Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen speaks to the media the day after U.S. President Donald Trump walked back on his most aggressive threats over acquiring Greenland on January 22, 2026, in Nuuk, Greenland. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
(GREENLAND) — Greenland’s prime minister has rejected President Donald Trump’s offer to send a U.S. military hospital ship to Greenland, dismissing the proposal as uninvited and rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of how Nordic societies function.
“It’s a no thank you from here,” Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a statement Sunday. “President Trump’s idea of sending an American hospital ship here to Greenland has been noted. But we have a public healthcare system where treatment is free for citizens. That is a deliberate choice — and a fundamental part of our society. That is not how it works in the USA, where it costs money to see a doctor.”
Trump made the announcement Saturday evening on his social media platform, posting alongside an illustration of the U.S. naval hospital ship USNS Mercy, saying, “We are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!!”
On Saturday, a U.S. Navy sailor was medically evacuated from an American nuclear-powered submarine by Danish military forces, according to a U.S. and Danish official.
But what prompted Trump to float sending a hospital ship to Greenland isn’t clear, particularly given the Danish territory’s universal health system serving roughly 60,000 citizens. The White House did not return a request for comment.
Trump has long pushed the idea of the U.S. buying Greenland from Denmark, citing national security needs and tapping its natural resources, and has not ruled out taking it by military force over the heated objections of Greenlanders and the Danes. He said in January he had a framework of a deal with Denmark, Greenland and NATO, but revealed few details.
About 80% of Greenlanders have at least annual contact with a primary care doctor, according to data from Queen Ingrid Health Care Centre, the country’s main hospital hub. The figures are even higher for women: roughly 90% report regular contact, compared to 76% of men.
The U.S. Navy has two hospital ships, both currently in Mobile, Alabama, one of which is likely months away from being able to deploy. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The Mercy, whose homeport is San Diego, is a 1,000-bed hospital ship commissioned in 1986 and is deployed for disaster relief and other large-scale medical crises, including in 2020 when it deployed to Los Angeles, where the ship served as a floating relief valve for the city’s overburdened medical system during the first chaotic stretch of the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s unclear whether it’s actually preparing to deploy to Greenland. The Navy did not immediately respond to a request for information on why it is in Mobile.
The Navy’s other hospital ship, the USNS Comfort is undergoing extensive maintenance in Mobile expected to last through April 26, according to the repair contract reviewed by ABC News.
Trump said he was working on the matter with Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, whom he appointed as a special envoy to Greenland last year. While Landry served in the National Guard for 11 years, he has no significant foreign policy or health care experience.
“We are always open to dialogue and cooperation — also with the USA,” Nielsen said. “But please talk to us instead of just making more or less random statements on social media. Dialogue and cooperation require respect for the fact that decisions about our country are made here at home.”
President Donald J. Trump addresses a joint session of Congress as Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson listen in the Capitol building’s House chamber, March 4, 2025. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is set to give the first State of the Union address of his second term on Tuesday amid a backdrop of looming midterm elections and lingering questions about the economy, immigration and foreign policy.
Trump’s address comes as lawmakers are still at an impasse over funding for the Department of Homeland Security amid the administration’s immigration crackdown — and with the partial government shutdown in its second week. The United States’ tensions with Iran, affordability and the economy, the upcoming high-impact midterm elections and the Supreme Court’s recent rebuke of his tariffs will likely be topics the presidents touches on as well.
Though his allies have called Trump’s second term transformative and historic on many fronts, his address comes as majorities of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling inflation, tariffs, relations with other countries, immigration and the economy, according to a recently released ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Trump last delivered a joint address to Congress in March — the longest in history. On Monday, Trump previewed that this year’s address with be “a long speech because we have so much to talk about.”
Here’s what you need to know about the speech and how to watch.
When is the State of the Union address?
Trump will speak before Congress at the Capitol on Tuesday at 9 p.m. EST.
The State of the Union is a presidential duty mandated in the Constitution, which calls for the president “from time to time to give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union.”
Speaker Mike Johnson invited Trump to speak before the joint session of Congress last month.
How to watch and stream the State of the Union
ABC News will air the State of the Union live at 9 p.m. EST, ABC News Live will stream special coverage starting at 7 p.m. EST and ABC News Digital will have a live blog with up-to-the-minute updates, key takeaways of the address and analysis.
“World News Tonight” Anchor and Managing Editor David Muir will lead coverage from Washington, featuring ABC News’ political team, including “World News Tonight” Sunday and ABC News Live “Prime” Anchor Linsey Davis, Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce, “This Week” Co-anchor and Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz, “This Week” Co-anchor and Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas, Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott and Correspondent Jay O’Brien.
Contributors Donna Brazile and Chris Christie along with former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy will provide analysis across ABC News’ platforms, too.
Muir will anchor a special edition of “World News Tonight with David Muir” from Washington on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. EST. “Good Morning America,” “GMA3” and “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” will have pre- and post-show coverage of the State of the Union.
The speech is also set to stream live on the White House website, its YouTube and social media platforms.
An estimated 36.6 million people watched Trump’s speech to Congress last year — a 13% increase over former President Joe Biden’s 2024 State of the Union address, according to Nielsen.
What is Trump expected to say?
While we don’t yet know what Trump will say or announce during his address, it is expected that he will touch on tensions with Iran amid ABC News’ reports that he is considering a range of options for military strikes against Iran, including a possible limited strike aimed at enhancing the United States’ negotiating position.
When asked last week about the president’s thinking on potentially striking Iran and whether he would address the topic during his State of the Union address, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt implied more information will become clear during his speech.
“I will say with respect to the State of the Union you’ll be hearing more about what is to come from the president’s speech very soon at the appropriate time. It is going to be a very good and powerful speech,” Leavitt said.
Trump’s role in global conflicts was the focus of a video the White House posted on Sunday, saying that the “the State of the Union is STRONG because America is RESPECTED again on the world stage.”
Trump has claimed credit for ending a number of conflicts during his second term and taking limited military action to effect change.
Trump may also discuss his new tariff policy after the Supreme Court struck down most of his global tariffs, a key part of his economic policy, as illegal. Trump will face the Supreme Court justices in person on Tuesday night when he delivers his State of the Union address. The justices who attend are typically seated in front of the president in the first few rows.
Immigration, another key issue for the administration, will likely be discussed as Democrats demand changes to Immigration and Customs Enforcement after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti — both U.S. citizens — at the hands of federal law enforcement in Minneapolis. Democrats’ demands and the ongoing negotiations with Republicans and the White House have held up funding for DHS, causing an ongoing shutdown of the agency.
Who will be there?
The State of the Union marks one of the rare times all branches of government are under the same roof. The president, members of Congress and Supreme Court justices attend — although all may not be there.
The speaker of the House and vice president sit behind the president while he speaks.
The White House and members of Congress typically invite guests with specific backgrounds and stories that are important to them both personally and politically — people they want to thank, to honor or even to highlight a particular issue.
Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin and Suhas Subramanyam shared their guests would be Sky and Amanda Roberts — the brother and sister-in-law, respectively, of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a survivor of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Who is speaking for the Democratic Party?
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger will deliver the Democratic response to Trump’s State of the Union address.
Spanberger’s 2025 win, which flipped control of the governor’s mansion from red to blue, marked the first time a woman has held the position in Virginia.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said last week that in her speech, Spanberger “will lay out a clear path forward: lower everyday costs, protect healthcare, and defend the freedoms that define who we are as a nation.”
California Sen. Alex Padilla will deliver the Spanish-language response.
Dozens of Democrats are poised to skip Trump’s State of the Union address, opting instead to attend a counterprogram sponsored by MoveOn.org on the National Mall. The optics of their absence may not be apparent inside the chamber, as the Senate, Cabinet, Supreme Court and other dignitaries fill the already-crowded space.
The majority of congressional Democrats are expected to attend. As Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, “you don’t let anyone ever run you off of your block.” He has made the case for his caucus to show its presence without any shenanigans or outbursts after Democratic Rep. Al Green was ejected and ultimately censured for shaking his cane and shouting at Trump during last year’s joint address.
ABC News’ John Parkinson, Lauren Peller and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.
US President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House, Washington, D.C., US on February 20, 2026. Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday continued to lash out at the Supreme Court, days after a majority of justices, including two of his conservative nominees, struck down most of his global tariffs as illegal.
In a series of social media posts on Monday, Trump wrote he had a “complete lack of respect” for the nation’s high court and that “they should be ashamed of themselves.”
“The supreme court (will be using lower case letters for a while based on a complete lack of respect!) of the United States accidentally and unwittingly gave me, as President of the United States, far more powers and strength than I had prior to their ridiculous, dumb, and very internationally divisive ruling,” Trump wrote.
“The court has also approved all other Tariffs, of which there are many, and they can all be used in a much more powerful and obnoxious way, with legal certainty, than the Tariffs as initially used,” Trump added.
Trump will face some of the Supreme Court justices in person on Tuesday night when he delivers his State of the Union address. Justices are typically seated in front of the president in the first few rows, though their attendance is voluntary and several have skipped the event in recent years.
The court’s 6-3 ruling on Friday, which marked a rare rebuke on his administration, deemed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give Trump the power to unilaterally impose the sweeping tariffs he issued on most U.S. trade partners.
Trump has since sought to revive the tariffs, which were a longtime political goal of his and a centerpiece of his economic agenda in his second term.
Over the weekend, Trump announced he was imposing a 15% global tariff under a different legal authority: Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. But that authority is more limited, allowing the tariffs to last only for 150 days without congressional approval.
Trump’s repeatedly signaled he won’t seek additional action from Congress on tariffs.
“As President, I do not have to go back to Congress to get approval of Tariffs. It has already been gotten, in many forms, a long time ago!” Trump wrote in a social media post on Monday.
In addition to Section 122 tariffs, Trump said his administration would open Section 301 investigations into unfair trade practices to secure additional levies. Those investigations can take weeks or months.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, said the administration’s “policy hasn’t changed” despite the Supreme Court setback.
“We found ways to really reconstruct what we’re doing. Now, it doesn’t have the same flexibility that the president had under the previous authority that he was using, but it gives us very durable tools,” Greer said.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, said other tools will get the administration back to the tariff levels it had before the Supreme Court’s decision.
“We have been in touch with our foreign trading partners, and all of them want to keep the trade deals that have been set,” Bessent said.
Trump on Monday, in another social media post, threatened a “much higher Tariff” if any country decides to “‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court decision” that struck down most of his global tariffs — though he didn’t elaborate on how he would impose such levies.
Trump, while criticizing the Supreme Court’s tariff decision, also predicted the justices the could rule against him in other cases, specifically on the 14th Amendment guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court will hear an expedited appeal of Trump’s case seeking to effectively end birthright citizenship by executive order. Federal courts have so far blocked Trump’s order nationwide.
“But this supreme court will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion, one that again will make China, and various other Nations, happy and rich. Let our supreme court keep making decisions that are so bad and deleterious to the future of our Nation — I have a job to do,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
When asked after Friday’s tariff ruling if the justices were still invited to his State of the Union address, Trump said “barely.”
“Honestly, I couldn’t care less if they come,” Trump said.
In that news conference, Trump called the conservative justices who ruled against him an “embarrassment to their families” and the liberal justices a “disgrace to our nation.” Trump’s also heaped praise on the three conservative justices that sided with him on tariffs, on Monday referring to them as “the Great Three!” in a social media post.
ABC News’ Fritz Farrow and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, center, and Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are petitioning the Government Accountability Office to investigate the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.
In a letter first obtained by ABC News, the two senators call for nonpartisan congressional watchdog to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the department winding down its functions and transferring offices to other agencies.
“Students and families deserve better — we need a full independent investigation into the latest attempts to sabotage our schools,” Warren, D-Mass., wrote in a statement to ABC News.
Led by Warren and Sanders, I-Vt., and signed by Democrats Patty Murray of Washington and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, the letter alleges that the Education Department is illegally dismantling itself through its interagency agreement with the Department of Labor that allowed Labor to administer adult education, family literacy and career and technical education (CTE) programs previously homed in the department.
“We are deeply concerned that the administration’s decisions to implement CTE and adult education grant programs in this manner delayed crucial funding that millions of students and schools rely on,” the senators wrote.
They also said they worry that the decisions may have created “administrative inefficiencies, increased the cost of program administration, and compromised the quality of technical assistance provided to states and grantees.”
GAO is working through its process to determine the next steps in responding to the senators’ request, a spokesperson with the agency confirmed to ABC News.
Education Department spokeswoman Savannah Newhouse argued that the lawmakers’ request prioritizes bureaucrats over students.
“The Trump Administration will not sit idle while students, educators, and states suffer under our broken federal education system which undermines our economy, national security, and civic health,” Newhouse wrote in a statement to ABC News. “Also, as the Senators likely know, interagency agreements are a standard, lawful tool used across government — including by the Biden Administration’s own DOJ and Bureau of Prisons to allow the Department of Labor to administer grants under the First Step Act,” she added.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has also defended the department’s moves. She said in a statement in July that the way the education and workforce programs had been administered was “inefficient and duplicative” and they needed to be streamlined in order to best serve students and families.
The workforce development partnership between the two agencies launched last summer following President Donald Trump’s executive order entitled “Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future.” In November, the Department of Education made an additional announcement that it would transfer some of its offices to other government agencies, including the departments of State, Health and Human Services, and Interior.
A senior department official said the interagency agreements (IAA) marked a “major step forward” in abolishing the agency and fulfilling McMahon’s mission of returning education to the states. The senators’ letter requested that GAO extend its probe into all of the IAAs because they allegedly attempted to transfer “statutory requirements” to other agencies. They’re requesting GAO determine whether the moves jeopardize services for students, weaken federal support to protect the rights of students, children, youth and families, and affect other indicators of program integrity and quality.
The GAO works to provide timely, fact-based, non-partisan information that can be used to improve government, per the agency’s website. The senators’ latest request is a part of Warren’s Save Our Schools campaign that she launched last year to investigate the administration’s attempts to shutter the education department.
Peoria Federation of Teachers union representative Michael Brix worries that the Education and Labor partnerships could roll back CTE progress for his students.
“When we hear of these changes, the Department of Education being dismantled, and then other departments then taking on similar roles — or the same roles — it’s very nervous not knowing what is coming ahead,” he said, adding, “It’s kind of scary.”
Editor’s note: This story’s headline has been updated to reflect that the senators want the GAO to investigate the Department of Education’s dismantling.
U.S. President Donald Trump attends an event in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on February 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Majorities of Americans with various income backgrounds, men, women and Americans of all age groups disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, along with majorities of white, Black, Hispanic and Asian Americans, according to the poll.
A majority of those who did not vote in 2024 disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs along with almost all of those who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. Over 9 in 10 Americans who disapprove of Trump oppose how he is handling tariffs.
While most Republicans approve of how Trump is handling tariffs (75%), that drops to 43% among self-described non-MAGA Republicans (which include independents who lean Republican and call themselves MAGA supporters). A 55% majority of non-MAGA Republicans disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs. Most MAGA Republicans (87%) approve of how he is handling tariffs on imported goods.
In all, 54% of Republicans and Republican- leaning independents say they are supporters of the MAGA movement and 42% say they are not.
While majorities of those with college degrees and without disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, White people without college degrees are split. White people with college degrees disapprove by a more-than 2-to-1 margin.
Rural Americans are also split over whether they approve or disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, while most suburban and urban people disapprove.
Opinions on tariffs have remained stable since ABC/Post/Ipsos first asked in April last year; the same share approved and disapproved of how Trump was handling the issue then as they do now.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
