Trump stops short of saying Iran violated ceasefire: ‘not heavy firing’
US President Donald Trump during an executive order signing ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, April 30, 2026. Trump signed an executive order aimed at expanding access to retirement plans for workers whose employers don’t offer that benefit, seeking to refocus the administration’s messaging on economic issues. (Photographer: Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — With Iranian forces attacking commercial vessels near the Strait of Hormuz and oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, President Donald Trump on Monday stopped short of saying the U.S.-Iran ceasefire has been violated.
“[It was] not heavy firing,” Trump said in a phone call with ABC News when asked if the ceasefire had been violated. “We’ll let you know. Ships are moving. You know, we moved quite a few last night — big ones. There was no firing. I guess there has been some recently. I’m looking into it.”
Over the past several hours, Iran fired on a South Korean ship near the Strait of Hormuz, and fired missiles and drones on the UAE. Plus, according to CENTCOM, U.S. forces fired on six Iranian fast boats and intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones.
Trump told ABC that “Iran “better hope [the ceasefire] remains in effect. The best thing that can happen to them is that we keep it in effect.”
And what happens if the ceasefire is broken?
“I’ll let you know, like I’ll let everyone else know,” the president said. “We just heard about this, and we’ll find out about it. What should happen is South Korea should get involved. It was a South Korean ship that got hit. And I would think, if you have a ship that’s hit, you should immediately send some people.”
“Right now, we we’re being very nice. We’re taking care of the world,” Trump added.
On the Iran’s firing of missiles and drones at the UAE, Trump said “they were shot down for the most part.”
“One got through. Not huge damage,” he said.
So we shouldn’t overreact?
“Overreacting is very bad for them,” Trump said. “Not for me.”
And what does this all mean about the prospects for ending the war?
“We have it under control,” Trump said. “One way or the other, we win. And you know why, Jon? I always win. You found that out a long time ago.”
Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-KY) (R) speaks during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in the U.S. Capitol Building on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The House Oversight Committee is set to depose Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accountant on Wednesday, potentially shedding light on how the disgraced financier was able to manage his multimillion-dollar fortune.
Richard Kahn served as Epstein’s accountant for over a decade, and some of Epstein’s victims allege he played an instrumental role in creating the “complex financial infrastructure” that enabled the financier’s crimes.
Kahn has consistently denied any wrongdoing and says he was unaware of Epstein’s crimes while serving as his accountant. The closed-door deposition — a recording of which is expected to be released by the committee — could provide a rare window into how Epstein paid for his lavish lifestyle and funneled thousands of dollars to his victims.
While some of the recent witnesses deposed by the House Oversight Committee — including Bill and Hillary Clinton and retail billionaire Leslie Wexner — have drawn immense publicity, the interviews have largely left unchanged the public’s understanding of Epstein’s life and crimes.
By turning to Epstein’s former inner circle with Kahn and his longtime lawyer Darren Indyke — who is set to be deposed next week — the congressional investigation could offer a broader window into Epstein’s life, legal troubles and the complex web of bank accounts and shell companies that comprised his fortune.
Kahn began working as Epstein’s in-house accountant in the mid-2000s and worked for Epstein until his death in 2019. Kahn and Indyke served as the co-executors of his will, and Epstein planned to give Kahn $25 million, according to documents released by the Department of Justice earlier this year.
Following Epstein’s death, his estate was valued as much as $650 million, though the fortune has decreased over the last decade as the estate has paid out multiple settlements to Epstein’s victims.
Last month, Kahn and Indyke agreed to settle one of the last class-action lawsuits filed by victims of Epstein for at least $25 million without an admission of wrongdoing. The estate was last valued at approximately $127 million, according to a court filing last October.
The class action complaint alleged that both men were “personally essential” for Epstein by helping structure his back accounts, managing cash withdrawals, and creating a complex financial infrastructure “created to simply facilitate the illegal sex-trafficking venture.” The lawsuit also alleged that the men helped Epstein facilitate at least three “sham marriages” to obtain immigration status for Epstein’s victims.
“Knowing that they would earn millions of dollars in exchange for facilitating Epstein’s sex abuse and trafficking, Indyke and Kahn chose money and power over following the law,” the complaint said.
The settlement did not include an admission of wrongdoing and still needs to be approved by a federal judge. While both men were named as defendants in the case, the settlement will also be paid through Epstein’s trust, rather than by them directly.
“Neither of the co-executors has made any admission or concession of misconduct,” said Dan Weiner, an attorney for both men said in a statement to ABC News last month. “That is not surprising — not a single woman has ever accused either man of committing sexual abuse or witnessing sexual abuse, nor claimed at any time that she reported to them any allegation of Mr. Epstein’s abuse.”
Lawmakers last year began increasing their scrutiny of both Kahn and Indyke following a report in the Wall Street Journal that both men were never questioned by law enforcement investigating Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
“In light of the work Indyke and Kahn performed for Epstein and the outsize role they played in his personal and financial affairs; it is inexcusable that the DOJ and the FBI never questioned these individuals in connection with investigations into Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,” a group of five Democratic Senators wrote in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel last year. “A failure of this magnitude cannot be attributed to simple oversight or misunderstanding, and it is incumbent on Congress to understand why such a failure occurred.”
Documents released earlier this year offered some new details about Kahn’s role, managing expenses for Epstein and serving in roles in some of the companies that comprised the complex web of Epstein’s finances. According to a 2020 lawsuit against the Epstein estate filed by the U.S. Virgin Islands government, Epstein paid Kahn more than $10 million dollars between 2011 and 2019 for his services.
Ahead of the deposition, Daniel Ruzumna, an attorney for Kahn, declined to comment.
John Roberts, chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, during the formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, April 23, 2021. Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation by the Senate last year was a touchstone accomplishment for Donald Trump and congressional Republicans that solidified a 6-3 conservative majority on the court just eight days before the U.S. held its presidential election. (Photographer: Erin Schaff/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In a rare public appearance, Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday addressed criticism of the Supreme Court, the federal judiciary and individual judges, saying “personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”
He did not address any specific criticism or controversy, though the comments come at a time of heightened scrutiny of the court’s recent landmark decisions on presidential power.
“It does come with the territory,” Roberts said of criticism. “It can very much be healthy. We don’t believe that we’re flawless in any way. It is important that — important that our decisions are subjected to scrutiny, and they are. The problem sometimes is that the criticism can move from a focus on legal analysis to personalities.”
Violent threats against individual judges and justices have spiked, according to law enforcement officials. Four years ago, a man was arrested outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh with the intention of assassinating him. He was later convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison.
Roberts was careful to say that no “one political perspective” is responsible for the threats, but that as they become more “personal” they “can be actually quite dangerous.”
“Judges around the country work very hard to get it right,” he said, “and if they don’t, their opinions are subject to criticism. But personally directed hostility is dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”
The remarks came on the heels of a fresh wave of criticism of the Supreme Court from President Donald Trump, who has accused Roberts and several of his peers — some of whom Trump appointed to the court — of being “disloyal” and “unpatriotic” after they ruled against his sweeping global tariffs program. Trump alleged on Monday that the court is a “weaponized and unjust political organization” that is “hurting our country.”
Trump has also singled out U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for intense criticism after Boasberg on Friday blocked the Justice Department’s subpoenas of Fed Chair Jerome Powell as part of a criminal investigation into his handling of a multibillion-dollar renovation of the Federal Reserve Building.
Last year, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment after the judge temporarily blocked the administration’s fast-tracked deportations to Venezuela. The comments prompted a rare public response at the time from Roberts, who said in a statement that impeachment was not an appropriate recourse for a losing party in a case.
Overall, Trump has had a favorable track record at the high court during the first year of his second term, winning nearly every emergency request of permission to move forward with controversial policies being litigated in lower courts. He has also benefitted from a 2025 landmark ruling that limited the ability of judges to issue nationwide injunctions and a sweeping 2024 decision granting presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.
“I actually try not to read outside criticism too much,” Roberts told Rosenthal. “And it’s, you know, just because you’re on to something else, and you don’t want to worry too much about — you’ve done your best and that’s all you can do.”
The U.S. Capitol is seen on March 16, 2026, in Washington, DC. The U.S. House of Representatives postponed its votes for the day due to the chance of severe thunderstorms around the DC area. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats once again on Friday blocked a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security on Friday as they continue to insist on reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection in exchange for funding the agency.
It marks the fifth time since the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security — which began in mid-February — that the funding bill has failed to be advanced in the Senate.
The bill that Republicans put forward on Friday to fund all of DHS would have needed 60 votes to advance. It fell short by a vote of 47-37.
Parts of DHS — from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Transportation Security Administration — are shut down amid a funding fight over ICE.
Democrats have said they will fund the department only if changes are made to the agency in the wake of the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis earlier this year.
Democrats said that they will continue to block funding until their demands on body cameras, judicial warrants and unmasking officers are met.
“Democrats have been very clear what we are asking for here since late January, and our asks have not changed,” Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a speech on the Senate floor Friday.
There are signs of potential progress though as Border Czar Tom Homan met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday to discuss DHS funding, and Majority Leader John Thune told ABC News that there will be another meeting between lawmakers and Homan later Friday.
These meetings follow repeated demands by Democrats for the White House to engage in the negotiations over ICE reform.
Thune said that Friday’s meeting with Homan would be critical in determining whether there could be movement on funding.
“We’re going to find out if Dems are serious. There were a couple of areas yesterday that they had identified, in additions to some of the, you know, reforms the administration had recommended that to me could find a path forward,” Thune said. “The question is, are Dems serious? Or do they see this as a political issue and something that benefits them.”
Murray, who was part of the negotiations with Homan Thursday, said that the conversations were “productive,” but that the “basic challenges remain.” She said that Democrats remain “very far apart” from Republicans and the White House on a path forward.
With long airport security lines plaguing travelers across the country, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are feeling the heat to hammer out a deal.
“This needs to be resolved,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner said. “I mean, there are genuine disputes about ICE reforms. I think no one wants to see a return of what we saw in Minneapolis. But that doesn’t mean we should be holding the rest of these federal employees hostage again.”
As negotiations continue there have been efforts by Democrats to fund other agencies in DHS other than ICE — like the Coast Guard, TSA, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. But Republicans have blocked those efforts, saying that Democrats need to negotiate a full funding package rather than taking a piecemeal approach.
“Democrats have tried again and again to get paychecks to TSA and CISA and the Coast Guard and FEMA — agencies that are doing really important work right now,” Murray said. “The only reason these workers are going without pay right now is because Republicans are holding their funding hostage so they can try to give ICE even more money without including any necessary reforms.”
While there is some FY2026 funding for ICE, the agency received a $75 billion infusion of funding over the next decade through the already-passed “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Democrats are expected to continue efforts to fund these agencies, including TSA, while negotiations proceed. But right now, it does not seem that Republicans are open to this approach.
