What to know about US ground troops headed to the Middle East
U.S. Army paratroopers, assigned to 82nd Airborne Division, execute Joint Force Entries as part of a multinational exercise at Luna and Cincu, Romania, May 13-15, 2024. (US Army)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon is preparing to surge as many as 5,000 troops to the Middle East — with some forces already in transit, according to two U.S. officials.
It’s a mix of Army paratroopers and Marines.
Among them are some 1,500 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division, the Army’s premier ground combat unit based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
There are also two Marine units likely headed to the region, according to the two U.S. officials.
The Airborne unit is designed to deploy on short notice and seize contested terrain by parachuting out of airplanes behind enemy lines.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean they would jump out of planes for a mission. The last time the 82nd Airborne parachuted into combat was the invasion of Panama in 1989. Before that, they did four jumps in World War II.
It’s unclear where the troops will land or when they will arrive. It’s likely they would flow into established U.S. hubs such as Jordan or Kuwait.
Additionally, Marine forces are already moving into position, the officials said. The 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, a 2,200-strong crisis response force, is slated to reach the Middle East this week after a transit by sea from Japan, according to the two officials.
Another Marine unit, the 11th MEU — also a 2,200-strong force — has begun sailing from California toward Japan and could ultimately be redirected to the Middle East as part of the buildup, the officials said. But any contribution from that force would take weeks to materialize because of time taken to get to that part of the world by ship.
The Marines and paratroopers are apart of “light infantry” units, meaning they are not arriving with any notable arsenal of heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.
Ghislaine Maxwell October 18, 2016 in New York City. (Photo by Jimi Celeste/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)
Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, invoked the Fifth Amendment during the closed-door virtual deposition before the House Oversight Committee on Monday, according to Chairman James Comer.
It was expected that Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison in Texas, would refuse to answer questions from lawmakers and committee staffers as part of the panel’s investigation into the late financier and his ties to some of the world’s most powerful figures in politics, business and entertainment. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died by suicide in 2019 while at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
Maxwell has a petition pending in federal court in New York which seeks to overturn her conviction or reduce her sentence.
Some committee lawmakers were expected to attend the closed deposition.
The deposition was more than six months in the making, and was first requested last July, when Comer formally issued a subpoena for a deposition with Maxwell to occur at Federal Correctional Institution Tallahassee on Aug. 11.
Comer agreed to delay the deposition as Maxwell awaited a Supreme Court ruling on her appeal, which she ultimately lost.
During that interview, Maxwell told Blanche that she never witnessed nor heard of any criminal or inappropriate activity by President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, nor any of the well-known men who associated with Epstein, according to the sources.
The closed deposition with Maxwell comes on the same day that members of Congress can go to the Department of Justice to view unredacted versions of the Epstein files that the department has withheld from public disclosure.
U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) arrives to testify during a confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination to be the secretary of Homeland Security narrowly cleared a committee vote Thursday morning with the help of Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, teeing up the Oklahoma Republican’s nomination for a final vote on the Senate floor as soon as next week.
Mullin’s nomination advanced out of Senate Homeland Security Committee by a vote of 8-7. He needed a simple majority of votes to clear the committee.
After a series of contentious exchanges during Wednesday’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Rand Paul, the committee’s chairman, ultimately cast a vote against Mullin in committee on Thursday. Fetterman was the only Democrat to cast a vote in his favor.
Fetterman’s vote proved to be critical for Mullin as Republicans only hold a one seat majority on the committee. Paul’s objection meant that at least one Democrat would be necessary to push Mullin over the line.
After the vote, Fetterman said he approached the Mullin vote with an “open mind.”
“We need a leader at DHS. We must reopen DHS. My AYE is rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security,” Fetterman wrote in a post on X.
Mullin’s hearing came weeks after President Donald Trump fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, following her handling of the Minneapolis immigration enforcement and criticism that she used $220 million in taxpayer money for an ad campaign.
Mullin’s nomination will head to the Senate floor where he’ll need a simple majority of votes to be confirmed. He is expected to be approved by the chamber when he comes up for a final vote.
-ABC News’ Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
A mail-in ballot issued by Hudson County, New Jersey, for the 2024 U.S. general election is seen on September 22, 2024, in Hoboken, New Jersey. (Gary Hershorn/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday appeared sympathetic to arguments by the Republican National Committee seeking to limit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or before.
Many justices voiced concerns about a Mississippi law being challenged by the RNC for allowing tabulation of absentee ballots that arrive as late as five days after polls close. “Both sides agree there needs to be a final decision by the voter and receipt [of the ballot] — by somebody — by Election Day,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “I think the disagreement is receipt by whom.”
For more than a century, Congress has established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for election of members of the House, Senate, and presidential electors, in specified years.
Republicans argue that the term “election” means both “ballot submission and receipt” by state election officials. Mississippi and several voter advocacy groups defending the state law insist “election” means when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots to a mailbox, drop box, or polling place.
“I think if you were looking at the text in isolation — day for the election — your first instinct might be in-person voting on that day, is what that text literally meant,” posited Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sounded skeptical of the state law.
Thirty states plus D.C. have measures providing a grace period for voters, including military service members overseas, who rely on the Postal Service or other commercial letter carriers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that allowing each state to set its own policy for late -arriving ballots has created challenges for administering a national election. “We don’t have Election Day anymore. We have election month or we have election months,” he said, skeptically.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the potentially thorny prospect of states allowing voters to recall — or, change — their ballots once mailed. “Would that be illegal?” she asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart. He said he was unaware of any instance of that happening.
The court’s three liberal justices were largely united in support of states’ ability to develop their own voting guidelines, pushing back on claims by lawyers for the RNC and Trump administration, which has advocated for “getting rid of mail-in ballots” altogether.
“The Constitution vests the issue of elections in states, unless superseded by Congress,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “If there is a policy he people who should decide this issue is not the courts.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, despite decades of precedent of states counting some timely-cast but late-arriving ballots, Congress has never sought to override the laws. “The idea of votes being cast and counted after an election is not new,” she said.
Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Republicans’ rationale for eliminating some mail-in ballots could also implicate early voting. “How are you not taking issue with early voting?” she asked RNC attorney Paul Clement. “You say casting and receipt [of ballots] has to be on Election Day.”
“These things have to be consummated by Election Day,” Clement replied.
“Once we go down this road,” said Kagan, “where are we going to end up?”
Most Americans, 58%, support allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail, according to a Pew Research Center survey late last year. But there is sharp division among parties, with 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters favoring mail-voting with 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters opposed.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempted to cut federal election funding to states that have mail ballot receipt grace periods, but it has largely been blocked by federal courts for now.
Trump has also been pushing Republicans in Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would — in part — outlaw voting by mail for anyone without a legitimate excuse, such as military service, illness, or disability, making it impossible to vote in person.
In a nod to Trump and fraud concerns raised by many conservatives, Justice Kavanaugh suggested late-arriving ballots might “open up a risk of what might destabilize election results” — namely, a swing in election outcome as tardy votes are tabulated.
“Is that a real concern?” Kavanaugh asked Stewart. “Does that factor into how we think about how to resolve the scant text and the maybe conflicting or 21 evolving history here?”
“I certainly respect the perception,” replied Stewart, a Republican. “I think one thing notable in this case and I think helpful is that there has not been much of a showing about actual fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt itself.”
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election arrived after Election Day but were still legally counted that year across 22 states and territories with a post-election grace period, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commssion.
Data on which party benefitted more from those ballots is not clear, neither is the impact of any possible changes to mail ballot rules following a Court decision.
Voting rights advocates warn that an abrupt change in policy could lead to widespread rejection of ballots that were properly cast by well-intended voters but experienced unintended delivery delays by the Postal Service or other circumstances.
Republicans insist there is ample time to educate the public on timely submission of mail-in ballots ahead of the November vote and that limiting late-arriving ballots could bolster election integrity.
A decision from the high court is expected by the end of June.
