Trump plans visit to LA wildfire zones, pushes to withhold aid
An aerial view of the sun rising beyond homes which burned in the Eaton Fire on January 21, 2025 in Altadena, California. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump will tour damage on Friday caused by wildfires in Los Angeles on Friday as he continues to feud with California Gov. Gavin Newsom over his handling of the disaster and federal aid.
Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday that he was going to Los Angeles after stopping in North Carolina, which was hit by Hurricane Helene in September.
“I’m stopping in North Carolina, first up, because those people were treated very badly by Democrats and I’m stopping there,” Trump told Hannity. “We’re going to get that thing straightened out because they’re still suffering from a hurricane from months ago. And then, I’m going to then — I’m going to go to California.
Trump’s White House schedule had not been announced as of Thursday night. Newsom told reporters on Thursday that he would be at the airport to welcome the president.
Trump has come down hard and joined some Republican congressional leaders to attach conditions to federal disaster funding to changes in its water policies and forest management.
“I don’t think we should give California anything until they let water flow down,” the president told Hannity.
California officials have repeatedly refuted Trump’s assertions.
Trump’s claims that measures to protect the delta smelt, an endangered fish, upstate affected L.A.’s water supply is false, according to Ashley Overhouse, a California water policy adviser for the nonprofit conservation organization Defenders of Wildlife.
Overhouse told ABC News that even the most protective regulations for delta smelt, during former President Barack Obama’s administration, accounted for only about 1.2% of additional outflow.
On Thursday, the House passed the Fix Our Forests Act, a bipartisan measure that’s intended to help prevent catastrophic wildfires and provide proper forest management as California continues.
The bill provides fire departments information about how much and when they will get reimbursed for wildfire costs, supports post-fire recovery activities, assesses and helps better predict fires in high-risk areas and states through data, expedites environmental reviews to reduce planning times and costs for critical forest management and establishes an interagency center to help state and local governments.
(WASHINGTON) — Ahead of Linda McMahon’s hearing to become the next secretary of the Department of Education, America’s state teachers of the year for 2024 have said they worry the future of public education is under direct attack.
De’Shawn C. Washington, the 2024 Massachusetts teacher of the year, said he will be heartbroken if the Department of Education is dismantled under McMahon.
“This is a great opportunity to invest even more in our children right now, instead of retracting,” Washington told ABC News. “To pull further in, to watch those seeds grow and become a harvest, so that our country could thrive.”
President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order to abolish the Department of Education. The order, which has not been signed yet, reportedly calls for the education secretary to submit a proposal to diminish the department and urges Congress to pass legislation to get rid of it.
McMahon has vowed to carry out the president’s policies, and her allies have said they believe she has the business acumen to make budget cuts as she sees fit.
The looming department changes could be devastating for vulnerable students, according to Jeff Keller of Virginia. Keller warned shuttering the federal agency could mean students will have less protections and schools will have less oversight.
“When I think about what the Department of Education means, it means safeguarding kids’ civil rights,” Keller told ABC News.
“Whether that’s students with disabilities having the ability to get into the building and to get around the building … whether that’s safeguarding, you know, racial minorities to make sure that educational outcomes are equitable for them — I mean, I think it’s across the board,” Keller said.
Colorado’s Jessica May said she fears her students’ basic needs won’t be met if the department is abolished.
“What I am most afraid of is they are not going to get the attention and the care and the dedication that they need to survive, to live,” May said.
However, abolishing the Department of Education can only be done if Congress passes legislation to eliminate it. Clare McCann at American University said it is illegal to “uncreate” the department without congressional authorization — and it would require 60 votes in favor of the legislation in the Senate to pass.
Still, these teachers, who were all awarded their states’ top teaching honors in 2024, said they’re a nervous group right now.
Zach Arenz, the New York teacher of the year, predicted lost educators, increased class sizes and a widening achievement gap in which wealthy communities get wealthier through school voucher programs.
“All of these things are going to lead to a weak public education system,” he told ABC News. “If our public education system isn’t successful, there is no future.”
Arenz said he hopes teachers are listened to moving forward. Kentucky’s Kevin Dailey said he is also worried about student opportunities, arguing a conservative school voucher push would privatize the public school system and enrich private businesses.
“Kentucky schools receive over $1 billion a year in federal funds [from the Department of Education] in order to facilitate the growth of our communities,” Dailey told ABC News. “Kentuckians, not just teachers, not just public school students, but Kentuckians believe in strong public schools.”
McMahon is ‘in over her head’
McMahon, the president’s pick to carry out his vision for injecting school choice throughout the nation’s schools, will go before lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Her nomination to become the next secretary of the Department of Education has been loathed by many top educators.
“She’s well in over her head,” Greg Kester, the 2024 Missouri teacher of the year, told ABC News. Kester has been teaching over 30 years and said McMahon is a step down from billionaire Betsy DeVos, Trump’s first education chief, arguing education isn’t McMahon’s “calling.”
However, McMahon earned a teaching certification from East Carolina University before pivoting to the wrestling arena. McMahon spent most of her career as a business executive and wrestling mogul, and the president has praised her for her knowledge of both business and education.
But Indiana’s Eric Jenkins told ABC News there’s a distinct difference between the two fields.
“There are similarities between business and education, but the core difference — the purpose,” Jenkins said. “So the purpose of a business is to increase profits. The purpose of education is to increase opportunity for all students.”
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency made sizable cuts to the Department of Education this week, slashing critical independent research contracts at the department’s Institute of Education Sciences worth nearly $900 million. Jenkins said he embraces a department that works to create efficiency — so long as the budget cuts don’t hamstring students.
“What brings us together, these different state teachers, regardless if they’re blue or red, is that we see those numbers actually as our students’ faces,” Jenkins said. “I think that’s where we’re coming from, is that we truly see the faces and the impacts that cuts are going to make.”
Conservatives such as Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, said McMahon has the business mindset to create innovative solutions for all students.
However, Virginia’s Keller said he disagrees, noting the nation’s next education chief should run the country’s public school system like it’s the “backbone” of society, not a corporation.
“I don’t think you got to be a K-12 teacher, but I do think you have to have a mindset that understands schools don’t exist for the benefits of teachers or the benefit of students: They exist for the benefit of society,” Keller said. “It’s not a business. We’re not in business. That’s not what schools are.”
(WASHINGTON) — In a sweeping change that could American save consumers time and money — the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Tuesday finalized a rule that would ban surprise “junk fees” for live event tickets, hotels and vacation rentals.
The rule would require businesses to disclose total prices upfront, rather than tacking on extra costs like “convenience fees” or “resort fees” when consumers check out online.
“Whatever price you see is the price that you are paying at the end, no more mystery surprise fees at the very end of the process, which really cheat consumers and also punish honest businesses,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in an exclusive interview with ABC News.
The FTC said the final rule, which takes effect around April of next year, could save consumers 53 million hours in wasted time searching for the total price of live event tickets or short-term lodging — equal to about $11 billion in savings over a decade.
The rule would not stop businesses from charging fees. But they would be required to list prices clearly from the onset and to display the total cost more prominently on a website than any other price.
“This should really provide the American people with just some more clarity and confidence so they don’t feel like they’re getting cheated or having to be bait and switched by all of these deceptive pricing tactics,” Khan said. “This is really about saving people money and saving people time.”
The change is part of a broader push from the administration of President Joe Biden to lower costs as households have been plagued by stubborn inflation. Last week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a final rule to curb bank overdraft fees.
In a statement to ABC News, Biden said: “Today’s announcement builds on work across my Administration to ban junk fees and lower costs — saving many families hundreds of dollars each year.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has opposed the rule, calling it “nothing more than an attempt to micromanage businesses’ pricing structures, often undermining businesses’ ability to give consumers options at different price points.”
The business lobbying group has already sued the FTC over other regulations, including a rule to ban noncompete agreements for millions of workers.
Asked about the likelihood the junk fee rule would face challenges in court, Khan told ABC News the FTC is on “firm legal grounds.”
“We’ve also seen bipartisan proposals in Congress to take on these junk fees in these in these industries,” Khan said. “I can’t predict the future, but I’d be very surprised if something that’s just common sense was going to be stripped away.”
At the helm of the FTC, Khan has been credited with ushering in a new era of anti-trust regulation, challenging the business models of major corporations in industries ranging from Big Tech to pharmaceuticals. Her aggressive approach quickly made her a prominent target among conservatives and Wall Street investors.
President-elect Trump announced last week he nominated Andrew Ferguson, a current Republican FTC commissioner, to replace Khan.
“These junk fees have really proliferated across the economy, and I would want to make sure that future enforcers and future policy makers were taking on these junk fees across the economy,” Khan told ABC News.
As for her political future, Khan said she’s still laser-focused on her current role.
“I’m just focused on doing my job in the in the days and weeks we have left,” she said. “I’ve just been really thrilled to see the enormous support across the country for a strong and vigorous FTC.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law set to ban social media platform TikTok in less than 48 hours.
“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the ruling states. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
It continues, “For the foregoing Per Curiam reasons, we conclude that the challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is affirmed.”
The court’s ruling was unanimous, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch writing concurring opinions.
In an apparent effort to limit the implications of its ruling, the court said its judgment should not be interpreted as a rebuke of common practices taken up by social media companies, such as data collection.
“We emphasize the inherent narrowness of our holding,” the unsigned ruling says. “Data collection and analysis is a common practice in this digital age. But TikTok’s scale and susceptibility to foreign adversary control, together with the vast swaths of sensitive data the platform collects, justify differential treatment to address the Government’s national security concerns.”
Unless TikTok severs ties with China-based parent company ByteDance, the ban will take effect on Sunday, the day before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office.
The ruling follows indication from the Biden administration that it would not enforce the potential ban in the immediate aftermath of the deadline, leaving implementation of the law to Trump. Trump, who opposed the ban, has said he will seek to reverse it.
Trump said he had spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday morning with TikTok being one of the topics they discussed, according to a Truth Social post.
TikTok — which boasts more than 170 million U.S. users — challenged the sale-or-ban law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that a potential ban would limit the free-expression rights of its users.
Lower courts, however, found merit in security concerns about potential data collection or content manipulation undertaken by the Chinese government.
Even after the ban takes effect, TikTok could remain available for U.S. users.
Rather than force TikTok to take the app dark, the law targets third-party companies like cloud-service providers and app stores. TikTok could circumvent such restrictions, at least temporarily, though experts say the quality of the app would degrade over time.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
