Relentless rain and flash flooding have inundated parts of Kentucky over the weekend and left at least four dead, Gov. Andy Beshear said. (Richmond Police Department)
(NEW YORK) — A woman was killed on Sunday in Tennessee as she attempted to rescue her son, who had been swept away in high waters, a local sheriff’s office said, as a flash flood threat was in effect for parts of Tennessee and Kentucky, where four other deaths were recorded.
The Grainger County Sheriff’s Department in Tennessee said Mary Evelyn Nicole Manning-Kellione, 39, was killed on Sunday after she went to rescue her son after rising water carried him into a culvert.
“The son was able to surface at the other end and came to safety when he realized his mother was in the water,” the office said in a statement. “Rescue personnel located the individual lodged inside the culvert.”
The National Weather Service (NWS) Prediction Center had upgraded the flood threat on Sunday for parts of Kentucky and Tennessee to a level 3 out of 4 “moderate risk.”
Kentucky residents had been bracing for another round of relentless rain, a day after flash flooding killed at least four people and the governor declared a state of emergency.
The heaviest rain had been expected in southeast Kentucky and parts of Tennessee, including Owensboro and Somerset, Kentucky, and Knoxville, Tennessee.
Rainfall rates of 2 to 3 inches per hour are possible, according to the NWS, and daily totals could reach up to five inches in some parts.
Several flash-flood warnings were issued on Sunday morning as ongoing heavy rain and flooding were reported in southern Indiana and northeast Tennessee. A flash flood emergency has been issued for Metcalf, Cumberland and Clinton counties for ongoing life-threatening flooding, according to the NWS. Between 2.6 and 8 inches of rain have reportedly fallen over these areas.
There have been reports of multiple water rescues with some evacuations and homes flooded in Clinton County. Clinton County and the City of Albany, Kentucky, have issued states of emergency due to ongoing flooding.
Northwest North Carolina, which was hit by flash floods over the weekend, is also at an “elevated risk” of flash flooding on Sunday, according to the NWS.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear provided an update early Sunday afternoon in a video posted to X, saying in part that nine counties in all had declared states of emergency, some of which “got hit with record or almost record amounts of rain in very short periods of time,” he said. Search and rescue efforts remain underway, he said.
Beshear advised residents to stay off of the roads if they can. “Bridges have been wiped out, entire roads have been wiped away and there is still standing and moving water,” he said. He added that he’d activated the state’s price-gouging laws to prevent merchants from increasing prices on essential goods, and had also signed an emergency order “so pharmacies in areas that are hit can go ahead and fill people’s prescriptions that have been washed away or are no longer safe to take.”
The severe weather comes after a weekend of deadly flash flooding that occurred in Kentucky.
More than 10 inches of rain fell on Saturday in parts of the state, prompting flash flooding and deaths.
Beshear announced late Saturday that four people were killed in floods that hit central Kentucky and spread into northeast Tennessee and northwest North Carolina.
“Kentucky, I have some tough news to share,” the governor wrote in a social media post on Saturday, announcing the deaths.
Three fatalities occurred in Madison County, Kentucky, and one flood-related death happened in Jackson County, Beshear said.
According to the Madison County Coroner, of the three fatalities in the county, two of the deaths, one adult male and one adult female, occurred at a residence in Richmond.
The third death was an adult male who was swept away in his vehicle on Tates Creek Road in Madison County, the coroner said.
Beshear declared a statewide state of emergency on Saturday.
“This is a serious flooding event, where teams have already had to conduct multiple water rescues from vehicles and homes across the commonwealth,” Beshear said.
As crews from Kentucky to North Carolina clean up from the storms, a prolonged spell of extreme heat is forecast to settle in across the Midwest and Northeast this week.
Heat alerts have been issued across the Plains to the Ohio Valley and south to the Tennessee and Mississippi Valleys.
An excessive heat warning has been posted for Kansas City, Missouri, through Thursday night.
Temperatures in Kansas City are expected to climb into the 90s on Sunday.
On Monday, widespread highs in the 90s are forecast across the country’s midsection, but high humidity will make it feel hotter.
Excessive heat watches are expected to go into effect for Minneapolis and Chicago on Monday, with the temperature feeling like the triple digits during the afternoon hours.
In Minneapolis, the temperature could feel like 110 on Monday afternoon.
-ABC News’ Ahmad Hemingway contributed to this report.
(LOS ANGELES) — As several wildfires burn across the West, parts of the Four Corners region will once again see an extremely critical fire weather danger which could help current or new fires rapidly grow and become more dangerous.
The largest wildfire in Utah, the Cottonwood Fire, has burned more than 71,000 acres and remains 0% contained. Meanwhile, the Iron Fire has burned more than 40,000 acres and is 38% contained, while the Cherry Fire — a merger of the Maple Peak Fire and the original Cherry Fire — has burned an estimated 20,000 acres and is 0% contained.
Six states in the West are under Red Flag Warnings for dangerous fire weather conditions today, with some continuing to see them through Sunday.
The greatest risk area for fire weather conditions later Saturday is for parts of the Four Corners: eastern Utah, western Colorado, northeast Arizona and northwest New Mexico. This area is under the level 3 of 3 threat with an extremely critical fire weather risk in place. Hot, extremely dry and windy conditions are bringing favorable conditions for new fires to spark and spread rapidly.
Vegetation in the area is incredibly dry, providing ample, quick-burning fuel for wildfires. In the extreme risk area, sustained winds of 25 to 35 mph and gusts up to 55 mph are forecast with relative humidity values dipping into the single digits.
These conditions will promote extreme fire behavior in an area already dealing with large uncontrolled wildfires. Existing wildfires could explode in size and move erratically with new fires potentially growing rapidly as well.
Breezy and dry conditions will continue across this portion of the West this weekend; however, cooler temperatures will be settling in.
All of this comes after many states in the West, including Utah, saw their lowest snowpack on record this winter and are now under extreme drought conditions, which is furthering the critical fire weather danger in the region.
Severe thunderstorms and flooding The threat for flash flooding and severe storms continues in parts of the country on Saturday.
On Saturday morning, rounds of heavy rain are moving through parts of southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma, and these areas remain under a Flood Watch until later this morning for the potential of flash flooding.
Flood Watches extend from southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas to northern West Virginia and southern Ohio for potentially heavy rain today into tomorrow. This includes places such as Charleston, West Virginia; Cincinnati, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; Nashville, Tennessee; Evansville, Indiana; and Poplar Bluff, Missouri.
Some of these pockets of rain could have strong storms that produce gusty winds and lightning.
Two pockets of severe weather for Saturday include those centered over North Carolina and the other up towards the northern High Plains.
For much of North Carolina, a level 2 of 5 threat for severe storms is up for later Saturday into the evening for the potential for storms producing damaging winds.
Back towards the northern High Plains, a level 3 of 5 “enhanced risk” of severe storms is up for parts of west-central North Dakota, eastern Montana and northwest South Dakota – including Minot, North Dakota, and Glendive, Montana.
A level 2 of 5 threat for severe storms extends further into Montana and the Dakotas and also reaches down to western Nebraska, which includes Bismarck, North Dakota; Rapid City, South Dakota; Sheridan, Wyoming; and Valentine, Nebraska.
Storms here could produce damaging winds, large hail and a few tornadoes.
Extreme heat on the move Over the weekend, extreme heat will be building in the center of the country, starting in the southern Plains on Saturday and becoming more expansive across the central U.S. by Sunday.
There is growing confidence that a dangerous heat wave will impact millions across the Midwest early next week, with big heat also building across much of the East Coast by midweek.
By Monday, widespread highs in the 90s are forecast across the Midwest, with afternoon temperatures soaring into the upper 90s in Minneapolis.
Humid conditions will make it feel even hotter with heat index values potential reaching the triple digits in many areas.
Chicago and Detroit will see highs reaching the mid-to- upper 90s by Tuesday and Wednesday.
And a large swath of the I-95 corridor is set for a heat wave beginning Tuesday as the heat builds east, with temperatures at or above 90 from Washington, D.C., to New York and stay through at least midweek.
Meanwhile in the West, below average temperatures arriving this weekend will likely linger across the region through at least the first half of next week.
Undated photo of a bison in Yellowstone National Park. (Yellowstone National Park)
(NEW YORK) — A child visiting Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming was injured by a bison on Friday, according to park officials.
The incident occurred at approximately 9:15 a.m. local time near Mud Volcano, just north of Fishing Bridge.
The 12-year-old visitor was transported by emergency medical personnel to a nearby hospital, according to a release from Yellowstone National Park, which did not detail the extent of the injuries.
No further details on the encounter were released. The incident remains under investigation.
Park officials warned that the wildlife in Yellowstone, including bison, can be dangerous and become aggressive if people “do not respect their space.”
“Bison have injured more people in Yellowstone than any other animal,” the park said. “They are unpredictable, can run three times faster than humans and will defend their space when threatened.”
Last year, park officials reported two separate incidents of a person being gored by a bison in Yellowstone after approaching it too closely.
There were two reported incidents of a person injured by a bison in 2024 and one in 2023, park officials said.
Park goers are advised to stay at least 25 yards away from all large animals — including bison, as well as elk, bighorn sheep, deer, moose and coyotes — and at least 100 yards away from bears, wolves and cougars.
“If wildlife approach you, move away to maintain the required distance,” the park said. “Never approach, touch, feed or crowd wildlife, even if an animal appears calm.”
Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at Networth and Chill podcast at the Vox Media Podcast Stage at SXSW on March 15, 2026, in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Rick Kern/Getty Images for Vox Media)
(CALIFORNIA) — As he gears up for a possible presidential bid, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday proposed a national “billionaires’ tax,” — a day after the state wealth tax measure he opposes qualified for the November ballot.
Newsom’s counter proposal calls for a federal minimum tax rate on Americans worth more than $100 million, rather than a state level one-time 5% wealth tax that the governor argues could be dodged by billionaires who could leave the state for another.
Newsom, who said earlier this month that he is “considering running for president,” said the country should return to pre-2017 corporate tax rates and close offshore loopholes that allow multinationals to shift profits and pay less in taxes. He also said inheritance rules need to be rewritten.
“Over the next twenty years, this country will live through the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in human history, with roughly $124 trillion changing hands. If we do not act, that transfer of wealth among the ultra-wealthy will lock in a permanent American aristocracy of inherited wealth,” Newsom wrote in a Substack post announcing the proposal on Friday morning.
The announcement comes a day after California’s own billionaire tax qualified for the November ballot, having collected more than double the signatures needed. The measure, a one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth introduced by healthcare workers union SEIU-UHW, in response to steep healthcare funding cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” has faced opposition from Newsom, California Democratic gubernatorial nominee Xavier Becerra and major lobbying organizations.
“We can’t let a single advocacy organization, however well-intentioned, write the state’s tax code on its own terms,” Newsom wrote, calling out the SEIU-UHW.
The measure has also led to heavy spending from billionaires, who oppose the tax. The nonprofit, Building a Better California, which supports committees promoting two competing ballot initiatives that would nullify the billionaire tax initiative, if passed, has raised more $118 million — and $80 million of that comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
Newsom says that he understands the “anxiety driving the wealth tax proposal in California,” but that he’s voting no on the California proposal, because he argues the measure dedicates almost all of the revenue to just state-funded healthcare services.
SEIU-UHW Vice President Debru Carthan said Thursday that the coalition supporting the tax would not back down.
“The billionaire tax will be on the November ballot,” said Carthan. “And we intend to win.”
About 250 billionaires would be taxed under the California measure, and the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says it’s likely that some billionaires would leave the state.
“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” Newsom writes. “Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes. The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”
Dan Schnur, a political science professor at UC Berkeley, called Newsom’s tax proposal “savvy political positioning” as it helps him enter the 2028 field without being seen as an opponent to taxing the rich.
“He’s not against taxing billionaires, he just has a different way of doing it,” Schnur said. “He now has an answer for progressive Democrats, whether in California or in early primary states, as to why he didn’t support the ballot measure.”
In Washington, another 2028 contender, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, joined Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders — both of whom supported the California’s initiative — in introducing legislation that would establish an annual 5% wealth tax on billionaires nationwide.
Newsom is also proposing a national public equity fund, giving Americans a stake in economic gains generated by artificial intelligence companies. The fund — aimed at workers left behind by automation — would support universal child care, free higher education, career training and healthcare.
“Part of this fund could provide a real transition for the laid-off factory worker in Ohio or the 25-year-old coder in San Francisco who sent out a thousand resumes and got zero callbacks,” Newsom wrote. “This could include significant severance and portable benefits while we support them through the transition and into new jobs with programs like enhanced employment insurance.”
“As artificial intelligence reshapes the country, every American should own a piece of the future it builds,” Newsom wrote.
Other potential 2028 contenders are also beginning to stake out their positions on AI. Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced legislation proposing a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction, which would create a temporary prohibition on the construction and expansion of data centers until Congress passes legislation to address the economic, environmental and safety impacts of artificial intelligence.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, a move which would upend more than a century of legal precedent and a national tradition that have said babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.
The ruling, one of the most highly anticipated of the year, is a major test of Trump’s unprecedented assertion of presidential power in his second term with major stakes for millions of children and their families.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the idea that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country in which they are born, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
It reflects the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, extending citizenship purely on the basis of geographic location.
By contrast, many countries extend citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis, or right of blood, which is determined by the nationality of a child’s parents regardless of the location of birth.
How does birthright citizenship work in the U.S.?
With few exceptions, all babies born on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.
For the approximately 3.6 million children born in American hospitals every year, the birth certificate alone has been the key to obtaining Social Security numbers, passports and early life benefits.
Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for such things as voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to address the legal status of former slaves and their descendants, says plainly that all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law enacted in 1940.
Courts and the government have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as asylum seekers, international students, tourists and seasonal workers.
Do other countries allow birthright citizenship?
Yes. Thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws nearly identical to the U.S., according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Roughly 50 more have limited versions of birthright citizenship.
The most inclusive citizenship policies are in countries in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, for example, closely mirror American law.
Pakistan, Chad and Mozambique are other notable comparators to the U.S.
European countries have historically been more restrictive when it comes to citizenship. France, Greece and Spain extend citizenship at birth only to children whose parents were also born in those countries.
Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom grant automatic citizenship to any child born to a legal resident.
Why does President Trump want to end birthright citizenship?
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship by redefining the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
He claims that children born to noncitizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore ineligible.
The order would restrict citizenship to babies of current American citizens or other lawful permanent residents that have established “domicile” in the U.S.
The president argues the current citizenship policy is a “scam” that has allowed wealthy adversaries to take advantage of American benefits and “ripped off” taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented people.
What is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship has been part of American tradition repeatedly affirmed by courts and legislators for more than a century.
The Supreme Court previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to the ones Trump is making.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in 1898 in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups have warned that ending birthright citizenship would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to noncitizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year to noncitizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
What happens if the Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship?
The Trump administration says federal agencies have prepared guidelines for implementing a new process of conferring citizenship to children born after the order takes effect.
Federal agencies — by electronic databases or otherwise — would evaluate the legal status of a child’s parents first before making a determination of eligibility for citizenship and, in turn, for a Social Security number, passport and other benefits.
A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child going forward, including those born to American parents.
Immigrant advocates have warned of a “bureaucratic nightmare” for all parents of newborns, with vulnerable low-income children being particularly at risk of not getting necessary health care or nutrition assistance.
Some children who would not qualify for U.S. citizenship may be rendered “stateless” since several countries, particularly in southeast Asia, do not confer citizenship automatically to children born to their nationals abroad. That lack of legal status might make some newborns immediately eligible for deportation.
Can birthright citizenship be stripped if the court upholds Trump’s order?
The Trump administration says the executive order is not retroactive and would only apply to babies born after it takes effect.
However, some legal experts fear that any legal reasoning upholding Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could potentially be used by a future administration to pursue efforts to strip citizenship from some people if it wanted to.
“The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in April.
When will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?
The justices are expected to rule in the case — Trump v. Barbara — before adjourning for their summer recess in early July.
Leon Black, chairman and chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management LLC, attends the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., April 27, 2015. (Patrick T. Fallon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said he had issued two subpoenas to Leon Black after Comer said the private equity billionaire refused to answer some of the committee’s questions about convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during Black’s closed-door appearance before the panel Friday.
Black, who was appearing before the panel as part of its ongoing probe into the government’s investigation of Epstein, walked out of his transcribed interview during questioning.
Comer told reporters that the two subpoenas compel Black to appear for a deposition on July 16 as well as produce purported nondisclosure agreements that he was questioned about.
“During today’s voluntary transcribed interview, Mr. Black stated he wouldn’t answer questions about NDAs. Answers about the terms and substance of these NDAs are critical to our investigation,” Comer said. “We owe it to the American people to provide transparency and ensure accountability for survivors.”
“NDAs are between him and other women. We want to know, was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs? Was he involved in writing? Was he involved in awarding funds to the women for the NDAs? What was the reason for the NDA? We don’t know everything about the NDAs, so that’s very important to our investigation, so the subpoenas were issued. We expect to see back here in a few weeks,” Comer said.
“This is very important for our investigation, Comer said. “We knew for a long time there were NDAs out there by various people. Obviously, they’re very hard to obtain, and with this subpoena, we expect to get those NDAs in hand.”
Asked about Black’s responses during the interview, Comer said, “his response was that he wasn’t allowed to discuss the terms of the NDAs.”
Ranking committee member Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., said he agreed with Comer’s decision to issue the subpoenas.
“The NDAs are central to us understanding what actually happened. There are real accusations, and there are survivors who have accused Mr. Black of horrific things,” Garcia told reporters.
Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, claimed to reporters that the decision to serve Black with the subpoenas during the interview was “a premeditated political decision” and claimed that Epstein “had no involvement” with the purported nondisclosure agreements.
“They made a premeditated political decision to serve him with subpoenas after less than an hour of questioning, and before they even asked a single question about his legitimate payments to Epstein,” she said. “This was nothing more than a planned political stunt. Mr. Epstein had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not.”
The latest in a series of rich and powerful people questioned about their relationship with Epstein as part of the Oversight panel’s probe, Black maintained a social relationship with Epstein since the mid-1990s and eventually paid him more than $170 million for “tax and estate planning advice,” according to the Senate Finance Committee.
Black has denied wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, though his financial payments to Epstein served as a lifeline to the convicted sex offender in the years after Epstein’s 2008 prison sentence for soliciting a minor for prostitution.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., told reporters after Black’s appearance, “this is the first time” a witness during this probe has walked out in the middle of an interview.
“It’s because we had very important questions about Leon Black’s past with Jeffrey Epstein,” he said. “This is also the first time I heard someone gush poetically about how smart and how great Jeffrey Epstein was.”
“He was smug,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Az., said of Black’s appearance. “He refused to answer the questions but at the same time was emphasizing how he was being transparent because this was voluntary. But when pressed on critical questions about his own sexual abuse and the allegations against him and non-disclosure agreements, he absolutely refused to answer these questions,” she said.
Ansari said Black was “speaking fondly of Epstein while also claiming they were not close.”
‘Bona fide advice’
In his appearance before the committee Friday, Black said he was unaware of Epstein’s “demonic life” and that the money he paid Epstein was for legitimate services and “bona fide advice,” according to a copy of his opening remarks reviewed by ABC News.
Black’s prepared remarks during his closed-door interview cast him as the victim of “ugly and vicious” narratives around Epstein, saying he has been the subject of baseless allegations and conspiracy theories about Epstein and that “extraordinary damage has been done to me and my family.”
“I wish I had never met Epstein. I regret ever doing business with him. My association with him, the frivolous but destructive litigation, the endless rumor mill, have created a toxic environment for my wife and family, which I deeply regret,” the prepared remarks said.
Addressing the massive amount of money he paid Epstein, Black, in his remarks, said those were legitimate payments and that he was never blackmailed by Epstein.
“Let me state unequivocally that I have never abused a woman. I have never been with an underage woman. I have never engaged in sex trafficking. I have never paid Epstein for access to women. I was never blackmailed by Epstein. I was not involved with, and had no knowledge of, any of Epstein’s heinous conduct,” his prepared remarks said.
According to Black, Epstein lived a “Jekyll and Hyde” existence and that he, at first, only saw the positive side, including his “unrivaled network of relationships with individuals in finance, academia, science, politics.” Black, in his remarks, said his relationship with Epstein began as personal but grew overtime to helping manage his family investment office.
“With hindsight, I now see that Epstein exaggerated, embellished, manipulated, and outright lied — prolifically and without concern for me or my family. And I now see that his deceit was not limited to me but also extended to numerous highly sophisticated individuals,” Black’s prepared remarks said.
While Black said that Epstein “took credit for other people’s ideas” and made false claims about investments, Black also argued Epstein was able to resolve “a massive estate problem” for him that “would have destroyed enormous value.” According to Black’s remarks, he originally thought he was paying Epstein $95 million in net fees, though that was actually $158 million because Epstein lied about the tax deductibility of the payment.
Black also said in his prepared remarks that he was aware of Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, but that Epstein lied about the nature of the crime.
“Epstein told me that it was an isolated incident resulting from a fake ID. Five years after his conviction, I gave Epstein a second chance, as did many others. I wish I had not,” he said, according to his prepared remarks.
According to Black, he cut ties with Epstein in 2018 after Epstein failed to repay most of a $30 million loan. Black said he grew “tired of his relentless pursuit of more and more money from me for professional services.”
While Black, according to his remarks, said that he was “glad” to answer the committee’s questions, he noted that he will “not speak about the personal lives of adult women” that he believes should not be connected to Epstein.
“I am here to voluntarily answer questions about the work that Epstein did for me and for the services for which I paid him. I am not here to answer questions about my personal life which would be hurtful to my wife, children and family. And I will not speak about the personal lives of adult women who have not chosen, and do not deserve, to be connected, by me or anyone else, to Epstein,” Black said, per his remarks.
‘The most groundbreaking deposition’
Comer told reporters before Friday’s proceedings that this “could be a pretty significant” interview.
“So, of all the witnesses that have come thus far, this one has the potential to be the most groundbreaking deposition, in my opinion,” Comer said.
“There’s a lot of concerning things in the documents. There are a lot of statements from the survivors that are very concerning as well, with respect to Mr. Black,” Comer said.
The chairman said the committee would ask Black “hundreds and hundreds of questions about financial transactions, about bank violations, about emails, documents, pictures, and communication with survivors.”
Comer said the committee’s investigation is “on a timeline.”
“This Congress will expire the end of this year, so we want to certainly get done as quickly as possible, said Comer, who added that “we hope” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche will sit for an interview.
“I’ll remind everyone the purpose of our investigation to get the truth to the American people and determine how the government failed the survivors by not prosecuting Epstein,” Comer said.
Garcia told reporters prior to Black’s appearance that Epstein “would not have been able to commit the horrific crimes without the support of Mr. Black.”
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., said, “We want him to answer the tough questions about what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein and whether he was involved with some of the crimes himself.”
“Leon Black was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s primary sources of income, flooding him with cash at a time when he was already a registered sex offender. Black has not yet offered a compelling explanation regarding the origination and execution of Epstein’s extraordinary compensation scheme for alleged tax advice,” Sen. Ron Wyden, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote in a letter to the House Oversight Committee earlier this month. The Senate Finance Committee is leading its own investigation of Epstein’s finances.
Black has long been scrutinized over his relationship with the disgraced financier — describing it as a “horrible mistake” — and was forced out of his firm Apollo Global Management following an external investigation that revealed payments to Epstein totaling at least $158 million.
“Knowing all that I have learned in the past two years about Epstein’s reprehensible and despicable conduct, I deeply regret having had any involvement with him,” Black said during a 2020 Apollo earnings call. “With the benefit of hindsight, working with him was a horrible mistake on my part. I am not seeking to excuse that decision, but I do believe it may be helpful to convey some relevant facts.”
While the investigation concluded that Black and others were aware of Epstein’s 2008 conviction, a report summarizing its findings said that Black was not “involved in any way with Epstein’s criminal activities at any time” or aware of the “scope and details” of Epstein’s sex trafficking. Black has never been charged with a crime.
“When Black first retained Epstein, he believed that Epstein had served his time for the originally charged offenses and believed that it was not inappropriate to give Epstein a second chance, as many other prominent figures in business, science, politics and academia had done,” the report said.
‘Saving you from yourself’
The release of the Department of Justice’s Epstein files earlier this year cast more scrutiny on Black, whose name appears in the files more than 8,000 times. Epstein at one point appeared to serve as a middleman to pay $100,000 to a woman with whom Black allegedly had an affair, according to emails included in the files, and routinely served as a fixer for issues involving his finances.
“Leon, as you are well aware, there is little I won’t do for you or at least try to do as a friend, and a great deal that I have already done (both known and some things that will need to remain unknown),” Epstein wrote to Black in a 2014 email. In another email in 2017, Epstein described his relationship with Black as “saving you from yourself.”
In a statement to ABC News, Black’s attorney Susan Estrich pointed to the external investigation conducted for Apollo that found Black “had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019” and noted that Black has called for an independent investigation of his relationship with Epstein.
Wyden of the Senate Finance Committee has called on the House Oversight members to scrutinize the $170 million that Black paid Epstein between 2012 and 2017 for purported tax and estate planning. According to Wyden, those payments are sixty times more than what Epstein paid his other tax and estate professionals during the same timeframe.
“Black is a well-advised businessman with access to sophisticated attorneys, yet it appears Epstein was able to shake him down for money that he wasn’t legally owed. This suggests that Epstein may have extorted Black or performed other unseemly tasks on his behalf,” Wyden wrote earlier this month.
Attorneys for Black have pushed back against Wyden’s accusations, accusing him of harassment and saying that the billionaire has cooperated “voluntarily and without compulsion.”
“We are aware of no other private citizen subjected to more written requests from you over the same period,” Black’s attorneys wrote in an April 2026 letter to Wyden. “Your continued attempts to invade into matters pertaining to Mr. Black’s personal life — without the support of any legitimate legislative purpose — appear targeted to unfairly harass Mr. Black in a manner that completely disregards the proper scope of Congress’s investigative powers.”
According to the 2021 external report, Epstein was paid proportionally to the amount of money he saved Black and that Epstein “provided advice that conferred more than $1 billion and as much as $2 billion or more in value to Black”; however, the report also acknowledged that Epstein’s advice was often not useful and that he was “generally a disruptive and caustic force.”
The external report said investigators found “no evidence suggesting that Black ever compensated Epstein for any service other than Epstein’s legitimate advice on trust and estate planning” and other issues.
Jonathan Rinderknecht is seen in a photo released by the Department of Justice. (Department of Justice)
(LOS ANGELES) — The judge declared a mistrial Friday in the federal trial of the man accused of starting the deadly blaze that devastated the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles last year, with the jury deadlocked.
Jonathan Rinderknecht was accused of “maliciously” starting a fire that six days later developed into what became known as the Palisades Fire, one of the most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles history.
He was indicted on three federal counts — destruction of property by means of fire, arson affecting property used in interstate commerce and timber set afire — which carry up to 45 years in prison. He pleaded not guilty.
The jury began deliberating Wednesday morning. They reported being deadlocked Thursday afternoon, noting that there were two jurors with unwavering stances. The jury remained deadlocked on Friday, with 10 for not guilty and two for guilty, and Judge Anne Hwang declared a mistrial.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli said his office plans to retry the case.
“The evidence is strong that Jonathan Rinderknecht is responsible for igniting the fire on January 1, 2025, which eventually became the Palisades fire,” Essayli said in a statement on social media. “We fully intend to retry this case before a new jury and obtain guilty verdicts on all charged counts.”
Federal prosecutors alleged that Rinderknecht, who was working as an Uber driver at the time, ignited a brush fire that became known as the Lachman Fire just after midnight on Jan. 1, 2025.
Despite being suppressed by fire crews, prosecutors allege that the fire continued to smolder until it surfaced again nearly a week later amid high winds and eventually became the Palisades Fire, which leveled neighborhoods in Los Angeles County and left 12 people dead.
Rinderknecht, a former Los Angeles resident, was arrested in Florida nine months after the Palisades Fire.
Prosecutors alleged he was upset about a past relationship, was fixated on wealth disparity and climate change in messages with ChatGPT and wanted “revenge” against society for his problems.
The government also alleged he was fixated on Luigi Mangione, who has been charged with the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Following the December 2024 shooting, they say he searched for news on Mangione as well as used the search terms “free Luigi Mangione,” “lets take down all the billionaires” and “reddit lets kill all the billionaires.”
Prosecutors said Rinderknecht ended up working on Dec. 31, 2024, because he had no plans to celebrate New Year’s Eve. They said he went to Skull Rock Trailhead in Topanga State Park after dropping off a passenger in the Pacific Palisades.
They alleged he used a BIC lighter to ignite the Lachman Fire, which they said was not found to be caused by lightning, fireworks or power lines.
Rinderknecht called 911 multiple times to report the fire while close to the ignition site of the Lachman Fire, and took videos of it, according to prosecutors. He also made a screen-recording on his iPhone of himself attempting to call 911, which prosecutors argued during closing statements was suspicious and pointed to his guilt.
When interviewed in the wake of the Palisades Fire, he told investigators that he saw no fireworks in the area when the Lachman Fire started, prosecutors said. When asked why someone would start a fire in the Pacific Palisades, he mentioned wealth disparity could be one of the reasons why, according to prosecutors.
The defense said Rinderknecht went to the area to watch fireworks, and argued that the Lachman Fire was started by fireworks. His defense attorney, Steve Haney said Rinderknecht called 911 to try to stop the fire, and that the government found no evidence that he was planning a fire.
During closing statements, Haney argued there was no direct evidence supporting that Rinderknecht started the Lachman Fire and questioned the government’s theory that it was a “holdover” blaze that developed into the Palisades Fire.
Over two weeks, jurors heard testimony from arson and fire experts, saw digital and cellular evidence and heard audio of Rinderknecht’s interviews with investigators and his 911 call reporting the Lachman Fire. They also heard testimony from those impacted by the Palisades Fire.
The Palisades Fire erupted on Jan. 7, 2025, burning more than 23,000 acres over more than three weeks and destroying nearly 7,000 structures, decimating the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles, according to California fire officials.
It ignited the same day as the Eaton Fire, which burned more than 14,000 acres in Los Angeles County, destroying more than 9,400 structures and killing 19 people, according to officials.
The fires started burning during strong Santa Ana winds, which, combined with dry conditions, allowed them to spread quickly.
China’s national flag flutters in the wind next to the CITIC tower on May 12, 2026 in Beijing, China. (Maxim Shemetov Pool/Getty Images)
(BEIJING) — A small aircraft crashed into Beijing’s tallest skyscraper before falling down in front of the building, according to eyewitnesses who spoke with Reuters and the Associated Press.
Videos taken by people near the Citic Tower appeared to show the plane striking a high floor before it spun downward and crashed to the ground in front of the tower’s entrance.
Photos showed what appeared to be a hole or broken glass on one side of the building.
Authorities have yet to address the incident. Videos, images and search results of the crash are actively being scrubbed from the Chinese internet.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former National Security Advisor John Bolton arrive for a plea deal hearing at U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on June 26, 2026 in Greenbelt, Maryland. (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
(GREENBELT, Md.) — President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton pleaded guilty Friday to one count of illegal retention of national security information.
Bolton entered his plea to the single felony count in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, before U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang.
The guilty plea makes Bolton thus far the only successfully prosecuted case in Trump’s campaign of retribution against those he perceives to be his political enemies.
Bolton had faced 18 counts of unlawful transmission and retention of national defense information for allegedly sharing notes with his wife and daughter — some of which contained information classified as high as Top Secret — during his time serving in the first Trump administration.
Bolton changed his plea to guilty with respect to count 12 of his indictment.
Sitting in court Friday alongside his attorney Abbe Lowell, Bolton answered a series of questions from Judge Chuang acknowledging his rights and his voluntary decision to plead guilty to the charge, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.
When asked if he was pleading guilty be cause he is, in fact, guilty, Bolton responded to Chuang: “I am, your honor, I’m sorry for it.”
According to terms of the plea agreement outlined by prosecutors in court, the government will not seek a sentence of more than 60 months and Bolton has agreed to forfeit approximately $2.2 million to resolve the case.
Judge Chuang will ultimately have final discretion over how much time Bolton could serve, if any.
Bolton has also agreed to serve 100 hours of community service and is forfeiting any retirement pay tied to his time in federal service.
The count he is pleading guilty to involves keeping classified national security information in diaries, according to sources. Bolton is expected to maintain that he did not take documents with classification markings out of government offices.
Bolton, who was national security adviser for part of the first Trump administration, was indicted by a grand jury in October 2025 on charges that he allegedly unlawfully transmitted and retained classified documents.
The indictment, handed up by a federal grand jury in Maryland, charged Bolton with eight counts of unlawful transmission of national defense information as well as 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information.
Prosecutors had accused Bolton of using a non-government personal email account and messaging application to transmit to two unauthorized family members at least eight documents that contained information classified at levels ranging from “secret” to “top secret.”
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and former National Security Advisor John Bolton arrive for a plea deal hearing at U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on June 26, 2026 in Greenbelt, Maryland. (Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
(GREENBELT, Md.) — President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton is expected to plead guilty Friday to mishandling classified information.
Bolton, who arrived in federal court in Maryland Friday morning, is expected to plead guilty to one count of illegal retention of sensitive documents, sources have told ABC News.
Bolton has also agreed to pay a fine of $2.25 million, sources said.
The count he is pleading guilty to involves keeping classified national security information in diaries, according to sources. Bolton is expected to maintain that he did not take documents with classification markings out of government offices.
The guilty plea would make Bolton thus far the only successfully prosecuted case in Trump’s campaign of retribution against those he perceives to be his political enemies.
Bolton, who was national security adviser for part of the first Trump administration, was indicted by a grand jury in October 2025 on charges that he allegedly unlawfully transmitted and retained classified documents.
The indictment, handed up by a federal grand jury in Maryland, charged Bolton with eight counts of unlawful transmission of national defense information as well as 10 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information.
Prosecutors had accused Bolton of using a non-government personal email account and messaging application to transmit to two unauthorized family members at least eight documents that contained information classified at levels ranging from “secret” to “top secret.”
