Trump says his ‘Great Ballroom’ will be used for ‘future Presidential Inaugurations’

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is voting Wednesday on a Democratic-led Iran war powers resolution that calls for congressional approval for military action against Iran.

The initial procedural vote to pass the resolution, introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff, would direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. It comes after recent U.S. strikes on Iran that killed several Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.

There is no timeline in the bill, so if it passed and President Donald Trump signed it, which is highly unlikely, the U.S. would have to draw down troops.

Because this bill is privileged, it would only need 51 votes to advance and ultimately be approved by the Senate. It’s not yet clear whether the legislation will have that support, but at this time it seems unlikely to advance.

Earlier this year, a similar resolution concerning military action in Venezuela passed an initial procedural test vote when a small handful of Republican senators voted with Democrats to move it forward. Some of those Republicans were ultimately swayed to revoke their support for that legislation during a vote on final passage, and the bill was ultimately defeated by Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote.

This time around though, Republicans seem even more inclined to support Trump’s actions in Iran.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, of Missouri, was one of the Republicans who initially supported the Venezuela war powers resolution before ultimately voting against it during a vote of final passage. His switch in position during that vote in January came after Trump attacked Hawley and the other Republicans who initially supported the proposal.

Hawley told ABC News on Tuesday that he would vote against the Iran war powers resolution.

The legislation cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted after that 60-day period and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.

“I think they’re in compliance with the statute. The statute gives them 60 days, gives the administration 60 days to conduct activity without having to come back to … Congress for authorization, unless they’re ground troops. My view has always been, ground troops will require congressional authorization. So they’re currently none involved, none have been involved, and they’re following the War Powers Act,” Hawley said.

Still, Democrats say the vote is critical. Sen. Kaine, of Virginia, who is leading the Iran resolution and who has been an outspoken proponent of Congress’ role in declaring war, said the vote will show where everyone stands on the conflict.

“We’re going to put everybody on the record [Wednesday]. Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Kaine said on Tuesday. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”

Without the support of at least a few Republicans, the Iran resolution is likely to fail to advance during Wednesday’s vote. 

Even if this legislation were to pass, it would still require approval in the House and the signature of the president to become law.

The House is set to vote on its own war powers resolution later this week. The non-binding measure, introduced by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, would not be subject to the president’s signature or veto if it passed both houses of Congress.

On Wednesday, Johnson expressed confidence that Republicans will defeat the House’s war powers resolution, despite some reservations expressed by a handful of conservatives. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, so it would only take a few defections for the bill to pass.

“I think passage of a war powers resolution right now would be a terrible, dangerous idea,” Johnson warned. “It would empower our enemies. It would kneecap our own forces, and it would take the ability of the U.S. military and the commander in chief away from completing this critical mission to keep everybody safe.”

ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Members of the Democratic National Committee voted down a symbolic resolution aimed at curbing the “growing influence” of “dark money” corporate groups in Democratic primaries that specifically called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Committee members gathered on Thursday in New Orleans, where a majority of members objected to the resolution for singling out AIPAC and argued it was redundant, since they had already approved a broader measure earlier in the meeting condemning the influence of dark money in the midterms without naming specific groups.

Allison Minnerly, who sponsored the resolution, responded to the criticism that her resolution was singling out AIPAC, the pro-Israel political lobbying group.

“Members like to say that we don’t want to single out AIPAC, but AIPAC will entirely single out them and all of our different progressive leaders when it comes to primary elections,” said Minnerly.

AIPAC’s influence has become a flashpoint inside the Democratic Party, as leaders struggle to respond to rapidly shifting views about Israel among progressives, especially in the wake of the war in Gaza and amid the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.

DNC Chair Ken Martin posted on X, stating, “We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation.”

The panel’s rejection of the AIPAC resolution means it will not go before the full body for a final vote on Friday.

“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the Democratic process, and we plan to do just that,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told ABC News.

Minnerly’s resolution stated that “the use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents,” and referenced the millions of dollars spent by AIPAC in the recent Illinois Democratic primaries.

Andrew Lachman, a DNC member and the former president of California Jewish Democrats, said that it was “troubling” that the resolution was focused on calling out AIPAC.

“There are a lot of super PACs, a lot of right-wing organizations out there. There are a lot of left-wing ones out there that take advantage of the super PAC status as well. We need to address that,” Lachman said. “None of those were mentioned … I think respectfully, if it’s about our campaign finance system, let’s take it on. But when you mention only one group, it comes across like you’re not actually interested in the campaign finance issue and transparency issue. It’s about something else.”

In a statement to ABC News, Brian Romick, the president and CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel said, “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.”

“They should have voted for the AIPAC resolution given the pernicious influence they had in Illinois,” progressive Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told ABC News.

In a video posted on X, Khanna said, “anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.

2 other measures deferred

During the resolutions committee hearing, members also deferred action on two broad resolutions addressing Middle East conflicts, one of which would recognize Palestinian statehood and another that urged the party to support conditioning military aid to Israel. Instead, the proposals were sent to the party’s newly formed Middle East working group.

The question of how productive this group has been was a topic of conversation from DNC members and was mentioned during the resolutions committee hearing.

“We recommend this going back to the task force, but then we can put som. … expectations that we hear back,” said Ron Harris, co-chair of the DNC’s resolution committee, referring to the measure on Palestinian statehood.

Minnerly told ABC News she sponsored a measure to oppose the war in Gaza last August, but the resolution was defeated. In the wake of that, DNC Chair Ken Martin established a Middle East working group.

“I’m not surprised that members of the resolutions committee are eager for an update … Since that meeting [in August], there has not been consistent progress or even forward motion, and the characterizations of the task force were accurate,” said Minnerly, who is a member of the DNC’s Middle East working group.

In recent weeks, progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Khanna have said they do not support any U.S. military aid to Israel, including defensive systems like the Iron Dome.

When asked if opposing funding for Israel’s defensive systems is a stance more of the Democratic Party should represent, Minnerly told ABC News last week in advance of Thursday’s meeting, “The further escalation has gone, the longer the war has been, we have seen the Democratic Party really migrate towards this ideal of de-escalation and not funding conflict.”

Lachman, however, also speaking in advance of Thursday’s meeting, said that he just sees this change in tune from some Democrats as “pressure from certain segments within the [Democratic Socialists of America]” and “some people who may be future candidates, particularly for president, are just trying to pander to them.”

He added, “I don’t think this is a mainstream view within the party, by any stretch of the imagination.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday is considering whether the Trump administration unlawfully ordered hundreds of thousands of immigrants living in the U.S. from Haiti and Syria to return home, abruptly cancelling their legal status out of alleged racial animus and without proper consideration of risks to their safety and the nation’s economy.

The outcome in the pair of cases being argued before the court will directly affect the futures of roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and about 6,000 Syrians.

The Trump administration contends in court documents that the immigrants were never intended to be permanent residents and that cancellation of their temporary status is “critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States.”

Those immigrants were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under separate government declarations first issued more than a decade ago and later renewed multiple times, most recently by the Biden administration.

TPS status, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides work authorization and protection from deportation – as long as the Homeland Security Secretary certifies that a foreign country is unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake in 2010 and has since been hit by subsequent natural disasters, political unrest following a presidential assassination, and waves of rampant gang violence.

Syria devolved into civil war around 2011 and has been considered by the U.S. government a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades. A major earthquake in 2023 plunged the country into a deeper economic and humanitarian crisis.

“There is no functioning healthcare system for the disabled and elderly to return to, no reliable housing infrastructure, no legal framework that can guarantee anyone’s safety,” said Syrian TPS-holder and health care worker Adam, a pseudonym used to protect his identity.

Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in separate acts last year, moved to terminate TPS status for Haiti and Syria by certifying that, in her estimation, conditions on the ground in those countries were sufficiently safe for immigrants to return.

Those decisions were blocked by lower courts, which concluded that Noem did not follow proper procedures for cancelling TPS and may have also unlawfully discriminated against the immigrants on the basis of race.

The Supreme Court is now reviewing those findings.

“If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review at all,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy. “The statute requires, in our view, that there be consultation with the State Department.”

Immigrant advocates and some American business groups, particularly in the healthcare and senior caregiving sectors, say TPS holders play an indispensable role in the nation’s labor force and contribute billions of dollars in tax revenue to state and federal governments.

Immigrants make up 28% of the U.S. long-term care workforce – nearly double their share of the entire labor force, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

More than 113,000 Haitian TPS holders work in Florida alone, which is home to a high proportion of America’s seniors, according to the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

“The effects of [DHS’s] hasty TPS terminations are too serious to ignore,” a senior living community and ageing services provider jointly wrote the Court in an amicus brief. “The government has largely failed to address the impact that stripping thousands of caregivers of work authorization will have on elderly and medically vulnerable adults in U.S. communities.”

The Trump administration contends that courts have no authority to second-guess the DHS determinations on whether countries should qualify for TPS or not. They note that Congress, in creating the special status, put a time limit on it of 18-months, subject to extension.

“Congress, in short, prescribed substantive and procedural guardrails to keep TPS designations temporary,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote the Court in a brief, “but left further accountability to the political process, not federal courts.”

Sauer also disputed claims that the TPS cancellations rested on racial animus, calling it a “legal and factual nonstarter.”

The cases are the latest high court test of President Trump’s bold assertion of executive authority in his second term. The justices are already preparing to rule on his authority to redefine birthright citizenship, fire members of independent agencies, and remove a member of the Federal Reserve.

The Supreme Court last year handed the Trump administration a temporary win when it allowed them to terminate TPS for 350,000 Venezuelan nationals as litigation continues.

TPS status for Haitians and Syrians remains in place for now, but many immigrant advocates worry that if the Court allows the Trump administration to cancel the status, protections for immigrants of other countries may also end. The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end protections for at least 11 countries since President Trump took office.

The Court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.