Exclusive: No. 2 House Democrat to skip Trump’s State of the Union address
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries speaks a press conference at the U.S. Capitol, February 4, 2026, in Washington. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Minority Whip Katherine Clark told ABC News she will not attend President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, making her the highest-ranking House Democrat to skip the event.
“And let me tell you why,” Clark told ABC’s Linsey Davis in an exclusive interview. “What we have seen from this president is a series of lies, of disrespect for the American people. He campaigned that he would lower costs on Day 1, he would keep people safe and secure. And he has done just the opposite.”
“So, I’m going to spend my evening, while he is spewing his misinformation tonight, talking to my constituents about their state of the union and how this administration is impacting them,” Clark said.
Dozens of Democrats, at least 45, are set to skip the State of the Union address. Many instead are opting to take part in a counter-program on the National Mall sponsored by the progressive group MoveOn.
House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Tuesday criticized Democrats who will be absent, saying it was “shameful that they would boycott an address.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has made the case for members of his caucus to attend without outbursts or to sit it out altogether.
“It’s our expectation that there will be some members who attend and attend in silent defiance, and there will be other members who will choose not to attend. And it’s up to every individual member to make the decision that makes the most sense for their constituents,” Jeffries told reporters on Tuesday afternoon.
Notable guests of Democratic lawmakers include survivors of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the business owner who successfully challenged Trump’s global tariffs and individuals affected by the administration’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger will deliver the Democratic response following Trump’s remarks. The two main themes she will focus on are affordability and the chaos the Trump administration has caused at home and abroad, according to Spanberger’s team.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon, March 31, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A group of Senate Democrats are demanding more information about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s finances and investments following a report — which the Pentagon demanded be retracted — that he may have tried to invest in defense stocks before the war in Iran began roughly five weeks ago.
“If this report is accurate, it would appear to represent an appalling effort to profit off of your knowledge of the President’s plans for war,” Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal, Tammy Duckworth, Jeff Merkley and Gary Peters wrote in a letter to Hegseth — and provided exclusively to ABC News — on Wednesday night. “This would be a profound conflict of interest and a potential violation of your federal ethics agreement — and betrayal of the nation paying the price for this war and the troops you are sending into harm’s way.”
The Financial Times reported earlier this week that a broker for Hegseth at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock — an equity fund — and tried to make a multimillion-dollar investment into a fund with defense stocks weeks before the Iran war.
The investment did not go ahead because it was not yet available for Morgan Stanley clients, the Financial Times reported — adding that it’s not clear whether Hegseth’s broker found another defense fund to invest in.
ABC News has not independently confirmed the Financial Times’ report.
When reached by ABC News, Morgan Stanley and BlackRock declined to comment on the Financial Times report
In a post on X on Monday, Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell dismissed the report calling it “entirely false and fabricated” and demanded a retraction from the Financial Times.
Still, the Democratic senators, led by Armed Services Committee member Warren, said in their letter that if the report turns out to be accurate, it would be a “serious breach of the public’s trust” and in violation of the ethics agreement he signed ahead of his confirmation as secretary of defense.
“The American people deserve leaders they can trust to put national security ahead of their own financial self-interest,” the senators wrote to Hegseth.
Hegseth is prohibited, under the Department of Defense’s standards of conduct, from owning stock in 10 major industry-specific corporations including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Boeing, RTX Corporation and L3Harris, which are part of the fund that the Financial Times article claims Hegseth’s broker attempted to purchase.
Hegseth does not have any major holdings in defense companies, according to his most recent financial disclosure reviewed by ABC News.
“Since this was a multi-million dollar investment in a sector-specific fund, your agreement appears to indicate that your broker would have needed your approval or that you did not intend to meet the commitments you made in your ethics agreement,” the senators wrote.
The senators have asked Hegseth to respond to a number of questions about the Financial Times report.
They ask Hegseth to say whether he shared any information with his broker about pending military action or whether he directed his broker to invest in any defense related funds, including BlackRock as the Financial Times report suggests, ahead of the Iran war. They also ask what instructions Hegseth has given his broker to try to avoid conflict of interests and they ask for an accounting of defense stocks owned and sold by Hegseth and his wife.
In his statement, Parnell said that Hegseth and the Department of Defense “remain unwavering in their commitment to the highest standards of ethics and strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations.”
The senators say that getting answers to their questions will help them to “understand where there may be gaps in current department practices and policies to prevent conflicts of interest.”
House Democrats are also looking into the allegations made about Hegseth in the Financial Times report.
Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, announced Tuesday that he’d launch an investigation into the matter.
Republicans have not been publicly commenting on Financial Times report. ABC News has reached out to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker for comment about Democrats’ calls for an investigation, but did not receive a response.
ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect Sen. Jeff Merkley is one of the co-signers of the letter.
A Border Patrol Vehicle Stands Watch at the Mexican American Border Wall Outside of El Paso Texas. (Photo by Joey Ingelhart/E+)
(WASHINGTON) — An appeals court on Friday affirmed a district court’s ruling that an executive order invoked by President Donald Trump to suspend immigration asylum claims is unlawful.
In a divided 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed a court order saying the Immigration and Nationality Act allows migrants who cross the southern border apply for asylum.
“The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making,” the court wrote. “Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs’ access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs’ Convention Against Torture claims.”
On Day 1 of his second term in office, President Trump issued an executive order he called “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” which aimed to block immigrants from seeking asylum and other forms of relief once they enter the United States and to allow for their swift removal from the country.
Friday’s ruling means that migrants who make it to U.S. soil, whether at a legal port of entry or in between, can legally seek asylum as has been allowed in previous administrations.
The Trump administration will likely appeal the decision, which could set up a possible showdown at the Supreme Court.
“This decision will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration’s horrific asylum ban,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said they “strongly disagree” with the ruling and that “this will not be the last word on this matter.”
“America’s asylum system was never intended to be used as a de facto amnesty program or a catch-all, get-out-of-deportation-free card. President Trump’s top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States,” the spokesperson said. “We will use all of the tools in our toolbox to ensure that the integrity of our legal immigration system is upheld, fraud is uncovered and expeditiously addressed, and illegal aliens are removed from the country.”
(WASHINGTON) — Senators at last agreed via voice vote early Friday morning to approve a funding package that funds the Department of Homeland Security besides Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and part of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — a critical step toward ending most of the 42-day long DHS shutdown.
Agencies that would be funded by the Senate’s approved package include TSA, FEMA, The Coast Guard and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
The vote was called by Sen. Bernie Moreno, who was presiding over the chamber just after 2 a.m. ET on Friday morning. The bill will now head to the House where it will need to be approved. If passed, it will then head to the desk of President Donald Trump who would need to sign it for it to become law.
In remarks on the Senate floor early Friday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was proud of Democrats who “held the line” on their objection to funding ICE and CBP without reforms.
“Democrats held firm in our position that Donald Trump’s rogue and deadly militia should not get more funding without serious reforms and we will continue to fight for those reforms,” Schumer said. The package the Senate approved does not include funding for ICE and parts of CBP, though those agencies will continue to receive funds due to the influx of cash in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill.
Also absent from the package are any of the reforms to ICE’s operating procedures that Democrats have been repeatedly demanding since the debate over DHS funding began.
Majority Leader John Thune lambasted Democrats on the floor for what he framed as their refusal to negotiate in good faith. He said Democrats could have secured some of their desired reforms if they hadn’t complicated negotiations.
“We could be standing here right now passing a funding bill with a list of reforms if the Democrats had made the smallest effort to actually reach an agreement. But they didn’t, because it’s now clear to everyone, Democrats didn’t actually want a solution, they wanted an issue, politics over policy, self-interest over reform, pandering to their base over actually solving a problem,” Thune said. “It’s an appalling commentary on the state of the Democratic Party.”
Schumer was asked by reporters about how Democrats would get reforms from this point going forward.
“We’re going to continue to fight hard for reforms, there’ll be opportunities,” Schumer said, though he provided no detail.
Though there was an effort by Republicans tonight to unanimously pass annual funding for ICE, it was blocked by Democrats.
Republicans are vowing to work on a package later this year to approve even more funding for ICE and CBP, saying they aim to do it using reconciliation — a budget tool that, if successful, would allow them to sidestep Democratic objection and pass the bill without any Democratic support.
Republicans are already warning that that bill will be a much harsher and Sen. Eric Schmitt vowed it would “supercharge deportations.”
