Two teenagers look at their iPhone screens displaying various social media and messaging apps. (Anna Barclay/Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — In a landmark decision, a jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for designing apps that harmed kids and teens and failed to warn them about the dangers.
The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $3 million. The jury also found punitive damages are warranted.
The lawsuit, brought by a 20-year-old woman identified as “Kaley,” alleges major social media companies intentionally designed their platforms to be addictive. The suit claims features like auto-scrolling got the plaintiff addicted to the platforms, ultimately leading to anxiety, depression and body image issues.
In a statement to ABC News, a Meta spokesperson said “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
The plaintiff’s attorney called the verdict “bigger than one case,” in a statement to ABC News.
In a statement to ABC News, a Meta spokesperson said “We respectfully disagree with the verdict and are evaluating our legal options.”
The plaintiff’s attorney called the verdict “bigger than one case,” in a statement to ABC News.
“For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features,” the attorney continued. “Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived. We now move forward to the next phase of this trial focused on punitive damages.”
The damages were found to be 70 percent the responsibility of Meta and 30 percent the responsibility of YouTube.
The jury returned an answer of “Yes” to every question posed relating to negligence and failure to warn of dangers. Ten jurors were in favor of the plaintiff for every question, with two in favor of the defense in every question.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The entrance of the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) that is located t the municipality of Tecoluca, in San Vicente, El Salvador, on October 12, 2023. (Alex Pena/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — A Venezuelan migrant who was deported from the United States to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison last year has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging he was wrongfully removed without due process.
Attorneys for Neiyerver Adrián Leon Rengel say their client’s removal violated his rights.
“Through a series of unconstitutional and ultra vires acts by high-ranking federal officials and law enforcement officers, Plaintiff Neiyerver Adrián Leon Rengel was wrongly identified as a member of the gang Tren de Aragua, repeatedly denied due process, falsely imprisoned, intentionally deceived, and — ultimately — illegally sent to El Salvador in blatant violation of a court order,” the lawsuit filed on Tuesday states.
Rengel is one of more than 250 Venezuelan nationals released to their home country from CECOT in a prisoner swap last July, after being removed from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process.
The Trump administration deported two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to the El Salvador prison by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.
Rengel is seeking $1.3 million in damages.
According to the complaint, Rengel presented himself at a U.S. port of entry several years ago, complied with all immigration requirements, and was awaiting an immigration hearing that was set for 2028.
“On the morning of his birthday, March 13, 2025, while he was headed to work, Plaintiff was caught in the Administration’s scheme and would soon experience the full force of its unconstitutional and unlawful policies,” the complaint states. “At the time of his arrest, the only justification offered by ICE officers was that Plaintiff’s tattoos indicated his membership in TdA. Plaintiff immediately rebutted that identification, as he has never had any affiliation with TdA or any other gang.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security disputed the allegations in the suit.
“Neiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel entered our country illegally in 2023 from Venezuela and is an associate of Tren De Aragua. This illegal alien was deemed a public safety threat as a confirmed associate of the Tren de Aragua gang and processed for removal from the U.S.,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
“We hear far too much about gang members and criminals’ false sob stories and not enough about their victims,” the statement said. “We are confident in our law enforcement’s intelligence, and we aren’t going to share intelligence reports and undermine national security every time a gang member denies he is one.”
Rengel was held at the Salvadoran prison for four months. During that time, he alleges he was beaten by guards, denied medical care, and held without contact with his family or legal counsel.
“These conditions and the physical abuse inflicted on Plaintiff were the direct, proximate result of the decisions of federal officials who placed and maintained him in constructive U.S. custody at CECOT, and they constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” the complaint states.
U.S. Supreme Court building on Wednesday, March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that internet service providers cannot be held liable for illegal downloads of copyrighted material like music, movies, and TV shows simply because some of their customers are known to engage in piracy.
The unanimous decision reversed a $1.5 billion damages award to Sony Music Entertainment in a suit against Cox Communications, the third largest broadband provider in the U.S., in a setback for the entertainment industry’s efforts to crack down on rampant, illicit distribution of copyrighted material online.
“Cox provided Internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the court’s opinion. “Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents.”
Copyright owners had insisted that the risk of being sued creates an incentive for internet service providers to help root out online piracy and suspend the accounts of those suspected of dealing in protected material.
The victory for Cox effectively blunts entertainment industry efforts to root out online piracy by leveraging service providers. It had warned that a contrary ruling could have forced them into bankruptcy and potentially eliminated internet access entirely in some communities.
Federal law makes it a crime to directly infringe on a copyright, but secondary liability by another party involved in copyright infringement — such as internet service providers — remains an evolving area of law.
As a general rule, anyone who “materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another may be held liable as a contributory infringer,” lawyers for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), an entertainment industry trade group, argued in a brief to the high court.
Thomas said the court rejects that view.
“The provider of a service is contributorily liable for the user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement,” he wrote. “The intent required for contributory liability can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement.”
Nearly 19 billion downloads of pirated movies and TV shows were made using online peer-to-peer software in 2023, according to the MPAA. The copyright violations cost the U.S. economy more than $29 billion and “hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the group estimates.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment of the court but said they would not have imposed as stringent limits on liability.
“Instead of artificially limiting secondary liability, the Court should have examined whether some other rule of fault-based liability derived from the common law might hold Cox liable for copyright infringement committed on its network,” Sotomayor wrote.
Savannah Guthrie and mother Nancy Guthrie on Thursday, June 15, 2023 — (Photo by: Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie is speaking out in her first interview nearly two months after her mother, Nancy Guthrie, was kidnapped from her Tucson, Arizona, home.
Authorities say Nancy Guthrie, 84, was abducted from her house in the early hours of Feb. 1. They have released surveillance images from outside Nancy Guthrie’s house, but the person who took her remains unidentified.
In an emotional interview with her friend and former co-host Hoda Kotb, Savannah Guthrie said, “We are in agony.”
“It is unbearable,” she said. “And to think of what she went through.”
Savannah Guthrie said thoughts of the terror her mother experienced wakes her up each night.
“I wake up every night in the middle of the night. Every night,” she said through tears. “And in the darkness, I imagine her terror. And it is unthinkable. But those thoughts demand to be thought. And I will not hide my face. That she needs to come home now.”
“Someone needs to do the right thing,” she stressed.
The full interview with Savannah Guthrie will be released on Thursday and Friday, Kotb said.
Kotb has been filling in for Savannah Guthrie on “Today” since the abduction.
Anyone with information is urged to call 911, the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI, or the Pima County Sheriff’s Department at 520-351-4900.
ABC News’ Matt Claiborne contributed to this report.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters and members of the media at Mar-a-Lago on February 1, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democrat Emily Gregory won the Florida House District 87 special election, according to The Associated Press, flipping the district that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
In the Tuesday evening upset victory, Gregory was reported to have defeated Trump-endorsed Republican Jon Maples by about 2.4 percentage points, according to the AP.
The Democrat’s victory came after the president, who had endorsed Maples, himself cast a mail-in ballot, according to public records, despite his years-long criticism of voting by mail.
He turned to his social media platform on Monday to encourage voters to support Maples, calling the statehouse race a “very important” special election and emphasizing its location in Palm Beach County, where he spends much of his winter and just visited this past weekend.
“Jon is a very successful Businessman and Civic Leader, who is known and loved, and also endorsed by so many of my Palm Beach County friends,” the president added.
Democrats were celebrating the flip as a major accomplishment leading into the midterms, while also touting the symbolic significance of a victory on the president’s home turf.
“Mar-a-Lago just flipped red to blue, which should have Republicans sweating the midterms,” Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Williams also projected a positive outlook heading into the midterms, saying “If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November.”
“This victory reiterates an undeniable trend in Florida: with year round organizing and infrastructure investment, Democrats can run and win anywhere–including Donald Trump’s backyard,” Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried said in a statement.
Gregory, who is a small business owner and public health professional, told MS Now on Tuesday night that she still felt “pretty shocked” by the victory and that she didn’t think “much” about the president being one of her constituents.
Trump is “one of 115,000 registered voters in district 87,” she said. “My opponent made, you know, him forefront in his campaign. And I focused more on the voters in district 87, you know, what everybody needs. What all of us will do better with … lower property insurance, with expanded healthcare, and with strong public schools.”
Firefighters at the scene in Highfield Road, Golders Green, London, after an apparent arson attack on four ambulances belonging to the Jewish Community Ambulance service in London. The Metropolitan Police confirmed the incident is being treated as an antisemitic hate crime. Picture date: Monday March 23, 2026. (Photo by Jonathan Brady/PA Images via Getty Images)
(LONDON) — Two men were arrested in connection with an arson attack on a Jewish charity’s ambulances in the north London neighborhood of Golders Green, British police said on Wednesday.
The men — aged 47 and 45 — were taken into custody Wednesday morning at separate addresses in northwest and central London, police said.
Both were arrested on suspicion of arson with intent to endanger life and have been taken to a London police station where they’re being held, according to London’s Metropolitan Police Service, which noted that its officers are conducting searches at the two addresses.
Four ambulances used by Hatzola, a volunteer-led ambulance service in north London, were set on fire just about 1:30 a.m. on Monday morning, police said. Three masked or hooded individuals were seen setting the fires, police said.
Investigators said that they were combing through hours of CCTV footage related to the case, in part to “trace the suspects’ movements.”
“This appears to be an important breakthrough in the investigation, but we’re also mindful that CCTV footage of the incident suggests there were at least three people involved,” Cmdr. Helen Flanagan, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, who is leading the investigation, said in a statement.
An investigations was still underway, Flanagan added, saying the Met would “seek to arrest all of those who may have been involved.”
Officials said that the arson attack was being treated as an antisemitic hate crime, although it had not as been designated a terrorist incident as of the police’s most recent update, which was published on Monday.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the attack as “horrifying,” saying on social media on Monday that it appeared to be a “shocking antisemitic arson attack.”
“An attack on our Jewish community is an attack on us all,” Starmer said. “We will fight the poison that is antisemitism.”
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court appears poised to allow President Trump to turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, a decision which would reverse a lower court ruling that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
A majority of the court’s conservative justices signaled during oral arguments in the case Tuesday that the administration should have broad leeway over border control and that asylum seekers who have not yet stepped foot on U.S. soil probably do not have a legal right to file a claim seeking protection.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house?” Justice Samuel Alito asked. “The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house.”
Immigrant advocates insist the Immigration and Nationality Act, which says a noncitizen who “arrives in the U.S. … at a designated port of arrival” must be allowed to apply for asylum, includes those who have “reached the threshold” of America.
“If an immigration officer determines that an alien who is arriving in the United States has expressed a fear of future persecution, then the immigration officer shall refer them for a credible fear interview,” argued Kelsi Corkran, an attorney supporting asylum seekers.
From the start of his second term, Trump has effectively blocked the entry of all noncitizens at the southern border, including those seeking to apply for refuge from credible fears of violence and persecution.
“You can’t ‘arrive in’ the U.S. while you’re still standing in Mexico,” argued Assistant Solicitor General Vivek Suri. “It is entirely lawful for the executive branch to prevent aliens from reaching U.S. soil and claiming those protections.”
The dispute largely turns on competing interpretations of what it means to “arrive in” the country.
“How close do you have to be to the border?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If it’s not crossing the physical border, what is the magic thing or the dispositive thing that we’re looking for where we say, ah, now that person we can say arrives in the United States?”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that regardless of where the line is drawn, the law stipulates that the government can prevent people from filing an asylum claim if it wants to. “The government’s presumably going to stop you on the other side of that line and prevent you from getting to wherever the line is. Right?” he asked.
The court’s three liberal justices were critical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.
“Imagine a polite asylum seeker who wants to do everything by the book,” posited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “He approaches the border but does not cross, precisely because the law says you are not supposed to enter the U.S. without authority. Why on earth would Congress have intended or meant for his asylum request to be discarded, not taken seriously, not entertained, but someone who manages to enter the U.S. unlawfully…and requests asylum gets their application entertained? “
“That doesn’t seem to me to make any sense,” Jackson added.
At the heart of the case is the so-called “turn back” policy from Trump’s first term that kept asylum seekers waiting in Mexico as a method of “metering” access at border crossings that faced overcrowding. Border officials contend it was a temporary policy, imposed only when conditions required.
While the administration voluntarily discontinued the practice in 2021 after a lower court deemed it unlawful, the government now wants the justices to approve the ability to reinstate the policy if necessary. Trump has invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, an immigrant rights group representing several asylum-seeker plaintiffs, said a ruling for the administration could have a major impact, even if not immediate.
“We have no doubt the administration is seeking a decision that will give them even more leeway to restrict the rights of people seeking asylum,” Crow said.
Tens of thousands of asylum seekers who arrived at the U.S. southern border during Trump’s first term were forced to remain in Mexico for weeks or months in sometimes harrowing conditions in hopes they might have a chance to be interviewed about their fears of persecution.
Nicole Ramos, border rights project director at Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights group and plaintiff in the case, says Congress had a more nuanced view when it drafted the law following the U.S. failure to accept Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
“The right to seek asylum at the border is a legal right and a moral right,” Ramos said. “The stakes are not theoretical. They are measured in lives.”
One of those lives was Benito, a Mexican asylum seeker who declined to give his last name to protect his identity and spoke through a translator at an event hosted by Al Otro Lado.
“I was partially tortured, had a lot of lesions, and emotional harm, and traumas and I’m still healing from that,” he said of the violence he was trying to escape. “I knew I could apply for asylum in that moment, on the side of Mexico, and so I did everything correctly. I came close; I told the [U.S.] immigration agents that I needed to apply for asylum because I was scared and thought I would be killed.
“I had scars on my body, on my face, and my head,” he said, “but they said to me that they couldn’t help me, couldn’t accept me.”
The court is expected to issue a decision on the Trump administration’s bid to resurrect the “metering” and “turn back” policy by the end of June.
Pfizer logo (Photo Illustration by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Earlier this week, pharmaceutical company Pfizer and its partner Valneva announced that an experimental Lyme disease vaccine showed more than 70% efficacy in late-stage clinical trials.
The candidate, PF-07307405, showed 73.2% efficacy in reducing confirmed cases of Lyme disease cases after the fourth and final dose was administered when compared to a placebo.
However, the companies said there were fewer than anticipated cases of Lyme disease during the trial period and the study missed an important benchmark.
The trial did not reach its primary endpoint to provide an idea of how the results of this vaccine would turn out in a much larger population of people. Only with re-analyzing the data were researchers able to generate a statistically meaningful result.
Experts in tick-borne diseases told ABC News they still need to see the full data from the trials and that it’s early to determine what kind of impact the vaccine will have — but they add that results are “encouraging.”
“There are many other companies that are trying to develop something, but those are years and years and years away from being anywhere close to being marketed,” Dr. Gene Shapiro, a professor of pediatric infectious diseases and epidemiology of microbial diseases, told ABC News. “So, this vaccine was very similar to the vaccine that we know worked in the past. I think we have to pay attention to [this new one].”
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection that is spread through the bite of blacklegged ticks, also known as deer ticks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue and a skin rash known as erythema migrans, the CDC says. If left untreated, the infection can spread to joints, the heart and the nervous system.
More than 89,000 cases of Lyme disease were reported to the CDC by state health departments and the District of Columbia in 2023, according to the latest data available from the federal health agency. Estimates suggest about 476,000 Americans may be diagnosed and treated for Lyme disease annually.
Currently, no vaccine for Lyme disease is available in the U.S. Previously, a vaccine was available, but it was discontinued in 2002, according to the CDC.
“The uptake was poor. The sales were poor, and the company decided to stop selling it,” Shapiro said. “The currently developed vaccine [by Pfizer and Valneva] is very, very similar to that vaccine, with very minor modifications.”
Dr. Martin Becker, a clinical associate professor in the department of medicine at NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, added that there were concerns raised, including about vaccine recipients having joint problems but several studies examining a link failed to find an association.
Becker said there have been many clinical trials underway “but this one that Pfizer just announced, I believe, is the one that’s been most advanced,” he told ABC News. “We were eagerly awaiting results from this large Phase III trial. Other previous trials were already published showing the safety and immunogenicity [of the vaccine].”
Pfizer and Valneva said they are planning to file for approval with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with Pfizer telling ABC News that the trial results show there is a level of protection against Lyme disease.
“It doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, but it does mean — if we had higher numbers of incidence of infection — we would be more confident about the degree of protection. It’s very encouraging,” Becker said.
Questions remain about whether the vaccine, if approved, will have higher uptake than the previous vaccine did decades earlier.
Shapiro said there might be more uptake with this vaccine if stronger recommendations are made. At the time the old vaccine was approved by federal regulators, Shapiro said the recommendation from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices was to consider the shot for those at higher risk, but it was not recommended for those at low or no risk.
“It was not a very strong recommendation,” Shapiro said. “And I think there was less awareness of Lyme disease. So, most likely, [the newer vaccine] would get a stronger endorsement today.”
Paratroopers assigned to 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division conduct live fire exercises at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, July 28, 2025. (Spc Jayreliz Batista Prado/US Army, File)
(WASHINGTON) — Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are poised to deploy to the Middle East, amid the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The deployment is set to include both a headquarters unit and ground combat forces. A headquarters company, around 250 personnel, would handle logistics, coordination and operational planning for the deployment.
One brigade — about 3,000 soldiers — of the 82nd is constantly on standby as the Immediate Response Force, tasked to be able to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.
It remains unclear how many combat troops would ultimately be mobilized — or what role they would play in a potential conflict with Iran. Any move to introduce U.S. ground forces would mark a significant escalation, opening the door to a far broader and more complex phase of the war.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the U.S. has effectively won the war and that Iran’s military is nearly annihilated. But strikes against U.S. troops in neighboring countries has continued. So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action and at least 290 have been wounded.
“I don’t like to say this. We’ve won this — this war has been won,” Trump told reporters Tuesday.
So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action and at least 290 have been wounded.
The 82nd Airborne Division is the Pentagon’s premier ground force, designed to deploy on short notice anywhere in the world and trained in parachute assaults to quickly seize contested terrain — though that doesn’t mean that’s how they could be deployed into the Middle East.
Signs of a potential deployment have been building for weeks. Earlier this month, the same 82nd Airborne headquarters unit was suddenly pulled from a significant training event at Fort Polk, Louisiana, three U.S. officials told ABC News, fueling speculation the division was being prepared to deploy to the Middle East.
The 82nd, which is based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, could join the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) as potential ground forces swell into the region. A MEU is a 2,200-troop force which is expected to arrive in the Middle East this week.
Experts say the MEU would likely be used to conduct raids across the Iranian shoreline to gain a foothold in areas around the crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil flows by ship.
And three Navy ships carrying 2,200 Marines left San Diego last week for a previously scheduled deployment to the Indo-Pacific, but two U.S. officials tell ABC News their ultimate destination is likely the Middle East.
The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit is aboard the USS Boxer, the USS Comstock and the USS Portland — along with 2,000 sailors.
People stand in a security line at George Bush Intercontinental Airport that extended all the way to the airport’s subway terminal in Houston, March 24, 2026. (KTRK)
(NEW YORK) — Travel upheaval continued at some of the nation’s airports on Tuesday as people were forced to navigate long security lines despite President Donald Trump deploying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to help cut down on wait times.
One of the longest security waits on Tuesday was at Bush International Airport in Houston, where travelers stood in a line stretching from the airport subway to the security check-in gates, according to ABC Houston station KTRK.
As of 11 a.m. local time in Houston, the wait time to get through security was estimated to exceed four hours, according to an advisory posted on the Houston Airport System’s website.
The airport disruption in Houston even delayed a member of the National Transportation Safety Board team who was flying to New York’s LaGuardia Airport to investigate Sunday night’s deadly crash between an Air Canada jet and a Port Authority fire truck, NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said at a news conference on Tuesday.
“Our air traffic control specialist, who was in line with TSA for three hours until we called in Houston to beg to see if we can get her through so we can get here,” she said. “So, it’s been a really big challenge to get the entire team here, and they’re still arriving as I speak.”
Airport security lines are growing nationwide as Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers, who haven’t received a paycheck for over three weeks, continue to call in sick or quit amid a partial government shutdown over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The TSA reported that about 40% of its workers at Bush airport, whose duties include staffing security lines and running X-ray machines and magnetometers, called out sick on Monday. Houston’s other airport, William P. Hobby Airport, reported that about 40% of TSA personnel called out sick on Monday, according to the TSA.
Across the nation, more than 3,200 TSA officers called out sick on Monday, according to data released by the agency on Tuesday. The numbers weren’t as high as Sunday, when 11.76% of the TSA officers scheduled to work called out sick.
Other major airports were also seeing a high level of absent TSA workers on Monday. John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and Baltimore-Washington Thurgood Marshall Airport both reported that over 30% of TSA workers called out sick on Monday.
In a statement on Tuesday, Lauren Bis, the DHS acting assistant secretary for public affairs, said the partial government shutdown over DHS funding has caused “more than 450 TSA officers to quit and thousands have called out from work because they are not able to afford gas, childcare, food, or rent.”
Over the weekend, Trump announced he would deploy ICE agents to at least 14 of the nation’s busiest airports to assist TSA workers coping with long security lines.
Those agents began showing up at airports on Monday. The White House’s border czar, Tom Homan, told ABC News on Monday that the agents will be directed by the TSA administrator on how they will best be used to “plug holes in security.”
Both Homan and Trump said the agents will still be responsible for enforcing immigration laws if they come across violations or spot people in the country illegally while at the airports.
Trump said on Monday that if the help from ICE isn’t enough, he’ll deploy the National Guard to airports.
At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, one of the world’s busiest travel hubs, security lines seemed to be thinning out on Tuesday morning compared to Monday, when lines stretched out terminal doors.
During the peak travel period at 5:30 a.m., ABC News observed a few long lines at Hartsfield-Jackson, but by 7:30 a.m., wait times fell to below normal. But on the airport’s website on Tuesday, travelers were being advised to allow at least four hours or more for domestic and international screening.
Hartsfield-Jackson Manager Ricky Smith told ABC Atlanta affiliate WSB-TV that, with about 40% of the TSA workers calling out sick on Monday, travelers need to allow plenty of time to get through the airport.
“As we progress through this shutdown and call-outs increase, that means TSA can’t process as many passengers as quickly as they can,” Smith said on Monday. “Some passengers are missing flights and so they’re coming in the next day. So, all of that is adding to more congestion, adding to longer lines.”
One traveler, Jason, told WSB-TV that he got to the Hartsfield-Jackson airport seven hours early on Monday for a flight home to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, after waiting at the airport to until 1 a.m. Sunday without ever making it past the TSA security checkpoint.
“I’m already missing a day of work right now, and my bosses are not pleased,” he said.
Democrats have blocked funding for DHS, which oversees the TSA and ICE, in an effort to push for policy reforms at ICE, whose aggressive tactics in enforcing immigration laws have prompted protests and lawsuits across the country.
DHS reforms that Democratic lawmakers have proposed include requiring ICE agents not to wear face masks, be equipped with body cameras and have warrants signed by a judge before entering homes and businesses.
Republicans have, so far, rejected those proposals.
Senators on both sides of the aisle have told ABC News that they are feeling increasingly optimistic that a deal to fully fund DHS is on the horizon.
“We do,” Sen. Katie Britt, R-Alabama, a key negotiator for the Republicans in the DHS funding battle, told reporters on Monday when asked if there was a solution in the works.
Britt’s comments came after she and a group of Republicans met with Trump to discuss a possible solution.
“Democrats and Republicans have been trying to come to some negotiation, and I’m hearing that there is a potential solution,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Georgia.
The lawmakers are scrambling to find a solution before the end of this week, when they are scheduled to go on recess.
In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy noted that if a deal is not struck this week, conditions at airports will get worse.
“If this Homeland Security funding isn’t resolved, I think you’re going to see more TSA agents as we come to Thursday, Friday and Saturday of next week, they’re going to quit, or they’re not going to show up,” he said.
On Tuesday, Delta Air Lines announced it is temporarily suspending “specialty services” for members of Congress — including airport escorts — due to resource constraints from the ongoing partial government shutdown.
“Next to safety, Delta’s no. 1 priority is taking care of our people and customers, which has become increasingly difficult in the current environment,” the company said in a statement.
In an interview with ABC News at Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby had more bad news for the flying public.
He said consumers should be aware that ticket prices are rising and will need to increase about 20% to cover the surging fuel prices.
As United braces for oil prices potentially reaching $175 a barrel due to the conflict in Iran — it stood at $104 on the global market on Tuesday — Kirby urged travelers to lock in planned trips now to take advantage of current fares. United expects fuel to cost the airline an additional $11 billion year over year.
Kirby said the airline is cutting flights with lower demand to offset the increased costs brought on by the war.
Asked about long airport security lines and the deployment of ICE agents to airports, Kirby said he is heading to Washington on Wednesday to push for TSA funding. He believes a deal is very close and that the issue should be resolved soon.
He noted that, despite calls for airlines to fund the TSA themselves, federal law prevents them from doing so. Still, Kirby said he is confident Congress will approve funding imminently.
The White House didn’t immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
ABC News’ Alex Stone, Ayesha Ali and Steve Osunsami contributed to this report.
