DHS increasing self-deportation stipend from $1,000 to $2,600
DHS is using the CBP Home Mobile App to incentivize self-deportation. (Department of Homeland Security)
(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Homeland Security announced on Wednesday that it is increasing its stipend for those who are in the United States illegally and self-deport by $1,600.
Previously, DHS offered $1,000 to those who use the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Home App to self-deport, but now, it’s raising that number to $2,600.
DHS claimed that since January 2025, 2.2 million people who are in the U.S. illegally have voluntarily self-deported — with “tens of thousands” using the CBP app. A report from the Brookings Institution released last week called DHS’ data into question, saying the department’s numbers “should not be considered a serious source.”
“To celebrate one year of this administration, the U.S. taxpayer is generously increasing the incentive to leave voluntarily for those in this country illegally- offering a $2,600 exit bonus,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a release. “Illegal aliens should take advantage of this gift and self-deport because if they don’t, we will find them, we will arrest them, and they will never return.”
The increased amount is to mark to the first year of President Donald Trump’s term in office, and may only be temporary, DHS said in the release.
For months, the department has been pushing self-deportations — spending millions on advertisements that showcased it’s previous $1,000 payment and a plane ticket that people who register to self-deport are given.
It’s not clear how much money in total has been given to people who have self-deported.
DHS said in the first year of Trump’s term, there were 675,000 deportations. The authors of the Brookings Institution report estimated a figure much lower last week — saying there were between 310,000 and 315,000 removals in 2025.
Deporting migrants who are illegally in the U.S. was one of Trump’s key campaign promises, but advocates have said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol tactics have gone too far in some cases.
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill, on March 26, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A special panel of the bipartisan House Ethics Committee determined on Friday that Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick was guilty of 25 ethics violations, including commingling of campaign and personal funds.
The determination came after the panel held a rare public hearing on Thursday to consider whether Cherfilus-McCormick violated House rules amid sweeping allegations of fraud against her — and a four-count federal indictment.
The panel said in a statement that deliberations in the case “lasted until well past midnight” and that they found “clear and convincing evidence” that the congresswoman was guilty of all but two of the 27 counts.
“We had a good, robust discussion on all counts, voted on all counts, and we were able to find agreement on 25 of the 27 counts,” Ethics Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., told ABC News on Friday morning.
The ethics violations include acceptance of improper campaign contributions, false statements, commingling of campaign and personal funds and reporting errors on financial disclosures.
The full House Ethics Committee will hold a hearing after the April congressional recess to “determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend.” The sanction recommendations could include censure or expulsion, which would require a two-thirds majority vote.
“There will be a sanctions hearing,” Guest said. “That date has not been set, but there will be a sanctions hearing sometime, we hope shortly after we return back from the Easter recess.”
Separately, Cherfilus-McCormick was indicted in November by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her 2021 congressional campaign.
The indictment alleges Cherfilus-McCormick, 46, and her brother Edwin Cherfilus, 51, received a $5 million overpayment in FEMA funds directed to their family health care company in connection with a contract for COVID-19 vaccination staffing in 2021.
Cherfilus-McCormick has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to the federal criminal charges against her.
During Thursday’s hourslong hearing, lawmakers on the panel questioned Cherfilus-McCormick’s counsel and the committee’s investigative staff about the allegations against the congresswoman.
Cherfilus-McCormick did not address the committee throughout the proceedings, but she took notes and occasionally talked to her attorney.
Her attorney, William Barzee, demanded that his client receive a full hearing — allowing him to call in witnesses.
Guest pushed back on this request, saying Cherfilus-McCormick has refused to cooperate with the panel’s ongoing investigation.
Barzee acknowledged that the congresswoman “made a lot of mistakes” on financial forms.
In a statement to ABC News ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the congresswoman said: “I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and challenge these inaccuracies, when I am legally able to do so. Make no mistake: I am innocent and I am a fighter. My district is made up of fighters. I will continue to fight for the people I was elected to serve.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that while he believes in “due process,” the congresswoman “has egregiously violated the law.”
“This is a very serious matter. I think even many Democrats, even members of her own party, have publicly said that the evidence is so stark … but we have to process this internally and see how this goes,” Johnson said Thursday.
The adjudicatory subcommittee that held the hearing is made up of an equal number of three Republicans and three Democrats will hear Cherfilus-McCormick’s case Thursday.
In addition to Guest, the chairman, the subcommittee is made up Democratic Rep. Mark DeSaulnier as ranking member. Democratic Reps. Sylvia Garcia, Glenn Ivey and Suhas Subramanyam and Republican Reps. Ashley Hinson, Brad Knott and Nathaniel Moran also serve on the subcommittee.
“I am deeply disappointed the Committee chose to move forward with this trial while denying my legal team reasonable time to prepare. That raises serious concerns about due process and the fundamental rights every American is entitled to under our Constitution,” the congresswoman said in a statement to ABC News.
Speaker Johnson previously deferred to the members of the House to determine whether the congresswoman should be expelled from the House. The last member to be expelled was former New York GOP Rep. George Santos over using campaign dollars for his personal enrichment in 2023 — only the sixth representative ever ousted.
“Expulsion, obviously, is effectively the political death penalty. There are occasions that meet that standard, but it’s a decision of the body to determine that,” Johnson said.
“You look at all the factors and you — you figure that out. We’ll be doing that here in this case,” Johnson said. “It seems that this member of Congress has egregiously violated the law and exploited taxpayers and all the rest, and that, that would be, it would be a harsh penalty necessary for that.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has promised Democrats won’t help Republicans kick her out of Congress, regardless of the ethics inquiry.
“Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick is entitled to the presumption of innocence, like every other American,” Jeffries told reporters on Feb. 2. “I’m a hard no as it relates to the effort to expel her, and it’s going to fail.”
The last public ethics trial occurred in 2010 when New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel came before the panel. Rangel was later censured over failing to report assets on his financial disclosure forms, improperly obtaining four rent-controlled apartments in New York, and failing to disclose financial arrangements for a villa in the Dominican Republic.
Rangel maintained that he never knowingly broke any laws. “I truly believe I have not been treated fairly,” Rangel told the Ethics Committee before storming out of his hearing.
ABC News’ Justin Gomez contributed to this report.
Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, participates in the group’s press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, March 25, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(UVALDE, Texas) — Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales is denying allegations he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall — calling on the Uvalde police department to release its report on her death despite objections from her family.
Regina Santos-Aviles, 35, died on Sept. 14 after she doused herself with an accelerant and set herself ablaze at her home on Geraldine Avenue in Uvalde, Texas, Bexar County officials determined.
Santos-Aviles served as regional district director for Gonzales, who lost an endorsement this week from the San Antonio Express-News following its reporting of an alleged affair between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles.
The Express-News reported that it obtained texts between a former Gonzales staffer and Santos-Aviles, in which Santos-Aviles claimed she engaged in an affair with Gonzales.
Gonzales has repeatedly denied the affair with Santos-Aviles.
In a statement to ABC News, the Gonzales campaign did not comment on the reported text messages, and blamed his rival in the GOP primary, Brandon Herrera, for planting allegations in the press.
“Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place,” Gonzales told ABC News in a statement. “Her efforts led to improvements in school safety, healthcare, and rural water like never before. It’s shameful that Brandon Herrera is using a disgruntled former staffer to smear her memory and score political points, conveniently pushing this out the very day early voting started. I am not going to engage in these personal smears and instead will remain focused on helping President Trump secure the border and improve the lives of all Texans.”
Gonzales faces a primary fight with Herrera, a conservative influencer who he defeated by less than 400 votes in 2024. Herrera called on Gonzales to resign from office via a post on X on Wednesday.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that 9-1-1 calls, video, and police reports must remained sealed, though Gonzales is now calling on the Uvalde Police Department to release its report.
On Thursday, Gonzales posted on X suggesting an attorney representing the Santos-Aviles family was seeking an out-of-court financial settlement, which Gonzales described as “blackmail.”
“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED. Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death. The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report. I will keep fighting for #TX23,” Gonzales said in the post.
Santos-Aviles’ widower, Adrian Aviles, denied Gonzales’ charge of blackmail while expressing his intent to block details of the incident from becoming unsealed.
“We have never blackmailed anyone,” Adrian Aviles wrote in a statement on X. “What we’ve seen instead is a consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect your image. You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face. We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it.”
The post continued: “Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper. Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent–people who deserve the truth, not more deception.”
Reached by ABC News, attorney Robert Barrera, who represents Adrian Aviles, said he is in possession of “substantial evidence” from Santos-Aviles’ phone “supporting the affair.”
Barrera added that Gonzales refused any out of court settlement and is now “attempting in an act of desperation to become a victim of his own conduct when it has now come to light that he has committed adultery with a staffer.”
Barrera declined to release the full letter sent to Gonzales’ lawyers.
Gonzales, 44, is married to his wife Angel and the couple have six children together.
At the time of the incident, the three-term lawmaker provided a statement to San Antonio ABC station KSAT reacting to “the recent news” of Santos-Aviles’ death:
“We are all heart-stricken by the recent news. Regina devoted her profession toward making a difference in her community. She will always be remembered for her passion towards Uvalde and helping the community become a better place,” Gonzales stated.
Gonzales has already won President Donald Trump’s endorsement for reelection, as well as several law enforcement groups from Texas.
In this U.S. Navy released handout, Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116) fires a Tomahawk land attack missile in support of Operation Epic Fury, on March 1, 2026 at Sea. (Photo by U.S. Navy via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The sinking of an Iranian warship Tuesday by a U.S. submarine thousands of miles from the war zone in international waters raises questions about whether the attack was legal under the rules of war.
Military law experts said the Iranian ship, which was in the Indian Ocean in international waters off Sri Lanka, would have been a lawful target had the U.S. declared war. The fact that it hasn’t done so makes the issue a murky one.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the attack an “atrocity.”
“The U.S. will come to bitterly regret precedent it has set,” he said.
Experts say the incident highlights the reason that a declaration of war by Congress is needed for the growing conflict, which has involved more than 12 countries, as Iran continues launching drones and missiles at countries beyond the Persian Gulf region.
The House of Representatives on Thursday voted against a war powers resolution. Similar legislation failed Wednesday in the Senate. Both votes largely followed party lines.
The submarine strike in international waters “underscores why Congress should have approved this in the first place,” said Retired Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, “because this is a war [in which they’re] going to go after the Iranian Navy,” even when naval assets are outside the Middle East.
“The Iranian Navy is not small, right? It could be in places like outside of Sri Lanka and international water.”
Under the laws of armed conflict, were the U.S. and Iran in a declared war, the warship would represent a lawful target, former U.S. government lawyers told ABC News.
The issue with the submarine’s attacking the warship in international waters, VanLandingham said, was “political” in nature and not legal.
“When you’re going to have such global implications — that’s one of the reasons the founding fathers said Congress gets to decide wars of choice,” she said.
Brian Finucane, who was attorney-adviser at the State Department from 2011 to 2021, also said the submarine attack would have been lawful if the conflict was authorized.
According to Finucane, the U.S. would have an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to conduct search and rescue operations for survivors of the sinking.
A source familiar with Tuesday’s operation said the submarine took measures to support life-saving efforts before and after the ship sank in line with international law.
The military’s compliance with that international law was called into question when a second strike on an alleged drug boat killed survivors in international waters in the Caribbean Sea in September.
“The fundamental legal problems under both U.S. and international law” of the submarine engagement, Finucane said, “relate to the underlying use of force in this war against Iran.”
Authorization by Congress for the war is required by law because the U.S. offensive against Iran is not a response to an imminent threat, experts said.
President Donald Trump and his administration have said Iran posed such a threat. Secretary Marco Rubio said the threat became more imminent because Israel planned to strike Iran and Iran would retailiate against Israel and the U.S.
While the president has called the conflict a “war,” senior officials in his administration — and top leadership in Congress — have refrained from using the word.
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Wednesday the U.S. “is not at war now.”
The Pentagon’s top policy official, asked whether the U.S. was at war with Iran in a congressional hearing Thursday, would not use the term.
“I think we’re in a military action at this point,” said Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. “I will leave to Congress and lawyers from the administration, et cetera, to determine.”
Ambiguity about the conflict’s label from across the government comes as Pentagon officials say the conflict will only “accelerate” in intensity — and potentially grow in scope.
The U.S. military mission is in a “throttle-up” posture, said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who would not confine the campaign to a time limit.
“The only limits we have in this is President Trump’s desire to achieve specific effects on behalf of the American people,” Hegseth said.
