Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Tuesday marks the first time His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince and prime minister of Saudi Arabia, steps foot in the U.S. since 2018, following the death of Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents in Istanbul, which caused global outrage. 

The crown prince denied ordering the operation but ultimately acknowledged responsibility as the kingdom’s de facto ruler.

Now more than seven years later, the Saudi leader has business on his mind as he seeks to deepen ties with the U.S. through cooperation on oil and security, while also expanding the regime’s global outreach in finance, artificial intelligence and technology. Saudi Arabia notably boasts the world’s largest economy and maintains its lead as the world’s top oil producer. 

The crown prince will meet with President Donald Trump at the White House and he’ll be invited in with pomp and circumstance. Saudi flags were seen draped in front of the White House, next to American flags, ahead of his visit. 

Trump is also hosting a dinner for the Saudi leader on Tuesday night.

A focus on defense and business

The prince’s trip to the U.S. is being billed as an “official working visit,” and is designed to follow up and advance on Trump’s May appearance in Riyadh — the first official visit of Trump’s second term in office. 

“A lot of the financial and economic and artificial intelligence deals that they announced that were very ambiguous six months ago, I think we might start to see some teeth from them this time around and hopefully get a little bit more clarity on what those deals actually are,” said Elizabeth Dent, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and former director for the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula in the office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon.

During that May visit, Trump announced a $142 billion arms package with the Saudis, which according to a White House fact sheet was the “the largest defense cooperation agreement” Washington has ever done.

The agreement covers deals with more than a dozen U.S. defense companies in areas including air and missile defense, air force and space advancement, maritime security and communications, the fact sheet said.

The kingdom in turn announced a $600 billion investment in the U.S. spanning multiple sectors, including energy security, defense, technology, global infrastructure and critical minerals. 

Some of the other notable deals announced under the $600 billion pledge included investments in: U.S.-based artificial intelligence data centers and energy infrastructure; advanced technologies; Saudi infrastructure projects; U.S. energy equipment and commercial aircraft; the U.S. health care supply chain; and U.S. sports industries.

Trump confirmed on Monday during an event in the Oval Office that he plans to sell F-35s to Saudi Arabia as part of a weapons deal, which experts say would mark the first time those jets have been sold to an Arab military. 

“There’s a whole host of issues that encompass this. Part of it is that Israel has to be able to maintain their congressionally-mandated qualitative military edge, which Congress does determine that,” Dent said. “And so, if the deal goes forward, I think we just have to see how they’re going to figure out the best way to ensure Israel can maintain that, as the only country in the Middle East that currently has F-35s.”

“I think the Israelis are probably pretty uncomfortable with these rumors swirling around without normalization in sight,” Dent added.

Saudis insist on ‘credible pathway’ to Palestinian statehood

The Saudi leader is seeking security guarantees from the U.S. amid turbulence in the Middle East. The security agreement with the U.S. has been in a development stage and has not yet been formalized, but the kingdom is seeking to deepen military and security ties between the two countries. 

The security guarantees are viewed by some as part of a larger regional “megadeal” involving normalization with Israel, something Trump will surely push for, even as the Saudi kingdom has refused to do so under the current Israeli leadership.

Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that he would discuss the issue with the crown prince.

“I hope that Saudi Arabia will be going into the Abraham Accords fairly shortly,” he said.

Earlier this year, Trump signed an unprecedented defense pact with Qatar via executive order that recognizes the “enduring alliance” between the U.S. and Qatar and provides Qatar an explicit security guarantee in the event of “external attack.” 

Many analysts have said they believe the Saudis are looking for a similar defense pact with the U.S. 

“I think it’ll be kind of similar to Qatar’s, where it basically just says it will consider any sort of threat or attack on Saudi Arabia to be an attack on the United States, and then the United States will respond appropriately, which could range from political to military options. So, I think that the administration will make sure to give themselves that decision space,” Dent said. “There’s a lot to work through here. Obviously, I think a lot of it will be about expectation management.”

The kingdom is notably invested in implementing the president’s 20-point Gaza peace plan. The kingdom has previously stated it wants to see the emergence of a credible path toward an independent and a free Palestine as a condition for supporting the demilitarization of Hamas and reconstruction of Gaza. 

But Israel has put up a roadblock to Palestinian statehood, which will undoubtedly cause angst among Arab regional partners who are pushing for sustained peace in Gaza.

“Our opposition to a Palestinian state in any territory has not changed,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday during his weekly cabinet meeting. “Gaza will be demilitarized and Hamas will be disarmed, the easy way or the hard way.”

Netanyahu has long opposed a Palestinian state, saying in recent months that its creation would only reward Hamas and endanger Israel’s security.

ABC News’ Christopher Boccia contributed to this report. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Acting FEMA Administrator David Richardson resigned on Monday, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation.

Richardson, who was temporarily installed in May after former Acting Administrator Cam Hamilton was essentially fired by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.

Richardson was also in charge of the department’s countering Weapons of Mass Destruction office. It is unclear if he will still stay on in that role.

It is unclear who will lead the disaster management agency.

Richardson told staff in an all-hands meeting in June that he was unaware hurricane season had started, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

It was unclear if Richardson was joking, but a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson argued he was.

When asked by reporters during a White House press briefing whether President Donald Trump was “still comfortable” with Richardson after his remarks, press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed concerns and said FEMA is taking hurricane season “seriously, contrary to some of the reporting we have seen based on jokes that were made and leaks from meetings.”

Richardson’s comments followed an internal review indicating FEMA was “not ready” for the 2025 hurricane season in mid-May.

The DHS spokesperson denied FEMA is unprepared, saying “Despite meanspirited attempts to falsely frame a joke as policy, there is no uncertainty about what FEMA will be doing this Hurricane Season.”

“FEMA is laser-focused on disaster response and protecting the American people,” the spokesperson added.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., slammed Richardson, posting on X that he is “unaware of why he hasn’t been fired yet.”

“Trump’s FEMA chief is incompetent,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., added. “People will die.”

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court on Friday denied a request to reconsider an earlier decision that prevented a federal judge from investigating whether Trump administration officials acted in contempt for allegedly violating a court order when it deported hundreds of alleged gang members to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act in March. 

The decision will allow Judge James Boasberg to attempt to proceed with the early stages of the contempt proceedings, including requesting evidence from the Trump administration about the decision not to turn around a plane bound for El Salvador after he ordered it be returned. 

In a statement authored by three judges in the majority, the court described Boasberg’s actions as “a measured and essential response to what it reasonably perceived as shocking Executive Branch conduct.” 

“The district court has every ability to set a new deadline for production of the information it sought regarding the probable contempt it identified or to proceed otherwise within his sound discretion,” the ruling said. “For its part, the government will have the full opportunity at the appropriate time to raise any defenses it may have. If it is dissatisfied with any appealable order the district court may enter, it will have the opportunity to seek review through the ordinary process. That is how our system of justice is designed to work.”

On Monday, Boasberg said the parties will discuss at a hearing on Wednesday how to proceed with the court’s contempt inquiry. 

In the time between Boasberg’s original order and Friday’s decision, a whistleblower came forward to allege the Trump administration deliberately planned to defy Boasberg’s order. That new context could inform how Boasberg proceeds with the case. 

“The facts the district court recounted present grave rule-of-law concerns. Obedience to court orders is vital to the ability of the judiciary to fulfill its constitutionally appointed role. Judicial orders are not suggestions; they are binding commands that the Executive Branch, no less than any other party, must obey,” the ruling said.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told ABC News the ruling will allow the group to proceed before Boasberg. 

“And now we have more evidence that the government deliberately violated the court’s order not to hand over the Venezuelan men to El Salvador,” Gelernt said.  

The Trump administration in March invoked the Alien Enemies Act — an 18th-century wartime authority used to remove noncitizens with little-to-no due process — to deport two planeloads of alleged migrant gang members to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.

Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order and ordered that the planes be turned around, but Justice Department attorneys said his oral instructions directing the flight to be returned were defective, and the deportations proceeded as planned.

Boasberg subsequently sought contempt proceedings against the government for deliberately defying his order.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The anti-trafficking group World Without Exploitation released a video PSA featuring a group of Epstein survivors advocating for the release of all Epstein files.

In the video released Sunday, the women are seen holding photos of their younger selves, as some of them recite their ages when they first met sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Some of the eleven women featured in the video cry or grow emotional as they speak.

“It’s time to bring the secrets out of the shadows. It’s time to shine a light into the darkness,” the women say.

The video concludes with on-screen text that reads, “Five administrations and we’re still in the dark.” Following the message is a plea to call Congress and demand the release of the Epstein files.

The House is set to vote this week on a bill to compel the release of the full Justice Department files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump marked a sudden shift in his stance on the topic — calling for Republicans to vote in favor of the files’ release.

Trump had previously called the release of the emails a Democratic “hoax” and added “some stupid” and “foolish” Republicans had fallen for it.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters last week that emails related to convicted sex offender Epstein released by House Democrats “prove absolutely nothing, other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”

None of the documents previously made public contain allegations of wrongdoing by Trump.

Groups of Epstein survivors have called on Congress to make the files public in the past.

In September, a group of Epstein survivors shared their stories on Capitol Hill and called on lawmakers to support the release of the files. One of the women, Anouska De Georgiou, said the survivors want their voices to be heard.

“The days of sweeping this under the rug are over. We the survivors say ‘no more,'” she said.

A group of Epstein survivors plan to be in D.C. for a press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who sparred with Trump over the handling of the Epstein investigation.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene escalated their feud over the weekend after the Georgia Republican slammed the president and the administration over a number of topics, including the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Trump went so far as to withdraw his support for Greene and said he would support a primary challenger.

“Lightweight Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Brown (Green grass turns Brown when it begins to ROT!), betrayed the entire Republican Party when she turned Left,” Trump said in a social media post Saturday morning as part of an online back and forth with Greene.

Greene said Saturday in an X post that she had received death threats.

“As a Republican, who overwhelmingly votes for President Trump‘s bills and agenda, his aggression against me which also fuels the venomous nature of his radical internet trolls (many of whom are paid), this is completely shocking to everyone,” she said.

The conflict began this week after Greene questioned in an NBC News interview if Trump was focused on domestic affairs.

“No one cares about the foreign countries. No one cares about the never-ending amount of foreign leaders coming to the White House every single week,” she said in the interview.

On Friday, Trump responded to her words, telling reporters aboard Air Force One, “she is a very different figure,” and that he was no longer “a fan.”

“Something happened to her over the last period of a month or two where she changed. I think politically, I think that her constituents aren’t going to be happy,” he said. “But when she says, ‘Don’t go overseas.’ If I didn’t go overseas, we might be in a war right now with China.”

Trump added he would consider backing a primary challenger and in a social media post later in the night withdrew his endorsement of the congresswoman.

He wrote, “all I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN.”

“I understand that wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie in her District of Georgia, that they too are fed up with her and her antics and, if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support,” the president added.

Greene pushed back against Trump Friday night in an X post, contending that the president was upset with her after she texted him about the ongoing Epstein investigation.

“And of course he’s coming after me hard to make an example to scare all the other Republicans before next weeks vote to release the Epstein files,” she said. “It’s astonishing really how hard he’s fighting to stop the Epstein files from coming out that he actually goes to this level.”

“I never thought that fighting to release the Epstein files, defending women who were victims of rape, and fighting to expose the web of rich powerful elites would have caused this, but here we are,” Greene said in an X post Saturday morning “And it truly speaks for itself.”

The president, who spent Saturday morning golfing in Florida, slammed Greene in a social media post arguing she, “became the RINO that we all know she always was. Just another Fake politician.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As the federal government reopens after the House passed a short-term funding bill Wednesday, Democratic voters across the country reckon with their party’s handling of the standoff — and the fact that in the end, Democrats were not able to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies they shut the government down over in the first place.

Carl Davidson, a 64-year-old car salesman from Oakland, California, told ABC News in an interview that he will be “greatly affected” by the expiring subsidies.

“My California coverage is potentially going to go from $580 to $1,240,” Davidson said.

Meanwhile Teresa White, a 67-year-old administrative assistant who is also from California, told ABC News she is most concerned about her son, whose “premiums are going to double.”

“These are young men in their 30s. They are not high-risk … a lot of their friends are just going to forego insurance, and that’s wrong,” White said.

White and Davidson, as well as the rest of the voters named in this article, participated in an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll and were called back to be interviewed about their views.

Even those not directly affected by the expected jumps in health care premiums believe it is a worthy cause. Jeffrey Martin, a 54-year-old electrician from Berkeley, Massachusetts, told ABC News he was “100%” supportive of congressional Democrats’ fight for ACA subsidies.

“I think they could have held out, because I think that they were in the right. I think they were fighting for something important,” Martin said.

Like Martin, 58-year-old Kevin Wolfe of Parkville, Maryland, wished congressional Democrats had “held out” for longer over the subsidies. Wolfe told ABC News in an interview that he is “kind of upset that they voted to end” the shutdown, even going so far as to say that he thinks Democrats “need to shut it down again.”

“I don’t know if we’d have gotten anything, but I think they could’ve held out a little longer to see,” Wolfe said.

The government shutdown — which lasted 43 days in total, making it the longest shutdown in U.S. history — is funded only until Jan. 30, leaving open the possibility for the government to be shut down again if Congress can’t come to an agreement over health care spending by the end of January.

Like Wolfe, White also said that the Democrats should shut the government down again when the short-term funding bill ends, even if it disrupts things like air travel.

“People don’t have to travel, but you have to eat. And if you have a medical emergency, then you have to have care,” White said.

But while voters like White, Martin and Wolfe wished Democrats had fought for longer, many said they believe that Democrats were successful in bringing national attention to the fight over health care taking place in Washington.

“I don’t think it accomplished what its overall goal was, but I do believe it brought more attention to what is going to happen,” Wolfe said.

“I don’t think people realized at all what is going to happen with premiums,” he added.

Davidson added that shutting down the federal government “concentrated the minds of many people who aren’t following politics day-to-day.”

The one thing many Democratic voters were in agreement on: Republicans are to blame for the shutdown. And with the 2026 midterm elections fast approaching, many speculate that the government shutdown will prove to be a stain on Republicans running for reelection.

“People do have a memory when it hits their wallets, so it could have some ramifications for Republicans in the midterms,” Davidson said.

“I figure that the Republicans, who had the House, the Senate and the presidency, and also the Supreme Court — they are responsible for the shutdown,” said 71-year-old Curtis McLeod of Greensboro, North Carolina.

“I hope all the Republicans that held out lose their seat in the next election. That’s all I’m thinking about,” McLeod added.

But there were some Democratic voters who had more ambiguous feelings about the fight over ACA subsidies, especially those who were affected by federal cuts to SNAP that took place during the shutdown.

Dora C., a 59-year-old in southern Texas, told ABC News in an interview that the government “should have never been shut down from the beginning.”

“I’m a grandmother raising three of my grandkids, and I am — and still to this day — I am on SNAP benefits … When they took that away for a short period of time, it did affect me — of course it did — because I’m not feeding only myself, I’m feeding three kids,” Dora said.

“Yeah, I got these SNAP benefits put back in my card, but not all of them,” Dora added.

Others called the government shutdown a “lose-lose situation.”

“I think the Democrats always look kind of weak because the Republicans kind of do whatever they want and get away with it … I think [Democrats were] trying to fight back. And then the one time they fight back, it blows up like this,” said Brittany D., a 29-year-old small business owner from the suburbs of Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Vicki, a 57-year-old Democrat from Pennsylvania who declined to provide her last name, told ABC News in an interview that ultimately, the decision congressional Democrats faced to end the shutdown was “a Solomon’s Choice.”

“Do you choose the people that need food, or do you choose people that need health care? I would’ve had a hard decision choosing what to do,” she said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — While Democrats have been celebrating some recent wins in the ongoing mid-decade congressional map redistricting sweeping the country, they face some roadblocks in Democratic-aligned states over building on those wins – and the future of President Donald Trump’s agenda remains at stake regardless of how long the battles drag on for.

Why Republicans and Democrats are trying to redraw seats

Which party controls the House after the 2026 midterm elections could come down to just a couple of seats. As of Thursday, Republicans hold 219 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives while Democrats hold 214, with two seats vacant. 

If all of the seats are filled by the midterms, Democrats need to only net three seats to flip the House in 2026, allowing them to thwart Trump’s legislative agenda during the second half of his presidency. Republicans, meanwhile, hope to bolster their razor-thin majority and continue moving Trump’s legislative priorities forward.

That’s why fighting over five seats in one state or fewer in another matters so much.

The ongoing mid-decade redistricting also further narrows what was already a relatively small field of truly competitive seats. The Cook Political Report only rates 16 seats as of Thursday as a “toss-up” out of all 435 U.S. House seats. The ratings factor in states that completed mid-decade redistricting already.

Some wins for Democrats, but roadblocks ahead

Initially, it appeared like the new scramble of congressional map redrawing would favor Republicans. Texas legislators pushed through a map that redraws five congressional seats to favor Republicans; GOP-controlled legislatures or commissions in Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio soon followed suit with maps that could allow the GOP to flip at least one seat in each state. 

And Republican-controlled legislatures in Florida, Kansas, and Louisiana are mulling redrawing their maps and could box out even more Democrats.

Kansas may be an unusual case. Republican state legislators have discussed redrawing the state’s congressional map to box out the Sunflower State’s lone Democratic member of Congress, Rep. Sharice Davids.

But Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly is staunchly opposed to mid-decade redistricting, and Republican legislators have indicated they will not be able to get enough signatures to bypass her to call a special session about the issue. Some have also indicated they want to resist White House pressure to redistrict.

A pending Supreme Court ruling in a Louisiana case might trigger more redrawing in favor of Republicans.

Democrats said they’d try to counteract that Republican push – and their first major win came when California voters chose on Election Day to vote yes on “Proposition 50,” which will redraw their state’s congressional map to make five seats potentially winnable by Democrats. 

(The Department of Justice on Thursday joined a legal effort by Republicans in California suing over the new map; Newsom’s office responded that “these losers lost at the ballot box and soon they will also lose in court.”)

After California, one less expected success for Democrats came about in Utah, which was redrawing its congressional map due to a court order.

A judge ordered late Monday that the state must adopt a congressional map proposed by plaintiffs in a lawsuit, ruling in favor of a map that includes a redrawn Salt Lake City-based district that leans strongly in favor of Democrats.

Utah’s four-member U.S. House delegation is currently fully Republican. The new map creates a congressional district centered around Salt Lake City that analysts say strongly favors Democrats.

And notable names are taking note. On Thursday, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Ben McAdams, who once represented Utah’s 4th congressional district, announced a run for the new district.

But further success for Democrats in mid-decade redistricting ahead of the midterms is not assured.

For instance, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has formed an advisory commission on redistricting, but state Senate President Bill Ferguson, also a Democrat, has said he opposes moving forward with redistricting. 

Ferguson wrote in a recent letter, obtained by ABC News, to Democratic state Senators that “mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined.”

But Maryland U.S. Reps. Jamie Raskin and Steny Hoyer, both Democrats, wrote in a separate letter obtained by ABC News that Maryland Democrats should redistrict “to make Maryland House seats more competitive in a way that counters the Trump national steamroller.” The Baltimore Sun first reported on the letter.

Democratic state legislators in Illinois have, similar to Maryland lawmakers, not been entirely on board with possible redistricting, even though national Democratic leaders such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are pushing for it.

A separate effort by Democratic legislators in Virginia to allow the legislature to redraw congressional districts is still moving forward, but will need to go through many steps before legislators can even propose a map. However, Democrats maintained control of the state House of Delegates and won the governorship in 2025’s elections.

How do Americans feel – and how long could this go on for?

Americans are caught in the middle of the redistricting struggle, facing confusion over who will represent them and what district they’ll be voting in. A Marquette University Law School poll taken in September found that 70% of American adults oppose states redrawing districts “to make them as advantageous as possible for the party with the majority in the state.”

And how long could the back-and-forth on mid-decade redistricting go on for?

It may depend on candidate filing deadlines, which are the dates by when a candidate needs to submit paperwork to get on the ballot for a state’s primary. In Maryland, for instance, the filing deadline for the congressional primary is on Feb. 24. In Kansas, it’s not until June 1.

If state legislatures aiming for new congressional maps haven’t passed them into law by then, candidates will likely still be filing to run in the current districts. Lawsuits or legislative action could change deadlines as well.

The real date to watch is Nov. 3, 2026. The midterms themselves will be the true test of whether Republicans or Democrats have won, lost, or fought the redistricting wars to a draw – and what lies ahead for Trump’s agenda.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s path to service began in the uncertain moments after 9/11 when fears of terrorism reshaped both the country and her own sense of duty. She’s a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve and the first person in U.S. history to serve as DNI while in military uniform.

Two decades later, she told ABC News in an exclusive interview, the same early lessons still guide her approach to leadership, and that the resurgence of terrorism remains her greatest concern.

A principled independence or shifting with political winds
Allies often describe Gabbard as disciplined and mission-driven, shaped by the rigors of military life. Yet some former colleagues say the former Democrat’s views increasingly aligned with the Republican Party she once criticized. Admirers see a principled independence; detractors see a political evolution that mirrors Washington’s shifting winds. Gabbard, however, says her compass has never changed, only the terrain around her.

From her congressional campaigns to the 2020 presidential race, Gabbard was one of the only candidates treating foreign policy as a defining issue. While some of her domestic exchanges on the trail went viral, her presidential campaign remained grounded in her foreign policy message. Her events drew a mix of supporters across party lines, many of whom responded to her foreign policy message of a once-rising Democrat whose view of the world at times clashed with her party’s establishment.

For Gabbard, the focus of her public life and private moments has always been service, and days like Veterans Day are personal.

“It’s a day where I think about the great Americans I’ve had the opportunity to serve with now for 22 and a half years,” she said. “What does it mean for me in the mission that I have as director of national intelligence? It’s personal, because it’s about people. It’s both the people that I’ve had the opportunity to serve with and had the opportunity to lead, and it’s the people who paid the ultimate price who never got to make that trip home.”

A life shaped by deployments, a worldview shaped by war
In 2021, Gabbard deployed to the Horn of Africa. She told ABC News she spent time working with the Somali government along with other armed forces across the continent who had “a singular mission of defeating al-Shabaab, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda, and one of the biggest financial funders of al-Qaeda in that region.”

“The reality is that Islamist terrorism continues to pose the greatest — both short- and long-term — threat to the American people on freedom and Western civilization,” Gabbard said. “The reason why I enlisted in the military has been at the forefront in going after these Islamist terrorists, and remained at the forefront.”

She said ODNI, working with federal and local partners, has “thwarted some of these lone wolf actors who, in some cases, are becoming harder to find,” noting that the threat has evolved from structured networks overseas to individuals radicalized online or inspired remotely.

Her focus on Islamist terrorism has also drawn criticism at times, with some accusing her of Islamophobia, a charge she rejects.

As a Democratic member of Congress and a Democratic National Committee vice chair, Gabbard publicly broke with much of her party over the Obama administration’s reluctance to describe ISIS as an Islamist extremist group, drawing praise from some Republicans and sharp pushback from Democratic leadership, cementing her reputation as someone willing to challenge her own side on national security.

“Unfortunately, a lot of politicians are too afraid to speak the truth about this because they are afraid of the political backlash they may get being called Islamophobes and so forth,” Gabbard said. “They watch what happened to me, but this has come at the cost of our own security and the threat to our freedom.”

That experience reinforced what first called her to serve, the belief that the threat never truly disappeared, only evolved. Gabbard warned that the danger today is as much ideological as operational, spreading through propaganda and recruitment networks that reach far beyond the battlefield.

“There were a lot of people who came into our country over the last four years who either are known or suspected terrorists or who have ties to them. I’m concerned about the folks that we don’t know about, that have not been identified or vetted, and the increasing spread of Islamist propaganda that we’re seeing coming from al-Qaeda.”

“This directly connects back to why I enlisted in the military. It was the Islamist terrorist attack on 9/11 that motivated me to do that in recognizing the seriousness of the threat and wanting to do my part to serve my country and defeat these terrorists who attacked us on that day,” she said.

A Washington outsider leading its most insider institution
For much of her adult life, Gabbard has lived in dual worlds, public servant and soldier, balancing the discipline of command with the weight of national decision making. The lessons she learned in uniform, she said, continue to inform how she approaches her civilian post.

During Army training in Texas, every morning at 4:30 a.m. her squad leader played Tim McGraw’s “Live Like You Were Dying.” She said that daily reminder shaped her perspective on service and mortality, foreshadowing the lessons she would carry into Iraq. She was stationed at Camp Anaconda at Joint Base Balad, located in the Sunni Triangle, 40 miles north of Baghdad, nicknamed “Mortaritaville” for its constant rocket and mortar attacks, often with little or no warning. Within hours of her arrival in Iraq, she would survive her first mortar attack.

The next morning, Gabbard noticed a sign that said “IS TODAY THE DAY?” that would be a daily occurrence on the main security gate. Over the years, that one question, once literal, has remained her daily reminder of how fleeting life can be and how purpose defines sacrifice.

That sense of purpose, Gabbard said, has always been grounded in faith — including the Bible and Bhagavad Gita texts.

“Spending time in prayer, not only every morning and every night, but at every opportunity, reminded me how fragile our time on this earth is,” she said.

The weight of service and the price of conflict
The stress of that initial deployment in her mid-20s would turn her hair white. It eventually darkened again, but Gabbard has kept a streak of white hair as a physical reminder of the human cost of war and what she describes as her mission to seek and fight for peace.

“War must always be the last resort, only after all measures of diplomacy have been completely exhausted,” Gabbard said.

Last week, at the 21st International Institute for Strategic Studies Manama Dialogue in Bahrain, a Gulf security summit that brings together officials to debate regional strategy, Gabbard warned against what she called “the mistakes of the past,” including U.S.-led regime-change wars.

Gabbard reflected on her speech, telling ABC News the focus was “pointing out the destructive effects of our country’s history of regime-change wars, not only these wars being wars of choice, incredibly costly in ways that are really impossible to measure in human life that was lost, as well as ultimately undermining our security,” she said. “Regime-change war in Iraq, for example, is what led to the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS and their strengthening of their positions and their proliferation, not only around the region, but around the world.”

Pushing back against criticism of isolationism
Gabbard also pushed back on critics who describe the Trump administration’s America First policy as isolationist.

“People will say that America First equates to some policy about isolationism, and that’s simply not true,” she argued. “It’s very obvious how robustly President Trump engages with world leaders on a daily basis.”

“One of the biggest changes within the intelligence community, from a focus and resource standpoint under President Trump, has come about in focusing on what is actually happening here in our own backyard in the Western Hemisphere,” she said. “This has not been a focus for many previous administrations, and because of that we’ve seen and experienced the effects of these cartels and transnational criminal organizations really being emboldened, not only to wreak havoc and terror, trafficking of very dangerous and deadly drugs, trafficking in humans and babies.”

She said the intelligence community, under the president’s direction, has begun reallocating resources to map who is driving those operations and how to dismantle them.

‘This has never been about politics’
Supporters see those reforms as proof of Gabbard’s willingness to challenge bureaucracy and redirect the intelligence community’s focus toward real-world threats. But her critics, including Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, say the shakeup has come at a steep cost.

In a September speech, Warner accused Gabbard and Trump of “systematically undermining the independence of the nation’s intelligence community,” pointing to firings, revoked clearances, and reassignments he said had “silenced decades of expertise.”

“At stake,” Warner warned, “is whether America will continue to have an intelligence community free to speak truth to power.”

Gabbard’s allies have dismissed those claims as politics. They argue the criticism misses the point, that “ODNI 2.0,” as she calls her overhaul, is about cutting through layers of stagnation and rebuilding trust between intelligence officers and the commander in chief.

“I love our country, and it continues to be a very special thing to serve alongside the less than 1% of Americans who volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend the safety, security and freedom of the American people,” she said. “So long as I feel I can serve in a way that’s impactful and meaningful, I’m grateful.”

That sense of purpose still drives her.

“For me, this has never been about politics,” she said. “It’s about service. Service to country, service to others, and making sure the truth reaches the people who make the hardest decisions.”  

“If I was interested in serving myself, I would be in Hawaii on a surfboard right now, living the easy life with my family in the place that we are grateful to call home,” she said. “My purpose in life is to do my very best to love and serve God.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance promised their supporters that they would release the Justice Department files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein if elected.

Since then, however, the administration has been reluctant to divulge more details about the investigation or release all of the files, angering some Republicans and Democrats and raising questions about Trump’s past connections to Epstein.

Here is a timeline of the major events surrounding the Epstein files saga since Trump returned to office.

Feb. 21, 2025
In an interview with Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked about the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients and if the Justice Department was planning to release them.

Bondi responded, “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”

The attorney general clarified in July that she was referring to the Epstein case files, and not an alleged client list.

Feb. 27, 2025
The Justice Department invites conservative bloggers and influencers and shares with them binders labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 1.” Most of the evidence had already been released to the public.

Bondi and her team did not inform White House officials in advance that she planned to distribute the binders, sources with information about the event told ABC News.

May 8, 2025
The House’s Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets demanded the release of the Epstein files in a letter to Bondi.

Bondi did not respond to the request before the May 16 deadline.

July 7, 2025
The DOJ and FBI released a joint statement that stated a review of its holdings uncovered no evidence of any client list kept by Epstein or other evidence that would predicate a criminal investigation of any uncharged parties.

The department also released hours of purported footage as part of its review, which officials say further confirmed Epstein died by suicide while in custody in his jail cell in Manhattan in 2019.

The video from the Bureau of Prisons showing the moments before Epstein’s death was later determined to have been missing footage. Several conservative influencers slam Bondi and the Justice Department over the memo.

July 12, 2025
Trump defended Bondi in a social media post amid the pushback from some in his MAGA base over the handling of the Epstein probe.

Trump praised Bondi for doing a “fantastic job” and urged his “boys” and “gals” to stop criticizing her.

July 15, 2025
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna seek a House vote for a discharge petition to release the Epstein files.

The same day, House Speaker Mike Johnson called on Bondi to “come forward and explain” her handling of the probe.

Signatures for the petition continue to grow, however, do not reach the 218 needed to move forward.

Asked what Bondi told him about the review of the Epstein files and if his name appeared at all, Trump responded, “No, no, she’s given us just a very quick briefing,” before making baseless claims that the files were created by some of his political foes.

“Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release,” Trump said.

July 24-25, 2025
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney, interviewed Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction on sex trafficking and other charges related to Epstein’s illicit activities.

Maxwell initiated the meeting, multiple sources told ABC News.

A month later, the Justice Department released a transcript of the interview, which was not under oath, where she claimed there was no client list.

Aug. 1, 2025
Maxwell was transferred from a federal prison in Florida, which is labeled “low security” to a federal prison camp in Texas, which is labeled “minimum security,” the Justice Department announced.

Sept. 8, 2025
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a 238-page PDF document of the 50th birthday book to Epstein that includes a prologue by Maxwell and a page allegedly written by Trump.

Trump’s page features a typed letter written inside a doodle of a woman’s body, with his signature located in a provocative spot on the body.

The president denied that he wrote and signed the letter.

Nov. 12, 2025
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released emails that were part of more than 20,000 from the Epstein estate.

Some of the messages show Epstein talking about Trump, including one where he claimed Trump “spent hours at my house” with one of the sex-trafficked victims.

The White House accused Democrats on the House Oversight Committee of releasing “selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative” about Trump.

Later that evening, Arizona Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva was sworn into office, a month after she won a special election, and became the final signature on the discharge petition to get it over the 218 threshold.

Johnson announced that he would bring a bill to release the Jeffrey Epstein files to a vote on the floor next week.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump, in a social media post on Friday, said he will “be asking A.G. Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great patriots at the FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein’s involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan, Chase, and many other people and institutions, to determine what was going on with them, and him.”

“Stay tuned!!!” Trump wrote.

Clinton has denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has denied ever visiting Epstein’s private island.

The post comes after House Democrats released emails from Epstein that mentioned Trump by name, including a post that referred to Trump as the “dog that hasn’t barked” and told his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell that an alleged victim had “spent hours at my house” with Trump.

Bipartisan pressure is ramping up on the administration to release the rest of the Epstein files. This week, Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva became the 218th signature needed on a discharge petition to compel the DOJ to make those records public.

Trump, who was friendly with Epstein for years, said after Epstein’s arrest in 2019 that they hadn’t spoken in more than a decade after having a falling out. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed the new emails in a press briefing earlier this week, saying they “prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.