News

(NEW YORK) — The results of House, governor and mayoral primary elections in six states on Tuesday night show some promising signs for incumbents and the Democratic establishment and the potential limits of an endorsement from President Donald Trump.

They also show what a key toss-up race jolted by a congressman’s absence will look like in the November midterms.

Here are some takeaways from the June 2 primaries.

Karen Bass is first LA mayor in more than 20 years to face runoff

In Los Angeles’ closely watched nonpartisan mayoral primary race, embattled incumbent Mayor Karen Bass has reason for enthusiasm after months of uncertainty, while reality star Spencer Pratt still has to play the waiting game, although he appears to have put up a strong showing. ABC News projected on Tuesday that Bass will advance to a runoff in November, meaning she will have a shot to keep her seat.

Bass, the first woman and second African American elected to lead the city, is the first Los Angeles mayor to face a runoff in more than two decades.

Bass dedicated her reelection campaign to emphasizing her past experience and achievements in the role, but faced scrutiny over her record and battled criticism for her handling of last year’s Los Angeles wildfires. Bass, who was away from the city on a planned diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades Fire first erupted, has pushed back on criticism over her management of the fire, saying earlier this year that her focus “is on the lives and on the homes.”

Criticism of Bass gave an opening to Spencer Pratt, the former star of “The Hills,” who ran a campaign focused on calling out Bass’ handling of the fires and saying that he’d fix a city he felt had become broken.

It’s still unclear if Pratt will advance to the next round with Bass, or whether progressive city councilmember Nithya Raman will end up in the runoff. As of Wednesday morning, Pratt is in second place and leads Raman by around 8 percentage points, but there is still around an estimated 40% of the vote left to be counted.

Pratt’s current second-place position, which could shift, might be read by some as a limit on the allure of celebrity candidates. However, it could also be seen as a sign of the strength of Pratt running a campaign with a clear message and going beyond relying just on name recognition.

In the state’s marquee race for governor, meanwhile, it’s still too early to tell which candidates will advance in the top-two primary — with many mail ballots still to be counted.

As of Wednesday morning, Trump-endorsed Republican Steve Hilton and former Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, have the most votes, with billionaire businessman Tom Steyer — a Democratic candidate who spent tens of millions in the race — running behind them.

In Iowa, a loss for Trump-supported candidate in gubernatorial primary and potential win for the Democratic establishment

Trump’s key endorsements during the 2026 election cycle have usually resulted in wins for his preferred candidates, including in Kentucky’s recent 4th Congressional District primaries where a Trump-backed challenger unseated the maverick GOP Rep. Thomas Massie.

But one major Trump-backed candidate in Iowa conceded in his primary.

Republican Rep. Randy Feenstra, who currently represents Iowa’s 4th Congressional District and was mounting a statewide bid for governor, conceded late Tuesday to GOP opponent and “Make America Healthy Again” movement supporter, Zach Lahn, in the gubernatorial primary in Iowa.

As of Wednesday morning, he trailed Lahn by around 1 percentage point.

Lahn will face Iowa state auditor Rob Sand, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary, in November. Democrats have feted Sand as a candidate who can flip the governorship by appealing to voters across the aisle, although he’ll still face an uphill battle in a state that voted for Trump by 13 points in 2024.

Meanwhile, Iowa state Rep. Josh Turek’s projected win by over 20 percentage points in the Iowa Democratic primary for Senate could be seen as a win for establishment Democrats, in a year when progressive challengers have been making waves in primaries across the country and occasionally unseating incumbents.

Turek himself is not an average politician. He has a unique background, as a four-time Paralympian born with spina bifida after his father was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. But he was also, to an extent, seen as the Democratic establishment’s choice, given that he received support from Democratic groups that are aligned with Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who did not formally endorse Turek, and took on positions that tacked to the center.

Turek will face Trump-backed Rep. Ashley Hinson, the projected winner of the Republican primary, in what is set to become one of the most closely watched Senate races of 2026. The seat is opening up as Republican incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst is retiring.

Key New Jersey matchup gets set amid Kean’s absence

ABC News has projected that Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, will be the Democratic nominee for Congress in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, in what is set to be a closely watched matchup between incumbent GOP Rep. Tom Kean and Bennett this November — especially given Kean’s unusual absence from Congress for months. Trump has backed Kean regardless of his absence.

New Jersey’s 7th District was already a top target for Democrats this year even before Kean’s disappearance occurred. The district is rated as a toss up-by the Cook Political Report, and Trump just barely carried it in 2024.

Kean flipped the seat in 2022 for Republicans, just a few years after Democrat Tom Malinowski flipped the seat when he won it in 2018. But Kean has been absent from Congress for months, and has not voted since March 5. For weeks, Kean’s office has defended the congressman’s hiatus — telling reporters that he is addressing an unspecific medical issue.

Kean said in a statement on Tuesday afternoon, “I am optimistic about the road ahead, and ready to earn the support of voters in every corner of this district.” A spokesperson for Kean also told ABC News that the congressman voted by mail last week.

ABC News’ Emily Chang, Clarissa Gonzalez, Juhi Doshi, Gaby Vinick, Lauren Peller, John Parkinson and Jay O’Brien contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Two physician associate groups have sued the Trump administration over a federal rule limiting student loan borrowing for some graduate degree programs that impact healthcare professionals, including physician associates and assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners and other clinical providers.

The American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) and the Physician Associates Education Association (PAEA) filed a lawsuit aimed at reversing a Department of Education regulation that the plaintiffs claim violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They are separately requesting an emergency injunction that seeks to block the rule from taking effect for PA students on July 1.

The complaint also claims that the rule exceeds the Education Department’s statutory jurisdiction and is therefore unlawful. The Government Accountability Office website said the Administrative Procedure Act prescribes the minimum procedural steps an agency must follow in its administrative proceedings.

The lawsuit alleges the Education Department overstepped its legal authority by disqualifying a PA degree from being categorized as a professional degree.

The new rule entitled the Reimagining and Improving Student Education-Federal Student Loan Program (RISE) — which is based on an existing regulation — finalized the definition of “professional” and “graduate” programs, restricting student loan borrowing limits to $200,000 and $100,000 total for professional and graduate degrees respectively. The $100,000 total cost for PA students is capped at $20,500 annually.

AAPA’s CEO Lisa Gables said the rule will have “devastating consequences” for the PA workforce.

“PA programs meet every element of the professional degree definition that Congress established in law,” Gables wrote in a statement. “They award entry-level master’s degrees, require rigorous clinical training, and lead to professional licensure in all 50 states.”

She added, “We are in court to ensure the law is implemented as Congress intended.”

According to the Education Department’s final regulation, pharmacy and dentistry are among the list of eleven professional degree programs –- including medicine, law and clinical psychology degrees –- eligible for the $200,000 cap, but teaching, nursing, and physician associates are now capped at the lower limit.

The median PA program tuition is nearly $97,000 for residents before fees and additional costs, according to AAPA.

The recent move is drawing widespread concern from public service advocates as the healthcare groups stress that the federal loan limits will push many students to be dependent on private student loans, which have stricter approval requirements, unfavorable interest rates, and limited repayment plan options.

The rule would harm the associations’ ability to provide member services and advocacy and the groups’ members would also suffer “negative consequences” if PA students do not have access to the higher loan amounts that allow them to attend PA programs, according to the complaint.

Rory O’Sullivan, at D.C.-based policy think-tank Arnold Ventures, argued that loan limits should be based on degree program outcomes, not what field of study the degree is in.

Wednesday’s filing comes as 24 states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration on similar grounds in May, arguing that the rule would widen the nursing shortage because the borrowing limit would disincentivize students from entering the field.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon defended her department’s rule at an annual budget hearing on Capitol Hill last month.

“These particular programs have not been reclassified as nonprofessional,” McMahon said during the House Education committee hearing. “They were never classified as professional degrees – that just wasn’t a part of the equation.”

“There’s been no other measure that has been taken to try to bring down the cost of education,” McMahon contended.

The Department of Education emphasized that loan caps are “common sense” and place downward pressure on the cost of tuition across the country.

Ellen Keast, the press secretary for higher education at the Education Department, told ABC News in a statement, “For two decades, colleges and universities have been able to charge virtually unlimited tuition, even as many student loan borrowers see little to no return on their investment.”

“During this time, tuition has risen faster than any other household expense, and 71 percent of graduates with debt report delaying major life milestones, while institutions have taken in billions at the expense of young Americans’ financial stability,” Keast said.

She added: “The Trump Administration is working to correct this longstanding imbalance by ending a system that pushed students into debt they often could not repay and by promoting access to high quality education that serves students, not institutional bottom lines.”

‘My dream of being a PA is probably shot’

Wednesday’s complaint said the rule will burden students, like Ben Pinckney from New York, and deter them from applying to PA programs. The plaintiffs said it effectively creates scenarios where those aspiring PAs are unable to afford the cost of attendance because the vast majority of PA students need the higher loan limits authorized for the “professional student” to be able to attend PA school.

Pinckney told ABC News in an exclusive interview he has dreamed of becoming a PA for years but said he’s still struggling to find an affordable graduate school within the student loan caps. The 46-year-old recent college graduate said an emergency room PA saved his life when he was the victim of a shooting years ago and that inspired him to pursue medicine as a profession.

“Not only did he save my life in the physical, but [also with] the conversations we used to have,” Pinckney told ABC News, adding “My mentality and my way of thinking changed because of the PA.”

Pinckney, who later served in the U.S. Army as a combat medic, said he voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 but believes the Trump administration’s rule is “hurting both sides” by making the PA degree harder to obtain.

“It’s less about politics and more about helping providers or potential providers get the schooling they need, so that we can go into the communities that we want to go into and help those people,” Pinckney said.

PAs treat patients under the supervision of a physician in healthcare settings, including hospitals, doctors’ offices, and outpatient clinics, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Advocates stress that the department’s decision could strain critical patient care access and the majority of students pursuing PA degrees, who will comprise a significant share of the nation’s healthcare workforce over the next decade.

Pinckney said it’s heartbreaking because his goal of becoming a healthcare provider – within an already overburdened healthcare system – remains in limbo. “If nothing changes, then my dream of being a PA is probably shot,” Pinckney said. “If nothing is done short of someone giving me, you know, a huge grant or scholarship, then this chapter for me is over,” he later added.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon is increasingly strained by a growing list of unplanned and rising expenses over the last year, with fuel costs emerging as one of the most significant pressures.

Defense Department records show the average price the agency paid for fuel climbed from $154.14 per barrel in October to $195.72 in April – a nearly 27% increase in just six months, documents show.  Those costs are averages across two dozen types of fuels the military uses, including gasoline and jet fuel.

Oil and fuel prices have surged during the Iran war. That surge could saddle the Pentagon with more than $1 billion in unplanned costs this year to power its jets, tanks and other military equipment, based on the department’s fuel consumption in recent years. The Defense Department purchases some 80 million barrels of fuel annually.

Commanders are also grappling with surging civilian fuel and commercial airfare costs, adding to the financial strain on a military that depends heavily on both. Troops typically use commercial flights and rental cars to travel to different training events, and are often compensated for miles driven in personal vehicles.

Because of that, travel is being heavily scrutinized, with some formations dramatically reducing travel for training and other events or outright canceling the bulk of it since at least April, multiple U.S. officials explained to ABC News and documents show.

“Current energy market dynamics are increasing fuel costs, which can affect the costs of transporting personnel, supplies and equipment,” Lt. Col. Orlando Howard, an Army spokesperson, said in a statement, adding that the service is prioritizing travel and equipment usage to preserve funding for critical operations and readiness requirements.

According to internal documents and multiple U.S. officials, the Army has been forced to make sweeping cuts to training as it grapples with a $4 billion-$6 billion shortfall through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

That shortfall is attributed to a confluence of factors, including the Iran war, expanding missions on the U.S. southern border, and the National Guard’s ongoing mission in Washington, D.C., which is aimed to double in size to some 5,000 troops for the summer.

Compounding those issues are rising fuel costs, all spurring intense financial scrutiny. The reductions have eliminated dozens of training courses, including programs for medical personnel, engineers and artillery troops. The service has also sharply curtailed helicopter flight hours, limiting many crews to minimum flying requirements, internal service plans show.

But it is not only the Army that is feeling the strain of financial belt-tightening – some of the other services also face unexpected expenses that could impact training cycles.

Adm. Daryl Caudle, the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, warned lawmakers in May that the sea service might start running out of money soon.

“You see a large Navy force in the Middle East. So we’re burning bright … but it does come at cost, and it comes at operational costs,” Caudle told the House Armed Services Committee, adding that the service will start running out of money in the summer.

“I will have to start making decisions to change training, operations, certification events, those type of things we do to generate our force, in the July timeframe and their current expenditure,” he said.

One internal Army assessment in April found that the financial pain could leave units slated to deploy to Europe next year with what the assessment framed as an insufficient amount of training. The review, which examined the Army’s III Armored Corps – a roughly 70,000-soldier formation headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas – concluded it could take more than a year to restore affected units to their pre-Iran war training levels.

The military’s complex web of fuel purchasing provides some protection against market volatility. In many cases, the Pentagon purchases fuel through contracts 18 months in advance.

But those agreements include provisions that allow prices to be adjusted if the market shifts, limiting the department’s ability to fully insulate itself from sustained increases.

Fuel prices surged in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, destabilizing markets. The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. climbed past $5 for one week that summer, according to federal data. That year, Congress twice gave the Pentagon more money for fuel, totaling $5.2 billion.

Additionally, the Defense Department is using far more fuel this year than it projected when budgets were set more than a year ago, with the Air Force burning through 10% more than it projected it would, Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the chief of staff of the Air Force, told lawmakers in May, amid the ongoing war with Iran.

That could mean the use of hundreds of thousands of gallons of extra fuel. The Defense Department is by far the federal government’s largest fuel consumer, burning roughly 227 million gallons of diesel and about 2.2 billion gallons of jet fuel annually since 2021, according to Pentagon data.

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps is not facing any notable funding shortfall, nor has it had to scale back any training, according to the service, though it is significantly smaller than the other branches of the military.

“Annually, we adjust our budgeted spend plans to address various contingencies as they arise, ensuring we prioritize our most critical mission requirements,” a Marine Corps spokesperson said in a statement.

ABC News’ Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department’s number three-ranked official suggested overnight in a since deleted post that the Trump administration would be moving forward with an alternative plan to compensate victims of claimed Biden-era “weaponization.”

The post came just hours after the acting attorney general committed to Congress that DOJ was scrapping plans for a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The fund was created in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as well as two civil claims related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Stanley Woodward, the associate attorney general who signed off on the president’s controversial settlement, responded approvingly to a suggestion pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on X Tuesday that victims of so-called Biden-era “weaponization” could still be compensated through claims under the requests under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

“We’re on it.” Woodward posted at 10:45 p.m. Tuesday evening in response to Graham’s post. Woodward’s post was deleted Wednesday morning, and a DOJ spokesperson has not responded to ABC’s request for comment as to why it’s no longer on his X account.

The post comes just hours after acting AG Todd Blanche told House lawmakers that the administration was permanently scrapping plans for its “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

Blanche, however, under pressure from Democrats did not commit to putting the department’s position into writing.

Democrats could seek to seize on Woodward’s post as evidence the administration is seeking an alternate way to pay Jan 6 rioters.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LOS ANGELES) — Votes are being counted in the closely watched primary election to determine Los Angeles’ next mayor.

Voters in the nation’s second-largest city had their choice of 14 candidates to choose from in a race that included incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV personality Spencer Pratt and city Councilwoman Nithya Raman.

ABC News projects that Bass will advance to a runoff, though it is currently unclear which candidate she will face in the runoff election.

During the campaign, candidates running for the top office in Los Angeles focused on a variety of issues afflicting the Southern California metropolis, including recovery from the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homelessness, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and more.

While the primary is nonpartisan, Bass has served Congress as a Democrat, Raman is a self-described Democrat, and Pratt is a registered Republican.

Here is a rundown of the candidates, the issues and how the election will function.

The candidates

While 14 candidates are running for office, three front-runners have emerged in polls: Bass, Pratt and Raman met in the only televised debate of the race on May 6.

Bass, a Los Angeles native, entered politics in 2004 after a career in medicine as a physician assistant. The mayor served in the California State Assembly, rising to the speaker of the assembly before running for Congress in 2010.

She served six terms in the House as a Democrat before becoming the first woman and second African American mayor of Los Angeles in 2022.

Raman, running as a progressive, launched her campaign earlier this year, just before the deadline, and has been a member of the city council since 2020.

Raman, who holds degrees from both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describes herself as an “urban planner” on her website.

Pratt, who has generated headlines since announcing his candidacy earlier this year, is running as an outsider in the field. Pratt rose to fame in his 20s serving as a villain archetype on the hit reality TV show “The Hills.”

The former reality star has said his political ambitions were fueled by his association with the Palisades wildfire, which claimed his home.

The issues

No topic has been more prominent in the mayoral campaign than the Los Angeles fire response and recovery. When fires ravaged the region in early 2025, more than 10,000 structures were destroyed as more than 30,000 acres of the city burned.

Pratt has been the most outspoken critic of the city’s response. Bass has defended her actions while also admitting the city must learn from the fire. Raman has also criticized the “dysfunctional” response to the fires.

Homelessness, another key issue candidates have focused on down the stretch, was hotly debated on the debate stage last month. Bass has cited what she says are inroads on the issue, saying L.A. had seen a decrease in homelessness under her administration.

Raman’s campaign has stressed the importance of bringing unhoused people indoors, while Pratt has focused on what he sees as the core cause of homelessness: drug addiction.

The candidates also have different stances on what the city’s approach to ICE should be. Last year, ICE raids became a flashpoint for widespread protests across the city.

As mayor, Bass has pushed back on ICE’s presence in Los Angeles, saying in a press release in March, “Los Angeles will not stand for ICE’s fear, intimidation and unlawful targeting.”

Raman’s plan to address ICE in Los Angeles includes appointing a police chief “committed to protecting immigrants” and ensuring the Los Angeles Police Department “does not coordinate with federal immigration enforcement,” according to her website.

Pratt recently told ABC News the future mayor would not be able to work with ICE because of California’s sanctuary law status, adding, “I’m going to make the streets so safe the federal government is not going to need to come to L.A., because they’re going to be like ‘Wow this mayor has these streets safe and clean.'”

Other hot topics at play in the primary is the revival of Hollywood, LAPD funding, affordable housing and more.

How the primary works

According to the city of Los Angeles election code, the Los Angeles mayoral primary can result in either an outright winner or a runoff, depending on final vote tallies.

A candidate will be determined the winner if they receive a majority of votes in the primary. In the case that does not happen, the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff in the general election in November.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.