Trump says Omar, Tlaib ‘look like they should be institutionalized’ after shouting during State of the Union address
Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar shout during U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address during a Joint Session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol, February 24, 2026, in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is bashing two of the Democrats who repeatedly interrupted his State of the Union speech by shouting at him, calling them “LUNATICS” who “look like they should be institutionalized” in a social media post on Wednesday.
During his Tuesday evening address, Trump attacked Democrats several times, with his comments on his immigration crackdown eliciting jeers from Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who repeatedly said the president was “killing Americans” — a reference to the fatal shootings of Minnesota residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement earlier this year.
Their fatal shootings were amid the administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” which sent federal agents to Minnesota as part of its immigration enforcement. Border czar Tom Homan announced earlier this month that the effort was ending.
“When you watch Low IQ Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, as they screamed uncontrollably last night at the very elegant State of the Union, such an important and beautiful event, they had the bulging, bloodshot eyes of crazy people, LUNATICS, mentally deranged and sick who, frankly, look like they should be institutionalized,” Trump said.
In his social media post, Trump also said “we should send them back from where they came — as fast as possible.”
Omar, who fled Somalia and came to the U.S. as a refugee when she was a child, has been living in the country since she was 12 years old and is a U.S. citizen. Tlaib was born and raised in Detroit; she is the daughter of Palestinian immigrant parents.
Trump’s social media post about Omar and Tlaib mark his first comments the day after his major address.
Omar has been the target of verbal attacks from Trump for years. Earlier this year, his attacks have come alongside escalated rhetoric describing the Somali community in Minnesota, the largest in the nation.
During Tuesday night’s speech, Democrats remained seated when Trump asked members of the chamber to stand if they supported the idea that the American government was “to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”
“You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Trump said at the seated Democrats.
“You have killed Americans,” Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, repeatedly shouted as Trump continued talking.
Tlaib, who was seated next to Omar, also shouted at the president throughout his speech. She even appeared to repeatedly mouth “K-K-K” as Republicans chanted “U-S-A, U-S-A.”
Omar told CNN Wednesday morning that she had no regrets for calling out the president during the speech, especially since Trump did not mention the fatal shootings of Good and Pretti.
“It was really unavoidable. The president talked about protecting Americans, and I just had to remind him that his administration was responsible for killing two of my constituents,” she said.
The speech was punctuated at times by other interjections, including from Tlaib, a Democrat of Michigan and outspoken critic of the president, who at one point in the speech called Trump “the most corrupt president.”
After the president said that Democrats “are crazy,” Tlaib, who was wearing a pin that said, “F*** ICE,” stood briefly, then sat down again before again shouting at Trump from her seat.
“How’s those Epstein files?” she shouted as the president spoke.
Neither Omar nor Tlaib were asked to leave the chamber, but they were among the many Democrats who left before Trump finished his speech, which lasted one hour and 48 minutes — making it the longest speech before a joint session of Congress in history.
House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked after the speech if Omar or Talib would see any consequences for their actions.
“We’ll find out,” Johnson responded.
ABC News’ Sarah Beth Hensley and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
The U.S. Capitol is seen on March 16, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Senators on both sides of the aisle as well as the White House seem to be increasingly optimistic that a deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security is on the horizon — as Transportation Security Administration lines grow at airports and lawmakers feel the pressure.
Republican Sen. Katie Britt, a key negotiator for the GOP, told reporters Monday evening that there was a solution on DHS funding. Her comments came after she and other GOP negotiators — Sens. Markwayne Mullin (who was later confirmed to be the DHS secretary), Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno and Steve Daines — met with President Donald Trump at the White House Monday.
The atmosphere on Capitol Hill appears ripe for a DHS funding deal — as the partial shutdown of the department stretches into its 39th day.
Some Senate Republicans are beginning to coalesce around a proposal to fund every agency inside DHS — except immigration enforcement and removal operations. Components of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, like Homeland Security Investigations, which handles things like human smuggling investigations, could still be funded.
Some Republicans have pushed for tackling immigration funding in separate legislation down the road — potentially in another reconciliation bill, which only requires a simple majority to pass.
“Conversations are ongoing but this deal seems to be acceptable,” a White House official said Tuesday.
As the partial shutdown drags on, ICE has money to continue its operations, following a $75 billion cash infusion over five years in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that Trump signed into law last summer. ICE agents continue to be paid, while their other DHS colleagues are not.
Democrats — who are blocking DHS funding and demanding ICE reforms following the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis — still haven’t publicly agreed to anything, although they’ve been open to this piecemeal funding approach for weeks.
Democratic senators on Monday expressed sentiments that talks were trending in a positive direction.
“Democrats and Republicans have been trying to come to some negotiation, and I’m hearing that there is a potential solution,” Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock said.
It’s not yet clear how an emerging deal factors in Trump’s demand over the weekend that Republican not make a deal with Democrats on DHS funding without also passing his voting and gender-affirming care legislation, the SAVE America Act.
The legislation would restrict mail-in ballots, require photo ID at polling places and mandate that states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election. Trump has tacked additional provisions onto the list of things he would like to see in the law: banning transgender women from playing in women’s sports and gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
SAVE America Act provisions could also be included in a future reconciliation bill, although nothing is set in stone, and the legislation may not meet strict budget rules to be included in a reconciliation package.
Pressure on lawmakers is mounting as lines grow at airports across the country and tens of thousands of workers, including TSA officers, go without pay. Senators continue to get paid.
ICE agents sent by Trump are now stationed at more than a dozen airports across the nation to assume some of the duties of TSA officers affected by the partial shutdown.
While these recent developments mark the most progress on a DHS funding deal in weeks, it’s still a long way from a done deal. Even if the Senate agrees on a deal and passes it, it would still need to go back to the House.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
In this June 3, 2025, file photo, Karine Jean-Pierre speaks at an event at 92NY in New York. (John Lamparski/Getty Images, FILE)
(WASHINGTON) — With a polarized political climate approaching the high-stakes 2026 midterm elections, more Americans are identifying as independents than ever before, according to a Gallup poll conducted throughout 2025.
A record-high 45% of Americans called themselves political independents in 2025. The figure is a record since Gallup started measuring in 1988 — with the previous high for independents at 43% in 2014, 2023 and 2024.
Gallup found that an equal share of Americans identified as Republicans and Democrats — 27% each.
These findings come as the midterm elections approach in November and several tight races are expected as Republicans in the House try to maintain their slim majority so they can work to push President Donald Trump’s agenda. Both Republicans and Democrats will have to appeal to independents to win any tight races nationwide.
Thomas Nickel, an 85-year-old who lives in California, told ABC News that he has been independent for several years after leaving the Democratic Party. Nickel left his former party because he said he believes Democrats have not pushed hard enough for issues that are “necessary” — specifically mentioning health care coverage. He said universal health coverage is a priority for him, which he said he believes neither party has focused on.
Trump, who has been a vocal critic of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, unveiled his new health care proposal earlier this month, which presents a proposal to shift government insurance subsidies directly to consumers through health savings accounts and take advantage of his “most favored nation” drug price initiative. However, Trump’s proposal has left experts unsure on how impactful these ideas could be.
When asked about his thoughts on the president’s recent health care proposal, Nickel called it “ridiculous,” and added that an average person won’t be able to afford to pay for their own insurance with money they would receive directly. When asked what he would like to see Democrats do, Nickel noted that the ACA is “a step in the right direction,” but that “there’s going to be 25% of people that can’t even afford the health care premiums for the Medicare assistance.”
A Louisiana resident who did not want to disclose his name told ABC News that he is an independent because of how “divisive” politics have become. He said he remains a registered Republican so that he can vote in Republican primaries. Some states hold closed primaries where only voters registered with a certain party can vote in that party’s primary; other states hold open primaries where voters of any affiliation can vote in the primary of any party.
“I think, in recent years, especially the last decade or so, things have gotten so divisive that it feels like the minority on both sides speak for the majority,” he said, adding that he believes both parties “had alienated their voter base by being so polarizing.” He cited the Trump administration’s push to acquire Greenland as “a game of Risk,” but didn’t give specifics on Democrats’ actions he found polarizing.
Zach Servis — a 27-year-old independent who lost his bid for mayor for Jackson, Mississippi, last year — also said that the political climate is “way too polarized and hateful.”
Servis said he left the Republican Party around 2020 during the height of COVID after recognizing what he described as “hypocrisy” of his former party. He pointed to Republicans not supporting social programs such as the ACA, but willingness to help other countries — something he said is not in line with Trump’s “America First” slogan.
Looking ahead to this year’s midterm elections, Servis said he believes that independent voters have enough “power to shift which side wins.”
“I think that independent politics have an opportunity to shape this midterm where some of these parties are going to have to shift a little bit in how they win these voters — and if they’re not willing to come a little more to the middle or reach across the aisle, they’re going to risk people crossing the aisle entirely and voting even for a party they don’t believe in because at least that person’s willing to listen,” Servis said.
Generational shifts in political affiliations
The increase in the share of independents is partly attributable to a larger percentage of younger generations of Americans remaining independent as they age — compared to older generations who are less likely to remain unaffiliated, according to Gallup.
Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2007, has the highest percentage of independents, with 56% identifying as independent, Gallup found.
Gen Z is also less likely to identify as Republican compared to older generations, with 17% identifying as Republican compared to 37% of the Silent Generation (born before 1946).
Gallup found 27% of Gen Z identifying as Democrats compared to 32% of the Silent Generation.
Karine Jean-Pierre, who became an independent after serving in the Biden administration as White House press secretary, told ABC News that she believes the growing percentage of independents is not “temporary” and will continue to reshape the electorate in this 2026 election year.
“I do think there’s power amongst independents. The thing that is changing the electorate is changing in the sense of that you’re seeing more and more independents,” Jean-Pierre told ABC News.
Jean-Pierre also noted that younger generations may be reluctant to join a political party as a way to “express moral concern” over U.S. involvement in global issues.
She also noted that young independents deserve a seat at the table as the midterms approach.
“I don’t think independents, especially young independents, are disengaged,” Jean-Pierre said. “I think what they’re doing is they’re growing numbers — put pressure on both political parties to earn support with real policy results, rather than just assuming loyalty based on branding or identity.”
The Gallup poll was conducted throughout 2025 among 13,454 U.S. adults nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 1 percentage point.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Smith, who led investigations into Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election and alleged mishandling of classified documents, is testifying publicly for first time about his probes.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said.
“No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity section. You acted based solely on the facts — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Trump’s Thursday appearance marks Smith’s second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors last month. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
