Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday reacted to the revelation he discussed details about an imminent attack on Houthis in Yemen in March in a second Signal group chat — one that included his wife and brother.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Easter Egg Roll, which he attended with his family, Hegseth attacked those he said were “disgruntled” former employees and the media for what he said was “anonymous smears.”

“I have spoken with the president and we are going to continue fighting. On the same page all the way,” Hegseth said.

President Donald Trump defended Hegseth and said he still has “great confidence” in him as he took reporter questions at the White House celebration.

“Here we go again. Just a waste of time. He is doing a great job,” Trump said of Hegseth.

“Ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” the president added.

Sources told ABC News that Hegseth shared information about a forthcoming attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal message chat that included his wife Jennifer, who does not work for the Defense Department, as well as his brother and his personal lawyer.

Hegseth did not explicitly deny the report as he was asked to respond to the reports on Monday.

“They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations. Not going to work with me, because we’re changing the Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of war fighters and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn’t matter,” he said.

The second Signal chat reportedly occurred around the same time that top Trump officials, including Hegseth, discussed a strike on Houthis over the commercially-available app. That text chain came to light because inadvertently added to the chat was The Atlantic’s Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg. The Pentagon’s independent inspector general is currently reviewing Hegseth’s use of Signal to discuss military actions.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, pressed on the latest revelation on “Fox & Friends” on Monday, said “the president stands strongly behind Secretary Hegseth” and said Hegseth “is doing a phenomenal job leading the Pentagon.”

The use of Signal to discuss sensitive military operations may complicate ongoing investigations into potential leaks involving the first known group chat, which included top aides and other members of Hegseth’s team — at least three of whom have been since fired in relation to the inquiry.

Those officials — Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll and Darin Selnick — have since spoken out against what they say are baseless accusations against them.

“At this time, we still have not been told what exactly we were investigated for, if there is still an active investigation, or if there was even a real investigation of ‘leaks’ to begin with,” they said in a joint statement on X on April 19.

Leavitt, when responding to the Hegseth news on Monday, also sought to blame former employees as she defended the defense secretary.

“The administration and the president have taken a very strong stance against anyone who leaks, especially sensitive and classified information that can put our troops and our war fighters at risk,” Leavitt said on Fox. “And you’ve seen the secretary has taken very strong action to rein in the leakers at the Pentagon and he will continue to do so I’m sure.”

ABC News’ Luis Martinez and Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday reacted to the revelation he discussed details about an imminent attack on Houthis in Yemen in March in a second Signal group chat — one that included his wife and brother.

Speaking to reporters at the White House Easter Egg Roll, which he attended with his family, Hegseth attacked those he said were “disgruntled” former employees and the media for what he said was “anonymous smears.”

“I have spoken with the president and we are going to continue fighting. On the same page all the way,” Hegseth said.

Sources told ABC News that Hegseth shared information about a forthcoming attack on Houthi rebels in Yemen in a Signal message chat that included his wife Jennifer, who does not work for the Defense Department, as well as his brother and his personal lawyer.

The chat reportedly occurred around the same time that top Trump officials, including Hegseth, discussed a strike on Houthis over the commercially-available app. That text chain came to light because inadvertently added to the chat was The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg. The Pentagon’s independent inspector general is currently reviewing Hegseth’s use of Signal to discuss military actions.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, pressed on the latest revelation on “Fox & Friends” on Monday, said “the president stands strongly behind Secretary Hegseth” and said Hegseth “is doing a phenomenal job leading the Pentagon.”

The use of Signal to discuss sensitive military operations may complicate ongoing investigations into potential leaks involving the first known group chat, which included top aides and other members of Hegseth’s team — at least three of whom have been since fired in relation to the inquiry.

Those officials — Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll and Darin Selnick — have since spoken out against what they say are baseless accusations against them.

“At this time, we still have not been told what exactly we were investigated for, if there is still an active investigation, or if there was even a real investigation of ‘leaks’ to begin with,” they said in a joint statement on X on April 19.

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared details about an imminent attack on Houthis in Yemen in March in a second group chat using the messaging app Signal that included his wife, his brother and his personal lawyer, two sources familiar with the contents of the chat told ABC News.

Those details shared in the second chat included the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets involved in the pending attack on Houthi positions, according to the officials. The New York Times was first to report Hegseth’s sharing of the details in a second Signal group.

The sharing of the details reportedly occurred around the same time in mid-March when key members of President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, including Hegseth, inadvertently shared details about the March 15 missile strike in Yemen with the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.

Much of the same content was shared in the second encrypted chat with family members and others — a chat group that Hegseth had created on his personal phone during his confirmation process, the two officials told ABC News.

Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer Hegseth, does not work for the Defense Department.

His brother, Phil Hegseth, works as a senior adviser at the Department of Homeland Security and is detailed to the Defense Department. Tim Parlatore, Hegseth’s personal attorney, works at the Pentagon as a Navy reservist assigned to Hegseth’s office.

Sean Parnell, chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, responded to reports of the second chat in a statement on X on Sunday night saying in part, “Another day, another old story—back from the dead. The Trump-hating media continues to be obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump’s agenda.”

The statement continued, “There was no classified information in any Signal chat, no matter how many ways they try to write the story. What is true is that the Office of the Secretary of Defense is continuing to become stronger and more efficient in executing President Trump’s agenda.”

Sources confirmed with ABC News that the second known Signal chat was originally created to discuss scheduling and administrative information.

The Pentagon’s independent inspector general is evaluating Hegseth’s use of the Signal app “to determine the extent to which the Secretary of Defense and other DoD personnel complied with DoD policies and procedures” to conduct official business, the acting inspector general, Steven Stebbins, said in a notification letter to Hegseth.

The Trump administration has repeatedly refuted the idea that any classified information was shared in the first known chat thread; however, several former U.S. officials have contended that the sharing of such information over unapproved channels could at a minimum put troops overseas at risk.

Its use to divulge sensitive military operations may complicate ongoing investigations into potential leaks involving the first known group chat, which included top aides and other members of Pete Hegseth’s team — at least three of whom have been since fired in relation to the inquiry.

Those officials — Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll and Darin Selnick — have since spoken out against what they say are baseless accusations against them.

“At this time, we still have not been told what exactly we were investigated for, if there is still an active investigation, or if there was even a real investigation of ‘leaks’ to begin with,” they said in a joint statement on X on April 19.

John Ullyot, the Pentagon’s former top spokesman, on Sunday published an opinion piece in Politico where he described “a month of total chaos at the Pentagon.”

“From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership,” he wrote.

“Hegseth is now presiding over a strange and baffling purge that has left him without his two closest advisers of over a decade — Caldwell and Selnick — and without chiefs of staff for him and his deputy,” Ullyot wrote.

“Even strong backers of the secretary like me must admit: The last month has been a full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon — and it’s becoming a real problem for the administration,” he added.

“President Donald Trump has a strong record of holding his top officials to account,” wrote Ullyot. “Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.”

Ullyot left the Pentagon late last week after having been sidelined after he controversially defended the removal of Jackie Robinson information from a DOD website.

He said earlier this week that he had left the Pentagon on his own accord, while a senior defense official told ABC News that Ullyot was asked to resign.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s lead attorney described to ABC News the rapid pace of legal action that led to the extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court early Saturday morning that blocks the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

Lee Gelernt said the ACLU began to learn Thursday night that the migrants could be moved from a detention center in Texas as early as that night, so they filed in the middle of the night.

“We just kept pushing and ended up filing in multiple courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, at 1 a.m. on Friday night, early Saturday morning, stopped the removals,” Gelernt said in an interview with ABC News. “But it was touch and go for a long time.”

The ACLU says migrants held in the Texas detention center received a notice and were told they’d be removed in 12 to 24 hours.

“Under the Alien Enemies Act, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States,” the notice reads, which was filed in court by the ACLU.

The document is written in English and says migrants can make a phone call, although it does say the notice will be read to the individual in a language they understand. It did not include any method to contest the order.

“The government is providing only 12 to 24 hours with a notice that was served in English that does not explain that people have the right to contest, nor tell them how to do it or how much time they have to do it,” Gelernt said. “There is no argument whatsoever that these notice procedures comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.”

The girlfriend of one of the migrants held in the detention center told ABC News he received a document that appeared to be the same one that the ACLU filed in court. She says he told her it was hard to understand.

She added that he said he and a group of detainees were taken to an airport near the facility on Friday and they were about to be deported. Then, he told her, once they arrived, an officer informed the group they were being sent back to the center and would not board the plane.

Gelernt said the stakes couldn’t be any higher and that Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the Salvadoran native living Maryland who was deported in March to a mega-prison in his home country — isn’t the only person who was “erroneously” sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador.

“They’re unilaterally claiming that people are members of a gang, but not giving them the opportunity to go into court and show they’re not. And we know that multiple, multiple people have been erroneously tagged as members of this gang, but once they get to the El Salvadoran prison, they may never get out for the rest of their life,” Gelernt said.

“It’s critical that we give them hearings before we take such an extraordinary action,” he added.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s lead attorney described to ABC News the rapid pace of legal action that led to the extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court early Saturday morning that blocks the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

Lee Gelernt said the ACLU began to learn Thursday night that the migrants could be moved from a detention center in Texas as early as that night, so they filed in the middle of the night.

“We just kept pushing and ended up filing in multiple courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, at 1 a.m. on Friday night, early Saturday morning, stopped the removals,” Gelernt said in an interview with ABC News. “But it was touch and go for a long time.”

The ACLU says migrants held in the Texas detention center received a notice and were told they’d be removed in 12 to 24 hours.

“Under the Alien Enemies Act, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States,” the notice reads, which was filed in court by the ACLU.

The document is written in English and says migrants can make a phone call, although it does say the notice will be read to the individual in a language they understand. It did not include any method to contest the order.

“The government is providing only 12 to 24 hours with a notice that was served in English that does not explain that people have the right to contest, nor tell them how to do it or how much time they have to do it,” Gelernt said. “There is no argument whatsoever that these notice procedures comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.”

The girlfriend of one of the migrants held in the detention center told ABC News he received a document that appeared to be the same one that the ACLU filed in court. She says he told her it was hard to understand.

She added that he said he and a group of detainees were taken to an airport near the facility on Friday and they were about to be deported. Then, he told her, once they arrived, an officer informed the group they were being sent back to the center and would not board the plane.

Gelernt said the stakes couldn’t be any higher and that Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the Salvadoran native living Maryland who was deported in March to a mega-prison in his home country — isn’t the only person who was “erroneously” sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador.

“They’re unilaterally claiming that people are members of a gang, but not giving them the opportunity to go into court and show they’re not. And we know that multiple, multiple people have been erroneously tagged as members of this gang, but once they get to the El Salvadoran prison, they may never get out for the rest of their life,” Gelernt said.

“It’s critical that we give them hearings before we take such an extraordinary action,” he added.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s lead attorney described to ABC News the rapid pace of legal action that led to the extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court early Saturday morning that blocks the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

Lee Gelernt said the ACLU began to learn Thursday night that the migrants could be moved from a detention center in Texas as early as that night, so they filed in the middle of the night.

“We just kept pushing and ended up filing in multiple courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, at 1 a.m. on Friday night, early Saturday morning, stopped the removals,” Gelernt said in an interview with ABC News. “But it was touch and go for a long time.”

The ACLU says migrants held in the Texas detention center received a notice and were told they’d be removed in 12 to 24 hours.

“Under the Alien Enemies Act, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States,” the notice reads, which was filed in court by the ACLU.

The document is written in English and says migrants can make a phone call, although it does say the notice will be read to the individual in a language they understand. It did not include any method to contest the order.

“The government is providing only 12 to 24 hours with a notice that was served in English that does not explain that people have the right to contest, nor tell them how to do it or how much time they have to do it,” Gelernt said. “There is no argument whatsoever that these notice procedures comply with the Supreme Court’s directive.”

The girlfriend of one of the migrants held in the detention center told ABC News he received a document that appeared to be the same one that the ACLU filed in court. She says he told her it was hard to understand.

She added that he said he and a group of detainees were taken to an airport near the facility on Friday and they were about to be deported. Then, he told her, once they arrived, an officer informed the group they were being sent back to the center and would not board the plane.

Gelernt said the stakes couldn’t be any higher and that Kilmar Abrego Garcia — the Salvadoran native living Maryland who was deported in March to a mega-prison in his home country — isn’t the only person who was “erroneously” sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador.

“They’re unilaterally claiming that people are members of a gang, but not giving them the opportunity to go into court and show they’re not. And we know that multiple, multiple people have been erroneously tagged as members of this gang, but once they get to the El Salvadoran prison, they may never get out for the rest of their life,” Gelernt said.

“It’s critical that we give them hearings before we take such an extraordinary action,” he added.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Trump administration border czar Tom Homan criticized Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador to visit deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, accusing the Democrat of traveling “on the taxpayer dime to meet with an MS-13 gang member, public safety threat, [and] terrorist.”

“What concerns me is Van Hollen never went to the border the last four years under Joe Biden,” Homan said in a Friday interview with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl that aired Sunday. “What shocks me is he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on the southern border. Many people died, thousands of people died.”

In a separate interview on “This Week,” Van Hollen, D-Md., responded to Homan’s criticism, saying that he has long supported fighting gang violence.

“[Homan] is lying through his teeth on many places in that — in that record. And I have been actually fighting MS-13, probably longer than Donald Trump ever uttered the name MS-13. For 20 years in this region, I helped stand up the anti — you know, gang — anti-gang task force. But the idea that you can’t defend people’s rights under the Constitution and fight MS-13 and gang violence is a very dangerous idea. That’s the idea the president wants to put out. That’s why they’re spreading all these lies.”

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who was residing in Maryland, was deported to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison in March. The White House alleges he is member of the MS-13 gang, which was designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the administration; his attorneys and family deny he’s affiliated with the gang.

Abrego Garcia received a protective court order in 2019 barring him from being deported to El Salvador due to fear for his safety. In a court filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged he should not have been sent to El Salvador, calling it an “administrative error.” The Supreme Court has upheld an order saying the administration must “facilitate” his return to the U.S.

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador last week and met with Abrego Garcia, whose wife is a U.S. citizen and constituent of Van Hollen’s, on Thursday after initially being denied access to him.

Van Hollen stressed that for him, this case is about protecting constitutional rights, telling Karl, “I am not defending the man. I’m defending the rights of this man to due process.”

But Homan defended the administration’s actions so far, arguing that under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which the administration invoked to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants including Abrego Garcia, due process rights are more limited.

“I stand by the fact I think we did the right thing here. We removed a public safety threat, a national security threat, a violent gang member from the United States,” Homan said. “We have followed the Constitution. We have followed the law. I am confident that everything we’ve done is follow laws within the constitutional constructs, absolutely.”

He continued, “The length of due process is not the same under the Alien Enemies Act. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act was created. President Trump invoked the authorities he had under the Alien Enemies Act, an act written and passed by Congress and signed by a President. We’re using the laws on the books.”

Homan’s defense of the centuries-old law in his Friday interview came just hours before the Supreme Court temporarily halted its use to deport any Venezuelans being held at a facility in northern Texas.

Karl pressed Homan on the due process rights of the deported undocumented immigrants, citing the 1993 Flores v. Reno Supreme Court opinion authored by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia that noted, “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

“Are you saying that by invoking the Alien Enemies Act that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to those due process rights under the Fifth Amendment?” Karl asked.

“We’re following the rules of the Alien Enemies Act. Again, I think this administration has followed the law. They’re using statutes enacted by Congress, signed by a president, to remove terrorists from this country. I’m not saying, you know — I’m not saying, I’m not arguing right here that nobody should get due process. I’m just saying there’s a different process under the Alien Enemies Act, and less of a process than you see through Title 8,” Homan said, referring to the immigration statute typically used to deport undocumented immigrants.

Homan also denied that any migrant is being labeled a gang member solely because of tattoos. On Friday, Trump posted a photo on social media of what he says is Abrego Gracia’s hand. The MS-13 symbols appear to be superimposed and it’s not clear if the other tattoos have any link to the gang.

“Tattoos are one of many factors that’s going to determine someone’s in a gang. That’s not the only one,” Homan said. “What I’m saying is you can’t ignore a tattoo. That’s, that’s one more factor that leads you to believe maybe it’s a gang member. It’s just not based on tattoos. It’s based on a lot of other things, but tattoos, one of many. But no one’s removed just because of a tattoo.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Trump administration border czar Tom Homan criticized Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador to visit deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, accusing the Democrat of traveling “on the taxpayer dime to meet with an MS-13 gang member, public safety threat, [and] terrorist.”

“What concerns me is Van Hollen never went to the border the last four years under Joe Biden,” Homan said in a Friday interview with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl that aired Sunday. “What shocks me is he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on the southern border. Many people died, thousands of people died.”

In a separate interview on “This Week,” Van Hollen, D-Md., responded to Homan’s criticism, saying that he has long supported fighting gang violence.

“[Homan] is lying through his teeth on many places in that — in that record. And I have been actually fighting MS-13, probably longer than Donald Trump ever uttered the name MS-13. For 20 years in this region, I helped stand up the anti — you know, gang — anti-gang task force. But the idea that you can’t defend people’s rights under the Constitution and fight MS-13 and gang violence is a very dangerous idea. That’s the idea the president wants to put out. That’s why they’re spreading all these lies.”

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who was residing in Maryland, was deported to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison in March. The White House alleges he is member of the MS-13 gang, which was designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the administration; his attorneys and family deny he’s affiliated with the gang.

Abrego Garcia received a protective court order in 2019 barring him from being deported to El Salvador due to fear for his safety. In a court filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged he should not have been sent to El Salvador, calling it an “administrative error.” The Supreme Court has upheld an order saying the administration must “facilitate” his return to the U.S.

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador last week and met with Abrego Garcia, whose wife is a U.S. citizen and constituent of Van Hollen’s, on Thursday after initially being denied access to him.

Van Hollen stressed that for him, this case is about protecting constitutional rights, telling Karl, “I am not defending the man. I’m defending the rights of this man to due process.”

But Homan defended the administration’s actions so far, arguing that under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which the administration invoked to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants including Abrego Garcia, due process rights are more limited.

“I stand by the fact I think we did the right thing here. We removed a public safety threat, a national security threat, a violent gang member from the United States,” Homan said. “We have followed the Constitution. We have followed the law. I am confident that everything we’ve done is follow laws within the constitutional constructs, absolutely.”

He continued, “The length of due process is not the same under the Alien Enemies Act. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act was created. President Trump invoked the authorities he had under the Alien Enemies Act, an act written and passed by Congress and signed by a President. We’re using the laws on the books.”

Homan’s defense of the centuries-old law in his Friday interview came just hours before the Supreme Court temporarily halted its use to deport any Venezuelans being held at a facility in northern Texas.

Karl pressed Homan on the due process rights of the deported undocumented immigrants, citing the 1993 Flores v. Reno Supreme Court opinion authored by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia that noted, “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

“Are you saying that by invoking the Alien Enemies Act that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to those due process rights under the Fifth Amendment?” Karl asked.

“We’re following the rules of the Alien Enemies Act. Again, I think this administration has followed the law. They’re using statutes enacted by Congress, signed by a president, to remove terrorists from this country. I’m not saying, you know — I’m not saying, I’m not arguing right here that nobody should get due process. I’m just saying there’s a different process under the Alien Enemies Act, and less of a process than you see through Title 8,” Homan said, referring to the immigration statute typically used to deport undocumented immigrants.

Homan also denied that any migrant is being labeled a gang member solely because of tattoos. On Friday, Trump posted a photo on social media of what he says is Abrego Gracia’s hand. The MS-13 symbols appear to be superimposed and it’s not clear if the other tattoos have any link to the gang.

“Tattoos are one of many factors that’s going to determine someone’s in a gang. That’s not the only one,” Homan said. “What I’m saying is you can’t ignore a tattoo. That’s, that’s one more factor that leads you to believe maybe it’s a gang member. It’s just not based on tattoos. It’s based on a lot of other things, but tattoos, one of many. But no one’s removed just because of a tattoo.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Trump administration border czar Tom Homan criticized Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s trip to El Salvador to visit deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, accusing the Democrat of traveling “on the taxpayer dime to meet with an MS-13 gang member, public safety threat, [and] terrorist.”

“What concerns me is Van Hollen never went to the border the last four years under Joe Biden,” Homan said in a Friday interview with “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl that aired Sunday. “What shocks me is he’s remained silent on the travesty that happened on the southern border. Many people died, thousands of people died.”

In a separate interview on “This Week,” Van Hollen, D-Md., responded to Homan’s criticism, saying that he has long supported fighting gang violence.

“[Homan] is lying through his teeth on many places in that — in that record. And I have been actually fighting MS-13, probably longer than Donald Trump ever uttered the name MS-13. For 20 years in this region, I helped stand up the anti — you know, gang — anti-gang task force. But the idea that you can’t defend people’s rights under the Constitution and fight MS-13 and gang violence is a very dangerous idea. That’s the idea the president wants to put out. That’s why they’re spreading all these lies.”

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who was residing in Maryland, was deported to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison in March. The White House alleges he is member of the MS-13 gang, which was designated as a “foreign terrorist organization” by the administration; his attorneys and family deny he’s affiliated with the gang.

Abrego Garcia received a protective court order in 2019 barring him from being deported to El Salvador due to fear for his safety. In a court filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged he should not have been sent to El Salvador, calling it an “administrative error.” The Supreme Court has upheld an order saying the administration must “facilitate” his return to the U.S.

Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador last week and met with Abrego Garcia, whose wife is a U.S. citizen and constituent of Van Hollen’s, on Thursday after initially being denied access to him.

Van Hollen stressed that for him, this case is about protecting constitutional rights, telling Karl, “I am not defending the man. I’m defending the rights of this man to due process.”

But Homan defended the administration’s actions so far, arguing that under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which the administration invoked to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants including Abrego Garcia, due process rights are more limited.

“I stand by the fact I think we did the right thing here. We removed a public safety threat, a national security threat, a violent gang member from the United States,” Homan said. “We have followed the Constitution. We have followed the law. I am confident that everything we’ve done is follow laws within the constitutional constructs, absolutely.”

He continued, “The length of due process is not the same under the Alien Enemies Act. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act was created. President Trump invoked the authorities he had under the Alien Enemies Act, an act written and passed by Congress and signed by a President. We’re using the laws on the books.”

Homan’s defense of the centuries-old law in his Friday interview came just hours before the Supreme Court temporarily halted its use to deport any Venezuelans being held at a facility in northern Texas.

Karl pressed Homan on the due process rights of the deported undocumented immigrants, citing the 1993 Flores v. Reno Supreme Court opinion authored by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia that noted, “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

“Are you saying that by invoking the Alien Enemies Act that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to those due process rights under the Fifth Amendment?” Karl asked.

“We’re following the rules of the Alien Enemies Act. Again, I think this administration has followed the law. They’re using statutes enacted by Congress, signed by a president, to remove terrorists from this country. I’m not saying, you know — I’m not saying, I’m not arguing right here that nobody should get due process. I’m just saying there’s a different process under the Alien Enemies Act, and less of a process than you see through Title 8,” Homan said, referring to the immigration statute typically used to deport undocumented immigrants.

Homan also denied that any migrant is being labeled a gang member solely because of tattoos. On Friday, Trump posted a photo on social media of what he says is Abrego Gracia’s hand. The MS-13 symbols appear to be superimposed and it’s not clear if the other tattoos have any link to the gang.

“Tattoos are one of many factors that’s going to determine someone’s in a gang. That’s not the only one,” Homan said. “What I’m saying is you can’t ignore a tattoo. That’s, that’s one more factor that leads you to believe maybe it’s a gang member. It’s just not based on tattoos. It’s based on a lot of other things, but tattoos, one of many. But no one’s removed just because of a tattoo.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called out President Donald Trump for not addressing Americans’ economic needs.

“Well, this week, we’ll be having a cost of living week of action, and we have to continue to talk to the American people about our plans,” Jeffries told ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl on Sunday. “We recognize that housing costs are too high, grocery costs are too high, utility costs are too high, child care costs are too high, insurance costs are too high. America is too expensive. Now, Donald Trump is the president. And in terms of his approval as it relates to the economy, it was his biggest strength on January 20th. Now, it’s his greatest weakness.”

Jeffries also refuted recent Gallup poll findings that found Americans’ trust in Democratic leadership to fix economic issues is much lower than that of GOP leaders.

“There are a variety of different polls that are out there, including most recently a Morning Consult poll, that showed that congressional Democrats were actually trusted more than congressional Republicans on the economy for the first time in four years,” Jeffries said. “We’re going to continue to press our case on the economy, continue to press our case on protecting and strengthening Social Security, which is what we are committed to do. Republicans are trying to detonate Social Security as we know it. And certainly, we’re going to protect the healthcare of the American people.”

Here are more highlights from Jeffries’ interview:

On the future of the Democratic Party

Karl: I saw Senator [Bernie] Sanders had said in an interview this week that he was skeptical of Kamala Harris, and he mentioned Joe Biden as well — and having a future in the national Democratic Party. He said, quote: “I think the future of the Democratic Party is not going to rest with the kind of leadership that we’ve had.”

Is he right? Do you think Democrats are looking for new leaders?

Jeffries: I think what we’ve got in front of us in terms of politically is that we have to win the races that are up next. That’s a governor’s race in New Jersey and a governor’s race in Virginia. Those two in November are going to be critically important, and we certainly have to win back control of the House of Representatives next year. Now, we’re pushing back in the Congress. We’re pushing back in the courts, and we’re pushing back in the communities, including wherever there are special elections on the campaign trail. And, in fact, Democrats are winning special elections month after month after month, including most recently a decisive one in Wisconsin earlier this month for the state Supreme Court.

On David Hogg’s challenging Democratic ‘safe seats’

Karl: David Hogg, who I know you know, a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, he’s going to be joining us on the roundtable, and he is pursuing this effort to unseat some Democrats in safe seats through primary challenges. He’s talked about a culture of seniority politics that is not working for the party. He said, quote: We need a better Democratic Party and need to get rid of the Democrats in safe seats who do not understand what is at stake now, who are asleep at the wheel not meeting the moment, and are a liability now into the future of our party. What’s your response to this idea of targeting your Dem — some of your Democratic incumbents?

Jeffries: Well, I look forward to standing behind every single Democratic incumbent, from the most progressive, to the most centrist, and all points in between. They’re working hard in their communities, rising to the occasion this past week. We had, of course, Medicaid Matters Day of Action, a save Social Security Day of Action, and we have to continue to do all of the things — rallies, town hall meetings in Democratic districts, town hall meetings in Republican districts, days of action, telephone town hall meetings, site visits, press conferences. We are in a more is more environment and more is going to continue to be required of all of us. Now, the House is the institution that is known to be — was built to be the closest to the American people. That’s why we have elections every two years. Primaries are a fact of life. But here’s the thing: I’m going to really focus on trying to defeat Republican incumbents so we can take back control of the House of Representatives and begin the process of ending this national nightmare that’s being visited upon us by far-right extremism.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.