Talk of the Town
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order signed last year that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump maintained his firm stance amid the ongoing U.S.-Canada trade war on Wednesday, repeating his claims that Canada is one of “the worst countries” in the world to deal with and that they have taken “advantage” of the U.S. during a radio interview with conservative host Glenn Beck.
“Look, I don’t know how you feel about Canada. They are one of the worst countries in the world to deal with,” Trump said, remarking on negotiating with the Canadians.
Negotiations between Canada and the U.S. broke down over the weekend and a fresh round of 50% U.S. tariffs on some Canadian goods took effect on Saturday, leading Canada to retaliate with a set of its own levies.
“They take advantage of us as though they were a state, and they’re not a state,” Trump added.
The president then mentioned the “good deal” with Canada last week, which fell apart just before the deadline.
“I had a deal that was a pretty good deal, you know, quite good, because they’re afraid that I won’t do any business. In other words, we won’t trade. They don’t have anything that we have to have. OK, we can get by,” Trump said. “I mean, there are a couple of things that would make it a little inconvenient, but we can get them elsewhere. And it’s time to teach Canada you can’t do this anymore.”
On Tuesday, Trump said in a call with CNN that Canada’s claim that the U.S. added more conditions to their agreement in the final hours of negotiations “sounds like” him, seeming to confirm the Canadian position. He later added, according to CNN, that he doesn’t “deny anything” when pressed on whether he denies the Canadians’ claims.
Those comments from Trump contradict what some in his own administration, including Vice President JD Vance, have said about the collapse of the talks. Vance has insisted that it was Canada who was at fault for the talks falling apart, pinning the blame on Canada during a campaign stop in Maine earlier this week, saying they were making “unreasonable last-minute demands.”
During his radio interview on Wednesday, the president also brought up his call this week to rename Lake Ontario as “Lake America.” He added that maybe he “wasn’t” joking about it, pointing to the fact that he renamed the Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America” last year.
“You saw the Lake Ontario — you know, people thought I was kidding. Maybe I wasn’t because the last one you saw was the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of America,” Trump said.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that oil giant Exxon Mobil can sue the Cuban government over more than $1 billion in seized property, potentially giving the United States greater financial leverage over the cash-strapped country.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that state-owned companies can’t argue they are protected by sovereign immunity to fight litigation over assets seized by Cuba’s communist government.
The decision — as well as a similar case last month when the Supreme Court ruled companies can be held liable for using seized property — comes as the Trump administration ratchets pressure on the struggling island nation through embargoes and a criminal indictment of former leader Raul Castro. The decision could open the door to more litigation over assets seized by the Cuban government, adding pressure to the economically distressed country.
The case revolved around the interpretation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, which was passed by Congress after Cuba shot down two unarmed planes flown by humanitarian organization Brothers to the Rescue. The law established the right of U.S. nationals to sue over property seized by the Cuban government, though every president until President Donald Trump waived that provision.
The day Trump allowed lawsuits against Cuba in 2019, Exxon Mobil sued over their property in the country — including hundreds of gas stations, an oil refinery, depots and packaging plants — valued at more than $1 billion. In court, the Cuban government argued that the companies were protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and that Exxon would need to show they were exempted from that law for the case to proceed. Both the district and circuit courts sided with Cuba — eventually leading the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed those rulings in the opinion on Tuesday.
“It would make little sense for Congress to construct an elaborate statute authorizing suits against the Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities if, because of the FSIA, almost no suits could ever get through the courthouse door,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that “the entire architecture of the Helms-Burton Act” establishes that sovereign immunity does not apply and that ruling otherwise would “badly undermine Congress’s design and thwart the President’s statutorily authorized assessment of current developments in Cuba.”
“After the President has allowed suits under the Act to go forward, there is no additional FSIA hurdle that a plaintiff must clear in order to sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities,” wrote Kavanaugh. “The Helms-Burton Act authorizes private suits against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities — suits that would largely be nonstarters if subjected to the FSIA’s requirements.”
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the majority, writing that the Helms-Burton Act falls short of the high legal bar to show that it eliminates claims of sovereign immunity.
“Nothing in the text or ‘architecture’ of the Helms-Burton Act suggests that Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of these defendants — much less that it did so with the requisite unmistakable clarity,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a similar defeat for Cuba, ruling that cruise lines Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian and MSC can be held liable for using a port confiscated by the Cuban government.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Calling it a matter of “exceptional importance,” the Trump administration has filed an urgent appeal with the Supreme Court seeking the immediate removal of 29 active-duty service members who are transgender even before their case challenging the Pentagon ban goes to trial in January.
Several courts have found that the ban was likely rooted in animus and violates servicemembers constitutional rights to due process and equal protection – a conclusion the government strongly disputes.
While the justices last year gave Trump the green light to move forward broadly with a ban on service members who have a history of gender dysphoria, federal judges in a separate case, U.S. v. Talbott, last June blocked the military from discharging more than two dozen individual plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the policy.
Solicitor General John Sauer called the ruling allowing those plaintiffs to remain in their positions “gravely erroneous.”
“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” Sauer wrote in the government’s petition. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review. The Court should thus take this opportunity to address the constitutionality of the [Department of Defense Secretary] Hegseth policy and reverse the decision below, whose reasoning cannot be squared with this Court’s precedents or deference to the military.”
The justices will consider this fall whether to hear the case at this early stage, before any final ruling on the merits by a lower court.
In the meantime, the 29 plaintiffs – who are active-duty, reservists, National Guard members and a person seeking to enlist – will remain in the force.
“As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards,” said Jennifer Levi, an attorney representing the transgender service members with the LGBTQ legal advocacy group GLAD Law. “There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims.”
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.