At his arraignment on Friday, the court is expected to hear arguments on whether McKee can be released on bond or must be held until trial. He has not entered a plea.
McKee and Monique Tepe were married in 2015 and divorced in 2017, according to divorce records obtained by ABC Columbus affiliate WSYX. They did not have any children together, according to the records.
Spencer and Monique Tepe married in December 2020, according to their obituary. The Tepes are survived by their two young children who were found safe inside their home after the Dec. 30 killings.
“We just want justice,” the Tepes’ brother-in-law, Rob Misleh, told ABC News.
“We want this person that took so much from, not just us as a family, but so many more people. And obviously the kids, especially. We want this person to pay for what they did,” he said.
ABC News’ Josh Margolin and Jason Volack contributed to this report.
The Environmental Protection Agency flag flies outside the EPA headquarters in Washington on Thursday, August 7, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — More than two dozen Senate Democrats are launching an independent investigation into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over a rule change on how the agency calculates the health benefits from curbing air pollution.
The EPA wrote in its regulatory impact analysis last month that it would no longer apply a dollar value to the health benefits that result from its regulations for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone because the agency says there’s too much uncertainty in the estimates. In the past, the EPA calculated a dollar value based on the health benefits of reducing air pollution, which included the number of premature deaths and illnesses avoided, such as asthma attacks.
The senators described the new policy as “irrational” and said it will lead to the EPA rejecting actions that would impose “relatively minor costs” on polluting industries that could result in “massive benefits” to public health, according to a letter sent to the EPA on Thursday and obtained by ABC News.
“The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the senators wrote.
Led by Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Ranking Member Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., the senators are requesting documents and information about how EPA made this determination by Feb. 26.
The decision to not quantify the health benefits of environmental regulations is “completely unsupported” and “a very stark departure” from the way the EPA has worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations over the last several decades, said Richard L. Revesz, dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law who specializes in environmental and regulatory law and policy.
The regulatory impact analysis does not cite any science or economics and did not allow for public comments, Revesz told ABC News. The approach was also not submitted to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, “which is standard,” nor was it submitted for peer review, he added.
“Each of those things are necessary elements for changing scientific policies like this, and EPA violated every single one of them,” Revesz said.
Senate democrats are seeking the basis on which the EPA made the decision; what the EPA willl take into account when undertaking Clean Air Act rulemaking; whether the EPA has discussed ceasing to quantify health effects of other pollutants; and whether the EPA consulted with any third parties, including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Surgeon General, public health experts and interested civil society groups.
It was industry executives who pushed for benefit-cost analysis during Ronald Reagan’s administration in the 1980s, said Janet McCabe, visiting professor at Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law and former deputy administrator of the EPA between 2021 and 2024. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 12866, which instructs each agency to perform rigorous cost benefit analysis for any rule or regulation to be implemented.
“There’s a whole field of environmental economics where models and analytical methods and data collection have evolved on both the cost and the benefit side to help decision-makers and the public understand,” McCabe told ABC News.
While the EPA points to uncertainties in the estimates, assigning a number to monetize health benefits is “very defensible” because of the vast number of studies that allow economists to estimate ranges of health impacts in terms of monetary value, McCabe said.
In the past, when the EPA felt like it could not rigorously assign a number to either cost or health benefit, “it would say so,” McCabe said.
The EPA has received the letter and will respond through the proper channels, an EPA spokesperson told ABC News.
PM2.5 and ozone — soot and smog — are two of the most dangerous and widespread pollutants in the U.S., according to health and environmental policy experts. They are produced by a number of sources, including emissions from vehicles, power plants, the agriculture industry and oil refineries.
The agency is still considering the impacts that fine particulate matter and ozone emissions have on human health, like it “always has,” but that it will not be monetizing the impacts “at this time,” an EPA spokesperson told ABC News last month.
“EPA is fully committed to its core mission of protecting human health and the environment by relying on gold standard science, not the approval of so-called environmental groups that are funded by far-left activists,” the EPA spokesperson said.
The new EPA rule could prove dangerous to human health in the future because it will make it easier for the Trump administration to weaken air pollution controls, the experts who spoke with ABC News said. The EPA will only have the cost to industry to consider when making policy decisions without factoring in the benefits to health, the experts said.
“There will be nothing on the health side to balance them,” McCabe said. “That will make rules much easier to justify from a cost benefit perspective, because all you will see is the costs.”
In its regulatory impact analysis published in January 2024, the EPA calculated the benefit avoided morbidities and premature death in the year 2032 as worth between $22 billion and $46 billion. In February 2024, when the EPA tightened the amount of PM2.5 that could be emitted by industrial facilities, it estimated that the rule would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths by 2032.
This data will no longer be considered under the new rule.
“It’s not even estimating how many deaths that is, even though the models for doing both things have been very well established for a long, long time,” Revesz said.
(WASHINGTON) — For weeks, President Donald Trump has said that he received an MRI at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in October, but when asked about the procedure by the Wall Street Journal in an interview published Thursday, Trump and his doctor said that he actually got a CT scan instead.
“It wasn’t an MRI,” Trump told the Journal. “It was less than that. It was a scan.”
Last month, Trump maintained that he got an MRI, telling reporters on Air Force One that he would “absolutely” release the results.
The White House has not specifically said why Trump received the scan. In November, Trump claimed the MRI was part of his yearly physical.
Trump’s physician, Navy Capt. Sean Barbabella told the Journal that the president had received a CT scan — not an MRI. Barbabella said Trump’s doctors initially told him they would perform either an MRI or a CT scan.
Both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) scans are imaging methods used by health care professionals to look at organs and structures inside the body to help diagnose a variety of conditions. While an MRI scan uses a large magnet and radio waves to generate a picture, a CT scan uses X-rays.
On Dec. 1, the White House released the results of Trump’s advanced imaging tests, describing them as “perfectly normal.” Barbabella said then that the imaging helps confirm Trump’s overall health and identifies any early issues before they become serious.
Barbabella told the Journal that the CT scan was done “to definitively rule out any cardiovascular issues” and showed no abnormalities.
Barbabella told ABC News in a statement on Thursday that the president remains “in exceptional health and perfectly suited to execute his duties as Commander in Chief.”
In late October, Trump first said he had an MRI as part of the “advanced imaging” tests he received at Walter Reed.
“I got an MRI. It was perfect,” Trump said at the time. “I mean, I gave you the full results. We had an MRI and the machine, you know, the whole thing, and it was perfect.”
Even though Trump said multiple times that he had received an MRI, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told ABC News on Thursday that Trump’s “physicians and the White House have always maintained the president received advanced imaging.”
Although the advanced imaging was taken as a preventative measure, according to the White House and Barbabella, Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he now regrets getting it done, saying in the interview that it’s being used as “ammunition” against him.
“In retrospect, it’s too bad I took it because it gave them a little ammunition. I would have been a lot better off if they didn’t, because the fact that I took it said, ‘Oh gee, is something wrong?’ Well, nothing’s wrong,” Trump said.
In his Wall Street Journal interview, Trump said that the large dose of aspirin he takes daily has caused him to bruise easily, adding that he’s refused his doctors’ advice to take a lower dose, adding that he has taken that specific aspirin for 25 years.
“They say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood, and I don’t want thick blood pouring through my heart,” Trump said told the Wall Street Journal. “I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart. Does that make sense?”
In the Wall Street Journal article, Trump pushed back against criticism that he has struggled to keep his eyes open during several White House events, appearing to fall asleep.
“I’ll just close. It’s very relaxing to me,” Trump said to the Wall Street Journal about not falling asleep at White House events. “Sometimes they’ll take a picture of me blinking, blinking, and they’ll catch me with the blink.”
One of the most notable recent examples of this occurred during Trump’s Cabinet meeting in December and his November announcement to reduce the cost of weight-loss medication.
The Wall Street Journal reports that staff has counseled Trump to try to keep his eyes open during public events and that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has urged Cabinet members to shorten their presentations.
The Administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz, who was at the November event where Trump appeared to doze off, told the Journal he believes Trump became bored.
Tony Herbert (Theodore Parisienne for New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Eric Adams may no longer be mayor of New York City, but the alleged corruption in his administration is extending beyond his time in City Hall.
On Tuesday, federal prosecutors charged Tony Herbert, a former official in the Office of the Mayor, with bribery in connection with two separate pay-to-play schemes.
Herbert was arrested Tuesday morning and due in court later in the day for arraignment.
In the first alleged scheme, the indictment said Herbert solicited and received $11,000 in cash from a security company executive in exchange for pressuring other city officials to give the company security contracts at public housing projects.
In the second, the indictment said Herbert took $5,000 in kickbacks from the director of a funeral home in exchange for approving financial assistance for burial services for low-income families.
“To prevent these schemes from coming to light, Anthony Herbert, the defendant, filed false financial disclosure forms that omitted his receipt of thousands of dollars from both the Security Company Executive and the Funeral Home Director,” the indictment said.
Federal prosecutors said Herbert allegedly abused positions he held from 2022 to 2025 in both the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit and as citywide public housing liaison.
The indictment quoted Herbert allegedly telling the security executive, “This is what we do, bro. This is what we do. I mean it’s, ain’t nobody gonna do it for us.”
Herbert is charged with bribery, honest services wire fraud, extortion under color of official right, federal program fraud and wire fraud.
“New Yorkers deserve honest and competent public officials,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “As alleged, at a time when Anthony Herbert was serving as City Hall’s liaison to the City’s public housing residents, he engaged in blatant pay-to-play schemes to enrich himself.”
In addition to the pay-to-play schemes, Herbert is charged with submitting a fraudulent loan application for a purported baked good business to obtain a $20,000 loan under the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program.
Adams was indicted in October 2024 on federal corruption charges, to which he pleaded not guilty. His case was dismissed in April and he later dropped his reelection bid.
