Category: National

(NEW YORK) — A New Jersey man convicted of attempted murder in the 2022 stabbing attack on author Salman Rushdie, while on stage at a speaking event, is set to be sentenced on Friday.

Hadi Matar likely faces a maximum of 25 years in prison, prosecutors said. He rejected a plea deal ahead of the trial.

His sentencing hearing is set to be held Friday morning in Chautauqua County Court, during which a defense motion to set aside the verdict will also be heard, the court said.

In February, a jury found Matar guilty of second-degree attempted murder in connection with the attack at the Chautauqua Institution in southwestern New York.

Rushdie was on stage speaking before an audience at the education center on Aug. 12, 2022, when he was stabbed multiple times in the face and neck in the attack, which blinded him in one eye.

Henry Reese, who was moderating the event, was also wounded in the attack. Matar was also found guilty of assault for injuring Reese.

Matar was tackled by bystanders and pinned to the stage following the attack.

The jury reached a verdict within two hours of deliberating.

During the trial, Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt played slow-motion video showing Matar emerging from the audience, sprinting toward Rushdie, and launching a violent attack. Schmidt described the stabbing as a deliberate, targeted act, arguing that striking someone 10 to 15 times in the face and neck made death a foreseeable outcome. A trauma surgeon testified that Rushdie would have died without immediate medical intervention.

“No question,” Rushdie told Good Morning America in April 2024 when asked if he thought he was going to die. “I mean, lying there in this lake of blood, which was mine and was expanding, I remember thinking in a completely calm way, Oh yeah, I think I’m dying. And then, fortunately, I was wrong.”

The defense countered that prosecutors failed to prove Matar intended to kill Rushdie and characterized the incident as a chaotic, noisy outburst rather than a calculated murder attempt. Public defender Nathaniel Barone argued Matar was overcharged due to Rushdie’s celebrity, noting he used knives rather than a gun or bomb and that Rushdie’s vital organs were not harmed.

Following the verdict, Schmidt described the prosecution’s case as “lock solid” and described the video evidence as “compelling.”

“I hope that two-and-a-half years later, Mr. Rushdie can get some satisfaction from this, poor Mr. Reese can get some satisfaction from this and everybody else that was there at the institution that risked their lives to jump on stage,” Schmidt told reporters.

Barone, meanwhile, told reporters they were “disappointed” by the verdict.

“What you hope for in any case, regardless, especially in a case like Mr. Matar’s, is that the system works for you,” Barone said.

Both Rushdie and Reese testified during the two-week trial. Matar did not testify and the defense called no witnesses.

The second-degree attempted murder charge carries a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison, while the assault charge is seven years. Schmidt said following the verdict that he believed the sentences for the two charges would run concurrently, not consecutively, as they were “entwined in a single occurrence.”

“My analysis tells me that — and I always want to be fair here — that really the facts speak to a concurrent disposition,” he said at the time. “I believe even though the cumulative total is 32 years plus five years parole supervision, I think we’re really looking at 25 plus five. That’s what I’ll advocate for. I think that’s appropriate here.”

Rushdie recounted the attack in his book, Knife: Meditations After an Attempted Murder, which was published last year.

Matar still faces federal terrorism charges in connection with the attack. He was indicted by a grand jury on three counts, including attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization and providing material support to terrorists. The indictment alleges he “knowingly did attempt to provide material support and resources” to Hezbollah, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and “had engaged, and was engaging, in terrorism.”

Matar was also charged with an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries for the attack against Rushdie. The indictment alleges that he “did knowingly attempt to kill, and did knowingly maim, commit an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, and assault with a dangerous weapon.”

He has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The federal judge overseeing the case of wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia is set to hear arguments Friday over the Trump administration’s recent invocation of the state secrets privilege to shield information about its handling of the matter.

The government’s assertion of privilege was revealed in a court order last week from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, in which the judge asked the parties to file briefs about the administration’s “invocations of privilege, principally the state secrets and deliberative process privileges.”

In the brief filed on Monday, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys pushed back on the government’s invocation of the rarely used states secret privilege, saying that the government has produced no evidence “showing that it has made the slightest effort to facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from detention in El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who had been living with his wife and children in Maryland, was deported in March to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison — despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation to that country due to fear of persecution — after the Trump administration claimed he was a member of the criminal gang MS-13. His wife and attorneys deny that he is an MS-13 member.

Judge Xinis ruled last month that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States, and the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that ruling, “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

Following the government’s inaction, Judge Xinis ordered several government officials to testify under oath through expedited discovery in order to resolve the matter.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys argued in Monday’s court filing that the Trump administration “does not come close to making a showing that would disturb the common sense conclusion that there are no genuine state secrets at play here,” saying the administration’s public statements — including in congressional testimony, public interviews and social media posts — demonstrate that “answering the requested discovery would not imperil national security.”

Attorneys for the Department of Justice argued in their own brief that the discovery requests by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys “would damage United States’ foreign relations.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a sealed declaration submitted to the court, affirmed “after actual personal consideration” that “disclosure of such materials reasonably could be expected to cause significant harm to the foreign relation[s] and national security interests of the United States,” DOJ attorneys said.

The Trump administration previously invoked the state secrets privilege in a separate case in March when the government refused to provide a federal judge with information about deportation flights to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(JACKSONVILLE, Fla.) — A 68-year-old woman has been arrested in the fatal stabbing of a man at a senior living facility in Jacksonville, Florida.

Carol Carroll was arrested on suspicion of murder after sheriff’s deputies responded to Morris Manor Apartments and found 73-year-old Robert Tucker with multiple stab wounds to his torso in the lobby of the facility on Tuesday, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office.

Jacksonville Fire and Rescue informed officers that Tucker had died at the scene, according to an arrest report.

Officers noticed a trail of blood from Tucker leading to a specific unit on the property, including multiple spots of blood in the hallway, a pool of blood inside an elevator and more blood on the second flood of the building, according to the report.

After obtaining a master key from the property, Carroll exited the bedroom and was detained by officers, according to the report.

After police spoke to Carroll and reviewed evidence at the scene she was arrested for Tucker’s murder.

Carroll and Tucker knew each other prior to the stabbing, according to police.

A security guard on the property told investigators they had gone to conduct rounds on the property. When he returned to the front security desk in the lobby, he found the victim lying on the floor bleeding, according to the report.

The security guard told officers that he did not recognize the victim, according to records.

While searching the apartment, investigators found a small rag with blood on it, blood on the living room floor and bedroom floor. A knife with blood on it was found in a brown purse inside the bedroom, according to the arrest report.

Investigators notified Tucker’s sons of his death. They told investigators that Tucker came down to Jacksonville in February to be closer to his children and grandchildren, after being released from the hospital following an illness, according to the arrest report.

Tucker had been residing with Carroll at her apartment apart from staying with a son for two days, the report said.

Tucker’s sons told investigators that they did not know Tucker or Carroll to be violent and were not aware of any domestic violence issues between them. But, they told investigators that Carroll is bipolar/schizophrenic, according to the report.

Investigators did not find any obvious signs of injury on Carroll during two interviews with her, but photographs were taken of Carroll in areas where she told police she had been struck, the report said.

Carroll is being held in a pretrial detention facility and will be facing a murder charge, according to the sheriff’s office.

She is scheduled to appear in court on June 4.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MILWAUKEE) — Attorneys for Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan are seeking to dismiss her federal indictment on charges alleging she helped an undocumented immigrant evade arrest, claiming in a new court filing that she is immune from federal prosecution for official acts.

In the filing, Dugan’s attorneys cite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in President Donald Trump’s immunity case as support.

A federal grand jury indicted Dugan on Tuesday on charges she concealed a person from arrest and obstructed a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.

Dugan appeared briefly in court Thursday morning. Her lawyers entered a plea of not guilty to the two federal charges.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Dries, who presided over the arraignment, set a trial date for July 22. The trial will be overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman, and was estimated to take about a week.

The government has not yet filed a response to Dugan’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

“This is no ordinary criminal case, and Dugan is no ordinary criminal defendant,” her attorneys, Rick Resch and Steven Biskupic, wrote in the motion filed Wednesday. “The government’s prosecution of Judge Dugan is virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional.”

Dugan was arrested on April 25 at the Milwaukee County Circuit Courthouse after being charged in a criminal complaint. Prosecutors allege she was attempting to help a defendant appearing in her courtroom evade federal agents who were in a public hallway outside her courtroom waiting to arrest him for immigration violations.

“The problems with this prosecution are legion, but most immediately, the government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts. Immunity is not a defense to the prosecution to be determined later by a jury or court; it is an absolute bar to the prosecution at the outset,” her attorneys wrote in the motion. “The prosecution against her is barred. The Court should dismiss the indictment.”

In three instances in the motion, Dugan’s attorneys cite the Supreme Court decision in the Trump immunity case as support for their position that Dugan is immune from prosecution for official acts.

Federal authorities allege that Dugan went into a hallway in the Milwaukee courthouse and directed the agents away from her courtroom, then instructed the defendant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to leave the courtroom through a non-public entrance, allegedly in an effort to allow him to evade arrest. In a post on social media following her arrest, FBI Director Kash Patel claimed Dugan “intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse.”

But Dugan’s lawyers contend in their motion that the doorway Flores-Ruiz used to exit the courtroom leads to the same public hallway a few feet away from the doors to Dugan’s courtroom. There, agents involved in the operation spotted him, followed him to an elevator and then arrested him after a short foot chase outside.

“Even if (contrary to what the trial evidence would show) Judge Dugan took the actions the complaint alleges, these plainly were judicial acts for which she has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution,” her lawyers wrote. “Judges are empowered to maintain control over their courtrooms specifically and the courthouse generally.”

Her lawyers also argued that whatever Dugan’s motivations might have been, they are “irrelevant” to the issue of immunity.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Dugan in the wake of her arrest, stating in an order that it found it was “in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties.”

Dugan’s legal team draws from four different firms and is led by Biskupic, a former Wisconsin federal prosecutor appointed by former President George W. Bush.

Another of her lawyers, Dean Strang, will be familiar to viewers of the Netflix docuseries, “Making a Murderer.” Strang was one of the defense attorneys for Steven Avery in a controversial homicide case, who became an unlikely star.

The legal team also includes Paul Clement. A former U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush presidency, Clement has argued before the Supreme Court more than 100 times. His Washington, D.C.-based law firm is listed in a court filing on Wednesday as being part of Dugan’s legal team, but Clement has not yet entered an appearance in the case.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Some 350,000 New Jersey commuters could soon find themselves scrambling for other ways to get to work if contract disagreements between New Jersey Transit and its engineers’ union aren’t resolved, according to transit officials.

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) has threatened to strike as early as Friday, May 16 unless NJ Transit and the union are able to agree on new contract terms and conditions for the workers who drive the trains. If no deal is reached, all New Jersey Transit commuter trains – and the MTA Metro-North West of Hudson service – will stop running.

“We have sought nothing more than equal pay for equal work, only to be continuously rebuffed by New Jersey Transit,” BLET General Chairman Tom Haas said during a press conference on May 9. “New Jersey Transit engineers want to keep the trains moving but the simple fact is that trains do not run without engineers.”

BLET National President Mark Wallace said during the press conference that it’s been five years since train engineers working for NJ Transit have received a pay increase. He also said many engineers might seek work at Amtrak or the Long Island Railroad if their contract requirements are not met.

“Reasonable people would vote for an agreement that is fair,” Wallace said.

Haas said during the news conference that engineers working for NJ Transit earn an average salary of $113,000 a year. If New Jersey Transit CEO Kris Kolluri agrees to an average salary of $170,000 a year for engineer operators, then “we got a deal,” Haas said.

“NJ TRANSIT locomotive engineers already have average total earnings of $135,000 annually, with the highest earners exceeding $200,000,” according to a statement on the New Jersey Transit website regarding negotiations with the BLET.

During a separate press conference the same day, Kolluri responded to the union’s arguments, saying Haas previously agreed to a wage increase to $49.82 an hour but then later demanded even higher wages because he thought there was “a better pot at the end of the rainbow.”

“I cannot keep giving money left and right to solve a problem. It all comes down to, who is going to pay for this? Money does not grow on trees,” Kolluri said.

ABC News requests sent to NJ Transit and the BLET for comment regarding Wallace, Haas and Kolluri’s statements concerning pay increase claims did not receive a response.

According to TV station WABC in New York, both sides will meet again Thursday morning for 11th-hour negotiations to avert the strike.

New Jersey Transit and BLET representatives met Monday with the National Mediation Board in Washington, D.C. to continue negotiations.

“We want to thank the National Mediation Board (NMB) for convening today’s meeting,” NJ Transit said in a statement on their website following the meeting. “We found the discussion to be constructive and look forward to continuing negotiations in good faith. To respect the collective bargaining process, we will not be sharing any additional details publicly at this time.”

There was no public BLET statement following the National Mediation Board meeting, nor did BLET immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.

NJ Transit states that if they were to accept BLET’s terms, it would cost both them and New Jersey taxpayers $1.363 billion between July 2025 and June 2030. Additionally, if BLET chooses to strike, the taxpayer cost of providing a limited alternative service via buses would be $4 million per day, NJ Transit claims.

NJ Transit commuters were already hit with a 15% fare increase on July 1, 2024, with an additional systemwide 3% fare increase scheduled to go into effect July 1 of this year and every subsequent year. NJ Transit said that the increase was necessary in order to cover a budget deficit caused in part by a pandemic-era decrease in ridership, as well as other increased costs, including inflation.

Should the strike commence on May 16, NJ Transit said it “strongly encourages all those who can work from home to do so and limit traveling on the NJ Transit system to essential purposes only.”

NJ Transit officials also said that they’ve developed a contingency plan that includes adding “very limited capacity to existing New York commuter bus routes in close proximity to rail stations and contracting with private carriers to operate bus service” for commuters that typically rely on the trains.

Even with the expanded bus service, however, NJ Transit said that it “estimates that it can only carry approximately 20% of current rail customers” because the bus system doesn’t have the capacity to replace commuter rail service.

Xuan Sharon Di, associate professor of civil engineering and engineering mechanics at Columbia University, told ABC News the potential NJ Transit strike would be a “disaster” for the traffic in Manhattan due to the increased bus and car traffic into the city from commuters unable to take the train. There also will be the added penalty of commuters into Manhattan having to pay recently enacted congestion pricing.

“New Jersey Transit is the backbone for people who live in New Jersey to move around. This is actually shocking to me,” Di told ABC News of the prospect of a strike.

Steven Chien, civil and environmental engineering professor at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, said many of his colleagues use NJ Transit to commute and that a strike will “paralyze vital transportation arteries in our regions.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SAN ANTONIO, Texas) — A Texas mother has been arrested and charged for allegedly buying ammunition and tactical gear for her son’s planned “mass targeted violence” at his middle school, officials said.

Ashley Pardo, 33, was arrested on Monday and charged with aiding in commission of terrorism after she allegedly provided ammunition and tactical gear to her son, whose behavior demonstrated plans for a “mass targeted violence” aimed at Rhodes Middle School in San Antonio, according to an affidavit obtained by ABC News.

Back in January, Pardo’s son was first contacted in reference to “drawings of the local school he currently attended,” the affidavit said. These drawings included a map of the school — labeled “suicide route” — and the name of the school written beside a rifle, the affidavit said.

The son, who was not named in the affidavit, was contacted by officials at the time and described a “fascination with past mass shooters,” according to the affidavit.

In April, the son was found researching the 2019 Christchuch mosque shooting in New Zealand — a tragedy that killed 51 people — on a school-issued computer, the affidavit said.

He was “subsequently suspended and later in the day attempted suicide with a straight razor causing significant injuries and requiring over 100 stitches,” the affidavit noted. The boy attended an alternative school until May 7, according to officials.

His grandmother, with whom he had been staying “on various occasions,” contacted police on Monday after she found her grandson “hitting a live bullet with a hammer,” the affidavit said.

The middle schooler told his grandmother he received the bullet from Pardo and that she had “guns and ammunition at her house,” according to the affidavit.

The grandmother told officials Pardo had been taking the boy to a local surplus store and bought him magazines, a tactical black vest “capable of concealing ballistic plates,” a tactical black helmet and various army clothing, the affidavit said.

On Monday, the boy told his grandmother he was “going to be famous” before being picked up by his mom and taken to school, according to officials.

The grandmother then looked through the boy’s bedroom, where she found magazines loaded with live rifle ammunition and pistol magazines loaded with live ammunition, the affidavit said.

She also found an “improvised explosive device” — a mortar-style firework wrapped in duct tape — among the boy’s belongings, the affidavit noted. The explosive device had the words “For Brenton Tarrant,” referencing the shooter in the 2019 mosque attack, along with multiple “SS” symbols and “14 words” — referencing white supremacy — written on it, according to the affidavit.

Along with the weaponry, the grandmother found a handwritten note referring to previous mass shootings, mass shooting suspects and the number of victims in each incident, the affidavit said.

Pardo had been aware of the threats made by her son, expressed to the school her support of his “violent expressions and drawings” and said she did not feel concerned for his behavior, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit noted that Pardo was purchasing the gear and ammunition for her son in exchange for babysitting his younger siblings.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LOS ANGELES) — Erik and Lyle Menendez have been resentenced to 50 years to life in prison, which makes them immediately eligible for parole — a vindication years in the making for the brothers and their family.

But that doesn’t mean an automatic release from prison.

Here’s a look at what’s next:

The new sentence

Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were arrested in March 1990, were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. The brothers said they committed the murders in self-defense after years of abuse by their father.

At the conclusion of Tuesday’s resentencing hearing, Judge Michael Jesic granted them a new sentence of 50 years to life in prison, which follows the recommendation made in October by then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.

Gascón recommended the brothers’ sentences of life without parole be removed, and said they should instead be sentenced for murder, which is 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they’re eligible for parole immediately under California law.

Gascón’s office said its resentencing recommendations took into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the brothers’ conduct in prison, saying they rehabilitated themselves and started programs to help other inmates.

In November, Gascón lost his reelection bid to Nathan Hochman, who in March filed a motion to withdraw the resentencing petition, calling the brothers’ claims of self-defense part of a litany of “lies.” The judge denied Hochman’s request.

The brothers, who appeared via video at Tuesday’s hearing, addressed the judge directly.

“I killed my mom and dad,” Lyle Menendez told the judge. “I give no excuses.”

He also admitted to committing perjury by lying in court in the ’90s. He apologized to his family for years of lies and the shock and grief of the crimes.

“I committed an atrocious act,” Erik Menendez told the judge. “My actions were criminal, selfish and cowardly. … No excuse.”

He admitted to lying for years and apologized.

What’s next — resentencing case

It could take months before Erik and Lyle Menendez are assigned a parole date for the resentencing case. They are eligible for that parole date right away, as inmates with a sentence of 25 years-to-life or longer can get their hearing during the 25th year of incarceration, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The brothers will likely each have their own individual hearings in front of a three-member parole board at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, the San Diego prison where they’re both housed, according to ABC News legal analyst Matt Murphy.

Murphy said the California Board of Parole’s newly completed risk assessment — which was conducted as a part of the brothers’ separate clemency path — does raise serious red flags that the parole board will take under consideration.

The risk assessment concluded that Erik and Lyle Menendez pose a moderate risk to the community if they’re released, noting that the brothers didn’t follow rules in prison so there’s a likelihood they won’t follow the law outside of prison.

The assessment revealed the brothers possessed illegal cellphones. Erik Menendez had a phone as recently as January of this year, which Hochman stressed was during the resentencing effort when he should have been on his best behavior.

“Cellphones are very dangerous in prison because they can be used to commit crime — they can be used to put hits on people, they can be used to intimidate witnesses,” Murphy explained.

For most prisoners, being caught with a cellphone is enough to be denied parole, Murphy said.

Erik Menendez also allegedly bought and traded drugs and allegedly helped inmates commit tax fraud years ago, according to the assessment.

“Simply because they’re eligible does not mean they’ll be released,” Murphy said. “A majority of life prisoners serving time for murder with parole dates are not released if they’ve had problems in prison.”

The parole board is also likely to weigh if the brothers have taken full responsibility, Murphy said.

The brothers admitted to the crime and admitted to lies in court Tuesday, and their family said they’ve “apologized to all of us” and “spent the last 35 years becoming better men worthy of a second chance.” But the DA insists that they’ve still “failed to come clean with the full extent of their criminal conduct, their cover-up, their lies and their deceit.”

The psychologists also found Lyle Menendez to be narcissistic. The brothers will undergo further psychological evaluations beyond the risk assessment, Murphy said.

If granted parole, they’d be eligible for release immediately after the decision is finalized, which takes about five months, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. If parole is denied, the denial could be for either three, five, seven, 10 or 15 years, according to the department.

What’s next — clemency case

In the meantime, the brothers have a special parole hearing on June 13 regarding their bid for clemency from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. As they did Tuesday, the brothers are expected to appear via video from prison.

The clemency path is separate from the resentencing path. The brothers’ defense team submitted the request for clemency in October 2024 and Newsom can grant clemency at any time.

After the June 13 hearing, Newsom will “submit that report to the judge for the resentencing, and that will weigh into our independent analysis of whether or not to move forward with the clemency application to support a commutation of this case,” the governor said in March on his “This is Gavin Newsom” podcast.

The bigger picture

In an exclusive statement to ABC News hours after the resentencing decision, Erik Menendez said he hopes his case can serve as “one step on the path of widespread justice reform that will give us and so many hopeless souls in prison the continued hope to earn personal redemption.”

“My goal is to ensure there are no more people spending 35 years in prison without hope,” he said. “That possibility of having hope that rehabilitation works is more important than anything that happened to me today.”

The brothers’ attorney, Mark Geragos, agreed, saying their case “encourages people who are incarcerated to make the right decisions, to take the right path.”

But Murphy said he’s concerned the brothers’ win on Tuesday shows the success of victim-blaming.

The brothers have “continued to insist that they believe that Kitty Menendez posed a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm to them, which was rejected by every single appellate court,” Murphy said. Now Murphy predicts “every lifer in the state of California is going to ask for their resentencing.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK CITY) — A federal court in California sided with environmentalists, striking down a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) attempt to withhold protections for the Joshua tree under the Endangered Species Act.

The Central District of California ruled on Monday that the FWS decision to not provide ESA protections for the Joshua tree is unlawful and sidesteps climate science.

Known for its twisted stalks and unusual outline, the Joshua tree is native to the arid southwestern U.S. and thrives in harsh desert environments.

In 2015, WildEarth Guardians, an environmental nonprofit group, petitioned the FWS to list Joshua trees as a threatened species, but a second 2023 species status assessment by the FWS found that neither Joshua tree species — Yucca brevifolia and Yucca jaegeriana — requires protections.

The FWS said it looked at threats from wildfire, invasive grasses, climate change and habitat loss and fragmentation. It found that none of the threats rose to the level to meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges, according to the assessment.

“Through our scientific assessment, the Service determined that Joshua trees will remain an iconic presence on the landscape into the future. Although the two species do not need the protections of the Endangered Species Act, the Service cares deeply about Joshua trees and their roles in the desert environment,” said Service Pacific Southwest Regional Director Paul Souza in a statement in 2023.

“We are coordinating closely with partners to ensure the long-term conservation of these species, including the National Park Service and other Federal agencies, and the State of California, which is also considering measures for the protection of Joshua trees.”

However, multiple studies have shown that shifts in climate in the Mojave Desert is a major contributor to weather events that threaten Joshua trees, including wildfires.

“The agency’s decision, for a second time, reflected a massive disconnect from what the best available science shows — that climate change and wildfire will prevent Joshua trees from successfully recruiting new generations over the coming years,” Jennifer Schwartz, managing attorney for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement sent to ABC News.

After the FWS analysis was released, WildEarth Guardians sued the FWS “for its failure to follow federal law” in denying protections for the Joshua tree.

The Central District of California ruled in favor of the environmental nonprofit’s claims, writing in the decision “that the Service has not provided a rational explanation as to why climate change alone does not threaten the species to become threatened or endangered.”

“The Service provides no explanation as to why it did not use current trends and standards regarding greenhouse gas emissions as a basis for its decision, when this data currently is available,” the decision states.

The court also noted that when assessing the “foreseeable future” of the Joshua tree, the FWS only looked to the middle of the 21st century, while the end of the 21st century is the commonly used timeline for most scientific assessments.

“It is essential that the Service considers climate change’s effect on habitat suitability in relation to young Joshua trees, and not just the persistence of stronger, adult Joshua trees,” the order states.

The federal court has instructed the FWS to reconsider whether the Joshua tree should receive ESA protections with more scientific analysis.

The ruling “serves as yet another reminder that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must completely grapple with the ongoing and incoming threats from human-created climate change,” Casey Bage, legal fellow for WildEarth Guardians, said in a statement sent to ABC News.

Bage noted that the science “is clear” in this case.

“We must face these facts head-on in order to protect Joshua trees — and other species — to give them the fighting chance that they deserve,” Bage said.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Recession alarms blared across Wall Street in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff announcement last month, but a recent trade agreement between the U.S. and China has dialed back many of those warnings.

JPMorgan on Tuesday lowered its odds of a recession this year from 60% to below 50%, meaning the U.S. is more likely to grow in 2025 than enter a downturn. Similarly, Goldman Sachs reduced its chances of a recession this year from 45% to 35%.

Stock market gains reflected such optimism. The S&P 500 soared in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-China agreement, shrugging off previous tariff-induced losses and bringing the index into positive territory for 2025.

The accord between the world’s two largest economies slashed U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, while cutting Chinese levies on U.S. products from 125% to 10%.

The previous set of sky-high tariffs had threatened a surge in prices, a disruption of global trade and a possible U.S. recession.

“The risk of a recession over the next 12 months looks substantially lower following the tariff cuts,” Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank, told ABC News in a statement.

The drawdown of U.S.-China tariffs marks the latest softening of Trump’s levies.

The White House last month paused far-reaching “reciprocal tariffs” on dozens of countries, just hours after the measures took effect. Trump has also eased sector-specific tariffs targeting autos, and rolled back duties on some goods from Mexico and Canada.

“These massive tariff reductions at this time likely take a recession off the table for now,” Dan Ives, a managing director of equity research at the investment firm Wedbush, told ABC News in a statement on Monday.

Still, an array of tariffs remain in place. An across-the-board 10% levy applies to imports from nearly all countries. Additional tariffs have hit auto parts, as well as steel and aluminum.

Even after the pullback, a 30% tariff on China far exceeds the level before Trump took office, posing a risk of price increases for a large swathe of products that includes apparel, toys and some electronics.

The rollback of levies on Chinese goods is expected to reduce the average cost of tariffs per household nearly by half but the cost burden will still reach $2,800 in 2025, the Yale Budget Lab found.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned last week of a possible tariff-induced bout of “stagflation,” a term that describes a rise of inflation alongside a slowdown of the economy.

Under such a scenario, the central bank could face difficulty as it weighs a choice between lower rates intended to boost the economy or higher rates aimed at easing inflation.

“If the large increase in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they’re likely to generate a rise in inflation and a slowdown of economic growth,” Powell said. “All of these policies are evolving, however, and their effects on the economy remain highly uncertain.”

For now, the economy has defied inflation fears. Inflation eased in the aftermath of the tariff escalation last month, reaching its lowest level since 2021, government data on Tuesday showed.

The path forward for tariffs remains uncertain, however, clouding the economic outlook, some analysts told ABC News.

The lowered U.S.-China tariffs will remain in place for 90 days while the two sides negotiate a wider trade deal. The White House says it has launched trade discussions with dozens of countries in an effort to strike trade agreements before a pause of the “reciprocal tariffs” lifts in July.

“Will the unpredictable nature of U.S. policy continue or are we now on a more conventional path?” Jim Reid, a strategist at Deutsche Bank Research, said in a note to clients this week, just hours after the U.S. and China announced the trade agreement. “Not sure I have the answers.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP, NJ) — A massive fire on Sunday that leveled a New Jersey home, where first responders later recovered the bodies of a man and a woman, has been ruled a murder-suicide, authorities said Tuesday.

Neighbors reported hearing a blast around the time of the fire early Sunday in the Gloucester County community of Washington Township and said it sounded like a bomb going off.

In a statement released on Tuesday, the Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office said the woman found dead in a bed at the destroyed residence had suffered a fatal bullet wound to the head before the house became engulfed in flames. Her death was ruled a homicide by the Gloucester County Medical Examiner’s Office.

The man was discovered dead in the living room of the destroyed home with a handgun lying near his body, the prosecutor’s office said. His death was ruled a suicide by fire, according to the statement from the prosecutor’s office.

The identities of the two people were being withheld pending official confirmation by the medical examiner, according to the prosecutor’s office.

“The investigation conducted in the aftermath of the fire revealed the presence of an accelerant and that the home’s gas line had been tampered with, enabling unrestricted flow of natural gas into the home’s interior,” the statement said.

A motive for the murder-suicide remains under investigation by the prosecutor’s office, the Washington Township Police Department and the Gloucester County Fire Marshal’s Office.

News of the medical examiner’s findings came a day after the Washington Township Police Department said the explosion had prompted a “criminal investigation” and that the incident was “not accidental.”

The fire occurred at 2:02 a.m. on Sunday and prompted multiple 911 calls from neighbors reporting a loud explosion and fire in the area of Tranquility Court and Orion Way, according to a statement released by the Washington Township Police.

“Responding officers arrived at 13 Tranquility Court and observed that the residence was fully engulfed in flames and appeared to have been heavily damaged by an apparent explosion,” according to the police statement.

Washington Township Fire Department firefighters arrived shortly after the police and extinguished the flames, according to the statement.

Video taken by ABC Philadelphia station WPVI showed damage to at least one home near the destroyed house. The footage also showed a car that had apparently been damaged.

Neighbors who live blocks away reported being rattled awake.

Investigators said the fire was likely not caused by an explosion and that the blasts neighbors heard may have happened after the fire had already ignited, according to WPVI.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.