Trump nominates radiologist Dr. Nicole Saphier as surgeon general
Nicole Saphier attends the Patriot Awards, December 5, 2024 in Greenvale, New York. (Theo Wargo/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he is nominating Dr. Nicole Saphier to be the next surgeon general.
Trump made the announcement on social media, calling Saphier a “STAR physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment while tirelessly advocating to increase early cancer detection and prevention.”
Saphier is the director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Monmouth in New Jersey and a regular medical contributor on Fox News.
According to her profile on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website, she has experience “performing minimally invasive, image-guided procedures of the breast, kidney, pancreas, liver, thyroid and lymph nodes.”
Her nomination comes just two months after Trump’s previous nominee, Dr. Casey Means, appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee for her confirmation hearing.
During the hearing, Means indicated she supports vaccines but stopped short of recommending certain shots.
Means, who has a medical degree but does not hold an active medical license, appeared hesitant to say that some vaccines, such as the flu vaccine, prevent serious disease.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, who chairs the HELP committee and is a physician, noted that two children died last year from measles and pushed Means on whether she would encourage parents to vaccinate their children with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Means initially stressed personal autonomy and responded that she supported vaccination and that every patient should have a conversation with their doctor about getting vaccinated.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
President Donald Trump answers questions during a press briefing held at the White House February 20, 2026, in Washington, DC. The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled against Trump’s use of emergency powers to implement international trade tariffs, a central portion of the administration’s core economic policy. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has ordered U.S. government agencies to stop using Anthropic’s products, just hours before the deadline the Pentagon set for the AI company to agree to its terms.
“I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels,” Trump posted on his social media platform.
“Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow,” Trump added.
ABC News has reached out to Anthropic for comment.
The AI company’s CEO has made clear that despite threats from the Pentagon, they refuse to drop their two key demands: no use of its artificial intelligence for fully autonomous weapons — meaning AI, not humans, making final battlefield targeting decisions — and no mass domestic surveillance.
Anthropic told ABC News that amid negotiations, the latest contract language from the Pentagon does not fully commit that the military will not use their technology for those two use cases.
In fact, Anthropic said the “new language” added into the contract by the department would allow their safeguards to be “disregarded at will.”
“The contract language we received from the Department of War made virtually no progress on preventing Claude’s use for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons,” Anthropic told ABC News.
The company added, “New language framed as compromise was paired with legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will. Despite DOW’s recent public statements, these narrow safeguards have been the crux of our negotiations for months.”
Top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee have sent a private letter to Anthropic and the Pentagon, urging them to resolve their fight.
The Senate leaders are urging Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, to extend their negotiations and work with Congress to find a solution, according to the letter obtained by ABC News.
The Pentagon claims it has no intention of using Anthropic’s AI for cases that involve mass domestic surveillance or autonomous kinetic operations. However, it says Anthropic’s guardrails could jeopardize military operations.
The Pentagon said that if Anthropic does not agree to its demands by 5:00 p.m. ET Friday, they will terminate the partnership with Anthropic and label the company a “supply chain risk” – a designation usually reserved for foreign adversaries.
“The Department has stated that it does not intend to conduct mass surveillance or use autonomous weapons without humans on the loop — positions that we in Congress endorse,” the letter from the Senate leaders reads. “It is clear, however, that the issue of ‘lawful use’ requires additional work by all stakeholders. We must determine whether additional legislative or regulatory language is required, and, if so, what that law and regulation should entail.”
“By Friday, February 27, the DOD could essentially declare war not on a foreign nation but on one of America’s most successful frontier AI companies if it does not bow to its demands,” Adam Conner, the vice president for technology policy at American Progress, wrote in an article on their website.
“This would be an unprecedented and unnecessary peacetime move that sends the signal to other private companies that they must do the Trump administration’s bidding or face existential consequences,” Conner wrote.
Rep. Valerie Foushee speaks to a small crowd before President Joe Biden during a visit to Wolfspeed, a semiconductor manufacturer, as he kicks off his Investing in America Tour, March 28, 2023, in Durham, N.C. (Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — As the first primaries in the 2026 midterm elections kick off on Tuesday, Democrats once again are dealing with divides in their party, including over generational change and immigration enforcement, in contests where progressives are taking on incumbents.
One of these faceoffs is set for Tuesday in North Carolina. Nida Allam, 32, vice chair of the Durham County Board of Commissioners, is mounting a primary challenge from the left to Democratic Rep. Valerie Foushee, 69. Allam previously lost to Foushee in the 2022 primary in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District.
“We have an opportunity to push and champion not just Trump and the right-wing administration, but also our own party; that this seat could be the most powerful tool for progressives and Democrats in the South, but it’s only as powerful as the person sitting in that seat,” Allam told ABC News in an interview.
Allam has the support of progressive stalwart independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who campaigned for her in mid-February and told supporters at a rally, “At a moment when the oligarchs are tightening their grip on our society, we need leaders like Nida, leaders who answer to working families and not the billionaire class.”
Foushee, in a statement to ABC News, pushed back on Allam’s claims that she is not progressive or present enough, pointing to her endorsement by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and to securing millions for the district.
“My opponent’s claim that I have been absent from my role with zero ability to describe what more she would have done in Congress under the Republican majority demonstrates that she is trying to apply for a job that she does not understand,” Foushee wrote.
Similar primary rumbles are set to play out over the coming months, including in Colorado’s June 30 primaries. Melat Kiros, 28, a Ph.D student and barista, is running against longtime incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette, 68, who has represented the state’s 1st Congressional District since 1997.
Kiros previously worked for a law firm and wrote an open letter in 2023 criticizing how law firms were responding in 2023 to pro-Palestinian protests. “I was asked to take the letter down. I said no, and then I was fired,” Kiros said. (The firm, Sidley Austin, did not reply to a request for comment from ABC News.)
Kiros says she draws a direct contrast with DeGette on the U.S.-Israel relationship and that DeGette’s opposition to further offensive aid to Israel does not go far enough.
The debate surrounding U.S. support for Israel, or whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, has sometimes been cast as a divide between younger and older Democrats. (Israel strongly disputes the allegations of committing genocide in Gaza and has said it took care to avoid civilian casualties during its military campaign against Hamas.)
Kiros believes the divide is more complicated than a generational one, but said young people “are seeing on our phones a genocide happening in real time … and want to see representatives who are committed to actually holding Israel accountable and ending this genocide.”
DeGette’s campaign did not provide comment or respond to a request for an interview when contacted by ABC News. She told NBC News in December more broadly, “We must defend our democracy against Donald Trump and work to solve our problems with dignity, justice, and a future grounded in compassion, not cruelty.”
Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, says the divide among Democrats over support for Israel — or even how to refer to its actions — reflects a “broader debate within the party about both Israel, but also America’s role in the world and what it should stand for … it’s a moment of flux in that way for the Democratic Party.”
“The moderates are in a tough spot,” he added, as moderates may oppose policies by Israel’s leadership but disagree with the claim that Israel was committing a genocide and feel Israel had the right to defend itself. “It’s a bit harder to message or navigate the complexities of the issue.”
Another flashpoint in some of these primaries is the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), especially in the wake of the shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis last month.
Jonathan Paz, a 32-year-old former city council member from the Boston suburb of Waltham, is mounting a primary challenge to Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, 62, who currently serves as the House Minority Whip — the second-most powerful Democrat in the House.
Paz told ABC News, “She seems determined to write strongly worded letters. I’m calling to disband ICE and cut all their funding … [people] don’t want that empty rhetoric. They want to dismantle this agency because they want to see the violence stop.”
He added that he feels Clark did not do her job as whip — the whip works to get party members aligned on how to vote — given that 21 House Democrats voted for continuing Department of Homeland Security funding as part of ending a partial government shutdown.
Clark has called for guardrails and restrictions on ICE, and urged voting against the appropriations bill with DHS funding; she also said in early February that she was denied access to an ICE facility in her district while trying to conduct oversight.
“Katherine is doing the work to hold ICE and the Administration accountable and end its reign of terror in our neighborhoods,” Clark’s reelection campaign said in a statement to ABC News.
The progressive challengers more broadly lay bare another ongoing debate within the Democratic Party: whether the party should stand behind incumbents or usher in a new generation of younger and potentially more progressive lawmakers.
“What the voters in this country are fed up with is the corruption of this political system that continues to reward and profit billionaires at the expense of everyone else,” Usamah Andrabi, communications director at the progressive group Justice Democrats, told ABC News.
The group recently unveiled a slate of 12 primary endorsements, including Allam and Kiros.
But others within the Democratic ecosystem have cautioned against reading too much into the progressive versus moderate primary challenges.
David de la Fuente, deputy director for politics and research at the centrist group Third Way, told ABC News he would point to how those challenges are happening often in safely blue districts, not competitive toss-up seats.
He also argued against conflating generational change with an ideological shift to the left.
“Young candidates, whether they’re moderate or progressive, are representing change and a generational shift. That is a tale as old as time,” he said.
(WASHINGTON) — Senators at last agreed via voice vote early Friday morning to approve a funding package that funds the Department of Homeland Security besides Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and part of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — a critical step toward ending most of the 42-day long DHS shutdown.
Agencies that would be funded by the Senate’s approved package include TSA, FEMA, The Coast Guard and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
The vote was called by Sen. Bernie Moreno, who was presiding over the chamber just after 2 a.m. ET on Friday morning. The bill will now head to the House where it will need to be approved. If passed, it will then head to the desk of President Donald Trump who would need to sign it for it to become law.
In remarks on the Senate floor early Friday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he was proud of Democrats who “held the line” on their objection to funding ICE and CBP without reforms.
“Democrats held firm in our position that Donald Trump’s rogue and deadly militia should not get more funding without serious reforms and we will continue to fight for those reforms,” Schumer said. The package the Senate approved does not include funding for ICE and parts of CBP, though those agencies will continue to receive funds due to the influx of cash in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill.
Also absent from the package are any of the reforms to ICE’s operating procedures that Democrats have been repeatedly demanding since the debate over DHS funding began.
Majority Leader John Thune lambasted Democrats on the floor for what he framed as their refusal to negotiate in good faith. He said Democrats could have secured some of their desired reforms if they hadn’t complicated negotiations.
“We could be standing here right now passing a funding bill with a list of reforms if the Democrats had made the smallest effort to actually reach an agreement. But they didn’t, because it’s now clear to everyone, Democrats didn’t actually want a solution, they wanted an issue, politics over policy, self-interest over reform, pandering to their base over actually solving a problem,” Thune said. “It’s an appalling commentary on the state of the Democratic Party.”
Schumer was asked by reporters about how Democrats would get reforms from this point going forward.
“We’re going to continue to fight hard for reforms, there’ll be opportunities,” Schumer said, though he provided no detail.
Though there was an effort by Republicans tonight to unanimously pass annual funding for ICE, it was blocked by Democrats.
Republicans are vowing to work on a package later this year to approve even more funding for ICE and CBP, saying they aim to do it using reconciliation — a budget tool that, if successful, would allow them to sidestep Democratic objection and pass the bill without any Democratic support.
Republicans are already warning that that bill will be a much harsher and Sen. Eric Schmitt vowed it would “supercharge deportations.”
