People walk through Grand Central Terminal on November 4, 2025, in New York City. (Photo by Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Police shot and killed a knife-wielding man on a subway platform at Grand Central Station in New York City on Saturday after he stabbed at least two people, according to the NYPD.
Officers were called to the scene shortly after 9:30 this morning.
Police said the man had been acting erratically on the train and slashed at least two people on the 4/5/6 platform. The slashing wounds are severe but the victims are stable in the hospital.
The suspect refused repeated commands to drop what police described as a machete before an officer opened fire, killing him, according to the NYPD.
There is no connection to terrorism, police said.
The identity of the knife-wielding suspect was not immediately released.
The NYPD will hold a news conference at the scene.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman speaks during the BlackRock Infrastructure Summit on March 11, 2026, in Washington, DC. The global investment management company held the summit consisting of leaders from government, business, and labor to address expanding U.S. infrastructure. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.) — A man has been arrested for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at the San Francisco home of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the company said.
No one was hurt, according to the San Francisco Police Department and OpenAI.
The incident unfolded around 4 a.m. Friday when someone “threw an incendiary destructive device” at the house, which sparked a fire on an exterior gate, police said.
The suspect fled on foot, but police said his description was dispatched to officers.
Around 5 a.m., officers responded to OpenAI’s headquarters where a man was allegedly threatening to burn down a building, and they “recognized the male to be the same suspect from the earlier incident,” police said.
The 20-year-old suspect was arrested and charges are pending, police said.
The company said the situation is under control and there is no immediate threat to its offices.
“We deeply appreciate how quickly SFPD responded and the support from the city in helping keep our employees safe,” OpenAI said in a statement. “We’re assisting law enforcement with their investigation.”
The SFPD’s Special Investigations and Arson Units are leading the investigation, the company said. The FBI said it’s aware of the incident and is working with San Francisco police.
(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.
In this screen grab from a video, a Kimberly-Clark warehouse burns in Ontario, Calif., April 7, 2026. (KABC)
(ONTARIO, Calif.) — A man is facing federal charges for allegedly purposely setting the fire that destroyed a massive warehouse in Southern California, prosecutors said.
Chamel Abdulkarim, 29, is charged with arson of a building used in interstate and foreign commerce and used in activities affecting interstate and foreign commerce, the Department of Justice said on Friday.
On April 7, Abdulkarim allegedly took video of himself setting fire to paper goods in the Ontario, California, distribution center, prosecutors said.
Abdulkarim allegedly said in the video, “If you’re not going to pay us enough to [expletive] live or afford to live, at least pay us enough not to do this [expletive],” the DOJ said in a statement.
The massive blaze destroyed the 1.2 million-square-foot warehouse and caused about $500 million in damage, prosecutors said. No one was injured, the Ontario Fire Department said.
In texts and phone calls, Abdulkarim allegedly said, “I just cost these [expletive] billions,” and, “All you had to do was pay us enough to live. … Didn’t see the shareholders picking up a shift,” according to prosecutors.
The suspect also allegedly posted videos on social media of him starting the fire, prosecutors said.
Abdulkarim, of Highland, California, was arrested on Tuesday on state charges and is expected to be arraigned in state court on Friday, prosecutors said.
Attorney information for Abdulkarim was not immediately available.
Tyler Robinson, center, accused in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, appears during a hearing in 4th District Court on January 16, 2026 in Provo, Utah. (Bethany Baker-Pool/Getty Images)
(PROVO, Utah) — Tyler Robinson, the man accused of killing conservative activist Charlie Kirk, allegedly told his boyfriend, “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it,” according to newly unsealed court documents.
On Sept. 10, 2025, the day of the shooting, Robinson allegedly sent his boyfriend a message that said, “drop what you are doing, look under my keyboard,” according to the search warrant affidavit.
Robinson’s boyfriend told police that he found a handwritten letter under the keyboard, the documents said.
ABC News first reported on the existence of the letter in September.
Police said they reviewed the boyfriend’s photo of the letter. The note read, according to the documents, “If you are reading this per my text, then I am so sorry. I left the house this morning on a mission, and set an auto text.”
“I am likely dead, or facing a lengthy prison sentence,” the letter continued, according to the documents. “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I took it. I don’t know if I will/have succeeded, but I had hoped to make it home to you. I wish we could have lived in a world where this did not feel necessary.”
Kirk was shot and killed in the middle of his outdoor event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The 31-year-old was the founder of the conservative youth activist organization Turning Point USA, and the Utah Valley event marked the first stop of his “The American Comeback Tour,” which invited students on college campuses to debate hot-button issues.
Robinson allegedly fled the scene of the shooting, prompting a massive manhunt. He surrendered to authorities on the night of Sept. 11.
He was charged with aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, obstruction of justice, two counts of witness tampering and commission of a violent offense in the presence of a child. He has not entered a plea.
(WASHINGTON) — In what has become a recurring legal battle for the Trump administration, a panel of judges is hearing arguments Friday about the legality of new tariffs that a policy research center says contribute to costing every household about $1,000.
A group of plaintiffs — including 24 states, the toy company behind Care Bears and Lincoln Logs, and a spice importer — argue that the Trump administration is abusing a little-known law to impose a sweeping 10% tariffs after the Supreme Court found the last round of tariffs were unlawful.
“The President has once again exercised tariff authority that he does not have –involving a statute that does not authorize the tariffs he has imposed –to upend the constitutional order and bring chaos to the global economy,” the state attorneys general said in their lawsuit.
The arguments are being heard by a three-judge panel on the Court of International Trade.
The legal dispute comes down to the interpretation of Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to temporarily levy tariffs of up to 15% in response to “fundamental international payments problems” such as “balance-of-payments deficits.” The law allows the president to impose tariffs unilaterally for 150 days, after which Congress needs to approve the tariffs.
Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that the United States’ massive trade deficit constitutes exactly the kind of problem Section 122 was designed to fix. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general disagrees, arguing the Trump administration is conflating different financial issues — “trade deficits” and “balance of payments deficits.”
While both terms use the word “deficit,” a “trade deficit” is created by having less exports than imports, while a “balance of payments deficit” accounts for all international transactions involving the United States, according to the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank.
“Were the President to find the endless tariff authority he seeks based only on his decision to conflate trade deficits alone with balance of payments deficits, he would be seizing power from Congress unconstitutionally,” the attorneys general argue.
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. Secret Service agents (Photo by Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(GLYNCO, Ga.) — A Secret Service agent in training who previously worked as an analyst with the presidential protection team was arrested this week on charges of felony eavesdropping at the nation’s premiere federal law enforcement training academy.
Police reports from Glynn County, Georgia, said the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center student, Joel Lara Canvasser, secretly filmed his suitemate’s every move with a spy camera hidden in a phone charger. Canvasser allegedly targeted the roommate with a weekslong campaign of harassing text messages written to suggest the roommate was being watched by a stalking stranger who could see into his suite and even the bathroom.
Canvasser was arrested Wednesday and charged with unlawful eavesdropping or surveillance, according to police records. He posted bond of $8,458. Canvasser did not respond to messages seeking comment from ABC News.
Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew Quinn called the charges against Canvasser “deeply troubling.”
“On April 8, disturbing facts involving a Secret Service trainee assigned to a special agent training class at FLETC in Glynco, Georgia, were brought to light,” Quinn said in a statement to ABC News. “An initial investigation by the Secret Service and FLETC led to the individual’s arrest by local authorities. The charges are deeply troubling and raise significant concerns about the individual’s character and fitness to serve. As this matter is now before the courts, we will allow the facts to be presented through the judicial process. We commend the swift actions of Secret Service trainers and FLETC personnel, whose prompt response ensured the matter was quickly brought forward and addressed through appropriate legal channels.”
The agency also confirmed that the incident occurred between Canvasser and his suitemate, also a Secret Service trainee.
Before applying to be a special agent, Canvasser was a civilian employee assigned to the Office of Strategic Information and Intelligence, which monitors and assesses threats to the president and others under Secret Service protection.
Canvasser started with the Secret Service in the fall of 2025, the agency said — but now in addition to the criminal charges he faces, his access to all Secret Service sites and systems has been revoked while his work status and security clearance is suspended.
According to police, Canvasser in March offered his suitemate a phone charger after the roommate’s charger seemed to have disappeared. Canvasser, police said, told the roommate “the cleaning ladies may have taken it.”
Police said the roommate plugged the charger in below the TV, giving the hidden camera a vantage point that had “coverage of the entire room.”
“Roughly a week after [the roommate] plugs in the charger, he begins receiving odd text messages from various numbers. In the beginning he believed they were spam messages, however over time he began to realize whoever was texting him was simultaneously watching him,” the police report said. “At first, he assumed whoever was texting him had compromised his phone,” so he “placed a Band Aid over the camera.”
The roommate sought Canvasser’s help with what he thought was his hacked device, the report said. Canvasser “has a cyber background and is supposedly good with technology which is why [the roommate] had gone to him for help.”
Canvasser told the suitemate he was probably the victim of malware and offered to help reset the phone, according to the report. But afterward, the roommate noticed the refreshed phone had suddenly and automatically connected to Canvasser’s personal WiFi account — something he found “odd,” according to the report.
The roommate’s reprieve from the harassing messages was short-lived, the report said: the texts “made a return” a week later.
“There was a specific instance where [the roommate] was using the bathroom and his phone was in his pocket. When he finished, he checked his phone and saw a message referencing him using the bathroom. It was at this point that [the roommate] realized the individual was not watching him through his phone camera but instead from another device,” according to the report.
Upon examining the borrowed charger, the roommate noticed it had an unusual glint, and “realized it was a camera,” the report said. “When he had pulled it out of the wall, the light hit the device in such a way that made the lens visible.”
Canvasser’s alleged harassing voyeurism did not stop at the surreptitious filming, according to the report: the roommate told police that “during the past month, Mr. Joel has gone into [his] room on multiple occasions while he’s been sleeping at night. For this reason, [the roommate] has been locking his things up in attempts to prevent these events.”
The trainee’s alleged violations of both privacy and the law are another black mark for the agency tasked with protecting top officials, including the president, vice president, their families and foreign dignitaries visiting the U.S.
The Secret Service had faced intense scrutiny since a gunman attempted to assassinate Donald Trump, then a former president running to return to the White House, while he campaigned at a Pennsylvania rally two years ago. That incident, which prompted the ouster of the agency’s director, was called a “historic security failure by the Secret Service” in an independent review by the Department of Homeland Security.
It also comes after a Secret Service agent tasked with protecting former President Barack Obama knowingly breached his duties while trying to woo a love interest and living a double life, according to a memoir from the agent’s ex-girlfriend. That prompted an internal probe once the agency became aware, after which the agent was ultimately fired.
Alvin Bragg, Manhattan district attorney, speaks during the National Action Network (NAN) 35th Anniversary Convention in New York, April 8, 2026. (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Meta is failing to remove imposter accounts from its Facebook and WhatsApp platforms that “have led to tens of thousands of dollars of fraudulent transfers” in a growing scam across the country, according to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Bragg is the latest prosecutor to go public with criticism of Meta for failing to protect the public from criminals lurking on its social media platforms. New Mexico recently won a $375 million civil case that held Meta liable for failing to police its sites for child predators, and a jury in Los Angeles found Meta, along with Google, liable for a 20-year-old woman’s social media addiction.
In one of the latest scams, phony Facebook and WhatsApp accounts pose as organizations like Catholic Charities that offer pro bono legal services. The scammers behind those accounts claim to be lawyers offering immigration services, coaxing money from unsuspecting victims, Bragg said.
His office is getting, on average, a complaint a month and the scam has become so prevalent that Catholic Charities chapters in Trenton, Houston and Baltimore have posted warnings on their Facebook pages.
In some instances, scammers create public Facebook accounts that mirror real accounts belonging to pro bono legal services organizations, Bragg said. In others, they create WhatsApp profiles posing as immigration lawyers associated with those same organizations, frequently using the names and logos of legitimate organizations to give the appearance of credibility. “These imposter accounts have led to tens of thousands of dollars of fraudulent transfers. Scammers frequently target immigrant populations because they are perceived to be, and often are, more vulnerable to fraud and in need of a specific type of legal assistance,” Bragg said in a letter to Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg demanding the company take action after requests to remove false profiles were declined.
“Your company has made representations about the importance of the safety and security of your platform for its users,” Bragg’s letter said. “If you sincerely wish to protect the safety of your users from fraud, we urge you to take necessary, proactive steps.”
Bragg urged Meta to allow law enforcement agencies to report imposter accounts, suspend suspect accounts and ensure that users claiming to represent organizations that provide legal services are really where they say they are.
He also requested a meeting with Zuckerberg or his representatives to assure compliance.
Meta said that users are not permitted to misrepresent their identity to mislead or deceive others, but that bad actors are constantly changing the ways in which they violate Meta’s policies. As a result, Meta said, the company strives to keep scammers off its platforms and is investing in new technology, partnering with experts and other companies, and constantly working to update its detection and enforcement systems so users can feel safe.
In an interview with ABC News, Bragg urged caution to users seeking legal services.
“If there’s a lawyer who only wants to meet virtually and can’t give you a business address, that’s a red flag,” Bragg told ABC News. “Catholic Charities, these other organizations that are not-for-profits, they provide these services for free. So just the asking of money in and of itself is something that can be a red flag.”
