Category: Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The White House has been fielding proposals aimed at persuading people to marry and have children, an effort being pushed by outside groups focused on increasing the nation’s birth rate after years of decline.

One such proposal that has been pitched to White House advisers is a $5,000 “baby bonus” to every American mother after she gives birth.

“Sounds like a good idea to me,” President Donald Trump said Tuesday when asked about a $5,000 incentive for new mothers.

When asked by ABC News about the proposals the administration has been fielding, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president is “proudly implementing policies to uplift American families.”

“The president wants America to be a country where all children can safely grow up and achieve the American dream. As a mother myself, I am proud to work for a president who is taking significant action to leave a better country for the next generation,” Leavitt said.

Sources cautioned that while advisers are considering the ideas, Trump hasn’t made a final decision on any of the proposals.

A White House official pointed ABC News to the policies Trump has taken so far to help families, specifically citing his executive order aimed at increasing access and affordability for in vitro fertilization, or IVF. The official also cautioned against linking outside proposals to the White House.

The Trump administration has made a significant effort to promote families and emphasized that more babies need to be born in the United States.

On the campaign trail, Trump coined himself the “King of IVF,” and in March, he joked that he would be known as the “fertilization president.”

Vice President J.D. Vance has also made a concerted effort to encourage people to have more children. During the 2024 campaign, Vance said the child tax credit should be expanded, stating that he would love to see it at $5,000 per child, but he noted that it needs to be worked out with Congress to see its viability.

And at the March for Life in late January, Vance told the crowd he wanted “more babies in the United States of America” and called on the government to do its part to ensure families can afford to care for their children.

“I want more happy children in our country, and I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them. And it is the task of our government to make it easier for young moms and dads to afford to have kids, to bring them into the world and to welcome them as the blessings that we know they are,” Vance said.

“We need a culture that celebrates life at all stages, one that recognizes and truly believes that the benchmark of national success is not our GDP number or our stock market but whether people feel that they can raise thriving and healthy families in our country,” he added.

Simone Collins and her husband, Malcolm Collins, are pro-natalists who have advocated actions to make it less difficult for families to have children and ultimately reverse declining birth and marriage rates. Simone Collins told ABC News that she and her husband have submitted several draft executive orders to the White House Domestic Policy Council, including bestowing a “National Medal of Motherhood” to mothers with six or more children. They also proposed that couples should not face a tax penalty for getting married.

She said the White House was receptive to the draft orders and is reviewing them.

However, MomsRising CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, whose organization says it advocates on behalf of more than a million mothers and families, said the programs are “sheer lunacy — coercive, counterproductive recipes for failure.”

“There’s no question that families need policies that make it possible for moms and parents to care for their kids, go to work and contribute to their communities,” she said in a press release, arguing that affordable child and elder care, access to maternal health care and paid family leave would better encourage people to start and grow their families. “This president has had endless opportunities to support those tried-and-true, proven policies that lift families and our economy, but his administrations have utterly failed to do so.

“The proposals the Trump administration are reportedly considering will not open avenues for moms, families and our economy to thrive,” she added. “Those who want families to have more babies should support the policies that build the care infrastructure families and businesses need. When we become a family-friendly country, families will have more children.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Longtime Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced Wednesday that he will not seek reelection in 2026 and will retire after serving for over four decades in Congress.

“In my heart, I know it’s time to pass the torch,” Durbin said in the video. “The threats to our democracy and way of life are real, and I can assure you that I will do everything in my power to fight for Illinois and the future of our country every day of my remaining time in the Senate.”

Durbin, 80, has served in the Senate since 1997 and won reelection to the Senate four times. Coupled with his time in the House, Durbin has served in Congress for 44 years.

“We are also fortunate to have a strong Democratic bench ready to serve,” Durbin said in the video. “We need them now more than ever.”

His departure will set up a contentious race among Illinois Democrats vying to fill the seat in a solidly blue state.

“It has been an honor serving alongside Sen. Dick Durbin in Congress. I have long admired his focus on creating jobs in Illinois, bringing down costs for working families and protecting benefits for veterans and seniors,” Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., said following Durbin’s announcement. “As a dedicated public servant for more than four decades, Sen. Durbin has been a strong voice for Illinoisans, ushering into law many historic bills as a long-time leader in the U.S. Senate. I am grateful for the legacy he leaves behind that has helped improve millions of our Illinois neighbors.”

It will also leave a void in Democratic leadership in the Senate. Durbin, as Democratic whip, has served as the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat since 2004. Now, Democrats will need to reshuffle to fill Durbin’s position.

There are a number of younger Senate Democrats who have been working to make names for themselves this Congress, and its not clear who might jump into that leadership race. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., is currently the No. 3 Senate Democrat, and Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., is the No. 4 Senate Democrat. Either of them could enter the contest.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., praised Durbin in a statement following the announcement.

“Dick Durbin has been more than a colleague — he’s been a trusted partner, one of the most respected voices in the Senate for decades, my dear friend, and, of course, my former roommate,” Schumer said. “His deep commitment to justice, his tireless advocacy for Americans in need, and his wisdom in leadership have left an indelible mark on this institution, the United States, and his beloved Illinois. The Senate — and the country — are better because of his service. To my friend, Dick: Thank you, for everything.”

Durbin has served as the top Democrat, in his capacity as either chairman or ranking member, of the Senate Judiciary Committee since 2021. He helped to confirm 235 federal judges under former President Joe Biden.

Durbin is now the fourth Democrat to announce plans not to run in 2026. Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Tina Smith, D-Minn., are also retiring. Sen. Michael Bennet is running for Colorado governor despite his term not ending until 2028, and if he wins, he will vacate a fifth Democratic seat.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Amid a tense legal battle over deportations, President Donald Trump is now arguing undocumented migrants should not be given a trial where they could challenge being removed from the country.

“We’re getting them out, and I hope we get cooperation from the courts because you know, we have thousands of people that are ready to go out, and you can’t have a trial for all of these people,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

“It wasn’t meant, the system wasn’t meant — and we don’t think there is anything that says — Look, we are getting some very bad people, killers, murderers, drug dealers, really bad people, the mentally ill, the mentally insane, they emptied out insane asylums into our country, we’re getting them out,” Trump continued. “And a judge can’t say, ‘No, you have to have a trial.'”

“No, we are going to have a very dangerous country if we are not allowed to do what we are entitled to do,” Trump added.

Trump made a similar argument in a post to his conservative social media platform, contending they can’t give everyone they want to deport a trial because it would “take, without exaggeration, 200 years.”

“Such a thing is not possible to do,” he wrote.

The comments came after the Supreme Court, in a brief order issued early Saturday morning, temporarily blocked the administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants alleged to be gang members under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

“The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court,” the justices said. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The Trump administration pushed back against the Supreme Court, calling its decision “unprecedented” and wrong. Solicitor General John Sauer said the justices should reverse course and let lower courts weigh in on the issue first.

The American Civil Liberties Union had appealed to the nation’s high court to stop the migrants being held in a Texas detention center from being removed, contending they were at risk of being deported “without notice or an opportunity to be heard” — a breach, they said, of the Supreme Court’s previous order that detainees are entitled to “reasonable time” to seek relief.

“These men were in imminent danger of spending their lives in a horrific foreign prison without ever having had a chance to go to court,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt in a statement after the Supreme Court’s order. “We are relieved that the Supreme Court has not permitted the administration to whisk them away the way others were just last month.”

Also front and center of Trump’s deportation effort is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant living in Maryland who was erroneously deported to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT mega-prison.

Trump administration border czar Tom Homan defended Abrego Garcia’s removal, telling ABC’s “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl they “did the right thing” and “removed a public safety threat.” The administration’s alleged Abrego Garcia is member of the MS-13 gang, which his attorneys and family deny.

Democrats have criticized Trump’s actions in the case as violating due process rights. Sen. Chris Van Hollen was the first Democratic lawmaker to visit El Salvador, where he met with Garcia, last week. Several House Democrats were in El Salvador on Monday to advocate for his release.

“While Donald Trump continues to defy the Supreme Court, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is being held illegally in El Salvador after being wrongfully deported,” said Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia. “That is why we’re here — to remind the American people that kidnapping immigrants and deporting them without due process is not how we do things in America.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping plan to dramatically restructure the State Department that would see many of its longstanding offices and hundreds of positions eliminated.

“In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition,” Rubio said in a statement. “The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America’s core national interests.”

Officials familiar with the plans say Rubio’s vision involves reducing the number of offices within the State Department from 734 to 602 and eventually wiping out roughly 700 Washington-based positions for Foreign Service and Civil Service employees.

The officials said that the reductions would not be immediate, and that leaders within the department would have 30 days to analyze and implement the plan.

An updated organizational chart released by Rubio shows offices on the chopping block include those that fall under the department’s Bureau of Energy Resources and its Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, which is aimed at helping the federal government “better anticipate, prevent, and respond to conflict,” according to the department.

Other offices that would be eliminated under the plan include the Office of the Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary, the Office of International Religious Freedoms, the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, the Office of Global Women’s Issues, the Office of Global Partnerships, and the Office of Global Criminal Justice, which is aimed at coordinating the government’s response to war crimes and promoting accountability for offenders.

Under the plan, the department will also combine two bureaus focused on arms control and eliminate units focused on countering violent extremism from the department’s counterterrorism bureau.

Officials also expect that several special envoys and their offices will be eliminated.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said that reorganization did not necessarily mean that the area of focus previously covered by an eliminated office was no longer a priority for the department.

“Certainly, all these issues are important,” Bruce said, adding that department would work at “blending” those topics within the new framework so they could be “dealt with as a whole.”

However, officials say that other reductions are planned for areas in the department that were not directly impacted by the reorganization, and that undersecretaries throughout the bureau have been instructed to draw up plans to reduce their personnel by 15% — a move that could lead to thousands of additional job cuts.

State Department leadership has been under increased pressure to reduce its workforce amid broader cuts across the federal government spearheaded by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

On Tuesday, Bruce downplayed the role DOGE had in the reorganization plans.

“We know the American people love the result of DOGE. I think there were some questions, perhaps, about how it was applied,” she said.

“I would say that DOGE is not in charge of this, but this is the result of what we’ve learned and the fact that we appreciate results,” Bruce added.

The Trump administration has been considering a budget proposal that would cut the State Department’s budget by roughly half, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations and documents reviewed by ABC News.

Rubio’s restructuring doesn’t address the department’s overseas operations, which officials say are also likely to undergo significant cuts in the coming months.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday signaled that it is poised to establish a right of parents to opt-out their children from public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.

The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, specifically seeks a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.

The parents allege use of the books in elementary school curriculum — without an opportunity to be excused — amounts to government-led indoctrination about sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insists the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas.

The justices engaged in spirited debate for more than 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments, wrestling with where to draw the line between exposure and coercion, which is forbidden under the First Amendment.

“Is merely being exposed to the reading of the book out loud coercion?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the parents’ attorney Eric Baxter. “Is looking two men getting married — is that the religious objection?”

“Our parents would object to that,” Baxter replied.

Several of the court’s conservative members suggested an opt-out for sensitive subjects should be common sense.

“I’m a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “I’m surprised that this is the hill we’re going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”

In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into the language arts curriculum, the school board allowed parents to opt-out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said an opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” Kavanaugh said later. “The whole goal of some of our religious precedents is to look for the win/win.”

Justice Samuel Alito, who appeared most sympathetic to the parents, said he believes the five books in question — out of more than 100 in the school curriculum — “have a clear message” and that “a lot of people disagree with it.”

“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” Alito asked Alan Schoenfeld, the county’s attorney. “Why is it not administrable? They are able to opt-out of the health class, right?”

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether elementary school students could realistically be assumed to understand that a presentation of the books was different than a teacher’s endorsement of them.

“I understand the idea when you’re talking about a sophomore, a junior, whatever, in high school,” Roberts said, “but I’m not sure that same qualifying factor applies when you’re talking about five-year-olds.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the board may have exhibited discriminatory “hostility” toward religion in reversing course on the opt-outs, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared inclined to believe the board’s distinct purpose was to coerce children into accepting beliefs about sexuality.

“It was part of the curriculum to teach them that boys can be girls or boys can — or that your pronouns can change depending on how you feel one day to the next?” Barrett asked skeptically.

“Federal courts are not meant to sit as school boards in deciding these curriculum disputes,” Schoenfeld said later, noting that the Montgomery County board was democratically elected by local residents.

The court’s three liberal justices all vigorously challenged the parents’ request in the case, seeing opt-out rights as a slippery slope.

Sotomayor said the list of potential religiously offensive content is limitless, from depictions of women who work, to stories involving divorce, pictures of interfaith marriage, even teachings around evolution.

Justice Elena Kagan said the constitutional right parents are claiming is remarkably broad. “I’m searching for what in the legal arguments would allow us to draw lines in this area, and I’m not finding it,” Kagan said. “It’ll be like opt-outs for everyone.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson worried aloud that a decision siding with the parents could have far-reaching implications beyond books.

She asked about a gay teacher with a photo of his wedding on a desk, or a student group putting “love is love” posters around the campus, or about exposure to a transgender student in the classroom, where a teacher refers to them by their preferred pronouns?

“Is it a burden for a religious student who is being taught at home and through their religion that gender is not a situation that can be changed … to be in a public school classroom where the teacher is referring to another student by what this student believes is the wrong pronoun?” Jackson asked.

“That would, in fact, constitute a burden on religious exercise,” replied Baxter, implying such a student might have a case for an opt-out.

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Disgraced former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., insists he has “accepted full responsibility” for a series of fraudulent schemes despite a “social media blitz” that federal prosecutors said suggested otherwise.

Prosecutors repeated their request for a prison term of more than seven years when Santos is sentenced Friday, saying his recent social media posts show the 35-year-old Santos “remains unrepentant for his crimes.”

Santos, in a letter to the judge Tuesday, said he can be both “profoundly sorry” and upset by the Justice Department’s recommendation of a lengthy prison sentence.

“But saying I’m sorry doesn’t require me to sit quietly while these prosecutors try to drop an anvil on my head. True remorse isn’t mute; it is aware of itself, and it speaks up when the penalty scale jumps into the absurd,” Santos’ letter said.

“Ironically, the same political ambition that underpinned my own wrongdoing now seems to fuel the government’s overreach in this case,” hew wrote. “You’d think they might have learned something from the very person they chose to prosecute so vehemently!”

Santos included a selective chart to suggest the government’s sentencing recommendation is out of step with other political prosecutions, citing former Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. being sentenced to 30 months for misusing $750,000 in campaign funds or ex-New York Rep. Michael Grimm being sentenced to eight months for concealing $900,000 in wages and taxes.

Prosecutors alleged Santos, with the help of former Campaign Treasurer Nancy Marks, falsified Federal Election Commission filings, fabricating donor contributions and inflating fundraising totals to meet the $250,000 threshold required to join the National Republican Congressional Committee’s coveted “Young Guns” program. Marks pleaded guilty and is awaiting sentencing in June.

When informed he hadn’t reached the NRCC benchmark, Santos texted an associate, “We are going to do this a little differently. I got it.”

The “different” approach included submitting fake donations attributed to family members, fictitious individuals and even identities stolen from elderly supporters, according to the filing.

Santos pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in August 2024. He had already been expelled from Congress in December 2023.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Michigan is set to face a competitive primary and fierce race for the battleground state’s open U.S. Senate seat in 2026.

Three major Democrats have already entered the contest, while Republicans eye flipping the seat, which will be vacated by retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.

The battleground state had mixed results for both parties in 2024, with President Donald Trump snagging a win in the presidential race and then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, prevailing in the Senate race. Democrats hope to keep the open seat in their hands, while Republicans hope to flip it and add to their majority in the Senate.

Rep. Haley Stevens, a Democrat who represents Michigan’s 11th District, revealed on Tuesday that she will run for Senate, with an announcement focused on the state’s automobile industry and how it may be affected by tariffs imposed by the White House.

“Growing up in Michigan meant being surrounded by innovation, ingenuity and pride in hard work. And from our farmers to our nurses to our manufacturers, Michigan has the best workers in the world,” Stevens said in an announcement video posted on social media on Tuesday.

“But Donald Trump has a much different plan for Michigan,” she added.

“His chaos and reckless tariffs are putting tens of thousands of Michigan jobs at risk,” she said, adding that costs are rising “but all we’re getting is more chaos. What the heck are they doing?”

Stevens, first elected to the House in 2018, is a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee and the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. She also served as chief of staff of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry during the Obama administration.

In 2022, she endured a competitive member-on-member primary against then-Rep. Andy Levin, although she was bolstered by outside support from pro-Israel groups. (The U.S.-Israel relationship is a hot-button issue in Michigan and became a wedge issue during the 2024 elections.)

She is set to face a competitive Democratic primary, which includes two other high-profile figures. (One key name took himself out of contention already: Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg ruled out a Senate bid in March.)

Abdul El-Sayed, the former director of the Wayne County, Michigan, health department and a former Michigan gubernatorial candidate, announced on Thursday he will run for the seat — and he netted a quick endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

“I’m running for U.S. Senate because in the state that built the ‘American dream,’ it shouldn’t be this hard just to get by,” El-Sayed said in an announcement video that opened with a fictional, old-style cartoon talking about his background.

“We’ve got to fight back hard against Trump and [Elon] Musk with a hell of a lot more than paper paddles and broken promises. … The disease is the corruption of our politics by billionaires and corporations, while the workers who built this country are forgotten,” he added in the announcement in clips that appear to be from a podcast taping.

Sanders, who has received renewed national attention in recent months as he attracts crowds on his nationwide “Fighting Oligarchy” speaking tour, endorsed El-Sayed the same day.

Earlier in April, Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow announced her own Senate bid.

In an announcement video, which opened with a montage of news clips about Trump and a clip of Musk’s viral moment in February holding a chainsaw, McMorrow said, “There are moments that will break you. This is not that moment. This moment will challenge us, test us. And if it all feels like too much? That’s they’re plan. They want to make you feel powerless. But you are not powerless.”

McMorrow entered the national spotlight after being baselessly accused of aiming to “groom and sexualize kindergartners” in a 2022 fundraising email sent out by a fellow state senator. She struck back in a now-viral floor speech, saying, “I am the biggest threat to your hollow, hateful scheme.”

In her announcement video, McMorrow framed the Trump administration as creating a fearful moment in time and said new leaders are needed — echoing a debate within the Democratic Party about whether it needs generational change at the top of the party.

“There’s a lot of fear and anger and uncertainty right now about people in power who frankly have no business being there. So you know what won’t fix it? The same old crap out of Washington,” McMorrow said, “We need new leaders because the same people in D.C. who got us into this mess are not going to be the ones to get us out of it.”

On the Republican side, the primary is still taking shape, but one major name has entered the fray.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, who ran for Senate in Michigan in 2024 and narrowly lost to Slotkin, announced in mid-April that he would enter the race.

“The lessons I learned working on a factory floor, serving as an officer in the United States Army, and then as a federal agent protecting our communities, taking down drug dealers and gangsters — it taught me about grit and sacrifice,” Rogers said in an announcement video.

“I’ll stand with President Trump,” he added. “And we will deliver on the mandate given to him by the American people. … For me, it will always be America and Michigan first.”

Rogers also spoke about cutting costs and prices while bringing manufacturing jobs back to Michigan.

“I guarantee we’ll protect Social Security for our seniors,” Rogers added.

Notably, Rogers has received some key support from establishment Republicans — even though the primary field is not fully set. In a pair of statements released through the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of Senate Republicans, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who is chairman of the NRSC, both endorsed Rogers.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Three federal prosecutors who worked on the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams resigned Tuesday — while they were on administrative leave — instead of agreeing to “preconditions” on them returning to the office, sending a sharp letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and accusing him of pressuring them to falsely “express regret and admit some wrongdoing” in the case.

“The Department placed each of us on administrative leave ostensibly to review our, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office’s, handling of the Adams case,” the trio of prosecutors assigned to Adams’ case, Celia V. Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach and Derek Wikstrom, wrote to Blanche. “It is now clear that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case. We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none.”

The three lawyers were part of a group in the Justice Department who refused to sign off on the dismissal of the bribery case against Adams in February. They were placed on administrative leave last month as an investigation played out.

“We have served under Presidents of both parties, advancing their priorities while pursuing justice without fear or favor,” the three prosecutors wrote. “The role of a career prosecutor is not to set policy. But a prosecutor must abide by the oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the rules of professional ethics set by the bar and the courts.”

They later added, “Now, the Department has decided that obedience supersedes all else, requiring us to abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington. That is wrong.”

The fallout from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove’s request that the Southern District of New York dismiss charges without prejudice began in mid-February. Danielle Sassoon, then-acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, resigned from her position Feb. 13 after suggesting DOJ leadership, including Bove, were explicitly aware of a quid pro quo suggested by Adams’ attorneys, saying Adams’ vocal support of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies would be boosted by dismissing the indictment against him.

“Rather than be rewarded, Adams’s advocacy should be called out for what it is: an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case,” Sassoon wrote at the time. “Although Mr. Bove disclaimed any intention to exchange leniency in this case for Adams’s assistance in enforcing federal law, that is the nature of the bargain laid bare in Mr. Bove’s memo.”

Five other DOJ officials would join Sassoon in resigning from the office in protest, while at least six top Department of Justice officials refused to sign onto the case’s dismissal, sources told ABC News last month.

Adams was indicted last year in the Southern District of New York on five counts in an alleged long-standing conspiracy connected to improper benefits, illegal campaign contributions and an attempted cover-up. He had pleaded not guilty.

The dismissal paperwork was later signed by an attorney in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section, leaving the decision to dismiss the case to a federal judge in New York.

On April 2, Judge Dale Ho officially dismissed the case, however, he did so with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be revived. The DOJ had asked for the charges to be dismissed without prejudice and said they could be brought against Adams again following the November mayoral election.

But three weeks later, the fallout continued with Tuesday’s letter.

The three prosecutors ended their letter to Blanche: “Serving in the Southern District of New York has been an honor. There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs. We resign.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A panel of appeals judges expressed skepticism with elements of the Trump administration’s transgender service member ban, peppering a Department of Justice lawyer with questions Tuesday morning about the basis for the ban and justification for blocking anyone with gender dysphoria from service without making individualized determinations.

DOJ attorney Jason Manion attempted to justify the policy by arguing that transgender troops lessen the readiness of the U.S. military and that the policy falls under a “core area of presidential power.”

“The military has determined that this policy will increase the readiness and effectiveness of the military and, in fact, that not being able to enact it would be harmful to the military,” he argued.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, pushed back on the assertion by highlighting that the Pentagon did not provide concrete evidence or research to show that transgender members of the military are less lethal or less ready for combat.

“If the military said people with red hair are just too fragile and vulnerable, we are going to kick them all out of the military and we are going to not allow any of them ever to join — we have no evidence of that, but we think they’re a threat to military preparedness, to unit cohesion, and too costly, and so we’re just going to kick them out, is that rational enough under military deference?” she asked.

Manion attempted to argue that gender dysphoria is “marked by severe clinical distress or impaired functioning,” but Pillard noted that the military already screens soldiers for depression and suicidal ideation.

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees who also served in his first administration, also raised concerns that the policy treats soldiers the same based on their sex, rather than allow individualized determinations.

“Should the military be required to take an individualized determination?” Rao asked. “Is the decision not to make individualized determinations some indication that this is treating people the same based on the transgender status?”

Shannon Minter, an attorney for the group of 32 transgender service members and recruits who challenged the policy, urged the court to stop the ban from taking effect, arguing the Trump administration has failed to prove why thousands of transgender soldiers deserve to be declared unfit for service.

“The government have a high burden here, and it has not been able to meet any part of it,” Minter said.

The group sued the Trump administration over the policy in January, and at least three different federal judges have since blocked the ban from taking effect.

“The Court’s opinion is long, but its premise is simple. In the self-evident truth that ‘all people are created equal, all means all. Nothing more. And certainly nothing less,” Judge Ana Reyes wrote in a ruling last month blocking the policy.

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overrule Reyes’ decision, arguing that gender dysphoria “limits deployability and imposes additional costs on the military” and is “not compatible with military readiness and lethality.”

Lawyers with the DOJ have argued that the courts should defer to military leadership about the best way to run the armed services.

“Plaintiffs offer no sound basis for concluding that the line the military has once again drawn falls outside constitutional bounds,” DOJ lawyers wrote.

But lawyers representing the transgender service members have pushed back on the Pentagon’s claim, arguing the Trump administration has provided no evidence of the harm stemming from the policy.

They argued that allowing the policy to take effect would “trigger an explosive and harmful trip wire, causing reputational, professional, and constitutional harm that can never be fully undone.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday strongly denied that what he shared over a second group chat on the Signal messaging app were classified war plans about imminent U.S. airstrikes targeting Houthi militants in Yemen, and blamed former staffers for leaking, accusing them of going to the news media with new information to “sabotage” Trump’s agenda.

Hegseth and other administration officials have insisted that the information about those airstrikes that was shared earlier with another Signal group established by national security adviser Mike Waltz was not classified.

On Tuesday, Hegseth continued to make that case as questions have been raised about how he shared similar information with a smaller Signal group that sources told ABC News included his wife, brother, and personal attorney.

“I look at war plans every single day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal unclassified coordination for media coordination other things. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning,” Hegseth said in a live interview from the Pentagon on “Fox & Friends.”

Sources familiar with the chat had earlier told ABC News that Hegseth had established the Signal group with family and friends during his Senate confirmation process. Hegseth was not asked in the interview why he had shared the information with that group of close personal advisers that included his wife, who is not a U.S. government employee.

The defense secretary also criticized former close advisers fired last week as part of what he said was leak investigation that followed news reports about military plans for the Panama Canal, Elon Musk’s planned visit to the Pentagon and other developments.

“It led to some unfortunate places, people I have known for quite some time, but it’s not my job to protect them,” said Hegseth. “It’s my job to protect national security the president of the United States and let the investigation go where it is. So, when that evidence is gathered sufficiently, and this has all happened very quickly, it will be handed over to DOJ, and those people will be prosecuted if necessary.”

The former staffers include Dan Caldwell, a longtime close adviser to Hegseth, Darin Selnick, who was the Pentagon’s deputy chief of staff, and Colin Carroll, who served as chief of staff for the deputy secretary of defense and on Tuesday Hegseth claimed, without evidence, that they were responsible for news leaks intended to “sabotage” the Trump administration’s agenda for the Pentagon.

“Those folks who are leaking, who have been pushed out of the building, are now attempting to leak and sabotage the president’s agenda and what we’re doing, and that’s unfortunate,” said Hegseth.

“So, once a leaker, always a leaker, often a leaker, and so we look for leakers, because we take it very seriously, and we will do the investigation,” said Hegseth.

At the same time, Hegseth left open the possibility that the ongoing investigation might exonerate the very people he was accusing.

“If those people are exonerated, fantastic,” said Hegseth. “We don’t think, based on what we understand, that it’s going to be a good day for a number of those individuals because of what was found in the investigation.”

On Monday, in a video interview with Tucker Carlson, Caldwell vigorously denied that he had leaked information and said he and the other two officials did not know why they had been fired.

Also on Monday, Hegseth blamed “anonymous smears” and President Donald Trump dismissed any concerns, said he has “great confidence” in Hegseth..

“Here we go again. Just a waste of time. He is doing a great job,” Trump said of Hegseth.

The recent disclosures of the new Signal group and the dismissal of top advisers have raised questions about Hegseth’s judgment among a large number of congressional Democrats who have called for Hegseth to step down from his post.

On Monday, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, and a former Air Force general, became the first Republican to suggest that Hegseth should be removed as defense secretary.

“If it’s true that he had another chat with his family, about the missions against the Houthis, it’s totally unacceptable,” he told Politico.

“It looks like there’s a meltdown going on,” Bacon said. “There’s a lot — a lot — of smoke coming out of the Pentagon, and I got to believe there’s some fire there somewhere.”

On Tuesday, Hegseth claimed that critics of his Pentagon agenda have “come after me from day one” but said his focus would remain on carrying out his goals at the Pentagon.

“I’m here because President Trump asked me to bring warfighting back to the Pentagon every single day,” said Hegseth.

“That is our focus, and if people don’t like it, they can come after me. No worries. I’m standing right here,” Hegseth said. “The warfighters are behind us. Our enemies know they’re on notice. Our allies know we’re behind them, and that in this dangerous world for the American people is what it’s all about.”

“No, I haven’t blinked, and I won’t blink because this job is too big and too important for the American people,” he said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.