(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.”
Prince Andrew, Duke of York attends the traditional Easter Sunday Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle on April 20, 2025 in Windsor, England. (Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)
(LONDON) — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor — formerly known as Prince Andrew and the younger brother of King Charles III — was arrested on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office. He has since been released under investigation and has not been charged.
In a statement, Thames Valley Police said it had “arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk on suspicion of misconduct in public office and are carrying out searches at addresses in Berkshire and Norfolk.”
“We will not be naming the arrested man, as per national guidance,” the statement said.
Police confirmed that searches being conducted in Norfolk have now concluded, while searches in Berkshire remain underway.
Photos from Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate in eastern England showed what appeared to be police officers arriving in several unmarked vehicles. Thursday marks Andrew’s 66th birthday.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Charles said, “I have learned with the deepest concern the news about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and suspicion of misconduct in public office.”
“What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation,” Charles added.
“Let me state clearly: the law must take its course. As this process continues, it would not be right for me to comment further on this matter. Meanwhile, my family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all.”
The Prince and Princess of Wales issued a statement supporting the king.
President Donald Trump called the news of former Prince Andrew’s arrest on Thursday over ties to Jeffrey Epstein a “shame.”
“I think it’s a shame. I think it’s very sad and I think it’s so bad for the royal family. It’s very, very sad,” Trump said.
Andrew’s arrest on Thursday follows the emergence of documents detailing communication between Andrew and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Andrew has previously denied wrongdoing with respect to Epstein.
If convicted, misconduct in public office carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
There have been no senior royals arrested in recent history. In November 2002, Princess Anne pleaded guilty to having a dog dangerously out of control and was fined £500.
The palace confirmed to ABC News that it was not informed ahead of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest.
Thames Valley Police told ABC News last week that it was assessing reports of Andrew’s alleged misconduct in office as trade envoy.
“We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures,” a Thames Valley Police spokesperson said in a statement on Feb. 9.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York attends the traditional Easter Sunday Mattins Service at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle on April 20, 2025, in Windsor, England. (Photo by Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)
(LONDON) — Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor appeared to share sensitive information stemming from his role as the UK trade envoy with Jeffrey Epstein and appeared to discuss potential business dealings with the late sex offender while working for the British government, emails released by the U.S. Department of Justice suggest.
Emails sent by Mountbatten-Windsor show the former prince passing along what he described as “confidential information” stemming from his government role to Epstein. Other emails – including some sent by his former liaison – suggest that Mountbatten-Windsor discussed Epstein’s connections in his personal dealings.
British police on Thursday arrested Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest comes amid mounting criticism of Mountbatten-Windsor’s longtime relationship with the disgraced financier who died by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019.
Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing with respect to Epstein. The former prince, whose royal title was revoked last year by his brother, King Charles III, has not been charged with any sex crimes.
While serving as trade envoy in 2010, Mountbatten-Windsor directly emailed Epstein information about investment opportunities in Afghanistan. The information appeared to stem directly from his work as a public official, according to emails reviewed by ABC News.
“I am going to offer this elsewhere in my network (including Abu Dhabi) but would be very interested in your comments, views or ideas as to whom I could also usefully show this to attract some interest,” Mountbatten-Windsor stated to Epstein in a December 2010 email, forwarding a “confidential brief” about investment opportunities in Afghanistan.
In another email a month earlier, Mountbatten-Windsor sent Epstein multiple reports from his recent trip to South Asia as trade envoy.
Mountbatten-Windsor’s liaison David Stern also shared potentially sensitive information with Epstein related to British companies Aston Martin and Royal Bank of Scotland, according to emails released by the DOJ. Based on publicly available emails, it is unclear whether Mountbatten-Windsor knew that Stern was sharing the information with Epstein.
ABC News has so far been unable to contact Stern. The University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School confirmed that Stern resigned with immediate effect from his position as a board member.
Liaison attempted to involve Epstein in private business dealings
Stern discussed opening a private investment office with Epstein that would leverage the former prince’s “aura and access,” according to a series of emails between Stern and Epstein while Mountbatten-Windsor was serving as a trade envoy.
“We set up small investment highly private office in London with small outpost in Beijing, for high net worth individuals – targeting Chinese (but not exclusively) that works like an extended family office,” Stern wrote in a July 2010 email.
“We very discreetly make PA part of it and use his ‘aura and access’, you make/decide on the investments and I manage the day to day operations,” Stern added. In multiple emails, Prince Andrew is referred to as “PA.”
Though Mountbatten-Windsor is not on the emails, he is repeatedly referenced, and Stern appears to speak on his behalf.
“Informed PA that you are thinking about the company set up and I will wait for your feedback before taking action,” Stern told Epstein in a June 2010 email.
The plans discussed between the two are not believed to have been carried out.
In a later email, Stern told Epstein he wanted the firm to focus on “big money and power (including access to power globally – see PA).”
Emails released by the DOJ suggest that Epstein and Stern actively discussed a business opportunity at length between 2010 and 2011.
Mountbatten-Windsor appeared to connect Epstein with UAE crown prince
Mountbatten-Windsor also appeared to connect Epstein with some government officials while serving as a trade envoy.
In a November 2010 email, Mountbatten-Windsor said that he spoke with UAE foreign affairs minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan about a meeting with Epstein. Earlier emails also suggested that Mountbatten-Windsor consulted with Epstein about how to approach the conversations.
“He thinks you are great and would like to introduce you to Sheikh Mohammed, the Crown Prince. Doesn’t think it can be done before the end of the year though,” Mountbatten-Windsor said.
Epstein then asked Mountbatten-Windsor to ask for a “date when we can all go on vacation.”
Epstein appeared to offer Mountbatten-Windsor investing advice
In a May 2010 email, Mountbatten-Windsor suggested that he consulted Epstein on how to invest through a trust while serving as a trade envoy.
“Re our conversation earlier this week: so long as I delegate any responsibility to invest then there are no problems,” Mountbatten-Windsor said. “So Trusts are delegated responsibility as to are any Banks or Investment Vehicles or for that matter Trusted individuals.”
U.S. President Donald Trump attends an event to announce a rollback of the 2009 Endangerment Finding in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on February 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. The Trump administration will repeal the 2009 central scientific finding that allows the EPA to regulate climate-warming emissions. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — As the U.S. considers waging a military offensive against Iran, President Donald Trump gathered with dozens of world leaders and heads of state for the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace, a peacekeeping body focused on rebuilding efforts in Gaza that will oversee an international stabilization force.
But Iran was still top of mind for the president, as he gave a 10-day timeline on Thursday to decide whether to continue diplomatic talks with Iranian officials or to order a military strike.
“We may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we’re going to make a deal,” Trump told the Board of Peace members. “You’re going to be finding out over the next probably 10 days, but this meeting today is proof with determined leadership, nothing is impossible.”
Asked by ABC News’ Karen Travis what the goal of a military strike would be, Trump refused to answer, “but we’re either going to get a deal or it’s going to be unfortunate for them,” he said.
Asked whether he had a deadline for Iran, Trump repeated his earlier timeline of 10 days.
“I would think that will be enough time— 10, 15 days, pretty much, maximum,” Trump said.
The president has been weighing his options on launching an additional round of military action against Iran for weeks since the regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters in January in which thousands of Iranians were estimated to have been killed.
A second American aircraft carrier — the USS Gerald R. Ford — is heading toward the Middle East, accompanied by destroyers and aircraft being redeployed from missions in the Caribbean region, a U.S. official told ABC News. The Ford is expected to join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the region, the latter having arrived there late last month.
Key Iranian nuclear personnel and facilities were targeted by Israeli and American forces during an intense 12-day conflict in June. But the strikes failed to resolve long-standing U.S. and Israeli grievances related to Tehran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal and its support for regional proxy groups.
Iran is expected to submit a written proposal aimed at resolving ongoing tensions with the U.S. following high-stakes indirect talks between Iranian and U.S. officials in Geneva on Tuesday, a senior U.S. official confirmed to ABC News on Wednesday.
It’s unclear when the written proposal will be submitted to the U.S.
Iran agreed to make a written proposal on how to address U.S. concerns during the Geneva talks, the senior U.S. official said. U.S. officials are currently waiting on that proposal from the Iranians, according to the official.
On Tuesday, a White House official said Iran would provide detailed proposals to address “some of the open gaps in our positions” in the next two weeks.
U.S. national security advisers met in the Situation Room on Wednesday to discuss Iran, the official confirmed.
Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the weekend of Feb. 28 to discuss Iran, the U.S. official confirmed.
During his remarks Thursday, Trump said that “now is the time for Iran to join us on a path” to peace in the region. Trump later said explicitly that Iran “must make a deal” and said if it doesn’t, “bad things will happen.”
“And now is the time for Iran to join us on a path that will complete what we’re doing. And if they join us, that’ll be great. If they don’t join us, that’ll be great too. But it will be a very different path. They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region, and they must make a deal. Or if that doesn’t happen, I maybe can understand. If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. But, bad things will happen if it doesn’t,” Trump said.
Trump hosted the meeting with world leaders who pledged upwards of $7 billion that would go towards the rebuilding and reconstruction in Gaza.
The countries pledging are Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Kuwait, Trump said.
While that amount is significant, an operational damage and needs assessment conducted last year by the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank, estimated rebuilding Gaza could cost upwards of $70 billion and take years.
Despite that current shortfall, the president was optimistic about the future that the Board of Peace can help build in Gaza.
“But we work together to ensure the brighter future for the people of Gaza, the Middle East and the entire world. I think that the Board of Peace, because it’s mostly leaders and unbelievably respected people, but mostly leaders of Middle Eastern countries, countries from all over the world, and they’ve been very generous with money also. And the United States, which I’ll say in a moment, is also very generous with money, because there’s nothing more important than peace, and there’s nothing less expensive than peace. You know, when you go to wars, it costs you 100 times what it costs to make peace,” Trump said.
Several European allies declined to join the board over concerns the peacekeeping body would rival the United Nations. The Vatican has also declined to join the board.
The United Nations Security Council gave the Board of Peace a mandate as part of its approval of the Trump administration’s 20-point plan for peace in Gaza.
Trump, who again criticized the U.N. during his remarks, said that the U.S. is going “to be working with the United Nations very close.”
“Someday I won’t be here. The United Nations will be, I think, is going to be much stronger,” he said. “The Board of Peace is going to almost be looking over the United Nations, and making sure it runs properly.”
Five countries have already committed troops to an international force that is supposed to deploy to Gaza, the commander of the force said Thursday.
Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania pledged to send thousands of troops for a Gaza stabilization force, according to Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers, the commander of the international security force.
Egypt and Jordan have committed to train police.
“With these first steps, we help bring the security that Gaza needs for a future of prosperity and enduring peace,” Jeffers said.
Jeffers did not provide details on how many troops each country would commit or how soon the force would deploy into Gaza, but he said the ISF would ultimately total 20,000 troops working alongside 12,000 Palestinian police.
Trump also said the U.S. would contribute $10 billion to the Board of Peace, though he didn’t detail what the money would go towards.
“And I want to let you know that the United States is going to make a contribution of $10 billion to the Board of Peace. Thank you. And we’ve had great support for that number. And that number is a very small number. When you look at, that compared to the cost of war, that’s — that’s two weeks of fighting. It’s a very small number. It sounds like a lot, but it’s a very small number. So, we’re committed to $10 billion,” Trump said.
