Eileen Higgins, after win in runoff race, set to be Miami’s 1st female mayor, 1st Democrat in almost 3 decades
Miami Mayoral-elect Eileen Higgins speaks to supporters as she celebrates her victory at her election night party held at the Miami Women’s Club on December 09, 2025 in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
(MIAMI) — Eileen Higgins, the Democratic former Miami-Dade county commissioner set to become Miami’s next mayor after prevailing in Tuesday night’s runoff election, achieved political milestones for the city with her victory.
Higgins will become the city’s first woman to serve as mayor. She also flipped the position in the major Florida city to Democratic control after it was in Republican or independent hands for almost three decades.
“Tonight, our city chose a new direction,” Higgins told supporters on Tuesday night.
The win marks another win for Democrats after a spate of election victories in November and a closer-than-expected special congressional election in Tennessee earlier this month.
She prevailed in the majority-Hispanic city amid concerns among Democrats over losing support among Latino voters in last year’s elections.
Higgins, in an interview with ABC News on Monday, said that she has served a Republican-leaning district for years as a “proud Democrat” and that she knows she could only win if Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike turn out for her.
But that does not mean she would check her Democratic affiliation at the door.
“People know I serve in a nonpartisan race, but I bring my Democratic values with me. … I’m proud to be a Democrat, but the people here know I’m going to serve everybody. I always have and I always will,” Higgins told ABC News.
One of her main focuses was on affordability, particularly as it pertains to housing, building on an issue that has been top of mind for voters nationwide in many polls and one that Democratic candidates, such as New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, honed in on in their own races.
She also campaigned on improving public transit and infrastructure, which ties into one area where she believes she will be able to work with the White House. Asked if there’s anywhere she can see herself collaborating or working with the Trump administration, Higgins said she has worked with senior administration officials across both of President Donald Trump’s terms, particularly on infrastructure.
“And I think we can find areas where we can collaborate together. … when it comes to things that matter to our community, I’m open to working with anyone on any party, and I have a proven track record of working with whoever’s in the White House, both during President Trump’s first term, his second term, and then, of course, working well with President Biden when he was president as well,” Higgins said.
Asked about where she might clash with the president or advocate for a different approach, Higgins said, “For me, the treatment of immigrants is front and center.”
She brought up how a significant amount of Miami-Dade County residents are immigrants covered under Temporary Protected Status, a program meant to safeguard immigrants from some countries from deportations. The administration has repeatedly attempted to end protections for immigrants enrolled in the program, including Venezuelans, claiming it is no longer in the national interest to continue offering protections..
“The federal government has said they are going to remove protections for all of those people, and they just have done that for Venezuelans. I fear for the economy of Florida, should that happen. And I hope and will continue to advocate for change in direction so that we can move forward as one of the strongest economies in the world,” Higgins said.
She faced off against Republican candidate and former City Manager Emilio Gonzales. While the race was technically nonpartisan, campaigning fell along partisan lines to an extent.
The national Democratic Party also lent Higgins support by making calls and recruiting volunteers. Trump, meanwhile, posted on social media on Sunday, “Vote for Republican Gonzalez. He is FANTASTIC!”
The election also came after a judge ruled earlier this year that city officials could not push elections back to 2026 without voter approval, after the Miami city council voted, and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez signed off, on canceling November’s elections and holding them in 2026 instead.
They had argued the alignment with statewide elections would lower costs and increase turnout, but the decision was met with pushback for being done via ordinance rather than a vote from the public.
Gonzales, who had sued the mayor and council, told ABC affiliate ABC Miami on Tuesday night, “Listen, I feel great. I have to feel great. Obviously I don’t like the result, but you know what? Bigger issue: we had an election. Six months ago, we weren’t sure we were going to have an election … we need to all do everything we can to make sure that [Higgins] succeeds, because if she succeeds, our city will succeed.”
The Minnesota National Guard sits at the Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, United States, on January 26, 2025. (Arthur Maiorella/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon’s Northern Command over the weekend stood down more than 1,500 federal troops placed on alert for potential deployment to Minneapolis, according to two U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation.
ABC News first reported that roughly 1,500 active duty soldiers from the 11th Airborne Division at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska had been ordered to prepare for a possible mission to the Twin Cities in Minnesota.
Additional units across the country, including some 200 Texas National Guard troops, also had been directed to make preparations.
No specific mission was ever outlined, and placing units on alert is a relatively routine step when commanders anticipate a potential presidential order, according to officials familiar with the planning. The New York Times was the first to report that units were being taken off high alert.
The prepare-to-deploy orders came as President Donald Trump, threatened to use the Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely used statute that grants a president authority to deploy federal troops for domestic law enforcement missions under limited circumstances.
The law has been invoked most frequently during the Civil Rights era, particularly to enforce court-ordered desegregation and quell large-scale unrest.
The order to stand down comes as the Trump administration has signaled a potential de-escalation in Minneapolis following the fatal shootings of two people involving federal officers.
On Monday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that every officer in Minneapolis will start to wear body cameras.
“As funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide,” Noem said in a statement. “We will rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country.”
The 11th Airborne Division is the Pentagon’s primary ground combat force tailored for warfare in extreme cold, a niche capability the Army views as increasingly central to modern conflict.
The unit is not built with civilian law enforcement in mind, and such a deployment would’ve likely been seen as a major escalation of the federal government’s role in the Minneapolis protests.
The 11th Airborne Division plays a significant role in the U.S. military’s posture in the Pacific, regularly training alongside allied forces as part of efforts to deter China. Built for speed and flexibility, the division focuses on airborne operations that enable units to parachute into contested terrain, giving commanders an early foothold in a conflict.
Meanwhile, Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has ordered the state’s National Guard into Minneapolis to secure the Whipple Federal Building, a massive federal complex that houses a courtroom, a detention center, and offices for multiple agencies, including Homeland Security.
Guard troops have been outfitted in bright reflective vests to distinguish them from federal agents who often dress similar to the military.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Smith told legislators that he would not be intimated by President Trump’s statements calling for him to be investigated.
“The statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made, as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up,” Smith said. “I’m not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to Department policy. We followed the facts, and we follow the law.”
Asked about the sweeping pardons Trump granted those who were charged with attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, Smith said, “I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don’t get it. I never will.”
Republican Rep. Troy Nehls, who is retiring from the House, addressed the Capitol Police officers who were in the chamber.
“I would like to quickly address the police officers from Jan. 6, ” Nehls said. “I’m a member of the new select committee to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day, and I can tell you gentlemen that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with … the U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know, we know they had the intelligence, and there was going to be a high propensity for violence.”
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said.
“No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity section. You acted based solely on the facts — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Smith’s appearance Thursday marked his second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors in December. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Committee on the Judiciary during an oversight hearing, at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC on February 11, 2026. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi told members of Congress on Tuesday that Ghislaine Maxwell “will hopefully die in prison,” after she was pressed on the allegations that Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator was getting special treatment from the administration, including a controversial transfer to a minimum security prison.
Maxwell, who is 64, has been incarcerated since her arrest in July 2020 and would be in her mid-to-late 70s when her sentence ends.
Bondi, who clashed with Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee when asked questions related to the Epstein investigation, however, said she could not say who ordered Maxwell’s transfer to a lower security prison and tried to change the subject.
Rep. Deborah Ross, D-N.C., brought up the transfer during the heated hearing and sought out answers, specifically who signed off on the move.
Maxwell was moved from FCI Tallahassee in Florida, a “low security” prison for men and women, to FPC Bryan in Texas, a “minimum security” camp just for women, two weeks after she had a private meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Trump has been asked about possibly pardoning Maxwell, but the president has said no one had approached him, though he reiterated his power to grant one.
Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney, has not responded to letters from Democrats in Congress seeking more details about the move.
“She should not be in that prison,” Ross said. “She needs to be moved back to a maximum security prison as soon as possible.”
The congresswoman noted that Maxwell, who is challenging her 2021 conviction and 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking and other offenses, told another congressional committee she won’t cooperate unless she gets clemency from the president.
Ross asked Bondi if Blanche or one of her other subordinates approved the transfer, but the attorney general didn’t directly answer.
“I learned after the fact,” Bondi said of the transfer. “That is a question for the Bureau of Prisons. I was not involved at that at all,” she added.
Bondi then scolded Ross and changed the subject, bringing up a September homicide of a woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, in the congresswoman’s home state.
“You know instead of talking about Ghislaine Maxwell, who will hopefully die in prison, hopefully will die in prison, you should be talking about Iryna Zarutska,” she said.
Ross asked again if the president should pardon or commute Maxwell’s sentence.
“Should she be released from prison, yes or no? You said she should die in prison, so I’m hoping the answer is no,” the congresswoman said.
“I already answered the question,” Bondi responded, before scolding Ross again for not discussing Zarutska’s murder.
Bondi delivered several angry retorts at the members of the committee over the Epstein investigation.
Early on in the hearing, she did not look at Epstein survivors and their families when they were introduced by committee ranking member Jamie Raskin and Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Survivors were seen shaking their heads several times during the hearing as Bondi attacked the congress members.
