Texas 2026 live primary election results: Cornyn and Paxton headed to runoff, Talarico advances

(WASHINGTON) — The historic treaty binding the U.S. and Russia to limit their deployment of the world’s most dangerous nuclear weapons lapsed overnight with no clear indication from Washington or Moscow on whether new talks would take place.

President Donald Trump, who in September appeared to be warming to the idea of renewing the treaty, backtracked last month, saying he would be comfortable allowing it to expire and hoped any new agreement would involve other parties.

“You probably want to get a couple of other players involved, also,” Trump told the New York Times.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that any new arms control pact should include China, even though Beijing’s nuclear stockpile is dramatically smaller than that of the U.S. and Russia and any ceiling a deal might set would not be symmetrical to China’s arsenal.

“The president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China, because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” Rubio said.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin, confirmed the agreement was expiring Thursday.

“We view this negatively and regret this development,” he said, adding an offer from Putin to extend the deal went unanswered.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said his country would not take part in a trilateral arrangement.

“The nuclear forces of China and the U.S. are not on the same level at all, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to ask China to join the nuclear disarmament negotiations at this stage,” he said.

Last remaining arms control agreement

The New START treaty, which was struck between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010 and went into effect the following year, was the last remaining arms control pact in force between the two nations, limiting the deployment of nuclear-capable weapons systems like intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers — and placing a limit on the number of nuclear warheads which could be activated.

The U.S. and Russia have remained under the numeric limits of the treaty, whose “whole value” is “to have predictability between the United States and Russia,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a former State Department official who served as America’s chief negotiator on New START.

The U.S. has accused Russia of violating the treaty after Moscow suspended inspection and verification mechanisms during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Washington never accused the Russians of failing to adhere to the limits.

“The fact of the legally binding treaty limits [itself] has placed the brakes on any Russian attempt to build up the deployed systems,” said Gottemoeller, adding the U.S. has intelligence capabilities to unilaterally understand whether Russia is breaking promises under the treaty.

In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the U.S. a one-year extension of New START, which Trump initially called a “good idea.”

But the U.S. never officially responded, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy aide.

In a statement to ABC News, The White House said that “the President will decide the path forward on nuclear arms control, which he will clarify on his own timeline.”

Russia and China have demonstrated increasing nuclear capabilities in recent years, a NATO official told ABC News. For its part, Russia has adopted a “posture of strategic intimidation” in its nuclear rhetoric, the official added.

Putin has flexed Russia’s muscles on nuclear arms over the past year, touting emerging technologies like its Poseidon system, a nuclear-armed and nuclear-propelled torpedo that travels underwater. Tactical nuclear arms like the Poseidon system were not covered by New START’s provisions.

“Restraint and responsibility in the nuclear domain is crucial to global security,” the NATO official said.

A “handshake” agreement?

Putin’s offer in the fall amounted to what would be a “handshake between the two presidents to preserve the limits of the treaty” even after the treaty itself formally expired, said Gottemoeller, who was under secretary of state for arms control and international security when the deal was originally struck and later became NATO’s deputy secretary general.

While the administration has pointed to China as a reason to forgo New START in favor of a broader deal, Gottemoeller said a one-year stopgap deal would actually help the U.S. pursue its arms control agenda with Beijing.

A one-year extension “makes sense for one very important reason,” she said. “We need to keep the Russians under control over the coming year, while we try to plan and prepare for what we’re going to do to respond to the … Chinese nuclear buildup.”

Gottemoeller and Lynn Rusten, another former U.S. official who helped negotiate the New START treaty, told ABC News a trilateral deal with the Chinese would not make practical sense, since China’s 600 nuclear-capable weapons are dwarfed by Russian and American stockpiles that are each more than 4,000.

A Pentagon report in December assessed the Chinese stockpile could rise to more than 1,000 in 2030.

The State Department did not respond to an inquiry about diplomatic channels for new arms control agreements with either Beijing or Moscow.

The president, who said he had an “excellent” call Wednesday with Chinese President Xi Jinping, did not say whether nuclear arms were mentioned.

Change won’t be immediate

The early days of a world without the last remaining treaty limiting the world’s largest nuclear powers will not be immediately changed, the former officials said.

“I don’t think we’re going to wake up tomorrow and be in a completely different world,” said Rusten, who led the U.S. government’s interagency process during talks over New START. “But I do think there’s going to be some mirror imaging. So if one country starts to build up its forces beyond New START limits, the other is almost sure to follow.”

The U.S. will have to “plan and prepare” for the reality after New START, given the Russians have more experience and defense capacity — including “hot warhead production lines” in support of its war in Ukraine, said Gottemoeller.

Rusten said the U.S.’s understanding of Russia’s arsenal will “atrophy,” a risk over the long run.

“Over time, we’re going to have a less and less precise picture of exactly how many Russian nuclear forces there are and where they are,” she said.

The U.S. and Russia — and the U.S. and the Soviet Union before that — cooperated on arms control for decades, managing to carve out the issue from other diplomatic issues which frayed the rivals.

In a statement marking the end of New START, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said decades of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow “helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal by more than 80% since the height of the Cold War.”

“Now,” the statement said, “both Russia and the United States have no legal obstacle to building their arsenals back up, and we could find ourselves reliving the Cold War.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A U.S. fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone as it approached the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea on Tuesday, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command. Earlier in the day, a Navy destroyer came to the assistance of a U.S.-flagged tanker that was harassed by multiple Iranian small boats as it transited the Strait of Hormuz.

The drone was shot down by a Navy F-35C fighter jet from the carrier as it “aggressively approached” the Lincoln with “unclear intent,” Central Command said.

Iran’s Shahed drones are long-range, one-way attack drones capable of carrying more than 100 pounds of explosives. Russia has used large numbers of them to carry out destructive long-range attacks inside of Ukraine.

In a separate incident earlier Tuesday, a U.S. Navy destroyer and U.S. Air Force aircraft came to the assistance of a U.S.-flagged, U.S.-crewed tanker that was harassed by Iranian small boats and a drone as it transited through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Central Command (CENTCOM).

The Lincoln was in the Arabian Sea approximately 500 miles from Iran’s southern coast when an Iranian Shahed-139 drone “unnecessarily maneuvered toward the ship,” CENTCOM said in a statement.

“The Iranian drone continued to fly toward the ship despite de-escalatory measures taken by U.S. forces operating in international waters,” the statement said.

The fighter jet shot down the drone “in self-defense and to protect the aircraft carrier and personnel on board,” according to the statement, which said no service members were harmed and no U.S. equipment was damaged.

The Lincoln arrived in the Middle East last week and has been operating in the northern Arabian Sea along with three destroyers that make up its carrier strike group.

There are six other U.S. Navy ships in the Middle East: a destroyer in the Red Sea, two other destroyers near the Strait of Hormuz, and three littoral combat ships in the Persian Gulf.  

One of those destroyers, the USS McFaul, was involved in the earlier incident to assist the M/V Sterna Imperative after it was approached at high speed by two Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats and a Mohajer drone, according to CENTCOM.

U.S. Central Command said the Iranian craft had “threatened to board and seize the tanker” as it transited through the Strait of Hormuz.

The McFaul was operating in the area “and immediately responded to the scene to escort M/V Stena Imperative with defensive air support from the U.S. Air Force,” the statement said.

The situation “de-escalated as a result, and the U.S.-flagged tanker is proceeding safely,” according to the statement.

Central Command warned that “continued Iranian harassment and threats in international waters and airspace will not be tolerated.”

Last week CENTCOM issued a stern warning that it would defend U.S. assets in the region after Iran announced a two-day, live-fire naval exercise in the Strait of Hormuz that was set to begin last Sunday.

It urged Iran to carry it out it exercise in a safe and professional way to avoid unnecessary risks to maritime traffic.

“CENTCOM will ensure the safety of U.S. personnel, ships, and aircraft operating in the Middle East,” it said in a statement issued Friday. “We will not tolerate unsafe IRGC actions including overflight of U.S. military vessels engaged in flight operations, low-altitude or armed overflight of U.S. military assets when intentions are unclear, highspeed boat approaches on a collision course with U.S. military vessels, or weapons trained at U.S. forces.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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.”

Last month, the House Oversight Committee voted to advance two bipartisan resolutions holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with its subpoenas relating to convicted sex offender Epstein.

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.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.