New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs attends his arraignment hearing at Dedham District Court on February 13, 2026. (David L. Ryan/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)
(DEDHAM, Mass.) — New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs was arraigned on charges of strangulation Friday morning.
The charges stem from a December 2025 incident in which he allegedly assaulted a private chef.
Diggs did not speak at the hearing, but his attorney entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.
The judge released him on his own recognizance and he was ordered to have no contact with the victim, including third party contact.
The incident stemmed from a dispute over wages the victim was requesting Diggs pay her, according to police records obtained by ABC News.
Diggs is accused of strangling or suffocating Mila Adams on Dec. 2, according to police records.
Diggs allegedly entered Adams’ unlocked bedroom, where they began to discuss the unpaid wages. Adams told police that during the discussion, he got angry and allegedly smacked her across the face, according to a police report.
She then tried to push him away, but then he choked her using the crook of his elbow around her neck. As she tried to pry him away, he tightened his grip, Adams told police. He then threw her on the bed, according to a police report.
When she told him she still hadn’t received her money, Diggs allegedly told her “lies,” according to the police report.
“StefonDiggscategorically denies these allegations. They are unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and were never investigated — because they did not occur,” Diggs’ attorney David Meier said in a statement in December.“The timing and motivation for making the allegations is crystal clear:they are the direct result of an employee-employer financial dispute that was not resolved to the employee’s satisfaction.Stefonlooks forward to establishing the truth in a court of law.”
Adams told police she believes she is still owed a month of wages, according to police records.
Group Chairman & CEO, DP World Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem speaks during the 2023 Concordia Annual Summit at Sheraton New York on September 19, 2023 in New York City. Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for Concordia Summit
(NEW YORK) — The billionaire CEO of logistics giant DP World has resigned following the disclosure of his communications with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, an Emirati billionaire, stepped down from the company on Friday, “effective immediately,” the massive global supply chain and logistics company said in an announcement.
The move comes after financial groups in Canada and the U.K. earlier this week announced a pause in their investments with DP World on the heels of the U.S. Justice Department’s release of Epstein files.
A company spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
For years, before and after Epstein became a convicted sex offender in 2008, Bin Sulayem and Epstein maintained a free-flowing exchange of emails that ran the gamut from workshopping financial proposals to rating sexual conquests, according to the DOJ files.
“Are you going to the Clinton Forum?” Epstein asked Bin Sulayem in one email exchange. “I see that the Secretary General is scheduled to attend. If so, we can go to my island after the forum. Call me so we can discuss the details.” Bin Sulayem replied that his meetings were “flexible” and could be rearranged around Epstein’s.
Later on in the exchange, Epstein wanted to know from Bin Sulayem “what time you would like your massage today in new york.”
In April 2009, Epstein emailed, “where are you? are you ok, I loved the torture video.” There is no further explanation or context of the video mentioned. Bin Sulayem said he was in China and would return in a couple of weeks. “Hope to see you,” Epstein said.
Bin Sulayem was among six names read out on the floor of the House of Representatives Tuesday by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, one of the authors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, who has criticized the DOJ and Trump administration for what he and others have regarded as a lack of transparency when it comes to the Epstein files saga.
FBI Director Kash Patel released a surveillance photo, Feb. 10, 2026 showing a potential subject in investigation of the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie in Tucson, AZ. (@FBIDirectorKash/X)
(PHOENIX, Ariz.) — More information is coming to light about the unidentified person who kidnapped Nancy Guthrie, the mother of “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie.
The 84-year-old was taken from her Tucson, Arizona, home in the early hours of Sunday, Feb. 1. The first images of the suspect were released by the FBI this week, showing an armed person in a mask in front of Nancy Guthrie’s house, appearing to tamper with a security camera.
Although the suspect’s name remains unknown, the FBI announced Thursday that analysis of the video determined he is a man with an average build who stands at about 5 feet 9 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall.
The FBI said the suspect was wearing a black, 25-liter Ozark Trail Hiker Pack backpack.
The Pima County Sheriff’s Department said on Thursday that “several items of evidence” have been recovered, including gloves. It’s not clear if the gloves seen on the surveillance camera were the same gloves recovered.
The FBI is offering a $100,000 reward.
Anyone with information is urged to call 911 or the Pima County Sheriff’s Department at 520-351-4900.
Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee, February 11, 2026 in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department’s failure this week to convince a grand jury to hand up an indictment against six members of Congress is the latest stumbling block faced by prosecutors as they seek to rebuke the administration’s perceived political opponents.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., was unable to secure an indictment against six congressmembers after President Donald Trump called for them to be arrested and tried for posting a video on social media telling military service members that they could refuse illegal orders, sources said Tuesday.
Following a classified briefing on the deadly strikes on alleged drug boats in Latin America, Sen. Mark Kelly, Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Rep. Maggie Goodlander, Rep. Jason Crow, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, and Rep. Chris DeLuzio, all former members of the military and intelligence community, posted a video in November telling current members that — per the Uniform Code of Military Justice — they should refuse to carry out unlawful orders.
“Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL,” Trump posted to social media in response to the video on Nov. 20.
Prosecutors under U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro sought to convince a grand jury to indict the six lawmakers, but the panel did not comply.
It is exceedingly rare for a grand jury to not indict after prosecutors have made their presentation. In fiscal year 2016, the most recent year for which figures are available from the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the DOJ sought federal charges against 69,451 felony defendants — and in only six cases did a grand jury return a vote of no bill, indicating a refusal to indict.
Yet the current Justice Department has faced this outcome several times in recent months while attempting to prosecute perceived foes of the president’s agenda.
“This is pretty rare for a prosecutor to want an indictment and not get one,” University of Illinois Professor Andrew Leipold, an expert on the federal judiciary system, told ABC News. “The most obvious answer is that the government is being aggressive in prosecuting federal crimes, and grand juries are simply not in agreement.”
Vice President JD Vance has said that any such actions are “driven by law and not by politics.”
After a federal judge in November dismissed the cases the Justice Department had brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, the DOJ again sought an indictment of the New York AG.
The move came after U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that that the appointment of Trump’s handpicked interim U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan, was unconstitutional and that Halligan acted in an “unlawful” and “ineffective” manner when she brought charges of making false statements against Comey and mortgage fraud charges against James.
Ten days after Judge Cameron’s ruling, a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, refused to indict James on the same charges when the Justice Department attempted to refile the case, according to sources.
A second grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia’s Alexandria branch then rejected the charges when the DOJ attempted to file the case for a third time.
“This unprecedented rejection makes even clearer that this case should never have seen the light of day,” James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement.
Last August, D.C. prosecutors failed to secure an indictment against a man accused of throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent after video of the confrontation went viral and provoked an all-out public relations blitz from the White House and Justice Department touting his arrest and the federal assault charge against him.
Sean Charles Dunn was arrested on charges of allegedly throwing a Subway sandwich at a CBP agent who was patrolling with Metro Transit Police in northwest Washington on the night of Aug. 9, amid the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard troops in the capital.
“You f—— fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn is alleged to have shouted at the CBP officer before allegedly throwing the sandwich, which struck the officer in the chest.
Prosecutors similarly failed to convince a federal grand jury in D.C. to indict a woman who was accused by the government of assaulting an FBI agent during an inmate swap with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The U.S. attorney’s office was unable to secure an indictment against Sidney Reid despite making three separate attempts, according to court records.
ABC News’ Alexander Mallin and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(ORANGEBURG, S.C.) — Two people were killed and one person was wounded after a shooting Thursday night on the campus of South Carolina State University, the school said.
The shooting, which was reported in an apartment at the Hugine Suites student residential complex on the Orangeburg campus, prompted a campus lockdown that remained in place hours after the shooting, according to a news release from the university.
Officials have not released any details about a suspect.
The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is investigating the shooting, the university said.
The university said school officials have not confirmed the victims’ identities or the condition of the wounded person.
Classes are canceled Friday, the university said.
Two shootings on the campus in October, including one at the same student housing complex, left one person dead and another wounded.
The university has a student population of about 2,800 students.
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency has walked back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
Calling it “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” the EPA announced Thursday that it was “eliminating both the Obama-era 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.”
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the announcement in the White House, alongside President Donald Trump.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” Zeldin said in a statement after the announcement. “The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream.”
The EPA said the decision would “[save] American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion,” and “restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks.”
In a statement to ABC News prior to Thursday’s announcement, the EPA called the endangerment finding “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” adding, “in the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
Community members pay respects at a “Memorial Garden” filled with flowers, photos and mementos outside the Tops Friendly Market on Jefferson Avenue on July 14, 2022 in Buffalo, New York. (John Normile/Getty Images)
(BUFFALO, N.Y.) — Nearly four years after 10 Black people were gunned down in a racially motivated mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, the victims’ families have reached a settlement with the firearms accessory company listed as a defendant in the case.
The Georgia-based manufacturer Mean Arms has agreed to pay $1.75 to settle a lawsuit filed in 2023, accusing the company of providing online instructions on how to remove a locking device it manufactured for AR-15-style rifles to turn the guns into assault weapons, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced.
“Today, justice looks like accountability, and we have ensured that this device will never be sold in our state again,” James, who filed the lawsuit along with the group Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center, said in a statement on Wednesday.
Mean Arms did not immediately respond to a request from ABC News for comment on the settlement. The company agreed to the settlement “without admitting or denying any allegations, claims, or assertions in the complaints filed in this action,” according to court papers filed in New York Supreme Court in Buffalo.
On May 14, 2022, the gunman, Payton Gendron, a self-professed white supremacist, opened fire with a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle in a Tops supermarket on Buffalo’s East Side neighborhood, killing 10 Black shoppers and injuring three other people.
According to the lawsuit, Gendron followed step-by-step instructions provided by Mean Arms to remove a device sold attached to the weapon called an MA Lock, which prevented the rifle from accepting magazines with more than 10 rounds. New York law bans the possession of assault weapons with high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The removal of the lock allowed Gendron, who was 18 at the time of the shooting, to attach a 30-round magazine and convert the gun into an illegal assault weapon that he used in the attack, according to the lawsuit.
“With a pistol grip and the high-capacity magazines, he did not have to stop to reload his weapon, and when he did reload, he could do so quickly. As a result, he was able to kill 10 people and injure three others,” according to James’ statement.
As part of the settlement, Mean Arms agreed to permanently stop selling the MA Lock in New York and, according to James, remove any statements that claim the MA Lock is legal in New York and state on all packaging that the device cannot be sold or resold in New York.
“This has not been an easy fight and no amount of money will ever make up for the loss of our loved ones, but through this courageous action and in this instance, justice has prevailed and this settlement will provide additional fuel for the fight ahead,” said Garnell Whitfield, the former Buffalo fire chief whose 86-year-old mother, Ruth Whitfield, was killed in the massacre.
Gendron pleaded guilty in November 2022 to 15 state charges, including domestic terrorism motivated by hate, murder and attempted murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Gendron is scheduled to face a federal trial this coming summer, in which he could get the death penalty if convicted.
“We will never forget and stop fighting for our 10 neighbors who were senselessly taken away from us in a tragic, racist act of terror,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement. “As we continue to help the families and community heal, I’m grateful to the Attorney General for her partnership in seeking justice for those impacted and working to keep New Yorkers safe by ensuring our nation-leading gun laws are being followed.”
Pride flags are seen outside Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center during the 2024 NYC Pride March on June 30, 2024 in New York City. (Noam Galai/Getty Images)
The group gathered at the Stonewall National Monument on Thursday morning and called on the NPS, which is overseen by the U.S. Department of the Interior, to restore the flag. It became the first rainbow flag to fly on federally-funded land after it was permanently installed by NPS in 2021, during the Biden administration.
The group gathered at the Stonewall National Monument, a federal site honoring the LGBTQ movement, on Thursday morning and called on the NPS to restore the flag. It became the first rainbow flag to fly on federally-funded land after it was permanently installed by NPS in 2021, during the Biden administration.
NPS is overseen by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
“We sent a letter to the National Park Service to demand the return of the flag. Now, if you think about it, the fact that we even need to be here today is outrageous,” New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin said on Thursday morning amid changes of “return the flag!”
“It’s unconscionable. It’s unacceptable. This is an effort by the Trump administration to erase the LGBTQ community, and we will not stand for it,” she added.
The Trump administration didn’t immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
Manhattan Borough President Brd Hoylman-Sigal, who reflected on the significance of the pride flag in a Tuesday interview on ABC News Live Prime, vowed on Thursday morning that the flag will be re-raised on the grounds of the Stonewall Monument that afternoon.
“We speak united in that Donald Trump and his minions in Washington cannot and will not erase us. Am I right about that?” Hoylman-Sigal said. “So today, so today, at 4 p.m. we will be gathering again here, and I hope many of you will join us, and we will re-raise our pride flag in the memory of those whose shoulders we stand on, who fought for LGBTQ equality and who point the direction forward for generations of queer Americans.”
Asked about the plan to re-raise the flag, NPS did not respond to requests for comment.
The NPS communications office confirmed the removal of the rainbow flag in a statement to ABC News on Tuesday morning. It said that, under federal guidance, “only the U.S. flag and other congressionally or departmentally authorized flags are flown on NPS-managed flagpoles, with limited exceptions.”
“Any changes to flag displays are made to ensure consistency with that guidance. Stonewall National Monument continues to preserve and interpret the site’s historic significance through exhibits and programs,” the statement continued.
The removal of the flag comes after President Donald Trump directed Interior Sec. Doug Burgum in a March 2025 executive order to remove “divisive” and “anti-American” content from museums and national parks. Asked if the removal of the pride flag was in response to Trump’s order, NPS did not comment.
New York State Sen. Erik Bottcher said during the press conference on Thursday morning that NPS installed an American flag in place of the Stonewall pride flag.
“What they’re trying to do is set us up to take down the American flag and pit the rainbow flag against the American flag,” Bottcher said. “We’re not going to do that because the rainbow flag is completely compatible with the American flag, because our movement, the LGBTQ rights movement, is an American civil rights movement.”
Stonewall National Monument was designated a national monument by President Barack Obama in June 2016, becoming the first federal monument dedicated to LGBTQ+ rights.
It is located near the Stonewall Inn, a historic gay bar in the neighborhood that was a safe haven for many in the LGBTQ+ community in the 1960s. The bar was violently raided by the NYPD in 1969, leading to riots that became known as the Stonewall Uprising, which is credited with kickstarting the modern LGBTQ+ movement. The NYPD publicly apologized for the raid in 2019.
“The flag is more than a piece of cloth. It’s a symbol of how diverse we are, the colors stand for joy and harmony,” New York Assemblyman Tony Simone said on Thursday morning. “They want to erase us. We’re not going anywhere. We will grow in numbers. Get off your couches. We need to rise up in this nation … this is our America too.”
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency is walking back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
President Donald Trump, joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is expected to announce the decision on Thursday.
In a statement to ABC News, the EPA said it’s “actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people. Sixteen years ago, the Obama Administration made one of the most damaging decisions in modern history – the 2009 Endangerment Finding. In the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
In an aerial view Salvadorian armed forces stand guard outside CECOT (Counter Terrorism Confinement Center) where thousands of accused gang members are imprisoned on December 15, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. John Moore/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of the Venezuelan migrants who were were deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison last year in violation of a court order.
Boasberg on Thursday criticized the administration’s refusal to offer remedies for the deportees for what he called “flagrant” due-process violations.
“Our starting point is the Court’s prior finding that the deportees were denied due process,” Boasberg wrote. “Against this backdrop, and mindful of the flagrancy of the Government’s violations of the deportees’ due-process rights that landed Plaintiffs in this situation, the Court refuses to let them languish in the solution-less mire Defendants propose.”
The judge’s order requires the government to provide “boarding letters” and cover the financial cost of air travel for the Venezuelans currently in third countries who “so desire” to return to the U.S.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
