Trump reverses course in Colorado House race, backing GOP incumbent he once scorned
Rep. Jeff Hurd arrives for the House Republican Conference caucus meeting at the Capitol, May 6, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump made a stunning reversal Friday by again backing a Colorado House Republican for reelection a month after he publicly scorned him and endorsed his opponent.
In a lengthy social media post, Trump said he would no longer back Hope Scheppelman’s bid in the Republican primary for Rep. Jeff Hurd’s seat in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, after she accepted an offer to join his administration.
“Together with them, we decided that Congressman Jeff Hurd, of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, should in no way, shape, or form, be impeded from winning the District in that the Democrat alternative is a DISASTER for our Country,” he said in his social media post.
In February, Trump withdrew his endorsement of Hurd, lashing out against him in a social media post after he voted to rebuke the president’s tariffs on Canada.
“Hurd is one of a small number of Legislators who have let me and our Country down,” Trump said in the February social media post.
In Friday’s announcement, the president changed his mind.
“Every true MAGA supporter and Republican, if they truly care about saving our Country, will do everything in their power to unify together, and defeat the Crazed Radical Left Democrats this November,” he said.
The district has been red since 2011, and has traditionally been seen as a strong Republican area.
Trump said he spoke with Scheppelman, a Navy veteran and nurse, and her husband, about his decision and offered both of them positions in his administration in a “capacity to be determined.”
“Hope and Steven are wonderful and patriotic Veterans of our U.S. Navy, and loyal supporters of our Historic MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN Movement,” Trump said in the post.
Hurd thanked Trump for the endorsement in an X post Friday.
“The President and I share the same goals: securing the border, American energy dominance, and helping working families,” he said.
Scheppelman, whose social media pages feature a picture of her and Trump posing with thumbs-up signs, said in a statement on X that she would suspend her campaign given Trump’s request.
She said Hurd “now has the opportunity to correct his naive voting record and support President Trump, and our slim Republican majority in the U.S. House, in our shared battle to save the country we love.”
“If he does not, I will run again in 2028 and defeat [Hurd] in order to give the citizens of Colorado’s 3rd district, and all of America, the representation we deserve,” Scheppelman added.
Trump’s involvement a welcome development for House Republicans and Speaker Mike Johnson protecting a historically small majority this fall.
By backing Hurd, the GOP avoids another contentious primary in a long red district, as the incumbent is running unopposed.
Alex Kelloff, a Democratic candidate running for the House seat, responded to the president’s announcement Friday on X.
“Trump is worried we’re going to win this seat, a testament to all the work our campaign has been doing the last 11 months,” he said.
The Colorado primary is set for June 30.
-ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.
FBI Director Kash Patel holds a news conference at Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2026. (Photo by Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — FBI Director Kash Patel is set to be questioned by members of the Senate Appropriations Committee Tuesday afternoon amid several controversies involving the director.
Patel will testify alongside the other heads of the Department of Justice agencies such as the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Marshals Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
While it’s a hearing regarding the 2027 budget request, Patel is expected to face questions about a host of issues from the alleged misuse of FBI resources for travel to the story in The Atlantic that alleged he has had “bouts of excessive drinking” and job performance issues.
Patel said last month that he’s “never been intoxicated on the job,” following the report. Patel sued The Atlantic over the article, demanding $250 million in damages.
Asked about the article during an unrelated press conference last month, Patel railed against negative media coverage.
“I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia and when they get louder, it just means I’m doing my job,” Patel said.
In February, Patel joined in on Team USA hockey’s locker room celebrations in Italy shortly after the team won the gold medal — a move that drew scrutiny about his use of FBI resources to attend.
Patel, a hockey fan, was said to have had meetings in Italy prior to attending the game. Ben Williamson, an FBI spokesperson, said on social media that Patel’s trip had been previously scheduled. He added that “any other personal expenses would be reimbursed.”
During the hearing, Patel is also expected to tout his successes at the FBI.
“Whether it’s rebuilding our entire backbone infrastructure, caring more for our workforce, actioning the business side of the house, eliminating bureaucracy, integrating AI, procuring equipment, developing new private sector partnerships – we have delivered the changes you have been requesting for years… and we did it in just over 1 year,” Patel said in a message to the FBI last week. “Together, these reforms have truly transformed this FBI into the premier modern-day law enforcement organization we need to be.”
When Patel last testified on Capitol Hill in September 2025, he sparred with Democrats as he faced questions about the assassination of conservative activist and influencer Charlie Kirk and his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
A 31-page report on the White House ballroom submitted to the panels reviewing the project show the proposed addition to the White House from additional angles and features new renderings of the project. (Photo courtesy of Commission of Fine Arts)
(WASHINGTON) — The Commission of Fine Arts voted on Thursday to approve the design plan for President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom.
The panel, made up entirely of new members appointed by Trump, did so near unanimously without further review over the “vast, vast majority” of public comments opposing the project.
Chairman Rodney Mims Cook Jr. moved to approve the plans as “final” after first voting to back the “concept” of the construction project.
One commissioner did not vote: James McCrery, the president’s White House architect who was sidelined on the ballroom project. McCrery recused himself and said it would be “inappropriate” for him to comment or vote on the plans.
The votes took place after Shalom Baranes, Trump’s new ballroom architect, presented updated design plans, with the most notable public change being the removal of a pediment on the proposed structure’s south side at the commission’s recommendation.
The commission fast-tracked the final vote, which was not set to happen on Thursday. The commission was set to review the project’s final design before taking their final vote, which would have been — at the earliest — during their next meeting scheduled for March 19.
Cook said the Pentagon “made some demands on the president” for greater security and that those secret design plans were integrated into the design.
More renderings of the proposed 90,000-square-foot addition in the location of the demolished East Wing were made available in a 31-page report submitted to commission last week, including a view of the building from Pennsylvania Avenue.
The votes to approve the proposal also came after Thomas Luebke, the panel’s secretary, presented the group with the public’s objection to the East Wing’s destruction last fall and the ballroom’s construction.
“Mind you, in more than two decades of case work here, for me, I’ve never seen as much public engagement on this,” Luebke said. “We literally have gotten, just in the past week or so, more than 2,000 various messages — way too much to go through individually.”
Luebke later added the messages were “overwhelmingly in opposition, over 99%, to this project.”
Luebke read excerpts from two public comments, one in favor and one against. The supporter of the ballroom argued that the addition was necessary to host formal events and “to have America be competitive in the eyes of world leaders.” The opposing commentator argued that the addition “represents an affront to our heritage, a circumvention of democratic processes and a misallocation of resources that could better serve the republic.”
Luebke said groups have also voiced opposition, including the National Mall Coalition, which said to the commission: “Please do not set a precedent that will be difficult, if not impossible, to overturn. We ask you to await the decision of the courts and not support further breach of public trust.”
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project. The judge in the case has expressed skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, and said he hoped to issue a decision this month.
The ballroom is a longtime goal for Trump, who said in a social media post that it will be “one of the greatest and most beautiful Ballrooms anywhere in the world.” Trump said the project will cost $400 million and be paid for by private donors.
He applauded the commission’s approval in a social media post Thursday afternoon, saying “Great accolades were paid to the building’s beauty and scale. Thank you to the members of the Commission!”
The National Capital Planning Commission — led by Will Scharf, Trump’s White House staff secretary — will also consider the ballroom project during its March meeting.
Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Rep. James Comer (R-KY) speaks to reporters as he arrives for a House Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Chairman James Comer has set a noon deadline Tuesday for Bill and Hillary Clinton to agree to the GOP’s specific terms for depositions that the Clintons signaled Monday night they generally would comply with, warning that if they do not then Republicans will reconvene to move contempt resolutions toward a full House vote.
“The Oversight Committee is seeking clarification the Clintons accepted the standard deposition terms that they were subpoenaed for: transcribed, filmed depositions in February with no time limit pursuant to the committee’s investigation. The depositions are pursuant to the Committee’s investigative purpose as laid out across its letters and contempt reports,” a person familiar with the matter told ABC News.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, in a news conference Tuesday alongside House GOP leadership, said Comer was “in the middle of a negotiation with the Clintons.”
“They have until noon today to fully comply, otherwise we will move contempt tomorrow against the Clintons,” Scalise reiterated.
Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed on Monday evening to sit for closed-door depositions in the committee’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
“They negotiated in good faith. You did not,” Clinton spokesperson Angel Ureña posted on X. “They told you under oath what they know, but you don’t care. But the former President and former Secretary of State will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone.”
For months, the Clintons had insisted that the subpoenas were without legal merit. Comer, a Republican, has pushed back, saying the Clintons are not above the law and must comply with a subpoena.
Besides defying the subpoenas to testify before the House committee, neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
In a letter dated Jan. 31, the Clintons’ legal teams wrote the committee to lay out the parameters of a prospective interview — alongside a request for the committee to withdraw its subpoena and contempt resolution — proposing a four-hour transcribed interview in lieu of a deposition conducted under oath.
The letter states the interview should occur in New York City — open to all committee members — while the scope of questions would be “confined to matters related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein.” The president also asked to designate his own transcriber, alongside a court reporter employed by the House.
“This framework is consistent with your priorities as communicated by Committee staff and as identified during the business meeting on January 21st,” the letter, signed by Clinton attorneys Katherine Turner and Ashley Callen, stated. “Pursuant to your request for this comprehensive written proposal, we ask that you respond in kind should there remain any specific area of disagreement to continue this good-faith effort to avoid legal proceedings that will prevent our clients from providing testimony in addition to the sworn statements they already submitted.”
Comer wrote back Monday, citing “serious concerns with the offer,” beginning with the proposed scope restriction — predicting President Clinton “would refuse to answer questions” related to his personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Comer also balked at the proposed four-hour time limit for the interview, and the president’s bid to break blocks of questioning into 30-minute periods — rather than 60-minute periods — that alternate between Republicans and Democrats.
“A hard time-limit provides a witness with the incentive to attempt to run out the clock by giving unnecessarily long answers and meandering off-topic. This is a particular concern where a witness, such as President Clinton, has an established record of being a loquacious individual,” Comer said.
“Limiting President Clinton’s testimony to four hours is insufficient time for the Committee to gain a full understanding of President Clinton’s personal relationship with them, his knowledge of their sex-trafficking ring, and his experience with their efforts to curry favor and exercise influence to protect themselves,” he added of President Clinton’s relationship with Epstein and Maxwell.
Finally, Comer took umbrage with the proposition for a transcribed interview, not a sworn deposition.
“A transcribed interview is voluntary, meaning that the subject may refuse to answer questions absent any assertion of privilege or constitutional right,” Comer noted. “The conditions requested thus would enable President Clinton to refuse to answer whatever questions he wanted for whatever reasons he wanted and leave as the Committee’s only recourse to again subpoena President Clinton’s testimony, effectively restarting this entire process from the beginning.”
As for Hillary Clinton, the lawyers’ letter echoes her sworn declaration, stating she “never held an office with responsibility for, or involvement with, DOJ’s handling of these investigations or prosecutions,” adding “the same is true as a private citizen after leaving office in 2013.”
The lawyers also requested that Comer withdraw the subpoena and resolution of contempt “so that we may continue to work in good faith toward an agreement that meets the Committee’s needs while accounting for the limited information Secretary Clinton can provide.”
In response, Comer emphasized “the necessity” of Hillary Clinton’s in-person testimony juxtaposed against the “unacceptability of simple sworn declarations.”
Comer concluded that the Clintons’ “desire for special treatment is both frustrating and an affront to the American people’s desire for transparency.”
