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.
The Pentagon, heaquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense, is seen from the air on February 8, 2025, in Washington, DC. (J. David Ake/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon on Friday released declassified UFO files from various federal agencies, some dating as far back as the late 1940s.
The documents, which the Pentagon said includes “never-before-seen” files on unidentified flying objects — called unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) by the U.S. government — were being posted on a new government website.
“The American people can now access the federal government’s declassified UAP files instantly. The latest UAP videos, photos, and original source documents from across the entire United States government are all in one place — no clearance required,” the Pentagon said in a statement.
The department said it will release more files “on a rolling basis.”
Many of the reported sightings of unidentified flying objects were clustered near active military operations, according to the files reviewed by ABC News.
A large share of the alleged encounters date back to the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Cold War-era hotspots like Germany and the Soviet Union, according to the documents. More recent reports are concentrated in the Middle East —including around the Strait of Hormuz, Iraq and Syria — where the U.S. has maintained a substantial military presence and some of its most sophisticated monitoring capabilities.
The concentration of sightings around military activity is mostly likely a reflection of where the Pentagon is deploying its most advanced equipment and conducting frequent missions. The lion’s share of reported sightings come from military pilots, according to the files.
In all of the reported incidents, the aerial phenomena posed no apparent threat, with most encounters ending after the mysterious craft abruptly flew away. There was one brief reported encounter in Iraq in 2024 which a mysterious craft zipped across a U.S. aircraft’s surveillance systems at a high rate of speed while that crew was attacking an unrelated target.
In a statement, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth touted the release as “unprecedented transparency.” Some of the files are heavily redacted, including several documents with entire pages blacked out.
The release is in keeping with President Donald Trump’s announcement earlier this year that he is directing agencies to make public files related to unidentified flying objects, unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs) and “extraterrestrial life.”
There are some redactions in the files, but this is the first time ever that complete case files have been released. In recent years, the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) has been reviewing these historic documents and has released public summaries and reviews to the public.
So far, none of their reviews have found anything that has led them to conclude that UFOs or UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin.
Trump touted the Pentagon’s release of the first batch of UFO files on Friday, taking credit for offering transparency to the American people.
“In an effort for Complete and Maximum Transparency, it was my Honor to direct my Administration to identify and provide Government files related to Alien and Extraterrestrial Life, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, and Unidentified Flying Objects,” Trump wrote on his social media platform.
Trump added that this document release will allow the American people to “decide for themselves” what is happening with the reported sightings.
For weeks, the president has floated the release of government files on UFOs and UAPs.
“Well, I think we’re going to be releasing as much as we can in the near future. For some reason, and I guess it’s just a reason, it’s been in the minds of people for a long time,” Trump said last month while welcoming the Artemis II astronauts to the Oval Office.
-ABC News’ Emily Chang contributed to this report.
Attorney General Pam Bondi arrives ahead of a closed briefing before the House Oversight Committee at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on March 18, 2026. (Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Committee Democrats said Wednesday that Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to commit to complying with a subpoena that compels her to testify at a closed-door deposition over the Jeffrey Epstein files on April 14.
Frustrations boiled over Wednesday evening as Democrats stormed out in protest of a closed-door briefing on the files — characterizing it as a “fake hearing.” Republicans chided Democrats for a “premeditated” stunt.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, told reporters, “She refused on multiple occasions to commit to following the subpoena that Chairman [James] Comer actually just put out. I asked her repeatedly that question. Other members asked her that question, and she would not commit to it. It is outrageous. It’s infuriating, and it’s continuous — this White House cover up of the Epstein files.”
Republicans, however, contended that Bondi actually stated that she would “follow the law” regarding her subpoena.
“She said she’s going to stick to the law, whatever the law is, that’s what it is. So, I’m not the attorney but that was a legal answer, and that’s what she’s required to do as the attorney general,” Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., said. “It was all staged, you could tell it, because it just built up to it.”
Asked after the briefing if she would comply with the subpoena, Bondi replied, “I made it crystal clear. I will follow the law.”
Congressional subpoenas carry the weight of law behind them — defying one could result in a charge of contempt of Congress. But Democrats would need a handful of Republicans to vote with them to hold Bondi in contempt and the Department of Justice typically does not prosecute its own attorney general.
The attorney general admonished Democrats, who she said did not ask any substantive questions.
“We were there to answer questions. It’s the evening. We came at their convenience. We gave them as, really, as much time as they wanted,” Bondi said. “We sat there saying, ‘anything you want to ask us, ask us, anything you want to ask us.'”
After the briefing, Comer told reporters that he does not believe Bondi should sit for a deposition — even though the committee approved the subpoena.
“I personally don’t see any reason for her to do a deposition. She’s the sitting attorney general. She’s turning over documents. I think the Democrats want to do this to embarrass her,” he said.
Comer stressed that he did not vote for the subpoena to bring her in for a deposition.
“I want to bring in the bad guys for the deposition,” Comer emphasized. “I want to bring in the men who have abused women. I want to bring in anyone who is involved in the prosecution and or lack of prosecution, of Epstein Maxwell and and some of these other guys. So that’s where I think our time and energy should be spent.”
Comer and Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., told reporters that they had a heated exchange, with the chairman acknowledging he scolded Lee to stop “bitching.”
“She was just complaining about the format,” Comer said. “The attorney general and [Deputy Attorney General Todd] Blanche and all the top brass at the DOJ in here to answer questions, and yet they don’t ask a single question.”
A mail-in ballot issued by Hudson County, New Jersey, for the 2024 U.S. general election is seen on September 22, 2024, in Hoboken, New Jersey. (Gary Hershorn/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — In a case with potentially major ramifications for the 2026 midterm elections and all federal elections going forward, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday is considering a Republican Party bid to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day even if they were postmarked on or before.
Thirty states plus D.C. and several U.S. territories have laws allowing tabulation of some late-arriving ballots provided that they were timely cast and received within a specified post-election timeframe, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The case before the justices centers on Mississippi’s acceptance of absentee ballots up to five days after Election Day so long as they were received by the Postal Service on or before.
The Republican National Committee, which brought the lawsuit, alleges the policy violates federal law establishing the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for election of members of the House, Senate, and presidential electors, in specified years.
Republicans argue that the term “election” means both “ballot submission and receipt” and that Congress intended that it be completed on a single day.
“Allowing states to count large numbers of mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day undermines trust and confidence in our elections,” said RNC chair Joe Gruters in a statement on the case. “Elections must end on Election Day.”
Mississippi and several voter advocacy groups defending the state law insist “election” has historically meant when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots — not necessarily when they are received and counted.
“The weight of the law and the weight of the precedent is on our side,” said Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic election law attorney representing some of the parties defending the Mississippi law.
A Supreme Court decision in favor of the RNC could upend voting policies and procedures in dozens of states five months before voters head to the polls for the midterm elections.
Voting rights advocates also warn that an abrupt change in policy could lead to widespread rejection of ballots that were properly cast by well-intended voters but experienced unintended delivery delays by the Postal Service or other circumstances.
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election arrived after Election Day but were still legally counted that year across 22 states and territories with a post-election grace period, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Extended ballot receipt deadlines have also been aimed at helping active duty military service members and other Americans living overseas who cast their ballots from afar.
Elias said he believes the RNC suit — against a Republican-led state with minimal absentee voting — was part of a broader effort on the part of President Donald Trump and his allies to make it more difficult to vote by mail under the belief the practice favors Democrats.
“I don’t suspect that spending millions of dollars to affect the handful of ballots in the state of Mississippi that only allows excuse absentee voting anyway to be counted after Election Day is what the RNC is really after,” said Elias. “This is just a partisan effort to undermine mail-in voting.”
In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order that attempted to cut federal election funding to states that have mail ballot receipt grace periods, but it has largely been blocked by federal courts for now.
The president later said on social media that he is leading a “movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,” claiming, without providing evidence, that they lead to voter fraud.
Trump has also been pushing Republicans in Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would — in part — outlaw voting by mail for anyone without a legitimate excuse, such as military service, illness, or disability, making it impossible to vote in person.
Data on which party would potentially benefit from changes to mail ballot rules is not clear.
Most Americans, 58%, support allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail, according to a Pew Research Center survey late last year. But there is sharp division among parties, with 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters favoring mail-voting with 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters opposed.
The Trump administration, which is not a party to the case, told the court in an amicus brief that it strongly supports a decision striking down Mississippi’s law and others like it.
“Ensuring all ballot boxes close on the same day eliminates incentives and opportunities for fraudulent abuse,” wrote Solicitor General John Sauer. “Leaving them open conflicts not only with the ordinary meaning of ‘election day,’ but also with the very integrity of the election.”
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, dismissed that claim in a filing with the court, arguing that neither ballot receipt nor ballot counting is part of the “election” and that both have historically extended beyond Election Day.
“Counting votes is not part of the election,” Fitch told the court. “That is why counting votes lawfully can and does occur after Election Day. So, too, with ballot receipt: it is vital — but it is not part of the election itself. So, states may do what the Mississippi legislature has done: make a ‘policy choice’ to require only that absentee ballots be mailed by election day.”
A decision is expected in the case by the end of June.
