DOJ’s pardon attorney Ed Martin hit with ethics charges

(WASHINGTON) — Lawyers for the Trump administration will face serious questions for the first time on Friday about the search and seizure of more than 650 boxes of 2020 election records from a Fulton County, Georgia, election site.

Fulton County officials have argued the FBI “intentionally or recklessly omitted material facts” about purported discrepancies in the 2020 election in Georgia to secure a warrant for the materials, and a federal judge is considering a request to force the Trump administration to return the sensitive records.

“Despite years of investigations of the 2020 election, the [search warrant] affidavit does not identify facts that establish probable cause that anyone committed a crime,” lawyers for the Fulton County officials wrote in court filing. “The Affiant failed to include facts — including from the very sources he cited — that shut the door on even the faintest possibility of probable cause.”

U.S. District Judge JP Boulee, a Trump appointee, scheduled a six-hour evidentiary hearing for Friday to determine whether the Trump administration showed “callous disregard” for constitutional rights by executing the controversial search earlier this year.

After election officials raised concerns about the basis for the January 2026 search, Judge Boulee last month ordered the Department of Justice to publicly release the application for the warrant, which revealed that the investigation was triggered by an attorney and close ally of President Trump who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

According to the unsealed court records, the investigation centers on long-debunked allegations of voter fraud that have already been thoroughly investigated.

Fulton County election officials have since pushed for the return of the records, arguing that the investigation focuses on “human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election … without any intentional wrongdoing whatsoever.”

“The Affidavit omits numerous material facts — including from the very reports and publicly-disclosed investigations that the Affiant cites — that confirm the alleged conduct was previously investigated and found to be unintentional,” attorneys for the Fulton County officials argued.

Lawyers for the Trump administration have pushed back on the request, highlighting that the search was approved by a magistrate judge and arguing that the lawsuit was a “way to get a sneak peek at ongoing criminal investigations.”

“Petitioners’ attempt to turn a semantic dispute into a deliberate falsehood (with no citation to any offer of proof on this issue) is beyond the pale. And given the other evidence, probable cause would easily exist without the County’s admissions,” DOJ lawyers argued in court filings.

In a late setback ahead of Friday’s hearing, Judge Boulee quashed an attempt to force the FBI agent behind the search warrant to testify, concluding that questioning the agent could reveal “process and scope of the DOJ’s investigation,” which remains ongoing.

President Trump has long criticized the outcome of the 2020 election results in Georgia, personally pushing to overturn the results after his loss and later being indicted in two criminal cases over his actions. Those cases have since been dismissed, and Trump has continued to push for criminal accountability for what he baselessly alleged was a stolen election.

Through a call with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — who was present at the January raid — President Trump personally addressed some of the agents who conducted the search and told them they were doing great work by investigating Georgia’s elections, ABC News previously reported.

“I was at Fulton County, sir, at the request of the president and to work with the FBI to observe this action that had long been awaited,” Gabbard told lawmakers earlier this month when asked about her presence at the search. “It is my role based on statute that Congress has passed to have oversight over election security to include counterintelligence.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency is walking back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.

President Donald Trump, joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is expected to announce the decision on Thursday.

In a statement to ABC News, the EPA said it’s “actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people. Sixteen years ago, the Obama Administration made one of the most damaging decisions in modern history – the 2009 Endangerment Finding. In the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”

Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.

“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.

“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.

Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.

But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.

“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.

“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.

“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”

The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.

A widely anticipated decision

The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.

On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.

Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”

In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”

As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.

The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.

The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding

The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.

That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.

Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”

“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.

In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”

Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today

Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.

“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.

“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.

“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.

Overwhelming scientific evidence

In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.

In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.

“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.

Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.

In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”

And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”

“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.

What happens next?

A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.

“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.

While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.

“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.

Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.

Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.

“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Justice is dropping its criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, ending a standoff that threatened to delay the confirmation of Powell’s successor at the central bank, District of Columbia U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said Friday. 

Senior DOJ officials have contacted senators in recent days, including Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, informing them of the plan to drop the probe and refer the matter regarding alleged cost overruns at the Fed’s Washington headquarters to the bank’s internal watchdog, sources told ABC News. 

The Fed’s independent inspector general conducted an audit of the building renovation costs in 2021 and Powell had already asked the watchdog to take a fresh look at the $2.5 billion project last year.

“This morning the Inspector General for the Federal Reserve has been asked to scrutinize the building costs overruns — in the billions of dollars — that have been borne by taxpayers,” Pirro write on X Friday. “I expect a comprehensive report in short order and am confident the outcome will assist in resolving, once and for all, the questions that led this office to issue subpoenas.”

“Accordingly, I have directed my office to close our investigation as the IG undertakes this inquiry,” Pirro wrote. “Note well, however, that I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so.”

Powell’s term ends next month, but he said in March that he would stay in the position until President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Fed, Kevin Warsh, is confirmed. 

White House spokesperson Kush Desai, in a statement to ABC News, said “American taxpayers deserve answers about the Federal Reserve’s fiscal mismanagement, and the Office of the Inspector General’s more powerful authorities best position it to get to the bottom of the matter.”

Desai added the administration remains certain that the Senate will “swiftly confirm” Warsh.

A spokesperson for the Federal Reserve declined to comment. Reached by ABC News, a spokesperson for Tillis also declined to comment.

Pirro had been insistent that her investigation of alleged cost overruns at the Fed would continue despite a ruling last month from D.C. District Judge James Boasberg that tossed out subpoenas she had sent to Powell. 

“This investigation continues. I am in the legal lane. There are others who are in the political lane. I don’t intersect those two lanes,” Pirro said in a news conference on Wednesday.

“I am going forward,” Pirro said. “We are appealing the decision of Judge Boasberg — the idea that a judge can stand at the door of a grand jury and tell a prosecutor you’re not allowed to go in when the United States Supreme Court has said you can go into a grand jury based on rumors and suspicion, is an order that we think must be appealed, and we are continuing in this investigation.”

At the time of Boasberg’s ruling, Tillis urged Pirro not to continue with her investigation.

“We all know how this is going to end and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on,” Tillis said in a post on X moments after the decision was made public in March. “Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair.” 

It is not immediately clear if prosecutors will seek to drop their appeal of Boasberg’s order as a result of the directive to close the probe into Powell.  

In a video message in January, Powell revealed the investigation and called it an attempt by the Trump administration to put political pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates.

An end to the DOJ’s investigation is expected to pave the path for Kevin Warsh to get confirmed through the Senate. Tillis told ABC News on Tuesday he supports Warsh as the nominee but will not advance his nomination until the DOJ’s probe is dropped.

Tillis first announced in January that he would block nominees in opposition to the investigation, which he has branded as “bogus.” 

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none. It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question,” Tillis said in a January statement. “I will oppose the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed — including the upcoming Fed Chair vacancy — until this legal matter is fully resolved.”

Tillis’ blockade has proved difficult for Senate Republican leadership to work around because of his position on the narrowly divided Senate Banking Committee. His opposition, paired with that of all Democrats on the panel, has made it impossible for Warsh to advance out of the committee to a vote on the full Senate floor.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.