Suspects arrested in $1M Apple delivery truck hijacking
Three individuals were arrested in New York on May 7, 2026, for their roles in a January 2026 armed hijacking of a truck making a delivery at the Apple store in the Americana shopping center in Manhasset. (Department of Justice, Eastern District of New York)
(NEW YORK) — Three people were arrested Thursday in the January armed hijacking of a truck making a delivery at the Apple store in the Americana shopping center in Manhasset, New York City.
The delivery truck was filled with Apple merchandise valued at more than $1 million. The stolen goods included hundreds of devices and other accessories, including MacBooks, iPhones, iPads and Apple Watches, federal prosecutors said.
Alan Christhofer Cedeno-Ferrer, Michael Mejia-Nunez and Ennait Alexis Sirett-Padilla are accused of hijacking the truck and forcing the delivery workers to drive to a secluded location where they made off with more than $1.2 million worth of Apple products.
Victims were preparing to unload the merchandise when a black Honda Accord pulled up to the delivery truck. Three masked men, armed with handguns, got out of the car and approached the victims, according to court records.
They forced victim-1 into the back of the truck and zip-tied his hands. Victim-2 was ordered at gunpoint, into the driver’s seat to drive the truck. He was directed to a secluded parking area behind an office building less than a half mile away and then ordered into the back of the delivery truck with Victim-1, where his hands were also zip-tied, according to prosecutors.
The Accord and the delivery truck were followed to the location by a Home Depot box truck, authorities said. As captured by surveillance cameras, the Home Depot truck backed up to the rear of the delivery truck, so the cargo sections were aligned, according to prosecutors.
The Apple merchandise was then moved from the delivery truck to the Home Depot truck. Once they finished, they closed the cargo door to the delivery truck with the victims inside and left the location. One of the victims was able to free himself and call 911, according to prosecutors.
The defendants are expected to appear in federal court later Thursday, when federal prosecutors will seek their detention.
Construction crews continue to remove the East Wing of the White House and prepare for the new ballroom construction as seen from the newly reopened Washington Monument on November 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Americans oppose President Donald Trump tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom by a 2-to-1 margin, oppose a 250-foot arch by an even wider margin and oppose the addition of Trump’s signature to paper currency by more than 5-to-1, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s ballroom
The Trump administration announced the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in July 2025, with Trump promising “it won’t interfere with the current building.” By October, demolition started on the East Wing of the White House, which was built in 1902 and renovated in 1942.
The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll finds that more than half of Americans, 56%, oppose tearing down the East Wing to make way for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, with 28% in support and 15% unsure. The results are nearly identical to an October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Currently, strong opposition (47%) outweighs strong support (16%) by about 3-to-1.
In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation – a privately-funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites – filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the administration completed the federal review process standard for federal building projects. Earlier this month, an appeals court panel allowed construction of the ballroom to continue, granting an administrative stay of an earlier injunction.
Trump has reiterated his desire for the ballroom in the aftermath of the attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on Saturday night, arguing that the hotel ballroom did not provide the appropriate security measures for an event the president is attending.
The poll was in the field before and after the Saturday dinner. Overall, there was no significant difference in attitudes before and after the White House correspondents’ dinner, but Republican support for the ballroom increased from 62% before the dinner to 72% after.
Despite Republican calls for building the ballroom in light of the attempted attack Saturday night, the planned ballroom, according to a National Capital Planning Commission staff report, would have a seating capacity of about 1,000 guests. About 2,600 guests were seated for this year’s White House correspondents’ dinner. A White House event would be under the purview of the administration, whereas many events the president attends – including the correspondents’ dinner – are run by outside, independent, entities.
Republicans proposed a bill that would provide $400 million in funding for the facility. It comes after Trump said in October that the ballroom would be “paid for 100% by me and some friends of mine,” referencing donors. “The government is paying absolutely nothing.” Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to regulate the project and impose restrictions on donations — aimed at prohibiting bribery.
Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats oppose the ballroom project, along with about 6 in 10 independents. Among Republicans, 65% support tearing down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a ballroom. Support grows to 77% among MAGA-Republicans (which include Republican-leaning independents who support the MAGA movement), but it drops to just 31% among non-MAGA Republicans.
An arch
In addition to Trump’s major changes to the White House structure, the president has also proposed a 250-foot-tall arch to be built at Memorial Circle, right before the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, at the other end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge.The arch would be more than twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial at the other side of the bridge.
“I’d like it to be the biggest [arch] of all,” even bigger than the 164-foot-tall Arc De Triomphe in Paris, Trump said.
By an over 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose (52%) rather than support (21%) the Trump administration’s plan to build the arch. Another 26% are unsure.
Strong opposition (41%) outweighs strong support (9%) by more than 4-to-1.
A group of Vietnam War veterans have sued to stop construction of the arch, arguing that the project needs to be authorized by Congress before construction can begin, adding that the arch would block the line of sight between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. The veterans have reached a compromise with the administration, stalling the lawsuit for now, with a promise that the administration will follow the legal process to build the arch.
Taxpayer funds would cover at least part of the project: $2 million in special initiative funds and $13 million in matching grants.
Majorities of Democrats (78%) and independents (57%) oppose the arch. A slim 51% of Republicans support building an arch, including 59% of MAGA Republicans and just 23% of non-MAGA Republicans.
Trump’s signature on money
In March, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that Trump’s signature will be added to future U.S. paper currency. This would be a first for a sitting president, as no previous U.S. president’s name has ever appeared on currency. Earlier in March, the federal Commission of Fine Arts approved Trump’s image on commemorative gold coins and in October, the administration proposed a Trump-themed $1 coin.
Americans oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money instead of the treasury secretary’s by a wider margin than either the ballroom or the arch: 68% oppose it while just 12% support it. Another 19% say they aren’t sure. Over half, 55%, strongly oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money; just 5% strongly support it.
An 1866 amendment prohibits living persons from appearing on government securities and a U.S. statute states that “only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on U.S. currency and securities.” A living president has appeared on currency once before: In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge was featured on a coin celebrating the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence along with a portrait of President George Washington.
Majorities of Americans across most demographic groups oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money, including 9 in 10 Democrats and over 7 in 10 independents. Just under 3 in 10 Republicans support it, including just over a third of MAGA Republicans (35%) – the largest share across demographic groups.
The poll did not address the addition of Trump’s photo to national park passes or the renaming of the Kennedy Center. The poll was conducted before the announcement that Trump’s image would appear on limited-edition passports.
Methodology – This ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted among 2,560 U.S. adults overall, but these questions were conducted among a half sample of 1,292 U.S. adults and have an error margin of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Error margins are larger among subgroups.
A poster of celebrity real estate agents Tal and Oren Alexander along with their brother Alon (Barry Williams/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A jury has found the Alexander brothers guilty on all counts in their federal sex trafficking trial in New York City.
Jury deliberations began Thursday for the former real estate titans, Oren and Alon Alexander, 38-year-old twins, along with their brother, Tal Alexander, 39, who have denied sexually assaulting anyone or running a sex trafficking conspiracy, as prosecutors have charged. They pleaded not guilty.
Throughout the five-week trial, 11 women testified that they were sexually assaulted by one or more of the brothers. At least eight of the women claimed they were drugged by one of the Alexanders.
“These are chilling, reprehensible, and unacceptable acts,” U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, whose office prosecuted the case, said in a statement following the verdict. “We commend the victims for their courage in coming forward and testifying at the trial. They bravely overcame the pain of reliving the abuses inflicted upon them and, as a result, prevented others from becoming victims.”
A spokesperson for the Alexander family called the verdict “deeply disappointing.”
“We believe there are substantial problems with the evidence and the way this case was presented,” the spokesperson, Juda S. Engelmayer, said in a statement. “The legal process does not end here. We will continue fighting every day until justice is done and the three brothers regain their freedom.”
An attorney for one of the brothers also vowed to keep fighting.
“There are a lot of avenues open to us. We’re not gonna stop,” Marc Agnifilo, who represented Oren Alexander, said outside court on Monday. “We believe in our client’s innocence and we’re not gonna stop fighting until we prevail. And we believe that we will one day prevail.”
The brothers’ federal sentencing has been set for Aug. 6.
Oren and Tal Alexander gained notoriety in New York’s luxury real estate market through their company, Alexander Group, and have been under federal investigation alongside Alon since late 2024.
They have been accused of luring women to nightclubs and parties, then drugging and sexually assaulting them.
In his closing statement, federal prosecutor Andrew Jones said there is “crushing evidence” that the brothers “masqueraded as party boys when really they were predators” who committed an “array of federal sex offenses.”
Jones recounted the graphic accounts of the alleged victims and said the wealthy brothers had a “playbook” luring women with exclusive parties, yachts and luxury travel so they could assault them.
“Once they had their victims where they wanted them, the defendants assaulted them using force, using drugs, or using both,” Jones said.
Then, the brothers allegedly bragged about their exploits in blog posts with titles like “It’s not rape if… you use her tears as lube” and “It’s not rape if… she secretly wants it.”
Jones told the jury the allegations are corroborated “by the sheer number of other victims who testified here — women who never met each other, who have each led different lives, in different professions, sometimes in different cities. But they had one horrific thing in common — they were each raped by these men. And they described near identical experiences of their assaults.”
During closing arguments, defense attorney Howard Srebnick conceded the brothers could be “obnoxious” and their conduct “inappropriate,” but he told the jury, “Nobody was being assaulted, nobody had been trafficked.”
Srebnick urged jurors to reject the government’s case against his client, Alon Alexander, insisting prosecutors failed to meet their burden of proof.
In her closing argument, Deanna Paul said the brothers “are not mobsters,” though sometimes they acted like “entitled a——-.”
A defense attorney for Tal Alexander, Paul argued that prosecutors have asked the jury to “connect dots that really aren’t there.”
In his summations, Agnifilo suggested to the jury that the victims in this case were dissatisfied with their encounters with the Alexanders, which motivated them to testify in this trial.
The U.S. Department Of Homeland Security logo is displayed at a Citizenship and Immigration Services office on January 16, 2026 in San Diego, CA. (Kevin Carter/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration on Friday issued a sweeping policy directive requiring most temporary visa holders and humanitarian parolees living in the U.S. to return to their home countries to apply for and complete their green card applications.
“We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesperson Zach Kahler said in a statement. “From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
