News

(WASHINGTON) — When President Donald Trump capped a historic political comeback on Inauguration Day last Jan. 20, he proclaimed the “Golden Age of America” had arrived, and in his first 12 months, the nation has experienced a whiplash of domestic and foreign policy changes, and political disputes that have stirred intense national debate.

Within hours of taking office, the president signed more than 200 executive actions, including rescinding nearly 80 actions under President Joe Biden, and pardoning 1,500 people convicted of crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

“From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world. We will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. During every single day of the Trump administration, I will very simply put America First,” Trump vowed during his inaugural address.

A look at Trump’s first year shows a mixture of fulfilled promises, dramatic actions and ongoing controversies that show his political ambitions and the divided response from Americans.

Foreign policy

Trump ran on an agenda of “peace through strength,” promising to be a global peacemaker.

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be, a peacemaker and a unifier,” Trump said during his address at the inauguration.

Since taking office, the president has made significant foreign policy decisions, from an on-the-ground operation to seize the leader of Venezuela, ratcheting tensions with Europe in an effort to seize Greenland and efforts to achieve peace in global conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East.

The president achieved one of those goals by securing a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war that raged in Gaza. The delicate peace deal has held and recently moved into its second phase. The deal came after months of statecraft by Trump and many of his closest allies. 

Trump has also formulated what he calls the “Donroe Doctrine,” a play on words of the Monroe Doctrine that reimagines the American role in the Western Hemisphere. That change in vision was punctuated by an on-the-ground operation in Venezuela to capture then-President Nicolas Maduro and bring him to the U.S. to face charges for allegedly supporting cartels that brought narcotics into the U.S. 

That effort came after the administration carried out strikes on boats that were allegedly carrying drugs, killing more than 100 people. Those strikes have faced major questions from Democrats.

The president has also called for the U.S. to own Greenland and is ratcheting up tension with European allies as he tries to make good on his promised efforts to own Denmark’s semiautonomous territory. Those tensions have reached a fever pitch around Trump’s one-year mark in office as the president has not ruled out taking Greenland by force. 

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to end the war in Ukraine on Day 1 of his term in office. However, after many meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a historic summit on American soil with Russian President Vladimir Putin, that promise has failed to materialize. The war between Russia and Ukraine continues to rage on and Trump has repeatedly said that ending the conflict is more complex than he expected it would be.

Immigration

Trump has followed through on his campaign pledge to aggressively crack down on illegal immigration.

In 2025, the United States experienced negative net migration for the first time in at least 50 years as a result of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, according to a report by the Brookings Institution, which added that the number is mostly due to a significant drop in entries into the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security claims more than 622,000 people have been deported since the president took office.

Throughout the year, the administration significantly expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations nationwide, with the White House publicly celebrating rising ICE arrests in multiple states, despite their controversial tactics, deadly force, legal pushback and protests.

A Quinnipiac University poll found 57% of voters disapproving of how ICE is enforcing immigration laws, with 40% approving, largely unchanged from Quinnipiac’s previous polling in July. Most Democrats and independents disapprove of how ICE is enforcing laws; most Republicans approve.

The president surged federal law enforcement and even troops into cities such as Los Angeles, New Orleans and currently Minneapolis, Minnesota, to help carry out immigration enforcement there. However, many local officials have spoken out against the enforcement operations.

Federal restructuring (DOGE)

Trump has also made major changes to the federal government, executing on another of his major changes to the size and powers of the federal government. Trump worked alongside billionaire Elon Musk for the first months of his presidency to enact the policy of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

DOGE took a chainsaw to much of the government, including shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and firing or laying off thousands of federal workers.

In May, after months working to reshape the federal workforce and government, Musk said that the DOGE effort, which he promised on the campaign trail would cut $2 trillion in federal spending, saved about $160 million after about five months.

“I think we’ve been effective, not as effective as I’d like, I think we could be more effective, but we made progress,” Musk said in May.

Economic policies

Trump enacted one of his biggest campaign promises during his first year in office: widespread tariffs on goods brought into the U.S. The goal of the tariffs was to onshore manufacturing and slash trade deficits.

On April 2, which Trump dubbed “Liberation Day,” the president announced sweeping tariff policies on almost all of America’s trading partners and went far beyond what many experts expected his tariff policy to look like. Just one day later, the stock market tanked in reaction, with stocks losing nearly $3.1 trillion in value. 

A few days later, the president paused those sweeping tariffs to give time for the administration to instead cut deals with nations. Trump said that investors had gotten “the yips,” which is why he pulled back. The administration set to work, promising to strike 90 deals in 90 days with America’s trading partners.

They fell short of that goal, but the White House has since reached deals or frameworks with dozens of America’s trading partners. The White House has also made significant carve-outs for some goods that cannot be produced or grown in the U.S. such as coffee and bananas. 

The president came into office promising a “manufacturing boom” and that his policies would create “millions and millions of blue-collar jobs and jobs of every type,” but the final jobs report of 2025 showed hiring in the American economy is cooling.

Roughly 50,000 new jobs were added to the workforce in December, slightly below expectations, but the unemployment rate did drop to 4.4%. Roughly two thirds of overall job gains last year were in the health care sector, while manufacturing, tech and government all lost more jobs than they added, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The latest CPI report shows inflation up 2.7% from a year ago. Costs continue to rise for energy, medical care and foods such as coffee and ground beef, while wholesale egg prices have dropped to their lowest levels since 2019, according to the USDA.

The typical American household is now spending $184 more a month to purchase the same goods and services as a year ago, and $590 more a month than three years ago, according to Moody’s Analytics.

The president kicked off a tour in December to talk to Americans directly about his administration’s efforts to bring down costs. Trump has continued to insist that “affordability” is a “hoax” that was invented by Democrats. 

Trump unveiled a health care plan, which he had promised for nearly a decade in early 2026. The administration unveiled his “great healthcare plan,” but the details are sparse, with top administration officials calling it “broad” and a “framework.”

Trump says he wants to give money directly to Americans so they can buy their own insurance, but it’s unclear how that would work, how much they will get or whether it would cover their health care costs. A recent poll found 52% of voters saying Trump has “hurt” the cost of health care.

The president has also planned to unveil a plan that would lower housing costs during an upcoming trip to Davos, Switzerland. It’s unclear what exactly the plan will entail, but the president has floated “steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes” in an effort to improve housing costs.

Changes to the White House

Trump has also made his mark on the physical space of the White House. From ornamental changes to major tear downs, the president has made his mark on the historic home of the commander in chief. 

What started with gilded additions to the Oval Office and the usual redecorating quickly became more long-lasting changes to the White House. The president repaved the historic Rose Garden with white stone and added what he dubbed the “Presidential Walk of Fame” which includes portraits and politically charged plaques about American presidents through history. 

One of the biggest moves came in October of 2025, when Trump tore down the White House East Wing to make way for a 90,000 square foot ballroom. The major construction and rapid pace of the tear-down faced major criticism from many Democrats.

The president has made his mark on other D.C. landmarks too. The president’s hand-picked board of the Kennedy Performing Arts Center voted in mid-December to rename the structure the “Trump-Kennedy Center.”

The president has followed through of many of his campaign promises. Yet a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that on every issue measured, Trump does not enjoy majority approval. With the midterm elections looming, it remains to be seen whether the president will have the political capital to push through his agenda throughout his historic second term.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — When President Donald Trump capped a historic political comeback on Inauguration Day last Jan. 20, he proclaimed the “Golden Age of America” had arrived, and in his first 12 months, the nation has experienced a whiplash of domestic and foreign policy changes, and political disputes that have stirred intense national debate.

Within hours of taking office, the president signed more than 200 executive actions, including rescinding nearly 80 actions under President Joe Biden, and pardoning 1,500 people convicted of crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

“From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world. We will be the envy of every nation, and we will not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of any longer. During every single day of the Trump administration, I will very simply put America First,” Trump vowed during his inaugural address.

A look at Trump’s first year shows a mixture of fulfilled promises, dramatic actions and ongoing controversies that show his political ambitions and the divided response from Americans.

Foreign policy

Trump ran on an agenda of “peace through strength,” promising to be a global peacemaker.

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be, a peacemaker and a unifier,” Trump said during his address at the inauguration.

Since taking office, the president has made significant foreign policy decisions, from an on-the-ground operation to seize the leader of Venezuela, ratcheting tensions with Europe in an effort to seize Greenland and efforts to achieve peace in global conflicts from Ukraine to the Middle East.

The president achieved one of those goals by securing a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war that raged in Gaza. The delicate peace deal has held and recently moved into its second phase. The deal came after months of statecraft by Trump and many of his closest allies. 

Trump has also formulated what he calls the “Donroe Doctrine,” a play on words of the Monroe Doctrine that reimagines the American role in the Western Hemisphere. That change in vision was punctuated by an on-the-ground operation in Venezuela to capture then-President Nicolas Maduro and bring him to the U.S. to face charges for allegedly supporting cartels that brought narcotics into the U.S. 

That effort came after the administration carried out strikes on boats that were allegedly carrying drugs, killing more than 100 people. Those strikes have faced major questions from Democrats.

The president has also called for the U.S. to own Greenland and is ratcheting up tension with European allies as he tries to make good on his promised efforts to own Denmark’s semiautonomous territory. Those tensions have reached a fever pitch around Trump’s one-year mark in office as the president has not ruled out taking Greenland by force. 

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to end the war in Ukraine on Day 1 of his term in office. However, after many meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a historic summit on American soil with Russian President Vladimir Putin, that promise has failed to materialize. The war between Russia and Ukraine continues to rage on and Trump has repeatedly said that ending the conflict is more complex than he expected it would be.

Immigration

Trump has followed through on his campaign pledge to aggressively crack down on illegal immigration.

In 2025, the United States experienced negative net migration for the first time in at least 50 years as a result of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, according to a report by the Brookings Institution, which added that the number is mostly due to a significant drop in entries into the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security claims more than 622,000 people have been deported since the president took office.

Throughout the year, the administration significantly expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations nationwide, with the White House publicly celebrating rising ICE arrests in multiple states, despite their controversial tactics, deadly force, legal pushback and protests.

A Quinnipiac University poll found 57% of voters disapproving of how ICE is enforcing immigration laws, with 40% approving, largely unchanged from Quinnipiac’s previous polling in July. Most Democrats and independents disapprove of how ICE is enforcing laws; most Republicans approve.

The president surged federal law enforcement and even troops into cities such as Los Angeles, New Orleans and currently Minneapolis, Minnesota, to help carry out immigration enforcement there. However, many local officials have spoken out against the enforcement operations.

Federal restructuring (DOGE)

Trump has also made major changes to the federal government, executing on another of his major changes to the size and powers of the federal government. Trump worked alongside billionaire Elon Musk for the first months of his presidency to enact the policy of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

DOGE took a chainsaw to much of the government, including shuttering the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and firing or laying off thousands of federal workers.

In May, after months working to reshape the federal workforce and government, Musk said that the DOGE effort, which he promised on the campaign trail would cut $2 trillion in federal spending, saved about $160 million after about five months.

“I think we’ve been effective, not as effective as I’d like, I think we could be more effective, but we made progress,” Musk said in May.

Economic policies

Trump enacted one of his biggest campaign promises during his first year in office: widespread tariffs on goods brought into the U.S. The goal of the tariffs was to onshore manufacturing and slash trade deficits.

On April 2, which Trump dubbed “Liberation Day,” the president announced sweeping tariff policies on almost all of America’s trading partners and went far beyond what many experts expected his tariff policy to look like. Just one day later, the stock market tanked in reaction, with stocks losing nearly $3.1 trillion in value. 

A few days later, the president paused those sweeping tariffs to give time for the administration to instead cut deals with nations. Trump said that investors had gotten “the yips,” which is why he pulled back. The administration set to work, promising to strike 90 deals in 90 days with America’s trading partners.

They fell short of that goal, but the White House has since reached deals or frameworks with dozens of America’s trading partners. The White House has also made significant carve-outs for some goods that cannot be produced or grown in the U.S. such as coffee and bananas. 

The president came into office promising a “manufacturing boom” and that his policies would create “millions and millions of blue-collar jobs and jobs of every type,” but the final jobs report of 2025 showed hiring in the American economy is cooling.

Roughly 50,000 new jobs were added to the workforce in December, slightly below expectations, but the unemployment rate did drop to 4.4%. Roughly two thirds of overall job gains last year were in the health care sector, while manufacturing, tech and government all lost more jobs than they added, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The latest CPI report shows inflation up 2.7% from a year ago. Costs continue to rise for energy, medical care and foods such as coffee and ground beef, while wholesale egg prices have dropped to their lowest levels since 2019, according to the USDA.

The typical American household is now spending $184 more a month to purchase the same goods and services as a year ago, and $590 more a month than three years ago, according to Moody’s Analytics.

The president kicked off a tour in December to talk to Americans directly about his administration’s efforts to bring down costs. Trump has continued to insist that “affordability” is a “hoax” that was invented by Democrats. 

Trump unveiled a health care plan, which he had promised for nearly a decade in early 2026. The administration unveiled his “great healthcare plan,” but the details are sparse, with top administration officials calling it “broad” and a “framework.”

Trump says he wants to give money directly to Americans so they can buy their own insurance, but it’s unclear how that would work, how much they will get or whether it would cover their health care costs. A recent poll found 52% of voters saying Trump has “hurt” the cost of health care.

The president has also planned to unveil a plan that would lower housing costs during an upcoming trip to Davos, Switzerland. It’s unclear what exactly the plan will entail, but the president has floated “steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes” in an effort to improve housing costs.

Changes to the White House

Trump has also made his mark on the physical space of the White House. From ornamental changes to major tear downs, the president has made his mark on the historic home of the commander in chief. 

What started with gilded additions to the Oval Office and the usual redecorating quickly became more long-lasting changes to the White House. The president repaved the historic Rose Garden with white stone and added what he dubbed the “Presidential Walk of Fame” which includes portraits and politically charged plaques about American presidents through history. 

One of the biggest moves came in October of 2025, when Trump tore down the White House East Wing to make way for a 90,000 square foot ballroom. The major construction and rapid pace of the tear-down faced major criticism from many Democrats.

The president has made his mark on other D.C. landmarks too. The president’s hand-picked board of the Kennedy Performing Arts Center voted in mid-December to rename the structure the “Trump-Kennedy Center.”

The president has followed through of many of his campaign promises. Yet a recent Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that on every issue measured, Trump does not enjoy majority approval. With the midterm elections looming, it remains to be seen whether the president will have the political capital to push through his agenda throughout his historic second term.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Three years after affirming a constitutional right of Americans to carry a gun for self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether states can limit the carry of firearms on private property open to the public without first receiving the property owner’s consent.

The case involves a Hawaiian law and similar measures in four other states –- California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey –- where lawmakers set a strict “default rule” prohibiting the possession of handguns in privately-owned places where other members of the public might congregate, unless the owner affirmatively gives permission.

The laws govern locations such as stores, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, arenas, farms, and private beaches. It does not involve public property, which is subject to different rules.

“This law is extremely restrictive. It bans public carry in 96.4% of the publicly available land in the County of Maui,” said Alan Beck, an attorney for three Maui residents and members of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition who are challenging the law.

“They’d like to carry dropping off money at the ATM late at night or just going to have lunch at a restaurant,” Beck said. “They are unable to carry in any private business that is open to the public that is unwilling to put up a sign saying ‘guns allowed.'”

While property owners have the inherent right to exclude guns from their premises, Beck says the onus should be on them to make their wishes clear, otherwise expect that members of the public can freely exercise their Second Amendment rights as a matter of standard practice.

Unlike Hawaii, 45 states permit licensed handgun owners to presume they can legally carry their weapons onto private property open to the public, unless the owner explicitly bans guns by issuing verbal instructions or posting a sign.

“The express purpose of this law is to make it so that less people exercise their constitutional rights,” Beck said.

Hawaii officials argue in court documents that never in the nation’s history has there been a “right to armed entry onto private property without consent” and that its law is meant to protect a property-owner’s right to exclude guns without having to take extra steps.

“The basic principle is that private property owners are empowered to set the rules for their property, and the state can make it easier for private property owners to do so,” said Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at Brady, a gun safety group.

“Hawaii’s law is obviously eminently reasonable,” Letter added. “Visitors simply must get a private property owner’s permission to bring a firearm onto that property.”

The Supreme Court will evaluate the Hawaii law using a test laid out in a landmark 2022 decision in which Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority, said only gun regulations consistent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” can stand.

Hawaii points to an 1865 Louisiana law and 1771 New Jersey law as imposing nearly identical property restrictions as its current measure. The plaintiffs say they are “outlier” examples and not the historic norm. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Hawaii’s law, holding that “a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent.”

Beck and co-counsel Kevin O’Grady said they expect the justices will likely reverse that ruling in their favor. “Just because Hawaii is giving lip service to the Second Amendment when they’re doing the kind of things they’re doing — and doing these mental gymnastics to try to justify this law,” O’Grady said, “it will not be tolerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Three years after affirming a constitutional right of Americans to carry a gun for self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether states can limit the carry of firearms on private property open to the public without first receiving the property owner’s consent.

The case involves a Hawaiian law and similar measures in four other states –- California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey –- where lawmakers set a strict “default rule” prohibiting the possession of handguns in privately-owned places where other members of the public might congregate, unless the owner affirmatively gives permission.

The laws govern locations such as stores, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, arenas, farms, and private beaches. It does not involve public property, which is subject to different rules.

“This law is extremely restrictive. It bans public carry in 96.4% of the publicly available land in the County of Maui,” said Alan Beck, an attorney for three Maui residents and members of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition who are challenging the law.

“They’d like to carry dropping off money at the ATM late at night or just going to have lunch at a restaurant,” Beck said. “They are unable to carry in any private business that is open to the public that is unwilling to put up a sign saying ‘guns allowed.'”

While property owners have the inherent right to exclude guns from their premises, Beck says the onus should be on them to make their wishes clear, otherwise expect that members of the public can freely exercise their Second Amendment rights as a matter of standard practice.

Unlike Hawaii, 45 states permit licensed handgun owners to presume they can legally carry their weapons onto private property open to the public, unless the owner explicitly bans guns by issuing verbal instructions or posting a sign.

“The express purpose of this law is to make it so that less people exercise their constitutional rights,” Beck said.

Hawaii officials argue in court documents that never in the nation’s history has there been a “right to armed entry onto private property without consent” and that its law is meant to protect a property-owner’s right to exclude guns without having to take extra steps.

“The basic principle is that private property owners are empowered to set the rules for their property, and the state can make it easier for private property owners to do so,” said Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at Brady, a gun safety group.

“Hawaii’s law is obviously eminently reasonable,” Letter added. “Visitors simply must get a private property owner’s permission to bring a firearm onto that property.”

The Supreme Court will evaluate the Hawaii law using a test laid out in a landmark 2022 decision in which Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority, said only gun regulations consistent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” can stand.

Hawaii points to an 1865 Louisiana law and 1771 New Jersey law as imposing nearly identical property restrictions as its current measure. The plaintiffs say they are “outlier” examples and not the historic norm. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Hawaii’s law, holding that “a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent.”

Beck and co-counsel Kevin O’Grady said they expect the justices will likely reverse that ruling in their favor. “Just because Hawaii is giving lip service to the Second Amendment when they’re doing the kind of things they’re doing — and doing these mental gymnastics to try to justify this law,” O’Grady said, “it will not be tolerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a forthcoming memoir, claimed that the running mate vetting team for Vice President Kamala Harris during her 2024 run for the presidency asked him if he were ever an agent of the Israeli government, ABC News has confirmed.

The New York Times first reported Shapiro’s claim.

Shapiro writes in his memoir “Where We Keep the Light,” which is set to be released on Jan. 27, that he was asked last minute by Dana Remus, a former White House counsel and member of the vetting team, if he had ever been an agent for Israel. He said that told Remus he found the question offensive, according to excepts reported by The New York Times.

He wrote that he was also asked by Remus if he ever spoke with an undercover Israeli agent, to which Shapiro said he responded in part, that if they had been undercover, “how the hell would I know?”

Shapiro wrote in his memoir that he understood Remus had to do her job, but criticized the line of questioning, according to the excerpts.

Shapiro — who is Jewish and has been outspoken about his religion, as well as his support of Israel and criticism of the current Israeli government — said he was also asked more general vetting questions about Israel and his handling of campus protests about Gaza.

“I wondered whether these questions were being posed to just me — the only Jewish guy in the running — or if everyone who had not held a federal office was being grilled about Israel in the same way,” Shapiro wrote, according to the excepts.

ABC News has reached out to spokespeople for Shapiro and Harris, and to Remus about the questions she allegedly asked Shapiro.

While Shapiro was a reported contender for Harris’ running-mate spot, amid major debates within the Democratic Party over the Israel-Hamas war and the U.S.-Israel relationship given Israel’s conduct in Gaza, he faced scrutiny from progressives over his pro-Israel views, as well as some previous time spent volunteering in Israel, including on an Israeli army base. 

He also faced questions over his college writing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where he expressed doubts that Palestinians could come to a peace agreement with Israel.

Shapiro and his spokespeople said at the time that his time volunteering did not include military activity, and that his views on the conflict had evolved to support a two-state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

The vetting process for running mates is known to be intensive and often tries to get ahead of questions that may be asked publicly of candidates.

Harris, in her memoir “107 Days,” wrote that during the vetting process for running mates, she spoke with Shapiro “about how to handle the attacks he’d confronted on Gaza and what effect it might have on the enthusiasm we were trying to build,” and that they discussed the opinion piece Shapiro wrote in college.

“He said he felt he’d been able to deal with critics by stating clearly that his youthful opinion had been misguided and that he was fully committed to a two-state solution. He had also publicly called Netanyahu ‘one of the worst leaders of all time,'” Harris wrote.

She also framed the decision against Shapiro as more about his ambition and fears that he would be frustrated with the vice presidential role — claims Shapiro has rebuffed. Shapiro campaigned as a Harris surrogate even after not getting the running-mate nod.

Some Jewish officials who served in President Joe Biden and Harris’ administration have slammed the alleged vetting question, saying that it ties into antisemitic tropes that American Jews have dual loyalties between the United States and Israel. 

President Donald Trump faced similar, separate allegations of conflating Israel and Jews during his 2024 presidential campaign.

Aaron Keyak, former deputy special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism at the State Department and a board member of the Combat Antisemitism Movement, told ABC News on Monday that he was surprised at “how blatant the rhetoric was when it comes to playing into antisemitic tropes.”

“What’s even the point of asking that question in that way? Were they trying to send some sort of message to Gov. Shapiro? Were they trying to intimidate him?” Keyak said.

Keyak, who is Jewish, said he had also been asked questions during the vetting process for his own Biden administration State Department role that he later heard non-Jewish appointees were not. He said he was not able to share the specifics of the questions, but that the implications of the questions were similar to what Shapiro had allegedly been asked.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.