Marc Shaener of JLT, Inc., Trucking told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze that he's struggling to afford diesel for his fleet of more than 100 trucks as prices rise. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) -- One Washington, D.C.-area waste collection company says the long-term agreements it has made with its customers means it can't raise its rates fast enough to keep up with the rising cost of diesel fuel.
Marc Shaener, director of market development for JLT Trucking Inc., told ABC News' Elizabeth Schulze on Friday that rising diesel costs are costing the company $100,000 more per month for its fleet of more than 100 trucks.
"There's no relief in sight," Shaener said. "We can't sustain it any longer, period, in that it's going to detract from investment. It's going to take away from our employees. It's going to shrink business."
Diesel prices have risen nearly 60% since the war with Iran began almost seven months ago. The average price of diesel hit a record high on Monday at around $6.49 per gallon, according to GasBuddy. The national average price sat near $3.70 a year ago.
Diesel prices rose 30.7 cents over the last week, according to GasBuddy, boosted by the flareup in fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia.
Vice President JD Vance told reporters today that the Navy is trying to push back against the Iranians "trying to terrorize international shipping."
"We're very cognizant of the fact that because the Iranians are terrorizing international shipping, energy prices are elevated," Vance said. "We're doing everything that we can to, one, try to clamp down on those prices, but give American people some relief in the interim."
President Donald Trump has previously pointed to Ukraine's attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia as driving up prices.
"Russia has unfortunately lost control of its Diesel Oil Industry due to its War with Ukraine," Trump posted on his social media platform on Monday. "A large number of their Diesel refineries have been blown up and are, at least temporarily, out of commission."
Shaener said his fleet burns about 2,000 gallons of diesel a day to collect waste and recyclables in the D.C. and Baltimore region. He said he'll now spend an extra $1.2 million a year on fuel.
"They rebounded so high and so fast that we can't even change pricing fast enough to account for that cost," Shaener said.
He said JLT can't increase its rates to keep up because its contracts usually adjust annually or every five years so it has been forced to absorb its higher costs.
Shaener said his business is an economic indicator.
"When things go down, trash is the first to feel it. And we're starting to feel it already," he said. "People have budgets to hit. They can't afford this, so they have to cut somewhere. They cut from the trash."
Shaener said he feels like JLT's employees and customers are political "pawns."
"We have to tell our customers. We have to tell our employees. We have to tell our investors why we can't do what we want, what we planned to do," he said. "Why is that? That's because someone somewhere is running a government that decided that they're going to impact our industrial fuel economy."
Video tripods sit empty on the White House grounds on Sept. 21, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Reporters from MS NOW, CNN, and Politico have been blocked from accessing the White House since September 19th after President Trump said he was banning the three outlets from the property. Those news organizations are now suing President Trump, alleging that it violates the First Amendment. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The three news outlets banned from the White House by President Donald Trump on Monday filed a First Amendment lawsuit to restore their access.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are seeking a temporary restraining order demanding the White House restore their reporters' credentials after Trump announced the ban on Friday.
In a joint statement on Monday, the three news outlets said the lawsuit aims to "protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes."
"Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists' credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism free from government interference," the statement said.
Trump said in a social media post following the news on Monday that the barring of journalists was not "an assault on the Free Press" but instead "an assault on the FAKE NEWS," which he claimed was a national security "threat."
Trump said in a post to social media on Friday, "Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America."
At an event in the Oval Office shortly after he posted his message, the president suggested there may be more restrictions on other outlets. Trump told reporters he supports a free press, but that "you need a fair and honest press."
"It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stuff. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine. But I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house," Trump said.
Journalists from the three outlets were turned away from the White House over the weekend. A reporter from CNN said on air that she was told by a Secret Service agent that her badge had been deactivated.
The three outlets are challenging the legality of the president's ban on multiple fronts, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit argues the ban violates the outlets' reporters' due process rights, that it unlawfully retaliates against their protected speech and that it violates the First Amendment by barring them from a nonpublic forum for unlawful reasons.
"This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles," the news outlets wrote.
The lawsuit warns of a cascading effect for other news organizations should Trump seek to expand the scope of the ban, as he said he may do in his Friday remarks in the Oval Office.
"The ban is already severely impeding the ability of CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO to cover the President and his administration," according to the lawsuit. "Every day, critically important news is breaking at the White House and in the press pool: President Trump is the commander in chief of a country at war; he is traveling to New York today to address the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow; he is meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping at the White House on Thursday; and he is steering national policy on the ever-advancing technology of artificial intelligence. And the ban inflicts an injury on all news media organizations—who now risk a similar fate if they engage in reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable."
The five members of the White House TV pool -- ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Fox News Media and CNN -- issued a statement on the matter on Monday, saying, "The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting."
Vice President JD Vance on Monday pushed back on the notion that Trump's actions constituted a ban, saying that the White House would not provide "special access" to outlets it deems are spreading "propaganda" against the president and his agenda.
"He's not banning media outlets. What he's doing is saying we're not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda," Vance said.
Trump's initial social media post said he was "banning" the news outlets.
Vance was pressed by pool reporters traveling to with him on how this is not an attack on the First Amendment. Vance said the outlets are still able to report on the White House -- it's just that they won't be able to maintain what he called "special access" to the building.
"Well, they can still report on the Trump White House. They can still get the public reports. They can still, of course, talk to people in the administration and outside the administration. What the president has said is, 'we're not going to give you special access inside the White House,'" Vance said.
The civil case has been assigned to D.C. District judge Timothy Kelly, who in 2018 oversaw former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta's lawsuit that similarly sought to restore his press pass.
At the time, Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled in Acosta's favor after finding that the Trump White House did not afford him proper due process in revoking his credentials.
The full D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court have yet to establish settled precedent in the wake of Trump's earlier attempted ban on The Associated Press from being part of the press pool and attending certain White House events last year.
While a D.C. District court judge backed the AP, a three-judge panel with the D.C. Circuit put the ruling on hold and later wrote that "restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion."
Monday's lawsuit is expected to cite a 1977 ruling in which the full D.C. Circuit found that the White House cannot arbitrarily deny a journalist a press pass without due process.
"As the D.C. Circuit has long held, the interest that members of the press have in their White House hard passes is 'protected by the first amendment' and 'undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment,'" the attorneys wrote, according to the court papers shared by Politico.
ABC News' Fritz Farrow and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
Detainees are transferred from buses operated by the GEO Group to a plane chartered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at King County International Airport on April 15, 2025 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) -- A federal appeals court ruled Friday that immigrants facing deportation to third countries must be given sufficient notice before being sent to nations where they have no ties.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down a Department of Homeland Security policy that allowed the swift deportation of immigrants to third countries.
"An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination," wrote Circuit Judge Seth Aframe.
The ruling on Friday allows migrants to contest deportations to countries other than their place of origin.
According to the lawsuit, immigrants were routinely transferred to third countries with little to no notice when the administration cited "diplomatic assurances" that the receiving nation would not mistreat them.
ABC News previously interviewed a group of Latin American men who were deported to the Central African Republic and were not informed of their destination until several hours into the flight.
"I feel kidnapped," one of the men, Aristides Fernandez Garcia, said. "They have violated all the rights that exist in life, because we are human beings."
In recent months, the administration has expanded third-country deportations after securing formal deals with 35 countries, including Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone.
Savi Arvey, director of policy for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, said the U.S. has spent nearly $50 million on these deportation agreements.
"I think the fact that the administration is sending refugees to the most dangerous countries in the world, to countries run by corrupt autocrats where they've been arbitrarily detained and sent back to persecution and torture, shows that the administration has a complete disregard for due process, for international law and for human dignity," Arvey said.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) at the United Nations headquarters on September 23, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump is set to visit the U.N. General Assembly next week, where he will address the international organization and meet with global leaders, according to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz.
Trump will address the assembly on Tuesday and then have meetings with global leaders, Waltz said. Most notably, the president will meet face-to-face with Venezuela's interim leader Delcy Rodriguez in a pull-aside meeting.
It will be the first time that the leaders will meet since the U.S. operation in Venezuela that captured then-President Nicolas Maduro earlier this year. It also comes weeks after Trump announced that the U.S. and Venezuela reached a deal that he said would give the U.S. majority control of billions of barrels of oil reserves in the Caribbean country.
Other leaders Trump will meet with include United Kingdom Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, and, in a multilateral meeting, the leaders of Gulf countries including Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, according to Waltz.
On Trump's meeting with the Gulf leaders, a senior administration official told reporters that the president will hear concerns from Gulf countries about the Iran war directly.
"In one way or another, we expect the Iranian regime to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, so I think just continuing to have that engagement and that diplomacy with our Gulf partners in that meeting will be incredibly important," the senior administration official said. "But also, as you all know, the president truly values hearing from them and hearing their concerns. His engagement with them is ongoing and important, but hearing from them as a group will be incredibly important."
The official said Iran would be a "key topic" in Trump's conversations at the General Assembly.
Trump's address to the U.N. on Tuesday will highlight how his administration has "confronted complex problems head-on," Waltz said.
"We expect the president will highlight how he has, in his administration ... confronted complex problems head-on around the world, many of the peace deals that he has driven to conclusion or is in the process of driving to conclusion," Waltz told reporters.
"He will touch on the importance of ensuring that Iran never has a nuclear weapon, which is not only demanded by the United States, has been demanded by the U.N. Security Council and repeated resolutions, and he'll talk about some of the United States' accomplishments in over the past year, since the last time he was here, including in the Western Hemisphere, progress on the president's 20-point peace plan in Gaza, and more," Waltz added.
During his hourlong address at the General Assembly last year, Trump lambasted the leaders gathered in the conference hall, saying, "Your countries are going to hell," while touting the work of his administration.
The president also accused the U.N. of not living up to its promise.
"What is the purpose of the United Nations?" Trump asked. "It has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it's not even coming close to living up to that potential."
Journalists gather in the Brady Press Briefing Room before going into the Oval Office at the White House on September 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Reporters for CNN, MS NOW and Politico say they were denied access to the White House grounds Saturday a day after President Donald Trump said the two news organizations and Politico were banned from the location.
"Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," Trump said in a social media post Friday.
ABC News observed a CNN reporter and photographer being turned away from the White House security booth on Saturday.
The CNN photographer told ABC News that their passes were confiscated as he and the reporter exited the booth. The reporter flashed her now-empty ID card sleeve.
CNN later reported on air that a photographer and reporter were refused entry Saturday morning, with a reporter saying on CNN that she was told by a Secret Service agent that her badge had been deactivated.
In a statement, CNN said that it has "a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hindrance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right."
MS NOW released a statement Saturday that said some of its journalists were barred from entering the White House grounds.
"MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy," the network said in a statement. "We stand firmly behind our anchors, our reporters, and our newsroom."
An MS NOW correspondent reported on air shortly after being denied that one MS NOW producer was able to enter the grounds.
"I asked, 'We are both with the same network' and [Secret Service] took a look at their computer -- the two officers -- and they said they weren't sure what was going on, but at the end of the day they had to take my badge because it was disabled," she said.
Politico's Editor-in-Chief Jonathan Greenberger put out a statement Saturday that said a reporter was denied entry to the White House by Secret Service and her press credentials were taken away.
"We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House. As we said yesterday, we will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights," he said in his statement.
The White House did not immediately comment about the reporters' access being denied.
MS NOW, CNN and Politico had earlier pushed back against the president's move and vowed to continue their coverage.
The president said restrictions on other outlets would follow.
At an event in the Oval Office shortly after his post Friday, the president told reporters he supports a free press, but that "you need a fair and honest press."
"It's sick. I mean, there's something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stuff. Now, if they want to write them, that's fine. But I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house," Trump said.
In a statement Friday, CNN said it "stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting. We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right."
Politico said Friday it "will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones. We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them."
It also said that Trump's claim Friday that the outlet received government subsidies "are false and have been thoroughly debunked."
White House Correspondents Association President Jacqui Heinrich said in a statement Friday: "The president said it plainly in the Oval Office, describing his own planned action as a 'ban on the free press.'"
"This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation's highest office," she wrote.
Trump said he decided to make the announcement on Friday citing "cumulative stories."
It is still unclear what exactly the ban means in practical terms.
Trump insisted he's not trying to intimidate the press. "No, no, no, no," he said, reiterating "I like to see honest press."
The White House tried to ban then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta during Trump's first term. CNN sued to restore Acosta's press credentials and the White House later dropped its effort.
Earlier in this term, the Trump White House banned The Associated Press from participating in the pool that covers the White House because it refused to comply with his edict renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. That case remains in litigation.
Workers walk past newly installed fencing outside the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts on Sept. 16, 2026, in Washington, DC. The new fencing composed of “bike rack” and barricade material was installed a day after the Kennedy Center Board voted to close the venue for repairs. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Several hundred activists are expected to gather at the Kennedy Center on Friday in opposition to President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of the presidential memorial and threats that he will close and demolish it.
Activists are expected to gather Friday evening to link hands and form a human chain outside the Washington venue, demanding Trump be removed as its chairman for failing to protect and manage it. Trump installed himself as chairman of the Kennedy Center last year after removing its previous leadership and replacing board members with his own appointees.
"The demonstration opposes the recent sudden closure of the facility, the installation of security fencing, and political efforts to alter or demolish portions of the presidential memorial," the group said on its website.
The Hands Off the Arts organization behind the rally and protest said they expect hundreds of people to gather on the center's steps for musical performances, testimonials and speeches before forming a human chain around the building. The group has held various protests outside the performing arts venue this year.
Earlier this week, Trump said the Kennedy Center could be "ripped down" if his administration doesn't receive recognition on the performing arts center as tensions over his name being removed from the venue mount.
"I think that the Trump administration should certainly have recognition. Because frankly, if we don't do that, it's going to close. It'll end up being ripped down," the president told reporters.
The activist coalition said its goal is to reclaim the Kennedy Center from "authoritarian overreach and protect other arts and cultural institutions from similar fates," according to the group's website.
"This is not the Kennedy Center you know and love. It’s not the Kennedy Center you deserve," the group said on its website. "We know what the Kennedy Center is meant to be, and can be again -- the nation’s cultural center, active with life, joy, and incredible art."
The group says it formed after leadership changes at the Kennedy Center in recent months.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Kennedy Center to provide 30 days' notice before making any major physical changes to the building, including demolishing it as Trump has threatened.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper issued the order after lawyers for Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, an ex officio member of the board, cited Trump’s warning that the center could be "ripped down" and submitted photographs appearing to show the Trump examining a placard labeled "Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED" on Wednesday night. The photos were taken Wednesday night through a cabin window on Air Force One.
The venue "cannot install memorials for President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center without Congress’s blessing," Cooper ruled.
The judge earlier this week ruled that Trump's name could not be added to the center's exterior without congressional approval. The board previously placed his name on the facade, and removed it in June after an earlier ruling.
Trump has argued that the center is in poor condition and requires substantial government support to remain open.
"It's in very, very bad shape, very dangerous shape," Trump said Wednesday. "You see steel falling down. You see plaster falling off ceilings. You see a lot of dangers."
The U.S. Department of Justice Building on Aug. 17, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against the Justice Department said at a hearing Friday that she remains skeptical that the Trump administration won't move forward with improperly compensating allies of President Donald Trump who were prosecuted under the Biden administration, despite the DOJ's repeated statements that the $1.8 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is dead.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who is overseeing a lawsuit filed in May that sought to permanently block the fund, pointed to recent statements from top administration officials that she said suggests payments are still on the table for people like anti-abortion protesters convicted under the FACE Act and rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
"Unfortunately there's been too much talk from members of the administration," Brinkema said in a hearing Friday in federal court in Virginia. "The issues that underlie this case are still alive and kicking in my view."
Brinkema's statements throughout the hearing leave the door open for her to reject an effort by the Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuit brought by a range of plaintiffs who claim they could face potential harm if settlement payments are doled out to Trump's allies.
At one point, Brinkema suggested that a potential remedy would be the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee payments out of the DOJ's Judgement Fund, which is typically the method used across administrations to dole out legal settlements with limited requirements for transparency.
Brinkema, in raising that hypothetical, said that the current Justice Department operates under a "somewhat coerced" state, with President Trump and the White House effectively eliminating the independence of the Justice Department that was established in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal.
Such a monitor could bring "independent oversight and offer proper unbiased evaluation" to claims by Trump's allies that they were actually victims of government "weaponization," Brinkema said -- though she noted such an appointment would only likely come after the lawsuit was fully resolved.
A DOJ attorney in court for Friday's proceedings repeatedly urged Brinkema to dismiss the lawsuit, citing Attorney General Todd Blanche's statements under oath that the Anti-Weaponization Fund was no longer moving forward.
During the proceedings, Brinkema repeatedly pointed to the recent ruling by the federal judge in Florida who oversaw Trump's lawsuit against the IRS that was the genesis of the settlement that resulted in the brief establishment of the Anti-Weaponization Fund and an agreement that effectively immunized President Trump and members of his family from audits of their past tax returns. Judge Kathleen Williams, who oversaw the IRS lawsuit, accused the DOJ of engaging in collusive behavior with Trump's personal lawyers and abusing her court to give the settlement legitimacy.
Brinkema said Williams' ruling was "very problematic" for the government and gave credence to the views that Blanche's statements under oath that the fund was "dead" couldn't necessarily be taken at face value.
"I keep on saying this over and over again, but I'm happy to say it one more time," Blanche said at a press conference last month in response to a question from ABC News. "I have testified under oath that it's dead. I have testified in front of the House where I wasn't under oath where I said it was dead. I have answered questions after my hearing where I said that it was dead, I have rescinded the order that that set up the weaponization fund, which means that it does not exist."
"The real concern that I think lurks is this concept of taxpayer money being used to promote political viewpoints," Brinkema said during Friday's hearing. "I think the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' -- that entity, is gone. But is there a functional equivalent of that going on?"
President Donald Trump previously nominated Lance Schroyer, a longtime law enforcement officer from Oklahoma, to be his nominee for ICE director. (Oklahoma Highway Patrol)
(WASHINGTON) -- The White House has withdrawn the nomination of Lance Schroyer to be the next Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director, according to a notice posted on the White House website Thursday.
The agency has not had a Senate-confirmed director since 2017. Former acting ICE Director Todd Lyons retired in May and David Venturella, a former private prisons executive, has been running the agency since then.
Schroyer, a former Oklahoma state trooper and close confidant of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, was nominated in June but faced pushback from the president's base and Democrats over what they said was his lack of qualifications for the job. His nomination had stalled in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
The White House did not give a reason for withdrawing Schroyer's nomination. ABC News has reached out to the White House for comment.
ICE's more than $75 billion budget is the largest of any law enforcement agency in the country.
The agency has become a focal point of the president's second-term deportation push and the Republican-controlled Congress has given the agency the resources to carry out the administration's agenda.
ICE has come under scrutiny during its push to deport those in the country illegally for what some Democrats say are heavy-handed tactics and a rush to hire candidates that weren't qualified for the job.
In nominating Schroyer in June, Trump touted his 29 years of service as a law enforcement officer in Oklahoma and said Schroyer will enforce the administration's crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
Schroyer, who served in the Marine Corps, is currently a senior adviser to Mullin, a former senator from Oklahoma. Schroyer was Mullin's pick to lead ICE, a source with knowledge of the decision told ABC News.
Workers walk past a recently closed John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts on Sept. 16, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge on Thursday directed the Trump administration to provide 30 days' notice of any changes in the Kennedy Center's renovation plans, "including but not limited to any 'demolition' of the Center's main building," as the jockeying over the future of the performing arts center continued.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper made his ruling the afternoon after President Donald Trump was photographed looking over a placard that appeared to include the words "Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED" over what appeared to be an image of a demolition.
In a federal court filing Thursday morning, Kennedy Center executive director Matt Floca said the current closure of the main building is only "temporary," set to last for seven days, and will be reevaluated on a weekly basis.
Judge Cooper, in his ruling, ordered the administration to update him on the status of the "'temporary closure' and emergency repairs" by next Wednesday.
The ruling came as Cooper turned down a request from Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty for an emergency hearing in the case, citing the morning's announcement.
The photos of Trump examining the placard were taken Wednesday night through a cabin window on Air Force One by Agence France-Presse photojournalist Brendan Smialowski, who was acting as the pool photographer for White House coverage, as Trump landed at Joint Base Andrews.
It was not immediately clear what the full contents of the placard were or how they were generated. The published images don't show the entire placard and the word that appears to be "DEMOLISHED" was not entirely visible, cut off as "DEMOLIS."
ABC News has reached out to the White House for comment.
The images were published on Wednesday evening, shortly after the president said the performing arts center could "close" or be "ripped down" if his administration doesn't receive recognition on the performing arts site.
"I think that the Trump administration should certainly have recognition. Because frankly, if we don't do that, it's going to close. It'll end up being ripped down," the president told reporters on the tarmac in North Carolina.
Congress last year appropriated $257 million for needed renovations. But Trump said in a social media post on Tuesday that those renovations will not take place unless his name is again added onto the building.
His name had been added to the center's exterior after the Trump-controlled board voted in December to rename the building the "Trump-Kennedy Center."
Judge Cooper ruled in May that Trump's name had to come down. Cooper wrote in a decision that the center's rebranding violated the law. He ordered that Trump's name be removed from the building within two weeks.
In July, a panel of D.C. Circuit appeals court judges rejected a request by Trump and fellow members of the center's board to stay the court's order that Trump's name be removed from the building.
Last month, the Kennedy Center board members -- who Trump last year replaced with his allies -- voted to close the famed cultural institution for a two-year renovation. They voted on Tuesday to close the building immediately.
Also on Tuesday, Cooper issued a written order blocking any attempt to add Trump's name to the building, concluding it violated a previous court order and congressional statute.
"Simply put, Defendants cannot install memorials for President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center without Congress's blessing," Cooper wrote. "The board resolution bucks a federal court order and a statute Congress enacted."
ABC News' Karen Travers, Michelle Stoddart and Devin Garbitt contributed to this report.
A model of President Donald Trump's proposed arch next to models of the Washington Monument and the U.S. Capitol Building on a table at a public meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, April 16, 2026, in Washington. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration acknowledges that the proposed construction of a 250-foot triumphal arch along the Potomac River at the foot of Arlington National Cemetery will cause "adverse effects" on the setting and views along the river -- but it says those impacts "cannot be fully avoided" because the arch's location is "central to the undertaking."
The acknowledgment is contained in a document that has been sent by the National Park Service to four historic preservation and planning agencies in the Washington area, seeking their agreement with park service's plans to mitigate the adverse effects.
Those efforts include monitoring construction vibration and controlling noise, an archeological study and various planned "improvements" to the parkland, including new walkways, curbs, lighting and plantings, according to the document.
Earlier this month, attorneys for a group of Vietnam War veterans who have sued to block construction of the arch, asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the administration from moving forward with excavation work on the project. The veterans suing over the arch have argued it would obstruct views of Arlington National Cemetery and can't be built without congressional authorization.
Federal rules call for agreements like this to be reached with a state's historic preservation office or a tribal nation when there's the potential for a project to "diminish the integrity" of a historic property. Memorial Circle, the planned site for the arch and a roundabout near the entrance Arlington National Cemetery, is a historic property listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
While the law requires consultation and an effort to minimize potential harms -- "to the maximum extent possible" -- agreement with state officials does not appear to be a requirement for a federal project at a historic site to continue.
The document circulated by NPS to historic preservation officials in Virginia and D.C. says that Memorial Circle "is located within a highly sensitive historic and commemorative landscape," and that the arch at that space would affect the "setting, design, feeling, association, spatial organization, circulation, and contributing views and vistas" of the location.
Renderings of the arch show a 250-foot structure -- more than twice as tall as the nearby 99-foot Lincoln Memorial -- with an inscription reading "One Nation Under God" and at its top, a gold statue of Lady Liberty with outstretched gold wings. Four golden lions sit at each corner of the arch's base, renderings showed.
The administration said in the document that the location is "central to the undertaking" and the arch can't be placed elsewhere because "relocation outside Memorial Circle would constitute a materially different undertaking."
Word of the agreement was first reported by The Washington Post.
Trump has said called the arch a "wonderful addition to the Washington D.C. area," saying in a social media post earlier this year that it will be the "GREATEST and MOST BEAUTIFUL" of structures "anywhere in the world."
The arch received initial approval in July from the National Capital Planning Commission, a federal agency led by Trump's hand-picked appointees, despite hours of public testimony against the project.
The arch still needs final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission. Several Democratic lawmakers say that the arch violates the Commemorative Works Act, which requires congressional approval for memorials on federal land in or near D.C.
An Interior Department spokesperson said it will "follow all laws and regulations" around the arch construction.
"Throughout the consultation process, Interior has received over 100,000 public comments, has accepted dozens of organizations as consulting parties, and has extended comment periods to allow for more robust discussion," the spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) looks on during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 27, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The House passed a Russia and Iran sanctions bill championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham Wednesday night -- sending the measure to President Donald Trump's desk for his signature.
The final tally was 262-159.
Seven Republicans -- Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Andy Harris of Maryland, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Keith Self of Texas, Tom McClintock of California, Chip Roy of Texas and Warren Davidson of Ohio -- voted against the measure.
The bill's passage comes about two months after Graham's sudden death.
The package would impose primary and secondary sanctions on Russia and other countries that support Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions target Russian political officials and oligarchs, banks and financial institutions, and the Russian shadow fleet, according to the bill.
The legislation also allows for the president to impose tariffs but limits the scope of those tariffs to the five largest importers of Russian crude oil or gas and the top five countries that aid Russia's energy sanctions evasion.
It also includes a provision to prevent a lapse in sanction authority that restricts funding for Iran's energy and weapons sectors.
In a statement on social media, Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., who was appointed to fill her late brother's Senate seat and is now running for a full term, celebrate the measure's passage.
"Today is a monumental day for peace," she wrote in the post on X. "This legislation was deeply important to my brother, Lindsey, and I'm grateful that it achieved such a wide coalition of support on the House floor. I am committed to achieving a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine, and I'm confident that this legislation will pave the way."
The vote split Democrats -- 58 voted in favor while 152 voted against.
Top House Democratic leaders including Leader Hakeem Jeffries explained why they voted against the sanctions bill, saying it “gives extraordinary power to Donald Trump.”
“It allows him to waive the sanctions contained in the bill, while giving him new, expansive tariff authority to continue his failed global trade war that is causing costs to skyrocket for working families across America," they said. "Sadly, the White House is willing to risk Ukrainian lives and American livelihoods instead of working to actually hold this rogue Russian regime accountable for its illegal war."
Earlier this week, several Democrats, including Reps. Gregory Meeks, Richard Neal and Don Beyer, voiced concerns with the bill but expressed their staunch support for Ukraine.
The Senate approved the measure last month with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 86-11.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, seen from the Theodore Roosevelt Bride in Washington, D.C. September 15, 2026. (Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the Kennedy Center could "close" or be "ripped down" if his administration doesn't receive recognition on the performing arts center as tensions over his name being removed mount.
"I think that the Trump administration should certainly have recognition. Because frankly, if we don't do that, it's going to close. It'll end up being ripped down," the president told reporters on the tarmac in North Carolina.
Trump claimed that the Kennedy Center was a "mess" without his intervention and "has lost 10s of millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars," comparing it to New York's Carnegie Hall.
The president's comments come after a federal judge on Tuesday blocked the performing arts center's board from adding a tribute to Trump on the building or site. He responded by saying he wouldn't spend congressionally approved funding for the center's renovation unless the building also bears his name.
Congress last year appropriated $257 million for the renovation.
About an hour after the judge's ruling Tuesday, the board, which is controlled by Trump appointees, voted to close the center immediately for renovations, citing safety concerns after a piece of plaster from the ceiling of the grand foyer fell during a heavy rainstorm earlier this month.
On Tuesday, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, said Trump “threw a tantrum because he lost in court” when discussing the Kennedy Center meeting.
“He wasn't pleased with it. He was very explicit with his words, and I responded equally as explicit. He is in contempt of court for what he's doing now in trying to just simply go over and close the Kennedy Center and to have people leave the center,” Beatty told reporters on the House steps Tuesday night.
Beatty said “there was a heated debate” during the meeting.
On Wednesday, fencing was seen being installed around the main building's entrance.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) arrives for a Democratic caucus meeting on Capitol Hill on September 1, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Democratic lawmakers are pushing a bill to disapprove of a nuclear cooperation agreement struck between the United States and Saudi Arabia in a bid to strike down the proposal during a three-month period of congressional review.
Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Brad Sherman, John Garamendi and Don Beyer introduced a Joint Resolution of Disapproval on Wednesday, shortly before lawmakers left Washington to return home ahead of midterm elections. A vote could come in November, after the midterms.
Without a two-thirds vote, President Donald Trump could veto Meeks' bill and the nuclear deal would take effect as it is written.
The nuclear deal, known as a 123 agreement, paves the way for American industry to collaborate on tens of billions of dollars of nuclear energy projects in the kingdom in what the administration says is a sign of deepening ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
The agreement has raised concerns around the proliferation of technologies that could support a Saudi effort to weaponize nuclear energy, security experts and members of Congress have said.
The terms of the agreement break from the so-called "gold standard" for nuclear deals, by which countries allow international inspectors widespread access to facilities that could support nuclear development. Inspectors are also allowed access to undeclared sites -- activities that could involve research that would contribute to nuclear energy.
The U.S.-Saudi deal instead includes a narrower agreement that would limit inspections, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to only declared nuclear sites.
The text of the agreement, which has been released publicly by the administration, establishes a joint study between the two countries on the feasibility of an enrichment facility on Saudi Arabian soil. An additional study could open the door to enrichment of uranium of up to 20%.
Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association who has reviewed the text, said that study was described "vaguely" in the signed agreement.
Enrichment to 20% "poses a more significant risk because enriching to that level constitutes the majority of work necessary to enrich to weapons-grade levels, or 90%," Davenport said. "The United States has repeatedly, and rightly, raised concerns about Iran previously enriching to the 20 percent level."
Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, the kingdom's de facto leader, has in the past said his government would seek a nuclear weapon if Iran managed to acquire one.
In its communication to Congress on Aug. 27, the Trump administration acknowledged the Crown Prince's "concerning public statements."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defending the deal in July, said that Saudi Arabia could have turned to an American adversary, like China or Russia, had the U.S. not been prepared to sign the nuclear agreement.
"We live in a new era," he said. "There are competitors that we face, so we'll have to adjust individual deals to that reality. We're not the only show in town but we're the best show in town. But we want to be, we want to make sure that it's our companies they're picking."
In a letter to Rubio and Energy Secretary Chris Wright Wednesday, a group of lawmakers called for the administration to declassify two documents, or "side letters," which the White House said were part of the deal but could not be released.
The lawmakers, which included Republican Sens. John Kennedy Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, called for their release, adding they were "aware of no precedent for classifying and withholding the side letters, particularly when the stated purpose is peaceful nuclear cooperation."
A bill to strike down the Saudi deal, requiring a supermajority in the Republican-controlled Congress, is exceedingly unlikely. But lawmakers could also opt to pass a law that applies certain conditions to the nuclear agreement.
The U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters is seen July 29, 2013, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Coast Guard and FBI are investigating after two oil tankers bound for the U.S. were hit with suspected cyberattacks last month, prompting American authorities to launch investigations into both incidents, sources told ABC News.
On Aug. 21, one of the tankers, described as a "foreign-flagged commercial vessel" was boarded by a "highly specialized team" of U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement officers, cyber protection members and an FBI cyber team in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a joint statement from both agencies.
"The measures were designed to ensure integrity of the vessel’s operational and information technology systems following indications that the vessel’s network were compromised by foreign cyber actors," the statement said.
That vessel was in the Strait of Gibraltar when it was hacked, according to sources, and lost communication for over 30 hours.
The joint statement said the ship's crew members cooperated with authorities and were "critical partners in helping to ensure the threats were mitigated" and concluded: "Currently, there are no reports of operational disruptions, vessel instability, physical danger to crews, or environmental impacts."
Sources told ABC News that another tanker that was hit by a cyberattack was boarded by U.S. officials on Aug. 24. to conduct a similar assessment.
Authorities are investigating the possibility that Iran or another actor -- seeking to exploit the ongoing conflict between Iran and U.S. -- was involved in attacks, according to the sources.
"Currently, there are no reports of operational disruptions, vessel instability, physical danger to crews, or environmental impacts," the joint statement released by the Coast Guard and FBI said.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) at the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Outgoing Republican Rep. Thomas Massie seized the House floor for more than an hour Tuesday afternoon, launching a long-shot effort to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stemming from his controversial administration over the Pentagon, including the war in Iran.
After sending a news release announcing his intent to impeach Hegseth, Massie quickly appeared on the floor where he stood for more than 67 minutes reading the sweeping 34-page resolution with eight articles of impeachment aloud.
"Secretary Hegseth has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Secretary of Defense and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States of America," Massie read from the resolution, contending that Hegseth will "remain a threat to civilians and the laws of war, the integrity of United States diplomacy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with his duties and the rule of law."
"Peter Brian Hegseth thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States," the resolution states.
The Pentagon responded to Massie's move, defending Hegseth in a statement to ABC News.
"Secretary Hegseth has been a transformative leader for the Department of War," Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in the statement, later adding that the "entire Department is unified behind the Secretary’s vision and will continue working to put our warfighters and America first."
The articles of impeachment against Hegseth include ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties, administering an "unlawful war" in Yemen, ordering extrajudicial killings, suppressing free speech and kidnapping a sovereign leader -- alluding to the U.S. capture of Nicolas Maduro early this year.
"Frankly, I was concerned that Mike Johnson would end Congress again, like shorten even our already truncated work period if he found out I was doing this. So I shared the idea with nobody," Massie said.
Massie, a conservative who has gained a reputation as a constitutionalist through his seven terms in the House, lost a primary earlier this summer after Trump endorsed his opponent.
It's unclear whether the vote will succeed, given Republicans' narrow majority in the House. Speaker Mike Johnson can lose two Republican votes before a third defection upsets the majority.
Unless GOP leaders change the floor schedule again, the House must hold a vote on the resolution within two-legislative days -- by Thursday, which would force Republicans to go on the record defending Hegseth ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections. GOP leaders could offer a motion to table the resolution or cancel the legislative session scheduled for Thursday to avoid the vote.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Massie explained that he introduced the articles of impeachment to place a "marker" in history on what he said was both President Donald Trump's and Hegseth's "illegal" conduct.
“Doing this wasn't predicated on whether it could succeed or not; there needs to be a marker in history,” Massie said. "The president has exceeded, and Secretary Hegseth specifically, in many ways himself, and sometimes directed by illegal orders from the president, they have exceeded all norms for rules of engagement for how you use or misuse our military, to take oil from another country, to kidnap a foreign leader, like somebody needs to put a marker in history, and that's what this is. Hopefully, it passes, and they can litigate this in the Senate.”
Massie also told ABC News he had waited until Tuesday because it presents the last possible time to force consideration of a privileged resolution Congress before the midterms.
Massie added he felt he had exhausted all other legislative ways to stymie the war in Iran as well as other foreign military interventions.
"Why today? Because Speaker Johnson has basically canceled the rest of Congress until the elections," Massie explained. "Two days from now is the end of our session before we go on recess, and there can be a vote within two days. So I had to do it today."
Sen. Alex Padilla listens as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol, Sept. 14, 2026, in Washington. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Department of Homeland Security has allegedly directed hundreds of agents to attempt to access voter rolls, even if they must “misrepresent themselves” to do so, and “fabricate” evidence of voter fraud ahead of the midterm elections, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and California Sen. Alex Padilla said Monday, citing what they said was information from a whistleblower.
“A DHS whistleblower warns that the department is pulling hundreds, hundreds of federal agents from national security rolls and sending them on a wild goose chase,” Schumer said at a press conference. “The goal: to try and prove Trump's sad, tired, and long-debunked election conspiracy theories."
"The length Trump will go to cheat, lie, and steal in this upcoming election are simply beyond the pale,” Schumer said.
“Apparently, agents are being commanded to violate state laws to access private voter information and fabricate law enforcement records as part of DHS's quote ‘Unlawful Voter Initiative,’" Schumer said, adding that DHS agents allegedly were "hunting for, or worse, manufacturing evidence of voter fraud claims."
The allegations and the whistleblower claims were enumerated in a letter from Schumer and Padilla sent Sunday to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, in which the lawmakers demanded that DHS both explain the alleged actions and end them immediately.
The Department of Homeland Security has been ramping up efforts to look for voter fraud across the country through its investigative arm, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), multiple sources familiar with the operation told ABC News earlier this month. The effort will include help from investigators from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the sources said.
"The Department accessed publicly available data from states’ voter rolls and cross referenced them with known aliens in our systems. It’s not rocket science; it’s an easy step to secure our elections,” DHS said in a statement to ABC News, in response to the whistleblower allegations.
“While ICE Homeland Security Investigations is not able to comment on any active investigations, HSI is actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found," the DHS statement further said. "We have repeatedly demonstrated that aliens can and do vote in our elections. Under President Trump, HSI is committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that American citizens and only American citizens are electing American leaders.”
“They're even asking people to lie about their identities, so they can create this illegal scheme," Schumer said Monday of DHS agents' alleged activities. "We are weeks from the midterms. Americans should not have to fear being targeted by their own government because of how they're registered to vote.”
Padilla also highlighted the allegation, saying Monday that the whistleblower claimed DHS agents were "ordered to misrepresent themselves to access state voter systems, systems explicitly warning that accessing another voter's information without authorization is against the law."
Padilla further alleged the federal government is taking this route to access voter data because states such as his have not complied with demands for them to provide those records.
“But even more troubling is that when officers have raised questions about the legality of this initiative, they've reportedly been told to proceed anyway and promise that they won't be held quote personally liable,” Padilla said, citing the whistleblower claims. “That's what's coming from superiors in response to officers who are raising these concerns. If this effort is truly legal, then why does DHS leadership have to promise its officers that they're not going to be held liable? That says a lot.”
Padilla alleged the Unlawful Voter Initiative is “pretext” for the Trump administration to use “manufactured evidence to intimidate voters, to disenfranchise eligible Americans, and even undermine or challenge this November's election results.”
Ships are anchored in the Strait of Hormuz on Aug. 10, 2026, off the coast of Bandar Abbas, Iran. (Ali Saeedi/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The war with Iran has cost the United States at least $38 billion through the end of July and is expected to further push inflation higher for American households, according to a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) assessment released Tuesday.
The CBO also warned that depleted weapon stocks could take a half decade or longer to rebuild, crippling the Pentagon’s ability to respond to another major conflict.
The assessment describes the financial and military consequences that will persist beyond the fighting, leaving the Pentagon with fewer weapons available for another major conflict while skyrocketing energy prices put pressure on household budgets.
The report notes that the Pentagon did not cooperate with the analysis or provide information requested by the Congressional Budget Office. The Pentagon did not respond to ABC News' request for comment on the report.
The CBO serves as Congress’ scorekeeper, providing lawmakers with independent estimates of federal spending and the costs of legislation. Its reports noted it relied heavily on public information.
The budget office’s estimate covers direct costs from the U.S. and Israel launching their campaign against Iran on Feb. 28 through Aug. 1, excluding expenses related to U.S. bases devastated by Iranian bombardments.
Munitions account for most of the spending. CBO projects another $2 to $3 billion in monthly costs, but says the bill could climb during sustained fighting.
Americans will also bear what could be mounting costs adding to already inflation rates, with projections estimating the consequences of the war to add roughly a half percentage point to the inflation rate early next year, meaning the costs of goods, housing and food will continue to rise, driven largely by climbing energy prices stemming from supply disruptions in the Middle East.
Depleted weapons stockpiles
The war has significantly depleted U.S. inventories of missiles and anti-air defense weapons, leaving fewer munitions available for another major conflict.
“The shortfall would become especially problematic if a conflict arose with an opponent whose arsenal included large numbers of ballistic and cruise missiles,” the CBO said in its report.
Those concerns predate the Iran war. A congressionally mandated commission warned in 2024 that the U.S. could largely exhaust its munitions inventories within three to four weeks of a conflict with China. Some critical weapons, including anti-ship missiles, could run out within days.
“Missile defense interceptors are in short supply because they have been produced at relatively low rates; thus, DoD’s inventory of such missiles was limited,” the CBO said in its report.
A Pentagon inspector general report on Monday came to the same conclusion that the massive expenditure of munitions against Iran has "resulted in strategic inventory shortfalls,” which revealed significant issues with U.S. force’s ability to resupply, as missiles take years to build. Persistent bottlenecks include the complexity and daunting list of materials and the recruitment of skilled labor to build them.
Patriot and SM-6 interceptors, used to shoot down incoming missiles and drones, cost roughly $4 million each, according to the CBO. THAAD interceptors cost about $12 million apiece, while more advanced SM-3 interceptors can cost roughly $28 million each.
The stark warning on munitions shortages comes just days after Adm. Brad Cooper, the war’s top commander, said in an interview on CBS Sunday that he’s not concerned about munitions depletions.
“We’re armed and ready for any contingency,” he said.
President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed the Pentagon IG's report. The administration has maintained the Pentagon can continue fighting with the arsenal it has.
Care for casualties, damage to bases will push up costs
The war’s ultimate cost is likely to be far higher once decades of veterans’ disability payments and medical care are included. More than 800 U.S. troops have been wounded, with traumatic brain injuries emerging as the conflict’s signature wound.
“Counting munitions expended while leaving veterans’ care and benefits is not a real war-cost analysis,” Rep. Mark Takano, the ranking Democrat on the House Veterans Affairs Committee said in a statement to ABC News. “It is a bill sent to veterans and taxpayers later.”
CBO’s estimate excludes much of the costs associated with the damage to U.S. bases in the Middle East, including those in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan, some of which have been devastated by Iranian bombardments. Pentagon planners have long anticipated shrinking the military’s footprint in the region to shift resources to the Pacific.
The analysis comes as Congress has not enacted funding to cover the costs of the Iran war. In July, the House passed a $95 billion budget blueprint to provide up to $60 billion for military funding. The plan would also provide up to $13 billion for intelligence costs, totaling $73 billion to cover the Iran war.
The Senate has no immediate plans to move on the budget blueprint to provide Iran war funding before the midterm elections. Historically, conflicts have had special supplemental funding as to not eat much into the military’s day-to-day operational needs in its $1 trillion budget.
ABC News was first to report that the Army has dramatically scaled down much of its training this year, partly to accommodate the enormous surprise expense of the conflict.
“Well, not before the election. No, I mean that'll probably be a post-election push,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Tuesday.
House Budget Committee ranking Democrat Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania said the report “makes clear that the war has also cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and counting, while continuing to drive up costs.”
“Donald Trump and Republicans have spent years telling Americans that we cannot afford to help families here at home, but apparently they can find tens of billions of dollars, and potentially much more, for a reckless war that is leaving Americans to pay the price,” Boyle said in a statement.
The Kennedy Center on Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- One month after the board of the Kennedy Center voted to add President Donald Trump's name to the historic building, the board voted on Tuesday to immediately close the performing arts center's main building, sources told ABC News.
The vote came an hour after a federal judge blocked the Kennedy Center board from adding a tribute to Trump on the building or site.
Last month, the Kennedy Center board members -- who Trump last year replaced with his allies -- voted to close the famed cultural institution for a two-year renovation.
Lamenting that the "drama at the Kennedy Center continues" despite a permanent injunction and laws to the contrary, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said the board is engaging in "linguistic gymnastics" to place Trump's name somewhere on the grounds. And Cooper poked holes in the argument that adding Trump's name was necessary to secure the financial future of the center.
Judge Cooper, following a conference Tuesday morning, issued a written order blocking the attempt to add Trump's name to the building, concluding it violated a previous court order and congressional statute.
"Simply put, Defendants cannot install memorials for President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center without Congress's blessing. The board resolution bucks a federal court order and a statute Congress enacted," Cooper wrote.
Judge Cooper previously blocked Trump from renaming the Kennedy Center after himself, but the board voted last month to add Trump's name to the building nonetheless, in order to recognize him as the person who "renovated and restored" the iconic structure.
"Linguistic gymnastics cannot extricate the Kennedy Center's Board from an operative judicial order or the governing statute it was designed to enforce," Cooper wrote in Tuesday's ruling.
Judge Cooper's ruling blocks the Trump administration from adding Trump's name to the building -- -- along the lines of "The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump" -- as well as renaming the site of the center "President Donald J. Trump Plaza." The judge did not decide about another proposal to say the Kennedy Center is "endowed by the Trump Kennedy Center Fund," because the money has not yet been raised for the fund.
Cooper also pushed back on the assertion that the future of the Kennedy Center relies on Trump's fundraising. He noted that Congress also already appropriated $257 million for the center's renovation, and suggested that the president's allies manufactured the Kennedy Center's financial problems.
"The renaming of the Center coincided with declines in revenue and contributions, as artists cancelled performances, the Washington National Opera ended its 50-year residency, and ticket sales and viewership of the Kennedy Center Honors broadcast dropped precipitously," Cooper wrote.
Judge Cooper also said that the Kennedy Center has failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that "current or future donations hinge on President Trump's name being on the building."
"The Court may not license a violation of those authorities under threat that some unidentified donors will withhold their largesse if the Board is not allowed to have its way. It can even less reward a decision by Board members, including the Chair, to curb the Center's fundraising efforts because they cannot abide statutory restrictions on displaying his name," the ruling said. "Predictions of future actions by the Board in response to being told no therefore cannot concern the Court."
The Board of Trustees was scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon, though the Trump administration overnight said the meeting would be "focused exclusively on the necessary closure" of the center, and not on additional ways to honor President Trump. Trustees were expected to vote on a measure declaring that the Kennedy Center's main building is "unsafe for continued occupancy" and must be closed for a two-year renovation.
Kennedy Center leadership had previously argued that adding the president's name to the structure would be necessary to save the center from "certain fiscal collapse within weeks."
"The Board understands that without such appropriate recognition it is unlikely that President Trump will provide the fundamental oversight of the renovation of the main building and lead the fiscal rescue of the Center," said a resolution initially scheduled to be introduced today before it was delayed for a future meeting.
In their late-night court filing, Justice Department lawyers included an email sent to the board at 7 p.m. Monday by Kennedy Center official Joe LaFauci, indicating that a separate draft resolution proposing ten new ways to honor Trump would not be considered, and that the board "stands by" its earlier vote to recognize the president.
LaFauci in his email said the update to Tuesday's agenda was due "to the recently exacerbated structural emergencies" at the center, the court filing said.
Late on Monday night, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick separately posted security video of a partial ceiling collapse that occurred during a rainstorm earlier this month. The video shows a chunk of debris crashing onto an empty red carpet.
"If a performance had been underway, patrons could have been killed," Lutnick said in his post on social media. "People cannot be allowed to go into this building any longer."
The center voted in December to add Trump's name on the outside of the building before a federal judge, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, ordered its removal in May.
The board voted 23-3 last month on a resolution to close the facility for two years as part of a $285 million renovation plan, according to a court filing. The board, members of which were largely appointed by Trump, also voted to add Trump's name back onto the Kennedy Center building as many as two more times, according to the filing.
While Congress already appropriated $257 million for the project, the board has argued that Trump would raise another $100 million for the center.
The board as it voted last month said it would re-add Trump's name to the building as the man who "renovated and restored" the center, adding, if a fundraising goal is hit, that it had been endowed by the "Trump Kennedy Center Fund."
But Cooper is currently weighing whether that would violate a statute prohibiting additional memorials at D.C.'s only memorial to former President John F. Kennedy. Cooper is set to hold a 10 a.m. ET scheduling conference on the future plans for the center and the board is preparing to meet privately at 12:30 p.m. ET.
Trustees are expected to vote on Tuesday afternoon on a measure declaring the Kennedy Center's main building "unsafe for continued occupancy," and ordering that it be "closed to patrons forthwith."
Cooper is also positioned to eventually decide whether the board can move forward with its latest plans to close the center, plans that have taken on new urgency following the ceiling collapse and the new claim of center officials that the entity is quickly running out of money to remain operational.
An attorney for Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), who has filed a lawsuit challenging the planned closure and renaming, praised the decision not to move forward with another resolution honoring the president.
"Trump & cronies back down on HALF of the crazy," lawyer Norm Eisen wrote on social media on Tuesday. But Eisen added that the plan to immediately close the center amounts to "foolishness" that he said Beatty's legal team will fight.
Programming at the Kennedy Center, which normally funds its operations, effectively ended in early July. Ticket sales had reportedly been dropping off for months prior, following the board's vote last December to rename the facility. Cooper ruled that move unlawful in May.
Despite Congress-approve funding that's already on the table, center officials last weekend again underscored the need to honor Trump so that he might be enticed to lead additional efforts at raising money and oversee the renovation.
"The Board understands that without such appropriate recognition it is unlikely that President Trump will provide the fundamental oversight of the renovation of the main building and lead the fiscal rescue of the Center," read the text of a draft resolution that is -- according to LaFauci -- no longer up for consideration today.
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 15, 2026, in Washington, DC. The committee held the oversight hearing to examine the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- FBI Director Kash Patel is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning for an oversight hearing, the first time Patel is testifying since he clashed with lawmakers over reports of job performance issues more than four months ago.
The hearing comes after the committee's top Democrat called on Patel to be replaced following a report published in The Atlantic in May that alleged Patel had "bouts of excessive drinking" and job performance issues.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Patel lacks "the experience, judgment, and temperament to lead the FBI" and should be "replaced immediately." Durbin reiterated those comments in his opening statements on Tuesday morning.
The report in The Atlantic was a focus of several lawmakers' questions when Patel last testified on Capitol Hill in May with several heated exchanges over Patel's drinking habits and job performance.
Patel said earlier this year that he's "never been intoxicated on the job," following the report. Patel sued The Atlantic over the article, demanding $250 million in damages.
During Tuesday's hearing, Patel is expected to tout decreased crime nationwide, according to a source familiar with his testimony. President Donald Trump has frequently promoted a decrease in crime, saying on Friday that crime is "under control."
The director will tout the increase in violent crime arrests, which are up 90%, arresting violent gang members are up 31% and he is expected to say it is the "most prolific run of crime reduction in history," according to a source.
The FBI saysviolent crime is down 9.3% from 2024 to 2025.
Patel is also expected to discuss the FBI's efforts to thwart major terrorist incidents and highlight information sharing among law enforcement partners, according to a source familiar with his testimony.
He is expected to talk about how he has made the FBI more nimble as director, accelerating the reduction of bureaucracy of the agency.
Patel's time at the helm of the FBI has been marked by several controversies, which lawmakers may question him about. Earlier this year, Patel joined in on Team USA hockey's locker room celebrations in Italy shortly after the team won the gold medal, which drew scrutiny about his use of FBI resources to attend. He was also grilled during a House hearing late last year about his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) arrives for a vote at the U.S. Capitol on September 14, 2026 in Washington, D.C. This is McConnell’s first public appearance in over 90 days after he recovered from a fall and illness. (Finn Gomez/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell returned to the Senate on Monday for the first time since being hospitalized in June following a fall.
"Today, I'll cast my first Senate vote since I took a bad fall back in June," McConnell said in a statement. "I'm really looking forward to being back on the Senate floor and seeing my colleagues."
McConnell, who was in a wheelchair, briefly addressed journalists outside the Senate chamber this afternoon before heading to the floor to cast his first vote since June 11.
"After two years -- two decades -- of dodging your questions, I wasn't sure how many of you would be here today," McConnell joked at the outset. "So I am glad to see you. It is time to get back to work and finish the job for this Congress."
McConnell said he would be focused on the farm bill -- which previously failed to advance out of committee due to McConnell's absence.
"As you know, I have an ongoing interest in NATO and backing up our good friends who are totally in the fight against the Russians," he said.
McConnell said in his Monday statement that he was not yet fully recovered but that he would try to be present for critical votes.
"My recovery has been a long and often frustrating process, and the lingering effects of childhood polio haven’t made it any easier. I’m still not quite back to 100%, but I’ve assured Leader Thune that, as I continue with physical therapy on the advice of my doctors, I will do my best to be present for tough votes when our Conference needs me," McConnell said.
McConnell was hospitalized on June 14 for reasons that were initially undisclosed in statements from his office. Subsequent statements from the senator revealed that he had suffered a fall that left him hospitalized.
After weeks of inpatient rehabilitation treatment, McConnell announced in an Aug. 6 statement that he'd be continuing his recovery at home.
Before Monday, the senator had not been seen publicly since the June 14 fall. McConnell has missed six weeks of Senate business in Washington since his injury.
In statements issued during his recovery, the senator has said he's keeping up with his work in the Senate.
"On the advice of my doctors, I'll maintain an intensive regimen of physical therapy from home during the state work period, and I’ll continue to engage with my staff and colleagues on important Senate business," McConnell said in an Aug. 6 statement.
