, I gave up a career I loved, because I felt like there weren't people like me, like the average American," she said. 

"Our voices were not being represented, and that's from the working class. That's from women that have been victims of sexual assault. That's our seniors, our veterans, our teachers, and they need to know that they have somebody that lives the same life they do, that has shared experiences, and will take that to D.C. and represent them fairly, transparently."

She also said she understands where women who don't speak up about being assaulted are coming from, even though she used to be someone who was more judgmental of people who shared their stories. 

She brought up the 2018 hearings where professor Christine Blasey Ford accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Kavanaugh emphatically denied the allegations and was eventually confirmed to the court.

"I am a little ashamed to admit that I was one of those people. You know, like during the Kavanaugh hearings, for example, I was like, 'Why did she wait so long? If he was out doing this to her, he's going to do it to somebody else.' But let me tell you, that is so hard to acknowledge to yourself that somebody took your power away from you, that they stripped you of your bodily autonomy, and you know overpowered you with physical strength, and you don't want to admit that."

She added, "I was a truck driver. I was tough. I was in a male-dominated industry as an owner-operator and built up a small fleet. You know, how could I let this happen to me? I didn't want anybody to know. I just wanted to move on, and I can certainly understand why women don't want to tell that their story or what happened. But I also realized that as long as I don't say anything, then they maintain what -- they took that from me, and I wanted to take it back. And speaking out and speaking up for other women -- that is me taking it back."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday announced the suspension of tech giants, Microsoft and Adobe, from a green card program -- effectively blocking the companies from sponsoring H-1B visa workers for permanent residency green cards.

The suspension is from the PERM program -- a certification that allows employers to hire a foreign employee to work permanently in the U.S.

Vance singled out Microsoft, accusing the company of fraud.

"So if the H-1B visa is how the people get into the country, the PERM program is how they stay in the United States to begin with," Vance said. "Now there has been no company in the United States, unfortunately, that has abused the system more than Microsoft."

In a statement to ABC News, Microsoft said it "succeeds as a global technology leader by developing the world’s best technology workforce. We do this by strengthening this country’s talent pipeline, hiring American workers, and attracting the best talent from around the world."

Critics of the PERM program have said it allows companies to recruit foreign workers, taking away jobs from Americans. Vance alleged Microsoft employees were laid off -- later replaced by "foreign indentured servants" who "are earning wages that are far below the average for American citizens."

"So, in the last year, Microsoft -- and I want to be clear about the data here, so let me check this -- but Microsoft laid off last year 6,000 American workers," Vance said. "At the same time, the company benefited from 6,300 H-1B visas and almost 3,000 green cards."

"In other words, if you do the math, for every worker that Microsoft laid off, they replaced that worker with one and a half foreign indentured servants."

Microsoft said in a statement that "the vast majority of Microsoft employees in the United States are Americans."

It also pushed back on Vance's comments, saying it "only files H-1B petitions for those who meet the rigorous standards of this visa category."

"We pay our employees some of the highest compensation in the tech sector, and our wages are among the highest of all H-1B filings. We pay our H-1B employees the same as any other employees doing comparable work," the statement continued.

The criticism of Microsoft came hours before President Donald Trump awarded Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella the Medal of Technology and Innovation during an event at the Institute of Peace on Thursday.

Trump lauded Nadella at the ceremony, saying he has been "a key figure in the transformation of Microsoft, revolutionizing the company and empowering businesses, students and consumers from all over the world with some of the most capable software ever built or ever even conceived."

Vance acknowledged the contradiction of honoring Microsoft's CEO the same day as his announcement.

"Microsoft is a great American company, and we have a great relationship with them. They do a lot of important things," Vance said. "So we're going to continue to support Microsoft and have a great relationship with Microsoft, but we're also going to deny them the ability to apply for these permanent residencies until they show that they are going to get serious about putting American workers first."

ABC News has reached out to Adobe for comment.

Asked how long the suspension will be in place, Vance said it will "last as long as it needs to" and added that the administration has "a number of tools to suspend it indefinitely" if needed.

Vance, who has been asked to lead the administration’s Anti-Fraud Task Force, also criticized the H-1B visa program as a whole, saying it has become "rife with fraud" in recent years.

"The H-1B visa program is meant to allow companies to bring in really the best of the best from outside the United States of America for positions that are completely impossible to fill with American workers. Unfortunately, the program has become rife with fraud over the last several years, probably the last several decades," Vance said.

Attorney General Todd Blanche also chimed in about the issue of "foreign labor favoritism," promising that companies will be investigated if they "discriminate against an American worker in favor of someone on the other side of the world," with Blanche saying this "violate[s] the trust of the federal government and the American people."

"The Department of Justice, my department, is actively investigating companies that do this that favor foreign workers over the American people,” Blanche said.

Inspector General of Labor Anthony D'Esposito also announced that the Department of Labor is conducting a "historic investigation into the J-1 visa fraud involving nine major American universities: Pitt, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Brown, UC Davis, CaltTech, Arizona State, and MIT," with investigations already underway, he said.

"If an American university is breaking the law to save a dollar, while exposing American research to a foreign adversary, that is not academic excellence. It's institutional betrayal," D'Esposito said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The execution of Nidal Hasan, the former Army major who killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in a 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, will be live-streamed, a Pentagon official told ABC News on Thursday.

Hasan, who described the attack as an act of jihad, is scheduled to executed by firing squad on Dec. 3 at the same base where he committed the attack.

Public executions were once common in the U.S., but states began restricting and abolishing the practice in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries. The last widely recognized public execution was carried out in Kentucky in 1936.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a media interview that Fort Hood was chosen because that was where Hasan carried out the attack and that the 1 p.m. execution time was selected to roughly coincide with when the shooting began.

President Donald Trump ordered the Army to execute Hasan, which would be its first execution since 1961, and to do so by firing squad. The military has not used that method since 1945 and no longer has a modern procedure for administering it.

The choice of a firing squad forced the Army to abandon months of planning built around a very different kind of execution. Internal documents reviewed by ABC News show that officials had been preparing to use lethal injection if Trump authorized the execution of one of the four prisoners on the service’s death row.

Trump’s approval last Friday came only days after the botched lethal-injection execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee, who survived. Pike had been sentenced to death for her role in a 1995 murder.

John Galligan, a retired Army colonel and former military judge at Fort Hood, has represented Hasan for years as a civilian attorney and said he spoke with him Wednesday.

Hasan represented himself during his court-martial but Galligan remained involved in his legal counsel. He told ABC News that Hasan was notified late at night that Trump had approved the execution and that no defense attorney was present when he received the notice.

Last year, the Supreme Court declined to review Hasan’s court-martial conviction. However, Hasan could still seek habeas corpus relief in federal court, potentially delaying the execution.

Following his conversation yesterday with Hasan, Galligan said filing for a habeas petition is “a distinct possibility,” but that they have not yet made a final decision on how they will proceed.

Galligan criticized the Army for scheduling the execution close to the earliest date allowed under its regulations saying officials are, “pushing to get this done at earliest time possible.”

He was especially critical of the decision to carry out the execution at Fort Hood, citing medical concerns for how Hasan, who is paralyzed and in a wheelchair as a result of military officers who subdued him during the shooting, will be transported to the facility. Hasan is currently imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Army rules require an execution to be scheduled between 60 and 150 days after presidential approval, placing Hasan’s execution almost as early as the rules permit.

Galligan said that Hasan’s demeanor was calm after receiving the news of Trump’s approval of his execution Monday, but that he was surprised when Galligan told him that the execution would take place at Fort Hood.

“I'm surprised and shocked that they want to bring him back to Fort Hood. I think it's more of a public spectacle, closely akin to almost, I see it more as political theater,” Galligan said, adding that making the execution public is, “not great for the confidence in our system of justice.”

Hegseth’s push for Hasan’s execution

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, meanwhile, has pushed for Hasan’s execution for much of his tenure, according to two U.S. officials, but his focus on the case predates his time at the Pentagon.

In 2015, during an appearance on Fox News making the case that troops should be permitted to carry weapons on military bases, Hegseth invoked the Fort Hood shooting. “We are at war. Islamics are at war with us,” he said.

A decade later, in his role as Pentagon chief, Hegseth made his position on Hasan more explicit. “I am 100% committed to ensuring the death penalty is carried out for Nidal Hasan,” he told The Hill in September last year. “The victims and survivors deserve justice without delays.”

Internal documents reviewed by ABC News show that, since at least February, Army officials were developing a plan dubbed “Operation Resolute Justice.”

That plan envisioned lethal injection if the president authorized an execution in Terre Haute, Indiana, at the same prison complex where a series of federal executions happened during Trump’s first term.

From the mid-1980s until 2023, lethal injection was the default method of Army executions, until their rules were rewritten to give the Army secretary broad authority as to execution methods.

A military court can impose a death sentence, but carrying it out requires a separate chain of civilian approval. The service secretary, in this case acting Army Secretary Adam Telle, who has been in the job for about a month, must first sign off. The decision then goes to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth before ultimately reaching the president, who has the final authority to approve the execution.

How the Army has conducted firing squad executions

Among the unanswered questions are how the Army will select the soldiers who would serve as executioners and how it will train them for a task the military has not carried out in more than a half-century.

The Army’s most detailed procedures for carrying out an execution by firing squad date to 1959 and have not been updated since. The Army is quickly developing a new procedure on conducting firing squad executions, according to a service official.

But under those old execution rules, a condemned prisoner would be given consistent access to a chaplain, and, when practical, reasonable final requests, according to documentation reviewed by ABC News.

The execution itself called for eight riflemen led by a senior enlisted soldier armed with a pistol. The firing squad would take up position in a straight line, 15 paces from the prisoner, whose wrists and ankles would be restrained. A chaplain could remain with the prisoner up until the final moments before the shooting is ordered.

Between one and three of the eight rifles would be loaded with blanks, and the shooters would select their weapons at random. The prisoner would be dressed in a military uniform stripped of awards, insignia and other markings.

After being given an opportunity to make a final statement, the prisoner would be hooded and a medical officer would place a four-inch target over the heart. The chaplain and medical officer would then move away.

The firing squad would be ordered to aim and fire simultaneously. If the prisoner survived, the rules called for the senior enlisted leader of the firing squad to approach with their pistol, aim above the prisoner’s ear and fire 12 inches from the head.

It is unclear how closely the Army will adhere to those decades-old procedures in Hasan’s case, or how they might be adapted for a prisoner who is paralyzed and uses a wheelchair.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

A donor to President Donald Trump accused U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle of offering access to top Trump officials in exchange for cash.

Eric Deters -- a former lawyer, conservative media personality and Trump donor, alleged that Guilfoyle asked him to pay her $100,000 credit card bill in July 2025 -- days before her Senate confirmation hearing.

"It was all quid pro quo," Deters claimed to ABC News about the request from Guilfoyle, who is the former wife of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and ex-fiance of Donald Trump Jr.

Wall Street Journal first reported on Deters' accusations.

Deters provided messages to ABC News he says he exchanged with Guilfoyle on the subject. In one message from that period, Deters alleges Guilfoyle wrote, "Honey please I need you to get this done for me today," which Deters alleged was in reference to the desired credit card payment.

Guilfoyle's attorney disputed the messages' authenticity to the Wall Street Journal, but did not provide specifics. Guilfoyle's attorney also said the money could be a reimbursement for travel and speaking expenses. Deters denies he owed Guilfoyle any money.

Asked whether he thought Guilfoyle was asking for the payment in exchange for something, Deters told ABC News "absolutely."

"She made it very clear, and the text messages make it very clear. She was so desperate for me to send that $100,000," Deters said, adding that she said if he sent the money, she would help with his access to Trump administration officials.

Deters says he did not end up making the payment because he didn’t have the money.

Deters is considered a controversial character in Kentucky politics. He ran for Kentucky governor in 2023 and to represent Kentucky's 4th Congressional District in the House in 2024; he lost both races in the primaries.

A former lawyer, Deters had his law license first suspended in 2012 for actions in multiple cases including comments he made about a judge and improper solicitation of a possible client. In 2021, in refusing to reinstate Deter's law license, the Kentucky Supreme Court said he had a "notorious propensity" for filing "malicious or frivolous lawsuits," according to court documents.

Deters told ABC News that in exchange for money, he believed Guilfoyle would wield her influence to help him on specific issues, such as pressing for the extradition of an Ohio doctor who fled to Pakistan -- a detail he first told the Wall Street Journal.

Deters says he separately offered Guilfoyle money to press for that extradition. The individual in question is still living in Pakistan.

ABC News has reached out to Guilfoyle, her attorney and the U.S. Embassy in Greece for comment and have not heard back.

In a statement to WSJ, the U.S. embassy in Greece said Guilfoyle's "career in and out of public service is guided by deep and abiding values" and "the Ambassador remains committed to representing the American people with dedication and integrity."

During an event focused on eliminating fraud on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance was asked for his reaction to a government official, specifically a U.S. ambassador, asking someone to pay off their debt in exchange for access to other government officials -- an apparent reference to the Guilfoyle allegations.

Vance said he disapproves of people "selling access" to government officials, but denied knowledge about the particular instance being referenced. 

"Obviously, I don't love that," Vance said of the hypothetical scenario presented to him. He later added, "Of course, I don't like anybody selling access to another government official. Certainly, a high-level government official."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio sidestepped a question about Guilfoyle's alleged conduct overnight while departing Athens, Greece.

"I don't even know if it's true or not true," Rubio said. "So it's just not going to work that way, and it will certainly not going to work that way when I'm sitting in another country."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday hailed what he called the "historic" enrollment of 70 million American children into his Trump Accounts, calling them “a step to ensure every American child has a fair shot at the American Dream.”

The administration announced that beginning on Oct. 1, the Treasury Department automatically enrolled 60 million children under age 18 in the president’s signature investment accounts in addition to the 10 million whose parents opted into the accounts following their official release on July 4. 

“With automatic enrollment now complete, every American child under the age of 18 has a Trump Account in their name, making it easier than ever for families to participate,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement.

According to the administration, $2.2 billion has been deposited into the accounts since their release on July 4. The Treasury Department pledged to pour a one-time $1,000 seed contribution for each child born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. Children born outside of that range will not receive the seed contribution from the Treasury — but their family members and acquaintances are able to deposit money into the accounts. Several corporations — including Uber and Nvidia — and philanthropists — such as Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, who seeded the program with a $6.25 billion contribution, also donated to the accounts.

Trump, encircled by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and the Dells, predicted, "So if all goes well, which I think it will, they'll end up being quite rich by the time they're 18 and then 21."

Trump said in January when he announced the initiative that a number of major U.S. companies pledged to match the federal government's initial contribution for eligible employees' children, including Charles Schwab, Robinhood, SoFi, Uber, Charter Communication and BNY, and that several others had agreed to make contributions.

In a notice published in the Federal Register, the Treasury Department said that auto-enrollment was geared to maximize children’s participation in the accounts, estimating that an additional 2 million children would benefit from the accounts every year as a result. 

“An eligible individual should not lose the opportunity to receive contributions or investment growth merely because no adult completed an election,” the Treasury wrote in the notice.

Starting Oct. 1, parents no longer have to opt-in to the accounts, but can claim their children’s accounts on the Trump Accounts app.

According to the administration, the accounts are designed to boost future financial security for the most recent generation of Americans, with each child gaining access to the account in their name once they reach the age of 18. They can then allocate the funds in the account solely for purposes designated by the Treasury Department — including paying for university tuition or purchasing a house.

Some Democrats have praise the program. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore called it a "smart policy," and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called it "one of the best things [Trump] has done."

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts introduced a similar proposal in 2023, which would have provided each American child with $1,000 at birth in an account that they could access at age 18, but it didn't make it out of committee. Booker also supported Trump's proposal.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group will return to its homeport of San Diego on Thursday, concluding a 10-month deployment to the Middle East where it played a key role in the war with Iran and set a new record of 265 days in between ports of call.

In all, the ship will have spent 321 days on deployment, the second-longest since the end of the Cold War. The longest deployment was set earlier this year when the carrier USS Gerald R. Ford returned from a 326-day deployment to Europe, the Caribbean and the Middle East.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited the Lincoln on Wednesday ahead of its return home and praised the ship's crew for its resilience and dedication during the lengthy deployment.

Hegseth told sailors gathered on the carrier's flight deck that he had extended their deployment twice -- in recent years typical carrier strike deployments have lasted seven months.

"I plead guilty, A., because of the incredible effectiveness that you showcased on the battlefield and the necessity. But also B., the mission required it, and C., because President Trump had full faith that you would deliver on behalf of the American people, and you did" he, added.

"What the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group did, no other carrier strike group has ever done," Hegseth said, listing its accomplishments: "10,000 sorties, 23,000 combat flight hours, almost 4,000 combat sorties, 1.5 million pounds of ordinance dropped on the enemy," to cheers from sailors. 

The aircraft assigned to the carrier had returned to their home bases in California and Washington state earlier in the week.

The Lincoln's crew suffered from supply disruptions caused by the start of the war that impacted food stocks and the long deployment led to reports that the crew's mental health was suffering.

The Navy has reported that there were eight suicide attempts aboard the carrier during the deployment, including one sailor who jumped overboard and was later rescued.

That figure that appears to be on the lower end of what is experienced during carrier deployments, according to a U.S. official.

"There were a few folks in the media who tried to turn the USS Abraham Lincoln into some sort of a symbol," Hegesth said. "A symbol of dysfunction, or a symbol of low morale, or a symbol of a failed mission. And what I look out right here or when I talk to your leadership, and I haven't had a chance to talk to a number of you, I know it's the exact opposite." 

At the conclusion of his remarks, Hegseth announced that the Lincoln carrier strike group was being awarded the prestigious Presidential Unit Citation, an award for distinction given to military units.

When he read the citation to the crew, he disclosed more statistics about the carrier group's air operations against Iran that have not previously been disclosed.

That included: 3,693 combat sorties, 1.37 million pounds of ordnance dropped on Iranian targets, the launching of 450 Tomahawk cruise missiles by warships accompanying the carrier, the shoot-down of 77 Iranian one-way attack drones and 21 anti-ship cruise missiles, the defense against four fast-attack craft and explosive-carrying dhows, and helping with the sinking of 64 Iranian warships.

Navy officials have said that the Lincoln's deployment has helped them make quality of life improvements for future lengthy carrier deployments, including that of the USS Theodore Roosevelt which left San Diego a week ago bound for the Middle East.

"Roosevelt is maximizing its load-out of food, retail products and hygiene items before getting underway," Adm. Daryl Caudle, the Chief of Naval Operations, said in a recently released video.

"The crew is converting available spaces into additional storage, building the ability to remain self-sufficient for longer periods, especially when resupply may be difficult," said Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy John Perryman.

And quality of life is a focus with new entertainment equipment available to sailors. as well as more durable fitness equipmen. and spare cardio machines.

The carrier's systems are also being upgraded with software updates and instructions, and being pre-staged aboard the ship," allowing the crew to keep critical services running even when bandwidth is limited or the ship is operating in a degraded condition," Caudle said.

Improvements have also been made to climate control systems and a specialized team will be on board to inspect and optimize those systems, Perryman said.

And improvements are being made to keep families informed about the deployment. 

"As one carrier returns home, we listen to its sailors and families. We capture what worked and what didn't, and we make it better the next time," Prettyman said. "To the Lincoln team, thank you for what you accomplished and for what you taught us, and to the Roosevelt team, we're doing everything we can to make sure you are ready for the mission. You and your families."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The remarkable survival of Christa Pike after an attempted execution in Tennessee poses equally remarkable legal questions about whether a second state attempt to kill her would violate the Constitution.

Pike, 50, who is said to be "conscious" and "speaking" after receiving two doses of lethal injection, faces what her attorneys call a "long recovery" and the prospect she may return to the death chamber.

Her attorneys say a second attempt at ending her life now would be "cruel and unusual punishment" under the 8th Amendment and are urging Gov. Bill Lee to commute her sentence to life without parole. So far, the Tennessee governor has publicly kept execution on the table.

"My responsibility is to uphold the sentences that Tennessee juries have handed down, even when it's difficult, and that is exactly what we intend to do in the days ahead," Lee said at a press conference last week. "The people of Tennessee have determined that the death penalty is the appropriate penalty for the most heinous crimes in the state. The people of Tennessee make that decision, and my job is to make sure then that those sentences are carried out."

Legal scholars say the case presents unprecedented circumstances, as Pike is the first person to have survived administration of pentobarbital, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

However, it is not the first time an American has survived attempted execution and challenged a subsequent attempt on constitutional grounds.

In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of 17-year-old Willie Francis, a Black teenager who was sent to the electric chair but survived a botched electrocution.

After a Louisiana executioner threw the switch, Francis reportedly screamed "I'm not dying!" and "Take it off! Let me breathe!," according to court documents.  

Witnesses, in sworn affidavits, reported seeing Francis' lips puff out and swell, body tense and stretch, and the chair itself came off the ground. "This boy really got a shock when they turned that machine on," one said.

The state insisted no electric current actually passed through Francis' body due to some mechanical difficulty. 

At the time, it was the only known U.S. case of a condemned person surviving an attempted execution.

Francis, who at age 16 had been convicted of murdering a former employer, challenged a second electrocution by arguing it would violate 14th Amendment due process rights, a 5th Amendment prohibition on multiple punishments, and amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment. 

Attorneys for Christa Pike could likely raise similar claims, legal experts say.  

The high court in 1947, however, narrowly rejected them.  

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, the Supreme Court concluded Francis' constitutional rights would not be violated by electrocuting him a second time (which Louisiana ultimately did). 

"Accidents happen for which no man is to blame," Reed wrote in the decision. 

"Even the fact that petitioner has already been subjected to a current of electricity does not make his subsequent execution any more cruel in the constitutional sense than any other execution," he wrote.

Reed rejected claims of added "psychological strain" on Francis because of the botched first attempt and the notion that a do-over would amount to "more severe punishment" than was originally imposed.

Justice Felix Frankfurter, concurring in the decision, added that states also have the right to administer justice as they see fit. "This court must abstain from interference with state action no matter how strong one's personal feeling of revulsion against a state's insistence on its pound of flesh," he wrote. 

In dissent, Justice Harold Burton argued that repeated electrocutions amounted to unconstitutional cruelty. 

"It is unthinkable that any state legislature in modern times would enact a statute expressly authorizing capital punishment by repeated applications of an electric current separated by intervals of days or hours until finally death shall result," Burton wrote. 

He noted that Louisiana state law — as with most others that authorize the death penalty — call for methods that impose instantaneous and substantially painless death. 

"If the state officials deliberately and intentionally had placed [Francis] in the electric chair five times and, each time, had applied electric current to his body in a manner not sufficient, until the final time, to kill him," Burton wrote, "such a form of torture would rival that of burning at the stake."

Burton concluded: "It was the statutory duty of state officials to make sure that there was no failure," he wrote dissenting. 

Whether or not the faulty administration of lethal injection to Pike was an "accident" could be a key question in weighing a future legal challenge, if state officials decide to try to execute her again.

State officials have said publicly that they followed established protocol during the episode, even as it is now under independent review.

Pike's attorneys say they repeatedly pointed out in court documents that her unusually small veins would pose unique difficulty for executioners, and that childhood trauma from rape and sexual abuse would exacerbate mental anguish in the death chamber.

Her attorneys did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Democrats are urging Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to stop the Trump administration's proposed changes to Head Start, calling the reforms to the early childcare and education program illegal and "antithetical" to the mission of Head Start.

Head Start, the largest federal childcare program, aims to ensure that more than 700,000 kids receive a high-quality pre-school education for students ages 3-5 and improve welfare outcomes for children and their families. The reforms transfer federal oversight to state programs.

In a letter led by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, a bicameral coalition of lawmakers accuse the federal health department of proposing to "gut" the program by rolling back 90% of its performance standards and it asks Kennedy to withdraw the changes outlined in the agency's recent announcement.

But the new administrative changes could diminish program quality, reduce disciplinary standards, eliminate jobs for educators and healthcare providers and weaken protections for students with disabilities and unhoused families, according to the letter that was first obtained by ABC News.

"This proposed rule is a brazen attempt to dismantle Head Start without regard for the hundreds of thousands of young children and working-class families who depend on these programs and services every year," the lawmakers wrote in the letter to Kennedy's office on Wednesday.

In addition to Sanders, who serves as the ranking member on the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House Education Committee ranking member Bobby Scott and more than 150 other Democrats signed onto the letter. 

The lawmakers allege that the proposed changes violate the Head Start Act -- the law that authorizes the eligibility and standards for the program -- and illegally eliminate the program's core components of giving vulnerable students and families a boost in life. For more than 60 years, the program has provided early childhood education, health, nutrition and family support services to low-income children and families.

Head Start has undergone major revisions under previous administrations, including the largest reduction in funded Head Start slots in program history.

Since FY16, Head Start enrollment has declined from over 1 million children to 771,121 in FY25, according to government data. The National Head Start Association supports the government's intent to reduce unnecessary burden on Head Start programs and educators but the organization said the proposed rule exceeds its deregulatory approach.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services contended that any Head Start program that likes its current performance standards under the federal government's previous guidance is welcome to maintain those standards.

"Head Start teachers and staff are exceptional professionals who have in many cases dedicated their lives to serving children and families," the spokesperson wrote. "It is a shame that some elected leaders in Washington do not trust Head Start directors, teachers, and parents to make wise decisions for the children they serve but instead believe Washington must tell all 1,600 Head Start centers across the U.S. exactly how they have to run their programs."

Early childhood advocates stress that new regulations requiring English-only instruction, caps on administrative spending, and shifts in health screenings could also harm future Head Start participants.

Wednesday's letter comes as the 60-day open comment period for the changes ends. Kennedy's uncle, Sargent Shriver, founded the program in 1965. The secretary has said that the reforms will remove unnecessary bureaucracy for hundreds of thousands of American families to renew the "promise of Head Start for the next generation" by allowing local Head Start centers more authority over their programs.

In their letter, the lawmakers scolded the proposal saying Kennedy "made a commitment to Congress to 'preserve' Head Start," during his confirmation hearings -- "yet this proposed rule is the latest attempt by the Administration to deteriorate and ultimately eliminate the program by gutting the core standards and services that have long-defined and ensured its success."

Meanwhile, the Trump administration's goal to make the largest revision to federal childcare policy in decades aligns with current administration priorities. If implemented, the new regulations would empower parents, implement the new federal dietary guidelines and physical activity standards, shift early childhood governing authority to the states, and eliminate duplicative layers of compliance, according to the health department. The department also awarded over $200 million to Head Start for nutrition, facilities, and other services last month.

For now, as federal funding remains intact and programs are still operating, Head Start proponents told ABC News that fewer federal regulations should not mean fewer results for its families.

Bernadine Futrell, who served as the Biden administration’s Head Start director, told ABC News that the program is life saving and provides critical services.

"It's more than early learning," Futrell told ABC News, adding "It is an early childhood program. It's focusing on brain development, health and nutrition, healthy habits, financial literacy, economic mobility for parents, and it's a two-generational approach – where it's not just a child being served; it's the entire family that is moving to another level."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

In their first debate in the closely watched race for Senate in Maine, incumbent Sen. Susan Collins drew on her seniority in Congress and her role as chair of the powerful appropriations committee to counter Democrat Troy Jackson, who portrayed her as ineffective in pushing back against President Donald Trump's agenda.

"As chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I've been able to bring home federal dollars to help ease the burden on our taxpayers. In the past five years, I've secured $1.5 billion for 672 projects ... these are investments in our communities," Collins said during the debate Tuesday.

As Trump's trade war with Canada continues, Collins referenced her behind-the-scenes work to minimize the pain for Maine, whose economy is intertwined with Canada, including getting certain products removed from the tariff list.

"I have been the most outspoken opponent of the tariffs with Canada. Canada is not China. It is our neighbor, our friend, our closest ally, and our biggest trading partner. So, I have been strongly voting against the tariffs with Canada, but I've also been working behind the scenes," Collins said. "I was successful in getting concrete, pulp and road salt removed from the tariff list," Collins said.

Jackson, though, said what Collins has done is not enough, arguing Trump's policies are driving up the cost of goods and living and that "she won't talk back against Donald Trump,"

"I didn't mock the fact that she got road salt back. I mocked the fact that what about everything else? We can't eat road salt," Jackson said.

Jackson referenced Collins voting for Trump's signature legislation, the "One Big Beautiful Bill," out of committee, saying it's "crucifying Maine."

Collins voted against the final passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill because of the cuts to the Medicaid program, but said she voted to send it out of committee because of the billions of dollars to fund rural health care.

Jackson doubled down, though, on the fact that Collins voted the bill out of committee.

"Senator Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire, and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out. I mean, she advanced the bill out of committee. You just heard her say it ... If she'd have stopped it, she wouldn't be able to do the other things, meaning that she could have stopped it."

On the Iran war, Collins mentioned her past votes to end the war in Iran and how the war has led to a rise in gas and diesel prices.

"I think that it is not well thought out. It has caused adverse circumstances in terms of the cost of global oil," Collins said.

As Trump has mentioned possibly campaigning in Maine ahead of the November election, Collins was asked whether she would campaign with him, and she said she believes he won't come to the state.

"I don't think that President Trump is going to come to Maine," she replied. "He's talking about going to a lot of different states. I've heard nothing from his office, and I'm not exactly his favorite senator."

Jackson attacked Collins heavily over her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, even referencing her vote in his opening remarks during tonight's debate, which falls on the anniversary of her vote for the justice.

"[Brett Kavanaugh] helped overturn Roe v. Wade, and today she says she has no regrets," Jackson said. "And I would, you know, wonder for everyone, including myself, would you trust her to pick the next Supreme Court of Justice?"

During the portion of the debate where the candidates could ask each other questions, Jackson asked Collins if she would admit she was wrong to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Collins said she does not agree with Kavanaugh's vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and referenced her support of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. When the moderator asked whether she felt Kavanaugh lied to her, Collins said Kavanaugh should not have asserted that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

"I do not feel that he lied, but I think that he should not have said it was settled law because, to me, that meant that it would not be overturned. But to be fair, you cannot ask a nominee how he might vote on some hypothetical future case."

Collins, who has been a long supporter of abortion rights, called out Jackson for previously being against abortion access early on in his political career.

"So, I would point out that there's only one of us on this stage who has always been pro-choice, and that's me," Collins said.

On immigration, Jackson referenced the fatal ICE shooting in Biddeford, Maine, earlier this year and called for ICE to be disbanded and for funding to be redirected to Customs and Border Protection.

Collins pushed back on abolishing ICE, but said the agency needs "serious reform."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

As the midterms present a referendum on his second term, President Donald Trump continues to boast about his handling of the economy despite low approval ratings saying Americans aren't feeling it.

But while Trump has tried to paint a rosy picture of the economy, Vice President JD Vance has been driving home a different message on the campaign trail -- appearing more sympathetic to the economic squeeze frustrated voters are facing. Vance has also said the administration has made progress on that front, but urged voters to give them more time.

At several campaign rallies, Vance has urged patience, telling voters that "Rome wasn't built in a day."

According to a late September AP-NORC poll, 82% of adults disapprove of Trump's handling of the cost of living and only 17% approve.

Despite polls consistently showing that many Americans are not pleased with the effect of Trump's economic policies, the president continues to praise his record.

On his way to a campaign event in Texas last week, Trump told reporters he gave himself an "A+" across the board and discounted the economic pain from the war with Iran as a tradeoff with preventing that country from building a nuclear weapon.

And Trump said he's had to campaign on his economic agenda and its results because other Republicans are not "selling" it enough.

Vance has taken a different tone than his boss, expressing sympathy for Americans' economic frustrations while touting the Trump administration's wins and progress, often encouraging voters to support Republicans in November so the work can continue.

"Everything was not going to be fixed in 18 months. But you can't ignore people's concerns," Vance said during an interview with Real America's Voice last week.

Asked for his message to voters last month at the All-In Summit, a gathering of business, tech and investment leaders, Vance urged them to give Republicans "another chance." ​

"There's a lot of good that's been done, but there's a lot of work left to do. Don't give power to the people who cause the problems that we're fixing. Give us another chance -- or give us another couple of years to continue to work on the amazing things that we've been doing for the past two years," Vance said then.

Trump has previously said that it was his own party doing an "extremely poor job" of selling his agenda and that's why he's touting his record.

"There are by a lot more Americans working today than at any time in the history of our country ... .but nobody knows it. That's why I'm doing it myself," Trump said in late September. "I'm going out because nobody's selling it. I'm doing, we're doing an extremely poor job of promotion and an extremely great job of running the country. So, I think you're probably better off with that. But we'll get the word out. It should not be hard."

But even though Trump has been touting job growth, the September jobs report showed only 29,000 jobs added, far below expectations. The report also reflected that wages are not keeping up with inflation.

When asked about the difference in economic messaging between Trump and Vance, the White House said that the two men are sharing the same message.

"President Trump and Vice President Vance are sharing the same message with the American people: if Republicans hold Congress and keep delivering on President Trump's agenda, American families will have more money in their pockets, secure borders, and safer streets."

Vance is viewed as a top Republican candidate for the White House in 2028. Asked by NBC News last week if Republicans not performing well in midterms would factor into his decision on whether to run for president, Vance said he would consider it.

"You make these decisions by collecting as much information and trying to make a wise decision. And, yeah, I mean, regardless of what happens over the next 35 days, there will be new information, new things you have to make a decision over."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

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.