A sign outside a mobile clinic offering measles and flu vaccinations on February 6, 2026 in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Sean Rayford/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. is close to reaching at least 1,000 measles cases for the third time in eight years.
At least 72 new measles cases have been confirmed in the last week, according to updated data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So far this year, there have been total of 982 cases in 26 states, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
Just six measles cases were reported among international travelers so far this year, according to CDC data.
About 94% of cases are among people who are unvaccinated or whose vaccination status is unknown, the CDC said.
Meanwhile, 3% of cases are among those who have received just one dose of the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and 4% of cases are among those who received the recommended two doses, according to the CDC.
The current measles situation in the U.S. is partly being driven by a large outbreak in South Carolina that began last year, with 962 cases recorded as of Friday, according to state health officials.
Last year, the U.S. recorded 2,281 measles cases, which is the highest number of national cases in 33 years, according to the CDC.
The CDC currently recommends people receive two doses of the MMR vaccine, the first at ages 12 to 15 months and the second between 4 and 6 years old. One dose is 93% effective, and two doses are 97% effective against measles, the CDC said.
However, federal data shows vaccination rates have been lagging in recent years. During the 2024-2025 school year, 92.5% of kindergartners received the MMR vaccine, according to data. This is lower than the 92.7% seen in the previous school year and the 95.2% seen in the 2019-2020 school year, before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Last month marked one year since a measles outbreak began in West Texas, with infections soon spreading to neighboring counties and other states.
Public health experts previously told ABC News that if cases in other states are found to be linked to the cases in Texas, it would mean the virus has been spreading for a year, which could lead to a loss of elimination status.
Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, participates in the group’s press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, March 25, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(UVALDE, Texas) — Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales is denying allegations he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall — calling on the Uvalde police department to release its report on her death despite objections from her family.
Regina Santos-Aviles, 35, died on Sept. 14 after she doused herself with an accelerant and set herself ablaze at her home on Geraldine Avenue in Uvalde, Texas, Bexar County officials determined.
Santos-Aviles served as regional district director for Gonzales, who lost an endorsement this week from the San Antonio Express-News following its reporting of an alleged affair between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles.
The Express-News reported that it obtained texts between a former Gonzales staffer and Santos-Aviles, in which Santos-Aviles claimed she engaged in an affair with Gonzales.
Gonzales has repeatedly denied the affair with Santos-Aviles.
In a statement to ABC News, the Gonzales campaign did not comment on the reported text messages, and blamed his rival in the GOP primary, Brandon Herrera, for planting allegations in the press.
“Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place,” Gonzales told ABC News in a statement. “Her efforts led to improvements in school safety, healthcare, and rural water like never before. It’s shameful that Brandon Herrera is using a disgruntled former staffer to smear her memory and score political points, conveniently pushing this out the very day early voting started. I am not going to engage in these personal smears and instead will remain focused on helping President Trump secure the border and improve the lives of all Texans.”
Gonzales faces a primary fight with Herrera, a conservative influencer who he defeated by less than 400 votes in 2024. Herrera called on Gonzales to resign from office via a post on X on Wednesday.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that 9-1-1 calls, video, and police reports must remained sealed, though Gonzales is now calling on the Uvalde Police Department to release its report.
On Thursday, Gonzales posted on X suggesting an attorney representing the Santos-Aviles family was seeking an out-of-court financial settlement, which Gonzales described as “blackmail.”
“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED. Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death. The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report. I will keep fighting for #TX23,” Gonzales said in the post.
Santos-Aviles’ widower, Adrian Aviles, denied Gonzales’ charge of blackmail while expressing his intent to block details of the incident from becoming unsealed.
“We have never blackmailed anyone,” Adrian Aviles wrote in a statement on X. “What we’ve seen instead is a consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect your image. You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face. We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it.”
The post continued: “Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper. Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent–people who deserve the truth, not more deception.”
Reached by ABC News, attorney Robert Barrera, who represents Adrian Aviles, said he is in possession of “substantial evidence” from Santos-Aviles’ phone “supporting the affair.”
Barrera added that Gonzales refused any out of court settlement and is now “attempting in an act of desperation to become a victim of his own conduct when it has now come to light that he has committed adultery with a staffer.”
Barrera declined to release the full letter sent to Gonzales’ lawyers.
Gonzales, 44, is married to his wife Angel and the couple have six children together.
At the time of the incident, the three-term lawmaker provided a statement to San Antonio ABC station KSAT reacting to “the recent news” of Santos-Aviles’ death:
“We are all heart-stricken by the recent news. Regina devoted her profession toward making a difference in her community. She will always be remembered for her passion towards Uvalde and helping the community become a better place,” Gonzales stated.
Gonzales has already won President Donald Trump’s endorsement for reelection, as well as several law enforcement groups from Texas.
Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Conference, participates in the group’s press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, March 25, 2025. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(UVALDE, Texas) — Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales is denying allegations he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall — calling on the Uvalde police department to release its report on her death despite objections from her family.
Regina Santos-Aviles, 35, died on Sept. 14 after she doused herself with an accelerant and set herself ablaze at her home on Geraldine Avenue in Uvalde, Texas, Bexar County officials determined.
Santos-Aviles served as regional district director for Gonzales, who lost an endorsement this week from the San Antonio Express-News following its reporting of an alleged affair between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles.
The Express-News reported that it obtained texts between a former Gonzales staffer and Santos-Aviles, in which Santos-Aviles claimed she engaged in an affair with Gonzales.
Gonzales has repeatedly denied the affair with Santos-Aviles.
In a statement to ABC News, the Gonzales campaign did not comment on the reported text messages, and blamed his rival in the GOP primary, Brandon Herrera, for planting allegations in the press.
“Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place,” Gonzales told ABC News in a statement. “Her efforts led to improvements in school safety, healthcare, and rural water like never before. It’s shameful that Brandon Herrera is using a disgruntled former staffer to smear her memory and score political points, conveniently pushing this out the very day early voting started. I am not going to engage in these personal smears and instead will remain focused on helping President Trump secure the border and improve the lives of all Texans.”
Gonzales faces a primary fight with Herrera, a conservative influencer who he defeated by less than 400 votes in 2024. Herrera called on Gonzales to resign from office via a post on X on Wednesday.
The Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that 9-1-1 calls, video, and police reports must remained sealed, though Gonzales is now calling on the Uvalde Police Department to release its report.
On Thursday, Gonzales posted on X suggesting an attorney representing the Santos-Aviles family was seeking an out-of-court financial settlement, which Gonzales described as “blackmail.”
“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED. Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death. The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report. I will keep fighting for #TX23,” Gonzales said in the post.
Santos-Aviles’ widower, Adrian Aviles, denied Gonzales’ charge of blackmail while expressing his intent to block details of the incident from becoming unsealed.
“We have never blackmailed anyone,” Adrian Aviles wrote in a statement on X. “What we’ve seen instead is a consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect your image. You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face. We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it.”
The post continued: “Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper. Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent–people who deserve the truth, not more deception.”
Reached by ABC News, attorney Robert Barrera, who represents Adrian Aviles, said he is in possession of “substantial evidence” from Santos-Aviles’ phone “supporting the affair.”
Barrera added that Gonzales refused any out of court settlement and is now “attempting in an act of desperation to become a victim of his own conduct when it has now come to light that he has committed adultery with a staffer.”
Barrera declined to release the full letter sent to Gonzales’ lawyers.
Gonzales, 44, is married to his wife Angel and the couple have six children together.
At the time of the incident, the three-term lawmaker provided a statement to San Antonio ABC station KSAT reacting to “the recent news” of Santos-Aviles’ death:
“We are all heart-stricken by the recent news. Regina devoted her profession toward making a difference in her community. She will always be remembered for her passion towards Uvalde and helping the community become a better place,” Gonzales stated.
Gonzales has already won President Donald Trump’s endorsement for reelection, as well as several law enforcement groups from Texas.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump by invalidating most of global tariffs, a cornerstone of his economic policy in his second term.
In a 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court deemed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give Trump the power to unilaterally impose tariffs.
“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution,” Roberts wrote. “Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”
The Trump administration attempted to justify the tariffs by arguing that IEEPA says the president has the power to regulate “importation,” but Roberts said their read of the law was a stretch.
“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”
Roberts said the court was highly skeptical of the claim that Congress had delegated to the president a “birth-right power to tax” though the passage of the 1977 law. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs and taxes, the majority concluded.
“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” the ruling said.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, arguing that Trump should have the power to impose tariffs during national emergencies.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Trump had publicly lobbied for months for the court to rule in his favor, including in remarks he delivered on Thursday about in Georgia. Trump, speaking on the economy, said “without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now.”
The White House has said it is prepared to present alternative avenues for imposing the tariffs under different legal authorities.
The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes down 70% of Trump’s global tariffs after they have collected more than $142 billion through December, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
While the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s sweeping tariff power under IEEPA, the tariffs Trump imposed using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — such as tariffs on steel and aluminum — remain in place. Trump has also suggested in the past that he might attempt to reframe the tariffs as “licenses,” though such a move would likely be challenged in court.
Companies ranging from Costco to small businesses have sued the Trump administration to effectively “get in line” for refunds if the court deemed them unconstitutional.
The court’s majority did not explicitly address the issue of refunds or how that process would work.
Kavanaugh noted such in his dissent.
“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” Kavanaugh wrote.
ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze and Zunaira Zaki contributed to this report.
Leslie and Colby Taylor, parents of Jay Taylor, speak to ABC News anchor Juju Chang about their late son and the dangers of 764. (ABC News)
(NEW YORK) — The parents of a Seattle-area teenager who was allegedly pushed to take his own life by a member of the online extremist network “764” have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Discord, claiming the social media giant “caused” their son’s suicide and “abetted one of the most depraved and dangerous child abuse cults in modern history.”
According to the lawsuit, Discord “supplied 764 with unlimited victims,” including 13-year-old Jay Taylor, who in January 2022 died by suicide outside of a local grocery store in Gig Harbor, Washington.
“It’s almost biblical in its definition of evil, what happened,” Jay Taylor’s father, Colby, told ABC News in an exclusive interview in November.
As ABC News has previously reported, 764 members find vulnerable victims on popular platforms, elicit private information and intimate sexual images from them, and then use that sensitive material to blackmail victims into mutilating themselves, harming others, or taking other violent action.
Members of 764 often host live online chats so others can watch the self-harm and violence in real time. The further they can push their victims, the more stature and respect they will receive within 764, authorities say.
“Discord [provided] 764 access to its platform, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or disrupt such exploitation, and affirmatively maintained the same product design and defaults that enabled the abuse,” the new 31-page lawsuit alleges.
Colby Taylor previously told ABC News that he and his wife, Leslie, were preparing to file a lawsuit against Discord, hoping that legal action would pressure the platform to do more to stop online predators. The lawsuit was filed Thursday in a Pierce County, Washington, court, seeking an unspecified amount in damages.
As the Taylors described it to ABC News, Jay Taylor was a vulnerable victim. He was “funny” and “sweet,” and he had a knack for drawing and crafts, his mother recalled. But by the start of 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic had left Jay feeling isolated and lonely. And though he was assigned female at birth, he was in the midst of a gender transition, exacerbating his feelings of loneliness, his parents said.
In January 2022, Jay posted a message to Discord, saying, “I’m looking for friends, preferably LGBTQ for crochet buddies,” Jay’s father recalled.
Someone responded to Jay’s message, bringing him into a live chat with several others. Within an hour or so, the others in the group chat began telling Jay he should kill himself, Jay’s parents recounted.
A Discord user who called himself “White Tiger” online was leading the charge, directing others to push and manipulate Jay, according to Jay’s parents.
“Eventually, the pressure took hold of Jay,” their lawsuit says.
The FBI later identified “White Tiger” as a young German-Iranian medical student from Hamburg, Germany. He is currently on trial in Hamburg, charged with Jay Taylor’s murder and more than 200 other counts for the alleged abuse of dozens of victims. According to the Taylors’ lawsuit, Discord poses “a foreseeable risk of harm to youth users” and is “not reasonably safe as designed.”
“From the outset, Discord designed a platform structurally rife with obvious, risk-amplifying features–and when those risks materialized through 764, Discord housed it, grew it, and meanwhile marketed itself to more child users, guaranteeing their exploitation,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit further alleges that Discord is “refusing to invest in commonsense safety measures” and “deliberately understaffs and under-resources its safety and response team, employing a tiny fraction of what is needed to effectively control abusive conduct.”
764 was started on Discord by a teenager in Stephenville, Texas, who named it after the first three digits of his local ZIP code. Born in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, when teenagers were stuck inside and flocked to online spaces, 764 was an even more vicious offshoot of other online groups exploiting children through blackmail and self-harm, authorities said.
Since then, 764 has spread around the world, growing into more of an ideology than a singular group, experts say. And other groups, inspired by 764, have formed with different names but identical tactics and goals. As of November, the FBI was investigating more than 350 people across the United States with suspected ties to 764 or similar networks.
The number has only increased since then, experts say. On Tuesday, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, James Comer, R-Kentucky, sent a letter to FBI Director Kash Patel, demanding that FBI officials brief committee staff on the agency’s efforts to “track and apprehend” members of 764.
Citing reporting from ABC News, Comer wrote that the “disturbing tactics attributed to this network” warrant “rigorous oversight and an evaluation of whether existing federal countermeasures are effective and adequately resourced to combat these elusive online perpetrators.”
In September, Patel told lawmakers during a public Senate hearing that fighting 764 is now “a priority” for the FBI. He called 764-related crimes a new form of “modern-day terrorism in America.”
On Friday, a spokesperson for Discord said the company is reviewing the new lawsuit filed by Colby and Leslie Taylor.
After ABC News interviewed the Taylors several months ago, a Discord representative told ABC News in a statement that the platform is “committed to user safety” and that the “horrific actions of groups like this have no place on Discord or anywhere in society.”
According to a Discord spokesperson, the platform invests “heavily” in specialized teams and newly-developed artificial intelligence tools that can “disrupt these networks, remove violative content, and take action against bad actors on our platform.”
Discord also said it shares intelligence with other platforms, which can help identify bad actors even before Discord has spotted them, and Discord said it cooperates with law enforcement, proactively providing tips and other information to them.
Its tips have led to many arrests, including the arrest of Bradley Cadenhead, the Texas teen who started 764 and is now serving an 80-year sentence in state prison after pleading guilty to child pornography-related charges. And Discord recently announced new tools aimed at giving parents more control and more insight into their children’s accounts.
Voter in voting booth. (Hill Street Studios/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — While the Democratic National Committee chose not to release its after-action report on the 2024 election, one prominent Democratic group is sharing feedback from a group of influential voters.
To some of them, Democrats can seem condescending, elitist and out-of-touch. And to win them over, candidates don’t need to take a specific policy position, but should communicate directly, authentically and with empathy.
Drawn from in-depth interviews and focus groups with more than 100 voters from battleground House districts and states, the “Baseline Report” released by MD PAC, a political action committee working to reshape Democratic Party, aims to help candidates and campaigns connect with voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 and either voted for Donald Trump or stayed home four years later.
The organization is affiliated with Majority Democrats, one of several groups working with candidates to remake and redefine the party’s image ahead of the midterms.
“It’s not exactly a state secret that something went very wrong for Democrats in 2024,” Lis Smith, a senior adviser to Majority Democrats, told ABC News. “The responsible thing isn’t to bury our heads in the sand, it’s to figure out how to win their votes so we can move forward.”
Across the entire cohort, voters shared a sense of exhaustion and emotional burnout. They view both Democrats and Republicans skeptically, and they feel “unseen, unheard, and unrepresented by the federal government,” the group notes in its report.
According to the analysis and the group’s briefing on the findings, voters across the cohort felt a sense of economic strain, and a fear that the “floor could drop at any time,” as one of them told the group.
In 2024, Trump and Republicans won over a larger share of voters without college degrees, performing 4 points better than he did in 2020 among voters who are more economically vulnerable, according to ABC News exit polls.
Republicans also won more than half of voters whose total family income in 2023 was between $30,000 and $49,999, and $50,000 to $99,999, according to ABC News exit polls for the House of Representatives in 2024.
Smith recalled a conversation with a Democratic senator after the 2024 election that underscored how the party didn’t connect with voters’ concerns about the economy.
“They told me, ‘I would hear from voters about price of eggs and I thought it was a Fox News talking point,'” she said. “That suggested to me that a lot of members of Congress and their staffs are insulated from what voters are feeling. And this is a way to break through that.”
At a time when Democrats are grappling over the party’s positions on the U.S. relationship with Israel and whether to call for the abolishing or reform of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Majority Democrats’ report doesn’t recommend a specific set of positions for Democrats to adopt.
“Voters were not demanding ideological purity. They expected leaders to be flawed, change their minds, or even contradict themselves. What mattered was why — and whether the shift seemed honest,” the report reads.
While the report doesn’t dig into what went wrong for the party in 2024 and how Biden’s unsuccessful run for a second term impacted the fall results, the voters who participated expressed a desire to see politicians focus on issues that matter to them and show a willingness to disagree with their party.
“When voters were overwhelmingly telling us Joe Biden was too old to run for reelection, the Democratic powers that be responded, ‘Don’t believe your lying eyes,'” Smith said.
She also pointed to Democrats’ defending the Biden administration’s economic record by saying inflation was lower in the U.S. than in other countries.
“Democrats came off too often as defenders of the status quo,” Smith said. “That missed the mark, and going forward what we recommend is that Democrats understand the real, deep frustrations with economic and political systems.”
(NEW YORK) — The U.S. economy slowed more than expected over the final months of 2025, federal government data on Friday showed.
The economy grew at an annualized rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter in the government’s initial estimate, marking a cooldown from blistering-hot 4.4% growth recorded in the previous quarter.
The slowdown at the end of last year stemmed in part from a decline in the pace of consumer spending, the U.S. Commerce Department said.
The GDP report marks the latest distress signal for U.S. shoppers, who account for about two-thirds of the nation’s economic activity.
Retail sales data last week showed flat performance in December, suggesting possible weakness for shoppers during the holiday season. Meanwhile, credit card debt levels have climbed and consumer sentiment has remained glum.
The fresh reading of gross domestic product on Friday provided a key measure of the country’s economic health as policymakers continued to grapple with an ongoing bout of elevated inflation and sluggish hiring.
Inflation cooled in January, dropping price increases to their lowest level in nine months. While the pullback defied fears of a tariff-induced rise in overall costs, inflation continued to hover above the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.
Meanwhile, a recent jobs report showed stronger-than-expected hiring in January, even though an updated estimate released at the same time indicated a near-paralysis of the labor market last year.
A boost in consumer spending helped propel the surge in GDP over three months ending in September, the U.S. Commerce Department previously said.
Over the past year, hiring has slowed dramatically while inflation has remained elevated, risking an economic double-whammy known as “stagflation.” Those conditions have put the Federal Reserve in a difficult position.
The central bank must balance a dual mandate to keep inflation under control and maximize employment. To address pressure on both of its goals, the Fed primarily holds a single tool: interest rates.
The strain on both sides of the Fed’s mandate presents a “challenging situation” for the central bank, Fed Chair Jerome Powell said in December.
The Fed held interest rates steady at its most recent meeting in January, ending a string of three consecutive quarter-point rate cuts.
Futures markets expect two quarter-point interest rate cuts this year, forecasting the first in June and a second in the fall, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
ICE agents leave a residence after knocking on the door on January 28, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues its immigration enforcement operations after two high-profile killings by federal agents in recent weeks. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term
Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.
Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.
And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.
Americans on deportations and ICE
Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.
The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.
Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.
Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.
Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.
Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”
Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.
A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.
Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations.
By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.
By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.
ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.
An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.
How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts
Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.
Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset.
And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.
There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.
Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).
Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border
By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.
Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.
By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
Abortion rights protesters chant slogans during a gathering to protest the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health case on June 24, 2022 in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. (Natalie Behring/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Two bills having to do with abortion are making their way through the Wyoming legislature.
The first bill, HB0126, dubbed the Human Heartbeat Act, prohibits abortion if cardiac activity is detected in the fetus, which is around six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant.
If cardiac activity is detected, an abortion can only be performed in the case of a medical emergency, meaning if the life of the mother is in danger or if continuing the pregnancy would cause serious or irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, according to the bill, which does not include exceptions for women impregnated as a result of rape or incest.
Any person who intentionally or knowingly violates the act will be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both, according to the bill.
“What this bill attempts to do is to provide a line in the sand,” Republican Speaker of the House Rep. Chip Neiman said at a Wyoming House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee meeting on Monday. “This gives the unborn child the right to be protected and the privilege of being carried to term after a fetal heartbeat is detected.”
The bill also asserts that “substantial medical evidence” shows that a fetus can experience pain by 15 weeks of gestation.
“The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks,” according to the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG).
The other bill, HB 117 or “Stop harm-empower women with informed notices,” requires medical professionals to give pregnant women written notices before performing an abortion.
The notice would include a description of the proposed abortion method, if there are medical risks associated with the method, alternatives such as adoption and parenting, and the medical risks associated with carrying the fetus to term
Patients who feel they’ve been coerced into receiving an abortion would be allowed to sue any providers for not less than $25,000.
The bill also includes text about the abortion drug mifepristone, including putting in the written notice that mifepristone alone is not always effective in ending a pregnancy. The written notice must also include that pregnant women should consult a health care provider if, after taking mifepristone, they regret their decision “to determine if there are options available to assist her in continuing her pregnancy.”
ACOG states that medication abortion “reversal” is not supported by science and that so-called reversal procedures are “unproven and unethical.”
Earlier this week, the Wyoming House Labor, Health & Social Services Committee recommended that both bills be passed. The bills will now go to the Wyoming State House for debate, amendment and voting.
Currently, abortion is allowed in Wyoming until fetal viability, which occurs at around 25 weeks of gestation, according to ACOG, defined as a fetus’ chances of surviving outside of the womb.
Only physicians are allowed to provide abortions in Wyoming, and they are required to submit a report to the Wyoming Department of Health within 20 days of any abortion procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that focuses on sexual and reproductive health.
In 2023, Wyoming passed two abortion bans. However, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled in January that the bans were unconstitutional, violating a “health care freedom” amendment to the state constitution that was passed in 2012 that states in part that “each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions,” and that “the parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.”
During his State of the State address earlier this month, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon suggested that voters should decide on the issue.
“There’s another arduous task that I bring before you, which is the issue of abortion,” he said. “Protecting life is the most serious responsibility entrusted to government. The question of abortion deserves careful deliberation and I urge this legislature to take up this issue earnestly and put forward a genuine solution to the voters of Wyoming that provides a clear, irrefutable, durable, and morally sound resolution to this fraught issue.”
Mug shot of Jeffrey Epstein, 2019. (Photo by Kypros/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — More than six years after the infamous financier and sex offender’s arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, the investigation into potential wrongdoing at Jeffrey Epstein’s sprawling hacienda in New Mexico is being reopened, according to a spokesperson for the state’s Justice Department.
In its heyday, Zorro Ranch played host to a who’s who of Epstein’s prominent guests. It also became the site where multiple girls alleged that they were sexually assaulted. Among them: Annie Farmer, who offered key testimony during Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial that she had been sexually abused at 16 years old by Epstein and Maxwell at the ranch in the mid-1990s.
The property, locally dubbed the “Playboy Ranch,” will now get fresh scrutiny over the many allegations of illegal activity on its grounds.
“Upon reviewing information recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Raúl Torrez has ordered that the criminal investigation into allegations of illegal activity at Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch be reopened,” Lauren Rodriguez, Chief of Staff for the New Mexico Department of Justice, said in a statement to ABC News.
While Epstein’s New York townhouse and his Caribbean island were raided as part of the case against Epstein, records now released by the DOJ indicate federal law enforcement never raided Zorro.
“We have not searched the New Mexico property,” said a Dec. 20, 2019, email from a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York to a lawyer for Epstein’s estate.
New Mexico’s prior investigation was “closed in 2019 at the request of the U.S Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York,” according to New Mexico DOJ’s Rodriguez. Lawmakers in New Mexico pushing for the renewed probe have also said there was no record of federal law enforcement searching Zorro.
But now, “revelations outlined in the previously sealed FBI files warrant further examination,” Rodriguez said. “Special agents and prosecutors at the New Mexico Department of Justice will be seeking immediate access to the complete, unredacted federal case file and intend to work collaboratively with our law enforcement partners as well as the Epstein Truth Commission recently established by the New Mexico Legislature.”
“As with any potential criminal matter, we will follow the facts wherever they lead, carefully evaluate jurisdictional considerations, and take appropriate investigative action, including the collection and preservation of any relevant evidence that remains available,” Rodriguez added. “We are moving quickly and deliberately on this issue and will provide updates as appropriate.”
