News

(MIAMI) —  Eileen Higgins, the Democratic former Miami-Dade county commissioner set to become Miami’s next mayor after prevailing in Tuesday night’s runoff election, achieved political milestones for the city with her victory.

Higgins will become the city’s first woman to serve as mayor. She also flipped the position in the major Florida city to Democratic control after it was in Republican or independent hands for almost three decades.

“Tonight, our city chose a new direction,” Higgins told supporters on Tuesday night.

The win marks another win for Democrats after a spate of election victories in November and a closer-than-expected special congressional election in Tennessee earlier this month.

She prevailed in the majority-Hispanic city amid concerns among Democrats over losing support among Latino voters in last year’s elections.

Higgins, in an interview with ABC News on Monday, said that she has served a Republican-leaning district for years as a “proud Democrat” and that she knows she could only win if Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike turn out for her.

But that does not mean she would check her Democratic affiliation at the door.

“People know I serve in a nonpartisan race, but I bring my Democratic values with me. … I’m proud to be a Democrat, but the people here know I’m going to serve everybody. I always have and I always will,” Higgins told ABC News.

One of her main focuses was on affordability, particularly as it pertains to housing, building on an issue that has been top of mind for voters nationwide in many polls and one that Democratic candidates, such as New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, honed in on in their own races.

She also campaigned on improving public transit and infrastructure, which ties into one area where she believes she will be able to work with the White House. Asked if there’s anywhere she can see herself collaborating or working with the Trump administration, Higgins said she has worked with senior administration officials across both of President Donald Trump’s terms, particularly on infrastructure.

“And I think we can find areas where we can collaborate together. … when it comes to things that matter to our community, I’m open to working with anyone on any party, and I have a proven track record of working with whoever’s in the White House, both during President Trump’s first term, his second term, and then, of course, working well with President Biden when he was president as well,” Higgins said.

Asked about where she might clash with the president or advocate for a different approach, Higgins said, “For me, the treatment of immigrants is front and center.”

She brought up how a significant amount of Miami-Dade County residents are immigrants covered under Temporary Protected Status, a program meant to safeguard immigrants from some countries from deportations. The administration has repeatedly attempted to end protections for immigrants enrolled in the program, including Venezuelans, claiming it is no longer in the national interest to continue offering protections..

“The federal government has said they are going to remove protections for all of those people, and they just have done that for Venezuelans. I fear for the economy of Florida, should that happen. And I hope and will continue to advocate for change in direction so that we can move forward as one of the strongest economies in the world,” Higgins said.

She faced off against Republican candidate and former City Manager Emilio Gonzales. While the race was technically nonpartisan, campaigning fell along partisan lines to an extent.

The national Democratic Party also lent Higgins support by making calls and recruiting volunteers. Trump, meanwhile, posted on social media on Sunday, “Vote for Republican Gonzalez. He is FANTASTIC!”

The election also came after a judge ruled earlier this year that city officials could not push elections back to 2026 without voter approval, after the Miami city council voted, and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez signed off, on canceling November’s elections and holding them in 2026 instead.

They had argued the alignment with statewide elections would lower costs and increase turnout, but the decision was met with pushback for being done via ordinance rather than a vote from the public.

Gonzales, who had sued the mayor and council, told ABC affiliate ABC Miami on Tuesday night, “Listen, I feel great. I have to feel great. Obviously I don’t like the result, but you know what? Bigger issue: we had an election. Six months ago, we weren’t sure we were going to have an election … we need to all do everything we can to make sure that [Higgins] succeeds, because if she succeeds, our city will succeed.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump ramped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric in a speech on Tuesday night, repeatedly attacking Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar and complaining about immigration outside of Europe.

“Let’s have a few from from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Send us some nice people. Do you mind? But we always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships,” Trump said as he addressed supporters in Pennsylvania.

The speech was billed as an event to sell his economic agenda, but quickly devolved into a campaign-style speech filled with derogatory insults.

Trump specifically took aim at Omar, a Somali American who represents Minnesota. He appeared to purposefully mispronounce her name and referred to Omar’s hijab as a turban.

“I love her, she comes in, does nothing but b—-. She’s always complaining. She comes from a country where, I mean, it’s considered about the worst country in the world, right?” Trump said.

“She should get the hell out. Throw her the hell out,” Trump added.

His supporters then launched into “send her back” chants about the congresswoman, who is an American citizen.

Omar responded to the remarks, the latest in Trump’s attacks on her and Somali immigrants, in a post on X late Tuesday.

“Trump’s obsession with me is beyond weird. He needs serious help. Since he has no economic policies to tout, he’s resorting to regurgitating bigoted lies instead. He continues to be a national embarrassment,” she wrote.

Trump admits to saying ‘s—hole countries’

Trump on Tuesday also recalled a 2018 meeting in which he told a group of senators behind closed doors that the U.S. shouldn’t accept immigrants from “s—hole countries” such as Haiti.

When it was reported at the time, Trump himself flatly denied using the expletive.

“Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor troubled country,” Trump wrote on X, then known as Twitter.

ABC News reported that in the 2018 Oval Office meeting with senators, Trump expressed frustration over the visa lottery program and asked those in the room why they would want people from Haiti, Africa and other “s—hole countries” coming into the United States.”

In his denial then, Trump accused Democrats in the meeting of making up comments attributed to him and said that he “probably should record future meetings.” Notably, the president back then did not deny he suggested that America should admit more immigrants from places such as Norway — comments that were confirmed by multiple sources with direct knowledge of the conversations.

But in his speech on Tuesday, Trump embraced the expletive as he boasted about pausing immigration applications from what he called “third-world countries” including “hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries.”

Someone in the audience then yelled the word “s—hole.”

“I didn’t say ‘s—hole,’ you did,” Trump quipped. “Remember, I said that to the senators. They came in, the Democrats, they wanted to be bipartisan, so they came in and they said, ‘This is totally off the record, nothing mentioned here, we want to be honest,’ because our country was going to hell.”

“And we had a meeting, and I say, ‘Why is it we only take people from s—hole countries,’ right? Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden? Just a few? Let’s have a few from from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Send us some nice people. Do you mind? But we always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.”

ABC News’ Justin Gomez and Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(HARRISBURG, Pa.) — Editor’s note: The story’s headline has been updated. 

In the wake of the firebombing of his official residence earlier this year, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is now facing questions about how he is spending tax dollars on security improvements for his private home.

A GOP-led committee in the state legislature voted Tuesday to issue three subpoenas seeking records related to, among other things, roughly $1 million in security upgrades to his personal home in the suburbs of Philadelphia. The Intergovernmental Operations Committee is also seeking documents concerning “several charter flights arranged for the Governor’s Office” in mid-January. 

The three subpoenas will be sent to the Pennsylvania State Police, the open records officer in the local township of Shapiro’s private residence and the charter flight company. They have until Jan. 16, 2026, to comply. 

In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for the governor called the move a “partisan attack” and said they’ve already provided some information.

“The Pennsylvania State Police and independent security experts conducted thorough reviews to pinpoint security failures, review protocols, identify gaps, and make concrete recommendations for improvements to the Governor’s security. As a direct result of those recommendations, security improvements have been put in place to keep the Governor and his family safe,” the spokesperson said. “The Shapiro Administration has repeatedly responded to lawmakers’ inquiries on this matter and publicly released a substantial amount of information about the security improvements put in place by PSP without compromising those security protocols.”

The Democratic governor is among several contenders rumored for his party’s presidential nomination in 2028. As his political star has risen, so too have the threats against him and other high-profile figures. 

The security improvements were recommended following the arson attack on the official governor’s residence in Harrisburg in April.

The attack occurred in the middle of the night, hours after the Shapiro family hosted more than two dozen people for the first night of Passover. Some Republicans in the legislature have said that while proper protections are appropriate — particularly amid rising political violence — they charge the governor has not been transparent. 

“No one disputes that the governor should have reasonable and appropriate security protection or that the governor should have access to transportation for reasonable and appropriate travel associated with this role,” state Sen. Jarrett Coleman, chairman of the Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee, told the committee as he made a motion to authorize the subpoenas. “But no administration — Republican or Democrat — should be allowed to operate in the shadows and refuse to provide basic data about their decisions when millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are involved and precedents are being set.”

The subpoenas were authorized on party-line votes of 7-4. Committee Democrats objected to the formal requests for records, Sen. Jay Costa dubbing it a “fishing expedition.” 

The subpoenas seek, among other things, records from the Pennsylvania State Police related to “any construction, landscaping/hardscaping, equipment and installation” as well as related legal services at the governor’s private family home, as well as police body camera footage from the grounds between Sept. 20, 2025, and Nov. 19, 2025.

They also seek texts, emails, and other communications between the State Police, the construction services and the local township related to the upgrade work that could shed light on how decisions were made about the upgrades.

They also seek records and correspondence from the township, including communications between the local zoning officer and Shapiro or his wife.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote a letter to Secretary of the Navy John Phelan on Tuesday expressing concern about the Navy’s review of Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy Captain who serves on the committee.

The letter, which was shared with ABC News, comes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asked Phelan to review Kelly for “potentially unlawful conduct” after the Arizona senator was featured in a video with five other Democrats who have served in the military and U.S. intelligence telling service members they could refuse illegal orders, according to a memo posted on social media by the Pentagon.

In the memo, Hegseth requests that he be briefed on the outcome of the review by no later than Dec. 10.

The Democrats on the committee, except for Kelly, condemned the review in the letter.

“We believe this ‘review’ along with the Department of Defense’s social media post announcing a ‘thorough review’ of Senator Kelly’s actions, ‘which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings’ is inappropriate, threaten the separation of powers established by our Founding Fathers, amount to a purely political exercise seeking to threaten legitimate and lawful actions by a duly elected Senator, and politicize our military justice system,” the senators wrote.

Kelly has criticized the Trump administration for threatening him with legal action. He has continued to post on social media slamming President Donald Trump and his officials over their policies.

“When Pete Hegseth tweeted he was investigating me, Gabby laughed and laughed,” Kelly said during an event last week, referring to his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords. “She realized two things. One, that guy’s a joke, and two, I’m not backing down.”

In the letter, these Democratic senators wrote to Phelan that “the theory that a sitting Member of Congress should be subject to disciplinary action entirely unrelated to their service, particularly for simply restating the law as articulated in the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial, sets an incredibly dangerous precedent.” 

The letter dismissed the review as a “baseless and patently political undertaking” and argued that it violates the separation of powers.

“Senator Kelly has been elected twice by the people of Arizona as their representative and voice in the Senate. The idea that the Department would try to undo or undermine the will of Arizona’s citizens is a direct affront to our democratic system of government,” the senators wrote.

The senators also challenged the idea that the review could be conducted impartially, citing social media posts from Trump and Hegseth that they say have made “fair proceedings impossible.”

Following the video’s posting in November, Trump wrote on social media that the video demonstrated “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” Trump and the White House subsequently denied that he was threatening the lawmakers with execution.

The senators said that statements like this, coupled with a directive from Hegseth to Phelan that he brief Hegseth on the review by Dec. 10, “demonstrate an outright, brazen abuse of power intended to influence the military justice process and intimidate and silence a U.S. Senator for purely political purposes.” 

Kelly responded to the call for a review during a press conference earlier this month.

“I will not be intimidated by this president. I am not going to be silenced by this president or the people around because I’ve given too much in service to this country to back down to this guy,” Kelly said at the time.

In their letter, the Democratic senators said that a review of Kelly raises “significant legal concerns” about Kelly’s constitutional protections under a number of statutes.

“The impartiality of our military and the military justice system to fairly uphold the Constitution and the law are paramount to our nation,” the senators wrote.

ABC News has reached out to Phelan for comment.

ABC News’ Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Education has moved to terminate one of former President Joe Biden’s most popular student loan forgiveness plans — impacting millions of Americans — through a proposed joint settlement with the state of Missouri on Tuesday.

The pending agreement ends the Saving on a Valuable Education or “SAVE” plan, which is home to over 7 million student loan borrowers. It marks a major victory for the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back Biden-era policies, including Biden’s numerous efforts to implement student loan debt cancellation.

Officials in the Trump administration’s Education Department, who’ve decried those policies for months, suggested that the administration is righting a wrong by ending the “deceptive scheme” of student loan forgiveness.

​The Biden administration touted the plan for including $0 payments for anyone making $16 an hour or less, lowering monthly payments for millions of borrowers, and protecting borrowers from runaway interest if they are making their monthly payments.

“The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a release from Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s department on Tuesday. “Thanks to the State of Missouri and other states fighting against this egregious federal overreach, American taxpayers can now rest assured they will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for illegal and irresponsible student loan policies.” 

The Biden administration launched the SAVE Plan, which it dubbed the most affordable payment plan ever, after the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s previous signature debt relief program in 2023. 

SAVE was one of several income driven repayment (IDR) plans, which calculate payment size based on income and family size, aimed at easing the repayment process as a pandemic-era pause ended.  

Several Republican-led states, including Missouri, sued the Biden administration over the plan, and a federal appeals court blocked the program in 2024. 

The announcement on Tuesday would mark an end to those lawsuits.

McMahon, a vocal critic of student loan forgiveness, has said the administration will no longer allow American taxpayers to take on debts that are not their own.

“The Biden Administration’s illegal SAVE Plan would have cost taxpayers, many of whom did not attend college or already repaid their student loans, more than $342 billion over ten years,” McMahon wrote in a post on X. “We will not tolerate it.”.

Her agency’s already saddled Federal Student Aid (FSA) Office will provide support to borrowers currently enrolled in selecting a new, “legal repayment plan,” the department said. 

The department said borrowers will have a limited time to find a new payment plan. However, FSA’s Loan Simulator tool will estimate monthly payments, determine repayment eligibility and select a new plan that best fits those borrowers’ needs and goals, the department said.

Some student loan advocates worry the proposed agreement unleashes chaos on borrowers.

“The 7+ million borrowers enrolled in SAVE will face higher monthly loan payments — and may lose out on months of progress toward loan forgiveness,” Michele Zampini, associate vice president of federal policy & advocacy at The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) wrote in a statement.

Protect Borrowers Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel Persis Yu said the move strips borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head. 

“This settlement is pure capitulation–it goes much further than the suit or the 8th Circuit order requires,” Yu wrote in a statement to ABC News. “The real story here is the unrelenting, right-wing push to jack up costs on working people with student debt.”

The news of the settlement comes as Trump’s signature domestic policy agenda, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, included a provision to terminate all current student loan repayment plans — such as SAVE and other income-driven repayment plans — for loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2026. 

Under that bill, the plans will be replaced with two separate repayment plans: a standard repayment plan and the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), a new income-based repayment plan coming July 1, 2026.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — More than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court outlawed the execution of intellectually disabled people convicted of capital crimes as “cruel and unusual” punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.

In a major case from Alabama before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices are asked to clarify who qualifies as “intellectually disabled” and what role intelligence quotient — also known as IQ — test scores play in making the determination.

Joseph Clifton Smith, an Alabama man who brought the case, confessed to a 1997 murder during a robbery, but challenged his death sentence on grounds he has had “substantially subaverage intellectual functioning” since a young age.

Smith has taken five separate IQ tests over nearly 40 years, scoring 75 in 1979, 74 in 1982, 72 in 1998, 78 in 2014 and 74 in 2017.

People below 70 are generally considered to have an intellectual disability, but major American medical groups urge a holistic assessment that also looks at social and practical skills.

The groups note that standardized test scores alone should not be conclusive. Smith’s score of 72, for example, could be 69 when factoring the 3-point margin of error.

“Intellectual disability diagnoses based solely on IQ test scores are faulty and invalid,” attorneys for the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association told the court in a legal brief. “But IQ test scores remain relevant; IQ tests are a scientifically valid means to ascertain estimates of an individual’s intellectual ability. The key is to understand both the value of IQ tests and their limits.”

Smith, who allegedly suffered physical and verbal abuse as a child, consistently functioned two grade-levels below his placement in school, according to court documents. Smith’s school classified him as “Educable Mentally Retarded” in 7th grade before he eventually dropped out.

Two lower federal courts ruled that a holistic analysis of Smith’s IQ scores and other evidence, including his behavioral history and school records, proved he is intellectually disabled and should spend life behind bars rather than face execution.

Alabama wants the justices to toss out that assessment.

“Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, and the Eighth Amendment does not override the death sentence he earned for murdering Durk Van Dam,” the state argued in its brief to the court. “Whether and how to weigh multiple IQ scores is left to state discretion.”

The state says intellectual disability can only be proven by an IQ score of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case will determine whether Smith lives or dies.

More broadly, the ruling could determine how many other borderline intellectually disabled people on death row could be able to convert their death sentences into life behind bars.

By one estimate, as many as 20% of the 2,100 people on death row in the U.S. may have some degree of intellectual disability, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

A ruling in the case — Hamm v. Smith — is expected by the end of June 2026.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.