Pentagon IG finds Hegseth could have endangered troops with Signal chat, sources say

(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.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LONDON) — December saw a new record number of Ukrainian long-range drones shot down by Russian forces, according to statistics published by the Russian Defense Ministry and analyzed by ABC News, with Moscow claiming to have destroyed more than 4,300 over the course of the month.

Through December, Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed to have shot down 4,379 Ukrainian long-range drones, at a rate of around 141 each day.

ABC News cannot independently verify the data released by either Russia or Ukraine. It is possible that both sides may seek to exaggerate the effectiveness of their air defenses, or to amplify the attacks against them as proof that their enemies are not interested in pursuing a peace deal.

The total number of Ukrainian drones being reported as shot down by Moscow is still significantly less than the number of munitions launched into Ukraine by Russian forces, as detailed in the daily after-action reports from the Ukrainian air force.

But the gap between the two figures appeared to have narrowed in December compared to recent months, according to data released by both sides and analyzed by ABC News.

In December, Ukraine’s air force said Russia launched a total of 5,307 long-range munitions — 5,131 drones and 176 missiles. Of the drones, nearly 81% were shot down or suppressed, while around 64% of missiles were also defeated, the air force said.

The scale of Russia’s attacks on Ukraine through December were similar to previous months, all of which were slightly down on the record-breaking month of July.

Over the course of July, Ukraine’s air force said Russia launched 6,443 munitions — 6,245 drones and 198 missiles — into the country.

This year has seen an exponential increase in the scale of long-range cross-border strikes by both Russia and Ukraine, according to data released by each side, as the combatants try to destabilize their opponent’s economy and sap their ability to marshal military and financial resources to fight the ongoing war.

Neither side provides detailed data on the scale of their own attacks or their targets, though often release statements describing the targets as military, energy or industrial sites. Both sides accuse the other of intentionally attacking civilian targets.

Both Kyiv and Moscow do offer limited information on their day-to-day air defensive actions.

Ukraine’s air force publishes what it says is a daily tally of Russian drone and missile strikes, including information as to how many munitions were intercepted and how many hit targets. Russia’s Defense Ministry only publishes figures of Ukrainian drones it claims were shot down.

The last month of the year saw the reported number of Ukrainian drones surpass even the most intense months of 2025, which has seen the largest barrages of the war, according to data published by both Ukraine and Russia.

The days on which Russia reported the highest number of drones shot down this year were on Dec. 24, when 387 drones were reported destroyed, and on Dec. 11, when 336 drones were recorded as having been intercepted.

Until December, the largest number of Ukrainian drones reported having been downed by Russian forces was in October, when Moscow said it destroyed 3,641 drones at a rate of over 117 per day.

In November, Russia reported downing 3,392 Ukrainian drones at a rate of 113 per day. December saw a 29% increase in reported Ukrainian drones shot down versus November, according to Russian data.

It is unlikely that Russian data offers a full picture of Ukraine’s offensive drone activities. But the numbers appear indicative of Kyiv’s efforts to grow its drone and missile arsenals, the reach of those munitions and the intensity with which it can attack targets inside Russia.

Ukraine’s military confirms the targets of some long-range strikes. When Kyiv does describe the targets, officials say they’re military sites or industrial energy facilities. Over the past year, Ukraine has adopted a special focus on attacking Russian oil refining and transport facilities.

Among the targets claimed struck by Ukraine’s military in December were oil refineries, oil tankers, oil rigs and pipeline infrastructure.

Ukrainian officials have been clear on the value they place on Kyiv’s long-range strike capabilities — and on their intention to further expand their drone and missile arsenals to reach deeper into Russia. To date, the majority of Ukrainian strikes are believed to have been conducted using relatively cheap, Ukrainian-made drones.

“Our production potential for drones and missiles alone will reach $35 billion next year,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in October. “Despite all the difficulties, Ukrainians are creating their national defense product that, in certain parameters, already surpasses many others in the world.”

“Never before in history has Ukrainian defense been so long-range and so felt by Russia,’ Zelenskyy said. “We must make the cost of war absolutely unacceptable for the aggressor — and we will.”

Russian officials have broadly sought to downplay the Ukrainian attacks, with most reports of damage or casualties attributed to falling debris from intercepted drones, rather than craft that found their mark.

But plentiful publicly available information — including video footage and photographs of the attacks — indicate that a significant number of Ukrainian drones do get through Russian air defenses and impact at sensitive military and industrial sites.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(Washington) Former special counsel Jack Smith defended his decision to bring charges twice against President Donald Trump — telling lawmakers in a closed-door deposition earlier this month that 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.

And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to what the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony, alleged — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or Attorney General Merrick Garland.

“No,” Smith responded continuously.

Just over an hour before the closed 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 Wednesday 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.

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 “obstructed” the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”

Trump repeatedly denied the allegations in both felony cases, which were unprecedented against an American president, and decried them as part of a “witch hunt.” Smith, one of Trump’s frequent targets on social media, ultimately dropped the cases after Trump’s reelection because he said that he was constitutionally prohibited from prosecuting a sitting president.

Smith asserted in his final report that “but for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial.”

During the deposition, Smith argued, as he had in the past, that Trump “President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”

When asked if Trump was responsible for the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, Smith said “Our view of the evidence was that he caused it and that he exploited it and that it was foreseeable to him.”

Smith argued that Trump’s claims that he won the 2020 election were not protected free speech because they were intended to target a government function.

“There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case. As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election,” Smith said. “But what he was not free to do was violate Federal law and use knowing — knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function. That he was not allowed to do. And that differentiates this case from any past history.”

And Smith said Trump wrote a tweet that “without question in my mind endangered the life of his own Vice President” during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Smith said several witnesses who said they voted or campaigned for Trump — including the Speaker of the House in Arizona and Speaker of the House in Michigan — were the foundation of the case.

“We had an elector in Pennsylvania who is a former Congressman who was going to be an elector for President Trump who said that what they were trying to do was an attempt to overthrow the government and illegal. Our case was built on, frankly, Republicans who put their allegiance to the country before the party,” Smith said.

Asked why Smith did not charge any of the alleged co-conspirators, Smith said “As we stated in the final report, we analyzed the evidence against different co-conspirators. We — my staff determined that we did have evidence to charge people at a certain point in time. I had not made final determinations about that at the time that President Trump won reelection, meaning that our office was going to be closed down.”

Smith said he had evidence that Trump ordered the alleged co-conspirators to place phone calls to senators the night of Jan. 6 to try and delay the certification vote.

The committee pressed Smith why he did not speak with Trump allies Steve Bannon, Roger Stone or Peter Navarro as part of their investigation.

“We pursued the investigative routes that we thought were the most fruitful,” Smith argued. “I didn’t think it would be fruitful to try to question them.”

And they pressed him on seizing phones of members of Congress. Smith said only Scott Perry had his phone seized and no senators did.

“I don’t recall that,” Smith said when asked if he wanted a search warrant for the content of any text messages from members of Congress.

Smith said he just wanted toll records and confirmed that he approved the subpoenas.

“If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic Senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic Senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them, that’s — that lies with Donald Trump,” Smith said.

Smith recalled that Jim Jordan, the Judiciary Committee chair, was in direct contact with White House on Jan. 6, according to an interview his team conducted with Mark Meadows.

Meadows stated that Jordan was scared. “I’ve never seen Jim Jordan scared of anything,” Meadows said, according to Smith.

Smith said he is “eyes wide open” that he believes Trump will seek retribution against him.

“I came here. I was asked to come here,” he added.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.