Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Congressional Democrats are renewing their push to expand in vitro fertilization access for military service members by introducing legislation that would require the Department of Defense’s health care program to fund access to IVF for military service members.

The legislative effort, being led in the Senate by Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth and in the House by Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs, would bring IVF access afforded to military service members in parity with the services available to members of Congress. It would also modify current requirements that service members prove that their infertility challenges are directly connected to service, a barrier that the lawmakers say is often cumbersome or impossible to overcome.

The legislation, Jacobs said in an exclusive interview with ABC News, could be “life-changing” for military service members who are often forced to choose between continuing their military service and starting a family.

“I think it will be huge. We know so many military families are struggling to make ends meet as it is, and are facing really significant fertility challenges. It would be life-changing,” Jacobs told ABC News. “We shouldn’t make them choose between serving our country and building their families.”

Duckworth and Jacobs say that some members of the military have been forced to abandon their military careers because of the lack of infertility treatment coverage by their health care program, called TRICARE. It could present a risk to military readiness, they told ABC News.

“For too many service members, the lack of TRICARE coverage of IVF has left them with only a few choices: beat the odds and prove that their infertility is directly related to their service, pay tens of thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for a chance at a family, forgo having children, or leave the military. This is wrong,” Duckworth said.

It’s also about parity, they said: Starting this year, members of Congress are afforded access to plans that offer coverage for infertility treatments. Jacobs and Duckworth say the same should be true for military service members.

“It makes no sense that members of Congress and the rest of the federal workforce will get this, but military families still won’t,” Jacobs said.

This is not the first time that Jacobs and Duckworth have attempted to expand IVF access for military service members. They tried to get this same provision included in the massive military spending package, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, last year as both parties tried to reassure voters of their support for IVF and other infertility treatments.

Though the proposal made it through the House Armed Services Committee, it never made it into the final version of the bill that President Joe Biden signed into law during the waning days of his presidency.

Similar legislation was separately blocked in the Senate by Republican Sen. James Lankford last year. At the time, Lankford said that while he supports IVF, he was concerned about the indefinite cost of the legislation and the possibility it opened for “future definitions for gene editing or for cloning.”

Duckworth and Jacobs’ newest effort, however, is a stand-alone bill that could be voted on not as an amendment, but as it’s own legislation.

Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran, has been vocal about her own experiences using IVF to conceive her two children. She was involved in multiple efforts to expand IVF access last Congress that were ultimately blocked by Republicans.

She said this new proposal would give Republicans the opportunity to make good on President Donald Trump’s pro-IVF rhetoric that he’s used on the campaign trail and at the White House.

“President Trump pledged to voters on the campaign trail that he would go even further by making IVF free if elected and has repeated the bold-faced lie that he is governing on the principle of ‘promises made, promises kept,'” Duckworth said in a statement. “Republicans can now help him partially fulfill his broken IVF promise by joining our commonsense legislation that would make sure those who answer the call to serve have access to the care they need to build their family.”

No Republican has yet signed on as a cosponsor, but Duckworth and Jacobs are pointing to Trump’s comments as recently as last week touting his support for IVF as a possible boon to their efforts.

On the campaign trail, as an Alabama State Supreme Court ruling temporarily threw IVF access into question, Trump was vocal about his hope to make IVF continually accessible. He referred to himself as the “father of IVF” and issued a statement that said “I strongly support the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”

Trump has continued to make his support for IVF known. As recently as Wednesday when, during a Women’s History Month event, he referred to himself as the “fertilization president.”

“Fertilization. I’m still very proud of it, I don’t care. I’ll be known as the fertilization president, and that’s OK,” Trump said. “That’s not bad. I’ve been called much worse. Actually, I like it, right?”

It’s at this point unclear if the bill, which if pushed by Democrats to the Senate floor as a stand-alone bill would require the unanimous support of the Republican conference, would have the support it needs to pass. It’s also unclear if efforts to include it in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act or other major legislative pushes could lead to passage.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TALLAHASSEE, FL) — A pair of special elections in Florida for the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday to fill vacancies left by former Republican Reps. Mike Waltz and Matt Gaetz has heated up in recent weeks — especially in the 6th District where Waltz served.

Both lawmakers resigned to join the Trump administration, although Gaetz withdrew his nomination as attorney general when it became clear that he did not have sufficient support in the Senate to become confirmed.

Ahead of the election, Republicans have 218 seats in the House, while Democrats have 213; four seats are vacant. Republicans can only afford to lose two votes before losing their majority for a vote on the House floor.

While Republicans will hold on to their majority regardless of the results in Florida, the election comes amid concerns over maintaining that power — a concern that spilled into the public when President Donald Trump recently asked Rep. Elise Stefanik to withdraw from her nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations rather than give up her seat.

One of the Florida races is in play more than expected, with uncertainty among some Republicans over whether their candidate in the 6th District, state Sen. Randy Fine, can keep the seat safely in Republican hands, given that he has lagged far behind the Democratic candidate, teacher and progressive Josh Weil, in fundraising.

Thus, while the Republicans are favored to win in each district, given that both were ruby-red in 2024, some have speculated that the margin between the Republicans and Democrats in at least the 6th District could be tighter than anticipated.

Special elections usually have lower turnout than on-cycle elections and turnout and results can be tough to predict.

On the fundraising front, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission, Fine has raised or received around $987,000 from late November 2024 through mid-March, while Weil has raised or received more than $9 million since Oct. 1, 2024 through mid-March. Fine also donated $600,000 to himself, according to later filings.

Weil’s campaign has spent more than $8 million of what he’s raised, per the filings; Fine’s campaign had also spent much of its cash on hand before his donations to himself.

But Fine does have Trump’s strong endorsement.

Weil’s campaign has spent more than $8 million of what he’s raised, per the filings; Fine’s campaign had also spent much of its cash on hand before his donations to himself.

But Fine does have Trump’s strong endorsement.

Trump said on Thursday of Fine: “He will be there whenever I need him, and he wants to be there whenever we need him. He wants to be there for you.”

Fine has expressed confidence. He told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo on Monday, “We’re doing great,” and later added, “What we’re seeing is angry Democrats, and Republicans having to understand what’s at stake.”

Weil, who was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Friday, told ABC News Live Prime anchor Linsey Davis on Monday night, “People want someone who will fight for them in Washington and that’s what we’re offering.”

He said that Sanders’ endorsement, which Fine had criticized, seemed to be an asset when talking to voters who appreciated the senator’s message.

 In the special election in Florida’s 1st District, located at the westernmost part of the Panhandle, Republican candidate Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s chief financial officer, is facing Democratic candidate Gay Valimont, a gun violence-prevention activist. Valimont was the Democratic nominee in 2024, losing to Gaetz by over 30 percentage points.

Trump has also thrown his support behind Patronis.

The president said in a telephone rally on Thursday, “Jimmy’s done an outstanding job as the Chief Financial Officer of the state of Florida, helping to guide your state to tremendous economic success. And now he wants to keep on fighting for Florida in Congress, and he’s going to do that, and he’ll vote to defend Social Security, protect Medicare, all these things … under great danger with the Democrats.”

Patronis, speaking after Trump, told listeners, “Look, if you’re not fired up to hearing the president right now, then you need to get your pulse checked with President Trump and the White House. A Republican majority in Congress, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to transform this country.”

Meanwhile, Valimont has raised more than Patronis, per Federal Election Commission filings — which show Valimont has raised around $6 million while Patronis raised around $2 million.

“In Congress, I will show Florida’s 1st District what it looks like when the government truly works for the people and our needs,” Valimont wrote on Monday.

-ABC News’ John Parkinson, Lauren Peller and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MADISON, WI) — Voters head to the polls on Tuesday in Wisconsin for a hot-button race that could offer a barometer on how Americans are feeling at this point in President Donald Trump’s second term.

Republican-backed Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel and Democratic-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford are the candidates in Tuesday’s marquee state Supreme Court race, which is technically nonpartisan — but it has become the center of a political firestorm, as well as the target of millions spent by groups linked to tech billionaire and key Trump adviser Elon Musk.

The election will determine which of the candidates, vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, will help determine the ideological bent of the court, which currently leans liberal.

“This is playing out like a presidential-style election. You turn on your TV, any local broadcast station here across the state of Wisconsin, you are inundated with political-type ads for what is technically a nonpartisan judicial race, but this is a full-on political race … this is becoming a true litmus test for the first 100 days of the Trump administration,” Matt Smith, political director at Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate WISN-TV, told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo last week.

The winner of this race will join the bench as the court potentially grapples with key voter issues such as abortion access and redistricting. For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.

The race could also preview how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into Trump’s second term — especially as Musk and his work with the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency becomes a key issue given his groups’ investments in the race.

Musk has indicated he is interested in the race because of the possibility that the court takes on redistricting cases — which could impact the balance of power in the U.S. House if rulings cause congressional maps to be redrawn.

“That is why it is so significant, and whichever party controls the House, to a significant degree, controls the country which then steers the course of Western civilization,” Musk said at a high-profile town hall on Sunday in Green Bay.

Musk has implied “the future of civilization” is at stake with the race. On Sunday, the tech billionaire also controversially gave away two $1 million checks to attendees at a rally in his latest effort to support Schimel.

Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general and a circuit court judge in Waukesha County. He has received almost $20 million in support (such as spending for TV ads) as of Monday from groups linked to Musk, per a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.

Schimel has also received endorsements from Trump, Musk, Donald Trump, Jr., and other key conservative figures.

Schimel has welcomed the conservative support, yet said at a rally last week that he would treat any case fairly, including if it was a case brought by Trump.

However, Crawford and her allies have alleged he would not treat cases involving Trump or Musk fairly, and she has made Musk a main target of her campaign.

Schimel, asked on Thursday by ABC affiliate WISN to share his closing argument ahead of the final days in the race, said, “My closing argument is that people need to take this race seriously. So much is at stake. We have to restore objectivity to this court right now … We have to put the court back in its proper role where it’s not making the law. It’s not going through a political agenda. It is applying the law the way the legislature writes it, to the facts of the case.”

Crawford, backed by Democrats, is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. At points, she represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.

Major liberal donors such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Democratic donor George Soros have given money to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford. The national Democratic Party has also invested in the race.

Crawford told WISN that her closing argument was about an impartial court: “It’s about making sure that we have a Supreme Court that is fair and impartial in interpreting our laws to protect the rights of Wisconsinites. The other choice is an extreme partisan, someone who is selling out to special interests, has a long history of doing that, and has now tied himself to Elon Musk.”

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of Monday, more than $90 million has been spent in the race — making it the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history. That amount includes more than $49 million spent by Schimel or groups supporting him, and more than $40 million spent by Crawford or groups supporting her.

The nonprofit says that the previous record for spending in a state supreme court race was in Wisconsin’s 2023 state supreme court election, when $56 million was spent.

Voters have taken notice. One Wisconsinite who voted early told WISN, “There’s a lot of outside money coming in, in our state. And I wanted to make sure that my voice is being represented and not other people.”

As of Monday, around 644,000 people in Wisconsin have voted early in person or by mail, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Voters in Wisconsin will also vote on a ballot initiative over whether to enshrine requiring a photo ID to vote into the state constitution. Voter ID is already required by state law; enshrining it into the state constitution would not establish new requirements, but would likely make it harder to ever undo the law.

Democratic groups and voting rights organizations have criticized the ballot initiative as potentially disenfranchising voters. Supporters of the initiative argue it will strengthen election security in Wisconsin and is cementing a requirement that has already been in place.

A Marquette University Law School poll taken in late February also found that a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin support photo ID for voting, and separately, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin said they would support the ballot initiative.

ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Ben Siegel, Will Steakin, Averi Harper, Hannah Demissie and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(BOSTON) — The Department of Education and other agencies are reviewing Harvard University for fostering antisemitism on its campus, Secretary Linda McMahon said Monday.

“Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry — has put its reputation in serious jeopardy,” McMahon said in a release.

“Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus,” she said.

The Education Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration are joining in the comprehensive review of the school.

The move comes as the administration’s joint task force doubles down on removing antisemitic conduct and harassment from elite universities. The administration stripped Columbia University of $400 million in grants earlier this month after a task force investigation found inaction by the school to protect Jewish students.

Monday’s actions against Harvard come after a similar review led to Columbia agreeing to comply with nine preconditions for further negotiations regarding a return of canceled federal funds, according to the release.

The task force will review hundreds of millions of dollars in grants to Harvard and its affiliates, according to the release.

The agencies will also review another nearly $9 billion in grants to Harvard to ensure it’s in compliance with “federal regulations” and “civil rights responsibilities,” the release said.

In response to the review, Harvard President Alan Garber released a statement saying, “We fully embrace the important goal of combatting antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry.”

“It is present on our campus,” Garber continued, “I have experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president, and I know how damaging it can be to a student who has come to learn and make friends at a college or university.”

Garber said, however, that the $9 billion in federal funding that is “at stake” as the university works to combat antisemitism could halt “life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.”

“As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings, pursue needed change, and build stronger bonds that enable all to thrive,” Garber added.

Harvard alum Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif., told ABC News he believes too many universities have gone unchecked for tent encampments and hostile demonstrations that involved students overtaking buildings on campus in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict that broke out after Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Kiley, who sits on the House Education and Workforce Committee, called the administration’s review “incredibly refreshing” and a proactive solution to protect the civil rights and safety of Harvard’s Jewish students.

“We need to make sure that the rules are enforced, that civil rights laws are abided by and that there are consequences for illegal activity,” Kiley said.

Oregon Democratic Rep. Suzanne Bonamici is also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee and alongside Rep. Kiley, Bonamici serves on the subcommittee on higher education.

Bonamici told ABC News she believes the administration has been pushing a concerning attack on institutions of higher education.

She said threatening federal funding is a bridge too far. “There are ways to address anti-Semitism that don’t involve this type of threat,” Bonamici said, adding, “What they’re trying to do is intimidate these universities, like they’re doing with law firms, intimidate them into taking positions that are antithetical to higher education and free thought and critical thinking, so it’s extremely concerning.”

Protests erupted on college campuses around the country after civilian casualties mounted in Gaza as Israel launched a military campaign in response to Oct. 7, vowing to eradicate Hamas — which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization.

The federal response comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to abolish the Department of Education and another order that takes measures to “vigorously” combat antisemitism.

The Harvard review also highlights the administration’s promise to ensure colleges would suffer the federal consequences if they foster antisemitic protests and demonstrations in the wake of Oct. 7.

On the campaign trail, Trump said, “My promise to Jewish Americans is this: With your vote, I will be your defender, your protector, and I will be the best friend Jewish Americans have ever had in the White House.”

Meanwhile, Congress is investigating Harvard and nearly a dozen other schools for allegedly fostering antisemitism on campus.

A House Education and Workforce Committee report last fall found many universities have failed to adequately discipline antisemitic conduct. A summary of the more than 100-page report alleges the “overwhelming majority” of students accused of antisemitic harassment or other acts of antisemitism on campuses faced minimal disciplinary action for their alleged violations.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has granted clemency to a pair of Hunter Biden’s former business partners, both of whom accused former President Joe Biden’s son of improperly leveraging his father’s political power to broker overseas business relationships.

Last Tuesday, Trump issued a full pardon to Devon Archer, who was sentenced to more than a year in prison for defrauding a Native American tribal entity in 2022.

Later in the week, Trump commuted the 189-month sentence of Jason Galanis for his role in multiple fraudulent schemes.

Archer and Galanis charted a similar path to their presidential pardons: Both men brokered business ties with Hunter Biden, were later found guilty of unrelated fraud schemes, pleaded with the Biden administration for executive clemency, and, when rebuffed, publicly accused Hunter Biden of improperly trading on his family name to secure overseas business deals.

Galanis went a step further than Archer by retaining a high-powered Washington lawyer with close ties to the Trump political machine: Mark Paoletta, whom Trump recently tapped for general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget.

Paoletta did not respond to a request for comment regarding Galanis’ commutation.

Last year, Galanis testified before the House Oversight Committee about the Biden family’s business arrangements from a jail cell in Alabama. He asserted that Joe Biden was more engaged in Hunter Biden’s business dealings than the former president publicly let on, and that “the entire value add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden.”

Joe Biden has forcefully denied any wrongdoing and Republicans were unable to find evidence that he used his political perch to support his son’s businesses. A House impeachment inquiry concluded last August without any articles of impeachment drawn up.

Matthew Schwartz, an attorney for Archer, told ABC News that “the American jury system is an amazing thing, but as the trial judge held in finding serious questions about Devon Archer’s innocence, sometimes juries get it wrong.”

Schwartz said that Trump’s “pardon corrects a serious injustice, and finally allows an innocent man to be free of the threat of misguided prosecution. Mr. Archer is deeply appreciative of the President.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. stocks seesawed between gains and losses on Monday in the lead up to a promised fresh round of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on April 2, which he has dubbed “liberation day.”

The market rollercoaster came a day after Goldman Sachs raised its odds of a recession within the next year from 20% to 35%, citing the tariffs. The move marked the latest in an upsurge of recession fears on Wall Street in recent weeks.

A policy of wide-ranging levies on foreign goods could tip the U.S. into a recession, experts said. They pointed to risks of a slowdown for businesses mired in higher tax costs, as well as a shopping slump as consumers curtail spending to pad their savings to help weather price increases and a possible economic downturn.

The degree and duration of Trump’s forthcoming tariffs remains unknown, experts added, but they pointed to such uncertainty as another reason the economy could fall into a recession.

“If both businesses and consumers start to worry and pull back their spending, that is what can tip the U.S. over into a recession,” Kara Reynolds, an economist at American University, told ABC News.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, described potential tariffs on April 2 as “the fodder for an economic downturn.”

Trump has already announced a flurry of duties, including sector-specific tariffs targeting autos, steel and aluminum. The U.S. has also imposed levies on some goods from Mexico, Canada and China.

Over the weekend, Trump told reporters that the next round of tariffs could affect “all the countries.”

“The tariffs will be far more generous than those countries were to us, meaning they will be kinder than those countries were to the United States of America,” he said.

The Trump administration has largely declined to rule out the possibility of a recession. Speaking at the White House earlier this month, Trump said a “little disturbance” may prove necessary to rejuvenate domestic production and reestablish well-paying manufacturing jobs.

Experts generally define a recession by the shorthand metric of two consecutive quarters of decline in a nation’s inflation-adjusted gross domestic product, or GDP.

Tariffs could threaten economic growth and employment since duties slapped on imports risk increasing costs for businesses that rely on raw materials from abroad, some experts told ABC News.

Experts widely expect importers to pass along a share of the tariff burden to consumers in the form of higher prices, which could make the firms less competitive as they may struggle to retain customers who suffer sticker shock.

If business performance suffers, firms will likely freeze or reduce investment, threatening economic growth.

“As business investment goes down, that can trigger a recession,” Anne Villamil, a professor of economics at the University of Iowa, told ABC News.

Even the looming risk of tariffs can make shoppers uneasy, potentially sinking the economy further, experts said.

Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. In March, consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level since 2021, according to a survey conducted by The Conference Board.

As consumer attitudes sour, shoppers could encounter tariff-induced price increases, leaving buyers even more frustrated.

“It’s already showing up in consumer confidence,” Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University. “There is chaos and uncertainty around the tariff policy.”

By some key measures, however, the economy remains in solid shape. Hiring stands at robust levels alongside a historically low unemployment rate. Inflation sits well below a peak attained in 2022, though price increases register nearly a percentage point higher than the Fed’s goal of 2%.

Villamil, of the University of Iowa, acknowledged the strength of the economy in recent months. Still, she added, tariffs could plunge the U.S. into a downturn.

“The concern is that all of this policy uncertainty is putting the economy at risk,” Villamil said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has often mused, even joked, about seeking a third term, but over the weekend he made his strongest and most serious comments yet on a move that constitutional scholars ABC News spoke with call virtually impossible.

“I’m not joking,” he told NBC News “Meet the Press” moderator Kirsten Welker in a phone interview on Sunday, before adding it was “far too early to think about it.”

“There are methods which you could do it,” Trump said, including a scenario in which Vice President JD Vance ran at the top of the 2028 ticket with Trump as his running mate, only for Trump to assume the Oval Office after the election.

Legal and election experts told ABC News any attempt to win another four years as president would be an unprecedented breach of the Constitution.

“Trump may not want to rule out a third term but the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution does,” said David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University and an expert in constitutional law.

The amendment states, in part: “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”

It was ratified in 1951, years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with the two-term tradition set by George Washington and secured a third term as World War II was breaking out.

“It would be completely unprecedented for a president to openly defy the dictates of the 22nd Amendment and, even more so, to attempt to run or serve again as president,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional expert at the University of North Carolina.

“The threats and insinuations no doubt thrill his base, but there is no constitutional basis for the current president to try to serve as president after two elected terms,” Gerhardt said.

The only way legal way for Trump to be able to run for a third term, experts said, would be to amend the Constitution — an incredibly unlikely outcome as it would take two-thirds of both the House and Senate, or two-thirds of the states agreeing to call a constitutional convention. Then, any change would require three-fourths of the states to sign on for ratification.

“This statement by Trump was brilliant in terms of capturing and diverting attention,” said Schultz. “His supporters love it and his detractors will rage over it. In the process, no one will talk about the price of eggs, tariffs and a shaky stock market.”

Experts break down ‘methods’ floated by Trump and his allies

As for Trump’s claim that one of the “methods” could be to run as Vance’s vice president and then be passed the baton, experts point to the 12th Amendment from 1804 as a barrier.

“The 12th Amendment states that anyone who is ineligible to be president is also deemed to be illegible to serve as vice president,” said Barry Burden, the director of the Elections Research Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison. “This means that Trump could not serve as vice president, which is the post he would need for the Vance scheme to be executed.”

Steve Bannon, a fierce Trump ally, has also floated what he’s called alternatives to allow Trump to run in 2028.

Bannon, in remarks at the New York Young Republican Club gala in December, has argued that he could run again as Trump’s two terms in office were not consecutive.

“Since it doesn’t actually say consecutive, I don’t know, maybe we do it again in ’28? Are you guys down for that? Trump ’28?” Bannon said.

Schultz said that argument doesn’t have a sound legal basis.

“The overall limit of serving as president for ten years is both textual proof on the bar to run for a third term and an indication of the intent of the congressional drafters that they did not want anyone serving for more than two terms,” Schultz said.

He added that measure “was put into place to allow for a situation where a president dies more than halfway into a term and the vice president succeeds that person. The Constitution thereby allows for the vice president to serve out the remaining term and then serve two more terms, for a total of ten years.”

What happens if Trump tries anyway?

Trump has already tested the bounds of the Constitution governing presidential power several times in the first months of his second term.

Several Democrats viewed his comments on Sunday as another escalation against the rule of law. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin wrote on X: “This is what dictators do.”

In the past, Republicans have largely played off Trump’s musings about a third term as a joke intended to rile his opposition. But just days after his inauguration, Republican hardliner Rep. Andy Ogles introduced a resolution calling for the extension of presidential term limits to allow Trump to seek another four years in the White House.

“A crisis could arise if Trump runs for president or vice president in 2028,” Burden said. “The Constitution prohibits serving in office but not running for office. If Republicans nominated him, they would be betting that they can violate the Constitution and somehow allow him to serve if he wins.”

If Trump attempted to run, it would be up to election officials and then ultimately the courts to decide. This played out in the 2024 campaign, when several states challenged his eligibility to seek the Republican presidential nomination under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment due to his actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The legal battle went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Trump’s favor.

“If an ineligible person such as Trump is permitted to run knowing that he is not eligible to serve, it is a dangerous collision course in which the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law would be seriously tested,” Burden said.

James Sample, a constitutional law expert at Hofstra University, said Trump would lose in court should he attempt to run again.

“Most of the Constitution is written in broad, textured, difficult to define terms. What is a speedy trial? What is cruel and unusual punishment? What is equal protection? How much process is due process? The 22nd Amendment, however, is black and white,” Sample said.

“But if you can succeed in turning questions that are that clear-cut into debates, then the overall goal of undermining the Constitution and undermining the rule of law and maximizing executive power is served even if you lose the particular battle,” he continued. “This particular battle is not a winnable battle. He is not going to serve a third term, but merely by framing this as a debate, he will succeed in further eroding respect for the Constitution.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Florida state Sen. Randy Fine, the Republican candidate in Tuesday’s special U.S. House election for the seat vacated by former Rep. Mike Waltz, said on ABC News Live on Monday that doesn’t think be breaks with President Donald Trump on policies.

“I don’t think so,” Fine told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo when asked if he disagrees with Trump on anything.

“I mean, look, I was the second Florida legislator to endorse [Trump] over Gov. [Ron] DeSantis [in the 2024 presidential primaries] … And so no, I mean, I believe in the America First agenda and the Donald Trump agenda. And more importantly, I think that when you have a team captain, you have to support the team,” Fine said.

Fine’s race is one of a pair of special elections for the U.S. House in Florida on Tuesday that might have an impact on the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

While the Republicans are favored to win in each district — given that both districts were ruby-red in 2024 — some have speculated that the margin between the Republicans and Democrats in each district could be tighter than anticipated, and voices within the Republican Party have raised concerns over Fine’s campaign. Fine and his allies, including President Donald Trump, have maintained he has momentum.

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — New York City Mayor Eric Adams asked a federal judge on Monday to drop criminal corruption charges before a political deadline this week — trying to speed up a decision by the judge in the case.

The mayor wants the case dropped before petitions to get on the June primary ballot are due on April 3, according to his lawyer.

“Now, with the petition-filing deadline just days away, we respectfully urge the Court to issue its decision as soon as possible,” the mayor’s attorney, Alex Spiro, said in a letter to Judge Dale Ho.

The Justice Department has asked the judge to dismiss the charges without prejudice to free Adams to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. Without prejudice means the charges could resurface.

Ho accepted a legal brief urging him to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it could not be revived, eliminating an incentive for the mayor to bow to administration demands.

Adams pleaded not guilty in federal court last September to charges related to an alleged conspiracy with Turkish nationals that landed him lavish gifts in exchange for beneficial treatment.

Trump’s Justice Department asked in February to dismiss the charges, a move that caused several prosecutors to step down in protest, including the Trump-appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Danielle Sassoon, who alleged a quid pro quo.

“It is a breathtaking and dangerous precedent to reward Adams’s opportunistic and shifting commitments on immigration and other policy matters with dismissal of a criminal indictment,” Sassoon wrote at the time. “Nor will a court likely find that such an improper exchange is consistent with the public interest.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said on Sunday that if information had been leaked from top Trump national security officials’ Signal chat discussing plans to bomb the Houthis in Yemen, American lives could have been lost.

“I was, yesterday, down in Hampton Roads. I did two big town halls, Virginia Beach and Chesapeake. There are people in the town hall who are either friends or relatives of folks who are on the [aircraft carrier USS Harry S.] Truman. Those folks were saying if their friends or loved ones were flying those jets and that information had been released and the Houthis were able to change their defensive posture, we could have lost American lives,” Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in an interview with co-anchor Martha Raddatz on ABC News’ “This Week.”

On Monday, a journalist revealed that national security adviser Mike Waltz had inadvertently included him in the chat with top Trump officials discussing plans for the Yemen attack. The Trump administration has pushed back against claims that the information included in the chat was classified information.

Warner said, “There is no question, regardless of agency, that this was classified … and those folks who are obfuscating and giving them the benefit of the doubt, I think they’re lying about they should know this is classified.”

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.