Federal judge orders halt to White House ballroom construction

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Rand Paul had strong words on Thursday for the heads of the federal agencies spearheading the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in Minneapolis and across the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection commissioner Rodney Scott, and Citizenship and Immigration Services director Joseph Edlow were testifying in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

“Witness the thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota, and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths,” Paul, the committee’s chairman, said. “It’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost. To restore trust in ICE and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement, and pledge to reform. I hope the leadership of ICE and Border Patrol here today will participate in a meaningful way.”

Paul and ranking member Sen. Gary Peters went frame by frame on videos of the shooting of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old Minneapolis nurse killed in an encounter with federal agents last month. Federal officials initially said that Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “attacked” officers carrying out immigration duties.

State and local officials said Pretti was lawfully carrying a gun, with a concealed carry permit, and video reviewed and verified by ABC News does not appear to show that Pretti drew his gun on the agents and instead was holding up a cell phone, not a gun, to record agents during the incident.

Another Minneapolis resident – Renee Good — was also shot and killed by federal agents in early January. Federal officials say that the agents acted in self defense after Good allegedly tried to ram them with her car, which local city officials and her family have disputed.

Paul said that it isn’t so much about the specifics of the investigation, but rather the training that CBP and ICE agents receive.

“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head and face in the snow was de-escalation,” Paul said of video showing agents scuffling with Pretti and a woman moments before the shooting. “But your officer, you need to know they…had a verbal encounter with them. She did not place her hands on the officers. She wasn’t trying to get their weapon. It’s not great. I mean … I don’t like to see these encounters either, but is it appropriate for the officers to respond to a verbal, barrage of words or whatever? Is it proper, to physically throw a woman down or throw anyone down if the only action is verbal?”

Both Scott and Lyons agreed that it wasn’t de-escalation if the only action against the agents had been verbal.

“I understand you not wanting to make conclusions yet, but nobody believes you’re gonna because you made conclusions immediately,” Paul told the law enforcement leaders. “Not you. But people within the government made conclusions immediately that [Pretti] was a terrorist and an assassin … people aren’t believing there’s going to be an honest investigation.”

In the hours after the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti committed an “act of domestic terrorism” and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called him a “would-be assassin” and a “terrorist.”

Paul added at the hearing, “I think it’s terrible police work, but there has to ultimately be repercussions.”

Scott said that he would not jump to conclusions and asked the nation to do the same. He said he was committed to releasing the officers’ body-worn-cameras once the investigation is complete.

“There’s body-cam video, that’s all being looked at,” Scott said. “And until all that evidence is evaluated, I can’t jump to a conclusion on either direction. I would ask America to do the same thing, but I am committed to transparency, to making sure all the information we have is made public when it’s appropriate.”

Paul said that he saw “nothing, not even a hint of something that was aggressive on [Pretti’s] part.”

“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years. There needs to be a conclusion,” Paul said. “We need to have answers here and there needs to be an announcement. These are the new policies. This is how we’re going to interact with the public, because the public needs to know to, you know, if I go to a protest and I shout something at people, could I be killed?”

Scott also did not say whether the gun was accidentally discharged by officers in the Pretti case, citing an ongoing investigation.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Trump administration’s deportations to third countries last year are estimated to have cost taxpayers “upward of $40 million,” with some third-country migrants costing more than $1 million each, according to a Democratic congressional report released Friday.

The 30-page report is the result of a ten-month review by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who examined third-country deportations undertaken by the administration.

In particular, the report found that over $32 million was sent directly to Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau — with some funds sent before any third-country national arrived. 

“The total costs of the Trump Administration’s third country deportations through January 2026 are unknown but are likely upward of $40 million,” the report said.

Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, did not comment directly on the figures used in the report.

“Contrary to what they might have hoped, this report only underlines much of the unprecedented work that the Trump administration has done to enforce our immigration laws. Astonishingly, some in Congress still want to go back to a time just 14 months ago when cartels had free rein to poison Americans and our border was open,” he said in a statement.

The report analyzed the sums in comparison to the number of third country nationals actually received, and concluded that the administration “paid at least one country more than $1 million per third country national received.”

For example, the report found that the administration paid the Rwandan government $7.5 million “in exchange for agreeing to accept third-country nationals.” As of Jan. 2026, Rwanda received seven third-country nationals, with each migrant costing approximately $1.1 million, the report said. 

El Salvador was found to have received the most migrants, with approximately 250 third country nationals costing $20,755 per migrant. The majority of those people deported to El Salvador were Venezuelan nationals who were then sent onward to Venezuela several months later, according to administration officials.

The findings also show that Palau had not received any third-country nationals as of January, yet they have already received $7.5 million from the U.S. 

According to a U.S. official quoted in the report, deportation deals with some countries were intended to communicate a “threat” to migrants. 

“With countries like Palau or Eswatini, the point is that the Administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” the U.S. official allegedly said.

“The point is to scare people,” he allegedly added. 

The Democrats’ report also homes in on the high sums of money dedicated to transporting migrants from the U.S. to third countries, with the administration “frequently using military aircraft that can cost more than $32,000 per hour.”

At times, the administration paid “twice” for migrants’ travel — “once to remove them to a third country and then again to fly them to their home country,” the report said.

This occurred due to a lack of sufficient notice provided to migrants’ home countries, the report said, arguing that this is “needlessly wasting taxpayer funds.”

Despite these significant costs, the report found that a “relatively small number of migrants” were ultimately removed to third countries, therefore leaving “little measurable impact on [the administration’s] deportation agenda.”

The report also highlights an apparent lack of oversight in terms of monitoring foreign governments’ compliance, especially with countries that have historically high records of human rights violations and corrupt governments.

“Without oversight, it is unknown whether U.S. funds are facilitating corruption or other abuses,” the report said.

It is also “challenging” for the State Department to track such funds, the report said, alleging that the administration sends such money directly to foreign governments rather than utilizing “trusted third-party implementing partners.”

“In at least one country, U.S. officials told [Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] that Trump Administration officials instructed them not to follow up on how deportees were being treated,” the report alleged, adding that many of the agreements rely on “blanket language” for assurances. 

The report criticizes the administration for making “secret deals” with foreign countries in order to establish agreements about accepting third-country nationals.

“Dozens” of other countries are currently being pursued to agree to deals, the report said. 

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, slammed the administration for engaging in policy that she calls the “epitome” of “fraud, waste and abuse.”  

“This report outlines the troubling practice by the Trump Administration of deporting individuals to third countries — places where these people have no connection — at great expense to the American taxpayer and raises serious questions,” she said in a statement.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told employees at an all-hands meeting that the company doesn’t “get to make operational decisions” about how its artificial intelligence technology is used by the Pentagon, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

“So maybe you think the Iran strike was good and the Venezuela invasion was bad,” Altman said in Tuesday’s meeting, according to the source. “You don’t get to weigh in on that.”

The comments came days after OpenAI announced they had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy their models on their classified network, hours after the deal between Anthropic and the Pentagon fell apart.

OpenAI is best known as the company behind generative AI chatbot ChatGPT, while Anthropic is responsible for the chatbot Claude.

At the center of the fight between Anthropic and the Department of Defense is the question of who gets to control how AI is used by the military: the companies that make the technology or the government that deploys it?

Anthropic was the first AI company to be used on classified networks and its technology is widely considered the most advanced. The talks fell apart over Anthropic’s red lines: they were against their models being used for fully autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. The Pentagon argued they needed its technology for all lawful use cases.

The department, which was informally renamed as the Department of War via executive order last year, addressed the red lines in a social media post last week.

“The Department of War has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement,” spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote. “Here’s what we’re asking: Allow the Pentagon to use Anthropic’s model for all lawful purposes. This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk.”  

The Pentagon set a deadline of 5 p.m. last Friday for Anthropic to acquiesce to its demands or be essentially blacklisted. With negotiations at an impasse, Trump ordered the government to stop using the company’s products and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Anthropic would be designated a “supply chain risk”, essentially cutting the American company off from government work.

According to a source, Anthropic still has not received a notification from the government about being designated a supply chain risk, outside of Hegseth’s tweet announcing it.

The breakdown in talks came hours before the U.S. launched strikes in Iran. According to multiple reports, Anthropic’s AI models were used for the U.S. operation in Iran.  

Anthropic is not commenting on those reports. In response, a Pentagon spokesperson tells ABC: “The Department declines to comment citing operational security.”

When OpenAI announced its deal with the Pentagon, Altman said it shared the same red lines as Anthropic.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” he said in a statement. “The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.”

Days later, amid an onslaught of criticism, Altman said in a post this week that the company “shouldn’t have rushed” its deal with the Pentagon, saying that “it just looked opportunistic and sloppy.”

Altman unveiled an adjusted agreement with the Pentagon that he says provides stronger guarantees that the military won’t use OpenAI’s systems for domestic surveillance.

“We are going to amend our deal to add this language, in addition to everything else: ‘Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals,'” he wrote in a statement.

“There are many things the technology just isn’t ready for, and many areas we don’t yet understand the tradeoffs required for safety. We will work through these, slowly, with the DoW, with technical safeguards and other methods,” he added.

OpenAI says they believe their contract has even “better guarantees” than what Anthropic had originally signed with the Pentagon.

“This language makes explicit that our tools will not be used to conduct domestic surveillance of U.S. persons, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information,” the company wrote in a statement. “The Department also affirmed that our services will not be used by Department of War intelligence agencies like the NSA. Any services to those agencies would require a new agreement.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.