Former U.S. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer appears for a House Committee on Education and Workforce hearing on Capitol Hill on June 5, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The former Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer had an “inappropriate relationship” with a member of her security detail and created a “toxic” work environment, according to a report from the department’s Office of Inspector General.
The long-awaited report quietly released Thursday night details the allegations against Chavez-DeRemer and members of her senior staff. She resigned as secretary in April and members of her senior staff were fired, according to the report.
Anthony D’Esposito, the Labor Department Inspector General, found that more than 30 witnesses said Chavez-DeRemer created a “toxic, intimidating and humiliating” work environment. The Inspector General opened the investigation after receiving a complaint in January 2026 about an inappropriate work environment under Chavez-DeRemer.
In one instance highlighted in the report, during personal travel to Oregon in April 2025, Chavez-DeRemer allegedly stopped at a club with “partially nude” dancers, had her head of security rearrange the detail so her limousine driver could enter with her, and then gave a member for the detail cash from her purse and had him give it to a performer.
“When the agent resisted and sought guidance from ASAIC 1, ASAIC 1 instructed him to comply with Chavez-DeRemer’s requests,” according to the report. “Chavez-DeRemer then took additional money from her purse and asked the agent to drop the bills one by one onto the partially nude woman.”
Chavez-DeRemer also allegedly had an “inappropriately close and unprofessional relationship” with a member of her security detail who “exercised supervisory and operational authority over her protective detail,” according to the report.
The report also alleges that Chavez-DeRemer used her staff for personal tasks, such as organizing her closet and purchasing holiday ornaments.
Chavez-DeRemer also accepted gifts and did not properly report them, according to the Inspector General. Those gifts included rodeo tickets, an alligator wallet and two cowboy hats, according to the report.
A text message to the former secretary was not returned; ABC News reached out to Chavez-DeRemer’s attorney as well.
ABC News has reached out to the Labor Department for comment.
Thomas Ross booking photo. (Joplin Municipal Jail)
(NEW YORK) — A Republican candidate for a Missouri State House seat was hit with a federal charge after he allegedly tried to plant drugs on his primary opponent, federal prosecutors alleged.
Thomas Christopher Ross, who won the Republican primary last month for Missouri House District 161 in Joplin, was charged Wednesday with conspiring to distribute a controlled substance after authorities discovered the alleged plot to plant cocaine and Adderall in the car of Louise Secker, who faced Ross in the Republican primary.
Ross’ campaign manager contacted the police in July after the candidate allegedly gave him the drugs and instructed him to plant them on Secker, the criminal complaint released Thursday said.
The unidentified campaign manager brought a bag of cocaine and an Adderall pill to the police, who confirmed they were real after tests, according to the criminal complaint.
“[The campaign manager] advised at the time that Ross was believed to have a prescription for Adderall, which was where he believed the capsule originated,” the complaint said.
The campaign manager showed law enforcement alleged text messages between himself and Ross, 37, where the candidate allegedly discussed the plot, with references going as far back as May, according to the complaint.
“I was hoping we could make it happen before THIS Thursday…which would be extreme egg on the face given Thursdays nights event [sic],” the alleged May 31 text from Ross read, according to the criminal complaint.
The police called in the FBI to help with the investigation and the bureau provided the campaign manager with a covert recorder that was used on July 31 to document a meeting between him and Ross, the complaint said.
During the meeting, the campaign manager told Ross that he still had the drugs and asked the candidate if he still wanted him to “try” and plant the drugs on Secker, according to the complaint.
Ross allegedly agreed and told the campaign manager that he could “call in an anonymous tip that Secker had drugs in her car,” the complaint said.
“[I]f you can pull it off…pull it off,” Ross allegedly told the campaign manager, according to the criminal complaint.
Ross defeated Secker in the primary four days later by only 33 votes, and was set to face off against Democratic candidate Aaron Metzger in the general election.
“Thank you again for your faith, your support, and your vote. I am truly grateful, and I will work every day to be a representative you can be proud of,” Ross, a married father of two, said in a social media post after his victory.
He was held at Joplin Municipal Jail, according to jail records. Ross has not entered a plea and a preliminary and detention hearing is scheduled for Sept. 9, according to court documents.
His public defender didn’t immediately return messages for comment. Ross’ campaign didn’t immediately return messages.
Missouri Republican Party Chairman Peter Kinder released a statement Wednesday after the charges were revealed and called on Ross to drop out of the race.
“The people of Southwest Missouri deserve nothing less than leadership they can trust,” he said in a statement.
Secker and Metzger did not immediately return messages for comment.
Envelope for mailing Official Vote by Mail ballot. (Getty Images stock photo)
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration on Thursday filed an urgent appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking permission to immediately implement new U.S. Postal Service rules for mail ballots that critics say impede on states’ authority to run elections.
A temporary restraining order against the USPS rules, which were prompted by President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at tightening access to mail ballots, is set to expire on Sept. 10 but could be extended indefinitely. A federal district court judge is set to rule imminently.
The new rules, published by USPS last month, require states to report basic voter information, such as a voter’s name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Postal workers would then only deliver ballots addressed to voters who appear on the state-provided list.
Following the publication of the regulations last month, dozens of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration after an earlier lawsuit was blocked by the Supreme Court, which said the challenge was premature since the regulations hadn’t been finalized.
In its latest appeal to the justices,the Trump administration insisted the rules impose only “modest” ballot design and review requirements on states and that a requirement to submit name, address, and barcode information of intended recipients is not onerous or intrusive.
“The rule thus plainly does not seize control of states’ administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the court filing.
“The rule’s regulation of the U.S. mail — not federal elections — is plainly constitutional,” he argued.
Sauer told the justices that the longer they wait to grant the administration’s request the more likely it is that some states may not be able to comply with the new rules before having their mail ballots printed for the fall election and, in turn, might deprive some voters of being able to receive a ballot delivered by USPS.
The states challenging the USPS rule have until Tuesday, Sept. 8, at 10 a.m. to formally respond before the court makes a decision.
The states and voter advocacy groups have argued that the new USPS regulations are an attempt by the Trump administration to federalize elections, which are historically and constitutionally managed by each state, and make it harder to vote by mail for everyday citizens.
(WASHINGTON) — Excavation work for the construction of President Donald Trump’s proposed 250-foot “triumphal arch” will begin over the next two weeks, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced, despite the project not having final approval from a key agency.
“We are pleased to announce that after a very long wait (over 125 years!), we are preparing to start, over the next two-week period, the excavation work necessary for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck, at Memorial Circle on Columbia Island between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery,” Burgum wrote in a social media post on Thursday.
“This will be one of the Great Pieces of American Architecture, honoring the history and significance of Arlington Cemetery and befitting the most powerful Capital in the World,” Burgum added.
Burgum’s announcement comes after a key agency gave initial approval to the plans and as the project continues to face a legal challenge.
In July, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) voted to approve the preliminary site and building plans for the arch after hearing hours of public testimony against the project.
Ahead of that meeting NCPC agency staff recommended initial approval but also a series of revisions to the project to comply with the Height of Buildings Act. The century-old federal law restricts building heights in Washington, D.C., to preserve the city’s skyline.
The commission has not yet approved the final design for the arch.
Trump’s proposed arch would be more than twice as tall as the 99-foot Lincoln Memorial, and taller than France’s Arc de Triomphe.
Earlier this year, Commission of Fine Arts, another federal agency made up entirely of Trump appointees, also voted to give the project initial approval.
The National Park Service plans to have construction take place 20 hours per day over the next two to three years, according to planning documents released by the Interior Department earlier this summer.
A group of Vietnam veterans sued over the arch earlier this year and are asking a federal judge to block the construction, arguing the arch would obstruct views of Arlington National Cemetery and can’t be built without congressional authorization.
The Trump administration has argued that a 100-year-old statute related to the building of the nearby Arlington Memorial Bridge authorizes construction of the arch. Department of Justice lawyers have also argued that the plaintiffs lack standing and that the lawsuit is premature.
In recent court filings, both sides referenced the Supreme Court’s move earlier this week to allow continued construction of the White House ballroom — another of Trump’s key Washington projects.
In a filing Thursday, the Trump administration said the veterans’ claims are “indistinguishable” from the one rejected by the high court’s five-member majority earlier this week in the ballroom case, finding the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacked standing to sue.
“Plaintiffs’ personal and professional experiences cannot transform distaste for the arch and its proposed placement into concrete and particularized injuries required for Article III standing,” the Justice Department’s filing said.
The veterans argued their suit is different than the ballroom case.
“Plaintiffs’ injury is not based on the construction of something that gives them offense but rather on the destruction of a landscape that they regularly visit and that holds profound personal significance for each of them in its present state,” the veterans’ filing argues.
In April, U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is hearing the case, ordered that the Trump administration must provide the court with 14 days’ notice before any construction on the arch can begin.
Former CEO of Apollo Global Management Leon Black (C) arrives to testify at a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill on June 26, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Private equity billionaire Leon Black filed a lawsuit Thursday in federal court against the House Oversight Committee and Chairman James Comer before failing to appear under subpoena for a deposition under oath before the panel as part of its probe into the government’s investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
After Black filed the suit and failed to appear for the deposition, Comer signaled that the committee may move to hold Black in contempt of Congress — but said he wants to gain consensus and examine the legal path ahead before proceeding.
“This is unacceptable,” Comer, R-Ky., said. “We’re very disappointed. I don’t think I need to tell anyone in here how important of a witness Mr. Black is to this investigation. So we’re going to huddle up as a committee and talk about next steps with respect to Mr. Black, and we’ll go from there.”
“I would hold him in contempt right now,” Comer added. “Of all the powerful billionaires and political people we brought in for interviews and depositions, this is the first time anyone’s filed suit. I don’t want to do anything to harm our chances in court.”
In June, the panel issued subpoenas to Black after he appeared for a transcribed interview and refused to answer questions. The subpoenas called for his appearance for a deposition, as well as the production of purported nondisclosure agreements that Epstein survivors have discussed with committee investigators.
Black’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asserts the subpoenas are “invalid to the extent they exceed OGR’s delegated authority in seeking private information that bears no legitimate connection to OGR’s legislative purpose.”
Black’s attorneys also contend that the subpoenas would also “expose women who value their privacy,” who have no known or public connection to Epstein — while contending that the committee lacks statutory authority to enforce its subpoenas in federal court.
Black is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the committee from compelling compliance with the subpoenas.
“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility,” said Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich. “This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black. We were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit in response to an abuse of Congressional power.”
Black, who maintained a social relationship with Epstein since the mid-1990s and eventually paid him more than $170 million for “tax and estate planning advice,” according to the Senate Finance Committee, appeared in June before the Oversight panel as part of its ongoing Epstein probe.
Black has denied wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, though his financial payments to Epstein served as a lifeline to the convicted sex offender in the years after Epstein’s 2008 prison sentence for soliciting a minor for prostitution.
With time running short on the 119th Congress, Comer and Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, both believe Black is trying to run out the clock — complicating the committee’s effort to conclude its investigation before the end of the 119th Congress.
“Obviously, we’re running up against the clock at the end of this Congress, I’m sure his legal team knows that. So we’ve got to be smart from here on in,” Comer said.
“What he’s trying to do is to slow the process down of getting us the information,” Garcia, D-Calif., said. “He’s very aware that Comer no longer is going to be the chairperson. But what Mr. Black should understand is that we will be even more aggressive than Chairman Comer as it relates to his testimony.”
“Leon Black provided over $180 million to Jeffrey Epstein. $180 million, and he has yet to tell the committee or the public as to exactly what that funded and why he did it,” Garcia said.
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (C) speaks to members of the media on Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — With government funding in the rear view, the House on Thursday canceled votes for the last two weeks of September, leaving just four days of legislative business before the Nov. 3 midterm elections — a reversal from Speaker Mike Johnson’s comments on the matter earlier this week.
After a vote series Friday morning, lawmakers will fly home for a district work period over the Labor Day holiday, as well as the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas.
The House is scheduled to return on Sept. 14 for four days of legislative business — leaving on Sept. 17 for six full weeks of campaigning ahead of the midterm elections.
The sparse floor schedule is not particularly unusual for an election year — but is a reversal of Johnson’s position earlier this week when he told reporters that he did not intend to cancel any scheduled legislative business this month.
“Republicans are here to work,” Johnson told reporters on Tuesday when pressed if GOP Rep. Thomas Massie’s prediction of a schedule change might come to fruition. “We have a schedule, a calendar that’s been out for a year. We are abiding by that calendar. We are going to work all the way through September and every day that’s on the calendar, so long as people like him don’t stop the progress.”
But earlier this week, the House passed government funding through Dec. 11 — clearing the speaker’s top legislative priority ahead of the election.
Lawmakers will return again for a lame duck session on Nov. 9 — scheduling five more weeks of legislative business before the end of the 119th Congress.
The Tarrant County Election Center is shown in Fort Worth, Texas. (Google Maps Street View)
(WASHINGTON) —Officials in Texas’ third most populous county voted on Tuesday to reduce polling locations by 92.
The move will see Tarrant County’s voting sites reduced from 316 in the 2022 midterm elections to 224 for this year’s elections.
Tuesday’s vote took place during a meeting of the five-member Commissioner’s Court, which is the governing body of the county.
It came amid public outcry from dozens of residents opposing the measure during public meetings over the past month.
“People have fought and died for the right to vote,” Tarrant County resident Catherine Godby said.
She said it’s “wrong to suppress” the right to vote.
“You’re on the wrong side of history,” she said. “You’re dishonoring what it means to be an American, and more than that, you’re losing your humanity.”
Democratic commissioners Alisa Simmons and Rodrick Miles Jr. voted against the cuts, while the Republicans on the court — County Judge Tim O’Hare and commissioners Matt Krause and Manny Ramirez — voted for the proposal.
The vote on Tuesday came a year after the board approved a proposal that cut nearly half of all early voting locations in the county ahead of 2025 election, according to Dallas ABC station WFAA.
Republicans in favor of the measure argued that the number of polling locations after the cuts would still meet the mandatory minimum. They also cited efforts to cut costs, citing low voter turnout at various polling locations.
O’Hare, who vote for the measure, told ABC News in a statement on Monday that under the new proposal, there will still be 54 polling places that exceed the statutory minimum for Election Day.
“The updated plan averages 2.85 miles between early voting locations and 1.56 miles between Election Day polling locations. All of this is accomplished without the wasteful practice of placing polling sites directly across the street from one another,” O’Hare said.
The county judge said “some locations changed for practical reasons,” including some buildings no longer operating and some not meeting Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.
“State law also requires early voting equipment to be stored in a locked room,” he added. “Those are legislative requirements, and this county follows them. Every voter deserves a safe, accessible location with secure equipment, and this plan does that.”
Miles, one of Democratic commissioners, told ABC News in a statement on Monday that he intends to oppose the proposal because it reduces polling locations overall.
“Our population hasn’t shrunk. Our electorate hasn’t shrunk. I need a clear, convincing explanation for why a growing county is providing meaningfully fewer places to vote and I haven’t gotten one yet,” he said.
“Our job isn’t to calculate the fewest locations we can legally operate. It’s to make sure every eligible resident has a fair and meaningful opportunity to vote. The legal minimum cannot become the moral standard,” he added.
Tarrant County, which is in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, has more than 2.2 million residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and 1.3 million registered voters, county data shows.
The county, which has a growing Hispanic population, is about 40% white, 31% Hispanic and Latino, 19% Black and 7% Asian, the 2025 U.S. Census numbers show.
“The minimum is never my standard, and it should not be a standard of a county this size,” Simmons, who voted against the proposal, said during a press conference on Sunday.
Texas state Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate running against Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, also expressed opposition to the proposal during the press conference on Sunday.
“It’s nearly a third of the polling locations in Tarrant County, and that means on election day there will be longer commutes, longer lines and lower voter turnout, especially in our Black and brown communities,” he said.
Krause, who voted for the proposal, pushed back on the argument that reducing voting locations would suppress the vote, telling ABC News in a statement on Monday that the new proposal “unequivocally” gives all of the county’s registered voters the opportunity to exercise their Democratic right.
“There are voting locations within close proximity to most everyone in Tarrant County,” he added.
The U.S. Mint announced that $1 coins featuring President Donald Trump’s likeness have entered circulation and are for sale starting, Sept. 2, 2026. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Mint announced Wednesday that $1 coins featuring President Donald Trump’s likeness have entered circulation and can be purchased on its website.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
United States Postal Service containers are marked “BALLOTS ONLY” at Runbeck Election Services on Sept. 25, 2024, in Phoenix, Arizona. T (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — An anonymous government employee whistleblower has come forward to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, warning that a “rushed, chaotic and fundamentally flawed” effort by the U.S. Postal Service to implement President Donald Trump’s mail-in ballot executive order risks a “catastrophic failure” of the election system that could “derail the midterm elections.”
The whistleblower’s concerns were made public in a report released by Blumenthal, who said in a release Tuesday morning that the allegations show that the system USPS is creating to track mail-in balloting is “set up to fail — and risk the right to vote for millions of Americans who cast their ballots by mail.”
The whistleblower is described in the report as someone with direct knowledge of potentially “catastrophic problems” in the development of the USPS’ new electronic federal mail ballot portal.
Under the new proposed system, states would be required to report basic voter information, such as a voter’s name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Postal workers would then only deliver ballots addressed to voters who appear on the state-provided list.
The new USPS system, published formally last week, was temporarily put on hold by a federal judge as she considers whether it is likely unlawful and should be blocked during an ongoing legal battle. It’s unclear what parts, if any, will be allowed to take effect in time for the November election.
The USPS rules fall short of Trump’s expectations in his executive order.
The first mail-in ballots go out to overseas military voters from North Carolina this Friday. Given the length of the legal battle ahead, it’s unlikely Trump’s proposed changes to mail-in voting will be implemented in time for the midterm elections.
Voter advocates and civil liberties groups worry the rules could prevent some legitimate, eligible voters from receiving ballots. They fear an added bureaucratic layer — such as having to submit lists to a federal portal to be administered by USPS — unduly introduces the risk of errors not to mention the potential for federal meddling.
The whistleblower report also alleges that officials may have defied a prior court-ordered pause, continuing work on the USPS system despite a judge’s instructions.
Blumenthal wrote a letter to Postmaster General and CEO David Steiner on Monday demanding further answers to questions related to allegation raised by the whistleblower and to urge him to “abandon this ill-conceived, unconscionable plan and ensure that all Americans can exercise their constitutional right to vote, including by mail, without interference by USPS.”
ABC News reached out to USPS and the White House for comment on Blumenthal’s letter, but did not immediately receive a response.
‘Slapdash’ assembly of new portal could lead to major issues in November
The whistleblower described a “secretive, rushed, chaotic and fundamentally flawed process” creating and implementing an “untested” federal ballot mail portal that USPS will use to screen ballots.
The rushed effort to create the portal could cause “significant operating” problems and the failure to verify ballots this November, the whistleblower said. It could also mean, the report alleges, that “potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner or at all.”
The report details a “slapdash” production process for the new IT software, which the whistleblower alleges hasn’t been sufficiently tested or debugged. At the time of report, the whistleblower said there was insufficient time to test the system before a Sept. 1 deadline to deliver it.
“According to the whistleblower, USPS’s effort to develop and deploy the Portal has been ‘rushed,’ ‘risky and haphazard’ because leadership has demanded a impossible timeframe. In an effort to meet impossible deadlines, USPS has eliminated standard and needed testing, thereby creating substantial risk of a ‘catastrophic failure’ of the system that could ‘derail the midterm elections,'” Blumenthal wrote in his letter to Steiner.
Blumenthal also raised concerns about a new so-called “zero percent failure rate” which, according to the whistleblower, could see whole batches of ballots being rejected if a barcode on even one ballot fails to scan.
“Voters intending to cast ballots by mail may not even be aware that their ballots have been rejected, or were part of a rejected batch, until it is too late to secure an alternative ballot or vote in person,” Blumenthal wrote.
Whistleblower alleges that work on USPS portal potentially violated court orders
The whistleblower also alleges that — after a one-month pause on work that began in June — employees were told to continue working on the mail-in-ballot portal in July despite an active temporary restraining order from a federal judge ordering a pause on work related to Trump’s mail-in-ballot executive order.
“The project was suddenly resumed without explanation of what authority permitted USPS to ignore the court order,” according to the whistleblower report.
The USPS is currently under a 14-day Temporary Restraining Order issued by Judge Indira Talwani prohibiting it from implementing its new rules for mail ballots ahead of the November election. The judge is hearing arguments on Thursday as to whether to extend the TRO to a preliminary injunction during litigation.
The same judge has already accused the administration of flouting a previous order that had blocked any finalization of the rules while she was considering the matter.
“Based on this timeline, USPS should have ceased all work on the Portal on June 25, 2026, with the earliest conceivable date to resume being August 26, 2026. The whistleblower allegations demonstrate that was not the case, with USPS directing work to continue on the Portal after the first court order to cease work and prior to the recent court decisions allowing USPS to proceed,” Blumenthal wrote to Steiner.
For most voters, nothing is likely to change how they cast ballots by mail in the midterm elections. But the longer the court hold remains in place — and the longer the court fight takes — the less likely it is that any of the rules will practically impact November.
Still, the battle over these rules and any additional ones Trump may seek to impose will continue well into 2028, where the effects could most significantly be felt.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) talks to reporters after the House of Representatives passed a federal funding stopgap measure at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The House, in a bipartisan vote on Tuesday, passed a continuing resolution that funds the government through Dec. 11 — avoiding a shutdown ahead of the midterm elections in November.
The House acted in rare fashion with the vote — both by taking a bipartisan vote to avert a shutdown and doing so weeks ahead of the Oct. 1 deadline. Members of the House are up for reelection in the fall.
By a count of 370 to 48, the House cleared the measure — sending it to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. Just 19 Republicans and 29 Democrats opposed the measure, which initially passed the Senate on Aug. 8.
Following the vote, Speaker Mike Johnson celebrated its passage and thumbed his nose at those who questioned or openly doubted its prospects.
“House Republicans are in charge here, and we’re continuing to do the grown-up thing and make sure we get the job done. And we’re happy that we just passed that continuing resolution to fund the government through early December, and then we’ll continue through the process after the election,” Johnson said. “But there will be no government shutdown. You can thank Republicans for our leadership in getting that done.”
Late last year, there was a 43-day government shutdown — the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. At issue was an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, which Democrats pushed for, but Trump and Republicans said they would not negotiate until the government reopened.
