News

(WASHINGTON) — The House Oversight Committee is hearing from the high-profile Democratic governors of Illinois, Minnesota and New York on Thursday during a timely hearing about their states’ immigration policies that some members of the Republican-led committee call “sanctuary” policies that they claim shield criminal illegal aliens from immigration enforcement.

JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York are appearing at a closely watched hearing that comes as another Democratic-led state — California — is grappling with a slew of immigration-related protests that triggered President Donald Trump to deploy U.S. Marines and the National Guard to the area.

House Oversight Chair James Comer requested in April that these Democratic governors testify, claiming that the “Trump administration is taking decisive action to deport criminal illegal aliens from our nation, but reckless sanctuary states like Illinois, Minnesota, and New York are actively seeking to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.”

“The governors of these states must explain why they are prioritizing the protection of criminal illegal aliens over the safety of U.S. citizens, and they must be held accountable,” Comer said in a media advisory for the upcoming hearing.

Sanctuary states still enforce U.S. federal immigration laws, but the term often refers to a limited collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while enacting policies that are more favorable to undocumented people.

The Democratic governors have been preparing to testify and getting ready to defend their records on immigration and public safety, according to hearing material reviewed by ABC News. They’ll also highlight how their states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. 

“Despite the rhetoric of Republicans in Congress, Governor Pritzker will share facts about how this bipartisan public safety law is fully compliant with federal law and ensures law enforcement can focus on doing their jobs well,” a spokesperson for the Illinois governor said in a statement ahead of the hearing.

Also ahead of the hearing, the state of Illinois retained outside counsel to provide expertise in order to respond to the committee’s requests, the spokesperson said, claiming that “congressional Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars all to find out that Illinois has always followed the law.”

A spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association also suggested that their leaders were focused on governing rather than spending time on “political stunts.”

“While Republicans in D.C. spend their time pulling political stunts, Democratic governors are busy getting real things done for their states, lowering costs, and keeping people safe,” Johanna Warshaw, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement.

In March, the Oversight Committee held another newsy hearing with “sanctuary city” mayors including Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Those leaders defended their actions on immigration enforcement while Republicans on the committee accused them of increasing crime by defying Trump administration immigration policies.

On Wednesday, House Oversight Republicans released a three-minute digital ad to show “how sanctuary polices do not protect Americans,” which features buzzy news broadcasts about immigration-adjacent crimes, testimony from mayors earlier this spring at the “sanctuary cities” House hearing and video clips of Pritzker, Walz and Hochul speaking about immigration policy.

“Sanctuary governors are shielding CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS, then pretending the consequences don’t exist. Tomorrow Hochul, Walz, and Pritzker will be in the hot seat as their policies cause CHAOS in their states. Here’s what they don’t want you to see,” the Committee’s official account posted on X.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk called President Donald Trump on Monday night, two sources familiar with the conversation told ABC News, after their bitter public feud last week.

Musk posted on X early Wednesday morning, “I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.”

Musk, however, did not not clarify which posts he was referring to in his statement. The posts included slamming Trump for “ingratitude” over the 2024 election, agreeing with a call for Trump’s impeachment, knocking the president’s “big, beautiful bill” signature legislation, and even claiming Trump was in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Musk’s call with Trump came after Vice President JD Vance and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles spoke with the billionaire late last week and urged him to end the feud, sources familiar with the call told ABC News.

The president had previously told Vance to speak diplomatically when asked about Musk publicly, according to a White House official.

The White House declined to comment.

In her press briefing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt would not comment on whether the relationship would be reconciled.

“The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning and he is appreciative of it. And we are continuing to focus on the business of the American people,” Leavitt said.

Last Friday, Trump told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk was a “man who has lost his mind.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LOS ANGELES) — There are currently 4,100 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines in the greater Los Angeles area after President Donald Trump ordered them to protect federal buildings and federal law enforcement as protests opposed to ICE raids increased over the weekend.

Most of the attention has been focused on the crowd control assistance that these troops could provide around federal buildings, but Trump’s memo calling up National Guardsmen also said they would “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law.”

On Tuesday, the X page for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) posted photos of California National Guardsmen on the scene of a detention being carried out by an ICE agent with the caption “Photos from today’s ICE Los Angeles immigration enforcement operation.”

One of the photos was later reposted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s personal X account with the caption “This We’ll Defend.”

A U.S. official told ABC News that the photos showed National Guardsmen providing force protection to federal personnel and were not conducting law enforcement duties.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents active-duty U.S. military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement duties though that restriction can be lifted when a president invokes the Insurrection Act, which President Trump has not done.

In the photos, the National Guardsmen were armed with rifles but it was unclear if they were loaded with ammunition. ABC News has previously reported that while the federalized troops are carrying weapons, their guns will not have ammunition loaded in the chamber, according to U.S. officials. But they will carry ammunition as part of their regular uniforms that can be used in the rare case of needed self-defense.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state of California have asked a federal court to stop the Trump administration from using federalized National Guardsmen and Marines to accompany ICE agents on immigration raids saying it will “escalate tensions” and raises questions if the force protection they are providing constitutes law enforcement duties which they are not allowed to do by federal law.

“Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” said the lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of Newsom. “They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians.”

“To preserve the peace, Plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to grant the circumscribed emergency relief requested through this motion for a temporary restraining order, which will prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city,” the motion requested.

A hearing on the state’s motion will be held on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Hegseth told a congressional committee that he and President Trump have the power to send National Guard and active-duty troops anywhere in the country to ensure that ICE agents can enforce the law.

“We believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country,” Hegseth told a House Appropriations Defense subcommittee.

“ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether it’s Minneapolis or Los Angeles,” he added.

On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Hegseth again defended using troops with ICE agents on immigration raids, saying it was needed to keep them from being attacked.

Democratic Sen. Jack Reed shot back, calling it “illegal.”

“Law and order is a civil function under the Constitution of the United States — civil enforcement, law enforcement authorities — not the U.S. military,” Reed said.

“This is not only, I think, illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and focus of the military,” he added.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s challenge to his “one of a kind” felony hush money conviction in New York should be removed from state appellate courts and heard in federal court, an attorney for the president argued Wednesday.

Just over a year after Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard arguments Wednesday on Trump’s efforts to move his appeal of the verdict from state court to federal court.

“The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court,” attorney Jeffrey Wall told the three-judge panel. “And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous one of its kind prosecution.”

Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.

New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge — the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law — saying it was the “only lawful sentence” to prevent “encroaching upon the highest office in the land.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, an attorney for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Steven Wu, argued that it’s now too late to move the case.

“After sentencing, removal is no longer available,” Wu said during oral arguments.

Wu also argued the purpose of removal is to decide where to hold the trial.

“It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review,” Wu said.

Wall, who served as an acting solicitor general in Trump’s first administration, argued that the time limit to ask for removal to federal court does not apply if Trump can show good cause.

“Why shouldn’t we be looking for some more specific signs that Congress actually intended this?” Judge Susan Carney asked.

“It’s the first-ever prosecution by a district attorney of a president,” Wall responded. “As long as you have colorable federal defenses, and it has something to do with your job, you get to come into federal court notwithstanding the state’s interest.”

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included “official acts” undertaken while he was president, and that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts — which was decided after Trump was convicted in May — would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.

“There was evidence that came in at trial that triggered federal immunity,” Wall told the appellate panel.

Wu countered that the evidence offered involved discussion about a crime that related to Trump’s actions before he became president.

“It’s a highly unusual case, would you agree with that?” Judge Raymond Lohier asked.

“This defendant is a very unusual defendant,” Wu conceded — but he argued that should not automatically usurp the state’s interest in enforcing its laws.

The judges did not immediately rule, but said they would take the arguments under advisement.

If the appeals court grants Trump’s request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Although Trump has in the past asserted that, as president, he would have the right to pardon himself for federal offenses, Pace University Law School professor Bennett Gershman told ABC News that would not apply in this case.

“It’s still a state crime — you’re now just talking about where the case is litigated,” Gershman said. “I’m not even sure that pardoning yourself is even allowed, but that’s an open question that’s never been addressed.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.