House Ethics Committee urges victims of sexual misconduct to contact them after lawmaker resignations
The US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, April 20, 2026. House Republicans will send their first funding bills for the next fiscal year to the floor this week, while the Senate GOP plots a blueprint for patching up missing money for the current one. (Photographer: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The bipartisan House Ethics Committee on Monday released a rare statement encouraging anyone who may have experienced sexual misconduct by a House member or staffer to contact them, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights or the Office of Employee Advocacy.
“There should be zero tolerance for sexual misconduct, harassment, or discrimination in the halls of Congress, or in any employment setting,” the committee said in a lengthy statement.
“The greatest hurdle the Committee faces in evaluating allegations of sexual misconduct is in convincing the most vulnerable witnesses to share their stories,” the statement read. “Accordingly, the Committee’s practice has been to release only the information that is necessary to hold Members accountable for misconduct and address public reporting that impacts the integrity of the House.”
The statement comes after allegations of sexual misconduct led to the resignations of California Democrat Eric Swalwell and Texas Republican Tony Gonzales last week.
Gonzales and Swalwell were about to face efforts by their colleagues to have them expelled from the House. The House Ethics Committee had announced investigations into both men, which ended when they resigned.
Gonzales dropped his reelection bid earlier this year after admitting to a relationship with a staffer who later died by suicide. Gonzales said he “made a mistake” and “had a lapse in judgement.”
Swalwell suspended his campaign for governor of California amid the accusations against him, including allegations of sexual assault, which he’s denied. Swalwell’s attorney, Sara Azari, last week said the allegations are “false.”
The committee said that since 2017, it has initiated investigations in 20 matters involving sexual misconduct by a lawmaker.
“The Committee has also investigated several Members for their handling of allegations of sexual misconduct by their senior staff,” the statement read.
In its history, the committee has conducted 28 sexual misconduct investigations. Several members who were being investigated resigned and even some were cleared.
The panel noted that it does not handle sexual harassment lawsuits or have “any involvement in settlements of such claims.”
“The Committee has taken the position that conduct that falls short of legal definitions of sexual harassment or assault under federal or state statutes can still be a violation of the Code of Official Conduct, which imposes a higher standard on Members of the House,” the statement read. “The Committee has also consistently publicly announced its investigations into publicly reported allegations of sexual misconduct and has announced any findings in those matters.”
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth provides updates on military operations in Iran during a press briefing at the Pentagon on March 19, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Thursday that the Pentagon will be asking Congress for more money to cover the Iran war, saying he wants to ensure current and future costs are covered “above and beyond.”
A senior administration official confirmed that a $200 billion request was sent from the Pentagon to the White House on Wednesday. The Washington Post first reported the request.
It was not clear whether the White House had formally submitted the request to Congress as of Thursday morning or what kind of reception it would have among lawmakers, who remain deeply divided on President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran.
The conflict began Feb. 28 after negotiations on its nuclear and ballistic missile program failed, and the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes. In its third week, the U.S. says it’s destroyed more than 7,800 military targets, 120 Iranian ships and 11 submarines.
Pentagon officials told a group of senators in a closed-door briefing earlier this month that the war in Iran cost at least $11.3 billion in its first six days.
When asked about the $200 billion request, Hegseth didn’t confirm the total, saying that the number “could move.”
“As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move. Obviously it takes, it takes money to kill bad guys,” Hegseth said in a news conference Thursday morning. “So we’re going back to Congress and our folks there to ensure that we’re properly funded for what’s been done, for what we may have to do in the future, ensure that our ammunition is — everything’s refilled, and not just refilled, but above and beyond.”
Wartime supplementals are used to ensure the military remains ready to handle other potential conflicts and to replenish stockpiles spent on the ongoing mission.
Asked about the $200 billion request on Thursday, Trump said “we’re asking for a lot of reasons beyond even what we’re talking about in Iran.”
“So we’re in very good shape, but we want to be in the best shape. The best shape we’ve ever been in,” Trump said.
House leadership has not received a formal defense supplemental request from the Trump administration, according to a source familiar with the details.
Asked about the amount, Speaker Mike Johnson said Congress has a commitment to “adequately fund defense.”
“I’m sure it’s not a random number, so we’ll look at that,” Johnson said Thursday morning. “But obviously it’s a dangerous time in the world, and we have to adequately fund defense, and we have a commitment to do that.”
As of Wednesday night, several Senate appropriators, including Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, said they had not yet seen the request.
Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations committee, said she had not seen the funding request, and would need details to be provided.
“We have not seen that request, and I will tell you that this administration needs to tell Congress definitely what they’re doing and how long this is going to take. There is no goal here, and we’re not going to write them a blank check,” Murray said.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who is on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, told reporters on Thursday morning that to her knowledge the Pentagon has not made a request to Congress.
“What we have is a number that we have heard the White House presented to the Pentagon. So far as I know it has not been presented to us in Congress. So it needs to not only be presented, the amount, but also the rationale behind it,” Murkowski said.
The money that has so far been spent to fund operations in Iran comes out of Pentagon funds already allocated by Congress. Congress has not yet approved any additional funding for the war with Iran.
The funding request also indicates plans for a longer war — after Trump has previously said the war would last four to five weeks. The president has also brushed off that timeline, saying “whatever it takes.”
ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, DC. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran. (Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday claimed the U.S. was “very nearly under threat” from Iran, contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments as he sought to justify his administration’s ongoing attack.
“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people,” Trump said at a medal of honor ceremony at the White House, marking his first public remarks on the military operation.
“Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat,” Trump continued.
American intelligence agencies, however, believe Iran would not have had missiles capable of reaching the U.S. for another nine years, until 2035.
And sources confirmed to ABC News that Trump administration officials told congressional staff that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the United States interests.
The officials said there was more of a general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces, sources told ABC News.
Still, Trump argued Iran would have “soon” had the capability to reach the American homeland and that “this was our last best chance to strike.”
“The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America,” Trump said.
Trump, in Monday’s remarks, laid out U.S. objectives for the military campaign.
“Our objectives are clear,” Trump said. “First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis, and their capacity to produce brand new ones and pretty good ones they make. Second, we’re annihilating their navy. We’ve knocked out already 10 ships. They’re at the bottom of the sea. Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon … And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
Trump notably did not address the issue of regime change after speaking extensively on leadership change over the weekend, as he called for Iranians to rise up and take over the government.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also shifted focus away from regime change in a press conference at the Pentagon earlier Monday, telling reporters the operation was not a “so-called regime-change war.”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was killed in an attack launched by Israel and the United States.
“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump told ABC’s Karl. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”
As for what’s next, Trump again promised not to drag the U.S. into prolonged foreign conflicts but said the operation will go on for as long as needed.
“We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes. We will always, and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. We’ll do it.”
“Somebody said today, they said, ‘Oh, well, the president wants to do it really quickly, after that, he’ll get bored.’ I don’t get bored,” Trump added. “There’s nothing boring about this.”
U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — For more than a century, an American birth certificate has been a key to unlocking the benefits of American citizenship.
Most parents of newborns on U.S. soil have simply needed proof of birth from a hospital to apply for social security numbers, passports and early life benefits for their children. Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
A landmark case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday will determine whether that longstanding cultural norm and legal precedent will continue, or whether sweeping bureaucratic changes that could impact millions will soon take effect.
President Donald Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
All lower courts that have considered the case struck the order down.
The amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940.
“Look at the dates of this long ago legislation – THE EXACT END OF THE CIVIL WAR!” Trump posted on social media Monday. “It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”
Trump argues children born to parents who are not American citizens or legal permanent residents were never considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they still owe political “allegiance” to a foreign nation.
Courts and the government, however, have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born on U.S. soil, including to babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as international students, foreign nationals who are in the U.S. on tourist visas and seasonal workers.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in an 1898 Supreme Court opinion addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups insist Trump’s order is blatantly unconstitutional — contrary to the plain text of the Constitution and history of the citizenship clause — and would unleash “chaos” nationwide.
“The impacts on this country would be catastrophic,” said ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, who is leading the case against the order.
“Most directly, the children who would be stripped of their citizenship would be … subject to arrest, detention and deportation from the only country they’ve ever known,” Wofsy said.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents could lose legal status under Trump’s order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
“Babies [born to parents] from countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, Bhutan, where there is not a clear pathway to citizenship in their home countries,” said Anisa Rahm, legal director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative. “So therefore, where do they belong?”
While the administration insists the order will only apply to children born after it takes effect, legal scholars have warned that a ruling striking down birthright citizenship could have retroactive consequences.
“The citizenship of other Americans could be called into question,” said Winnie Kao, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, one of the groups that brought a class-action suit against the administration over the order.
“Vast swaths of U.S. law would need to be reexamined because they are premised on birthright citizenship,” added Kao. “It will also be a total administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for everyone — even for parents who are U.S. citizens.”
An ABC News review of Trump administration plans for implementing a new citizenship policy across federal agencies suggests a more involved and potentially complicated process for new parents than currently exists, if the executive order takes effect.
The Social Security Administration says birth certificates would no longer be sufficient documentation to obtain a new Social Security Number for a newborn.
“SSA will require evidence that such a person’s mother and/or father is a U.S. citizen or in an eligible immigration status at the time of the person’s birth,” the agency wrote in a July 2025 guidance memo.
Parents would first need to submit their own citizenship documentation by mail, phone or online, the agency said. Alternatively, parents could provide a “self-attestation” of citizenship subject to “state and federal penalties for perjury,” according to the memo.
The State Department says it would adopt similar verification measures for passport applicants.
For children born to lawful but temporary immigrants — who would no longer be eligible for citizenship — the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says parents would need to register to obtain the same temporary legal status for their kids.
Federally funded benefits for children, like nutrition assistance and health care services, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services would also require extensive documentation by all parents to prove their children were citizens at birth, the agency said in a memo.
During oral arguments last year in a predecessor case involving Trump’s birthright citizenship order, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — often a key vote in hotly contested cases — voiced concern about whether the government would be able to carry out citizenship checks for parents of the more than 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. each year.
“Federal officials will have to figure that out essentially,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justice under questioning.
“How?” Kavanaugh responded skeptically.
“So, you can imagine a number of ways –” Sauer began.
“Such as?” Kavanaugh quipped. “For all the newborns? Is that how it’s going to work?”
Sauer replied at the time that the administration did not have all the details worked out because courts had blocked the executive order in full.
Polls show the nation is sharply divided over the issue of American citizenship for newborn children of unauthorized immigrants. Half of adults — 50% — say they should receive U.S. citizenship; 49% say they should not, according to an April 2025 Pew Research Center survey.
