Trump says he and Vance are ‘philosophically’ different on Iran war
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters during a news conference at Trump National Doral Miami on March 9, 2026, in Doral, Florida. President Trump spoke on his administration’s strikes on Iran. (Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said that he and Vice President JD Vance are “philosophically a little bit different” when it comes to U.S. war with Iran after ABC News previously reported that Vance internally expressed reservations about the strikes late last month.
When asked during his Monday evening news conference in Florida if there were any disagreements between him and Vance on action against Iran, Trump said he didn’t “think so.”
“We get along very well on this,” Trump said. “He was, I would say, philosophically a little bit different than me. I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was quite enthusiastic. But I felt it was something we had to do. I didn’t feel we had a choice. If we didn’t do it, they would have done it to us.”
Trump’s comments about their differences on Iran come after ABC News reported that Vance, who has largely opposed U.S. intervention abroad, made his reservations about the strikes against Iran known internally, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Once it became clear that the decision had been made to move forward with the strikes, Vance shifted his focus to supporting the military operation, a source told ABC News.
This is not the first time Vance, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq, has expressed concerns internally about possible U.S. foreign military intervention.
Last year, in the Signal group chat discussing the U.S. attack on Houthis in Yemen that a journalist was inadvertently invited to join, Vance appeared to break with Trump and questioned whether the president recognized that a unilateral U.S. attack on the Houthis to keep international shipping lanes open was at odds with his tough talk about European nations paying their share of such efforts.
A few days before the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, Vance told The Washington Post that there was “no chance” of a drawn-out war in Iran if the U.S. moved forward with the strikes.
Vance reiterated that same sentiment in a recent interview with Fox News, but also added that the operation against Iran “could go for a lot longer.”
“There’s just no way that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective. What is different about President Trump, and it’s frankly different about both Republicans and Democrats of the past, is that he’s not going to let his country go to war unless there’s a clearly defined objective,” Vance told Fox News.
“He’s defined that objective as Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and has to commit long-term to never trying to rebuild the nuclear capability. It’s pretty clear. It’s pretty simple, and I think that means that we’re not going to get into the problems that we’ve had with Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
Ahead of his second term, Trump campaigned on “America First” policies, which attracted his MAGA base. After the strikes on Iran, there has been criticism from within his base — including former political adviser Steve Bannon, who called the it “a mistake not to put America first.”
Trump said Monday that the U.S. is making “major” progress in achieving its military goals and that the operation is “ahead of our initial timeline by a lot.”
“We’re achieving major strides toward completing our military objective. And some people could say they’re pretty well complete. We’ve wiped every single force in Iran out very completely,” Trump said.
Protesters hold flags of Greenland during a protest titled Greenland Belongs to the Greenlanders on January 14, 2026 outside the United States embassy in Copenhagen, Denmark. Martin Sylvest Andersen/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A set of recent polls have highlighted American voters’ opposition to taking over Greenland — and even greater opposition to taking it over by military force.
A Quinnipiac University poll found 55% of voters opposed to the United States trying to buy Greenland, with majorities of Democratic voters (85%) and independent voters (58%) opposed and a majority of Republican voters in support (67%). Greenland, though, is not for sale — with Danish and Greenlandic officials saying the island can’t be bought. Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Opposition rises to nearly 9 in 10 voters when asked if the U.S. should try to take Greenland by military force, something President Donald Trump has said “is always an option.” Just 9% of U.S. voters say they support the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force.
In all, 86% of voters, including 95% of Democrats, 94% of independents and 68% of Republicans oppose the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force.
Notably, few polls find this level of agreement on policy issues — and most Republicans rarely disagree with Trump.
The president is trying to take over the autonomous Danish territory, claiming earlier this week that “we need Greenland” and citing national security as a reason for the acquisition. Now, France and other NATO countries have sent troops for military exercises after representatives from Denmark and Greenland said they had “fundamental disagreements” with the U.S.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll also found low levels of support for Trump’s push to take over Greenland. Just 17% of Americans said they approved of U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland, including a 40% minority of Republicans. Support was even lower among Democrats (2%) and others (9%).
When asked about taking Greenland using military force in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, just 4% of Americans said it was a good idea, including only 8% of Republicans.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll offered a “don’t know” response to those answering their survey, and large minorities of Americans said they did not have opinions on these issues.
Two-thirds of Americans say they are concerned that the U.S. acquiring the self-governing territory that is part of Denmark could harm NATO and U.S. relations with European countries. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats, 4 in 10 Republicans and 7 in 10 independents.
The Quinnipiac poll was conducted Jan. 8-12 among 1,133 registered voters and has a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted Jan. 12-13 among 1,217 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, center, and Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are petitioning the Government Accountability Office to investigate the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.
In a letter first obtained by ABC News, the two senators call for nonpartisan congressional watchdog to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the department winding down its functions and transferring offices to other agencies.
“Students and families deserve better — we need a full independent investigation into the latest attempts to sabotage our schools,” Warren, D-Mass., wrote in a statement to ABC News.
Led by Warren and Sanders, I-Vt., and signed by Democrats Patty Murray of Washington and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, the letter alleges that the Education Department is illegally dismantling itself through its interagency agreement with the Department of Labor that allowed Labor to administer adult education, family literacy and career and technical education (CTE) programs previously homed in the department.
“We are deeply concerned that the administration’s decisions to implement CTE and adult education grant programs in this manner delayed crucial funding that millions of students and schools rely on,” the senators wrote.
They also said they worry that the decisions may have created “administrative inefficiencies, increased the cost of program administration, and compromised the quality of technical assistance provided to states and grantees.”
GAO is working through its process to determine the next steps in responding to the senators’ request, a spokesperson with the agency confirmed to ABC News.
Education Department spokeswoman Savannah Newhouse argued that the lawmakers’ request prioritizes bureaucrats over students.
“The Trump Administration will not sit idle while students, educators, and states suffer under our broken federal education system which undermines our economy, national security, and civic health,” Newhouse wrote in a statement to ABC News. “Also, as the Senators likely know, interagency agreements are a standard, lawful tool used across government — including by the Biden Administration’s own DOJ and Bureau of Prisons to allow the Department of Labor to administer grants under the First Step Act,” she added.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has also defended the department’s moves. She said in a statement in July that the way the education and workforce programs had been administered was “inefficient and duplicative” and they needed to be streamlined in order to best serve students and families.
The workforce development partnership between the two agencies launched last summer following President Donald Trump’s executive order entitled “Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future.” In November, the Department of Education made an additional announcement that it would transfer some of its offices to other government agencies, including the departments of State, Health and Human Services, and Interior.
A senior department official said the interagency agreements (IAA) marked a “major step forward” in abolishing the agency and fulfilling McMahon’s mission of returning education to the states. The senators’ letter requested that GAO extend its probe into all of the IAAs because they allegedly attempted to transfer “statutory requirements” to other agencies. They’re requesting GAO determine whether the moves jeopardize services for students, weaken federal support to protect the rights of students, children, youth and families, and affect other indicators of program integrity and quality.
The GAO works to provide timely, fact-based, non-partisan information that can be used to improve government, per the agency’s website. The senators’ latest request is a part of Warren’s Save Our Schools campaign that she launched last year to investigate the administration’s attempts to shutter the education department.
Peoria Federation of Teachers union representative Michael Brix worries that the Education and Labor partnerships could roll back CTE progress for his students.
“When we hear of these changes, the Department of Education being dismantled, and then other departments then taking on similar roles — or the same roles — it’s very nervous not knowing what is coming ahead,” he said, adding, “It’s kind of scary.”
Editor’s note: This story’s headline has been updated to reflect that the senators want the GAO to investigate the Department of Education’s dismantling.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) talks to reporters after former President Bill Clinton did not appear for a closed-door deposition in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 13, 2026 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.
“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.
“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.
A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition.
In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.
“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.
The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.
“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”
For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October.
Kendall has continued to argue that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony. Kendall has contended that the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.
Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing and denies 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 in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Former Secretary of State Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says.
Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.
“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.
Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”
“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.
Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.
What is contempt of Congress?
The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.
“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty.
What would the process look like?
To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.
A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.
The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.
History of contempt
Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.
The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time.
Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.
The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.
