(NEW YORK) — A dangerous and unprecedented heat wave is hitting the West, with temperatures reaching 25-to-40 degrees above normal across the region.
A dozen cities recorded all-time record March temperatures on Wednesday, including 105 degrees in Palm Springs, California; 102 degrees in Phoenix, Arizona; and 94 degrees in Las Vegas.
Heat alerts are in place for 40 million Americans in the West through the weekend.
With temperatures expected to reach between 96 and 109 degrees for a widespread area over multiple days — and during a time of high tourism to the Desert Southwest — the heat may turn deadly.
The heat will spread east through the week. By Friday, the record highs may reach Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma, and by Sunday, daily record highs could stretch from Los Angeles to Memphis, Tennessee.
The heat and dry weather could also increase the risk of wildfires. Red flag warnings are in place for parts of Wyoming, South Dakota and Nebraska, where wind gusts could reach 30 to 45 mph.
Extreme heat is considered the deadliest weather-related hazard in the U.S., according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. About 2,000 Americans die each year on average from extreme heat, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Click here for what to know about staying safe in the heat.
(WASHINGTON) — Across three hours of oral arguments on Friday, a panel of judges appeared skeptical of a legal challenge to the 10% global tariff imposed by President Donald Trump after the Supreme Court struck down his first round of tariffs earlier this year.
The lengthy hearing centered on whether a 1974 law gives President Trump the power to impose the tariffs for 150 days without approval from Congress, based on the United States’ trade deficit.
The suit was brought by 24 states as well as the toy company behind Care Bears and Lincoln Logs, and a spice importer.
Brian Marshall, arguing for the plaintiffs, told the panel of three judges on the Court of International Trade that the Trump administration is misusing the law that allowed tariffs to account for a “balance of payments deficit” — which he said experts unanimously believe is distinct from a “trade deficit.”
Judge Timothy C. Stanceu repeatedly pushed back on that claim, remarking that a “balance of payments deficit” could be created by a trade imbalance.
“In other words, a fundamental international payments problem cannot be something where the United States has to pay out a lot of money. It can also be something where there is an imbalance created by large trade surpluses in which case they wanted to let more imports in,” Judge Stanceu said.
The judges also appeared skeptical that the states suing the Trump administration had the legal standing to bring the case, though they appeared more receptive to the two small businesses that also challenged the tariffs: Basic Fun, a toy company, and Burlap and Barrel, which sells single-origin kitchen spices.
“I think there’s a distinction, for example, between some of the private party plaintiffs where they said, ‘We know we have X number of containers that are coming in within a certain period of time.’ I’m not sure that I see the same degree of clarity with regard to the state plaintiffs other than we buy stuff,” said Chief Judge Mark A. Barnett.
However, the judges also appeared to push back on some of the arguments from the Trump administration, including the claim that earlier litigation related to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which the Supreme Court concluded does not give the president the right to impose tariffs — suggested that the 1974 law now in question gives Trump that power.
“This case has nothing like that. This case has a statute that expressly allows the imposition of tariffs or quotas. So we’re in a whole different universe now,” said Stanceu. “This one turns on balance of payments deficits, a term that was not involved in the IEEPA case.”
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate urged the court to affirm that the 1970s law gives Trump temporary tariff power, arguing Congress was clear in giving presidents broad latitude to address the deficits in question.
“The fundamental problem that exists today also existed in 1971, and that was the problem that Congress was trying to give presidents beyond President Nixon, the discretion to address by identifying balance of payments problems,” Shumate said.
The court did not signal when or how they might rule, though a decision is expected sometime in the coming months. Regardless of the ruling, tariffs are set to expire in July when the 150-day window expires.
According to the Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy research center, Trump’s tariffs — including the broad Section 122 tariffs, as well as metal and pharmaceutical tariffs imposed under different authorities — are estimated to cost every household between $760 and $940 if the Section 122 tariffs expire within 150 days. If Congress were to extend the tariffs, the price impact could be between $1,200 and $1,500 for each household.
U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he prepares to board Air Force One at Beijing Capital International Airport on May 15, 2026 in Beijing, China. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Department of Justice is finalizing a deal to launch a so-called “Truth and Justice Commission” and establish a compensation fund of $1,776,000,000 to pay claims made by alleged victims of government “weaponization” in exchange for President Donald Trump dropping his ongoing lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, sources told ABC News.
Sources told ABC News that the proposed deal — which is likely to face legal hurdles and has already been criticized by Democrats as a “slush fund” for Trump’s allies — arose after months of deliberations between the White House and DOJ officials who originally attempted to craft a legal justification for the settlement to compensate Trump directly.
Internally, DOJ lawers believed they could ignore the conflict of interest outright, privately arguing that Trump has both the right to sue as a private citizen and the power to command the executive branch as president, according to sources familiar with their discussions.
Advocating a centuries-old legal principle known as the “rule of necessity,” DOJ lawyers have argued that no alternative existed other than letting the lawsuit proceed with Trump acting as the plaintiff while being directly in charge of the defendants — the IRS and Treasury — according to sources.
Sources said that plan was ultimately scuttled in favor of the $1.776 billion compensation fund — with the figure being a nod to the nation’s founding — as the judge overseeing Trump’s IRS lawsuit began to raise issues with Trump suing the very government he leads. In an order last month, U.S. District Judge Katheen Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers in the case and the Department of Justice to submit court filings by next week to justify whether both sides of the case were sufficiently adverse for the matter to proceed.
Terms of the proposed compensation arrangement could change before the deal is finalized, sources said.
Judge Williams also appointed a group of prominent attorneys — including a former solicitor general as well as a federal judge — to weigh in on the case.
In a court filing this week, the attorneys identified serious issues with the lawsuit, arguing that Trump has “extraordinary” control over the defendants in the case and that the “circumstances raise the specter that Defendants and their attorneys may instead be operating at the President’s direction.”
“Additionally, since taking office, President Trump has significantly expanded the President’s oversight and control over the Attorney General and DOJ, including in ways that blur the line between fidelity to the President’s policy priorities and fidelity to the President himself,” the filing said.
Trump sued the IRS after a government contractor pleaded guilty in 2023 to stealing the tax information of Trump and other wealthy Americans and leaking it to media outlets in 2019 and 2020.
With Judge Williams scrutinizing the case, sources said that DOJ officials formulated the proposal to create a compensation fund on the condition that Trump drops the lawsuit as well as two civil claims for $230 million related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Trump himself would not be eligible for payment from the fund for those three dropped claims, though entities associated with the president are not barred from filing claims, the sources said.
Sources said the “President Donald J. Trump Truth and Justice Commission” would include five commissioners — four of whom are appointed by the attorney general — that Trump would have the right to remove without cause. The commission would also be under no obligation to disclose the process for awarding the nearly $2 billion.
It is unclear how Judge Williams might respond to the proposed settlement — which has yet been disclosed to the court — though DOJ lawyers believe the settlement would not require any approval from the court.
Democratic lawmakers have already raised concerns about the reported settlement and called on Congress to pass legislation to restrict the use of taxpayer dollars for the proposed compensation fund.
“It’s outright corruption. What we’re seeing here is outright corruption,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Friday. “We’re looking at a billion dollars for a ballroom; $1.7 billion for a slush fund for the president’s friends.”
Across the aisle, Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick suggested the matter could end up before the Supreme Court.
“I don’t even know how that’s allowable to happen,” Fitzpatrick told ABC News regarding the compensation fund. “It sounds like a question our colleagues across the street are going to have to resolve pretty quickly.”
A FAA flag is displayed at the Orville Wright Federal Building which houses the Federal Aviation Administration headquarters on June, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A Federal Aviation Administration employee was arrested Monday after he allegedly threatened to harm the president and used a work computer to research his plans, prosecutors said.
Dean DelleChiaie, 35, of Nashua, New Hampshire, was slated to appear in federal court Tuesday on charges of communicating an interstate threat.
Prosecutors allege DelleChiaie used his government computer to search the internet for how to get a gun into a federal facility.
The suspect allegedly also made other incriminating searches on the device, including previous assassination attempts against Trump, the percentage of the population that wants the president dead and the phrase, “I am going to kill Donald John Trump,” according to the criminal complaint.
The Secret Service met with DelleChiaie in February, and he allegedly admitted to conducting those searches on his work computer, according to the complaint.
He also told the Secret Service he owned three firearms, including a handgun he kept inside a safe at home, prosecutors allege.
On April 21, DelleChiaie allegedly used his personal email to transmit a threat across state lines to the White House’s email address, prosecutors said.
The email had for a subject, “Contact the President,” and said, “I, Dean DelleChiaie, am going neutralize/kill you — Donald John Trump — because you decided to kill kids — and say that it was War — when in reality — it is terrorism. God knows your actions and where you belong,” according to the complaint.
Attorney information for the suspect was not immediately available.
DelleChiaie faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, if convicted.
