2,200 more Marines, 3 Navy ships likely headed to Middle East: Officials
In this handout image provided by the U.S. Navy, the USS Boxer (LHD 4) departs from Naval Air Station North Island January 14, 2004 in San Diego, California. (Tiffini M. Jones/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Three Navy ships carrying 2,200 Marines left San Diego earlier this week for a previously scheduled deployment to the Indo-Pacific, but two U.S. officials tell ABC News their ultimate destination is likely the Middle East.
The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) is aboard the USS Boxer, the USS Comstock and the USS Portland — along with 2,000 sailors.
If it receives final orders to the Middle East, joining the 31st MEU, it will be an increase of close to 9,000 additional forces to the region.
The 31st MEU is still on its way to the Middle East from Asia after receiving orders from the Pentagon last Friday. Those Marines and ships are likely to arrive in the region sometime next week.
It will take two weeks for the USS Boxer Amphibious Ready Group to get to southeast Asia, then additional time to make its way to the Middle East if it gets final orders to go there.
Included in the MEU: ground forces, a logistical element and aviation units that include fighter jets, MV-22 Ospreys and attack helicopters.
Last week’s deployment of the 31st MEU to the Middle East has sparked speculation as to whether they might be used to seize Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf — crucial to Iran’s oil trade — or carry out raids on the Iranian shoreline around the Strait of Hormuz.
For now, the U.S. Navy Third Fleet says the 11th MEU is conducting routine operations in its area of operations.
“An integral part of U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. 3rd Fleet operates naval forces in the Indo-Pacific to conduct routine training that ensures the continued warfighting readiness of Navy and Marine forces operating in the area,” the U.S. Navy Third Fleet said in a statement.
An excavator works to clear rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished, Oct. 23, 2025. (Eric Lee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The federal judge presiding over a challenge to the White House ballroom project signaled deep skepticism of the Trump administration’s argument that the president has the legal authority to undertake the East Wing renovations and to fund them with private donations.
In a hearing on Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon pressed an administration lawyer on both of those issues — as he questioned whether the president has the power to tear down part of what he called “an icon that’s a national institution,” and described the intent to fund it with private gifts as a “Rube Goldberg contraption” that would evade congressional oversight.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit last month seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the project completes the federal review process standard for federal building projects and the administration seeks public comment on the proposed changes.
The National Trust, the privately funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites, was seeking a preliminary injunction.
At the end of the hour-long hearing Thursday, Judge Leon said he will likely not issue a decision this month, but “hopefully” in February. He said he expects the losing side to appeal.
In a statement provided to ABC News, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said: “President Trump is working 24/7 to Make America Great Again, including his historic beautification of the White House, at no taxpayer expense. These long-needed upgrades will benefit generations of future presidents and American visitors to the People’s House.”
The size and cost of the project have increased since first being unveiled. In November, Trump said the project would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations.
Judge Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said the Trump administration appears to be making an “end run” around congressional oversight with the president’s plan to privately raise $400 million for the ballroom project, and he admonished the Justice Department’s lawyer to “be serious” in justifying a legal rationale for it.
While the case presents a series of complicated and overlapping legal issues, the judge spent much of the hearing focused on just two federal statutes — one, which says that no “building or structure” can be built on any federal public grounds in the District of Columbia “without express authority of Congress,” and another that calls for yearly appropriations for the “maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing [and] improvement” of the White House.
Leon noted that Republicans control both houses of Congress, and that the president could have gone to lawmakers to seek approval for the demolition and rebuild. He also suggested the $2.5 million Congress recently appropriated for White House maintenance was for “very small-size projects,” not a ballroom.
Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth responded that Trump didn’t want $400 million in taxpayer money to be used for the project, when he could solicit gifts to the National Park Service to fund it instead. Roth also noted that Congress was never asked in Gerald Ford’s era to approve the building of a swimming pool, or a tennis pavilion during Trump’s first term.
“[Your argument for using NPS’s gift authority] on an icon that’s a national treasure is, what? The ’77 Gerald Ford swimming pool?” Leon asked. “You compare that to ripping down the East Wing? C’mon! Be serious.”
Leon said he saw “no basis” in the legislative history of the park service’s gift authority that would allow Trump to use it to raise $400 million to build a new White House ballroom. “None,” Leon said. “Zero.”
Arguing for the National Trust, attorney Tad Heuer described the president as a “temporary tenant of the White House, not the landlord.” Leon suggested “steward” might be a more fitting term.
“He is not the owner,” Heuer said.
As Roth took the podium to begin his argument on behalf of the administration, he attempted to convince the judge that the National Trust has no standing to sue. Leon abruptly cut him off.
“I’m very comfortable with standing in this case,” Leon said. “Sorry to disappoint you. You’ll get your chance at the Court of Appeals.”
Roth warned the judge that an order halting construction at this stage could expose the existing White House structure to damage and potentially lead to security concerns, since it’s widely believed that a replacement for a previously-existing underground bunker is part of the project. The National Trust has said it would not object to continued construction on the security portion of the work.
“It can’t be divided out that way,” Roth said of the security-related construction, “unless we want the court to be the project manager on site.”
Leon declined to issue an order from the bench. He said the coming winter storm made it unlikely he would issue a ruling on the National Trust’s motion for a preliminary injunction before the end of this month.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddard contributed to this report.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story misidentified an attorney for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The story has been corrected and updated.
: Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaks to media gathered on the first day of school at Deerwood Elementary on September 2, 2025 in Eagan, Minnesota. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, announced Monday that he would drop his bid for reelection as governor of Minnesota, saying that he would not be able to give a campaign all of his attention as he works to defend Minnesota against allegations of fraud and right-wing scrutiny.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio listens as U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the media during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club on January 03, 2026, in Palm Beach, Florida. President Trump confirmed that the U.S. military carried out a large-scale strike in Caracas overnight, resulting in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday laid out what he called a threefold process for Venezuela’s future, with the White House saying it has “maximum leverage” over the South American nation in the interim.
President Donald Trump said earlier this week the U.S. was “in charge.” But Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez pushed back on Tuesday that the Venezuelan government is in control and “no one else.”
ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott pressed White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday, “Which one is it?”
“We obviously have maximum leverage over the interim authorities in Venezuela right now,” Leavitt said. “And the president has made it very clear that this is a country within the United States — the Western Hemisphere, close by the United States, that is no longer going to be sending illegal drugs to the United States of America. It’s no longer going to be sending and trafficking illegal people and criminal cartels to kill American citizens, as they have in the past. And the president is fully deploying his peace-through-strength foreign policy agenda.”
“So, we’re continuing to be in close coordination with the interim authorities. And their decisions are going to continue to be dictated by the United States of America,” Leavitt added.
Leavitt also touted what she called a “historic energy deal” between the U.S. and Venezuela after Trump announced on Tuesday night that Venezuela will turn over 30 to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to the U.S.
Sources told ABC News that those barrels represent the first tranche to be handed over to U.S. control. The Trump administration intends to oversee the sale of Venezuela’s oil indefinitely and some sanctions against Venezuela will be lifted, two sources familiar with the plan told ABC News.
Rubio, speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill after a classified briefing with senators on Venezuela, echoed what he called “tremendous leverage and control” the U.S. now exerts over Caracas.
“We are in the midst right now, and in fact about to execute on a deal, to take all the oil — they have oil that is stuck in Venezuela, they can’t move it because of our quarantine, because it’s sanctioned,” he said.
Rubio pointed to a tanker that was captured in the Caribbean Wednesday by U.S. forces and said Venezuela’s interim leaders are cooperating because they want to make money off of it.
“They want that oil that was seized to be part of this deal. They understand that the only way they can move oil and generate revenue and not have economic collapse is if they cooperate and work with the United States. And that’s what we see are going to happen,” Rubio said.
Rubio also described a threefold process going forward with regards to the U.S. role in Venezuela.
The first phase, he said, was stabilization of the country.
The second involves “recovery” by ensuring that American, western and other oil companies have access to the Venezuelan oil market in a way that’s fair, Rubio said. He added that this phase would include offering amnesty to opposition forces in Venezuela, allowing for people to be released from prisons and brought back into their home country to “rebuild civil society.”
The third phase is the “transition” of the Venezuelan government, Rubio said. He didn’t offer any details as to what that would include, but said he described to senators the administration’s thinking in “great detail.”
Neither Rubio nor the White House provided a specific timeline on what’s next.
“In the end, it will be up to the Venezuelan people to transform their country,” Rubio said.
“I understand that in this cycle, in the society we now live in, everyone wants instant outcomes. They want it to happen overnight. It’s not going to work that way. But work — we’re already seeing progress with this new deal that’s been announced and more deals to follow. You are already seeing how the leverage the United States have over those interim authorities is going to begin to lead to positive outcomes.”
Pressed on when elections may be held in Venezuela, Leavitt maintained Trump’s assertion that it’s “too early” to set a date.
“So, I will reiterate what the president has said a few times now to all of you, which is that it’s too premature and too early to dictate a timetable for elections in Venezuela right now,” Leavitt said.
