Motor Tanker Veronica is seized in the Caribbean by U.S. Coast Guard tactical team, Jan. 15, 2026. U.S. Southern Command
(WASHINGTON) — The United States seized another tanker in the Caribbean Thursday morning, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced — saying in a social media post that the vessel was “operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the seizure in an X post along with video of the operation, which she said happened without incident.
“Early this morning, a Coast Guard tactical team conducted a pre-dawn boarding and seizure of Motor Tanker Veronica in the Caribbean,” she said.
“As another sanctioned ghost fleet tanker, Motor Tanker Veronica had previously passed through Venezuelan waters, and was operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean,” she added.
The U.S. Southern Command said the Marines and sailors from Joint Task Force Southern Spear launched from USS Gerald R. Ford and “apprehended Motor/Tanker Veronica without incident.”
This is the sixth tanker linked to Venezuela boarded by U.S. troops in the last several weeks, following growing escalations between the U.S. and Venezuela.
The tanker’s seizure comes less than two weeks after U.S. military forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are facing federal charges including narcoterrorism conspiracy and conspiracy to import cocaine. Both Maduro and his wife have entered not guilty pleas.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow President Trump to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, a decision which would reverse a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
A majority of the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments in the case Tuesday that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”
Immigrant advocates insist the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who “arrives in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum, includes those who have “reached the threshold” of America.
“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” argued Kelsi Corkran, an attorney supporting asylum seekers.
From the start of his second term, Trump has effectively blocked the entry of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking to apply for refuge from credible fears of violence and persecution.
“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” argued Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri. “It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”
The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.
“How close do you have to be to the border?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that regardless of where the line is drawn, the law stipulates that the government can prevent people from filing an asylum claim if it wants to. “The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is. Right?” he asked.
The court’s three liberal justices were critical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.
“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” posited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He approaches the border but does not cross, precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the U.S. without authority. Why on earth would Congress have intended or meant for his asylum request to be discarded, not taken seriously, not entertained, but someone who manages to enter the U.S. unlawfully…and requests asylum gets their application entertained? “
“That doesn’t seem to me to make any sense,” Jackson added.
At the heart of the case is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding. Border officials contend it was a temporary policy, imposed only when conditions required.
While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary. Trump has invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.
“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” Crow said.
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S. southern border during Trump’s first term were forced to remain in Mexico for weeks or months in sometimes harrowing conditions in hopes they might have a chance to be interviewed about their fears of persecution.
Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”
One of those lives was Benito, a Mexican asylum seeker who declined to give his last name to protect his identity and spoke through a translator at an event hosted by Al Otro Lado.
“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I’m still healing from that,” he said of the violence he was trying to escape. “I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed.
“I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head,” he said, “but they said to me that they couldn’t help me, couldn’t accept me.”
The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration’s bid to resurrect the “metering” and “turn back” policy by the end of June.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts and ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, during a hearing in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2026. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., is petitioning the Department of Education to stop its transfer of federal student aid services to the Department of Treasury in her latest effort to halt the dismantling of the agency.
Thursday marks the one year anniversary of Warren’s “Save Our Schools” campaign — her wide-scale investigation against President Donald Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s attempts to shutter the Education Department.
“Since Day One, the Trump administration has raised costs for borrowers and tried to undermine our public schools,” Warren said in a statement first obtained by ABC News. “I’ve fought back every step of the way, and I’ll keep fighting to protect our students, teachers, and families,” she said.
Warren told ABC News last year that her campaign would use a combination of federal investigations and oversight to do everything she can to fight back and defend public education.
Warren’s campaign has since triggered the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to probe the department dismantling, an agency watchdog investigation into the Department of Government Efficiency’s alleged “infiltration” of the Office of Federal Student Aid’s sensitive data systems, and other legal actions opposing the Trump administration’s overhaul of the agency.
Warren and top Democratic senators on education-related committees sent a letter to McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday, urging the officials to immediately “rescind” the interagency partnership reached in March.
“The Trump Administration continues to move forward with illegal Interagency Agreements (IAAs) dismantling the Education Department (ED),” the lawmakers wrote in the letter, arguing “This latest illegal scheme from the Trump Administration threatens to trap student loan borrowers, students, and families in chaos and bureaucracy, all while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill for Treasury to administer programs that ED can and should administer itself, likely costing more money and burying borrowers and families in unnecessary red tape.”
The most recent agreement includes sending the nearly $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio to Treasury through a multi-phase process to procure the financial aid programs.
“With the student loan portfolio approaching $1.7 trillion and defaults nearing 25 percent, now is the time for a hard reset in how the federal government provides and services student loans,” Department of Education Press Secretary for Higher Education Ellen Keast wrote in a statement to ABC News. “We are confident that our partnership with the Treasury, an experienced and proven fiduciary, will strengthen program administration and better serve American students, borrowers, and taxpayers,” Keast wrote.
The Democratic lawmakers accuse the agencies of breaking the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, which funds the administration of federal student aid and student loan servicing through the Department of Education. They argue that the myriad changes to federal agencies — including the massive reductions in workforce at Education and Treasury — will also result in harming millions of Americans who rely on the expertise of federal student aid civil servants. In 2025, the Trump administration cut over 40% of Education Department employees and nearly a quarter of Treasury staffers, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Their letter said moving statutory student aid programs, such as the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and Pell Grants, is not only illegal but likely to throw the financial aid system into disarray.
McMahon has previously stressed that she is not defunding federal programs and will continue to perform all of the agency’s “statutory duties.” A senior Department of Education official said the agency has broad authority to move the services. Interagency agreements are a frequently used tool that Education has engaged in with other partner agencies more than 200 times over the years, the senior department official said on a call with reporters.
Meanwhile, the Education Department has phased out Biden-era student loan repayment plans, saying it is to streamline the process impacting more than 40 million borrowers. Under the Working Families Tax Cuts Act signed into law by Trump last summer, a new income-driven repayment plan will be made available for borrowers on July 1. The Democratic lawmakers fear that student loan borrowers are now left with limited options and guidance while increasing the number of borrowers in default and “economic distress,” according to the letter.
However, Andrew Gillen of the libertarian think tank Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom noted the move should be welcome news for Americans.
“This will benefit students by streamlining the aid application and student loan repayment processes and save taxpayers money by reducing losses on student loans,” Gillen wrote in a statement to ABC News.
Student loan advocates, like Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director at Protect Borrowers, decried the interagency agreement. Bañez called the announcement irresponsible and reckless, demanding Congress guarantee that the Treasury Department is equipped with the appropriate staff to support borrowers.
“For too long, borrowers have been failed at every turn — they don’t deserve to be failed again by an agency that isn’t ready to protect them,” she wrote in a statement to ABC News.
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on April 5, 2026. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Mike Turner defended the U.S. war with Iran on Sunday and said that he doesn’t believe an American ground force would be required to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
“I don’t think U.S. ground troops are going to be necessary in any direct conflict,” Turner told ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos after being pressed on whether troops on the ground would be needed to reopen the strait.
“The straits are going to be open,” Turner told Stephanopoulos, but said that the U.S. cannot allow Iran to continue developing missile technology or nuclear weapons that could threaten the American homeland and Europe.
“You have to be able to address this … great sponsor of terrorism, this … global power ambition that Iran has,” he said.
Turner’s comments come as President Donald Trump has repeatedly indicated that the Strait of Hormuz is not the U.S.’s problem.
“The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won’t be taking any in the future. We don’t need it. We haven’t needed it and we don’t need it,” Trump said Wednesday in a prime-time address to the nation, adding that it was the responsibility of other countries to secure the strait.
“We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on,” he said.
Turner said that despite the impact of the war on global oil markets, the consequences of inaction from the U.S. against Iran would have been greater.
“Certainly, you know, Iran is going to have some things that they’re going to be able to do during the conflict,” Turner said. “But if you don’t undertake the conflict, if you just step back and watch, as the Obama administration was going to do while Iran became a nuclear power and they became North Korea, we wouldn’t be looking at the Strait of Hormuz,” he added, claiming that if Iran had developed nuclear weapons the world would be “held hostage by a terrorist state.”
“They still are being significantly diminished,” Turner said, “and their ability to be able to be marching toward a nuclear state is being eliminated.”
