Republican-led House will vote to make Trump’s Gulf of America into law
ABC News
The Republican-led House is set to vote Thursday on a bill to make the Gulf of Mexico’s name change to Gulf of America permanent.
The legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, codifies an executive order from President Donald Trump to rename the body of water.
Its fate in the Senate is more of a challenge, given that it will need bipartisan cooperation to overcome a filibuster.
“Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper or other record of the United States to the Gulf of Mexico shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘Gulf of America,’” the bill text states.
The measure also instructs each federal agency to update each document and map in accordance with the name change that Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum will oversee.
“Codifying the rightful renaming of the Gulf of America isn’t just a priority for me and President Trump, it’s a priority for the American people. American taxpayers fund its protection, our military defends its waters, and American businesses fuel its economy,” Rep. Greene argued in a post on X.
One of Trump’s first executive orders when he started his second term was to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker Mike Johnson has endorsed the bill, which is expected to clear the lower chamber in a party-line vote.
“We’ve been working around the clock to codify so much of what President Trump has been doing … to make sure that we put these into statutory law so that it can’t be reversed and erased by an upcoming administration,” Johnson said at a news conference on Tuesday.
House Democrats, including Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have criticized the measure.
“Why is the top thing that House Republicans — going to do this week on their legislative agenda renaming the Gulf of Mexico?” Jeffries said at a news conference Monday. “Because Donald Trump and House Republicans are on the run. They are on the run.”
(WASHINGTON) — The deadline has quietly passed on Attorney General Pam Bondi delivering a report to President Donald Trump on whether any leftover Biden administration policies infringe on Americans’ right to bear arms. It came just days after Democratic leaders sent her a letter suggesting there is “plainly no need for any new plan of action.”
Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 7 after making campaign promises to gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) that “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.”
The president instructed Bondi to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies” and determine if any of them violate the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation,” Trump’s executive order reads. “Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”
The 30-day mark for Bondi to report back to Trump through his domestic policy director would have been this past Sunday.
Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke University School of Law, told ABC News the broadly written executive order “signals to me that this isn’t a top priority” for the Trump administration.
“Obviously, if there were things that were on the administration’s radar as possibly violating the Second Amendment or violating the rights of gun owners in some way, they could have started to roll those back right away and wouldn’t have needed to take this intermediate step of issuing a directive to the Attorney General to figure out what those were,” Willinger said. “That suggests that there’s nothing out there that the administration viewed as so pressing that they have to get rid of it right away.”
‘Perfectly consistent with the 2nd Amendment’
After Trump signed the executive order, NRA Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin released a statement praising the president’s move.
“Promises made to law-abiding gun owners are being kept by President Donald J. Trump,” Hamlin said. “NRA members were instrumental, turning out in record numbers to secure his victory, and he is proving worthy of their votes, faith and confidence in his first days in office.”
John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, also released a statement, saying, “After a long four years, law-abiding gun owners no longer have to worry about being the target of an anti-gun radical administration. NRA looks forward to the advances and restoration of our rights that will come from President Trump’s respect for the Constitution.”
It is unclear whether or not Bondi met the deadline on delivering the report — nothing had been publicly released as of Wednesday. When ABC News asked this week about the Bondi’s pending plan of action, Department of Justice officials said they would check but had no immediate information on the report’s status. The White House also did not respond to ABC News’ inquiry about Bondi’s pending report.
Earlier this month, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Maryland, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Georgia, ranking member of the House subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, sent Bondi a letter.
“We are determined to protect our communities against lethal gun crime in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment,” they wrote.
The letter said that if Bondi carried out her examination “objectively and in good faith” she’ll find that actions taken by the previous administration to fight gun violence are “perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment.”
“There is plainly no need for any new plan of action to, in the words of the executive order, ‘protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,'” the letter said.
In his executive order, Trump instructed Bondi that in addition to reviewing all presidential actions taken on gun control from January 2021 to January 2025, he wanted her to review rules about firearms and federal firearm licensing implemented by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Trump specifically asked Bondi to review the ATF’s “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” — also called the “zero tolerance policy” — implemented in 2021 under Biden and former Attorney General Merrick Garland to identify federal firearms dealers who violate the 1968 Gun Control Act.
Under the policy, firearms dealers had their licenses revoked for willfully transferring firearms to prohibited people, failing to conduct the required background checks, falsifying records and failing to respond to a gun trace request. The policy prompted several lawsuits from gun dealers who argued their licenses were revoked over minor clerical errors.
Raskin and McBath claimed that in the three years since the policy was implemented, about 0.3% of the nation’s roughly 130,000 federal gun dealers had their licenses revoked.
“Through this policy, ATF has enforced the Gun Control Act as passed by Congress and had revoked the licenses of a tiny fraction of gun dealers who willfully violated the law,” Raskin and McBath said in their letter to Bondi. “The ATF’s enhanced regulatory policy has not prevented a single American who may lawfully possess a firearm from exercising his or her Second Amendment rights.”
The ATF reported that in fiscal year 2023, the agency found 1,531 violations after conducting 8,689 firearm compliance inspections. The inspections, according to the ATF, prompted 667 warning letters and 170 revocations.
“Law-abiding gun dealers remain in business throughout the country. In fact, there remain more gun dealers than there are locations of Starbucks, McDonald’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Burger King, Subway, and Chick-fil-A combined,” Raskin and McBath said in their letter.
The Democratic lawmakers asked Bondi to respond to their letter by the end of the business day on Monday, explaining what standards she will use to determine if policies taken by the Biden administration violate the Second Amendment and how she will ensure her plan of action “does not increase the risk of violent crime, including gun deaths.”
Majority of Americans favor stronger gun laws
A Pew Research Center poll released in July 2024 found that 61% of respondents agreed that it is too easy to legally obtain a gun and 58% favored stricter gun laws.
“We know that the vast majority of Americans — including gun owners and Trump voters — support basic safety laws that crack down on crime and keep all communities safe. These policies are in no way inconsistent with the Second Amendment,” Kris Brown, president of the gun-safety advocacy group Brady United, said in a statement after Trump signed the executive order.
Brown noted that policies under Biden included expanding background checks for gun buyers and “cracking down on rogue gun traffickers.”
“They must be continued if this President actually wants to achieve any of his campaign promises around reducing crime, cracking down on drug traffickers, and reducing the flow of trafficked weapons across the southern border,” Brown said.
In the aftermath of the 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, that claimed the lives of 19 children and two teachers, Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major piece of federal gun reform to clear both chambers in 30 years.
The law enhanced background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21 by giving authorities up to 10 business days to review the juvenile and mental health records of young gun purchasers, and made it unlawful for someone to purchase a gun for someone who would fail a background check. This legislation closed the so-called “boyfriend loophole” preventing individuals convicted of domestic abuse from purchasing a gun.
The law included $750 million to help states implement “red flag” laws to remove firearms from people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, as well as other violence prevention programs. It also provided funding for a variety of programs aimed at shoring up the nation’s mental health apparatus and securing schools.
Willinger told ABC News that “short of asking Congress to appeal it,” there is little the Trump administration can do about the law.
“It’s possible that the administration could do stuff to hold up that money,” Willinger said. “I don’t know what wiggle room they have to do that.”
(WASHINGTON) — Amid the fallout from The Atlantic’s Monday article reportedly detailing the Signal group chat discussing the U.S. attack on Houthis in Yemen, Vice President JD Vance appearing to break with President Donald Trump is also getting attention.
Vance made a noteworthy statement in the chat, appearing to break with Trump and questioning whether the president recognized that a unilateral U.S. attack on the Houthis to keep international shipping lanes open was at odds with his tough talk about European nations paying their share of such efforts, according to an account by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor-in-chief who said he was inadvertently included in the conversation.
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance wrote in the chat, according to Goldberg. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
On the day before the attack, according to The Atlantic’s reporting published on Monday, Vance participated in the chat as he told the group he was traveling to Michigan for an economic event.
“Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake,” Vance wrote in the chat, according to Goldberg. “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
Ultimately, he supported the attack, telling Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” according to Goldberg’s account.
The White House has insisted the communications in the group chat were not war plans and criticized The Atlantic journalist who detailed the account.
“This entire story was another hoax written by a Trump-hater who is well-known for his sensationalist spin,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X on Wednesday.
William Martin, Vance’s communications director, said the vice president and Trump “are in complete agreement.”
“The Vice President’s first priority is always making sure that the President’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations. Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration’s foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement,” he said in a statement.
Asked if Vance and Trump had spoken between the time Vance raised his concerns with the group, as reported by The Atlantic, and he concurred with those advocating to go ahead with the strike, a spokesperson for Vance said the statement Martin provided to ABC News made it clear that they did, pointing out the line that they had “subsequent conversations about this matter.”
The comments from Vance are striking, given that he has been in lockstep, at least in public, with Trump, his top defender most of the time since being chosen as his running mate last July.
No situation depicted that more than Trump and Vance’s Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier this month, where the three men got into a shouting match in front of the media over the prospects of a ceasefire deal to end the war in Ukraine. Vance berated Zelenskyy for not being thankful for the support the U.S. has provided Ukraine.
“Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office and try to litigate this in front of the American media,” Vance said to Zelenskyy. “Right now, you guys are going around enforcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.”
During the campaign cycle, where Vance was the policy attack dog for the president and previously said that Trump needs a vice president who wouldn’t “stab” him in the back, there was only a handful of times he deviated from Trump on policy, with the most notable incident occurring in an NBC interview during the presidential campaign when he said Trump would veto a national abortion ban. A few weeks later, Trump, during his debate with Kamala Harris hosted by ABC News, was asked about Vance’s comments on an abortion ban.
“Well, I didn’t discuss it with JD, in all fairness,” Trump said.
Since then, Vance has been more careful not to deviate publicly from the president’s policy position.
Following their victory in November, a source close to Vance told ABC News that the vice president was tasked to ensure that all of the priorities of the Trump administration move forward and would work on any of the issues Trump needs him to further.
In November, a source familiar with Vance and Trump’s relationship said Vance was focused on doing whatever was needed to support the president-elect and the administration.
(WASHINGTON) — Canadians who are in the United States for 30 days or longer and cross the land border will soon have to register their information with the U.S. government, according to a notice obtained by ABC News.
Foreign nationals who plan to stay in the U.S. for longer than 30 days will be required to apply for registration with the federal government and be fingerprinted starting on April 11, according to the rule, which was posted on the federal register on Wednesday.
Canadians are exempt from fingerprinting, which applies to other foreign nationals, according to an immigration lawyer who spoke with ABC News.
Traditionally, Canadians who cross the northern border by land and stay for longer than 30 days have not had to register with the federal government, but the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally change that rule.
Canadians who stay in the U.S. for 30 days or more and were not issued evidence of registration, such as Form I-94, at entry will need to complete the new Form G-325R through the myUSCIS online portal.
The rule would not require Canadians to apply for a visa but rather a different federal form to enter in the U.S.
Rosanna Berardi, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo, New York, told ABC News her firm has heard from many Canadians who have expressed “strong disappointment” in the new rule.
“It’s important to clarify that this measure specifically impacts Canadian citizens crossing land borders who intend to remain in the United States for periods exceeding 30 days,” she told ABC News. “Casual travelers visiting for tourism or shopping will not be affected. However, Canadian business professionals who regularly enter the U.S. for extended assignments will now face these new registration requirements.”
Berardi told ABC News that some Canadians are reconsidering their travel to the U.S. as a result of the “recent tensions” between the U.S. and Canada.
“Historically, Canadians have enjoyed visa-exempt status and have never been required to formally register their presence in the United States,” she said. “This development appears to align with recent tensions in U.S.-Canada relations, including the threat of the 51st state, the trade tariffs and other policy shifts.”
The Canadian Snowbird Association, which represents Canadian “snowbirds” who travel around the U.S. during the warmer months, said it is working with Congress to see if Canadians will be exempt from having to register.
