Trump picks Jay Clayton for director of national intelligence

(WASHINGTON) — The two top Democrats on the House and Senate Judiciary committees are referring outgoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to the Department of Justice for perjury due to her testimony to congressional committees earlier this month, according to a letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland allege that Noem’s statements on a variety of topics including DHS following judges’ orders and a controversial multimillion-dollar ad campaign “appear to violate criminal statutes prohibiting perjury and knowingly making false statements to Congress.”

In response to the letter, a DHS spokesperson said “Any claim that Secretary Noem committed perjury is categorically FALSE.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said, “The DOJ has received the latest political stunt from the Democrats who should instead vote to reopen the Department of Homeland Security.”

President Donald Trump fired Noem the day after her testimony concluded and announced that he was appointing her to a new role as special envoy to the Shield of the Americas, a coalition of Latin American countries the White House says is committed to cooperating with the U.S. in taking on drug cartels and securing the U.S. border. He said he had nominated Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to head DHS when Noem’s tenure ended on March 31.

The Democrats allege that Noem misled Congress when she said that DHS had followed court orders while federal judges have ruled a number of times that it had not.

They also cited her testimony over contracts for a $220 million DHS ad campaign and her assertion that Trump had signed off on it. A day later, Trump told Reuters, “I never knew anything about it.”

“New public reporting, however, indicates that those statements may have been false. It has been reported that not only did the Secretary “handpick” four companies for the ad campaign, but procurement records show the “ad work was awarded using ‘other than full and open competition,'” and the four companies were politically connected to Noem and her allies,” according to the letter. 

Durbin and Raskin also allege Noem misled Congress when she testified that top adviser Corey Lewandowski had “no authority” to make decisions for the department.

“Secretary Noem’s denial of Corey Lewandowski’s role in DHS contract approval may also have been false. It has been widely reported that Mr. Lewandowski asserts approval authority over contracts and grants that exceed $100,000.27 A similar approval process reportedly exists for policy decisions, and as a recently published document shows, Mr. Lewandowski’s signature is visible above Secretary Noem’s on a February 2025 document reversing temporary protected status for Haitians.”

Lewandowski is reportedly leaving his position as a special government employee. He did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment on his future at DHS.

The Democrats also allege Noem made false statements about conditions in ICE detention centers adhering to federal detention standards while ICE internal audits documented “significant failures to meet medical care standards.”

And they say her assertion that ICE did not detain U.S. citizens is false and cited 170 cases of citizens being detained in some cases for days without an opportunity to prove their citizenship.

“Making false statements to Congress, and making false statements under oath, are federal crimes,” the letter says. “While we have low expectations that you will pursue this matter given your partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice, we note that the statute of limitations for perjury and for knowingly and willfully making false statements to Congress is five years.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump by invalidating most of global tariffs, a cornerstone of his economic policy in his second term.

In a 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court deemed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give Trump the power to unilaterally impose tariffs. 

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution,” Roberts wrote. “Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

The Trump administration attempted to justify the tariffs by arguing that IEEPA says the president has the power to regulate “importation,” but Roberts said their read of the law was a stretch. 

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Roberts said the court was highly skeptical of the claim that Congress had delegated to the president a “birth-right power to tax” though the passage of the 1977 law. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs and taxes, the majority concluded.

“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” the ruling said. 

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, arguing that Trump should have the power to impose tariffs during national emergencies.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Trump had publicly lobbied for months for the court to rule in his favor, including in remarks he delivered on Thursday about in Georgia. Trump, speaking on the economy, said “without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now.”

The White House has said it is prepared to present alternative avenues for imposing the tariffs under different legal authorities.

The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes down 70% of Trump’s global tariffs after they have collected more than $142 billion through December, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

While the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s sweeping tariff power under IEEPA, the tariffs Trump imposed using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — such as tariffs on steel and aluminum — remain in place. Trump has also suggested in the past that he might attempt to reframe the tariffs as “licenses,” though such a move would likely be challenged in court. 

Companies ranging from Costco to small businesses have sued the Trump administration to effectively “get in line” for refunds if the court deemed them unconstitutional.

The court’s majority did not explicitly address the issue of refunds or how that process would work.

Kavanaugh noted such in his dissent.

“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” Kavanaugh wrote.

ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze and Zunaira Zaki contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.