(WASHINGTON) -- Trump administration officials said on Monday that the United States has no plans to sell weapons to China after U.S. Ambassador to China David Perdue indicated during a televised interview that President Donald Trump offered a weapons deal to China's Xi Jinping during a high-profile summit last week.

"President Trump continues to say, 'Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,'" Perdue said Sunday during an appearance on Fox News. "He actually asked President Xi would he like to buy some at one point."

Perdue did not provide further details about the offer, and he did not reveal Xi's response.

A U.S. official denied there were plans to sell weapons to China.

"The U.S. government has no plans to sell weapons to China," the official said to ABC News on Monday. 

The State Department also denied a potential sale, saying in a statement to ABC News that "U.S. law prohibits arms sales to China and there is no offer or plan to sell arms to China."

Asked about Perdue's comments in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said he "didn't discuss it" with Xi, suggesting he meant Taiwan instead of China.

"I never heard of that one. I'm going to have to ask him. You mean we're going to sell? Now they'd probably like to buy it because we do make better equipment than them. So maybe it's a good idea. Yeah, but, we didn't discuss it," Trump said, later adding "I think he probably was talking about Taiwan."

A U.S. weapons sale offer to China would be extraordinary, as China is viewed as the primary strategic and economic competitor of the U.S. and is designated as a foreign adversary. The U.S. has placed extensive economic sanctions on China, including economic restrictions, investment bans and contract limits on companies, groups and schools tied to the Chinese military.

The two geopolitical rivals are also competing in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence and have opposing views over Taiwanese sovereignty.

And in recent weeks, Beijing has come under scrutiny for allegedly providing another U.S. adversary -- Iran -- with satellite imagery in their ongoing conflict with the U.S. and other regional allies.

Perdue told Fox News that Xi had "assured" Trump during their bilateral meeting last week that they were "looking into" the allegations about supporting Iran with satellite imagery.

The Trump administration notably downplayed taking action against China for allegedly helping Iran despite the United States' stated goal of targeting all countries with financial ties to Iran as part of the U.S. Treasury's offensive "Operation Economic Outcast."

"When they say that China spies on us, I say, 'You’re right, and we spy on them too,' you know? We spy on them too," Trump said earlier this month. 

When asked by reporters on Friday if the two leaders had discussed the war in Iran, Trump replied, "We did," adding without providing details: "I think we’re going to do great."

The potential offer to China comes as the Trump administration continues to press pause on a proposed $14 billion arms sale to the island of Taiwan, a de facto independent nation.

China has long claimed the sovereign territory as its own and regularly conducts large-scale military drills, live-fire exercises and daily air and naval patrols to apply pressure on the island. Taiwan relies heavily on U.S. military support to push back on China's encroachments.

Perdue said that the administration was not denying Taiwan access to weapons needed for its defense, asserting: "President Trump is as strong on Taiwan as I've ever seen anybody. He's made it very clear that we have not changed the One China policy."

"President Xi has heard that repeatedly from President Donald Trump. President Trump has already sold 50% more arms to Taiwan than any other president since 1979," Perdue added.

ABC News' Nicholas Kerr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump will announce the construction of a massive new steel plant during an Oval Office event on Monday, a White House official said.

The project, which will be built by Mesabi Metallics in Iowa, will command a $15 billion investment from the company and is the first mega-steel plant built in the United States since the 1960s, the official said. The first steel production is expected to be in 2030 and, once fully built out, will produce 10 million tons of steel annually, making it among the largest in the U.S. 

The company also recently invested $2.5 billion in a new iron ore mine in Minnesota, which the official said will allow the project to be fully integrated in the U.S. from mining to production. The mine is expected to produce 7.5 million tons of iron ore annually and will create 350 new jobs in Minnesota. Another 1,750 jobs are expected in Iowa, the official added.

"Today’s announcement underscores the President's historic efforts to revitalize the U.S. steel industry -- supporting local communities, strengthening supply chains, and protecting our national security," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement confirming the announcement.

Executives from Mesabi Metallics are expected to attend the event on Monday, as well as Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Executive Director of the White House's National Energy Dominance Council Jarrod Agen and John Jovanovic, chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the details of the project. 

The Wall Street Journal noted that Mesabi Metallics is backed by the Essar Group, an Indian multinational conglomerate, which first proposed the mine and mill project 20 years ago, and ultimately failed. The mine project filed for bankruptcy a decade ago, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz, said Sunday that the Democratic party needs to do a “better job” if they were to win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

“I think we have to have answers. We have to have, we have to pass legislation. We have to send it to the president's desk. Hopefully, if it benefits the American people, he will sign it,” Kelly told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

Many of November’s elections are shaping up to be tight races, with some recent polls indicating Democrats could come out on top. Charlie Cook, founder of the Cook Political Report, also appeared on “This Week” Sunday and predicted that Democrats would win both the House of Representatives and the Senate -- something he said earlier this week would be less a as “blue wave,” but rather a “red undertow.”

“It's hitting some places more than other places, but it isn't pro-Democrat. It's anti-Trump basically, and Republicans that have been supported by the president,” Cook said.

Kelly said that many Americans are frustrated with the Republican party and administration.

“I think there's going to be a big turnout. I think some of these races are going to be close, and it really comes down to the fact that the American people are just struggling and Republicans and this president don't have an answer,” Kelly said.

Kelly also cited the war with Iran as a big factor that could be driving voters to pull the lever for Democrats.

“War and tariffs caused by Donald Trump and enabled by the Republicans in the United States Congress are just killing the American people. I mean, they cannot afford their lives, and when you can't, when you're having a hard time feeding your kid, I mean, nothing else really matters,” Kelly said.

The war with Iran has severely limited the flow of oil through the critical Strait of Hormuz, spiking oil prices. This week at the United Nations, Iran’s president proposed a seven-day plan to reopen the strait, which President Trump rejected.

“Well, I'm rejecting their deal. They want to make a deal where we open the Strait immediately because they're losing so badly,” said Trump on Saturday.

“The president got into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline, without an exit strategy. He's stuck,” said Kelly.

“This thing has been a disaster and it's been a mistake, and it's because of the failed leadership of this president,” Kelly added.

Prior to the war with Iran, "the straits were open and we didn't have" dead and wounded service members, Kelly further said. "This thing has been a disaster, and it's been a mistake, and it's because of the failed leadership of this president.”

Raddatz also asked Kelly about artificial intelligence and Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. In a lavish state visit last week, Xi met with the president in Washington, D.C., with many hoping progress would be made on a deal to regulate the development of AI. Kelly said that he thinks the two leaders instead agreed to set up “sort of a working group.”

“That's not an agreement. It doesn't look like they had a serious discussion about this. This technology is moving very, very quickly. It could be very disruptive to hardworking Americans, could lose their jobs,” said Kelly. “There's safety concerns about this, and the White House, specifically the president, doesn't seem to think we should put any guardrails in place."

Kelly also expressed the desire to stay ahead of China in AI development -- a sentiment echoed by Trump. In a post on social media, the president claimed in part "there is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so."

"At the same time, we can't allow the Chinese to win the race to getting the best AI technology. That would be a mistake," Kelly added.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Attorney General Todd Blanche on Sunday addressed the Trump administration's decision to ban three mainstream news outlets from accessing the White House, saying that President Donald Trump had not "denied access" to the organizations and asserting that it is a "privilege ... not a right" to be at the White House.

"The president hasn't denied access. That's not the right way to describe it. This is -- what the president has said is that he is sick and tired of certain media outlets just refusing to report accurate news," Blanche said in an exclusive interview with "This Week" co-anchor Martha Raddatz. "There's still obviously litigation going on, but the important thing, Martha, is to know that ... being in the White House is a privilege. It's not a right."

In the early hours Thursday, Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary restraining order that required the White House to temporarily restore credentials of journalists working for CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Kelly said in his ruling that he believed the outlets cleared the "high bar" required to grant a TRO.

Journalists were allowed back onto the White House grounds later Thursday and primary television pool coverage resumed Friday for the final day of Chinese President Xi Jinping's official state visit. But on Saturday, there was no TV pool coverage for the president's trip to a football game in Tennessee; CNN was scheduled to be network covering the president that day, but they said their access to Air Force One was blocked.

Blanche said it wasn't unusual for a news outlet to not be allowed onto the president's plane.

"The White House routinely decides who can go on Air Force One. This wasn't a a one-time denial of CNN. There's all kinds of times when certain reporters are not flying or are flying," according to Blanche, who added, "it's not unusual, and as a matter of fact, it's common every time the president travels that he and his team decide which reporters get to travel with the president."

Blanche claimed the three news outlets that were subject to the White House ban "refuse to report anything accurately," which he said presented a "national security problem."

"When you have complete misinformation coming out of the White House that affects our relationship with our foreign partners, that affects our relationship with our foreign enemies -- and so this is just not about the fact that they're refusing to report accurate news. It's all about the information that the American people have a right to hear coming out of of our what should be respected media outlets."

Judge Kelly, however, was skeptical in his TRO ruling that national security was the true reason for the ban.

"For one thing, nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns. Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was 'banning' Plaintiffs from the White House -- instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting," Kelly wrote.

Hours after announcing the ban on social media, Trump was asked in the Oval Office if there was any "particular reason or particular story" that prompted it.

"No, no. It's -- it's really just cumulative stories over the last two years. You get sick of it," the president said.

On "This Week," Blanche said he wouldn't "get into what the judge says" because the litigation is ongoing, but added "our position has been clear from the beginning. What they say is exactly the issue when it comes to national security."

When Raddatz pressed Blanche to provide specific examples of stories with which the White House has taken issue, Blanche declined to do so.

Artificial intelligence 'vital to our national security'

On the issue of artificial intelligence, the attorney general echoed the president's position on the technology, describing it as "so important and vital to our national security interests and to the success of this country that the United States lead in this space."

Trump has said it's critical that the U.S. continues to dominate the AI space, citing competition with China specifically. 

"Whoever wins AI, WINS! We are leading now over China, and everyone else, and I’m going to keep it that way! I’m not going to stifle Growth, of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, or the Internet, itself," he posted on social media Monday. 

Some AI company leaders are calling for an industry-wide slowdown amid growing concerns about how the rapid pace of development. Multiple incidents of AI agents acting autonomously have come to light in recent months, including instances where AI agents infiltrated outside companies without the agents' parent companies' awareness as it happened.

Last week, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that OpenAI agent "infiltrated" a government public health website earlier this summer. This weekend, OpenAI confirmed that its models interacted with U.S. government websites in unexpected ways, behavior the company discovered amid an ongoing review into its AI agents' behaviors.

Blanche acknowledged that "there's going to be adjustments that have to be made" around AI as the industry continues to develop, but he argued the companies themselves already have the ability to "adjust the technology" as needed.

"In the meantime, the answer is not to just try to all of a sudden try to regulate this in a way that will make us second or third place in the world as far as being being the leaders in this space," Blanche said.

During his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York Tuesday, Trump said of AI, "We're going to watch it closely through the Department of Justice."

Asked what that meant, Blanche said, "What it means is that we have a ton of laws -- criminal laws, civil laws -- that are already in place and on the books that allow us to charge individuals, to charge companies in the right circumstances when there's crimes committed, and so the answer isn't always more laws, more laws, more laws."

"When there are crimes committed, we have a lot of tools already, and the federal Title 18 gives us a lot of a lot of ways to go after criminals and bad actors in the AI space and other spaces," Blanche continued. "So when the president talks about about the fact that the Department of Justice and the FBI and [Homeland Security Investigations], they can go and arrest bad actors in this space, that's what he means, and it's true, and that's what we're doing."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna is unveiling an ambitious nearly $1 trillion proposal on Friday calling for universal childcare as he continues crafting legislative policies that may ultimately serve as the cornerstones of a potential presidential campaign in 2028.

"The biggest thing killing us is childcare," Khanna, who represents California, told ABC News in a phone interview while he crisscrosses the country campaigning for progressive candidates and reelection ahead of the midterm elections.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Khanna said he wanted to introduce a childcare bill before the high-stakes midterm elections as a "north star" and blueprint for "what we should be passing."

The Free Child Care for America Act is a nearly $1 trillion, 10-year package aimed at building a universal childcare system -- creating three taxpayer-funded pathways to provide flexibility and options for American families.

Khanna ticked off several potential spending reductions to offset the cost of the $1 trillion package -- such as savings realized by ending the war in Iran; $400 billion in new revenue collected by instituting a 5% "billionaire tax," or cutting the Pentagon's budget by $200 billion.

"What this childcare proposal -- in my view -- is speaking to [is] the needs of working class families, and it's something we can deliver," he said.

Khanna’s plan calls for billions of dollars that funds grants for states and tribal organizations to cover the cost of licensed childcare for eligible families, aims to increase the supply of childcare, support providers' operating costs, and raise compensation across the childcare workforce.

"If you want to do this right, it's going to be an $80 to $90 billion price tag," Khanna said. "That's what it takes to make childcare free. That's what it takes to pay people well, and that's what it's going to take to make it flexible."

His pitch comes as Vice President JD Vance has championed an administration proposal to expand federal childcare subsidies -- as much as $9,000 annually -- to married couples who have a stay-at-home parent.

Khanna said he believes families should be able to choose from a menu of childcare options.

"It should be value neutral between staying at home, going to a childcare center, or having friends or family, and that is maximizing the choice," Khanna said. "Vance's proposal is trying to tip the scales a bit on the choice of people who are stay-at-home parents."

Khanna explained his middle-class upbringing in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, motivated him to tackle the issue of childcare.

"Childcare is one of those things that didn't have the same exorbitant cost, and if we can fix that issue, provide people with childcare, you’re going to give more Americans the shot to have economic security in a modern economy, and that’s the whole point of economic patriotism: that people should be able to have economic independence in today's economy," he said.

The five-term congressman, whose net-worth is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, explained how his own experience as a father of two children while working a demanding job has informed his perspective.

"I believe there's nothing more important than being there for kids at a young age, and I have an extraordinary wife who's an exceptional mom,” Khanna said. "It has given me an admiration for parents who do incredibly, incredibly hard work, and my view is that we've got to make it possible for parents who want to give their kids the best ability to do that."

Khanna says that his agenda -- which he has dubbed "America’s next new deal" -- is also informed through his conversations with families in swing states. Khanna has been holding town halls and participating in campaign events in swing states alongside progressive candidates.

"Economic patriotism is all about making the future economy work -- not just for the billionaires in my district, but work for the people I grew up with in Pennsylvania," he said. "As I traveled around the country, and I started with like, 'How do we bring good jobs?' I kept hearing, 'Well, that's fine, but how am I going to take care of our kids and do these jobs?'"

First elected to represent California’s 17th Congressional District in 2016 -- the same election President Donald Trump first won the White House -- Khanna has built a progressive voting record coupled with savvy media engagement. While Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has led the national progressive movement over the past decade, Khanna is striving to position himself as a potential successor -- though he is not breaking through any Democratic primary polls for 2028 so far.

Khanna's profile continues to grow as he engages with voters and weighs his future options -- sometimes even before Republican audiences on Fox News or in GOP-held districts. Last year, he laid out a political reform agenda focused on combating corruption -- hoping it would form the basis of the Democrats' platform in the upcoming midterm elections. He also took center stage alongside GOP Rep. Thomas Massie in the congressional effort to force the Department of Justice to release tens of thousands of records related to its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. 

Ahead of the midterms, Khanna continues to campaign on behalf of candidates across the country -- though he's not coy about his political ambitions.

"I want 2028 to be a big-ideas primary," Khanna said. "I want it to be a contest on who's going to have ideas of the future that meet the moment where many Americans feel that the economic and political system are broken and not working for them."

Khanna concedes that some stakeholders and supporters alike have expressed concern over the $1 trillion cost of his proposal, which would offer $1,000 per month to eligible stay-at-home parents with an eligible child under age 3 and a household income at or below 100% of their state's median income. But he says he is being transparent about the cost and argues that his package is worth the investment.

"Why would you think that giving entrusting the care of young people at their most impressionable, where their experience is going to shape the rest of their lives, and we have data showing that? Why would we think that that's cheap?” Khanna said. "Of course, it's expensive, and that's why there's this huge market failure because it's expensive, and yet people aren't being paid appropriately, and that's why it's a public good. And so this is really saying, OK, if you want to do this right, it's going to be a $80 to $90 billion price tag. That's what it takes to make childcare free."

House Democratic leaders have not endorsed Khanna’s childcare legislation, but agree that lowering childcare costs must be a priority if they take back the House majority.

"I want it to be front and center in the conversation of the first 100 days for the speaker," Khanna said regarding Democratic prospects to win the House majority. "Even if they don't do the whole $90 billion, I mean, obviously that's my hope that the House should pass this bill, they can take three elements of it."

As for the 2028 presidential race?

"Whether I run, which obviously I'm considering, or whether I am actively supporting other candidates, I want to be leading in putting forth bold ideas about what that Democratic Party should be," Khanna said. "I think we need to offer a new vision of ideas that are actually going to deliver for working- and middle-class families who have been left out."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- An unapologetic Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, defending Israeli military actions in the Middle East while going on the attack against his political enemies. 

"Devastating Iran’s nuclear facilities was hard. It was very hard to do. But for me, it was one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make as prime minister,” Netanyahu asserted during his speech. "Because if we hadn’t done it, we’d all be dead!” 

The atmosphere in the hall shifted sharply before the prime minister’s speech began. As he approached the podium, the room erupted in chants, cheers and boos as dozens of delegates from various countries walked out in protest. 

“Before I begin, just a quick announcement: if there are any other moral cowards who haven’t yet left this hall, please do so now,” Netanyahu said in response. 

The Israeli prime minister claimed that the leaders of many of the countries whose delegations exited had privately thanked him for hitting Iran’s nuclear sites, calling it "mind-blowing hypocrisy.” 

Netanyahu used much of his lengthy speech to criticize his political opponents for spreading what he said were lies about Israel and fomenting hatred against Jews, calling foreign governments and world leaders out by name.

The prime minister also zeroed in on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, calling him antisemitic for asserting Israel’s response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack amounts to genocide. 

“Shame on you for distorting the facts. Shame on you for inverting victim and aggressor. Shame on you for spitting in the face of truth,” he said. "Mr. Mamdani, since you were elected mayor of this city, many jews no longer feel safe in New York.” 

Mamdani responded by accusing Netanyahu of spreading "baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide of Palestinians.”

"Yet no lie can change the fact that he remains the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity,” the mayor said in a statement. 

Netanyahu is expected to spend less than a day in the U.S. and return to Israel without meeting with President Trump, a stark departure from recent precedent that comes as the relationship between the two leaders has become increasingly strained. 

But despite recent tension, the prime minister heaped praise on Trump -- extolling his leadership and declaring that Israel had “no greater partner” in its "battle against the barbarians.” 

Earlier on Thursday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the assembly through a video message recorded in his Ramallah office because the Trump administration declined to grant him and other Palestinian officials visas to travel to New York for the gathering. 

In his remarks, Abbas said Palestinians were facing a “genocidal war” and urged the international community to do more to confront Israel. 

“How long will some countries continue to remain silent about Israel, or continue supplying it with weapons that it uses against our people? he asked. 

“We will not leave our homeland. We will not accept displacement. And we will not allow anyone to decide our future on our behalf,” Abbas said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- After a week in which more Republicans have emerged to call for an end to the war in Iran, the Senate failed to adopt a House-passed war powers resolution on Thursday by a vote of 49-50.

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Rand Paul and Thom Tillis joined all but one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman, in voting in favor of the resolution. Democratic Sen. Angela Alsobrooks did not vote. Democrats would've needed full attendance and five Republicans to vote with them in order for the resolution to pass.

The vote underscores the political tightrope vulnerable Republicans are attempting to walk with a little over a month until the midterm elections. While some Republican senators have grown increasingly critical of the war and its impact on diesel and gasoline prices, they have also stopped short of supporting measures that could directly challenge President Donald Trump's policy.

For example, Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who is in a close race up against Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown, told POLITICO this week that the "war needs to come to an end as quickly as possible so that we can lower gas prices," before voting against the war powers resolution on Thursday. Other Republicans who are also in tight reelection races voted to kill the resolution including Sens. Dan Sullivan and Roger Marshall.

Democrats did however pick up another Republican during this vote: Tillis, who voted for the resolution for the first time, citing a lack of concrete information on a solution to end the war.

"On July 10th, I heard the administration refer to the conflict in Iran as a war for the first time, and I arbitrarily use that date to say 'I need to be briefed up over the next 60 days to be convinced that we're tracking in the right direction.' And the first outreach I got was last week," Tillis said ahead of Thursday's vote.

"They need to inform Congress more. They need to be clear on their strategic objectives, and they need to be more engaged. At least to the Armed Services Committee," Tillis said, adding "the reason I'm inclined to vote on it today is to say, 'it is time to engage Congress, folks, if we're going to be there for the long term.'"

Trump initially estimated the war in Iran would last four to six weeks. Instead it's nearing its eighth month and 50,000 American service members remain deployed in the region. Eighteen U.S. service members have been killed and over 800 wounded since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran.

The Senate has voted on an Iran War Powers Resolution 13 times, but has only passed it only once. The Senate first adopted a House-passed Iran War Powers resolution in late June when Sens. Collins, Murkowski, Paul and Bill Cassidy voted for it while Sens. Mitch McConnell and Dave McCormick missed the vote, clearing the way for the resolution's passage.

The administration refused to make any changes with their strategy in Iran as a result of the resolution's passage, calling the efforts "poorly timed and meaningless."

However, since that June vote, the Senate has yet to pass another war powers resolution on Iran during its three attempts since then. That's because Cassidy had previously flipped his vote back to voting against the resolution after a briefing with Trump administration officials following a contentious GOP meeting that Trump attended in June.

Cassidy, who argued he was undecided on how he would vote leading up to it, sidestepped reporters upon leaving the Capitol on Thursday, claiming he couldn’t talk because he was trying to make a flight out of town.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Eight U.S. Navy personnel attached to the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group have attempted suicide since the start of their extended deployment tied to the war in Iran, according to a letter ABC News obtained from Acting US Navy Secretary Hung Cao.

In the letter, sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Tuesday, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Cao says that there have been eight suicide attempts since the USS Lincoln's deployment began around 10 months ago.

"Since the beginning of LINCOLN's deployment, there have been a total of eight suicide attempts across the strike group -- this number includes the LINCOLN crew and Sailors from the carrier air wing, strike group and destroyer squadron staff, escorting destroyers, and all embarked aviation squadrons," Cao wrote in response to questions from Gillibrand about the health and well-being of the personnel aboard the fleet.

The letter was first reported by CNN.

A Navy official told ABC News that while they treat every attempted suicide case very seriously, they maintain the number is not out of the norm for a long deployment. 

Throughout the deployment, the Lincoln had between 2,500 and 2,800 sailors aboard, according to Cao's letter. Eight attempts among that population of sailors appear to be roughly consistent with Navy records for suicide attempts in the broader Navy ranks. 

The Navy recorded 356 suicide attempts in 2024, that last year of publicly available data. Over three years, the figure represents a nearly 50% increase in attempted suicides, according to Navy records.

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have dismissed reports of poor conditions and mental health issues aboard the USS Lincoln. Cao confirmed that a sailor went overboard in early August from the Lincoln and was quickly recovered.

In his letter, Cao confirmed a piping issue aboard the USS Lincoln and that meal options were reduced from two to one during periods of higher-tempo operations, but that both issues were resolved.

Despite the USS Lincolns' record-long deployment, Trump said in August that the vessel hasn't been deployed for "nearly long enough." Hegseth in August pushed back on reports of a sailor going overboard from the Lincoln and accounts of sailors struggling through an unusually long deployment have been "completely misrepresented."

Adm. Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command, said in an August social media post that "the Lincoln currently has among the lowest number of cases related to mental health" among the Navy's 11 active aircraft carriers. Cooper also acknowledged in the post that it "doesn’t mean that all is perfect" and that a long deployment at sea "is uniquely challenging and tough, and every single one of us, including me, reacts to stressors in different ways."

In a statement to ABC News, Gillibrand said Trump and Hegseth dismissed concerns that "turned out to be serious and deteriorating conditions for our service members." Gillibrand called the treatment of service members under the Trump administration "completely unacceptable."

The ship was slated for a normal six-month deployment to the Pacific but had been extended on an unusually long deployment due to the war with Iran, where it was redirected earlier this year.

The president initially estimated the war in Iran would last four to six weeks. Instead it's nearing its eighth month and 50,000 American service members remain deployed in the region. Eighteen U.S. service members have been killed and over 800 wounded since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran.

The Lincoln Strike group left the Middle East late last month -- replaced by the USS George Washington -- and is en route to its home port in California. The ship docked in Thailand earlier this month with a record 286 days at sea.

If you are struggling with thoughts of suicide or worried about a friend or loved one, call or text the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 for free, confidential emotional support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

ABC News' Chris Boccia contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Reporters and producers from news organizations that President Donald Trump barred from the White House were back on the grounds after a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order to restore their passes.

Earlier Thursday, the lawyer for media organizations requested an emergency hearing as early as Thursday, telling a federal judge that the government has "already repeatedly" violated his temporary restraining order after the three news organizations were denied entry into the White House earlier in the day.

"Defendants have already repeatedly violated the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set a hearing by videoconference or teleconference as soon as possible this morning," Ted Boutrous wrote. 

Judge Timothy Kelly ordered the government to respond to the plaintiffs' notice of non-compliance by 12:30 p.m. ET Thursday.

In a declaration submitted by the White House in response to Kelly's order, officials said that access had been restored as of 9:55 a.m. ET.

Around noon on Thursday, the outlets reported that they were beginning to be granted access to the White House grounds.

CNN reporter Betsy Klein, who had her hard pass taken on Saturday, and others, walked through a White House gate shortly after noon after her hard pass was given back to her. MSNOW correspondent Laura Barrón-López was also back on the campus Thursday afternoon.

Politico reported one of its reporters had also been granted access. 

Earlier Thursday, Kelly granted CNN, Politico and MS NOW a temporary restraining order requiring the White House to restore the outlets’ hard-pass press credentials.

The order requires the defendants, excluding President Donald Trump, as well as their agents and representatives, to “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the White House hard-pass press credentials held by employees of CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

Kelly granted the media organizations’ request in the ongoing case Cable News Networks, Inc. v. Trump after their credentials were revoked on Sept. 18, according to the court order.

Kelly expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s argument that the stories it cited as justification for revoking the outlets’ press credentials raised national security concerns.

Kelly described the stories identified by the administration as “routine” and said he was “skeptical” that the government’s stated interest in safeguarding national security was the actual motivation for revoking the hard passes. He also noted that Trump did not mention national security concerns when he announced the ban.

"Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns," Kelly said in the filing. "Certainly, that is not what President Trump said when he announced that he was “banning” Plaintiffs from the White House -- instead, he focused on the alleged lack of truthfulness and negativity of Plaintiffs’ reporting."

In a hearing on Wednesday, Kelly signaled that he believes the White House failed to follow the process established by earlier court cases to terminate a reporter’s credential. 

“I think it is fair to say that the process that the court laid out in those two cases – the circuit laid out in those two cases – wasn't followed here,” he said. 

Boutrous focused on that due process argument near the end of the hearing, telling the court that the White House’s “Alice in Wonderland process” for terminating the credentials is “arbitrary” and “irrational.” 

“It’s not due process when there’s been a prejudgment of the issue. Clearly, that’s happened,” Boutrous said. “They’re going to keep playing games, moving the ball. That’s not due process.” 

Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik argued that the notice the White House provided in letters sent after 10 p.m. Tuesday night, days after the ban took effect, was enough. He also suggested the outlets’ responses might convince Trump to change his mind about the ban.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins is vehemently denying a ProPublica report out earlier this week that says the FBI targeted her in a corruption probe, saying "it's clearly a political hit job."

The ProPublica report said that a Republican consultant asked defense firm Navatek and its former CEO Martin Kao for big donations to her campaign in exchange for millions in federal contracts. In 2024, the FBI sought to launch an investigation into Collins and the donor, but when President Donald Trump returned to office for his second term, the investigation died after he made cuts to the FBI, the report stated.

ABC News has not independently confirmed the reporting by ProPublica. Kao did not speak with ProPublica for its story.

"The Biden Justice Department found that there was no wrongdoing by any one of my campaign staff, my office, or me," the five-term Maine senator said on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. "This is absolutely outrageous. It's clearly a political hit job."

Annie Clark, Collins' deputy chief of staff, said that the Biden administration, FBI and Department of Justice had "thoroughly investigated the Navatek matter."

"The Collins campaign cooperated fully with the FBI throughout the investigation, producing all of the documents it requested and serving as fact witnesses in official settings," Clark said in a statement on social media, adding that these "issues were resolved in 2021, and the FBI has not contacted us about Martin Kao since then."

FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson told ProPublica that the agency had investigated the claims against Collins years ago "and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is totally false."

Williamson did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged new, separate investigation launched in 2024.

Collins -- who is running for reelection in the closely watched Maine Senate race, which could determine the balance of power in the upper chamber -- said "it's very frustrating and unfair to have it brought up this close to the election."

Collins maintained that she learned the company was doing 3D printing research to build boats and were awarded the defense contracts because the Navy found its developments to be "valuable."

"I'm telling you that this is completely false," Collins said Tuesday of the ProPublica report's allegations.

Clark on Tuesday also called the allegations in the report "categorically false."

"The seven-year-old allegations made against Senator Collins and her staff in this piece are categorically false. There have never been any allegations of wrongdoing by the Collins for Senator campaign, and the campaign was never the target of the FBI investigation," Clark wrote in a statement on social media.

Collins' campaign manager, Steve Abbott, responded to the report and called the allegations false and outrageous.

"Not only false. I would say outrageous," Abbott said.

Collins' opponent in the Maine Senate race, Democratic candidate Troy Jackson, reacted to the report, saying "the jig is up."

"This is corruption of the highest order," Jackson wrote in a statement on Tuesday.

Asked for comment, PacMar Technologies -- formerly known as Navatek -- told ABC News that it's "a victim."

"The point here is that PacMar is a victim, like others, of Martin Kao's illegal conduct and we have dedicated great time and expense in prosecuting Martin Kao and his cabal for their damage to our former company's good name and reputation," a spokesperson wrote in a statement.

Trump has not commented on the ProPublica report.

ABC News' Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- D.C. District Court Judge Tim Kelly ended a Wednesday hearing on whether President Donald Trump's move banning three news organization from the White House violates the Constitution with no ruling after hearing arguments from both sides.

"I'll consider what you've told me today and try to get you an answer as soon as I can," Kelly told the attorneys.

This is a developing story.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- When Republican Rep. Bryon Donalds announced his campaign for Florida governor on Fox News in February 2025, he said he was "excited to have the full endorsement of President Trump," and his campaign website described him as a "Trump-Endorsed Proven Conservative Fighter."

This week, with Trump's approval ratings hitting lows in the final stretch of the midterm campaign season, Donalds adjusted his website, removing several mentions of the president. 

His site now features video of Donalds campaigning and appearing on stage in front of supporters with his family -- with Trump's endorsement reduced to one of several from prominent Republicans rolling across the page.

Responding to the attention to his updated site, Donalds shared an updated image of his endorsements page, saying, "I am proud to have President Trump’s endorsement."

"While everyone is focused on our website, check out our policy proposals to make life more affordable for Floridians," he added.

The changes, similar to other GOP candidates, come as some Republicans are taking steps to distance themselves from Trump amid voters' frustrations with the Iran war and rising gas and diesel prices.

Donalds' home page also no longer features a photo of Donalds and his wife posing with Trump, or a section called "On the Issues," that says Donalds "is committed to implementing President Trump's Make America Great Again agenda so that our state and our nation's best days are still ahead."

A spokesman for Donalds said the congressman is "proud" to have Trump's endorsement. Donalds, unlike some Republicans running for re-election, appeared on stage at the GOP midterm convention in Dallas earlier this month, helping the party sell Trump and Republicans' legislative record. 

"Our campaign website reflects Byron's focus on the issues that matter most to Floridians -- affordability, insurance costs, and government transparency. He's running to be the next Governor of Florida, is proud to have President Trump's endorsement, and has real policy proposals to tackle those issues," Gates McGavick told ABC News in a statement. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Department of Justice is defending President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, pushing for a broad expansion of the president's ability to determine which reporters and outlets can access the White House.

Responding to a lawsuit challenging the bans, the Trump administration argued that the decision was not only justified based on national security concerns, but also that the landmark case that affirmed journalists' access to the White House should be overturned.

"After all, access to the White House is a privilege -- not a right," wrote DOJ senior counsel Michael Velchik.

Citing a ruling last year that allowed the Trump administration to bar The Associated Press from spaces like the Oval Office, the DOJ argued that the same logic should apply to the entire White House complex. They argue that the president should be able to "consider journalists' viewpoints" when broadly determining access to the White House.

"In short, there is no principled way of easily distinguishing between rooms that are a nonpublic forum and those that are no forum at all -- particularly where the White House is not obligated to respond to any questions by reporters in the first place,” the filing said.

The three outlets filed on Monday a First Amendment lawsuit to restore their access, which was revoked by Trump. Journalists for the outlets were turned away from the White House over the weekend.

In a joint statement issued on Monday, the three news outlets said the lawsuit aimed to "protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes."

"Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists' credentials because it objected to our reporting," the statement said. "Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism free from government interference."

Trump said in a social media post later on Monday that the barring of journalists was not "an assault on the Free Press" but instead "an assault on the FAKE NEWS," which he claimed was a national security "threat."

The DOJ in its court filing also sought to push back on the outlets' due process claims by providing the court with letters that lay out reasons their access was "preliminarily revoked" and giving the news outlets until Friday to contest the decisions.

Citing specific stories from each outlet, the letters claimed the news organizations violated "standards of professionalism and decorum" by "trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national security and other issues, and publishing sensitive or classified information."

Among the stories cited by the White House were reports on depleted munitions, negotiations to end the Iran war, security related to the East Wing renovation, and a Politico story that used "unnamed sources to paint the Republican midterm convention in Dallas as a disaster."

"Publication of sensitive security information, and misinformation about national security information, diverts White House resources and those of the national security team in particular, which must evaluate whether the leaked information is classified, the source of any leak, and the security implications of any such disclosure. The spread of misinformation, especially relating to national security, is a threat that undermines the President’s ability to safeguard the national security," the letters said.

According to the court filings, the letters from the White House Press Office were sent on Tuesday -- four days after Trump announced his decision on social media -- and gave each outlet until Friday to contest the decision. The letters were also unsigned and not on official letterhead.

The DOJ also argued that Trump’s actions were not retaliatory because the "President has not revoked access to other outlets that have equally criticized the President."

At the same time, the filing argued that some presidents historically have been able to decide which reporters can cover them based on political concerns. The Trump administration argued that George Washington picked reporters to cover his farewell address "based on political considerations," Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt rewarded sympathetic reporters, John F. Kennedy sought to "court star correspondents," and Lyndon B. Johnson "tried to use personal interviews as a means of reward and punishment."

"The White House is the official residence of the President. Significantly, Presidents have long decided which journalists should receive privileged access, which has varied substantially by administration," the filing said.

Notably, the Trump administration argued that the landmark case of Sherrill v. Knight, from 1977, "is wrong and should be overruled." The ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals established that credentials to enter or to cover the White House can only be stripped with "notice, opportunity to be heard, and a final written statement of the basis of denial."

"Defendants, however, argue this precedent is wrongly decided and should be overruled because there is no such due process or First Amendment right attaching to these credentials," the DOJ argued.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Vice President JD Vance announced Tuesday that 750,000 people allegedly fraudulently enrolled in Affordable Care Act insurance plans will be kicked off the programs.

The effort comes from the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, chaired by Vance, which he said will save American taxpayers $2.2 billion by preventing what he called "rampant" fraud.

"We had a system in this country that rewarded brokers, that made people rich for enrolling fake people in programs that are meant to ensure that our fellow citizens have health care. This was a scandal," Vance said.

The 750,000 "phantom people" were allegedly signed up for programs without their knowledge or without meeting the eligibility requirements to enroll. An additional 419,000 individuals are going through further verification.  

Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said more than a third of those enrolled in the system have never used the program, suggesting potential fraud.

An estimated 19.2 million Americans were enrolled in ACA exchange plans in 2025, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services.

"You cannot protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid if you're allowing fraudsters to get rich off those programs and to steal the benefits that ought by right go to American citizens," Vance said.

Vance urged Congressional Democrats to work with the fraud task force, saying "it's up to them to actually care more about the American people than they do the fraudsters who are getting rich off of those same Americans."

When asked by ABC News if there is a possibility that the task force is mistakenly tagging people as fraudulent even though they do qualify for the program, Vance said the task force is doing everything it can to identify the ways in which they say people are fraudulently enrolling in the program.

"And if we suspect that somebody is fraudulently enrolled or is enrolled without their own knowledge, we do a lot. As Dr. Oz said, we send them FedEx letters, we go to their house, we do everything that we can to ensure that their eligibility is actually viable," Vance said. 

In a statement, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, sharply criticized the move.

“Republicans have already created the worst health care crisis ever, but every decision by the Trump Administration is designed to keep making it worse," he said. "As if making coverage harder to access through skyrocketing premiums and more red tape wasn’t painful enough, they’re doubling down to take it away entirely."

The group Protect Our Care, a left-leaning group that advocates against cuts to the ACA, said the task force announcement was a distraction.

"At a time when millions of Americans are already losing coverage and facing skyrocketing costs, Vance and this administration are making the crisis exponentially worse," Protect Our Care President Brad Woodhouse said in a statement. "They are piling on more red tape, more confusion, and more opportunities for people to lose the coverage they rely on. Families need coverage they can afford and count on when they get sick. Vance’s task force won’t accomplish that. It’s a smokescreen for an administration whose sole mission is to make it harder to get and stay covered and shower billionaires with tax breaks instead."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump signed a security deal with the prime ministers of Greenland and Denmark on Tuesday on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. 

"This has been an amazing journey with tremendous people," Trump said of Denmark's Mette Frederikson and Greenland's Jens-Frederik Nielsen.

"This is tremendous for Europe and for the United States, for everybody, and for Greenland," Trump said. "It's going to be incredible, and the people of Greenland have been so nice. The people of Denmark have been amazing, and so I know it's going to be a long-term, fantastic relationship."

The agreement comes after months of escalating rhetoric from Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to take over the territory citing national security purposes. Trump's threats, including refusing to rule out taking the territory by military force, sowed tension between the U.S. and its European allies and sparked consternation from Greenlanders.

Greenland, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark, resisted Trump's calls to "take over" the island via acquisition or military force. Danish leaders said they were open to negotiating new frameworks for the U.S. military's presence, but that the sovereignty of the territory was a red line. 

The text of the trilateral agreement reveals some red tape that constrains what Trump administration officials have billed as the "complete ability" to do what it deems necessary in Greenland. 

While the deal appears to fall short of the "Complete and Total Control" by the U.S. that Trump once called for, it does grant the U.S. ability to expand its military footprint in Greenland.

The deal gives Greenland and Denmark the authority to review requests from the U.S. to build unmanned military installations "under accelerated governmental approval procedures." 

Frederikson praised the agreement, saying that it was "bigger and better" than the deal struck with the U.S. in 1951. 

"Seventy-five years ago, we entered into an agreement about the defense of Greenland. Today we are signing an even bigger and better agreement, a deal that can last forever," she said.

"Mr. President, you have been very clear. You don't want adversaries to come too close. I fully agree, and with this deal, they are not," she added.

Under the 1951 agreement amended by the new pact, the U.S. already enjoyed wide latitude to scale up its bases and military footprint on the island. 

Nielsen acknowledged that the U.S. national security concerns are legitimate and praised the negotiation process that led to the agreement. 

"The security landscape in the Arctic is changing, and we recognize the long term security threats that you, Mr. President, have rightly spoken about. It is for that very reason that we have insisted on engaging in a constructive dialog," he said. "Your security is our security, and our security is your security."

Nielsen called the agreement historic and a "win-win-win" for all parties. 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte posted on X, "This agreement, along with NATO's growing role in securing this vital region, enhances our collective security and supports a safer and more stable future for us all." 

In a post on his social media platform last Friday, Trump declared, "At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America."

The text of the deal affirms released Tuesday states that the U.S. can "modernize and expand its activities" at its existing Pituffik Space Base and says it can establish additional bases at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, following specific terms that the signatories had already agreed to. 

If the U.S. wants to expand its footprint beyond that, the agreement requires that it puts forward a proposal that all parties will "immediately convene" to review via a standing committee that was established by an earlier memorandum of understanding. 

If no agreement is reached within 90 days, the deal specifies that the proposal will then be elevated to the deputy minister level, and if that fails to the minister level -- secretary of state and equivalents. The text does not say what would happen if those consultations don't end in a consensus. 

The deal gives Greenland and Denmark the authority to review requests from the U.S. to build unmanned military installations "under accelerated governmental approval procedures." 

While the agreement details the U.S. military's right of free access to land, air and sea routes, it does not appear to materially advance privileges granted by the 1951 defense pact. 

The agreement also bars non-NATO from establishing military installations in Greenland unless the three parties agree to make an exception.

The agreement also bans countries and individuals from countries that are either not NATO members or partners nor members of the European Union from having control or significant influence over "Particularly Sensitive Sectors" that includes critical infrastructure and the extraction of resources. The deal puts Greenland in charge of ensuring these prohibitions are upheld under its current or future investment screening laws.  

The agreement specifies it has no end date and it plans for a contingency in which Greenland declares its independence from Denmark. An independent Greenland will agree to remain a member of NATO, athough that decision would likely not be entirely up to Greenland, the U.S. or Denmark -- joining the alliance requires the approval of all NATO members and an independent Greenland would have to go through the application process.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump said during his speech to global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Tuesday that he has a "big decision" to make: to strike a deal with Iran to end the war or to "annihilate the Islamic Republic" and "drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness."

"I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?" Trump said.

"Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?” Trump added.

The president's message comes as a core Iranian delegation traveled to New York for the gathering of world leaders.

Since the war began nearly seven months ago the president has made repeated threats to launch devastating attacks on Iran, only to pull back in hopes of a deal. He has backed off large threats on at least eight occasions.

The president has claimed that he is not on any timeline and told reporters that the upcoming midterm elections do not impact his strategy. On Tuesday, Trump said in his speech that he doesn't believe there will be an agreement before the midterm elections.

"I believe we'll make a deal right after the election, because it doesn't make sense for them not to. They're waiting to see how I do in the midterm election," Trump said.

But later, Trump claimed that he will "get it done" fast when it comes to Iran.

"In addition, the United States and Iran will definitely get it done. We will get it done, one way or the other. It's going to be done. It's got to be done fast," Trump added.

The president also pushed back on assertions that the U.S. is low on munitions despite a Pentagon report acknowledging the war with Iran created a shortage. 

"The cowards and traitors would love to say the United States is low and munitions, but that's not true. We have more munitions than we could ever possibly even think of using, and we're building them at levels that we have never done before. We are adding to our stockpiles faster than we have ever been able to do before," Trump said.

The president seemed to make his case for the war as the impacts reverberate across the globe, once again pointing to the history of terrorism and oppression by the Iranian regime.

"As president of the most extraordinary nation in history, I have no interest in leaving dangers to grow for another day," the president said.

"I do not believe in letting problems fester. They only become harder to solve. So while others have talked, I have acted. While others have spoken of peace, I have made peace. While others have ignored threats, I have confronted them," Trump added.

The president also thanked the UN for its support for a resolution to say that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. He also made the case to European allies that his decision to go to war with Iran would also protect them, saying he hoped those nations "realized that."

The president, after making the case for the war, then urged global leaders to show unity -- and promised that crushing oil prices will fall as soon as the war ends. 

"If we stand united, we will soon see a world free of the last 51-year menace of Iranian terror, and oil prices will come plummeting down even lower than they were at the start of the conflict. And they were very low in the United States. They were really low. With courage and resolve, anything is possible," Trump said.

The average gallon of regular is $4.46 a gallon -- around $1.52 more since the start of the war; diesel is at $6.51 a gallon, according to GasBuddy.

Trump asserts U.S. dominance over Western Hemisphere

Trump threatened other countries during his speech, asserting American dominance over the Western Hemisphere.

The president took aim at the United States' neighbors to the south, including Cuba, saying that his administration is "seeking a fundamental change in the situation in Cuba."

"Marco Rubio is handling a negotiation. He's deep into negotiations with Cuba. Let's see what happens. We'll not allow a haven for foreign adversaries to threaten America on our own doorstep," the president said, as the Cuban delegation rose from their seats to exit the assembly hall.

Trump touted his administration's collaboration with the regime of Venezuelan interim president Delcy Rodriguez, who rose to power after the U.S.-led ouster of Nicolas Maduro. The two are set to meet Tuesday evening.

Trump highlighted that the U.S. signed an oil deal with the Rodriguez regime in August, which he has claimed will drive down gas prices around the world.

The president also promoted the United States' unilateral strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, comparing drug cartels to "the ISIS of the Western Hemisphere."

"Upon taking office, I designated the drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and unleashed the United States Armed forces to eliminate them,” Trump said.

Trump also noted that he struck a new agreement with Greenland, which he said would give the U.S. greater control over the island.

"We will have the complete ability to do what is necessary to defend the American continent, and also Europe and other places," Trump said of the agreement.

Trump signed the security deal with the prime ministers of Greenland and Denmark later Tuesday.

Trump said he won't 'rein in' artificial intelligence development

As lawmakers and tech leaders express concerns about artificial intelligence and its rapid growth, Trump said that the U.S. will "encourage" AI development, instead of "rein it in."

"Other law enforcement bodies that will rein things in if we have to do that, but we will only encourage super-intelligence. We're going to encourage it, not rein it in. We're going to watch it closely through the Department of Justice," Trump said.

Trump, who said he would rebrand "artificial intelligence" as "super-intelligence," repeated his message that the U.S. leads China on AI development -- and that "whoever wins super-intelligence wins."

"I'm not going to stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, many say bigger than the Industrial Revolution or the internet itself," Trump said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis is calling on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Dick Dubin, D-Ill., to subpoena both Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden as part of an investigation into "the use of presidential family relationships for private financial benefit, preferential treatment or access by domestic and foreign interests" that Curtis is urging the senators to open.

Curtis' letter comes after he posted a video on X Friday saying that reports that Donald Trump Jr.'s two-day wedding afterparty in May had been funded by a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin "stink" and are "corruption." He promised further action on the topic.

President Donald Trump said last week that his son had repaid the oligarch for the afterparty costs, though no evidence of that alleged repayment has been publicly offered.

"As I understand it, he paid them back. He didn't want to have that, so I hear he paid them back. A person that he knows pretty, I guess a friend of his, gave him a wedding party. That's very common," the president said.

"The country should not have to accept one standard for the family of a Republican president and another for the family of a Democratic president. Nor should congressional oversight begin and end when control of the White House changes hands," Curtis writes in the letter.

"I therefore respectfully request that the Senate Judiciary Committee launch an investigation into the use of presidential family relationships for private financial benefit, preferential treatment, or access by domestic and foreign interests," Curtis' letter continued. "As part of that investigation, I urge the Committee to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden to testify regarding their past business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts, or other benefits they have received, and any instances in which their relationship to the President was invoked or understood to provide value."

Hunter Biden, the youngest son of former President Joe Biden, has faced years of Republican and congressional scrutiny over unproven claims that he and his father, who was then vice president, allegedly pressured a Ukrainian oligarch to pay them millions of dollars to orchestrate the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who at the time was investigating Burisma, the energy company of which the oligarch was CEO. Hunter Biden sat on Burisma's board at the time.

Sen. Durbin said Tuesday that he supports Curtis' "good faith request" for the investigation.

"Corruption must never be tolerated," Durbin said in a statement, in part. "To ignore this is to run the risk of being complicit. I will join in supporting Senator Curtis’ request of the Judiciary Committee."

An ABC News request for comment sent to Sen. Grassley did not immediately receive a response.

Curtis is not a member of the Judiciary Committee and would not be involved in any vote to subpoena Hunter Biden or Donald Trump Jr. However, his is the most direct admonishment regarding recent reports concerning Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding that has come from any Republican on Capitol Hill.

In his letter, Curtis raises direct concerns both about Hunter Biden's "substantial business with foreign entities ... while his father held or sought public office" and about "the relationship of President Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., with foreign business figures and the acceptance of significant gifts."

Curtis writes that concerns about Trump Jr.'s activities are "compounded" by his "promotion of family-backed cryptocurrency ventures, his continued pursuit of international real estate deals involving direct meetings with foreign heads of state, and his reported investments in defense contracting."

"These reports raise legitimate questions about foreign access to members of a sitting president's family and whether such relationships can create actual or perceived expectations of favorable treatment," Curtis writes. "They also may create expectations of a returned favor that would not be in the best interests of the American people or our allies, and could even create national security vulnerabilities."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- One Washington, D.C.-area waste collection company says the long-term agreements it has made with its customers means it can't raise its rates fast enough to keep up with the rising cost of diesel fuel.

Marc Shaener, director of market development for JLT Trucking Inc., told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze on Friday that rising diesel costs are costing the company $100,000 more per month for its fleet of more than 100 trucks.

"There's no relief in sight," Shaener said. "We can't sustain it any longer, period, in that it's going to detract from investment. It's going to take away from our employees. It's going to shrink business."

Diesel prices have risen nearly 60% since the war with Iran began almost seven months ago. The average price of diesel hit a record high on Monday at around $6.49 per gallon, according to GasBuddy. The national average price sat near $3.70 a year ago.

Diesel prices rose 30.7 cents over the last week, according to GasBuddy, boosted by the flareup in fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters today that the Navy is trying to push back against the Iranians "trying to terrorize international shipping."

"We're very cognizant of the fact that because the Iranians are terrorizing international shipping, energy prices are elevated," Vance said. "We're doing everything that we can to, one, try to clamp down on those prices, but give American people some relief in the interim."

President Donald Trump has previously pointed to Ukraine's attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia as driving up prices.

"Russia has unfortunately lost control of its Diesel Oil Industry due to its War with Ukraine," Trump posted on his social media platform on Monday. "A large number of their Diesel refineries have been blown up and are, at least temporarily, out of commission."

Shaener said his fleet burns about 2,000 gallons of diesel a day to collect waste and recyclables in the D.C. and Baltimore region. He said he'll now spend an extra $1.2 million a year on fuel.

"They rebounded so high and so fast that we can't even change pricing fast enough to account for that cost," Shaener said. 

He said JLT can't increase its rates to keep up because its contracts usually adjust annually or every five years so it has been forced to absorb its higher costs. 

Shaener said his business is an economic indicator.

"When things go down, trash is the first to feel it. And we're starting to feel it already," he said. "People have budgets to hit. They can't afford this, so they have to cut somewhere. They cut from the trash."

Shaener said he feels like JLT's employees and customers are political "pawns."

"We have to tell our customers. We have to tell our employees. We have to tell our investors why we can't do what we want, what we planned to do," he said. "Why is that? That's because someone somewhere is running a government that decided that they're going to impact our industrial fuel economy."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The three news outlets banned from the White House by President Donald Trump on Monday filed a First Amendment lawsuit to restore their access.

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are seeking a temporary restraining order demanding the White House restore their reporters' credentials after Trump announced the ban on Friday.

In a joint statement on Monday, the three news outlets said the lawsuit aims to "protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes."

"Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists' credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism free from government interference," the statement said.

Trump said in a social media post following the news on Monday that the barring of journalists was not "an assault on the Free Press" but instead "an assault on the FAKE NEWS," which he claimed was a national security "threat." 

Trump said in a post to social media on Friday, "Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America."

At an event in the Oval Office shortly after he posted his message, the president suggested there may be more restrictions on other outlets. Trump told reporters he supports a free press, but that "you need a fair and honest press." 

"It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stuff. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine. But I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house," Trump said.

Journalists from the three outlets were turned away from the White House over the weekend. A reporter from CNN said on air that she was told by a Secret Service agent that her badge had been deactivated. 

The three outlets are challenging the legality of the president's ban on multiple fronts, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues the ban violates the outlets' reporters' due process rights, that it unlawfully retaliates against their protected speech and that it violates the First Amendment by barring them from a nonpublic forum for unlawful reasons. 

"This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," the news outlets wrote.

The lawsuit warns of a cascading effect for other news organizations should Trump seek to expand the scope of the ban, as he said he may do in his Friday remarks in the Oval Office. 

"The ban is already severely impeding the ability of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO to cover the President and his administration," according to the lawsuit. "Every day, critically important news is breaking at the White House and in the press pool: President Trump is the commander in chief of a country at war; he is traveling to New York today to address the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow; he is meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping at the White House on Thursday; and he is steering national policy on the ever-advancing technology of artificial intelligence. And the ban inflicts an injury on all news media organizations—who now risk a similar fate if they engage in reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable." 

The five members of the White House TV pool -- ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Fox News Media and CNN -- issued a statement on the matter on Monday, saying, "The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting."

Vice President JD Vance on Monday pushed back on the notion that Trump's actions constituted a ban, saying that the White House would not provide "special access" to outlets it deems are spreading "propaganda" against the president and his agenda. 

"He's not banning media outlets. What he's doing is saying we're not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda," Vance said.

Trump's initial social media post said he was "banning" the news outlets.

Vance was pressed by pool reporters traveling to with him on how this is not an attack on the First Amendment. Vance said the outlets are still able to report on the White House -- it's just that they won't be able to maintain what he called "special access" to the building. 

"Well, they can still report on the Trump White House. They can still get the public reports. They can still, of course, talk to people in the administration and outside the administration. What the president has said is, 'we're not going to give you special access inside the White House,'" Vance said.

The civil case has been assigned to D.C. District judge Timothy Kelly, who in 2018 oversaw former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's lawsuit that similarly sought to restore his press pass.

At the time, Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled in Acosta's favor after finding that the Trump White House did not afford him proper due process in revoking his credentials. 

The full D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court have yet to establish settled precedent in the wake of Trump's earlier attempted ban on The Associated Press from being part of the press pool and attending certain White House events last year. 

While a D.C. District court judge backed the AP, a three-judge panel with the D.C. Circuit put the ruling on hold and later wrote that "restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion." 

Monday's lawsuit is expected to cite a 1977 ruling in which the full D.C. Circuit found that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny a journalist a press pass without due process. 

"As the D.C. Circuit has long held, the interest that members of the press have in their White House hard passes is 'protected by the first amendment' and 'undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment,'" the attorneys wrote, according to the court papers shared by Politico.

ABC News' Fritz Farrow and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that immigrants facing deportation to third countries must be given sufficient notice before being sent to nations where they have no ties.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down a Department of Homeland Security policy that allowed the swift deportation of immigrants to third countries.

"An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination," wrote Circuit Judge Seth Aframe.

The ruling on Friday allows migrants to contest deportations to countries other than their place of origin.

According to the lawsuit, immigrants were routinely transferred to third countries with little to no notice when the administration cited "diplomatic assurances" that the receiving nation would not mistreat them.

ABC News previously interviewed a group of Latin American men who were deported to the Central African Republic and were not informed of their destination until several hours into the flight.

"I feel kidnapped," one of the men, Aristides Fernandez Garcia, said. "They have violated all the rights that exist in life, because we are human beings."

In recent months, the administration has expanded third-country deportations after securing formal deals with 35 countries, including Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone.

Savi Arvey, director of policy for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, said the U.S. has spent nearly $50 million on these deportation agreements.

"I think the fact that the administration is sending refugees to the most dangerous countries in the world, to countries run by corrupt autocrats where they've been arbitrarily detained and sent back to persecution and torture, shows that the administration has a complete disregard for due process, for international law and for human dignity," Arvey said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.