Trump arrives in Beijing for high-stakes summit with Xi amid US war with Iran
Chinese youth hold American and Chinese flags as they join officials to welcome U.S. President Donald Trump at Beijing Capital International Airport, May 13, 2026 in Beijing, China. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(BEIJING, China) — President Donald Trump arrived on Wednesday in Beijing for a multi-day summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, during which he said he’d seek to deepen diplomatic and economic ties between the world’s two largest economic powers.
After his arrival at Beijing Capital International Airport on Wednesday evening, Trump’s itinerary included a welcome ceremony, a bilateral meeting with Xi at the Great Hall of the People later in the day and a state banquet that night, according to the White House.
“We have a lot of things to discuss,” Trump said on Tuesday as he departed the White House, where he fielded questions about what would be on the table during the high-stakes summit. The summit begins as the effects of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran continue to ripple around the globe and the U.S. economy remains a pressing issue at home.
The president was asked whether the pair would discuss diplomatic ways to end the war with Iran, which is in its third month. China is a key buyer of Iranian oil, which could give it considerable diplomatic leverage over Tehran, experts told ABC News. Trump said the U.S. had Iran “very much under control,” adding that it would be among the topics discussed.
“We’re either going to make a deal or they’re going to be decimated, one way or the other. We win,” Trump said. “We’re going to be talking about, we’re going to be talking with President Xi.”
Trump traveled on Air Force One with a more than a dozen U.S. executives, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Apple CEO Tim Cook. Trump said on social media on Tuesday that he planned to ask Xi to “open up” the Chinese economy.
Asked to respond on Wednesday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, said that the scheduled diplomatic meetings were expected to play “an irreplaceable role in providing strategic guidance for China-U.S. relations.”
“During the visit, the two heads of state will have an in-depth exchange of views on major issues concerning China-U.S. relations and world peace and development,” Guo added, according to a transcript published by the ministry. “China stands ready to work with the U.S. to expand cooperation and manage differences in the spirit of equality, respect and mutual benefit, and provide more stability and certainty for a transforming and volatile world.”
ICE agents leave a residence after knocking on the door on January 28, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues its immigration enforcement operations after two high-profile killings by federal agents in recent weeks. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term
Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.
Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.
And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.
Americans on deportations and ICE
Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.
The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.
Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.
Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.
Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”
Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.
A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.
Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations.
By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.
By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.
An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.
How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts
Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.
Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset.
And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.
There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.
Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).
Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border
By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.
Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.
By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
Guided-missile destroyer USS Rafael Peralta enforces the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports against M/T Stream after it attempted to sail to an Iranian port, April 26, 2026. (U.S. Central Command)
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is seeking the participation of other countries to form an international coalition to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to an internal cable sent this week by the State Department to posts around the world.
Dubbed the “Maritime Freedom Construct,” the coalition would help with coordinating diplomatic efforts, including aligning on sanctions and information sharing to help with safe transit through the waterway, according to a U.S. official.
The cable called on diplomats to announce the formation of the new coalition and “ask for partner participation” by Friday.
The Maritime Freedom Construct would take steps to ensure safe passage, including providing real-time information, safety guidance, and coordination to ensure vessels can transit the waters securely, the cable said.
The Wall Street Journal first reported on the cable.
“The MFC’s efforts will enhance maritime domain awareness and support the safe passage of commercial operators and their crews,” a State Department official said.
The United Kingdom and France have already launched a multilateral effort involving 30+ nations toward securing the strait that could eventually involve deploying military assets if a peace deal is reached, according to those countries’ governments.
However, last week during a Pentagon press briefing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mocked the European efforts, saying Europe might want to start having “less fancy conferences in Europe and get in a boat.”
He dismissed the U.K. and French effort aimed at ensuring the future security of the critical Gulf waterway as “silly.”
“Europe and Asia have benefited from our protection for decades, but the time for free-riding is over,” he said.
Shahram Irani, Iran’s Navy commander, called the U.S. blockade “piracy” and the U.S. as “maritime terrorists.”
“The Strait of Hormuz is closed from the Arabian Gulf, meaning they have no right of passage from there, and there is no entry. As soon as they come, operational and tactical action is taken against them,” he said.
He went on to call the blockade piracy and american actions as “maritime terrorists”
On Thursday, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned the consequences of continued disruptions to the global energy supply caused by the Iran war and the closure of the strait “grow worse with each passing hour.”
Guterres the worst-case scenario could be “the specter of a global recession” if disruptions to the strait continue through 2026. Even in the best case, if restrictions were relieved today, “supply chains will take months to recover” and warned that developing countries will be hit the hardest by economic instability.
According to the cable, the coalition will be led by the departments of State and Defense through U.S. Central Command.
The State-led component, based in Washington, D.C., will serve as the diplomatic operations hub, uniting partners and the commercial shipping industry. The Pentagon component operating out of CENTCOM headquarters in Florida would coordinate real-time maritime traffic and communicate directly with vessels transiting the Strait, the cable said.
“It will provide a platform to coordinate diplomatic actions and socialize and align economic measures designed to impose costs on Iran for disrupting maritime security,” the State official said.
ABC News’ Desiree Adib contributed to this report.
Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill, on March 26, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A special panel of the bipartisan House Ethics Committee determined on Friday that Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick was guilty of 25 ethics violations, including commingling of campaign and personal funds.
The determination came after the panel held a rare public hearing on Thursday to consider whether Cherfilus-McCormick violated House rules amid sweeping allegations of fraud against her — and a four-count federal indictment.
The panel said in a statement that deliberations in the case “lasted until well past midnight” and that they found “clear and convincing evidence” that the congresswoman was guilty of all but two of the 27 counts.
“We had a good, robust discussion on all counts, voted on all counts, and we were able to find agreement on 25 of the 27 counts,” Ethics Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., told ABC News on Friday morning.
The ethics violations include acceptance of improper campaign contributions, false statements, commingling of campaign and personal funds and reporting errors on financial disclosures.
The full House Ethics Committee will hold a hearing after the April congressional recess to “determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend.” The sanction recommendations could include censure or expulsion, which would require a two-thirds majority vote.
“There will be a sanctions hearing,” Guest said. “That date has not been set, but there will be a sanctions hearing sometime, we hope shortly after we return back from the Easter recess.”
Separately, Cherfilus-McCormick was indicted in November by a federal grand jury on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her 2021 congressional campaign.
The indictment alleges Cherfilus-McCormick, 46, and her brother Edwin Cherfilus, 51, received a $5 million overpayment in FEMA funds directed to their family health care company in connection with a contract for COVID-19 vaccination staffing in 2021.
Cherfilus-McCormick has denied any wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to the federal criminal charges against her.
During Thursday’s hourslong hearing, lawmakers on the panel questioned Cherfilus-McCormick’s counsel and the committee’s investigative staff about the allegations against the congresswoman.
Cherfilus-McCormick did not address the committee throughout the proceedings, but she took notes and occasionally talked to her attorney.
Her attorney, William Barzee, demanded that his client receive a full hearing — allowing him to call in witnesses.
Guest pushed back on this request, saying Cherfilus-McCormick has refused to cooperate with the panel’s ongoing investigation.
Barzee acknowledged that the congresswoman “made a lot of mistakes” on financial forms.
In a statement to ABC News ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the congresswoman said: “I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight and challenge these inaccuracies, when I am legally able to do so. Make no mistake: I am innocent and I am a fighter. My district is made up of fighters. I will continue to fight for the people I was elected to serve.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said that while he believes in “due process,” the congresswoman “has egregiously violated the law.”
“This is a very serious matter. I think even many Democrats, even members of her own party, have publicly said that the evidence is so stark … but we have to process this internally and see how this goes,” Johnson said Thursday.
The adjudicatory subcommittee that held the hearing is made up of an equal number of three Republicans and three Democrats will hear Cherfilus-McCormick’s case Thursday.
In addition to Guest, the chairman, the subcommittee is made up Democratic Rep. Mark DeSaulnier as ranking member. Democratic Reps. Sylvia Garcia, Glenn Ivey and Suhas Subramanyam and Republican Reps. Ashley Hinson, Brad Knott and Nathaniel Moran also serve on the subcommittee.
“I am deeply disappointed the Committee chose to move forward with this trial while denying my legal team reasonable time to prepare. That raises serious concerns about due process and the fundamental rights every American is entitled to under our Constitution,” the congresswoman said in a statement to ABC News.
Speaker Johnson previously deferred to the members of the House to determine whether the congresswoman should be expelled from the House. The last member to be expelled was former New York GOP Rep. George Santos over using campaign dollars for his personal enrichment in 2023 — only the sixth representative ever ousted.
“Expulsion, obviously, is effectively the political death penalty. There are occasions that meet that standard, but it’s a decision of the body to determine that,” Johnson said.
“You look at all the factors and you — you figure that out. We’ll be doing that here in this case,” Johnson said. “It seems that this member of Congress has egregiously violated the law and exploited taxpayers and all the rest, and that, that would be, it would be a harsh penalty necessary for that.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has promised Democrats won’t help Republicans kick her out of Congress, regardless of the ethics inquiry.
“Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick is entitled to the presumption of innocence, like every other American,” Jeffries told reporters on Feb. 2. “I’m a hard no as it relates to the effort to expel her, and it’s going to fail.”
The last public ethics trial occurred in 2010 when New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel came before the panel. Rangel was later censured over failing to report assets on his financial disclosure forms, improperly obtaining four rent-controlled apartments in New York, and failing to disclose financial arrangements for a villa in the Dominican Republic.
Rangel maintained that he never knowingly broke any laws. “I truly believe I have not been treated fairly,” Rangel told the Ethics Committee before storming out of his hearing.
ABC News’ Justin Gomez contributed to this report.
