"The Talk of the Town"
(NEW YORK) — The Atlantic on Wednesday published a new article detailing purported information about recent American strikes in Yemen it says was accidentally shared with a journalist via Signal by senior members of President Donald Trump’s National Security Council.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — A group of advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging Donald Trump’s recent executive order seeking to overhaul the U.S. election system, accusing the president of trying to enact “unlawful actions” to enforce “lawless mandates.”
The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s unilateral efforts to reshape voting in federal elections — including requiring proof of citizenship when registering and restricting mail-in voting deadlines — exceeds his authority as president and threatens to strip millions of their voting rights.
“The Order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the President authority to declare election rules by executive fiat,” the lawsuit alleged. “The Order is an attack on the constitutionally mandated checks and balances that keep American elections free and fair.”
The lawsuit — filed in the D.C. federal court by the Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of a League of United Latin American Citizens, Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students’ Association — asks a federal judge to block the implementation of parts of the order and force the Trump administration to rescind any guidance they issued.
It names a number of defendants, including the Executive Office of the President, the Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense, as well as the United States Election Assistance Commission and its commissioners — an independent government commissioner focused on election administration.
Trump’s executive order, signed last week, alleged that the United States “fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections.” The order instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute elections crimes in states the administration deems are not in compliance with federal law, requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to review state voter registration lists, and directs the Election Assistance Commission to withhold federal funding if states do not institute “uniform and nondiscriminatory” standards for counting votes.
“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error,” the order said.
Specifically, the executive order calls for proof of citizenship nationwide on the form used when registering to vote — a change from current election laws and a provision voting rights experts have taken issue with. Documents that can be used for proof, according to the order, include a passport, Real ID, a military ID card, or a valid federal or state ID.
But the lawsuit points out that the order does not accept identification documents issued by Tribal governments or birth certificates as forms of proof. The suit also raises questions about the approved methods, arguing that only half of Americans possess a passport and “most” Real IDs do not indicate citizenship.
Regardless, the lawsuit suggests the order’s direction to the Election Assistance Commission to change the form to add the proof of citizenship requirement could violate the Voter Registration Act of 1993, which according to the lawsuit gives the EAC “exclusive authority” to administer the form.
“In keeping with the NVRA’s intent to create a simple and easy-to-complete registration form, the NVRA specifies that the Federal Form may not “include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” the lawsuit states.
Trump’s order suggested that noncitizens can easily vote in federal elections, but experts have called noncitizen voting a “vanishingly rare phenomenon” that is easily prosecuted. According to a study of over 23 million votes cast in the 2016 election, officials identified only 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting, only 0.0001% of the total votes cast.
Separately, the executive order also takes aim at mail-in voting, making federal funding conditional on states setting a deadline for ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump — who was charged with multiple federal crimes for his effort to overturn the 2020 election in cases that were dropped once he was elected — has repeatedly suggested that mail-in ballots have led to an increase in voting fraud.
The lawsuit claims the provision about mail-in ballots is unlawful, arguing that “states have wide discretion and flexibility” to establish the time, place, and manner of federal elections under the Elections and Electors Clauses in the Constitution.
“Congress can enact election laws if it chooses, but absent a conflict with federal law, States have the power to establish and follow their own election laws,” the lawsuit states.
According to the suit, seventeen states, plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have laws that allow ballots to be counted as long as they are mailed by Election Day and received by a certain deadline afterward.
“Many of these States have had such receipt deadlines for many years, and Congress has declined to pass any laws dictating ballot receipt deadlines,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit notes that Congress has “long established” that the federal Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, in addition to establishing the date that presidential electors must be appointed, but “has left further regulation in this area largely up to States.” The lawsuit says the U.S. Supreme Court “has said that while votes must be cast by Election Day, some aspects of the election process, such as tabulating all votes, will naturally take place after Election Day.”
“The Attorney General does not have the authority to ‘enforce’ the federal Election Day statutes, and the President cannot order her to do so. Nor does a State “violate” those statutes when it counts validly cast ballots mailed by Election Day that are received after Election Day if State law so allows,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit also suggests the executive order could make it harder for citizens abroad and those serving in the military to vote. The executive order signed by Trump directs to secretary of defense to update the form used by these groups to register and request an absentee ballot — called the “Federal Post Card Application” — to include a requirement of documentary proof of citizenship as well as “proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote.”
The lawsuit notes this form is required by law as part of the the The Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, passed in 1986 to “protect the voting rights of Americans serving in the military, their families, and other U.S. citizens living abroad.” The suit claims the changes required by the order would be “impossible given the format required by Congress.”
“Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense has any legal authority to disregard UOCAVA’s statutory requirement to make such a post card available to military and overseas voters,” the lawsuit states.
Together, these provisions would have a “significant impact” on voting rights., the lawsuit claims.
Members of LULAC — a Hispanic and Latin American civil rights organization — for example, would be harmed if some of its members “who are eligible to vote often do not have the requisite citizenship documents.” the lawsuit states. The organization expects that efforts to register voters “will plummet.”
The Arizona Students’ Association will similarly be harmed by the proof of citizenship requirement, the lawsuit states, despite it being required when voters register on the state form there.
“Even those members who are able to register face imminent harm. Some members will be able to obtain or access DPOC only by spending significant time, money, and/or effort to do so, and will face greater difficulty registering because of the DPOC Requirement,” the lawsuit said.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(TALLAHASSEE, Fla.) — Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier said Tuesday he has ordered state prosecutors to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas in the “nowactive criminal investigation” into influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan Tate, after they arrived in the state from Romania.
The announcement was first posted to X, saying, “Last week, I directed my office to work with our law enforcement partners to conduct a preliminary inquiry into Andrew and Tristan Tate.”
It continued, “Based on a thorough review of the evidence, I’ve directed the Office of Statewide Prosecution to execute search warrants and issue subpoenas in the now-active criminal investigation into the Tate brothers.”
The brothers landed at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Feb. 27 after Romania lifted a travel restriction on them, despite its ongoing criminal investigations into the Tates for human trafficking and forming an organized criminal group with the goal of sexually exploiting women in two cases. Andrew Tate was also charged with rape.
The Tate brothers deny all charges against them.
The two had been confined to Romania since late 2022 and were charged in both 2023 and 2024. Romanian officials announced that court restrictions prohibiting the brothers from leaving Romania while awaiting trial had been lifted, but that the charges against them remained in force. The Tates also face another criminal case in the United Kingdom, where an arrest warrant has been issued on separate allegations of human trafficking and rape. The UK government has faced calls to demand the Tates’ extradition from the U.S.
The Tates’ release followed reports of lobbying by President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump denied any knowledge of it when questioned by reporters about their arrival in the United States. But Romania’s foreign minister has confirmed that Trump’s special envoy, Richard Grenell, raised the brothers’ case during a meeting in February, although he denied being pressured. Key Trump officials and allies, including Elon Musk and Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. have previously condemned the case against the Tates.
The charges against the Tates remain in force and they will be expected to return to Romania for court appearances, according to a statement from Romania’s Directorate for Investigating Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT.) The agency warned that failure to observe the remaining judicial restrictions could result in harsher restrictions being instated.
Despite other Trump allies’ support for the Tates, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis expressed surprise and anger at their arrival in Florida, telling reporters on the day that the Tates were “not welcome” given the conduct they are accused of.
Uthmeier, the attorney general, said he had directed state law enforcement to investigate whether any of their alleged crimes relating to human trafficking and violence against women triggered Florida jurisdiction, and pledging to “hold them accountable” if so.
One of the alleged victims at the center of one of the Romanian cases against Tate is a Florida woman. The American citizen has accused the Tates of luring her to Romania under the pretence of romantic relationship and then pressuring her into working as a pornographic webcam model, according to court documents.
The Tates have denied the woman’s accusations.
It is unclear if the new Florida investigation involves the women’s allegations. Uthmeier declined to give details on Tuesday but pledged to use “every tool” to hold the Tates accountable.
“These guys have themselves publicly admitted to participating in what very much appears to be soliciting, trafficking, preying upon women around the world,” he told a local reporter. “People can spin it however they want, but in Florida this type of behaviour is viewed as atrocious. We’re not going to accept it.”
“If these guys did criminal activity here in Florida we will go after them with full force of law and hold them accountable,” he said.
A lawyer representing the Tates, Joseph D. McBride, condemned the investigation, accusing Uthmeier of making “inflammatory, biased” comments and claiming the case was politically motivated.
“Today, Attorney General James Uthmeier threw ethics law out of the window when he publicly took a side in an ongoing Florida lawsuit where Andrew and Tristan Tate are suing a Florida woman,” McBride, wrote on X, challenging the attorney general to present evidence.
McBride blamed the new investigation on DeSantis, calling him “an angry, vertically challenged imp who hates Tate and Trump for being actual men. Attorney General Uthmeier is his pathetic lap dog.”
The Tates brought a defamation lawsuit against the Florida woman in the state in 2023, accusing her and her family of conspiring to damage their reputations by participating in the Romanian case. Last month, the woman brought her own countersuit against the Tates, accusing them of using the defamation lawsuit to try to silence victims. Both cases are currently pending.
A lawyer for the Florida woman in the Romania case praised the attorney general’s move to criminally investigate the Tates.
“Florida AG Uthmeier is right to criminally investigate the Tate brothers who have publicly boasted about exploiting women yet have continuously sought to undermine the Romanian investigation into these crimes,” Dani Pinter, senior vice president at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation said in a statement. “Over 40 victims have been identified across Romania, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They deserve justice. Florida’s investigation is a positive step towards justice realized.”
One of the women who is an alleged victim at the center of one of the Romanian cases is an American woman who lives in Florida.
It’s unclear from Uthmeier’s statement what the investigation is examining right now or how it might proceed.
ABC News’ Meredith Deliso and T. Michelle Murphy contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(BOSTON) — A first responder testified Monday in Karen Read’s murder retrial that she heard the defendant say, “I hit him,” multiple times after her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe, was found unresponsive in the snow outside a Massachusetts home in 2022.
Prosecutors allege, following a night of drinking in Canton, that Read struck O’Keefe with her Lexus SUV outside of a get-together at another officer’s home and left him to die in a blizzard in January 2022. An autopsy found that the 46-year-old died of hypothermia and blunt force injuries to the head.
After a jury was unable to reach a verdict in the initial murder trial last year, Read is being retried on charges including second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of a collision causing death. She has pleaded not guilty and maintains her innocence, with her attorneys arguing the police investigation was “riddled with errors” and alleging that witnesses colluded on their narrative about O’Keefe’s death.
Katie McLaughlin, a Canton firefighter paramedic who responded to the scene after Read and two others found O’Keefe in the snow outside the residence, was one of several witnesses who testified Monday in the ongoing trial.
As she did when she testified during the first trial, McLaughlin told the court that Read told her, “I hit him,” while she was trying to get details on O’Keefe during the early morning of Jan. 29, 2022.
“I asked if there had been any significant trauma that happened that preceded this, and she answered with a series of statements that she repeated — ‘I hit him. I hit him,” McLaughlin testified.
McLaughlin testified that she heard Read say, “I hit him,” four times.
An officer who was also present then signaled for his sergeant to come down, she said.
McLaughlin said she didn’t ask Read to clarify what she meant.
“I felt at that point, given the situation and how disturbing — and it was a very emotional situation, the woman was very upset — I didn’t feel comfortable pushing and asking for more. I just didn’t think that it was the right time for that,” she said. “And it was also really not my place at that point, and I feel like that was something that the police were — that’s more their role.”
McLaughlin said she subsequently told two colleagues in the ambulance at the scene what Read allegedly said.
O’Keefe was found by a flagpole near the home of Boston police officer Brian Albert.
Similar to the first trial when McLaughlin testified, defense attorney Alan Jackson grilled the witness on her relationship with Albert’s daughter, Caitlin, while mentioning times the two have attended the same social functions.
McLaughlin described Caitlin Albert as someone she went to high school with, shares mutual friends and socializes with, but wouldn’t consider a friend.
“We’ve known each other for years, but we are not close friends,” McLaughlin said. “We don’t have a relationship, just her one-on-one. It’s just group settings.”
Jackson also questioned if McLaughlin took any notes on what she said she heard Read say. The paramedic said she didn’t, and had only jotted down demographic information on O’Keefe onto her glove, such as his name and date of birth.
Asked by the prosecutor how she remembered Read’s alleged remarks, she said, “I won’t ever forget those statements.”
Jennifer McCabe, a key witness for the prosecution, testified last week that she also heard Read say, “I hit him,” while standing with Read and McLaughlin.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.