Trump claims to pardon jailed Colorado election clerk Tina Peters, but state officials contend it’s unconstitutional
Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Tina Peters is in the rally at west steps of Colorado State Capitol building in Denver, Colorado on Tuesday, April 5, 2022. Hyoung Chang/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump claimed that he is granting a “full pardon” to Tina Peters, a former Mesa County, Colorado, clerk who was sentenced to nine years on state-level charges for election interference during the 2020 election.
However, the president does not have jurisdiction over state charges, and Colorado officials are pushing back, contending that the president’s promise of a pardon is unconstitutional. Trump’s announcement, which he made on social media Thursday, now likely sets up a legal battle for Peters, who has been seeking a pardon from Trump.
Peters was convicted in August 2024 for giving an individual affiliated with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a Trump ally, access to the election software she used for her county. Screenshots of the software appeared on right-wing websites that promoted false theories that the 2020 election was fraudulent.
Despite President Trump’s repeated assertions that the election was rigged, there were no proven cases of major fraud that affected the outcome.
Trump has repeatedly called for Peters to be released from her nine-year sentence, and on Thursday night said on social media that he was “granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”
“Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” he said.
Trump’s announcement came as the administration attempted to move Peters to federal custody in order to have more jurisdiction over her. The move was denied by the courts.
In August, the president said in a social media post that if Peters wasn’t released, he would “take harsh measures.”
Colorado officials, however, questioned Trump’s authority over Peters’ conviction and pushed back against his claims.
“One of the most basic principles of our constitution is that states have independent sovereignty and manage our own criminal justice systems without interference from the federal government,” Colorado Attorney General Phill Weiser said in a statement Thursday.
“The idea that a president could pardon someone tried and convicted in state court has no precedent in American law, would be an outrageous departure from what our constitution requires, and will not hold up,” he added.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold added that Peters “was convicted by a jury of her peers for state crimes in a state Court. Trump has no constitutional authority to pardon her.”
“His assault is not just on our democracy, but on states’ rights and the American Constitution,” she said in a statement.
As of Friday morning, no legal action has been taken against the Trump Administration over the president’s announcement.
Pete Hegseth, US secretary of defense, during a meeting in the Cabinet Room of White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Nov. 7, 2025.
(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and a top military commander are facing serious questions about why the U.S. on Sept. 2 killed survivors of a military strike against a suspected drug boat, when the laws of war say survivors on the battlefield should be rescued.
The White House acknowledges that a second strike was ordered on a boat already hit by the military in the Caribbean Sea, and ABC News has confirmed that survivors from the initial strike were killed as a result.
Democrats say that alone could be enough to suggest a war crime occurred. The laws of war require either side in a conflict to provide care for wounded and shipwrecked troops.
Hegseth told Fox News the day after that he watched the operation unfold in real time and defended it as legal. He appears to be leaning on the same legal playbook carved out during the war on terror, in which the U.S. justified the killing of people transporting weapons that it said posed a threat to U.S. forces.
“We’re going to conduct oversight, and we’re going to try to get to the facts,” Sen. Roger Wicker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters on Monday. “And to the extent that we’re able to see videos and see what the orders were, we’ll have a lot more information other than just news reports.”
Here are three key questions about the orders to kill drug smugglers:
What did Hegseth order exactly?
A key question for lawmakers is what Hegseth’s initial “execute order” included and what intelligence was used to justify it.
According to The Washington Post, sources say Hegseth told the military to ensure that none of the 11 passengers aboard the boat should be allowed to survive. After the initial strike left two people clinging to the wreckage, the Post says, Adm. Mitch Bradley made the decision as head of the Joint Special Operations Command to launch a second strike to fulfill Hegseth’s initial order to kill everyone.
Hegseth called the report a “fabrication,” while his chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the allegations were a “fake news narrative that Secretary Hegseth gave some sort of ‘kill all survivors’ order.”
The Pentagon declined to answer questions though about what was included in Hegseth’s initial order.
On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt would confirm only that a second strike occurred and didn’t address a question about survivors. When asked if Adm. Bradley had made the decision on his own, Leavitt suggested that was accurate, replying “And he was well within his authority to do so.”
Why did Adm. Bradley order subsequent strikes after seeing survivors?
Several sources described Bradley, a former Navy SEAL, as a deeply experienced and widely respected commander. At the time of the Sept. 2 strike, Bradley had already spent time overseeing special operations missions in the Middle East under U.S. Central Command and had taken over Joint Special Operations Command, a global command devoted to preparing and executing special operations missions in some of the most challenging and complex operating environments.
When President Donald Trump nominated Bradley to take over U.S. Special Operations Command this fall, the Senate overwhelmingly approved his nomination by voice vote.
Eric Oehlerich, an ABC News contributor and former Navy SEAL who worked under Bradley’s command during the war on terror, said he has never seen Bradley push the bounds of the law.
Oehlerich said that if Bradley ordered subsequent strikes on Sept. 2, as the White House suggested, the decision would have relied on Hegseth’s initial order as well as findings by the intelligence community about why the alleged smugglers on the boats were a threat to the U.S.
Bradley also would have sought counsel from a military lawyer in the room, he said.
“There isn’t a single commander that’s sitting in a position of authority that does not have a lawyer as the closest person to him sitting there watching the entire time,” Oehlerich said.
The attack also would have been directly overseen by Hegseth himself, as he told Fox News on Sept. 3, saying he had watched it “live.” In a post on X on Monday, Hegseth suggested only that the operation was Bradley’s call.
“I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made — on the September 2 mission and all others since,” Hegseth wrote.
Bradley declined to comment but was expected to brief lawmakers later this week.
Who was killed? And were they a threat to the US?
Hegseth’s rationale for killing drug smugglers appears to be the same one used after 9/11 when Congress authorized the military to use force against targets linked to al-Qaida. That authority enabled commanders in places like Iraq and Syria to kill people transporting improvised explosive devices, which it said were an immediate threat to U.S. forces stationed in the region.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump argued that people smuggling illegal narcotics were just as dangerous to Americans as al-Qaida terrorists. He declared several drug cartels would be deemed “foreign terrorist organizations.”
Legal experts have pushed back on the comparison of drug smugglers and al-Qaida or ISIS fighters. They also note that Congress hasn’t provided any kind of authorization for using force.
A key question remains as to who exactly is onboard the boats and what threat they posed exactly — an assessment that would have been done by the intelligence community and signed off on by Hegseth.
Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he is still waiting for information on the role U.S. intelligence played in the strikes and whether the attacks are having a strategic impact. Bradley was expected to brief House lawmakers on Thursday.
“If it is substantiated, whoever made that order needs to get the hell out of Washington,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. “And if it is not substantiated, whoever the hell created the rage bate should be fired.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on November 18, 2025 in Washington, DC. Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — After months of anticipation, the House is finally set to vote Tuesday on a bill ordering the release of the Justice Department’s files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, whose purported ties to both Democrats and Republicans have fueled speculation across the country and prompted investigations on Capitol Hill seeking to uncover details about the billionaire’s network of political and financial connections.
After President Donald Trump reversed course over the weekend and urged House Republicans to “vote to release the Epstein files,” the bill appears headed for the Senate despite a monthslong campaign by Speaker Mike Johnson to block its release.
Johnson told House Republicans during a closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday morning that he will support the resolution, according to multiple sources. In the meeting, he told members to “vote your conscience.”
Johnson later confirmed during a press conference, “I’m gonna vote to move this forward” despite calling the bill “recklessly flawed.”
“I think it could be close to a unanimous vote because everybody here, all the Republicans, want to go on record to show for maximum transparency. But they also want to know that we’re demanding that this stuff get corrected before it has ever moved through the process and is complete,” he said.
Johnson said he spoke to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and said he hopes the Senate will amend the Epstein files bill.
The speaker accused Democrats of “forcing a political show vote on the Epstein files.”
Johnson has tried to avoid holding a vote in the lower chamber on the Epstein matter. In late July, Johnson sent the House home a day early for August recess because the House was paralyzed in a stalemate over the Epstein issue.
The speaker also sent the House home for more than 50 days during the longest government shutdown in U.S. history — delaying the swearing in of Democrat Adelita Grijalva. After the shutdown ended last week, the Arizona Democrat became the 218th signature on the Epstein discharge petition, compelling the speaker to bring a bill co-sponsored by Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to the floor for a vote this week.
Johnson on Monday continued to raise concerns about the legislation and said he has spoken to Trump “quite a bit” about it.
“[Trump’s] statements speak for themselves,” Johnson said leaving the House floor on Monday. “He has nothing, he has never had anything to hide. He and I had the same concern, that we wanted to ensure that victims of these heinous crimes were completely protected from disclosure. Those who don’t want their names to be out there, and I am not sure the discharge petition does that and that’s part of the problem.”
“We’ll give them everything. Sure. I would let them, let the Senate look at it. Let anybody look at it,” Trump said of the full Epstein files. “But don’t talk about it too much, because honestly, I don’t want to take it away from us.”
Trump does not need to wait for Congress to act — he could order the release immediately.
The measure — called “The Epstein Files Transparency Act” — would compel Attorney General Pam Bondi to make available all “unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials” in the Department of Justice’s possession related to Epstein.
The DOJ and FBI released a joint statement in July that stated a review uncovered no evidence of any client list kept by Epstein or other evidence that would predicate a criminal investigation of any uncharged parties.
The legislation seeks federal records on Epstein and his convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, as well as other individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s “criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity, plea agreements or investigatory proceedings.” Victims’ names and other identifying information would be excluded from disclosure, as would any items that may depict or contain child sex abuse material, according to the text of the proposed bill.
Trump, in a post on social media on Sunday, stressed that the Justice Department has “already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the public” on Epstein.
“The House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to. I DON’T CARE!” Trump added.
The bill is expected to pass in the House with dozens of Republicans potentially voting in favor — shifting the political pressure to Thune to follow suit with a vote in the upper chamber. If it passes in the Senate, it will go to Trump’s desk for him to sign it into law.
For months, Johnson has pointed at the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry — claiming that the panel’s probe is more far-reaching than the Khanna-Massie bill. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer has sought additional documents from the Epstein estate and testimony from Epstein’s associates, including former President Bill Clinton.
Proponents of the bill argue that “the record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency.”
“I would remind my Republican colleagues who are deciding how to vote, Donald Trump can protect you in red districts right now by giving you an endorsement. But in 2030, he’s not going to be the president, and you will have voted to protect pedophiles if you don’t vote to release these files,” Massie told ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl. “And the president can’t protect you then.”
Even if the measure passes through the House and Senate and is ultimately signed into law by Trump, it’s unlikely the Justice Department would release the entire Epstein file, according to sources. Any materials related to ongoing investigations or White House claims of executive privilege will likely remain out of public view.
Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of trafficking young girls and women.
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. She was convicted on five counts of aiding Epstein in his abuse of underage girls in December 2021.
An excavator works to clear rubble after the East Wing of the White House was demolished on October 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Eric Lee/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Legend says that George Washington once chopped down his father’s cherry tree.
Satellite images show President Donald Trump’s project to build a $300 million grand ballroom has appeared to take down at least six trees on the White House grounds — including two historic magnolia trees commemorating Presidents Warren G. Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
The satellite images released on Thursday provide the fullest picture yet of the extent of the demolition work on the White House’s East Wing and its effect on the surrounding parkland — changes made without consulting the government commission established by federal law to ensure the preservation and integrity of government buildings in D.C., according to former commission officials who spoke to ABC News.
Visible construction work on the new ballroom appears to have begun more than three weeks ago, according to satellite images of the White House complex taken over the last month. An image taken on Sept. 26 shows preparations for the construction, including the removal of multiple trees in President’s Park.
The Jacqueline Kennedy Garden — established by first lady Edith Roosevelt in 1903 adjacent to the East Wing — was also leveled during the demolition, according to satellite images.Earlier this year, Trump also paved over the Rose Garden, which was designed by the same architect who designed the Kennedy Garden.
The White House said in an announcement this summer that the project would begin in September and be completed “long before the end of President Trump’s term.”
Satellite images of the White House taken by Planet Labs on Thursday show that the East Wing has been leveled, while preparations appear to have begun on nearby land that the ballroom is expected to occupy.
At least six trees that once surrounded the East Wing appear to have been removed from the White House grounds, according to the images.
Two historic magnolia trees originally dating to the 1940s — designated as commemorative trees for Presidents Warren G. Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt — appear to have been removed during the construction.
A magnolia tree commemorating Harding was originally planted by first lady Florence Harding in 1922 northeast of the entrance to the original 1902 East Wing, according to the National Park Service. The tree was replanted in 1947 and later re-designated as a commemorative tree in the 1950s, according to the park service.
The Roosevelt tree was originally planted in 1942 southeast of the entrance to the newly constructed East Wing, according to the park service. The tree was designated as a commemorative tree in the mid-1950s.
The White House did not respond for a request for comment about the removal of the trees.
Trump previously vowed that the ballroom project would not “interfere with the current” East Wing structure.
“It’ll be near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of,” Trump said in July.
A White House official said that Trump intends to submit plans to the National Capital Planning Commission for approval but has not done so yet. According to multiple former members of the NCPC, plans have historically been submitted and approved before any demolition work began.
When speaking about the ballroom project earlier this month, Trump marveled at what he said was the lack of an approval process, compared to his experience constructing buildings in New York.
“I said, ‘How long will it take me?’ ‘Sir, you can start tonight, you have no approvals.’ I said, ‘You gotta be kidding,'” Trump said. “They said, ‘Sir, this is the White House, you’re the President of the United States, you can do anything you want.'”
