The Trump administration on Sunday filed another emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to immediately implement new U.S. Postal Service mail ballot rules for November.

The application is not meaningfully different from the request the administration filed on Sept. 3, but comes in response to the federal judge handling the legal battle over new U.S. Postal Service mail ballot rules extending her block of the rules for the November midterm elections in an order issued on Friday, again finding them likely unlawful.

Judge Indira Talwani's temporary order, which had been set to expire on Sept. 10, is now in place indefinitely unless the a higher court allows the Trump administration to put the rules into effect.

The judge found that immediate implementation of the rules this close to the November election, prompted by President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at tightening access to mail ballots, "threatens disenfranchisement of millions of United States citizens who seek to vote by mail."

Talwani concluded that the rules, which mandate nationwide mail ballot design and review requirements and state submission of a voter information database to USPS, are "unconstitutional where it intrudes not only on Congress's  Elections Clause powers but also that power left to the States."

The decision ups the ante for the U.S. Supreme Court, which had already been asked to weigh in on Talwani's preliminary injunction. A decision is expected as soon as the coming week.

Time is of the essence since some states have already begun mailing ballots for the fall election.

Trump, who has pushed unfounded claims of widespread mail ballot fraud, wants states to report to USPS basic voter information, such as a voter's name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Postal workers would then only deliver ballots addressed to voters who appear on the state-provided list.

Following the publication of the regulations last month, dozens of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration after an earlier lawsuit was blocked by the Supreme Court, which said at the time that the challenge was premature since the regulations hadn't been finalized.

Judge Talwani wrote in her opinion Friday that the dispute was now ripe for judicial intervention.

"Nothing is hypothetical," she said of the alleged harm to states, voters and voter advocacy groups ahead of the November election.

In its latest appeal to the justices, the Trump administration insisted the rules impose only "modest" ballot design and review requirements on states and that a requirement to submit name, address, and barcode information of intended recipients is not onerous or intrusive.

The states challenging the USPS rule have until Tuesday at 10 a.m. to formally respond before the Supreme Court makes a decision.

The states and voter advocacy groups have argued that the new USPS regulations are an attempt by the Trump administration to federalize elections, which are historically and constitutionally managed by each state, and make it harder to vote by mail for everyday citizens.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The former Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer had an "inappropriate relationship" with a member of her security detail and created a "toxic" work environment, according to a report from the department's Office of Inspector General.

The long-awaited report quietly released Thursday night details the allegations against Chavez-DeRemer and members of her senior staff. She resigned as secretary in April and members of her senior staff were fired, according to the report. 

Anthony D'Esposito, the Labor Department Inspector General, found that more than 30 witnesses said Chavez-DeRemer created a "toxic, intimidating and humiliating" work environment. The Inspector General opened the investigation after receiving a complaint in January 2026 about an inappropriate work environment under Chavez-DeRemer. 

In one instance highlighted in the report, during personal travel to Oregon in April 2025, Chavez-DeRemer allegedly stopped at a club with "partially nude" dancers, had her head of security rearrange the detail so her limousine driver could enter with her, and then gave a member for the detail cash from her purse and had him give it to a performer.

"When the agent resisted and sought guidance from ASAIC 1, ASAIC 1 instructed him to comply with Chavez-DeRemer’s requests," according to the report. "Chavez-DeRemer then took additional money from her purse and asked the agent to drop the bills one by one onto the partially nude woman."

Chavez-DeRemer also allegedly had an "inappropriately close and unprofessional relationship" with a member of her security detail who "exercised supervisory and operational authority over her protective detail," according to the report.

The report also alleges that Chavez-DeRemer used her staff for personal tasks, such as organizing her closet and purchasing holiday ornaments. 

Chavez-DeRemer also accepted gifts and did not properly report them, according to the Inspector General. Those gifts included rodeo tickets, an alligator wallet and two cowboy hats, according to the report.

A text message to the former secretary was not returned; ABC News reached out to Chavez-DeRemer's attorney as well.

ABC News has reached out to the Labor Department for comment.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- A Republican candidate for a Missouri State House seat was hit with a federal charge after he allegedly tried to plant drugs on his primary opponent, federal prosecutors alleged.

Thomas Christopher Ross, who won the Republican primary last month for Missouri House District 161 in Joplin, was charged Wednesday with conspiring to distribute a controlled substance after authorities discovered the alleged plot to plant cocaine and Adderall in the car of Louise Secker, who faced Ross in the Republican primary.

Ross' campaign manager contacted the police in July after the candidate allegedly gave him the drugs and instructed him to plant them on Secker, the criminal complaint released Thursday said.

The unidentified campaign manager brought a bag of cocaine and an Adderall pill to the police, who confirmed they were real after tests, according to the criminal complaint.

"[The campaign manager] advised at the time that Ross was believed to have a prescription for Adderall, which was where he believed the capsule originated," the complaint said.

The campaign manager showed law enforcement alleged text messages between himself and Ross, 37, where the candidate allegedly discussed the plot, with references going as far back as May, according to the complaint.

"I was hoping we could make it happen before THIS Thursday...which would be extreme egg on the face given Thursdays nights event [sic]," the alleged May 31 text from Ross read, according to the criminal complaint.

The police called in the FBI to help with the investigation and the bureau provided the campaign manager with a covert recorder that was used on July 31 to document a meeting between him and Ross, the complaint said.

During the meeting, the campaign manager told Ross that he still had the drugs and asked the candidate if he still wanted him to "try" and plant the drugs on Secker, according to the complaint.

Ross allegedly agreed and told the campaign manager that he could "call in an anonymous tip that Secker had drugs in her car," the complaint said.

"[I]f you can pull it off...pull it off," Ross allegedly told the campaign manager, according to the criminal complaint.

Ross defeated Secker in the primary four days later by only 33 votes, and was set to face off against Democratic candidate Aaron Metzger in the general election.

"Thank you again for your faith, your support, and your vote. I am truly grateful, and I will work every day to be a representative you can be proud of," Ross, a married father of two, said in a social media post after his victory.

He was held at Joplin Municipal Jail, according to jail records. Ross has not entered a plea and a preliminary and detention hearing is scheduled for Sept. 9, according to court documents.

His public defender didn't immediately return messages for comment. Ross' campaign didn't immediately return messages.

Missouri Republican Party Chairman Peter Kinder released a statement Wednesday after the charges were revealed and called on Ross to drop out of the race.

"The people of Southwest Missouri deserve nothing less than leadership they can trust," he said in a statement.

Secker and Metzger did not immediately return messages for comment.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration on Thursday filed an urgent appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking permission to immediately implement new U.S. Postal Service rules for mail ballots that critics say impede on states' authority to run elections. 

A temporary restraining order against the USPS rules, which were prompted by President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at tightening access to mail ballots, is set to expire on Sept. 10 but could be extended indefinitely.  A federal district court judge is set to rule imminently. 

The new rules, published by USPS last month, require states to report basic voter information, such as a voter's name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Postal workers would then only deliver ballots addressed to voters who appear on the state-provided list. 

Following the publication of the regulations last month, dozens of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration after an earlier lawsuit was blocked by the Supreme Court, which said the challenge was premature since the regulations hadn't been finalized.

In its latest appeal to the justices, the Trump administration insisted the rules impose only "modest" ballot design and review requirements on states and that a requirement to submit name, address, and barcode information of intended recipients is not onerous or intrusive. 

"The rule thus plainly does not seize control of states' administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail," Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the court filing.

"The rule's regulation of the U.S. mail — not federal elections — is plainly constitutional," he argued.

Sauer told the justices that the longer they wait to grant the administration's request the more likely it is that some states may not be able to comply with the new rules before having their mail ballots printed for the fall election and, in turn, might deprive some voters of being able to receive a ballot delivered by USPS. 

The states challenging the USPS rule have until Tuesday, Sept. 8, at 10 a.m. to formally respond before the court makes a decision. 

The states and voter advocacy groups have argued that the new USPS regulations are an attempt by the Trump administration to federalize elections, which are historically and constitutionally managed by each state, and make it harder to vote by mail for everyday citizens. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Excavation work for the construction of President Donald Trump's proposed 250-foot "triumphal arch" will begin over the next two weeks, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced, despite the project not having final approval from a key agency.

"We are pleased to announce that after a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck, at Memorial Circle on Columbia Island between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery," Burgum wrote in a social media post on Thursday.

"This will be one of the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World," Burgum added.

Burgum's announcement comes after a key agency gave initial approval to the plans and as the project continues to face a legal challenge.

In July, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) voted to approve the preliminary site and building plans for the arch after hearing hours of public testimony against the project.

Ahead of that meeting NCPC agency staff recommended initial approval but also a series of revisions to the project to comply with the Height of Buildings Act. The century-old federal law restricts building heights in Washington, D.C., to preserve the city's skyline.

The commission has not yet approved the final design for the arch.

Trump's proposed arch would be more than twice as tall as the 99-foot Lincoln Memorial, and taller than France's Arc de Triomphe.

Earlier this year, Commission of Fine Arts, another federal agency made up entirely of Trump appointees, also voted to give the project initial approval. 

The National Park Service plans to have construction take place 20 hours per day over the next two to three years, according to planning documents released by the Interior Department earlier this summer.

A group of Vietnam veterans sued over the arch earlier this year and are asking a federal judge to block the construction, arguing the arch would obstruct views of Arlington National Cemetery and can't be built without congressional authorization.

The Trump administration has argued that a 100-year-old statute related to the building of the nearby Arlington Memorial Bridge authorizes construction of the arch. Department of Justice lawyers have also argued that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the lawsuit is premature. 

In recent court filings, both sides referenced the Supreme Court's move earlier this week to allow continued construction of the White House ballroom -- another of Trump's key Washington projects.

In a filing Thursday, the Trump administration said the veterans' claims are "indistinguishable" from the one rejected by the high court's five-member majority earlier this week in the ballroom case, finding the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacked standing to sue.

"Plaintiffs' personal and professional experiences cannot transform distaste for the arch and its proposed placement into concrete and particularized injuries required for Article III standing," the Justice Department's filing said.

The veterans argued their suit is different than the ballroom case.

"Plaintiffs' injury is not based on the construction of something that gives them offense but rather on the destruction of a landscape that they regularly visit and that holds profound personal significance for each of them in its present state," the veterans' filing argues.

In April, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is hearing the case, ordered that the Trump administration must provide the court with 14 days' notice before any construction on the arch can begin. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Private equity billionaire Leon Black filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court against the House Oversight Committee and Chairman James Comer before failing to appear under subpoena for a deposition under oath before the panel as part of its probe into the government's investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

After Black filed the suit and failed to appear for the deposition, Comer signaled that the committee may move to hold Black in contempt of Congress -- but said he wants to gain consensus and examine the legal path ahead before proceeding.

"This is unacceptable," Comer, R-Ky., said. "We're very disappointed. I don't think I need to tell anyone in here how important of a witness Mr. Black is to this investigation. So we're going to huddle up as a committee and talk about next steps with respect to Mr. Black, and we'll go from there."

"I would hold him in contempt right now," Comer added. "Of all the powerful billionaires and political people we brought in for interviews and depositions, this is the first time anyone's filed suit. I don't want to do anything to harm our chances in court."

In June, the panel issued subpoenas to Black after he appeared for a transcribed interview and refused to answer questions. The subpoenas called for his appearance for a deposition, as well as the production of purported nondisclosure agreements that Epstein survivors have discussed with committee investigators.

Black's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserts the subpoenas are "invalid to the extent they exceed OGR's delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to OGR's legislative purpose."

Black's attorneys also contend that the subpoenas would also "expose women who value their privacy," who have no known or public connection to Epstein -- while contending that the committee lacks statutory authority to enforce its subpoenas in federal court.

Black is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the committee from compelling compliance with the subpoenas.

"The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility," said Black's attorney, Susan Estrich. "This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black. We were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit in response to an abuse of Congressional power."

Black, who maintained a social relationship with Epstein since the mid-1990s and eventually paid him more than $170 million for "tax and estate planning advice," according to the Senate Finance Committee, appeared in June before the Oversight panel as part of its ongoing Epstein probe.

Black has denied wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein's crimes, though his financial payments to Epstein served as a lifeline to the convicted sex offender in the years after Epstein's 2008 prison sentence for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

With time running short on the 119th Congress, Comer and Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, both believe Black is trying to run out the clock -- complicating the committee's effort to conclude its investigation before the end of the 119th Congress. 

"Obviously, we're running up against the clock at the end of this Congress, I'm sure his legal team knows that. So we've got to be smart from here on in," Comer said.

"What he's trying to do is to slow the process down of getting us the information," Garcia, D-Calif., said. "He's very aware that Comer no longer is going to be the chairperson. But what Mr. Black should understand is that we will be even more aggressive than Chairman Comer as it relates to his testimony."

"Leon Black provided over $180 million to Jeffrey Epstein. $180 million, and he has yet to tell the committee or the public as to exactly what that funded and why he did it," Garcia said. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- With government funding in the rear view, the House on Thursday canceled votes for the last two weeks of September, leaving just four days of legislative business before the Nov. 3 midterm elections -- a reversal from Speaker Mike Johnson's comments on the matter earlier this week.

After a vote series Friday morning, lawmakers will fly home for a district work period over the Labor Day holiday, as well as the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas.

The House is scheduled to return on Sept. 14 for four days of legislative business -- leaving on Sept. 17 for six full weeks of campaigning ahead of the midterm elections.

The sparse floor schedule is not particularly unusual for an election year -- but is a reversal of Johnson's position earlier this week when he told reporters that he did not intend to cancel any scheduled legislative business this month.

"Republicans are here to work," Johnson told reporters on Tuesday when pressed if GOP Rep. Thomas Massie's prediction of a schedule change might come to fruition. "We have a schedule, a calendar that's been out for a year. We are abiding by that calendar. We are going to work all the way through September and every day that's on the calendar, so long as people like him don't stop the progress."

But earlier this week, the House passed government funding through Dec. 11 -- clearing the speaker's top legislative priority ahead of the election.

Lawmakers will return again for a lame duck session on Nov. 9 -- scheduling five more weeks of legislative business before the end of the 119th Congress.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. Mint announced Wednesday that $1 coins featuring President Donald Trump's likeness have entered circulation and can be purchased on its website -- a historic and controversial move for a living president that has not been done in 100 years.

In addition to the president's portrait, the U.S. Mint said the coins commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, with inscriptions "1776 ~ 2026," "LIBERTY" and "IN GOD WE TRUST."

The rolls of $1 coins (25 to a roll) go for $61. A bag of 100 coins goes for $154.50, according to the Mint's website. The coins can be used as legal tender.

"These coins are also in circulation, so check your pocket change. Collect them today!" the U.S. Mint wrote in a social media post Wednesday.

The coins are not real gold, but feature a gold-colored finish made of manganese brass. They were produced at the Philadelphia Mint, according to the Mint. It's not clear how many coins were produced.

The Mint said 250,000 of the coins have a special "July 4th" markings, which were randomly included in the rolls and bags, and were struck on July Fourth at the Philadelphia Mint, according to the Mint's website.

While living presidents are generally barred from appearing on U.S. currency, the Trump administration has argued that the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020 permits the design because it authorizes the Treasury secretary to oversee the minting of special coins for the nation's Semiquincentennial. And while the same law bars any person from appearing on the tail side of a coin, the restriction doesn't apply to its face -- which is where Trump's likeness appears on the new $1 coin.

The last and only time a living president was featured on hard currency struck by the U.S. Mint was a century ago for the U.S. Sesquicentennial. The silver half-dollar coin featured then-President Calvin Coolidge silhouetted behind the bust of President George Washington. At the time, the Mint produced a million of the coins with 860,000 of them ultimately returned and melted due to low demand.

The legality of the Trump coin's production has come into question after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent failed to have the coin reviewed by the bipartisan Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, an 11-person body established by Congress to advise the secretary on designs of hard currency, according to members of the committee.

The Treasury pushed back on the criticism, saying that it offered the committee "multiple reasonable opportunities to review proposed designs" but that it declined.

"Accordingly, the Mint’s statutory obligation to seek CCAC review has been fulfilled," U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach wrote in a statement in March, adding that Bessent has "sole discretion on final design selection."

There is currently a household order limit of two items that will remain in place until 2 p.m. ET on Sept. 3, according to the U.S. Mint.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Officials in Texas' third most populous county voted on Tuesday to reduce polling locations by 92.

The move will see Tarrant County's voting sites reduced from 316 in the 2022 midterm elections to 224 for this year's elections.

Tuesday's vote took place during a meeting of the five-member Commissioner's Court, which is the governing body of the county.

It came amid public outcry from dozens of residents opposing the measure during public meetings over the past month.

"People have fought and died for the right to vote," Tarrant County resident Catherine Godby said.

She said it's "wrong to suppress" the right to vote.

"You're on the wrong side of history," she said. "You're dishonoring what it means to be an American, and more than that, you're losing your humanity."

Democratic commissioners Alisa Simmons and Rodrick Miles Jr. voted against the cuts, while the Republicans on the court -- County Judge Tim O'Hare and commissioners Matt Krause and Manny Ramirez -- voted for the proposal.

The vote on Tuesday came a year after the board approved a proposal that cut nearly half of all early voting locations in the county ahead of 2025 election, according to Dallas ABC station WFAA.

Republicans in favor of the measure argued that the number of polling locations after the cuts would still meet the mandatory minimum. They also cited efforts to cut costs, citing low voter turnout at various polling locations.

O'Hare, who vote for the measure, told ABC News in a statement on Monday that under the new proposal, there will still be 54 polling places that exceed the statutory minimum for Election Day.

"The updated plan averages 2.85 miles between early voting locations and 1.56 miles between Election Day polling locations. All of this is accomplished without the wasteful practice of placing polling sites directly across the street from one another," O'Hare said.

The county judge said "some locations changed for practical reasons," including some buildings no longer operating and some not meeting Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

"State law also requires early voting equipment to be stored in a locked room," he added. "Those are legislative requirements, and this county follows them. Every voter deserves a safe, accessible location with secure equipment, and this plan does that."

Miles, one of Democratic commissioners, told ABC News in a statement on Monday that he intends to oppose the proposal because it reduces polling locations overall.

"Our population hasn't shrunk. Our electorate hasn't shrunk. I need a clear, convincing explanation for why a growing county is providing meaningfully fewer places to vote and I haven't gotten one yet," he said.

"Our job isn't to calculate the fewest locations we can legally operate. It's to make sure every eligible resident has a fair and meaningful opportunity to vote. The legal minimum cannot become the moral standard," he added.

Tarrant County, which is in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, has more than 2.2 million residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and 1.3 million registered voters, county data shows.

The county, which has a growing Hispanic population, is about 40% white, 31% Hispanic and Latino, 19% Black and 7% Asian, the 2025 U.S. Census numbers show.

"The minimum is never my standard, and it should not be a standard of a county this size," Simmons, who voted against the proposal, said during a press conference on Sunday.

Texas state Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate running against Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, also expressed opposition to the proposal during the press conference on Sunday.

"It's nearly a third of the polling locations in Tarrant County, and that means on election day there will be longer commutes, longer lines and lower voter turnout, especially in our Black and brown communities," he said.

Krause, who voted for the proposal, pushed back on the argument that reducing voting locations would suppress the vote, telling ABC News in a statement on Monday that the new proposal "unequivocally" gives all of the county's registered voters the opportunity to exercise their Democratic right.

"There are voting locations within close proximity to most everyone in Tarrant County," he added.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- An anonymous government employee whistleblower has come forward to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, warning that a "rushed, chaotic and fundamentally flawed" effort by the U.S. Postal Service to implement President Donald Trump's mail-in ballot executive order risks a "catastrophic failure" of the election system that could "derail the midterm elections."

The whistleblower's concerns were made public in a report released by Blumenthal, who said in a release Tuesday morning that the allegations show that the system USPS is creating to track mail-in balloting is "set up to fail -- and risk the right to vote for millions of Americans who cast their ballots by mail."

The whistleblower is described in the report as someone with direct knowledge of potentially "catastrophic problems" in the development of the USPS' new electronic federal mail ballot portal.

Under the new proposed system, states would be required to report basic voter information, such as a voter's name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Postal workers would then only deliver ballots addressed to voters who appear on the state-provided list. 

The new USPS system, published formally last week, was temporarily put on hold by a federal judge as she considers whether it is likely unlawful and should be blocked during an ongoing legal battle. It's unclear what parts, if any, will be allowed to take effect in time for the November election. 

The USPS rules fall short of Trump's expectations in his executive order.

The first mail-in ballots go out to overseas military voters from North Carolina this Friday. Given the length of the legal battle ahead, it's unlikely Trump's proposed changes to mail-in voting will be implemented in time for the midterm elections.

Voter advocates and civil liberties groups worry the rules could prevent some legitimate, eligible voters from receiving ballots. They fear an added bureaucratic layer -- such as having to submit lists to a federal portal to be administered by USPS -- unduly introduces the risk of errors not to mention the potential for federal meddling.

The whistleblower report also alleges that officials may have defied a prior court-ordered pause, continuing work on the USPS system despite a judge's instructions.

Blumenthal wrote a letter to Postmaster General and CEO David Steiner on Monday demanding further answers to questions related to allegation raised by the whistleblower and to urge him to "abandon this ill-conceived, unconscionable plan and ensure that all Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote, including by mail, without interference by USPS."

ABC News reached out to USPS and the White House for comment on Blumenthal's letter, but did not immediately receive a response.

'Slapdash' assembly of new portal could lead to major issues in November

The whistleblower described a "secretive, rushed, chaotic and fundamentally flawed process" creating and implementing an "untested" federal ballot mail portal that USPS will use to screen ballots.

The rushed effort to create the portal could cause "significant operating" problems and the failure to verify ballots this November, the whistleblower said. It could also mean, the report alleges, that "potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner or at all."

The report details a "slapdash" production process for the new IT software, which the whistleblower alleges hasn't been sufficiently tested or debugged. At the time of report, the whistleblower said there was insufficient time to test the system before a Sept. 1 deadline to deliver it.

"According to the whistleblower, USPS’s effort to develop and deploy the Portal has been 'rushed,' 'risky and haphazard' because leadership has demanded a impossible timeframe. In an effort to meet impossible deadlines, USPS has eliminated standard and needed testing, thereby creating substantial risk of a 'catastrophic failure' of the system that could 'derail the midterm elections,'" Blumenthal wrote in his letter to Steiner.

Blumenthal also raised concerns about a new so-called "zero percent failure rate" which, according to the whistleblower, could see whole batches of ballots being rejected if a barcode on even one ballot fails to scan. 

"Voters intending to cast ballots by mail may not even be aware that their ballots have been rejected, or were part of a rejected batch, until it is too late to secure an alternative ballot or vote in person," Blumenthal wrote.

Whistleblower alleges that work on USPS portal potentially violated court orders

The whistleblower also alleges that -- after a one-month pause on work that began in June -- employees were told to continue working on the mail-in-ballot portal in July despite an active temporary restraining order from a federal judge ordering a pause on work related to Trump's mail-in-ballot executive order.

"The project was suddenly resumed without explanation of what authority permitted USPS to ignore the court order," according to the whistleblower report. 

The USPS is currently under a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order issued by Judge Indira Talwani prohibiting it from implementing its new rules for mail ballots ahead of the November election. The judge is hearing arguments on Thursday as to whether to extend the TRO to a preliminary injunction during litigation. 

The same judge has already accused the administration of flouting a previous order that had blocked any finalization of the rules while she was considering the matter. 

"Based on this timeline, USPS should have ceased all work on the Portal on June 25, 2026, with the earliest conceivable date to resume being August 26, 2026. The whistleblower allegations demonstrate that was not the case, with USPS directing work to continue on the Portal after the first court order to cease work and prior to the recent court decisions allowing USPS to proceed," Blumenthal wrote to Steiner. 

For most voters, nothing is likely to change how they cast ballots by mail in the midterm elections. But the longer the court hold remains in place -- and the longer the court fight takes -- the less likely it is that any of the rules will practically impact November.

Still, the battle over these rules and any additional ones Trump may seek to impose will continue well into 2028, where the effects could most significantly be felt. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The House, in a bipartisan vote on Tuesday, passed a continuing resolution that funds the government through Dec. 11 -- avoiding a shutdown ahead of the midterm elections in November.

The House acted in rare fashion with the vote -- both by taking a bipartisan vote to avert a shutdown and doing so weeks ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline. Members of the House are up for reelection in the fall.

By a count of 370 to 48, the House cleared the measure -- sending it to President Donald Trump's desk for signature. Just 19 Republicans and 29 Democrats opposed the measure, which initially passed the Senate on Aug. 8.

Following the vote, Speaker Mike Johnson celebrated its passage and thumbed his nose at those who questioned or openly doubted its prospects.

"House Republicans are in charge here, and we're continuing to do the grown-up thing and make sure we get the job done. And we're happy that we just passed that continuing resolution to fund the government through early December, and then we'll continue through the process after the election," Johnson said. "But there will be no government shutdown. You can thank Republicans for our leadership in getting that done."

Late last year, there was a 43-day government shutdown -- the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. At issue was an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, which Democrats pushed for, but Trump and Republicans said they would not negotiate until the government reopened.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court has formally granted the Trump administration's request to move forward with construction of the White House East Wing ballroom project as litigation continues, all but guaranteeing the building will be substantially completed before any final judgments and appeals are resolved.

Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's three liberal justices in dissenting, writing the ruling is "no victory for the separation of powers" and allows the "likely" infringement on Congress's power to continue.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to block the construction of the ballroom project, arguing that only Congress has the authority to approve substantial changes to the White House, and that it never delegated that authority to President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump unilaterally initiated demolition of the White House East Wing in late 2025 to make way for the ballroom.

The court's majority wrote in an unsigned opinion Monday that the Trust likely lacked standing to bring the suit to begin with and that the government has established it would be irreparably harmed by being blocked from above-ground construction as the case played out."Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief," the court wrote.

The decision effectively preserves the status quo. The Trump administration had told the court that a crew of 250 workers has been working around the clock to finish the 90,000-square-foot structure and that it is 65% complete and work will continue. 

Trump is taking a victory lap over the Supreme Court’s opinion, writing on his social media platform Monday, “I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”

Trump once again slammed the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawsuit against the construction of the ballroom, calling it “baseless.” 

“The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump claimed, though questions continue to swirl around where such funding is coming from. 

Federal law gives Congress control over federal property, including the White House grounds, but has also long allowed presidents to undertake the "care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurbishment, and improvement ... of the Executive Residence."

In the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Roberts wrote: "The White House is not just any building, and -- when it comes to historic preservation -- Hoagland [member of National Trust for Historic Preservation] is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff's injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue."

Roberts argued it would have been better to "ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House."

Earlier this month, Roberts had issued an administrative stay of a lower court order halting most above-ground construction on the White House ballroom project. The move allowed construction on the project to continue temporarily.

The lower court had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in demolishing the East Wing and beginning to erect the structure without congressional approval. A divided appeals court earlier this month affirmed that finding.

Administration officials have estimated the entire project -- which Trump has called a "military complex" essential for national security -- could cost $400 million, while other independent analysts have put the true figure at much higher. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Calling it a matter of "exceptional importance," the Trump administration has filed an urgent appeal with the Supreme Court seeking the immediate removal of 29 active-duty service members who are transgender even before their case challenging the Pentagon ban goes to trial in January. 

Several courts have found that the ban was likely rooted in animus and violates servicemembers constitutional rights to due process and equal protection – a conclusion the government strongly disputes.   

While the justices last year gave Trump the green light to move forward broadly with a ban on service members who have a history of gender dysphoria, federal judges in a separate case, U.S. v. Talbott, last June blocked the military from discharging more than two dozen individual plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the policy. 

Solicitor General John Sauer called the ruling allowing those plaintiffs to remain in their positions "gravely erroneous."

"The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance," Sauer wrote in the government's petition. "Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review. The Court should thus take this opportunity to address the constitutionality of the [Department of Defense Secretary] Hegseth policy and reverse the decision below, whose reasoning cannot be squared with this Court’s precedents or deference to the military."

The justices will consider this fall whether to hear the case at this early stage, before any final ruling on the merits by a lower court.

In the meantime, the 29 plaintiffs – who are active-duty, reservists, National Guard members and a person seeking to enlist – will remain in the force. 

"As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards," said Jennifer Levi, an attorney representing the transgender service members with the LGBTQ legal advocacy group GLAD Law. "There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump on Monday stressed his strong support for controversial data centers, a key issue ahead of midterm elections, with the president urging communities to "let Data Reign."

"The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign," Trump wrote in a social media post on Monday morning.

The president has long emphasized the importance of artificial intelligence advancement, repeatedly expressing his desire for the U.S. to beat China in the global AI race.

"If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!" Trump wrote.

Data centers provide the computing power necessary to process large amounts of data, such as the kind needed to run AI systems. They typically house thousands of computer servers and require tremendous amounts of land, water for cooling, and energy, potentially straining local power grids, while employing few workers long-term, relative to their size.

The issue of data centers has been a hot topic ahead of the midterm elections, with AI companies spending millions on congressional races and primaries for and against candidates on the issue of artificial intelligence regulation.

Asked on Monday about Trump's post and how it might land ahead of the midterms, Vice President JD Vance said the president's message was focused on the economics around data centers.

"What the president said about data centers is they're an important part of the AI economy. But when people build them, they have to build the power plants along with the data centers,” Vance said.

Vance acknowledged the backlash surrounding data centers, expressing his belief that the concern stems from higher utility and electricity bills. But he argued that this wouldn't be a problem if companies take advantage of deregulation efforts.

"I think probably 99% of the backlash to data centers has come in areas where building a data center means higher utility and higher electricity for the people on the ground," Vance said. "So I think what these companies have to do is take advantage of some of the federal deregulatory efforts that we've undertaken. If you build a data center, you should be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out. And if that is happening, I don't think the data centers are that controversial," Vance said.

Earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP's campaign committee, wrote a memo to AI companies operating in Ohio and warned that backlash to data centers could hurt incumbent Republican Sen. John Husted’s chances at reelection. 

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott also recently paused new data center projects to ensure compliance -- something that Trump had criticized as a "mistake."

"I saw Texas the other day sort of is against data centers. I think it's a mistake. And I’m not taking positions, I just think it’s a mistake, because there are other communities that want it. When a community wants it, it means a lot of money is going to come into that community," Trump had said during a Punchbowl interview earlier this month.

In the Punchbowl interview, the president expressed his belief that data centers are "tremendously important for the economics" and said they could be "bigger than oil."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The prediction market Kalshi on Monday announced its first-ever lifetime ban against disgraced former Rep. George Santos, who previously settled a regulatory investigation into his trades with a hefty fine and a temporary ban from using prediction markets. 

The platform also announced penalties against three political candidates who the site accused of wagering on their own races in violation of its insider trading rules.

Kalshi said Santos improperly manipulated the price of contracts on the platform by making public statements about his planned attendance at the State of the Union address earlier this year and then wagering on that contract. 

Kalshi "found that Santos made these statements with the intent to manipulate the price of the Yes or No contracts that he intended to purchase. Ultimately, these statements did in fact manipulate the price of said contracts," according to Kalshi's regulatory filings. 

Santos, on X, reacted to the ban by posting, "Hey @Kalshi thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform. Let's see how much longer you guys are around for." 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission previously leveled its own penalties against Santos, including a disgorgement of his winnings and a $17,500 fine. 

The other penalties announced Monday were levied against political candidates Ben Midgley, who ran as a Republican candidate for governor in Maine; Stephen Cloobeck, who briefly ran as a Republican for California governor; and Laurie Buckhout, who is running for Congress as a Republican in North Carolina against Democratic Rep. Don Davis.

Each purchased "event contracts" related to their own races, in violation of Kalshi's rules, the platform said Monday. 

As candidates, all three "qualified as a decision maker for the contract and had direct influence on the outcome of the Underlying event," the platform wrote in regulatory filings. The exact nature of their wagers was not revealed in documents released Monday.

Kalshi said all three cooperated with its investigation. 

Cloobeck, a billionaire real estate developer, "purchased approximately $10,000 worth of contracts related to his own candidacy," Kalshi wrote. "Under the terms of the settlement, Kalshi suspended Cloobeck from direct or indirect access to Kalshi for a period of three years and imposed a financial penalty of $31,770." 

Midgley and Buckshot wagered less than $1,000 on the site and faced penalties of a few thousand dollars each, the platform said. Both were also suspended from the platform for three years. 

Earlier this year, ABC News reported that Kalshi had penalized three other political candidates who had wagered on their own races. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Presidential helicopter Marine One lost communication with air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport for the second time this month, according to audio reviewed by ABC News.

The incident occurred on Thursday, just one hour after federal officials released a report saying the problem was fixed.

President Donald Trump was about to take off from the White House Ellipse when Marine One pilots gave a three-minute warning to controllers, but in air traffic control audio another helicopter can be heard relaying the information to the tower after controllers failed to respond.

Moments later, a controller can be heard saying she did not hear anything from Marine One. 

"Marine One is trying to reach you. Three minutes to lift," a nearby helicopter pilot said to the tower.

"Oh I couldn't hear any of that. Thank you," a controller responded.

A few minutes later, Marine One tried to contact the tower two more times, but the controller didn't hear the transmission and asked another chopper in the air if they can hear Marine One.

"Hey Nighthawk 8, do me a favor, I can't hear Marine One," the controller said. If you hear Marine One can you let me know?"

Once Marine One lifted off from the Ellipse, it regained communication ability with the tower and proceeded to take Trump to Joint Base Andrews, where he boarded Air Force One.

A similar incident happened on Aug. 4, when Marine One took off at the same time an American Airlines regional jet was lifting off from nearby Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).

The two aircraft came within .82 miles and 700 feet vertically, but were not on a collision course. Normally all air traffic is held until the president's helicopter is out of the area. 

FAA rules require that commercial aircraft maintain a minimum of 1.5 miles horizontal separation and 500 feet vertical separation from any helicopter passing near DCA.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration launched an investigation. FAA engineers determined that a radio transmitter did not allow line of sight to Marine One's temporary landing area on the White House Ellipse. The temporary landing zone is being used while White House construction takes place on the South Lawn. 

The FAA moved the transmitter to the top of the control tower at Reagan National Airport from a local residential area. Tests conducted following the move showed Marine One had no further communication issues, according to the NTSB report released Thursday. 

The FAA released a statement to ABC News, but did not explain how this happened again. 

"The FAA took immediate action following the Aug. 4 incident involving Marine One, including relocating an antenna to improve communications between DCA air traffic controllers and Marine One pilots and reviewing the procedures involved," the agency said. "The three-minute notification was communicated by alternate means, acknowledged by a controller and positive contact was established with Marine One before takeoff."

The NTSB continues to lead this investigation.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- For a second time, a federal judge on Friday rejected President Trump’s attempt to move his criminal hush money case to federal court, where his conviction could be vacated.

“The grounds for a second removal cited by Defendant, Donald J. Trump, are neither new nor legally sufficient. He has failed to show good cause and diligence,” Judge Alvin Hellerstein decided.

Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford. He is appealing his conviction.

A federal appeals court ordered Hellerstein to take a second look at Trump’s attempt to move the case from state to federal court after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark immunity opinion.

"I reaffirm my former decision. The president's motion is denied," Hellerstein said.

Trump has argued the Supreme Court's controversial 2024 presidential immunity decision, which established sweeping protection from prosecution for "official acts," made some of the evidence and testimony from the prosecution's case off-limits.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a highly anticipated speech Friday morning, Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh voiced concern about persistently high inflation, saying the central bank should focus on bringing down prices -- but stopped short of explicitly calling for an interest rate hike.

"We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do," Warsh said in remarks prepared for delivery at the Fed’s annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

The remarks signaled a strong commitment by the newly installed Fed chair to fight inflation.

Inflation eased slightly in July, the most recent month on record, but has spiked in recent months fueled by higher oil prices from the Middle East crisis. Overall prices have been increasing at a pace above the Fed’s 2% target for more than five years, which Warsh said is a responsibility that lies "squarely" with the central bank.

"The Fed’s predominant focus right now should be on prices," said Warsh, who is in his third month in the role after replacing Jerome Powell.

Typically the Fed hikes interest rates to tame high prices. Warsh did not directly comment on the central bank's interest rate plans, noting the practice of “forward guidance” -- where the Fed telegraphs its next moves in advance -- "should be limited" and "has overstayed its welcome."

President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on the Fed to cut interest rates.

Investors are now pricing in a roughly 60% chance the Fed increases its key borrowing rate next month, up from 35% Thursday ahead of Warsh’s speech, according to CME FedWatch.

"We believe that markets heard what they needed to hear to believe that Warsh will tighten monetary conditions to restrain inflation, and that he will encourage the FOMC to pull the trigger soon," said Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, in a research note after Warsh's speech.

Warsh said Friday that he is "impressed by the overall performance of the economy, which appears to have strengthened." He pointed to solid consumer spending and a steady job market. But Warsh noted that certain sectors of the economy like housing and agriculture "are showing strains."

He also detailed how artificial intelligence is reshaping the economy, with more than half of capital expenditure growth this year so far attributed to the buildout of AI.

"We’ve come to a hinge point in history," Warsh said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Justice Department notified a federal judge Thursday night the Kennedy Center will delay implementation of its board's resolution honoring President Donald Trump for more than a month.  

In a filing late Thursday, the DOJ said the effort to add Trump's name to the facade and plaza will "not be effectuated before October 8, 2026."

The Trump administration's filing came following a two-hour hearing Thursday during which U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper urged the center to delay its plans to give him more time to consider his decision.

The hearing Thursday featured the lead attorney for Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, who sits on the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees as an ex-officio member, repeatedly accusing the Kennedy Center board of thumbing its nose at the court by voting to honor Trump after Cooper ordered his name off the building in a decision earlier this year. 

"I don't say this lightly," said attorney Nathaniel Zelinsky.  "We view this as outright defiance."

"Are they attempting a renaming?" Zelinsky asked. "Absolutely, yes. They are doing the same thing they were told they couldn't do before."

Cooper did not signal at the hearing that he necessarily agreed.  Nor did he leap at the chance to issue an order stopping the board from immediately moving forward with its plans to honor Trump as the man who "renovated and restored" the center.  

Instead, he used the hearing to probe both sides on the legality of the board's move earlier this month to again add Trump's name to the famed cultural institution.  

Cooper seemed to grapple with whether the renaming of the plaza after Trump violates a 1983 law blocking "additional memorials" in the center's "public areas." 

"Could a plaza just outside the building be considered the 'public area' of the building?" Cooper asked Zelinsky. 

Zelinsky pointed to the Justice Department's most recent filing in the case, in which administration lawyers said the board's intent was to rename "the complex" after Trump.  

But the administration's lawyer insisted the Kennedy Center would continue to exist as a memorial to John F. Kennedy.

"There is no renaming here," said Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers.  "The board has not taken any action to rename."  

Mayers also said there was "no evidence" that the move to add Trump's name back onto the building is imminent, even as he said it was "clear that recognizing the president will help address both the financial and structural issues" he said the center faces.  

Cooper shrugged off the bluster of the Trump administration's most recent filing, which suggested the performing arts center could face demolition in the event he issued an order permanently blocking President Donald Trump's push to renovate the facility with additions intended to recognize Trump personally.

"That may be great atmospherics," Cooper told Mayers. "But I gotta say, the first four of five pages of your brief seem to be a non-sequitur.  We're here to discuss whether the board's resolution was consistent with my order and consistent with the statutes."

Cooper said he'll need to take some time to "give the issues the attention they deserve" and asked the DOJ to delay any plans to give him time to rule. 

Cooper suggested he might impose an order keeping the status quo if center management didn't go along. 

Zelinsky had asked the judge to act more urgently, pointing to the "overnight" move to add Trump's name to the center following a similar vote by the board earlier this year.

"They don't contest that the last time they did this, they ruined the marble," Zelinsky said.  "Talk about an irreparable injury! They've drilled into it and they're going to be poised to do that again."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge on Thursday night blocked the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of a new rule restricting mail-in voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a temporary order preventing the United States Postal Service from increasing its oversight of mail-in voting, following an executive order from President Donald Trump that would effectively employ the Postal Service as the primary enforcer of mail-voter eligibility.

Talwani blocked the newly finalized rule for at least 14 days. 

The same judge had previously blocked Trump's executive order but lifted that decision on Wednesday after the Supreme Court ruled Monday she had initially acted too quickly.

With the judge's latest order, it is likely the legal battle over the USPS rules will eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court.

Dozens of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the USPS directive in April, arguing it is unconstitutional since states -- not the federal government -- have primary authority for administering elections.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled Monday that the states lacked standing to challenge Trump's order at that stage since nothing had formally impacted how they will administer elections, but the high court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump's order.

The judge's order Thursday comes after state attorneys general brought a new challenge after USPS published a finalized rule governing steps states must take to print ballots to be carried and tracked by mail carriers.

In her order Thursday pausing the now finalized USPS plan, the judge wrote: "Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away," she wrote.

The new rules finalized by the USPS last week add verification requirements to all mail-in ballots, falling short of Trump's expectations but providing additional scrutiny.

Under the proposed change, states would be required to collect and report basic voter information, such as a voter's name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Currently, there is no standardized requirement or method for states to track this information, instead letting each state independently decide how its mail-in voting system operates.

State election authorities would then be required to input this information into a "federal ballot mail portal" before the ballot is accepted into the mail stream.

The USPS said it would not deliver ballots to any state not in compliance with these changes.

In a statement Thursday night, New York Attorney General Letitia James said: "This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections. The USPS does not have the authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail. My office will keep fighting to ensure this rule cannot disrupt our midterm elections."

Trump issued an executive order in March seeking to restrict mail-in voting, directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a federal citizenship list and give it to the states; the Department of Justice to target state officials who give ballots to noncitizens; and the USPS to direct states to abide by certain mail-ballot design and tracking requirements.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.