President Trump shows off White House’s Lincoln Bathroom renovated entirely in marble
The Lincoln Bedroom, formerly the Blue Suite, in the White House, Washington, DC, circa 1962. (Archive Photos/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump isn’t just remaking the East Wing of the White House. On Friday, he showed off an entirely renovated Lincoln Bathroom on his social media platform.
“I renovated the Lincoln Bathroom in the White House,” Trump wrote on Truth Social alongside photos of the before and after. “It was renovated in the 1940s in an art deco green tile style, which was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era.”
He continued, “I did it in black and white polished Statuary marble. This was very appropriate for the time of Abraham Lincoln and, in fact, could be the marble that was originally there!”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Minnesota National Guard sits at the Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, United States, on January 26, 2025. (Arthur Maiorella/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon’s Northern Command over the weekend stood down more than 1,500 federal troops placed on alert for potential deployment to Minneapolis, according to two U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation.
ABC News first reported that roughly 1,500 active duty soldiers from the 11th Airborne Division at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska had been ordered to prepare for a possible mission to the Twin Cities in Minnesota.
Additional units across the country, including some 200 Texas National Guard troops, also had been directed to make preparations.
No specific mission was ever outlined, and placing units on alert is a relatively routine step when commanders anticipate a potential presidential order, according to officials familiar with the planning. The New York Times was the first to report that units were being taken off high alert.
The prepare-to-deploy orders came as President Donald Trump, threatened to use the Insurrection Act of 1807, a rarely used statute that grants a president authority to deploy federal troops for domestic law enforcement missions under limited circumstances.
The law has been invoked most frequently during the Civil Rights era, particularly to enforce court-ordered desegregation and quell large-scale unrest.
The order to stand down comes as the Trump administration has signaled a potential de-escalation in Minneapolis following the fatal shootings of two people involving federal officers.
On Monday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that every officer in Minneapolis will start to wear body cameras.
“As funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide,” Noem said in a statement. “We will rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country.”
The 11th Airborne Division is the Pentagon’s primary ground combat force tailored for warfare in extreme cold, a niche capability the Army views as increasingly central to modern conflict.
The unit is not built with civilian law enforcement in mind, and such a deployment would’ve likely been seen as a major escalation of the federal government’s role in the Minneapolis protests.
The 11th Airborne Division plays a significant role in the U.S. military’s posture in the Pacific, regularly training alongside allied forces as part of efforts to deter China. Built for speed and flexibility, the division focuses on airborne operations that enable units to parachute into contested terrain, giving commanders an early foothold in a conflict.
Meanwhile, Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has ordered the state’s National Guard into Minneapolis to secure the Whipple Federal Building, a massive federal complex that houses a courtroom, a detention center, and offices for multiple agencies, including Homeland Security.
Guard troops have been outfitted in bright reflective vests to distinguish them from federal agents who often dress similar to the military.
In this June 3, 2025, file photo, Karine Jean-Pierre speaks at an event at 92NY in New York. (John Lamparski/Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — With a polarized political climate approaching the high-stakes 2026 midterm elections, more Americans are identifying as independents than ever before, according to a Gallup poll conducted throughout 2025.
A record-high 45% of Americans called themselves political independents in 2025. The figure is a record since Gallup started measuring in 1988 — with the previous high for independents at 43% in 2014, 2023 and 2024.
Gallup found that an equal share of Americans identified as Republicans and Democrats — 27% each.
These findings come as the midterm elections approach in November and several tight races are expected as Republicans in the House try to maintain their slim majority so they can work to push President Donald Trump’s agenda. Both Republicans and Democrats will have to appeal to independents to win any tight races nationwide.
Thomas Nickel, an 85-year-old who lives in California, told ABC News that he has been independent for several years after leaving the Democratic Party. Nickel left his former party because he said he believes Democrats have not pushed hard enough for issues that are “necessary” — specifically mentioning health care coverage. He said universal health coverage is a priority for him, which he said he believes neither party has focused on.
Trump, who has been a vocal critic of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, unveiled his new health care proposal earlier this month, which presents a proposal to shift government insurance subsidies directly to consumers through health savings accounts and take advantage of his “most favored nation” drug price initiative. However, Trump’s proposal has left experts unsure on how impactful these ideas could be.
When asked about his thoughts on the president’s recent health care proposal, Nickel called it “ridiculous,” and added that an average person won’t be able to afford to pay for their own insurance with money they would receive directly. When asked what he would like to see Democrats do, Nickel noted that the ACA is “a step in the right direction,” but that “there’s going to be 25% of people that can’t even afford the health care premiums for the Medicare assistance.”
A Louisiana resident who did not want to disclose his name told ABC News that he is an independent because of how “divisive” politics have become. He said he remains a registered Republican so that he can vote in Republican primaries. Some states hold closed primaries where only voters registered with a certain party can vote in that party’s primary; other states hold open primaries where voters of any affiliation can vote in the primary of any party.
“I think, in recent years, especially the last decade or so, things have gotten so divisive that it feels like the minority on both sides speak for the majority,” he said, adding that he believes both parties “had alienated their voter base by being so polarizing.” He cited the Trump administration’s push to acquire Greenland as “a game of Risk,” but didn’t give specifics on Democrats’ actions he found polarizing.
Zach Servis — a 27-year-old independent who lost his bid for mayor for Jackson, Mississippi, last year — also said that the political climate is “way too polarized and hateful.”
Servis said he left the Republican Party around 2020 during the height of COVID after recognizing what he described as “hypocrisy” of his former party. He pointed to Republicans not supporting social programs such as the ACA, but willingness to help other countries — something he said is not in line with Trump’s “America First” slogan.
Looking ahead to this year’s midterm elections, Servis said he believes that independent voters have enough “power to shift which side wins.”
“I think that independent politics have an opportunity to shape this midterm where some of these parties are going to have to shift a little bit in how they win these voters — and if they’re not willing to come a little more to the middle or reach across the aisle, they’re going to risk people crossing the aisle entirely and voting even for a party they don’t believe in because at least that person’s willing to listen,” Servis said.
Generational shifts in political affiliations
The increase in the share of independents is partly attributable to a larger percentage of younger generations of Americans remaining independent as they age — compared to older generations who are less likely to remain unaffiliated, according to Gallup.
Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2007, has the highest percentage of independents, with 56% identifying as independent, Gallup found.
Gen Z is also less likely to identify as Republican compared to older generations, with 17% identifying as Republican compared to 37% of the Silent Generation (born before 1946).
Gallup found 27% of Gen Z identifying as Democrats compared to 32% of the Silent Generation.
Karine Jean-Pierre, who became an independent after serving in the Biden administration as White House press secretary, told ABC News that she believes the growing percentage of independents is not “temporary” and will continue to reshape the electorate in this 2026 election year.
“I do think there’s power amongst independents. The thing that is changing the electorate is changing in the sense of that you’re seeing more and more independents,” Jean-Pierre told ABC News.
Jean-Pierre also noted that younger generations may be reluctant to join a political party as a way to “express moral concern” over U.S. involvement in global issues.
She also noted that young independents deserve a seat at the table as the midterms approach.
“I don’t think independents, especially young independents, are disengaged,” Jean-Pierre said. “I think what they’re doing is they’re growing numbers — put pressure on both political parties to earn support with real policy results, rather than just assuming loyalty based on branding or identity.”
The Gallup poll was conducted throughout 2025 among 13,454 U.S. adults nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 1 percentage point.
Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Rep. James Comer (R-KY) speaks to reporters as he arrives for a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Chairman James Comer has set a noon deadline Tuesday for Bill and Hillary Clinton to agree to the GOP’s specific terms for depositions that the Clintons signaled Monday night they generally would comply with, warning that if they do not then Republicans will reconvene to move contempt resolutions toward a full House vote.
“The Oversight Committee is seeking clarification the Clintons accepted the standard deposition terms that they were subpoenaed for: transcribed, filmed depositions in February with no time limit pursuant to the committee’s investigation. The depositions are pursuant to the Committee’s investigative purpose as laid out across its letters and contempt reports,” a person familiar with the matter told ABC News.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, in a news conference Tuesday alongside House GOP leadership, said Comer was “in the middle of a negotiation with the Clintons.”
“They have until noon today to fully comply, otherwise we will move contempt tomorrow against the Clintons,” Scalise reiterated.
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed on Monday evening to sit for closed-door depositions in the committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña posted on X. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
For months, the Clintons had insisted that the subpoenas were without legal merit. Comer, a Republican, has pushed back, saying the Clintons are not above the law and must comply with a subpoena.
Besides defying the subpoenas to testify before the House committee, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
In a letter dated Jan. 31, the Clintons’ legal teams wrote the committee to lay out the parameters of a prospective interview — alongside a request for the committee to withdraw its subpoena and contempt resolution — proposing a four-hour transcribed interview in lieu of a deposition conducted under oath.
The letter states the interview should occur in New York City — open to all committee members — while the scope of questions would be “confined to matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein.” The president also asked to designate his own transcriber, alongside a court reporter employed by the House.
“This framework is consistent with your priorities as communicated by Committee staff and as identified during the business meeting on January 21st,” the letter, signed by Clinton attorneys Katherine Turner and Ashley Callen, stated. “Pursuant to your request for this comprehensive written proposal, we ask that you respond in kind should there remain any specific area of disagreement to continue this good-faith effort to avoid legal proceedings that will prevent our clients from providing testimony in addition to the sworn statements they already submitted.”
Comer wrote back Monday, citing “serious concerns with the offer,” beginning with the proposed scope restriction — predicting President Clinton “would refuse to answer questions” related to his personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Comer also balked at the proposed four-hour time limit for the interview, and the president’s bid to break blocks of questioning into 30-minute periods — rather than 60-minute periods — that alternate between Republicans and Democrats.
“A hard time-limit provides a witness with the incentive to attempt to run out the clock by giving unnecessarily long answers and meandering off-topic. This is a particular concern where a witness, such as President Clinton, has an established record of being a loquacious individual,” Comer said.
“Limiting President Clinton’s testimony to four hours is insufficient time for the Committee to gain a full understanding of President Clinton’s personal relationship with them, his knowledge of their sex-trafficking ring, and his experience with their efforts to curry favor and exercise influence to protect themselves,” he added of President Clinton’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.
Finally, Comer took umbrage with the proposition for a transcribed interview, not a sworn deposition.
“A transcribed interview is voluntary, meaning that the subject may refuse to answer questions absent any assertion of privilege or constitutional right,” Comer noted. “The conditions requested thus would enable President Clinton to refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted and leave as the Committee’s only recourse to again subpoena President Clinton’s testimony, effectively restarting this entire process from the beginning.”
As for Hillary Clinton, the lawyers’ letter echoes her sworn declaration, stating she “never held an office with responsibility for, or involvement with, DOJ’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions,” adding “the same is true as a private citizen after leaving office in 2013.”
The lawyers also requested that Comer withdraw the subpoena and resolution of contempt “so that we may continue to work in good faith toward an agreement that meets the Committee’s needs while accounting for the limited information Secretary Clinton can provide.”
In response, Comer emphasized “the necessity” of Hillary Clinton’s in-person testimony juxtaposed against the “unacceptability of simple sworn declarations.”
Comer concluded that the Clintons’ “desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”
