(WASHINGTON) — A Massachusetts man was found to be carrying a gun after attending a tour of the U.S. Capitol as he left the nearby Library of Congress on Tuesday, police officials told ABC News on Thursday.
Authorities in Washington were alerted by police in Carlisle, Massachusetts, on Monday that a man with a gun who had expressed suicidal ideations on social media was headed to Washington.
The U.S. Secret Service and Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police found the man in a Washington hotel early Tuesday morning and interviewed him, sources said. They searched for a gun and found no weapon and no further action was taken at that time, they said.
Later that day, the man went through a Capitol Police magnetometer screening and entered the Capitol Visitor Center. The magnetometer sounded an alarm and “an officer performed a secondary hand search, and the man was let into the building,” according to a statement from U.S. Capitol Police.
After getting past security, Capitol Police were alerted to his presence and issued a bulletin to be on the lookout for the man. They located him after he had completed the full tour of Congress outside the Library of Congress a short time later and found that he had a 9mm handgun in his waistband, law enforcement sources said.
Authorities said the suspect was arrested for “Unlawful Activities, Carrying a Pistol Without a License, Possession of an Unregistered Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, and Resisting Arrest.” The case is currently with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Capitol Police statement said.
The officer who performed the screening at the magnetometer at the Capitol Visitor Center “is suspended while the USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility is conducting an administrative investigation into the officer’s performance of that search.”
There is no indication he intended to cause any harm to harm the Congress, according to Capitol police. But sources told ABC News that a man who was possibly suicidal was able to take a full tour of Congress with a gun with members of the public and Congress nearby.
“A full review of this incident has already been ordered, as well as mandatory refresher training on security screening, so this never happens again,” Capitol Police said in their statement.
Members of Congress were briefed on the situation on Thursday.
(LAS VEGAS) — To Cherie DeVille, one of the adult entertainment industry’s most popular stars, pornography — and its easy accessibility online — is a fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment.
“This isn’t a whim or something that I’m going to do for a week. I love this job,” said the former physical therapist turned sex worker who has millions of followers on social media. “It’s very good business for me.”
To parents with young children, like Dawn Hawkins of Virginia, America’s multibillion-dollar porn juggernaut is a social poison infiltrating families via the internet.
“How are we going to teach our children healthy intimacy and boundaries and consent when what they’re viewing across multiple platforms is sharing really the opposite message,” said Hawkins, who wants stricter controls for sexually-explicit content.
The age-old debate over the widespread availability of pornography in America will enter a new phase this spring as the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether states can legally require websites hosting adult content to perform electronic age verification of all users.
A green light for online age checks could dramatically alter how millions of U.S. adults access sexually explicit content on their phones, tablets, and computers and potentially build a more stringent safety barrier for children than what currently exists.
The decision will come at a time when hardcore porn is booming business and easier to obtain than ever before, with the rapid proliferation of adult film studios, live camera websites, social media platforms, and online networks of amateur creators. Many sites have no paywall or age verification gateways.
“It’s not a matter of if my kids are going to be exposed to pornography. It’s a matter of when. It’s definitely going to happen,” said Hawkins, a mother of 5 who also heads the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which has led an effort to crack down on the porn industry.
Hawkins and many national parent organizations have voiced growing concern in recent years that software filters and parental controls on personal electronics – installed by manufacturers and long considered the primary line of defense for families – have not been effective at keeping explicit content from kids.
More than 70% of men and 40% of women say they’ve consumed sexually explicit content in the past year, according to a recent study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. American teens have reported similar levels of exposure in studies reviewed by ABC News.
Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
“As long as we’re prioritizing adults’ access to this content and not also prioritizing children’s safety, we are going to destroy the next generation,” said Hawkins. “We are just asking that the pornography companies put a fence around it and make sure that those accessing this content are of age.”
Nineteen states have recently passed laws mandating that sites containing sexually-explicit material harmful to children require all users to upload a copy of their digital or government ID, or perform a biometric scan, in order to verify that they are over 18. Legislators say the measures are common sense steps similar to age checks at brick-and-mortar stores.
“It’s possible to prove your age entirely on your own cell phone. So, no personal data need ever leave the palm of your hand,” said Iain Corby, executive director of the Age Verification Providers Association, an industry trade group that sells technology to adult websites.
Third-party apps — used widely by porn sites across Europe — can make the verification process fast, free, and secure for consumers, Corby said.
“The simple case might be using a driver’s license. So you would be redirected to an agency’s website, and then once you’ve done a photo of your I.D., you do a selfie. And then we check that the two match,” Corby said. “We just tell that website that you’re over 18 – not your name, not your face, and not even your actual date of birth. Just that you were over 18.
“Another option works in a very similar way to facial estimation, but in fact, it’s based on how you move your hands,” added Corby, demonstrating the biometric scan technology for ABC News.
The porn industry, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, says online age-verification requirements are unconstitutional, infringing on adult rights by putting privacy at risk and impeding access to legal content.
Decades of Supreme Court precedent have upheld the constitutionality of pornographic material and adults’ right to access it. In two separate cases, the court previously ruled that the government can’t mandate age verification of users online before allowing them to see explicit material.
“Whenever the government is passing a law in the name of protecting kids, I think there are serious questions to be asked about whether what it’s really doing is saying this speech is bad for everyone,” said Vera Eidelman, an ACLU attorney. “And that’s exactly what the First Amendment exists to protect against.”
Industry advocates say the onus should remain on parents and technology companies, which they claim have the capacity to install smarter content filters and other safety monitoring controls on devices used by kids.
“Kids are going to do what they’re going to do. You know, you don’t ban alcohol because kids can get a fake ID or because they can drink from their parents’ liquor cabinet,” said Ken Fields, an adult film actor who opposes electronic age verification laws. “You do the best you can to try to keep that from happening within reason without infringing on the legal rights of legal adults and citizens.”
The Texas law at issue before the Supreme Court applies to websites with more than one-third of sexually-explicit content harmful to children. It does not apply to search engines or social media sites. Critics say it could also limit teenagers’ access to public health and sexual health resources unrelated to porn.
“I think their heart is in the right place. The execution is not there,” said Nick from Colorado, an attendee at the AVN Expo in Las Vegas last month, the nation’s annual adult entertainment convention. “There’s a way to do it, it’s just not the way it’s being done.”
Several participants, who all declined to share their last names, told ABC News they worried about a loss of anonymity when surfing to adult websites. “If you do absolutely upload your driver’s license, who gets it? So where does that information go?” said Meredith from Tennessee.
“There’s a lot of ways you can get shamed, whether it’s at work or other places,” said Brett from Florida. “It’s more of a privacy concern than anything else.”
During Supreme Court oral arguments last month in a major test case from Texas, a majority of justices appeared sympathetic to the states’ efforts to limit kids’ exposure to sexually explicit material, despite long standing precedent opposing overly burdensome requirements on adults, including electronic age checks.
A decision is expected by the end of June.
“It’s going to be a massive amount of monetary loss, and I think you’re going to see an explosion of illegal, unethical porn because they don’t care and they won’t comply,” said DeVille. “I do not care what you think about porn. This should terrify you because this is a massive government overstep in one of our most cherished things in the United States.”
To Hawkins, a favorable decision would be a sigh of relief.
“The burden can’t only be on parents,” she said of the need to keep children away from pornography. “Something like demanding age verification on these nefarious websites is such a simple, commonsense measure that that would drastically help protect kids from exposure.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate, in an extremely narrow vote, confirmed Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump’s embattled pick to serve as secretary of defense.
The vote was initially 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance then casting the tie-breaking vote.
Former GOP leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, voted no. He joined Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska, along with all Democrats in voting against Hegseth’s nomination.
Hegseth, a former “Fox and Friends” television anchor, was nominated by Trump in November to lead the Defense Department. In the time since his nomination was announced, Hegseth has been scrutinized for a number of accusations made against him, including those of sexual assault and financial mismanagement of two different veterans organizations.
Hegseth has fiercely denied the allegations. He appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a public hearing earlier this month, where he asserted to the panel that he was a “changed man.”
“I am not a perfect person, but redemption is real,” he told the panel.
Speaking to reporters while on a visit to Los Angeles, President Donald Trump said he was “very happy” with the vote, and said he was not aware of McConnell’s vote.
In a statement released while the vote was still going on, McConnell said that Hegseth’s desire to be a “change agent” was not enough to qualify him for the role of secretary of defense.
“Effective management of nearly 3 million military and civilian personnel, an annual budget of nearly $1 trillion, and alliances and partnerships around the world is a daily test with staggering consequences for the security of the American people and our global interests,” McConnell said in the statement. “Mr. Hegseth has failed, as yet, to demonstrate that he will pass this test. But as he assumes office, the consequences of failure are as high as they have ever been.”
Hegseth was confirmed by one of the narrowest Senate margins of any defense secretary in modern history. Most defense secretaries have been confirmed with broad bipartisan votes.
Lloyd Austin, former President Joe Biden’s pick for defense secretary, was confirmed in a 93-2 vote and Trump’s first pick for defense secretary in his first term, James Mattis, was confirmed in a 98-1 vote.
Before the vote, Hegseth arrived at the Capitol with his wife and children to watch the proceedings in person, a rare move for a Cabinet nominee.
With the Senate’s vote Friday, Hegseth becomes the third member of Trump’s team to be confirmed by the Senate, following Marco Rubio as secretary of state and John Ratcliffe, as CIA director.
During the same hearing, he affirmed his promise to restore the “warfighting ethos” of the DOD, touting his experience in the National Guard.
It was enough to win over the support of most Republicans in the Senate, including several of those who were initially skeptical.
“He articulated a clear vision of the Pentagon, and it was clear to anyone who listened that he is going to bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the department’s stagnant bureaucracy,” Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a floor speech endorsing Hegseth on Thursday. “He will restore a warfighting ethos and relentlessly focused on the military’s core mission: to deter conflict and, if necessary, to win a war.”
The Senate Armed Services Committee advanced his nomination on a party-line vote on Monday. Then, in a closely watched moment on Thursday, Hegseth’s nomination passed a key test vote that set the table for Friday’s vote of final passage.
The nomination only required a simple majority in the Senate to advance, and it cleared the threshold narrowly, with only GOP backing.
Collins and Murkowski also voted no on that occasion.
In a statement, Murkowski explained that she could not support Hegseth due to concerns about this character and lack of experience.
“I believe that character is the defining trait required of the Secretary of Defense and must be prioritized without compromise,” Murkowski said in the post. “The leader of the Department of Defense must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and character we expect of all servicemembers, and Mr. Hegseth’s nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I cannot overlook.”
Collins took issue with comments Hegseth made in the past about his belief that women should not serve in combat roles in the military. Though Hegseth has since changed his tune on that, Collins said she was unconvinced.
“I am also concerned about multiple statements, including some in the months just before he was nominated, that Mr. Hegseth has made about women serving in the military,” Collins said. “He and I had a candid conversation in December about his past statements and apparently evolving views. I am not convinced that his position on women serving in combat roles has changed.”
Trump expressed confidence in Hegseth ahead of the vote on Friday, though he added, “You’ll never know what’s going to happen.”
McConnell, the former GOP leader, and North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, ultimately cast votes in favor of advancing Hegseth’s nomination in the earlier test vote, although the president questioned whether McConnell will vote no on Hegseth Friday morning.
Tillis said he was still considering the most recent slate of allegations against Hegseth, leveled in an affidavit from Hegseth’s former sister-in-law Danielle Hegseth. In that affidavit, which ABC News obtained, Danielle Hegseth attested that Pete Hegseth’s ex-wife Samantha told her she “once hid in her closet from Hegseth because she feared for her personal safety” in the home they shared during their marriage. It also detailed episodes of binge drinking by Pete Hegseth.
An attorney for Pete Hegseth denied these allegations, and allegations of abuse were also rejected by his ex-wife.
Tillis said he so far has not found credible evidence to back many of the allegations that have be levied against Pete Hegseth but that he’s still doing his vetting on these most recent developments.
“I am in the process of completing due diligence on what appears to be the last allegation. All the other ones I couldn’t conclude had validity,” Tillis said Thursday. “So I’m talking to people that can give me data inputs. It all goes back to the same thing — first-hand, eye-witness, corroborated account.”
(WASHINGTON) — Before deciding to resign from the Office of Personnel Management, a senior agency official was asked a question by a staffer from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): “What’s going to break?”
The official, a civil servant serving in a nonpartisan role, who asked that their name not be used, is now one of the tens of thousands of federal workers taking up the “deferred resignation” offer to leave the government.
OPM manages more than $1 trillion in assets and federal retirement, health and life insurance benefits for millions of current and former federal employees and their spouses, along with sensitive data on millions of government employees. It’s now being directed by officials and appointees with links to Musk’s team who have control over its systems, according to sources familiar with its workings.
The agency also helps the government pay its bills: The Treasury Department borrows money from the trust funds OPM manages for employee retirement programs and health benefits under “extraordinary measures” to avoid breaching the debt ceiling. The funds are made whole once Congress acts to suspend or lift the debt ceiling.
OPM is leading efforts directed by President Donald Trump to shrink the federal workforce and could be facing deep cuts of its own, which current and former officials worry could impact its day-to-day business. The agency’s chief financial officer, Erica Roach, was pushed out of her role this week and chose to resign rather than move into another role after being asked to submit 70% cuts to her office, according to multiple sources familiar with the move. And Melvin Brown, who served as OPM’s chief information officer, was replaced on the second day of the Trump administration, sources told ABC News.
“Eighty-five percent of federal workers work outside the D.C. area,” Rob Shriver, the managing director of Democracy Forward’s civil service initiative and the deputy director of OPM under President Biden, told ABC News. “These are VA nurses, they are law enforcement officers. They are people who process Social Security benefit claims, they are people who inspect our food.”
He added, “They deserve to depend on getting their retirement benefits, the health benefits that the American people have promised them. Taking steps to harm that is going to hurt working class and middle-class people.”
Agency veterans worry that removing and reassigning career officials and accountants who manage these systems could lead to potential problems with government payments and systems – and, they say, raise the risk of missed payments or claims.
On Tuesday, OPM released a memo to government agencies recommending that chief information officers be redesignated as “general” roles rather than “career reserved,” a move that could allow for more political appointees to work in roles generally filled by career civil service workers.
“It’s a complex financial ecosystem, with major implications not just for federal employees but the federal government overall,” a source familiar with the agency’s work told ABC News.
A DOGE spokesman did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Current and former OPM officials told ABC News that Musk’s team includes engineers and aides who have joined him in government from across the private sector. Some of them wear the same “uniform” in the office and have been spotted sleeping overnight in the office building.
Others have refused to identify themselves in conversations with career officials, sources told ABC News.
“They’re scorching the earth,” one former agency official told ABC News, describing Musk’s team. “It’s a different mindset from SpaceX than providing services to the American people.”
“If you’re building an unmanned spaceship and you forget a screw, the ship might crash. You lose money, but no one is hurt,” the former official added. “If you’re delivering services to the American people and you stop financial assistance, that is impacting people.”
An OPM spokesperson declined to comment on internal agency deliberations.
Musk, who is working in the government as a special government employee, campaigned intensely alongside Trump, and vowed to help reshape the government.
Following an executive order signed by Trump directing his efforts, Musk’s team has embedded in agencies across the federal government, gaining access to IT systems and other crucial programs and data at individual departments and agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Commerce, Veterans Affairs and Transportation.
The Trump administration has effectively shut down the US Agency for International Development, recalling employees in the field and freezing most foreign assistance programs, with the help of Musk’s team and its access to agency systems.
On his social media platform over the weekend, Musk said he discussed the work on USAID with Trump and that the president agreed with “shutting it down.”
“None of this could be done without the full support of the president. And with regard to the USAID stuff, I went over it with him in detail, and he agreed that we should shut it down,” Musk said. “I want to be clear. I actually checked with him a few times, ‘Are you sure?’ Like, yes, so we are shutting it down.”
The White House has repeatedly defended the work of Musk and his team.
“President Trump was an elected with a mandate from the American people to make this government more efficient,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday in a briefing with reporters. “He campaigned across this country with Elon Musk, vowing that Elon was going to head up the Department of Government Efficiency and the two of them with a great team around them. We’re going to look at the receipts of this federal government and ensure its accountable to American taxpayers.”
