(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has never kept his contempt for the Federal Emergency Management Agency a secret, contending that the agency has been operating poorly and rarely helped disaster victims.
On Friday, while touring North Carolina neighborhoods that were ravaged by Hurricane Helene, the president said he was planning an executive order that would “begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA, or maybe getting rid of them.” His order would create a task force that would look for reforms, according to sources.
However, Trump’s authority does not give him the power to terminate the agency unilaterally, according to federal laws.
Doing so would require congressional action.
FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which has an operating budget and disaster relief fund that needs to be replenished by Congress every year to help states deal with disaster recovery, preparedness, response and mitigation efforts.
The U.S. government uses the funds to reimburse local governments and states in disasters.
Congress late last year replenished the disaster relief fund by $110 billion, with $29 billion for FEMA’s response, recovery and mitigation activities related to presidentially declared major disasters, including Hurricane Helene and Milton, which President Joe Biden signed into law in December.
When a disaster hits, state and local governments are in charge, and a lot of what FEMA currently does is support them and reimburse states for disaster aid.
Trump has claimed this process has not worked well and hurt people in disaster areas.
“You want to use your state to fix it and not waste time calling FEMA. And then FEMA gets here and they don’t know the area. They’ve never been to the area, and they want to give you rules that you’ve never heard about. They want to bring people that aren’t as good as the people you already have. And FEMA has turned out to be a disaster,” Trump told reporters Friday.
However, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have traditionally supported FEMA, given assistance from the agency could be needed at any time. A majority of direct FEMA assistance since 2015 has gone to states such as Florida, Louisiana and Texas, which have been hit with several natural disasters, according to federal records.
Trump’s proposals have been echoed by many of his supporters, including the Heritage Foundation, which pushed forward proposals in its “Project 2025” playbook.
The think tank proposed moving the agency out of DHS and privatizing some of its programs, including the National Flood Insurance Program, which operates in vulnerable areas where, in some instances, private insurers won’t — and raising the damage and cost threshold that states need to meet in order to qualify for federal relief.
It also proposed changing the cost-sharing arrangement so that the federal government only covers a maximum of 75% of the costs of disasters instead of 100%.
There was little initial reaction from Capitol Hill on Trump’s call to end FEMA. However, one key Republican said she is not fully on board.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins told reporters Friday that she “informally” raised the idea of FEMA reform or elimination to her Senate Republican colleagues and that she expects an “oversight hearing or some reforms” regarding the agency.
“I still think you need some sort of FEMA-like agency at the federal level because states are overwhelmed at times of terrible natural disasters, but it sounds like an oversight hearing or some reforms based on the feedback I got today,” she said.
ABC News’ Isabella Murray, Rachel Scott and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Tech billionaire Elon Musk was slated to visit the Pentagon on Friday and attend a meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that would touch on China, among other things, two United States officials confirmed to ABC News — but that plan changed after The New York Times reported Musk would be briefed on potential China war plans.
Musk visited the Pentagon on Friday — but instead of meeting with the Joint Chiefs, Musk met with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and staffers, a U.S. official said.
The meeting between Musk and the Joint Chiefs was to be at the unclassified level and attended virtually by Adm. Sam Paparo, the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, one official said. But some time between the publication of The New York Times story on Thursday and Musk’s visit to the Pentagon Friday morning, the visit turned into just a meeting with Hegseth.
The New York Times reported that Musk would receive a briefing from senior military leaders about a top-secret military plan for potential war with China. The publication said the meeting was canceled because of its initial report.
Musk, Hegseth and President Donald Trump denied the report — with Trump asserting that Musk would not be briefed on a war plan with China.
“I don’t want to show that to anybody. But certainly, you wouldn’t show it to a businessman who is helping us so much. He’s a great patriot … But I certainly wouldn’t want — you know, Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible perhaps to that. But it was such a fake story,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday.
“I don’t want to show that to anybody. But certainly, you wouldn’t show it to a businessman who is helping us so much. He’s a great patriot … But I certainly wouldn’t want — you know, Elon has businesses in China, and he would be susceptible perhaps to that. But it was such a fake story,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday.
Musk arrived at the Pentagon just before 9 a.m. and remained in Hegseth’s office for the duration of his visit.
The meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did take place as scheduled, but Paparo did not join the meeting as previously scheduled. One of the officials said the meeting of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the in the conference room known as “The Tank” went on for about two hours.
Musk left the Pentagon at 10:21 a.m. — about 20 minutes after it appeared that the meeting in The Tank actually got underway.
As Musk departed Hegseth’s office on Friday, he was asked by reporters how the meeting went and responded that “it’s always a great meeting.”
“I’ve been here before, you know,” Musk added as both he and Hegseth walked together. Musk did visit the Pentagon in 2016 to meet with then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
When they were outside the Pentagon, Hegseth and Musk shook hands and Musk was overhead to say, “If there’s anything I can do to be helpful, I’d like to see you.”
Neither responded to questions at that time about whether they had discussed China or if was a classified briefing.
Hegseth previously posted on X that the meeting was not about “China war plans,” but rather described it as an “informal meeting about innovation, efficiencies & smarter production.”
Trump posted on his conservative social media platform that China would not be mentioned or discussed during the meeting.
Musk went so far as to suggest there should be prosecutions of anyone at the Pentagon who may have leaked information.
“They will be found,” Musk wrote on X.
ABC News’ Justin Gomez and Chris Boccia contributed to this report.
John McDonnell/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has often mused, even joked, about seeking a third term, but over the weekend he made his strongest and most serious comments yet on a move that constitutional scholars ABC News spoke with call virtually impossible.
“I’m not joking,” he told NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Kirsten Welker in a phone interview on Sunday, before adding it was “far too early to think about it.”
“There are methods which you could do it,” Trump said, including a scenario in which Vice President JD Vance ran at the top of the 2028 ticket with Trump as his running mate, only for Trump to assume the Oval Office after the election.
Legal and election experts told ABC News any attempt to win another four years as president would be an unprecedented breach of the Constitution.
“Trump may not want to rule out a third term but the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does,” said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and an expert in constitutional law.
The amendment states, in part: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”
It was ratified in 1951, years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with the two-term tradition set by George Washington and secured a third term as World War II was breaking out.
“It would be completely unprecedented for a president to openly defy the dictates of the 22nd Amendment and, even more so, to attempt to run or serve again as president,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina.
“The threats and insinuations no doubt thrill his base, but there is no constitutional basis for the current president to try to serve as president after two elected terms,” Gerhardt said.
The only way legal way for Trump to be able to run for a third term, experts said, would be to amend the Constitution — an incredibly unlikely outcome as it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate, or two-thirds of the states agreeing to call a constitutional convention. Then, any change would require three-fourths of the states to sign on for ratification.
“This statement by Trump was brilliant in terms of capturing and diverting attention,” said Schultz. “His supporters love it and his detractors will rage over it. In the process, no one will talk about the price of eggs, tariffs and a shaky stock market.”
Experts break down ‘methods’ floated by Trump and his allies
As for Trump’s claim that one of the “methods” could be to run as Vance’s vice president and then be passed the baton, experts point to the 12th Amendment from 1804 as a barrier.
“The 12th Amendment states that anyone who is ineligible to be president is also deemed to be illegible to serve as vice president,” said Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison. “This means that Trump could not serve as vice president, which is the post he would need for the Vance scheme to be executed.”
Steve Bannon, a fierce Trump ally, has also floated what he’s called alternatives to allow Trump to run in 2028.
Bannon, in remarks at the New York Young Republican Club gala in December, has argued that he could run again as Trump’s two terms in office were not consecutive.
“Since it doesn’t actually say consecutive, I don’t know, maybe we do it again in ’28? Are you guys down for that? Trump ’28?” Bannon said.
Schultz said that argument doesn’t have a sound legal basis.
“The overall limit of serving as president for ten years is both textual proof on the bar to run for a third term and an indication of the intent of the congressional drafters that they did not want anyone serving for more than two terms,” Schultz said.
He added that measure “was put into place to allow for a situation where a president dies more than halfway into a term and the vice president succeeds that person. The Constitution thereby allows for the vice president to serve out the remaining term and then serve two more terms, for a total of ten years.”
What happens if Trump tries anyway?
Trump has already tested the bounds of the Constitution governing presidential power several times in the first months of his second term.
Several Democrats viewed his comments on Sunday as another escalation against the rule of law. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin wrote on X: “This is what dictators do.”
In the past, Republicans have largely played off Trump’s musings about a third term as a joke intended to rile his opposition. But just days after his inauguration, Republican hardliner Rep. Andy Ogles introduced a resolution calling for the extension of presidential term limits to allow Trump to seek another four years in the White House.
“A crisis could arise if Trump runs for president or vice president in 2028,” Burden said. “The Constitution prohibits serving in office but not running for office. If Republicans nominated him, they would be betting that they can violate the Constitution and somehow allow him to serve if he wins.”
If Trump attempted to run, it would be up to election officials and then ultimately the courts to decide. This played out in the 2024 campaign, when several states challenged his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The legal battle went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Trump’s favor.
“If an ineligible person such as Trump is permitted to run knowing that he is not eligible to serve, it is a dangerous collision course in which the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law would be seriously tested,” Burden said.
James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, said Trump would lose in court should he attempt to run again.
“Most of the Constitution is written in broad, textured, difficult to define terms. What is a speedy trial? What is cruel and unusual punishment? What is equal protection? How much process is due process? The 22nd Amendment, however, is black and white,” Sample said.
“But if you can succeed in turning questions that are that clear-cut into debates, then the overall goal of undermining the Constitution and undermining the rule of law and maximizing executive power is served even if you lose the particular battle,” he continued. “This particular battle is not a winnable battle. He is not going to serve a third term, but merely by framing this as a debate, he will succeed in further eroding respect for the Constitution.”
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Six weeks into his presidency, Donald Trump addressed Congress and the nation Tuesday evening, laying out his goals for the next four years.
ABC News, along with PolitiFact, live fact-checked Trump’s speech statements that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.
TRUMP CLAIM: Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control—and we are working hard to get it back down.
FACT-CHECK: Lacking context.
Though egg prices did increase under President Joe Biden, they have recently surged under Trump too — and that’s because of bird flu, which has led to the deaths of 136 million birds since 2022, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
While the price of eggs was consistently rising due to inflation under Biden’s administration, the first significant price hike occurred in 2022, when bird flu began infecting flocks of birds in the U.S. Egg prices rose from $1.93 per dozen to $4.82 per dozen over the course of just that one year, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The prices moderated again, back down to the $2-$3 range during the rest of Biden’s presidency — but have shot back up to a record-high $4.95 this January, again due to bird flu.
-ABC News’ Cheyenne Haslett
TRUMP CLAIM: Trump won a mandate in the election
FACT-CHECK: This is in the eye of the beholder.
Trump’s victory was clear, but by historical standards, it was no landslide.
Trump has reason to celebrate winning both the Electoral College and the popular vote. In fact, he became only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988, after George W. Bush in his 2004 reelection win. Trump won each of the seven battleground states that political analysts said would decide the election.
In addition, the vast majority of U.S. counties saw their margins shift in Trump’s direction, both in places where Republicans historically do well and places where Democrats generally have an edge.On the other hand, Trump’s margins of victory — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards, even for the past quarter century, when close elections have been the rule, including the 2000 Florida recount election and Trump’s previous two races in 2016 and 2020.
Trump’s victory also came without a big boost for down-ballot Republicans. Republicans lost a little ground in the House, which was already narrowly divided, and while Republicans flipped the Senate, Democrats won four Senate races in key battleground states even as former Vice President Kamala Harris was losing those states to Trump.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
TRUMP CLAIM: “We ended the last administration’s insane electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto workers and companies from economic destruction.”
FACT-CHECK: Needs context.
There was no electric vehicle mandate put in place by the Biden administration. The Biden Environmental Protection Agency implemented tailpipe emissions standards last March that established an average of allowed emissions across a vehicle manufacturer’s entire fleet of offered vehicles.
The standards would have only impacted cars from model years 2027 to 2032. The standards allowed for a range of useable technologies, including fully electric cars, hybrids and improved internal combustion engines. Trump did sign an executive order on his first day in office to revoke these new standards.
-ABC News’ Kelly Livingston
TRUMP CLAIM: The Paris Climate Accord was costing the U.S. “trillions”
FACT-CHECK: False.
Trump defended his decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, saying the pact was costing the U.S. “trillions of dollars.”
That’s untrue.
The Trump administration defended the decision to withdraw from the climate agreement, in part, based on projections by consultant NERA Economic Consulting. It concluded that restrictions on fossil fuel emissions would result in a higher cost of production, and a higher cost of production would translate into the closure of uncompetitive manufacturing businesses. Those closures, in turn, would mean fewer manufacturing jobs.
The consultant estimated that these losses and their knock-on effects beyond the manufacturing sector would amount to 1.1 million jobs lost by 2025 and 6.5 million by 2040. The loss of jobs results in a corresponding decline in gross domestic product, with a loss of $250 billion by 2025 that accelerates to $3 trillion by 2040.
So the climate agreement wasn’t costing the U.S. trillions of dollars. It hypothetically could.
But even if it did, the study says that the long-term projections did not factor in all of the offsetting job gains and GDP growth associated with a clean tech transition.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
TRUMP CLAIM: Elon Musk found people in the Social Security system as old as 369
FACT-CHECK: This is misleading.
Elon Musk shared a chart on X and said he found millions of people in a Social Security database over the age of 110, including 1 who was in the 360-369 age bracket.
The acting Social Security commissioner said that people older than 100 who do not have a date of death associated with their Social Security record “are not necessarily receiving benefits.” Recent Social Security Administration data shows that about 89,000 people aged 99 and older receive Social Security payments.
Government databases may classify someone as 150 years old for reasons peculiar to the complex Social Security database or because of missing data, but that doesn’t mean that millions of payments are delivered fraudulently to people with implausible ages.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
TRUMP CLAIM: “Gold cards” don’t need congressional approval
FACT-CHECK: Misleading.
Immigration experts say Trump can neither create a new green card program nor shut down an existing one without congressional action.
Trump announced a plan to give people legal permanent residency in the U.S. if they pay $5 million. The so-called “gold card” would be similar to a green card in that it would let people live and work in the U.S. permanently and provide a pathway to citizenship.
Trump has described the program as a way to cut the U.S. deficit and has said it would replace the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program. But he hasn’t provided an official document creating the program.
-PolitiFact’s Aaron Sharockman
TRUMP CLAIM: “Hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud” found by DOGE
FACT-CHECK: This is unverifiable.
This claim is unverifiable because DOGE has yet to release the entirety of its work or specify which cuts have been “fraud” as opposed to “waste.” DOGE has claimed to have saved $106 billion in total savings, not “hundreds of billions” in fraud, and even Elon Musk himself has said they have mostly found “waste” and “mostly not fraud.”
DOGE has claimed it has saved a total of $106 billion in federal money from a “combination of asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions.” The figure remains unverifiable and DOGE’s website claims to have posted only 30% of the receipts supporting this total.
Even Musk himself said on Joe Rogan’s podcast last week that most of what DOGE is finding is “waste,” rather than outright fraud. “Only the federal government could get away with this level of waste. It’s mostly waste. It’s mostly not fraud, it’s mostly waste. It’s mostly just ridiculous things happening,” Musk said.
-ABC News’ Soo Rin Kim and Will Steakin
TRUMP CLAIM: There will be a little disturbance for Americans because of tariffs
FACT-CHECK: Lacking context.
The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the tariffs could cost the average household up to $2,000 annually. Cars and car parts are big exports from Canada and Mexico, and tariffs could increase the cost of a new car by over $3,000 per vehicle on top of last year’s average new car price of $44,811, according to JP Morgan Research. Most economists predict that prices, and therefore, inflation will go up, with consumers seeing higher prices for food, gasoline, clothes, shoes, toys and other household items.
-ABC News’ Soo Youn
TRUMP CLAIM: “Not long ago … 1 in 10,000 children had autism. Now it’s 1 in 36. There’s something wrong”
FACT-CHECK: Partially true but lacking context.
It’s unclear where Trump — and Kennedy, who repeats the same stat often — got the 1 in 10,000 number, though he is correct about the current number, which is 1 in 36, and he is correct that autism cases are rising.
In 2000, approximately 1 in 150 children in the U.S. born in 1992 were diagnosed with autism compared with 2020, during which one in 36 children born in 2012 were diagnosed, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Some psychiatrists and autism experts told ABC News it’s important to highlight the rising rates of autism, and that at least Trump and Kennedy are putting a spotlight on it.
“On the bright side, I think it is really important to place an emphasis on these very high rates,” Dr. Karen Pierce, a professor in the department of neurosciences at the University of California, San Diego and co-director of the UCSD Autism Center of Excellence, told ABC News.
-ABC News’ Mary Kekatos
TRUMP CLAIM: Mexican authorities handed over 29 of the biggest cartel leaders because of tariffs imposed on them, “They want to make us happy”
FACT-CHECK: True
Last week, while the Mexican security cabinet and the Mexican economy secretary were in D.C. for bilateral meetings with their U.S. counterparts to negotiate ahead of the possible imposition of U.S. tariffs on Mexico, Mexico announced they were handing over 29 criminals to the U.S.
One of these criminals had been requested by the U.S. for decades, Rafael Caro Quintero. He was wanted for the murder of DEA’s agent Kiki Camarena back in 1985.
While some of these criminals had their extradition suspended by Mexican judges, others had been detained for less than a week without the option to fight back their extradition in Mexico before they were sent to the US.
Although the Mexican government definitely bent some Mexican laws and were highly questioned, they defended the move by saying this was a matter of national security and that they acted within hours after receiving a request from the U.S. government.
Many in Mexico saw the move as a way to please President Trump and convince him to suspend or cancel the U.S. tariffs against Mexico.
-ABC News’ Anne Laurent
TRUMP CLAIM: India charges US auto tariffs higher than 100%, China’s average tariffs on our products is twice what we charge them, and South Korea’s average tariff is four times higher.
FACT-CHECK: False
India has historically imposed high tariffs on imported vehicles with rates as high as 125% but in a bid to improve trade relations with the U.S. they have reduced the highest rates on luxury cars from 150% to 70%. With other surcharges the tariffs still stands above 100% but the Indian government are actively reviewing their import tariffs.
China’s tariffs are actively changing due in part to the tit-for-tat trade war with the Trump Administration.
South Korea’s average tariff rate is around 13.4%. However, the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement signed in 2007 (effective 2012) reduced or eliminated most of the tariffs between the two countries. South Korea claims that as of 2024, the average tariff rate on imports from the U.S. is approximately 0.79% based on the effective tariff rate before duty refunds.
-ABC News’ Karson Yiu
TRUMP CLAIM: The U.S. has “spent perhaps $350 billion” on supporting Ukraine’s defense
FACT-CHECK: False
According to the special inspector general responsible for overseeing the spending related to the war in Ukraine, Congress has appropriated or otherwise made available $182.75 billion for the overall U.S. response to the war since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Of that money, about $119 billion has been for the direct benefit of Ukraine, including approximately $65.9 billion in military assistance.
White House officials have offered various explanations for how the Trump administration has arrived at the significantly higher figure of $350 billion, but most of the arguments rely on dubious logic–such as factoring in inflation–which has no bearing on the actual dollar amount appropriated by Congress.
Trump also said Europe has spent “$100 billion” on supporting Ukraine’s war effort; according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, European countries have spent around $140 billion to back Kyiv, and pledged another roughly $120 billion to the cause.
