People walk along Broadway with shopping bags in Manhattan on February 27, 2026 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The United States economy grew at a solid pace over the first three months of 2026, rebounding from sluggish performance at the end of last year, a government report on Thursday showed.
The economy grew at an annualized rate of 2% in the first quarter, marking an acceleration from 0.5% growth recorded in the previous quarter. The performance came in slightly below economists’ expectations.
The fresh data covers a period mostly before the outset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, which sent gasoline prices surging and prompted warnings of a possible recession.
The jump in economic output over the first quarter owes to a rise in government spending, exports and investment, the U.S. Commerce Department said.
Consumer spending slowed down from the previous quarter, however, providing a cautionary note for the nation’s outlook. Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.
Households, meanwhile, are weathering a surge in prices as a result of an oil shock set off by the Iran war.
The Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, a measure of inflation preferred by the Federal Reserve, increased 3.5% in March, the report showed. That reading marked a jump from a 2.8% rate in the previous month.
The Middle East conflict prompted Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global supply of oil and natural gas.
The average price of a gallon of gas stands at $4.30 as of Thursday, hitting the highest level in four years.
The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday, in part due to the recent rise in costs. The benchmark rate stands at a level between 3.5% and 3.75%.
The solid economic performance at the outset of this year may allow the Fed to keep interest rates elevated for longer as it seeks to avert a prolonged rise in prices amid the Iran war.
Construction crews continue to remove the East Wing of the White House and prepare for the new ballroom construction as seen from the newly reopened Washington Monument on November 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Americans oppose President Donald Trump tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom by a 2-to-1 margin, oppose a 250-foot arch by an even wider margin and oppose the addition of Trump’s signature to paper currency by more than 5-to-1, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s ballroom
The Trump administration announced the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in July 2025, with Trump promising “it won’t interfere with the current building.” By October, demolition started on the East Wing of the White House, which was built in 1902 and renovated in 1942.
The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll finds that more than half of Americans, 56%, oppose tearing down the East Wing to make way for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, with 28% in support and 15% unsure. The results are nearly identical to an October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Currently, strong opposition (47%) outweighs strong support (16%) by about 3-to-1.
In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation – a privately-funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites – filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the administration completed the federal review process standard for federal building projects. Earlier this month, an appeals court panel allowed construction of the ballroom to continue, granting an administrative stay of an earlier injunction.
Trump has reiterated his desire for the ballroom in the aftermath of the attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on Saturday night, arguing that the hotel ballroom did not provide the appropriate security measures for an event the president is attending.
The poll was in the field before and after the Saturday dinner. Overall, there was no significant difference in attitudes before and after the White House correspondents’ dinner, but Republican support for the ballroom increased from 62% before the dinner to 72% after.
Despite Republican calls for building the ballroom in light of the attempted attack Saturday night, the planned ballroom, according to a National Capital Planning Commission staff report, would have a seating capacity of about 1,000 guests. About 2,600 guests were seated for this year’s White House correspondents’ dinner. A White House event would be under the purview of the administration, whereas many events the president attends – including the correspondents’ dinner – are run by outside, independent, entities.
Republicans proposed a bill that would provide $400 million in funding for the facility. It comes after Trump said in October that the ballroom would be “paid for 100% by me and some friends of mine,” referencing donors. “The government is paying absolutely nothing.” Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to regulate the project and impose restrictions on donations — aimed at prohibiting bribery.
Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats oppose the ballroom project, along with about 6 in 10 independents. Among Republicans, 65% support tearing down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a ballroom. Support grows to 77% among MAGA-Republicans (which include Republican-leaning independents who support the MAGA movement), but it drops to just 31% among non-MAGA Republicans.
An arch
In addition to Trump’s major changes to the White House structure, the president has also proposed a 250-foot-tall arch to be built at Memorial Circle, right before the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, at the other end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge.The arch would be more than twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial at the other side of the bridge.
“I’d like it to be the biggest [arch] of all,” even bigger than the 164-foot-tall Arc De Triomphe in Paris, Trump said.
By an over 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose (52%) rather than support (21%) the Trump administration’s plan to build the arch. Another 26% are unsure.
Strong opposition (41%) outweighs strong support (9%) by more than 4-to-1.
A group of Vietnam War veterans have sued to stop construction of the arch, arguing that the project needs to be authorized by Congress before construction can begin, adding that the arch would block the line of sight between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. The veterans have reached a compromise with the administration, stalling the lawsuit for now, with a promise that the administration will follow the legal process to build the arch.
Taxpayer funds would cover at least part of the project: $2 million in special initiative funds and $13 million in matching grants.
Majorities of Democrats (78%) and independents (57%) oppose the arch. A slim 51% of Republicans support building an arch, including 59% of MAGA Republicans and just 23% of non-MAGA Republicans.
Trump’s signature on money
In March, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that Trump’s signature will be added to future U.S. paper currency. This would be a first for a sitting president, as no previous U.S. president’s name has ever appeared on currency. Earlier in March, the federal Commission of Fine Arts approved Trump’s image on commemorative gold coins and in October, the administration proposed a Trump-themed $1 coin.
Americans oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money instead of the treasury secretary’s by a wider margin than either the ballroom or the arch: 68% oppose it while just 12% support it. Another 19% say they aren’t sure. Over half, 55%, strongly oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money; just 5% strongly support it.
An 1866 amendment prohibits living persons from appearing on government securities and a U.S. statute states that “only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on U.S. currency and securities.” A living president has appeared on currency once before: In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge was featured on a coin celebrating the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence along with a portrait of President George Washington.
Majorities of Americans across most demographic groups oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money, including 9 in 10 Democrats and over 7 in 10 independents. Just under 3 in 10 Republicans support it, including just over a third of MAGA Republicans (35%) – the largest share across demographic groups.
The poll did not address the addition of Trump’s photo to national park passes or the renaming of the Kennedy Center. The poll was conducted before the announcement that Trump’s image would appear on limited-edition passports.
Methodology – This ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted among 2,560 U.S. adults overall, but these questions were conducted among a half sample of 1,292 U.S. adults and have an error margin of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Error margins are larger among subgroups.
President Donald Trump listens during a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky following their meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The White House’s new policy for preserving presidential records risks allowing the Trump administration to “unlawfully destroy important records,” a group of Senate Democrats warned in a letter to the White House Counsel on Wednesday.
Thirteen Senate Democrats are seeking assurances from the White House that it would continue to preserve presidential records, saying they had grown “deeply concerned” with recent steps the Trump administration had taken to loosen rules dictating document retention.
The Democrats’ missive comes after the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) wrote an opinion this month that deemed the Presidential Records Act — a Watergate-era law that changed the legal ownership of presidential records from private to public — to be unconstitutional and “untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose.”
One day after the opinion was issued, White House Counsel David Warrington issued new guidance for White House staffers to adopt new document retention policies based on the DOJ’s new determination about the legality of the Presidential Records Act.
“The 1978 law is a significant departure from historical practice. For 200 years the presidency existed without the legislative branch invading the rights of the executive branch,” Warrington said in a memo that was later included in a court filing.
Led by Sen. Adam Schiff of California, the Democrats wrote to White House Counsel David Warrington that they feared “the President and his staff” will use the OLC option to “unlawfully destroy important records covered by the [Presidential Records Act].”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that the Democrats’ letter reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of the Administration’s policy.”
“The new White House records retention policy makes it clear that important records will be preserved,” Jackson added.
The senators, in their letter, alluded to what they characterized as President Donald Trump’s “unlawful personal retention and mismanagement of classified documents” in requesting a briefing from White House officials on their “records management procedures” at some point before the end of his term. Trump was indicted after his first term for allegedly storing classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing investigators, though the case was dismissed over U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s concerns about the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
Drafted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978 to ensure the preservation of presidential records. Every president since Ronald Reagan has been subject to the law, which places the National Archives and Records Administration in control of the official records — such as emails, phone records, and other documentary material created by the president and his staff in the course of their duties — once the president leaves office.
Under the PRA, which is overseen by Congress, former presidents have up to 12 years after leaving office to turn over all their presidential records.
During President Trump’s current term, his administration has moved to unwind record retention protocols. Earlier this month, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote an opinion that would upend the established process for ensuring the public ownership of presidential records, arguing that “the PRA exceeds the oversight power [of Congress] because it serves no identifiable and valid legislative purpose.”
With three years left in Trump’s second term, his Department of Justice now says the president “need not further comply” with the law governing the handover of his presidential records once he leaves office.
The day after the publication of the Justice Department’s opinion, Warrington issued new guidance for the Executive Office of the President regarding the preserve of records going forward. While the memo said that staff could use policies developed under the PRA, Warrington said the new policy would cover the retention of both classified and unclassified material going forward.
In their letter to Warrington on Wednesday, the senators asserted that administration “does not have the authority to override Supreme Court rulings or unilaterally overturn laws passed by Congress.”
Within a week of the OLC opinion and new White House guidance, the country’s largest group of a historians and a watchdog organization brought a lawsuit seeking to force the Trump administration to comply with the PRA.
“The Executive Branch has nullified the determinations of the other two branches of government so that the President may claim these official government records to be his own,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have defended the policy in court filings, arguing the PRA is an “unconstitutional and ahistorical imposition on presidential autonomy.”
As part of the lawsuit, the Trump administration released the new White House guidance on document retention. The Director of Archival Operations at the National Archives, meanwhile, said that the agency continues to “preserve all Presidential records in its custody” and plans to continue processing requests to access those records.
Alejandro Jacomino Gonzalez is seen circa October 2024 in a photo released by the FBI. (FBI)
(FLORIDA) — A truck driver who went missing in a possible hijacking while transporting vehicles from Georgia to Florida has been found dead, the FBI said Wednesday.
Alejandro Jacomino Gonzalez, 41, was last seen alive in the early morning hours on April 17 at a rest stop on I-95 south in Brevard County, Florida, according to the FBI’s Tampa field office.
The truck was located in Port Wentworth, Georgia, that day, though Gonzalez was not there, according to the FBI, which called his disappearance “suspicious.” Several vehicles were also missing from the hauler.
On Wednesday, the FBI field offices in Tampa and Atlanta said a body found in coastal Georgia is confirmed to be Gonzalez. They did not say where or when the body was located.
The FBI Tampa and Atlanta divisions are leading the investigation into Gonzalez’s death.
Gonzalez, a CDL driver for an unidentified trucking company, had picked up multiple vehicles from the Port of Brunswick in Georgia on April 16 and was supposed to drop them off in Miami, the FBI said.
He arrived at the truck stop in Grant-Valkaria at approximately 1:21 a.m. on April 17 and rested for several hours, the FBI said. At 7:49 a.m., the truck drove south one exit and then turned north, according to the FBI.
“Soon after, Gonzalez became unreachable and the truck was reported missing,” the FBI stated in a missing person bulletin.
Three vehicles that went missing from the hauler have since been located in Florida, the FBI said.
Anyone with information on the investigation is asked to contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or submit tips online.
Demonstrators chant and hold signs outside U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026, in Washington. (Tom Brenner/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled with whether the Trump administration has the authority to end humanitarian protections for thousands of immigrants without facing judicial review.
While an unrelated ruling about the Voting Rights Act overshadowed the arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of the legal challenge to reverse the cancellation of temporary protected status for thousands of Haitians and Syrians.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security unreviewable discretion to manage and end TPS designations, arguing that a legal challenge would result in “judicial micromanagement” of foreign policy.
“Congress balanced the risk there might be some decision that’s erroneous or baseless… that would evade judicial review, against the risk of what we’re living through here, which is judicial micromanagement of the sorts of foreign policy laden in determinations and decisions that are naturally conferred upon the political branches,” Sauer said.
But attorneys representing the Haitians and Syrian Temporary Protected Status holders argued that the Homeland Secretary must follow the “procedural guardrails” set by Congress, which include reviewing country conditions, consulting other government agencies, and providing TPS holders 60 days of notice.
“The bottom line is the secretary can terminate TPS, but he must turn square corners and follow the rules Congress set,” said attorney Ahilan T. Arulantham. “In contrast, as we’ve heard today, the government reads the statute like a blank check today. They want to use it to expel non-citizens, but the power that they seek is a double-edged sword.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the significance of the legal challenge, which was described as a “box-checking exercise,” if the Trump administration still canceled the designation as long as they followed the procedural steps.
“If it’s just kind of a box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect, when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” Barrett asked.
“I think it’s because Congress and us too, and the millions of people who live with TPS holders, have some faith in government, and they believe that if there is consultation, the decisions will be better,” Arulanantham said.
Sauer pushed back on those arguments, claiming that the Trump administration fulfilled the procedural requirements by “seeking input” from the State Department, though he claimed that even those basic steps were not necessary.
“If the secretary posted a notice on X saying, ‘I hereby terminate Syria’s TPS program effective tomorrow,’ you would say that there’s no judicial review of that decision,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Correct,” Sauer said.
The three liberal justices also pressed Sauer about President Donald Trump’s public and social media comments about Haitian immigrants, suggesting the statements show a “discriminatory purpose” behind the TPS cancellation.
“The President has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically as undesirables from a ‘s——- country,’ and days after falsely accusing them of ‘eating the dogs and eating the cats of Americans,’ he vowed that he would terminate Haiti’s TPS, and that is exactly what happened,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back on the government’s claim that Trump’s rhetoric was focused on policy issues like crime or poverty and pointed to remarks made about “welcoming people” from Norway or Denmark.
“If the position of the United States is that we have to have an actual racial epithet… [and] we aren’t allowed to look at all the context,” Jackson said, then the court would be ignoring a “prime example” of discriminatory intent.
Justice Jackson noted that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — who attended Wednesday’s hearing and blocked the termination of TPS for Haitians in February — found that there is evidence of “discriminatory intent.”
“So aren’t we bound in some regard with respect to what the lower court has already determined about these facts?” she asked.
Sauer said the court should apply the logic of a different judge who said the President’s statements “are less relevant.”
At one point during the hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the protections in place for Syrians by mentioning that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is no longer in place.
“The whole thing was the Assad regime,” Kavanaugh said. “After 53 years of complete oppression and brutal treatment, it’s done.”
Arulantham, who argued on behalf of the Syrians, pushed back and said that while the regime may have changed, the country remains a war zone and pointed to current State Department reports of violence in the country.
“It is of no relevance because even if the secretary is right and the State Department is wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t talk to each other, and the national interest is not a criteria,” Arulantham said.
While the Court on Wednesday appeared closely divided on whether to invalidate Trump’s cancellation of TPS for Haitians and Syrians over procedural missteps, the bottom line is that the administrationretains almost unquestionable discretion as to if and when TPS status for certain countries should be discontinued.
And that means, if the legal teams representing the migrants prevail in this instance, it may be short-lived. The administration can move againto cancel their status, following the appropriate procedural steps, and more than 350,000+ immigrants who have lived here legally for quite some time under TPS could be forced to leave the country.
The court is expected to issue its decision in the case this summer.
(FLORIDA) — Florida’s state legislature passed a new congressional map on Wednesday that could allow Republicans to flip up to four seats.
It now goes to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who had proposed it earlier this week after teasing mid-decade redistricting for months. The governor has argued that Florida’s population growth and other legal issues meant the state had to redraw its map.
The new map, analysts say, could leave just four Democratic-held districts in the state after the 2026 midterms.
But it’s likely to face legal challenges, particularly because the Florida Constitution has what are known as the Fair Districts Amendments, which prohibit drawing congressional districts “with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent” and includes protections for minority voters and keeping districts contiguous.
Representatives for DeSantis have argued that the Fair Districts Amendments, approved by voters in 2010, are faulty.
But Democrats have been adamant that the process of considering the map was rushed, and that the mid-decade redistricting gambit will be found illegal by courts.
“This is a map that is designed and intended to rig outcomes, and to benefit one political party, the Republican Party, Donald Trump’s Republican Party, in direct violation of Florida’s constitution,” Democratic state Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith said on Wednesday ahead of the vote.
Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Powers said “Florida got it right.”
“Governor Ron DeSantis and our Legislature have delivered congressional maps that reflect the continued growth of our state that are fair, and constitutional, ensuring Florida voters are represented accurately,” Powers said in a statement on Wednesday.
Some Republican members of Florida’s U.S. House delegation had previously expressed concerns that a map redraw could backfire for the GOP, weakening incumbents while galvanizing Democratic voters.
The passage of Florida’s new map came on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and dealt a blow to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
DeSantis and his team argued that the case and ruling lent credence to Florida redrawing its map.
The new Florida map also comes roughly a week after Republicans faced a loss when Virginia voters approved allowing a new congressional map there that could let Democrats flip up to four seats. The results of that election are currently held up in court.
ames Comey speaks onstage at 92NY on May 30, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former FBI Director James Comey made an initial court appearance Wednesday after self-surrendering to law enforcement at the courthouse in the Eastern District of Virginia, following his indictment Tuesday on charges of threatening the president.
A federal grand jury in North Carolina on Tuesday indicted Comey over a controversial Instagram post from last year that President Donald Trump and members of his administration claimed was a threat against Trump.
Comey did not enter a plea during his court appearance.
He answered “Yes, your honor,” presumably as an acknowledgement of the charges in the indictment. He was flanked by his two attorneys, Jessica Carmichael and Patrick Fitzgerald.
Comey was allowed to the leave court without conditions for his release. His attorney said, “I don’t see why they’d be necessary this time.”
The indictment centers on a controversy that erupted nearly a year ago when Comey, in a since-deleted Instagram post, shared a picture showing the numbers “86 47” written in seashells on the beach with the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” Citing the slang meaning of “86” as to “nix” or “get rid” of something, allies of the president allege that the post was a veiled threat against Trump, who is the 47th president.
As outlined in the short, three-page indictment, Comey faces one charge of threats against the president and successors, and one charge of transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.
Prosecutors in the indictment say the post constitutes a threat that any “reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”
Comey’s attorneys indicated Wednesday that they plan to file a motion accusing the Justice Department of selectively and vindictively prosecuting Comey, and said in court they wanted to make sure the government preserved any materials and public statements that could be related to such a motion.
Prosecutors will likely face a high legal bar to prove that the Instagram post constituted a “true threat,” which the Supreme Court in 2023 found required showing an individual understood their message would be perceived as threatening. With the phrase “86 47” increasingly adopted by protesters of the Trump administration, the case could carry sweeping implications for the First Amendment.
Comey was indicted last year on unrelated charges for allegedly lying to Congress and obstruction related to his testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. Comey’s lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the case was politically motivated and that the grand jury never saw the charges in their entirety, and the case was ultimately dismissed over issues with the legitimacy of the prosecutor who brought the case.
“I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again, and my attitude is going to be the same,” Comey said in a video posted to social media after the previous indictment was thrown out in November. “I’m innocent. I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary — the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant.”
The new indictment comes as the Department of Justice in recent weeks has ramped up investigations of some of Trump’s perceived political foes under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is heading up the Justice Department following Trump’s ouster of Pam Bondi.
“Nothing has changed with me,” Comey posted online Tuesday in response to the indictment, echoing what he said after the previous indictment was thrown out last year. “I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary so let’s go.”
“But it’s really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be and the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values,” he added. “Keep the faith.”
This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.
The Fulton County Jail is seen on August 23, 2023 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(ATLANTA) — Former Fulton County Jail detainee Rashaad Muhammad detailed what he said was a harrowing experience being held at the Atlanta, Georgia, facility from August 2025 to February of this year.
After being arrested on Aug. 11, the 33-year-old — who used a cane to walk and took medication regularly for a blood condition — alleged at a press conference last Friday that he was repeatedly denied medical care as his physical condition rapidly deteriorated for more than two weeks.
As he allegedly experienced symptoms like vomiting bile and losing the ability to stand up, Muhammad said his requests for medical attention were ignored for several days and he ultimately experienced septic shock. After being transported to Grady Memorial Hospital, he fell into a coma and both of his hands and legs were amputated.
In a statement to ABC News, the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office said Muhammad spent 177 of the 188 days he was in custody “at Grady under hospital care.”
“For days, I’m in the corner by myself suffering. Nobody’s checking on me. Nobody’s coming up to you,” an emotional Muhammad told the press. “I’m back there. I was tired, so I’m trying to tell the officer, ‘Hey officer, I need to, you know, it’s getting bad.’ Nothing.”
He alleged that officials in the jail ignored his condition, even as he asked for medical help each day.
“I’m begging the sheriff to let me see the provider … I can’t get up. Every time they do head count, you have to stand by your door,” he said. “It got so bad to the point where I couldn’t even get up. I wasn’t trying to be disrespectful to the officers but I just couldn’t get up. So they just started, they’d see me, they didn’t, I didn’t have to do headcount. But that’s when I knew it was bad.”
Muhammad had been charged with two felony counts of aggravated assault and firearm possession. According to court records, the warrant alleges that he drove up to the victim, got out of his car and fired multiple shots at the victim, then drove off.
At the press conference, Muhammad and his attorneys described this as a case of self-defense. All charges were dropped earlier this month. It’s unclear exactly why the charges were dropped.
“For them to drop the charges is another slap in the face, because I was there for no reason. I didn’t have to be there,” Muhammad said.
An attorney from the Georgia Public Defender Council represented Muhammad at the time.
“This case raises serious questions about humane treatment in custody and emphasizes the importance of testing allegations through a fair adversarial process that ultimately resulted in Mr. Muhammad’s charges being dismissed,” a spokesperson for the agency said in a statement to ABC News.
The prosecutors in the case did not immediately respond to ABC News’ requests for comment.
The Fulton County jail system has been the subject of scrutiny for years, drawing national attention in 2022 over the death of LaShawn Thompson in a bed bug-infested cell. In response to a series of reports of inmate abuse and neglect, including Thompson’s death, the Department of Justice launched a civil investigation into the Fulton County jail system in July 2023.
“We need to know why Fulton County did what they did in choosing their health care provider,” Muhammad’s attorney, Eric Hertz, told the press. “We need to know why a bottle of pills which he had on him when he was originally arrested, why they didn’t let him take that with him, why they didn’t carefully give him the antibiotics as he needed them.”
In a statement to ABC News, the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office said it cannot comment on or release information about Muhammad’s medical condition or treatment due to privacy laws.
“It is important to note that of the 188 days Mr. Muhammad was in custody, 177 of those days were spent at Grady under hospital care,” it said. “During his time at the Fulton County Jail, he was under the medical care of NaphCare.”
NaphCare is a private, for-profit correctional health care company based in Alabama. A 2024 report released by the Justice Department after LaShawn Thompson’s death noted “ongoing issues” with the company’s staffing at the jail, but its contract with Georgia state was ultimately renewed until 2027.
At the press conference on Friday, attorney Ben Crump noted that the same medical provider was involved in both Thompson and Muhammad’s situations.
“We need answers, and we need Fulton County to act. This is deplorable, this is horrific, this is egregious,” he said. “And worst of all, this is inhumane. We don’t treat human beings like this.”
In a statement to ABC News, NaphCare said “Fulton County jails represent one of the most difficult environments” where the company provides care in the U.S.
“Despite the challenges, we have been extraordinarily successful in improving care and saving lives, maintaining accreditation by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and working with federal court monitors to implement reforms under a federal court consent decree,” the company said.
NaphCare noted that it has “cared for tens of thousands of patients, and have had thousands of positive patient outcomes” in the time it has been contracted to work at the jail.
It also addressed Muhammad’s case specifically.
“We are also deeply saddened by and sorry for the suffering and losses that Mr. Muhammad experienced,” the company said its statement. “We understand that he has a right to file a lawsuit against us, and we will respond to the allegations in court filings and will not comment to the news media outside of the ongoing court proceedings.”
Muhammad’s legal team called for accountability and a full investigation into the conditions and medical care within the jail.
ABC News’ Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.
British police investigate the scene with the support of counterterrorism units after two people were injured in a stabbing attack in a neighborhood with a large Jewish community in Golders Green area of north London, United Kingdom on April 29, 2026. (Rasid Necati Aslim/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(LONDON) — A stabbing attack in London that officials said injured two Jewish men has been declared a “terrorist incident,” police said.
The suspect — a 45-year-old man — was arrested after trying to attack officers who responded to reports of people being stabbed in the Golders Green neighborhood in Northwest London, the Metropolitan Police said.
The incident took place at 11:16 a.m. local time in London on Wednesday.
“One male was seen running along Golders Green Road armed with a knife and attempting to stab Jewish members of the public,” Shomrim NW London, a charity that operates an emergency response team in the area, said on social media.
Two men — aged 76 and 34 — were treated at the scene for stab wounds before being taken to a hospital, where they are both listed in stable condition, police said.
The suspect was Tasered and arrested after allegedly trying to stab officers, police said. No officers were injured.
The suspect was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and remains in custody, the Metropolitan Police said. He has a history of serious violence and mental health issues, according to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley.
Specialist officers from Counter Terrorism Policing are leading the investigation. inquiry
“One of the lines of inquiry is whether this attack was deliberately targeting the Jewish community in London,” he added.
Mayor Sadiq Khan of London condemned the “appalling attack on two Jewish Londoners in Golders Green.”
“London’s Jewish community have been the target of a series of shocking antisemitic attacks,” Khan said in a statement. “There must be absolutely no place for antisemitism in society. The Met have stepped up high visibility patrols in the area.”
Sarah Sackman, a member of Parliament who represents the area, said she was aware of the “serious stabbing” in Golders Green.
“The attacks on British Jews are an attack on Britain itself,” she said in a statement posted on social media. “It is unconscionable that Jews are being targeted in this way.”
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who was addressing questions in the House of Commons on Wednesday, said it was “deeply concerning to everyone in this House.” He added that a police investigation was underway.
Wednesday’s alleged stabbing was at least the third violent incident reported in the Golders Green area — which is well-known for its sizable Jewish community — in recent weeks.
In late March, four ambulances belonging to the Jewish community ambulance service, Hatzalah, were firebombed in a suspected antisemitic attack, according to the Met Police.
And on Tuesday, an arson attack was reported on a memorial wall in Golders Green, which is dedicated to thousands of protesters killed in an Iranian government crackdown on nationwide protests in January, police said.
The wall is located close to a local Jewish center, although police said the Tuesday alleged attack was “not being treated as a terrorist incident and officers are keeping an open mind about the motive behind the attack.”
ABC News’ Joe Simonetti and Zoe Magee contributed to this report.
Signs point the way to measles testing in the parking lot of the Seminole Hospital District across from Wigwam Stadium on February 27, 2025 in Seminole, Texas. (Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — With a busy travel season approaching, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is warning that additional measles cases in the U.S. can be expected over the next few months.
The agency sent the alert to state and local health departments, reminding them to report measles cases to the CDC within 24 hours and to have measles cases reported in hospitals and to public health authorities.
The CDC has encouraged public health departments to conduct contact tracing for exposed individuals as well as perform outreach to under-vaccinated communities.
“With continued measles transmission in areas across North America and expected increases in international and domestic travel and large events during spring and summer, additional measles cases are anticipated in the coming months,” the alert reads.
Parents should ensure they and their loved ones are protected against measles before traveling, the CDC says. This includes getting vaccinated against measles at least two weeks before leaving.
The measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is typically given in two doses, the first at 12 to 15 months old and the second between ages four and six. One dose is 93% effective and two doses are 97% effective against measles, according to the CDC.
Those traveling to or living in an outbreak area may be eligible for an earlier vaccine between 6 and 11 months old, the CDC says. This additional shot would be followed by the typical two doses for a total of three doses.
After returning home from travel from an area with measles, travelers should look out for measles symptoms for three weeks and contact their doctor if they experience symptoms or think they may have been exposed, the CDC advises.
The alert comes as cases continue to be recorded across the U.S. So far this year, there have been 1,782 cases nationwide, according to CDC data.
Cases have been reported in 36 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
About 92% of cases are among people who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown, CDC data shows.
Meanwhile, 4% of cases are among those who have received just one dose of the MMR vaccine and 4% of cases are among those who received the recommended two doses, according to the CDC.
Last year, the U.S. recorded 2,288 measles cases, which is the highest number of national cases in 33 years, according to the CDC.
More than a year ago, health officials confirmed that cases of measles were cropping up in a small town in western Texas. It’s unclear if those cases are linked to those reported in other states; if so, it would mean the U.S. has seen a year of continuous transmission.
If it’s determined that the U.S. has experienced 12 months of continuous measles transmission, it could lead to a loss of the country’s elimination status that was earned in 2000. Measles would once again be considered endemic or constantly circulating.
