Border czar Tom Homan argues US justified in removing ‘public safety threat’ Abrego Garcia to El Salvador
White House “Border Czar” Tom Homan speaks with ABC News while appearing on ‘This Week.’ Via ABC News.
(WASHINGTON) — Trump White House border czar Tom Homan stood by the administration’s position on the return to the U.S. of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran national the Justice Department said was erroneously deported to a prison in his home country, and waived off responsibility for the migrant’s status in an interview with ABC News.
Homan spoke with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an interview that will air this Sunday about the case and repeated the Trump administration’s allegations that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 member and a violent threat to the public.
“We removed a public safety threat, a national security threat, a violent gang member from the United States,” he alleged.
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys and family members have denied that he is a member of MS-13, and the gang allegations are being disputed in court.
Watch more of Jonathan Karl’s interview with Tom Homan on “This Week” at 9 a.m. Sunday on ABC.
However, much of the evidence that has been cited by President Donald Trump and his allies, such as clothing they argue symbolizes gang membership, has not been brought up in court since the current administration began litigating this case.
The Supreme Court unanimously ordered the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. for a trial. As of Friday, the administration has not taken active steps to do so.
When asked by Karl about the order, Homan claimed the Trump administration does not have the right or ability to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and argued Abrego Garcia is under the authority of the El Salvador government.
“I understand that ‘facilitate,’ but he’s also in the custody — he’s a citizen and a national of the country of El Salvador. El Salvador would certainly have to cooperate in that,” Homan said.
“But again, I’m out of the loop on that. I’m not an attorney. I’m not litigating this case. We’ll do whatever the law says we have to do, but I think and I stand by the fact [that] I think we did the right thing here,” he said.
Homan also joined Trump and other Republicans in their criticism of Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador this week and met with Abrego Garcia.
“You know, what bothers me more than that is a U.S. senator traveled to El Salvador on taxpayer dime to meet with an MS-13 gang member, [a] public safety threat, terrorist,” Homan said, without providing evidence that Van Hollen is using taxpayer money for the trip.
When ABC News reached out to Van Hollen’s office for comment on how the trip was funded, his office replied, “the Senator traveled in his official capacity with bipartisan approval to follow up on the case of a constituent and conduct oversight of U.S. foreign assistance programs. He did fly commercial.”
Abrego Garcia has never been convicted of a crime in the U.S., and his wife, Jennifer Vasquez, told ABC News on Wednesday that her husband has “never been convicted for anything.”
Homan accused the senator of not taking time to meet with victims of MS-13 gang members in his state and inaction under the Biden administration to address border concerns.
“What concerns me is Van Hollen never went to the border the last four years under Joe Biden. … What shocks me is he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on the southern border. Many people died, thousands of people died,” he said.
Upon returning to the U.S., Van Hollen told reporters his trip was about more than Abrego Garcia’s case.
“This case is not only about one man, as important as that is,” Van Hollen said. “It is about protecting fundamental freedoms and the fundamental principle in the Constitution for due process that protects everybody who resides in America.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional.
There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran.
It’s unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump’s rank-and-file Republican base will broadly abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump’s desk, there likely wouldn’t be enough votes to override his veto.
“I don’t think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don’t think it’s necessary,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday afternoon at the Capitol.
Fears of escalation ramped up on Monday as Iran retaliated against the U.S. with a missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The missiles were intercepted and there were no immediate reports of casualties at the base, according to U.S. officials.
Johnson said it’s up to Trump whether the United States responds to Iran’s attempt to retaliate on Monday.
“The president warned them not to retaliate, but he was also very clear that the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a threat not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the United States as well. They’ve been very clear about their intentions and how much they hate us,” Johnson said. “The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed skepticism about Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend.
“We’ve seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution,” Jeffries said at a news conference in the Capitol on Monday. “And what I can say is not a scintilla of evidence to date has been presented that I have seen to justify the notion that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America.”
Trump’s decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden’s airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama’s military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama.
House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday.
Trump faces bipartisan blowback
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit “United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump’s domestic policy agenda.
All three appeared on “Face the Nation” on CBS News on Sunday to make their case.
Massie contended there was “no imminent threat to the United States” that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval.
Kaine similarly said: “This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump’s urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops’ lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress.”
Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back.
“I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously,” the Virginia Democrat said.
Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence.
“There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail,” Khanna said on CBS. “We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we’re not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East.”
Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is “not MAGA” and that “MAGA doesn’t want him” and “doesn’t respect him.” Trump said he’ll campaign for Massie’s Republican primary opponent in the next election.
Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval.
In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump.
What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution?
The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump’s ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
Trump admin says strike was legally justified
Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration “complied with the notification requirements” of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified “after the planes were safely out.”
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran.
Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn’t negotiate a deal.
“If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump’s decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution.
“Congress can declare war or cut off funding,” Graham said. “We can’t be the commander in chief. You can’t have 535 commanders-in-chief.”
The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions.
Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage “perpetual worldwide wars” and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it — but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic lawmakers are “urgently” calling for the White House to issue a full disclosure of financial transactions leading up to President Donald Trump’s sudden pause on a sweeping set of tariffs earlier this month, raising concerns that people close to the president “potentially violated federal ethics and insider trading laws” surrounding his actions.
Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., sent a letter on Monday, signed by a group of 23 other Democrats, to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, calling for a commitment from all senior White House and executive branch employees to “expeditiously” transmit all reports related to their securities transactions since the start of Trump’s term to the Office of Government Ethics, requesting, too, that all of this mandatory reporting be made public.
The letter, shared first with ABC News, also asks that any extensions granted to White House employees related to their accounting reports become public, noting that this was practiced during the first Trump administration.
“We are concerned that no periodic transaction reports have been posted on the OGE database for White House officials’ individual disclosures at any point since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025,” Schiff and Levin wrote.
“There is reason to doubt that not a single senior White House official or employee has made any financial transactions triggering a periodic transaction report since the start of the Administration,” the letter continued. “As an important point of reference, during the first Trump Administration, periodic transaction reports filed by senior White House officials were made publicly available on the OGE’s disclosure database, as required by the Ethics in Government Act and the STOCK Act.”
The White House did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.
Hours before Trump announced he was rolling back tariffs to 10% to all countries except China, which sent the stock market soaring, he posted on Truth Social: “BE COOL! Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before!” and “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT.”
Stocks were down the morning before Trump’s Truth Social post. Nasdaq soared 12.1% at close, the index’s largest single-day gain since 2021, while the Dow jumped 7.8%, its biggest one-day increase in five years.
“Newly identified data raises concerns about potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws by individuals close to the President with access to non-public information,” Schiff and Levin’s letter reads.
Trump has said he hasn’t engaged in insider trading himself — but that he couldn’t definitively claim that members of his administration have not. “I can commit to myself, that’s all I can commit to,” Trump told reporters on Friday, when asked whether he could assure Americans that no one in his administration was insider trading with information about trade deals coming together.
Trump said he hires “honorable people” but said, “I have thousands of people that work for me, but I can’t imagine anybody doing that.”
The Democrats requested a response from Wiles no later than May 9, 2025, and for a “detailed plan” for how the administration plans to address any officials and employees who may have failed to file required disclosures from the start of the administration.
“By failing to take these steps, the Administration would be withholding critical information from the American people regarding potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws. We look forward to reviewing all required reports and disclosures,” Schiff and Levin wrote.
“Senior White House officials have influence over or become witting of consequential policy decisions that can have market moving impacts,” the letter said. “It is critical that such officials adhere to all applicable ethics, conflict of interest, and disclosure requirements.”
“The American public deserves nothing less than full transparency, particularly in the context of the harm done to pension funds and retirement savings as a result of the President’s erratic trade policy,” it continued
The letter was signed by Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Elizabeth Warren, Jeffrey Merkley and Elissa Slotkin, as well as Reps. Brad Sherman, Brad Schneider, Angie Craig, Jerry Nadler, Rashida Tlaib, Cleo Fields, Yassamin Ansari, Seth Magaziner, Pramila Jayapal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Nanette Diaz Barragán, Mark DeSaulnier, Madeleine Dean and Delia Ramirez.
Schiff had previously written to Wiles and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer over the rollbacks on Trump’s tariffs. In that letter, sent with Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., Schiff asked for an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. Schiff has not received a response from Wiles following his request, a spokesperson for the senator told ABC News.
(NEW YORK) — Former President Joe Biden, in a wide-ranging interview on ABC’s “The View” on Thursday, said he was not surprised by Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss in the 2024 presidential election, but not because of her qualifications as a candidate — instead, pointing to sexism and racism he said had been leveled against her.
“I wasn’t surprised, not because I didn’t think the vice president was the most qualified person to be president … I wasn’t surprised because they went the route of — the sexist route, the whole route,” Biden said.
He continued: “I’ve never seen quite as successful and consistent campaign, undercutting the notion that a woman couldn’t lead the country — and a woman of mixed race.”
But Biden, separately, said he still thinks he would have beaten Trump if he had stayed in the race.
“Yeah, he still got seven million fewer votes,” Biden said of Trump, noting by how much he beat Trump in the 2020 election popular vote.
His comments come after several months out of the spotlight for the former president as he and Democrats look to sort out his role post-presidency. Last month, Biden emerged from private life to deliver a speech on Trump’s potential impact on Social Security and made an appearance at Harvard University.
Questions persist on the party’s priorities and who may be the best to message and communicate on the Democrats’ behalf — questions that extend to both Biden and Harris.
Biden, for his part, told “The View” that he’s in the midst of self-reflection — and, to that end, writing a book.
“Things are moving along and we’re getting squared away trying to figure out what the most significant and consequential role I can play, consistent with what I’ve done in the past,” he said.
The former president also addressed his relationship with his former running-made-turned-candidate, saying that he and Harris had spoken as recently as Wednesday. Yet, he quickly stopped himself from addressing specifics of their “frequent” conversations, including side-stepping any chatter about Harris’ possible gubernatorial or potential presidential ambitions.
Sources have told ABC News previously that Harris may be mulling a run for governor of California, her home state; others have speculated she could mount a run for president in 2028 — a controversial notion within the Democratic Party.
Many of Harris’ longtime national supporters told ABC News in March that they are lukewarm on her potentially running for president in 2028; others have called for a full break from the Biden-Harris administration and for the party to consider new standard bearers.
But on Harris’ broader political future, Biden said he was hopeful that she stayed involved in some significant way, but stopped short of sharing which route he hopes she takes.
“She’s got a difficult decision to make about what she’s going to do. I hope she stays fully engaged. I think she’s first-rate, but we have a lot of really good candidates as well. So, I’m optimistic. I’m not pessimistic,” Biden said.
Biden’s remarks don’t seem to have mollified progressives who felt he hamstrung Democrats’ chances in 2024. Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said in a statement after the interview that the former president is in “denial” over both his and Harris’ viability as strong candidates on the 2024 ticket, suggesting that anti-establishment Democrats would fare better to lead the party.
“Joe Biden is in denial about the fact that neither he nor Kamala Harris should have been the 2024 Democratic nominee if we wanted to defeat Donald Trump. In this moment, voters demand authentic anti-establishment figures who will shake up a broken political system and economic status quo rigged for billionaires against working people, and that’s not Biden or Harris.”
Asked on “The View” to respond to claims that he should have dropped out of the race and endorse Harris sooner, Biden said that Harris still had a long period to campaign and that they worked together “in every decision I made.”
Biden also denied reporting that claimed he had advised Harris to suggest that there was no daylight between the two of them — saying that they were partners and worked together.
“The View” co-anchor Sunny Hostin brought up Harris’ comments on “The View” in October, toward the end of her presidential campaign, when asked if she would have done “something differently” from what Biden had done over the last four years. She responded, “there is not a thing that comes to mind,” a moment widely seen as one that hurt her among voters who felt she needed to make a cleaner break from the Biden White House.
“I did not advise her to say that,” Biden said, adding that he thought Harris meant she would not change any of the successes that the Biden-Harris White House had achieved.
“She was part of every success we had. We’d argue like hell, by the way,” Biden added, stressing that the disagreements were all signs of a positive working relationship.
Even though he indicated no tension between himself and Harris, Biden did not answer directly when asked about tension between him and other longtime supporters, including former President Barack Obama, whose administration he served in as vice president.
Asked about what his relationship with Obama is like now, and how he addresses concerns Obama and others reportedly raised over his ability to serve a second term as president, Biden pivoted to why he got out of the race — and did not mention Obama.
“The only reason I got out of the race was because I didn’t want to have a divided Democratic Party … I thought it was better to put the country ahead of my interest, my personal interest,” Biden said.
Biden did say, in his response, that concerns over his age — 81 during the campaign — were valid, but pointed to what he still accomplished at the end of his presidency as evidence against claims he had cognitively declined.
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler and Zohreen Shah contributed to this report.
