Trump will rename Gulf of Mexico to ‘Gulf of America’ among 1st executive orders
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Among the first executive orders set to be signed by President Donald Trump will be an order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the newly named “Gulf of America.”
“A short time from now, we are going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America,” he said during his inaugural address at the Capitol Rotunda on Monday.
During his January press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump declared he would change the name, saying the gulf is currently run by cartels and that “it’s ours.”
“We’re going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which has a beautiful ring that covers a lot of territory, the Gulf of America,” Trump said. “What a beautiful name. And it’s appropriate. It’s appropriate. And Mexico has to stop allowing millions of people to pour into our country.”
Presidents do have the authority to rename geographic regions and features, but it needs to be done via executive order.
The U.S. Board of Geographic Names typically has the jurisdiction for geographic names.
The Gulf of Mexico is one of the largest and most important bodies of water in North America. It’s the ninth-largest body of water in the world and covers some 600,000 square miles.
Half of the U.S. petroleum refining and natural gas processing capacity is located along the Gulf of Mexico, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and it supplies about 40% of the nation’s seafood, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Who killed JonBenét Ramsey? The all-new ABC News interview with JonBenét’s father, John Ramsey, airs during 20/20 – premiering Friday, Nov. 13th on ABC Network.
(NEW YORK) — Advancements in DNA technology and a surge of public interest are rekindling hope for breakthroughs in the long-unsolved murder of 6-year-old JonBenét Ramsey, a case that has remained a haunting mystery for nearly 28 years.
As new techniques emerge and fresh attention is drawn to the evidence, many are eager for answers that could finally bring closure to this tragic story.
JonBenét, who was found dead in the basement of her Boulder, Colorado, home in 1996, remains frozen in time. Her father, John Ramsey, has endured nearly three decades without justice, answers or his daughter.
“JonBenét’s still my 6-year-old blond-headed daughter who I love dearly,” Ramsey told ABC News. “I did run into one of her little friends on the street who is now, you know, 30 and an adult. And it was, it was a little bit of a shock. This little girl played with JonBenét at our house all the time. And that was a little bit of a jolt to think, wow, that could have been JonBenét.”
Ramsey, now 81 years old, has renewed hope that his daughter’s killer can finally be found. He is confident that advances in DNA technology, including genetic genealogy that has helped to solve several high-profile cold case, are the key to solving this mystery.
“Let’s do a reverse family tree and see if he had a relative living in Boulder in 1996. The interesting thing about these cold cases,” Ramsey said. “The ultimate first arrest came out of nowhere. They were on no one’s radar. They’ve done this horrible crime and nobody said that that guy’s a suspect. That’s what we’re asking the police to do.”
Over the years, Ramsey expressed frustration with the police for not solving his daughter’s case. He was unhappy with being a prime suspect for 12 years and that the department rejected offers of help to find viable evidence. He recently took part in a new Netflix docuseries, “Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenét Ramsey?” The series dives into lingering mysteries surrounding the tragic case, exploring evidence, interviews and theories that have emerged over the years.
Ramsey collaborated with director Joe Berlinger, who aimed to illuminate what he described as one of the most victimized families in American history.
“Obviously, he wasn’t legally wrongfully convicted, but he was wrongfully convicted,” Berlinger said. “And his wife Patsy — the family were wrongfully convicted in the court of public opinion.”
The popular docuseries ignited a new wave of interest among viewers.
Ramsey is hopeful that recent changes in the Boulder Police Department’s leadership and better communication with his family may lead to a resolution in the case.
The Boulder police department has addressed the recent scrutiny. Last month, the current police chief released a video statement.
“So much of how law enforcement works has changed in the last 30 years,” Stephen Redfearn said. “There are a number of things that people have pointed to throughout the years that could have been done better and we acknowledge that as true. However, it is important to emphasize that while we cannot go back to that horrible day in 1996, our goal is to find JonBenét Ramsey’s killer.”
That tragic day in 1996 began in the picturesque Boulder neighborhood where the Ramsey family lived. On Dec. 26, John and Patsy Ramsey woke up to find that JonBenét, a child beauty queen, was missing.
A handwritten ransom note demanding $118,000 — the exact sum of John’s bonus that year — was discovered on the kitchen stairs. Seven hours later, John found his daughter’s lifeless body in a small basement room.
An autopsy determined JonBenét was sexually assaulted and strangled, and her skull was fractured. Unknown DNA was found under her fingernails and in her underwear.
The Ramseys quickly became suspects, even though no evidence connected them to the crime.
The family has always denied any involvement in JonBenét’s murder. However, the Boulder District Attorney’s Office took 12 years to fully exonerate the Ramseys and their son Burke, who was 9 years old when his sister died.
As weeks went by without any arrests in the case, a media frenzy began to build, fueled by relentless tabloid images of JonBenét participating in beauty pageants.
A number of leads emerged, including a man named John Mark Karr, who confessed to the killing in 2006. However, his DNA did not match the evidence and he was not in Boulder at the time of the murder, so he was eliminated as a suspect. The case remained unsolved.
John Ramsey believes that a cloud still hangs over his family, as he thinks there are people in the country who think he and his late wife, Patsy, who died in 2006, are responsible for JonBenét’s murder.
Investigator Lou Smit, who was initially brought into the case by Boulder County District Attorney Alex Hunter, came to believe early in his investigation that the Ramseys were innocent. He thought that the police should be looking at the possibility of an intruder.“I’m not saying parents don’t kill their kids … parents do kill their children,” Smit said in his tapes. “But [the police] are trying to say Patsy did it. … Their actions before, during and after [JonBenét’s death] are all consistent with innocent people. … They didn’t do it.”
As the investigation progressed Smit became increasingly concerned that authorities had completely ruled out the chance of an intruder being responsible for JonBenét’s death. As a result, they weren’t searching for evidence that might support this possibility.Smit continued to maintain that an unidentified intruder was responsible for JonBenét’s murder. However, he was running out of time due to his colon cancer diagnosis in 2010.
Before Smit died on Aug. 11 of that year, he diligently compiled a detailed list of persons of interest, hoping that his years of investigative work would eventually pay off. Smit passed his files to his surviving children, including a spreadsheet with 887 names of potential suspects to be investigated.That list is extensive, but Smit’s family is determined to continue their search. Since his death, the team has cleared several individuals from that list, according to Smit’s granddaughter Jessa Van Der Woerd. However, the process is slow due to the time and costs involved in locating each person, obtaining their DNA and testing it.
“We’ve let the killer walk for more than 28 years,” John Ramsey said. “I think it’s imperative that we investigate every credible suspect that’s been provided.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has a massive personal stake in the upcoming election, which could either send him back to the White House — or to a courtroom for what could be years of legal proceedings under the looming threat of incarceration.
No other presidential candidate in history has faced the possibility of such drastically different outcomes, in which Trump’s legacy, personal fortune, and individual liberty could be decided by a few thousand swing state voters.
If he returns to the White House, Trump has vowed to fire Jack Smith, the special counsel who has brought two federal cases against him, “within two seconds”; he has said he would punish the prosecutors and judges overseeing his cases; and he will likely avoid serious consequences for any of the criminal charges he continues to face.
“If he wins, say goodbye to all the criminal cases,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who previously served as the chief of the Manhattan district attorney’s trial division.
“The criminal cases are over, whether it’s legally or practically,” added Friedman Agnifilo, who said a Trump victory would be a “get out of jail free card” for the former president.
If he loses the election, Trump faces years of court proceedings, hundreds of millions in civil penalties, and the possibility of jail time, beginning with the sentencing for his New York criminal case on Nov. 26.
Here is what could happen in each of Trump’s criminal cases.
New York hush money case
Trump’s most pressing legal issue following the election is his Nov. 26 sentencing on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Defense lawyers were able to successfully delay the sentencing twice — first by asking to have the case dismissed based on presidential immunity and the second time by highlighting the political stakes of a pre-election sentencing. Describing Trump’s case as one that “stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation’s history,” New York Judge Juan Merchan opted to delay the sentencing until November to ensure the jury’s verdict would “be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election.”
While first-time offenders convicted of falsifying business records normally avoid incarceration, legal experts told ABC News that the unique factors of Trump’s case — including him being held in criminal contempt ten times and the finding that he falsified business records to influence an election — could push Judge Merchan to impose some prison time. When ABC News surveyed 14 legal experts about Trump’s sentence in June, five believed an incarceratory sentence was likely, two described the decision as a toss-up, and seven believed a prison sentence was unlikely.
The sentencing could still proceed in November if Trump wins the election, though the new circumstances could influence Judge Merchan’s decision, according to Boston College law professor Jeffrey Cohen. Merchan could opt to impose a lighter sentence — such as a day of probation — or opt to delay the sentence until Trump leaves office.
“A sitting president wouldn’t be forced to be incarcerated while they’re serving their presidency, and so he could theoretically serve it once he’s out of office,” said Cohen, who noted that a delayed sentence could incentivize Trump to remain in office as long as possible.
“If he wins, I think realistically speaking, not there will be no meaningful sentence because of it,” said Friedman Agnifilo.
Trump’s lawyers could also attempt to delay the sentencing in light of the outcome of the election, and the former president still has multiple outstanding legal efforts to delay the case. On Nov. 12, Judge Merchan plans to issue a ruling on Trump’s motion to throw out the case because of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting him immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken as president — and if Merchan denies that motion, Trump could attempt to immediately appeal it to try to delay the sentencing further.
Trump has also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to move the state case into federal court, which his lawyers could use to prompt a delay of the sentencing. Unlike his federal cases — for which Trump could theoretically pardon himself — the state case will likely remain outside the reach of a presidential pardon, even if Trump successfully removes the case to federal court, according to Cohen.
Federal election interference case
In the shadow of the presidential race, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has been considering how Trump’s federal election subversion case should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which delayed the case for nearly a year. Fifteen months after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Judge Chutkan has set a schedule for the case that stretches beyond the election, with deadlines for key filings set for as late Dec. 19.
Trump has vowed to fire Smith if he’s reelected, but that might not be necessary since long-standing DOJ policy bars the prosecution of a sitting president — meaning the federal cases against Trump may be stopped immediately should Trump take office.
While Smith could attempt to continue his prosecution in the two months between the election and the inauguration, there’s little he could do to revive the case, according to Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman.
“They can continue to do what they’re doing, but it’s not going to really matter if, at the end of the day, Trump is able to appoint an attorney general who will then make a motion to dismiss the charges,” Gershman said.
While his federal case will inevitably go away if Trump wins, the exact way it happens is uncertain. Smith could attempt to issue a final report about his findings, Trump could face a standoff with Congress or the acting attorney general about firing Smith, or Judge Chutkan could push back against the Justice Department’s eventual move to dismiss the charges.
If Trump loses the election, Judge Chutkan is expected to continue to assess whether any of the allegations in the case are protected by presidential immunity. Her final decision will likely be appealed and could return to the Supreme Court, likely delaying a trial for at least another year, according to experts.
Federal classified documents case
After U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Trump’s criminal case for retaining classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them, Smith asked an appeals court to reinstate the case, arguing that Cannon’s decision about the appointment and funding of special counsels could “jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch.”
If Trump wins the election, prosecutors will likely have no choice but to withdraw their appeal, according to Friedman Agnifilo, cementing Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the case.
If Trump loses the election, the case faces a long road before reaching a trial. Prosecutors need to successfully convince the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Cannon’s dismissal, and Trump’s team has already raised a defense based on presidential immunity, which could become the basis for a future appeal.
Faced with a series of adverse rulings, Smith would also face a key decision about whether to ask for Judge Cannon to be recused from the case, according to Cohen.
“I’m not sure what their reasons are now, except ‘We don’t really like what she’s decided,'” said Cohen, who was skeptical about the government’s grounds for recusal based on the trial record alone.
In a separate case overseen by Judge Cannon, defense lawyers for Ryan Routh — the man accused of trying to assassinate Trump at his Florida golf course in September — moved to have Cannon recused, in part citing ABC News’ reporting that a personnel roster circulating through Trump’s transition operation included Cannon’s name among potential candidates for attorney general should Trump be reelected. Cannon on Tuesday rejected that motion, describing the argument about a potential appointment as “‘rumors’ and ‘innuendos.'”
“We had a brave, brilliant judge in Florida. She’s a brilliant judge, by the way. I don’t know her. I never spoke to her. Never spoke to her. But we had a brave and very brilliant judge,” Trump said about Cannon last week.
Fulton County election interference case
Trump’s criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, related to his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election in that state, has been stalled since June while an appeals court considers the former president’s challenge to Judge Scott McAfee’s decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis for what McAfee called a “significant appearance of impropriety” stemming from a romantic relationship between Willis and a prosecutor on her staff. A Georgia appeals court scheduled oral arguments about whether Willis can continue her case on Dec. 6.
When asked about the future of the case if Trump wins the election, Trump defense attorney Steve Sadow told Judge McAfee last December that a trial would likely have to wait until after Trump completes his term in office.
Since August 2023, when Trump was charged in Fulton County with 13 criminal counts, Judge McAfee has chipped away at the indictment by tossing five of the counts with which Trump was originally charged.
If he loses the election, Trump could attempt to stall the case by continuing to push to have Willis disqualified or by mounting a presidential immunity defense.
“The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a January motion.
(NEW YORK) — The jury has begun deliberating in the subway chokehold death trial of Daniel Penny.
The jury — comprised of seven women and five men — is considering whether to convict Penny of manslaughter and negligent homicide in the death of Jordan Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, on a New York City subway train.
To convict, prosecutors have told the jury that Penny’s use of lethal force must be considered unjustifiable and that Penny acted recklessly and consciously disregarded the substantial risk of putting Neely in the chokehold for so long. Defense attorneys told the jury that Penny was only trying to protect subway passengers.
Defense attorneys also said that Penny never intended to kill Neely, while prosecutors said they do not have to prove Penny intended to kill Neely to have the jury hand down a guilty verdict.
