Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Federal judges have been blunt in their rulings from the bench as the Trump administration has been hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its policies, layoffs and firings and other orders.

While many of the cases are still working their way through the system, several federal judges have been swift in issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, questioning the legality and constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s actions.

The president and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been at the center of some of the suits, have dismissed many of the orders in interviews and on social media. Musk has called for the impeachment of multiple judges, and Trump has also called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Boasberg has called on the administration to stop deporting Venezuelans as part of Trump’s executive order that invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little to no due process, as a lawsuit plays out.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on behalf of five Venezuelans contending the deportees were not criminals. The judge argued that the accused deportees could face real harm and granted the TRO.

Several of the judges have faced increased harassment and threats, according to the U.S. Marshals Service and sources with knowledge of the situation.

Here are some of the major rulings issued by judges against the administration.

March 21

Boasberg said during a court hearing over the AEA deportations of Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadorian prison that the administration’s use of the law was “incredibly troublesome and problematic.”

“I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has been used … in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was,” Boasberg said.

The judge noted that the Trump administration’s arguments about the extent of the president’s power are “awfully frightening” and a “long way from” the intent of the law.

The Trump administration argued that members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and the gang’s national security risk warranted the use of the 18th century act.

Boasberg vowed to hold the Trump administration accountable, if necessary, if it violated his court order from March 15.

“The government’s not being terribly cooperative at this point, but I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my word and who ordered this and what’s the consequence,” he said.

Boasberg also grilled Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over his compliance with the court order to turn back the flights already in the air and questioned how the deportation flights were put together.

“Why is this proclamation essentially signed in the dark on Friday night, early Saturday morning, when people [were] rushed on the plane?” Boasberg asked. “To me, the only reason to do that is if you know the problem and you want to get them out of the country before a suit is filed.”

“I don’t have knowledge of those operational details,” Ensign said.

Boasberg also raised concerns that the rapid nature of the deportations prevented the men from being able to challenge the allegations that they belonged to Tren de Aragua.

“[What] they’re simply saying is don’t remove me, particularly to a country that’s going to torture me,” Boasberg said.

An attorney for the ACLU argued that those targeted by the AEA should be able to contest whether they fall within the act.

“Otherwise, anybody could be taken off the street and removed,” said Lee Gelernt, the attorney for the ACLU. “This is a very dangerous road we’re going down.”

As Ensign appeared to undermine arguments made earlier in the week about the timing of the order and struggled to answer Boasberg’s questions, the judge suggested the Department of Justice might be risking its reputation and credibility.

“I often tell my clerks before they go out into the world to practice law, the most valuable treasure they possess is their reputation and their credibility,” Boasberg said. “I just ask you make sure your team [understands] that lesson.”

Boasberg decided on March 24 that the men who were deported were entitled to due process in court.

“Federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such. Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.

Later that evening, the Trump administration invoked the “state secrets privilege” in a court filing to attempt to stop the federal judge from learning more information about the flights.

“Removal flight plans-including locations from which flights depart, the planes utilized, the paths they travel, where they land, and how long they take to accomplish any of those things–reflect critical means and methods of law enforcement operations,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in the filing.

March 20

U.S. District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander slammed DOGE in a 137-page ruling that blocked the group’s unlimited access to Social Security information.

“The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack,” she wrote.

“The government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task,” Hollander added. “Instead, the government simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.”

The White House has not commented on the case as of March 25.

March 18

In a 79-page decision, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes blocked the Trump administration from enacting the policy that would have banned transgender soldiers from serving in the military.

Reyes said the policy continued an unfortunate history of the armed services excluding marginalized people from the “privilege of serving.”

“The President has the power — indeed the obligation — to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized persons the privilege of serving,” Reyes wrote.

“[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order,” she added.

“First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve,” she said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has slammed the judge on X and vowed to appeal.

Lawyers for the administration argued in court papers that the court “has broadly construed the scope of the DoD Policy to encompass all trans-identifying servicemembers or applicants” and claimed the Department of Defense’s new guidance “underscores Defendants’ consistent position that the DoD Policy is concerned with the military readiness, deployability, and costs associated with a medical condition — one that every prior Administration has, to some degree, kept out of the military.”

March 13

U.S. District Judge William Alsup scolded a DOJ attorney during a hearing for a lawsuit against the mass firing of federal workers.

Alsup slammed the attorney for refusing to make acting Office of Personnel Management Director Charles Ezell available for cross-examination and withdrawing his sworn declaration, which Alsup called a “sham.”

“The government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge’s ability to get at the truth of what happened here and then set forth sham declarations,” Alsup said. “That’s not the way it works in the U.S. District Court.”

“You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You’re afraid to do so because you know cross-examination would reveal the truth. This is the U.S. District Court,” Alsup said. “I tend to doubt that you’re telling me the truth.”

Alsup bashed the government for submitting a declaration from Ezell he believed to be false but then withdrawing it and making Ezell unavailable for testimony.

“You withdrew his declaration rather than do that. Come on, that’s a sham. It upsets me,” Alsup said. “I want you to know that I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how that we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get to add to the truth. You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”

Alsup later ruled that thousands of federal workers needed to be rehired.

The judge determined the Trump administration attempted to circumvent the procedures in place for issuing reductions in force by asserting that the employees were terminated for performance reasons without providing evidence.

“I just want to say it is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said. “That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements.”

If the Trump administration wants to reduce the size of the federal government, it needs to follow the process established in federal law, he said.

“The words that I give you today should not be taken as some kind of wild and crazy judge in San Francisco has said that the administration cannot engage in a reduction in force,” he said.

His ruling is being appealed by the administration, which asked the Supreme Court on March 24 for an emergency stay.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued in her filing that the labor unions and nonprofit groups that challenged the mass firings lack standing, saying they have “hijacked the employment relationship between the federal government and its workforce.”

“This Court should not allow a single district court to erase Congress’s handiwork and seize control over reviewing federal personnel decisions — much less do so by vastly exceeding the limits on the scope of its equitable authority and ordering reinstatements en masse,” she wrote.

Jan. 23

Just days into Trump’s second presidency, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship and expressed shock in the order from the president.

“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” the judge told the DOJ’s attorney during the hearing. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”

The Trump administration has appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Harris, the acting solicitor general, argued in a filing to the Supreme Court that the nationwide injunctions “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers” and “compromise the Executive Branch’s ability to carry out its functions.”

“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” she wrote.

ABC News’ Emily Chang and Laura Romero contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Officials with the White House’s National Security Council say they “are reviewing” how a journalist could have been “inadvertently” added to an 18-member group chat that included several of the nation’s top military officials.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, wrote in a piece published Monday that he was added to a group chat in the commercially available Signal app in which officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and national security adviser Mike Waltz, were discussing impeding strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. Goldberg said he was apparently added to the chat by Waltz.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday appeared to remain confident in Waltz, saying “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and is a good man,” according to NBC News.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the review on Tuesday, but said that that “no ‘war plans’ were discussed.” She added that no classified material was sent to Signal group chat.

“The White House Counsel’s Office has provided guidance on a number of different platforms for President Trump’s top officials to communicate as safely and efficiently as possible,” she said.

“At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” NSC spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement, which was sent to ABC News after first being published by The Atlantic.

The scope of the review, including whether it would attempt to determine why high-level discussions about military planning were taking place outside of official channels, was not immediately clear from Hughes’ statement.

Democrats in Congress voiced their concern, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling for an investigation, saying in a statement that the use of a non-classified text app “is completely outrageous and shocks the conscience.”

“If House Republicans are truly serious about keeping America safe, and not simply being sycophants and enablers, they must join Democrats in a swift, serious and substantive investigation into this unacceptable and irresponsible national security breach,” Jeffries said.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Jeffries’ statement in a floor statement in the Senate on Monday.

“Mr. President, this is one of the most stunning breaches of military intelligence I have read about in a very, very long time,” Schumer said.

The group chat included Vice President JD Vance, according to Goldberg’s reporting, and that it was spun up prior to a U.S. military operation that Trump ordered against the militant Houthis, whom the U.S. says are backed by Iran.

Goldberg told ABC News on Monday he initially thought it might have been a “spoof” or “hoax,” but that “it became sort of overwhelmingly clear to me that this was a real group” once the attack occurred.

Trump, when first asked about the report on Monday, said at the time he didn’t “know anything about it.”

When asked about the story on Monday, Hegseth told reporters that he had “heard how it was characterized.”

He added, “Nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”

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

ABC News’ Fritz Farrow, Luis Martinez, Lauren Peller, Lalee Ibssa, Isabella Murray and Meredith Deliso contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he is confident in his national security adviser, Mike Waltz — a day after a report detailed how he inadvertently added a journalist to a Signal group chat discussing Yemen war plans.

Trump told NBC News on Tuesday that Waltz “has learned a lesson and is a good man.”

The president brushed off concerns about the group chat on the messaging app, which reportedly included operational details about war plans in Yemen — and mistakenly included The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, according to a report from Goldberg published Monday.

Trump told NBC News that Goldberg’s presence in the chat had “no impact at all” and called the whole ordeal “the only glitch” his administration has faced since Inauguration Day.

Goldberg said he received a Signal invitation from Waltz, who was a member of the group chat. Goldberg said the group chat also appeared to include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others.

White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes told ABC News on Monday that the group chat “appears to be authentic.”

Trump tapped Waltz, a former Florida congressman, to be his national security adviser in November, calling him “a nationally recognized leader in national security” and an “expert on the threats posed by China, Russia, Iran, and global terrorism.”

Waltz is a China hawk and was the first Green Beret elected to Congress. During the presidential campaign, Waltz proved to be a key surrogate for Trump, criticizing the Biden-Harris foreign policy record.

Elected to the House in 2018, Waltz sat on the Intelligence, Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees. He also serves on the House China Task Force with 13 other Republicans.

Before running for elected office, Waltz served in various national security policy roles in the George W. Bush administration in the Pentagon and White House. He retired as a colonel after serving 27 years in the Army and the National Guard.

ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Benjamin Siegel, Katherine Faulders and John Santucci contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Steve Witkoff, President Donald Trump’s special envoy and lead negotiator tasked with ending the war in Ukraine, has attracted criticism in Europe and Ukraine after an interview where he appeared to back a number of well-known Kremlin talking points on the conflict.

The comments, in which Witkoff seemed to accept the results of sham referenda Russia has previously held in Ukraine to justify its seizure of land there — including Crimea, will likely feed fears among European allies that the Trump administration is leaning too far toward the Kremlin’s vision.

In the interview for “The Tucker Carlson Show,” posted online on Friday, Witkoff talked about his efforts to negotiate with President Vladimir Putin, speaking warmly of the Russian leader. Witkoff said he believed the heart of the conflict was Russia’s desire to control four regions of Ukraine it partially occupied and has claimed annexed since 2022: Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

Talking about Putin’s claims to the regions in eastern and southern Ukraine, Witkoff suggested Russia had a right to them because they were majority Russian-speaking and repeated a false Kremlin claim that fair referenda there showed residents wanted to be absorbed by Russia.

“They are Russian-speaking, and there have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” Witkoff told Carlson.

However, Witkoff did not acknowledge that the supposed referenda held in those territories — whether in 2014 in the case of Crimea or 2022 in the other regions — were widely dismissed by Western powers, human rights organizations and international bodies as fraudulent and illegitimate.

Russia conducted referenda in the areas it occupied in Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions in the fall of 2022, several months after seizing them with its full-scale invasion launched in February that year. Putin used the referenda to justify Russia’s subsequent annexation of the regions. Russia also held a similar referendum in Crimea in 2014 following its occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula.

The referenda were staged after Russia’s invasion had already forced hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians to flee, and while Russian security forces were abducting and torturing anyone expressing opposition to its takeover. In some areas, Russian soldiers were filmed accompanying vote collectors as they went from house to house.

No legitimate independent international observers monitored the referenda and they were widely dismissed as shams, including by the United States. The United Nations General Assembly rejected the referenda as illegal and violating the U.N. Charter.

In September 2022, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S. “does not, and will never, recognize any of the Kremlin’s claims to sovereignty over parts of Ukraine that it’s seized by force and now purports to incorporate into Russia.”

Witkoff made the remarks on the Russian referenda a day before a new round of talks between the U.S. and Russia in Saudi Arabia aimed at trying to make progress toward ending the war. His portrayal of the referenda as legitimate triggered some fierce criticism in Europe.

“Witkoff’s repeating of Kremlin lies about ‘russian-speakers’ [sic] wanting to ‘join Russia’ is truly chilling,” Lithuania’s former foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, wrote on X. “Hearing Americans talk like this should be an electric shock for Europe, not a wakeup call.”

Some Ukrainian members of parliament also condemned Witkoff’s comments.

Oleksandr Merezhko, head of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that the statements were “shocking.”

“I don’t understand what this is about — ignorance, naivety, unprofessionalism?” said Merezhko, who suggested Witkoff should be removed from his negotiating role. “Because we are talking about a representative of the president, who should professionally understand this issue and know some basic things. And he doesn’t know this. He is relaying Russian propaganda.”

In the interview with Carlson, Witkoff appeared to struggle to remember the names of the Ukrainian regions. “Donbas, Crimea. You know the names,” he told the conservative media personality, who prompted him to say “Lugansk” — the Russian transliteration for Luhansk. “Lugansk, and there’s two others,” Witkoff replied.

Although Putin declared he had annexed the four regions, his troops still do not fully control most of the area. Much of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, including their regional capitals, remain unoccupied.

A wealthy real estate developer, Witkoff has emerged as the lead negotiator for Trump’s effort to end the war, twice now traveling to Moscow, where he has said he spent several hours talking with Putin.

In his interview on Carlson, Witkoff was effusive in his praise for Putin, calling him a “very smart guy” and noting Putin told him he had prayed for Trump after the assassination attempt against him during last year’s presidential campaign. Witkoff added that Putin had given him a portrait of Trump which he says the Russian leader had commissioned from a famous Russian artist.

“This is the kind of connection that we’ve been able to reestablish through a simple word called communication, which many people would say I shouldn’t have had because Putin is a bad guy. I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy,” Witkoff said.

Witkoff also told Carlson he believed Russia “does not need to absorb Ukraine,” saying, “They’ve gotten what they want. So why do they need more?” He also said he “100%” believes Russia does not want to invade Europe, saying he took Putin “at his word” on that.

Witkoff also repeated an unsupported claim made by Putin that Russian forces have surrounded a significant number of Ukrainian troops in Russia’s Kursk region. Although Ukraine was forced to retreat from Kursk earlier this month, no evidence has emerged to suggest many Ukrainian soldiers are encircled, and both independent researchers and Ukrainian officials have said it is false.

“Witkoff uncritically amplified a number of Russian demands, claims and justifications,” the Washington D.C.-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote.

Witkoff’s comments could feed deep unease in Europe that the Trump administration, which is moving fast to restore relations with Russia, is more aligned with the Kremlin than NATO allies over the war in Ukraine. European officials and observers have also warned the administration, in its hurry to reach a deal, is vulnerable to manipulation by Putin.

The White House has argued its reengagement with Russia brings peace closer, but critics point out that the Kremlin has, so far, yet to make any significant concessions. Trump has claimed he isn’t “aligned” with Putin. “I’m not aligned with Putin. I’m not aligned with anybody. I’m aligned with the United States of America, and for the good of the world,” Trump said last month.

Vice President JD Vance on Monday defended Witkoff, writing on X he was doing an “incredible job.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Multiple Trump administration officials who allegedly held classified discussions on an open messaging platform have in the past condemned the mishandling of classified records by others, including former President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

National security adviser Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have called for “consequences” for individuals who improperly shared classified materials, regardless of their intention. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth lambasted Biden for “flippantly” mishandling classified documents and suggested that if he had behaved similarly, he would have expected to be “court-martialed.”

The condemnatory language these senior administration officials have used about prior breaches of protocol in handling sensitive materials adds a layer of irony to what experts are calling an unconscionable misuse of classified information.

John Cohen, a former national security official in both Republican and Democratic administrations, said, “from a security perspective, there is no scenario that justifies this type of information being discussed over a non-government controlled communication platform.”

“Communicating sensitive, operational information in this manner increases the likelihood of inappropriate disclosure which places military personnel at risk,” said Cohen, who is also an ABC News contributor. “There will also be questions about whether doing so violated statutes governing the safeguarding and retention of government information.”

More recently, many of these senior administration officials had much to say about the yearlong investigation into Biden’s handling of classified materials. The investigation did not result in any charges.

In January 2023, Hegseth, than a “Fox & Friends Weekend” co-host, appeared on Fox News and called Biden’s actions “nefarious, sloppy and dumb.”

“If the top man in the job was handling classified documents this flippantly for that long, why was that the case? Was it really that he didn’t know? When you take something out of the SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility] if you’re a senator, you know exactly what you’re doing. You had to sneak it out,” he said. The report included photos of boxes, including one damaged one that contained classified materials, including documents about Afghanistan that was found in the garage of Biden’s home in Delaware “near a collapsed dog crate, a dog bed, a Zappos box, an empty bucket, a broken lamp wrapped with duct tape, potting soil, and synthetic firewood.”

In January 2023, Rubio, also appeared on Fox News, where he said, “Any time documents have been removed from their proper setting — it’s a problem, I don’t care who did it.”

During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. The way many officials reacted has come back to haunt them.

In 2016, Hegseth told Fox News, “If it was anyone other than Hillary Clinton, they would be in jail right now… because the assumption is in the intelligence community, if you are using unclassified means, there is likelihood that foreign governments are targeting those accounts.”

Reacting to a Politico article on Clinton, Waltz, who apparently added Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, to the Signal chat, criticized the Department of Justice for its handling of the situation.

“Biden’s sitting National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan sent Top Secret messages to Hillary Clinton’s private account. And what did DOJ do about it? Not a damn thing,” Waltz said.

In January 2016, Rubio also appeared on Fox News, demanding that Clinton to be held accountable.

“Nobody is above the law … people are going to be accountable if they broke the laws of this country,” he said.

In August 2022 Stephen Miller, now Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy who was also in the Signal chat group, also posted his thoughts on X reacting to the Clinton email scandal.

“One point that doesn’t get made enough about Hillary’s unsecure server illegally used to conduct state business (obviously created to hide the Clintons’ corrupt pay-for-play): foreign adversaries could easily hack classified ops & intel in real time from other sides of the globe,” he said.

Only two weeks ago, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced a crackdown on leaks within the intelligence community.

“Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such,” she said in a press release.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A 21-year-old junior at Columbia University said she was the person whom federal agents were after when they showed up at a residence on West 113 Street earlier this month — and she is now suing President Donald Trump.

Federal immigration agents showed up at Yunseo Chung’s apartment near the Columbia University campus on March 13, law enforcement sources told ABC News.

However, law enforcement officials told ABC News at the time that the woman they were seeking was not there when the agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations arrived.

Chung, who has lived in the United States since she moved from South Korea at age 7 and had become a legal permanent resident, participated in demonstrations in defense of Palestinians in Gaza and in her lawsuit accused Trump and other officials of “attempting to use immigration enforcement as a bludgeon to suppress speech that they dislike” including Chung’s.

Because Chung participated in a March 5 sit-in inside of an academic building at Barnard College, in addition to demonstrating outside, the federal agents searched her dorm, showed up at her parents’ house and said her status as a legal permanent resident had been revoked, according to her lawsuit.

“The prospect of imminent detention, to be followed by deportation proceedings, has chilled her speech. Ms. Chung is now concerned about speaking up about the ongoing ordeal of Palestinians in Gaza as well as what is happening on her own campus: the targeting of her fellow students by the federal government, the arbitrary disciplinary process she and others are undergoing, and the failure of the university to protect noncitizen students,” the lawsuit said.

“If Ms. Chung is detained and deported, she will be indefinitely separated from her family and community,” the filing continued. “Ms. Chung’s parents reside in the continental United States, and her sister is set to start college in the United States in the fall.”

Trump’s administration argued that Chung’s presence poses risks to foreign policy and to halting the spread of antisemitism — the same rationale the administration invoked for the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who was escorted from Columbia on March 8.

According to the sources, the actions against Chung are part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on individuals it has described as espousing the views of Hamas and threatening the safety of Jewish students.

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Top Congressional Democrats are expressing outrage after members of President Donald Trump’s administration inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to an unsecured message thread discussing highly sensitive war plans on Monday.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who apparently added Goldberg to the Signal chat, was joined on the thread by those identified by Goldberg as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — among others.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded forcefully on the chamber floor on Monday, calling upon Leader John Thune and Senate Republicans to work with Democrats in calling a “full investigation” into why officials had coordinated military operations over Signal, rather than using taxpayer-funded secure communications channels.

“Mr. President, this is one of the most stunning breaches of military intelligence I have read about in a very, very long time,” Schumer said.

“What we have here are senior U.S. leaders, including the Vice President and Secretary of Defense, having classified discussions of military action over an unsecure app,” Schumer continued. “It’s bad enough that a private citizen was added to this chain, but it’s far worse that sensitive military information was exchanged on an unauthorized application, especially when that sensitive military information was so so important.”

“This kind of carelessness is how people get killed. It’s how our enemies can take advantage of us. It’s how our national security falls into danger,” he added.

The Democratic leader said that the investigation he’s called for should look into how this “debacle” happened, the damage it created, and how they could avoid it in the future.

“Every single Senator– Republican and Democrat and Independent, must demand accountability. If a government employee shared sensitive military plans like this, they’d be investigated and face very harsh consequences,” Schumer said.

He also suggested that his Republican colleagues should be as “outraged” by this incident as they were over the email controversy involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the days before the 2016 election, which she lost to Trump.

“If you were up in arms over unsecure emails years ago, you should certainly be outraged by this amateurish behavior,” Schumer said.

Schumer ended his brief remarks by claiming that Democrats has anticipated an event like this one when they opposed Hegseth’s nomination.

“When Pete Hegseth came before the Senate as a nominee, Democrats warned that something like this might happen. These people are clearly not up for the job. we warned confirming them was dangerous, that they behaved recklessly. Unfortunately, we were right. Now, we must have accountability in both parties. The Senate should investigate how this blunder was even possible,” Schumer said.

Clinton also reacted. “You have got to be kidding me,” she posted on X on Monday.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also advocated for a congressional investigation and directly called out Hegseth.

“There should absolutely be a congressional investigation so that we can understand what happened. Why did it happen, and how do we prevent this type of national security breach from ever happening again,” Jeffries said at a press conference on Monday.

Jeffries, who got fired up when asked about the incident, called the situation “reckless, irresponsible and dangerous” and suggested that those involved were “jeopardizing America’s national security” — before sharply criticizing Hegseth.

“This whole Trump administration is filled with lackeys and incompetent cronies. I’m not talking about any particular individual, though,” he said. “I will note that the secretary of Defense who was on that chain has got to be the most unqualified person ever to lead the Pentagon in American history. Think about that.”

Speaker Mike Johnson downplayed the flurry of national security concerns on Monday afternoon.

“Look, I’m not going to characterize what happened. I think the administration has acknowledged it was a mistake, and they’ll tighten up and make sure it doesn’t happen again. I don’t know what else you can say about,” he told reporters at the Capitol, following a White House event where he appeared alongside Trump and the governor of Louisiana.

Johnson added that he doesn’t believe Waltz or Hegseth should be disciplined for the incident.

In addition to his on-camera remarks, Jeffries released a statement on the national security breach, calling it “completely outrageous.”

“It is yet another unprecedented example that our nation is increasingly more dangerous because of the elevation of reckless and mediocre individuals, including the Secretary of Defense,” Jeffries said.

He reiterated his call for a Congressional investigation into the matter — even though Democrats have little power to do so since they are in the minority.

“If House Republicans are truly serious about keeping America safe, and not simply being sycophants and enablers, they must join Democrats in a swift, serious and substantive investigation into this unacceptable and irresponsible national security breach,” he concluded.

Speaking to reporters in Honolulu on Monday, during a layover for a trip to Asia, Hegseth disputed Goldberg’s description of the chat, saying “nobody was texting war plans.”

Trump said he “doesn’t know anything about it” when first asked about the reports on Monday afternoon. The Pentagon referred questions to the National Security Council and the White House.

When asked by ABC News on Monday, the White House said that the Signal chat “appears to be authentic.” Additionally, White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes shared with ABC News the statement he provided to The Atlantic confirming the veracity of a Signal group chat.

Both the top Republican and top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee said Monday that they expect to receive classified briefings aimed at addressing the incident.

ABC News’ Fritz Farrow, Jay O’Brien, Lauren Peller and T. Michelle Murphy contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(BETHLEHEM, PA) — At a “People’s Town Hall” on Thursday held by the Democratic National Committee, in a church located in a Pennsylvania district that Democrats lost to Republicans in 2024, party leaders fired up the crowd when slamming the White House and congressional Republicans over Medicaid, federal government cuts, and other issues.

Town halls are among the strategies that Democrats are using to try to get their base fired up against the Trump White House — but attendees there and at other events say they’re still looking for the Democratic Party to take on Republicans more directly.

DNC chair Ken Martin, speaking at the Bethlehem event, called President Donald Trump and key adviser Elon Musk “cowards,” riling up the crowd by framing the work of the duo in stark terms.

“There’s nothing moral about what these cowards are doing, and there’s nothing moral about what we saw today in Washington, D.C., as Donald Musk — Donald Trump and his president, President Musk, decided to do, signing that executive order eliminating the Department of Education, which is going to have a disproportionate impact on the disabled community and so many children throughout this country,” Martin told the crowd, amidst boos towards Trump and Musk.

And Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, who received among the loudest applause of any of the panelists, took a starker tone: “Don’t let anybody tell you that we’re in a constitutional crisis,” Raskin said.

“Because that is too passive-sounding. That’s too ambiguous. This is an attack on the Constitution of the United States, and we’re going to defend the Constitution of the United States!”

Republicans face fierce pushback at in-person events

The Democratic Party claims that it’s holding these town halls as a way to hear directly from voters.

“The purpose of these town halls is not for us to spread our message, but us to hear from people throughout this country right now who are facing deep and serious impacts to their own lives, to their neighborhoods and communities, because of what this administration is doing,” Martin told ABC News on Thursday after the town hall.

But Martin and others, explicitly, are also emphasizing the idea that Democrats are showing up and hosting these events while Republicans are pulling back from hosting in-person events or facing fierce pushback from constituents when they do. Some of the loudest applause in the church on Thursday came when speakers criticized the district’s representative, Ryan Mackenzie — who in 2024 narrowly flipped the seat held by Democrat Susan Wild.

Arnaud Armstrong, a spokesman for Mackenzie, told ABC News in a statement on Wednesday that Mackenzie has answered questions at in-person events and would run a telephone town hall on Thursday night to allow for more people to speak with the congressman, including people with disabilities or seniors who might struggle to make it to an in-person event.

During that telephone town hall, Mackenzie said, “This is the best way that I have found to reach literally thousands of people at once and be able to have this kind of conversation.”

Disillusioned Democrats

The town halls come as Democratic voters show disillusion with their party.

A recent CNN/SSRS poll taken in early March found that 52% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents felt that the leadership of the Democrats is taking the party in the wrong direction, and that 57% felt that the party should mainly work to “stop the Republican agenda.”

While waiting in line outside to enter the town hall, some residents of Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley region told ABC News that President Donald Trump’s actions struck close to home or worried them — but that they felt disillusioned with the broader Democratic response so far.

‘Very mixed feelings’ on Democrats’ response to Trump

Carole Ostfeld, a retired teacher from Allentown, Pennsylvania, came bearing a sign that said “Hands off Medicaid.” She and her husband David told ABC News that they came out to the town hall in order to protest Trump and Musk, including because of Trump’s actions with the Department of Education.

But asked how they feel about the Democratic response to the Trump administration, Carole Ostfeld said, “I’ve got very mixed feelings –“

Her husband added, “It needs to be more.”

Asked if Democrats’ messaging is resonating with them, Carole Ostfeld said it is — but, “as they say, you can’t fight city hall,” as Republicans are in power.

Another attendee, Ann Frechette of Easton, Pennsylvania, said the news about Trump signing an order to dismantle the Department of Education, which came that day, struck close to home. “I have a son in college who benefits from a Pell Grant,” she told ABC News. “And I’m afraid that that Pell Grant will disappear, that monies like that will disappear. He’s on Medicaid, I think he may lose his health insurance. There’s so many things.”

But the broader Democratic response was disillusioning her as well. While she praised some individual lawmakers, including Raskin, she added, “I think the Democrats in general, they don’t — I’m a Democrat, but my party doesn’t seem to get the message that was delivered last November. I would like people to stand up to what is being done.”

Firing up supporters

That said, the town hall itself was by many measures a success — or at least, the Democratic speakers were able to fire up their supporters.

All of the pews were filled, with some attendees standing on the back or the sides of the sanctuary; and the crowd gave thunderous standing ovations to the speakers multiple times – particularly when, for instance, Raskin spoke about taking on Trump or former Democratic Rep. Susan Wild criticized the incumbent representative.

People paid attention as audience members shared their own stories and questions, and then applauded them warmly, cheering on their peers in a clear show of support.

During a question and answer portion of the town hall, attendees raised concerns about the future of Medicaid, educational programs, and other issues.

Another attendee, Terri Neifert, told the crowd that she has lived in Bethlehem almost her entire life and became disabled after a fall at a grocery store, which changed the trajectory of her life. She said she managed to get her degree and to support her family through Medicare, food banks, and Social Security disability.

“If they cut Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps… I would lose everything,” Neifert told the crowd.

Neifert received a round of applause from the audience, and other attendees went up to her after the event wrapped to thank her for sharing her story.

Asked by ABC News after the town hall how she was feeling by then about the Democrats’ response to the Trump administration, Neifert — similar to other attendees — focused on the road ahead.

“It looks like it’s gonna be a fight, and an uphill battle… more public outcry, more marches, and Congress needs to pull up their big boy pants and start doing their job,” Neifert said.

Going on the road

Some Democrats or Democratic-aligned allies are taking a different tack than the town halls — and going on the road.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent who caucuses with Democrats, has been on the road for weeks with what he calls the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, making stops for rallies in both right- and left-leaning districts. The Democratic Party has shown support for his efforts, reposting social media posts from Sanders about the tour.

Out there on Sanders’ tour, some attendees said they’re disillusioned with the party’s response to Trump.

“They gotta be a little tougher,” one rally attendee told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl at the Denver event. Another was blunter: “Quit being a bunch of doormats.”

But — in a sign that the rallies may be a successful tactic for Democrats to reach their base — they’re attracting thousands of people. Sander’s Denver appearance, alongside Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., brought in more than 30,000 attendees.

Sanders said it was the largest rally he’s ever hosted — bigger than the rallies on his two presidential runs.

Sanders himself has his own criticism for the Democratic Party, telling Karl in an interview on ABC News’ “This Week” that the Democrats should have done more for working people when they had control of the Senate.

“And since then, do I think the Democrats have been effective in rallying the American people, in stopping Trump’s movement toward oligarchy and authoritarianism? No, I don’t,” Sanders told Karl.

Donna Brazile, a former DNC chair and an ABC News contributor, said on “This Week” after Sanders’ interview, said, “Bernie Sanders is filling a void, a major void left after, of course, the defeat of Kamala Harris last year by Donald Trump. This void has to be filled because there’s so much anger, anger not just in red districts, but also in blue districts.”

That void is one that Democrats hope to fill with these events.

Martin, asked by ABC News after the Bethlehem town hall if he thought the messages of the Democrats is going to resonate in Republican districts or with Democrats themselves, said that wasn’t really the point.

“It’s really not about the message resonating,” Martin said. “What this is about is listening to people. Hearing the concerns of Americans right now throughout this country, who deserve to be heard, right?”

Martin added later: “We’re going to fill a void for them, and we’re going to talk to more people throughout this country.”

ABC News’ Hannah Demissie, Isabella Murray, Jonathan Karl, Meghan Mistry and Quinn Scanlan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump’s battle with the judiciary escalates, House Republicans are eyeing ways to rein in judges from blocking parts of his agenda.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan said on Monday his panel will hold hearings next week on U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is at the center of the administration’s legal fight over deportation flights and the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump accused Boasberg — an Obama appointee who was first named to a lower Washington, D.C., court by President George W. Bush — of bias and called for his impeachment after he blocked the administration from using a centuries-old law to deport more than 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador.

Trump and his Republican allies, including Jordan, have also taken issue with the use of injunctions and temporary restraining orders to halt Trump policies nationwide as the courts weigh the merits of each case.

“It really starts to look like Judge Boasberg is operating purely political against the president, and that’s what we want to have hearings on — this broad issue and some of what Judge Boasberg is doing,” Jordan said on Fox News.

Jordan said he thought Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will do the same.

In addition to hearings, Jordan said he expects House Republican leadership to move forward with a bill from California Rep. Darrell Issa aimed at limiting some judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.

Issa’s bill — entitled the “No Rogue Rulings Act” — would put restrictions on federal judges issuing orders providing injunctive relief that impacts the entire country outside their districts.

Jordan called it a “good piece of legislation.” The bill was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee before lawmakers broke for recess earlier this month.

Speaker Mike Johnson appears to be warming up to the idea of potentially impeaching judges who rule against Trump, saying “everything is on the table.”

“Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem. Activist judges are a serious threat to our system,” Johnson said Monday afternoon.

Johnson confirmed that the GOP-led House will hold hearings to “highlight the abuses” of federal judges — saying lawmakers “may wind up questioning some of these judges themselves to have them defend their actions.”

“We’ll see about limiting the scope of federal injunctions,” he added. “One judge should not be able to suspend and uphold everything that a president does on their issues. I think the American people agree with that.”

Over the weekend, Johnson appeared to endorse the measure, writing on X that the House is “working overtime to limit the abuses of activist federal judges.”

“Speaker Johnson’s indicated he’d like to get this bill to the floor next week and move it through the process,” Jordan told Fox News. “So, we think there’s some things we can do legislatively, and then, frankly, there’s the broader issue of all these judges’ injunctions and then decisions like Judge Boasberg … what he’s trying to do, and how that case is working.”

Meanwhile, the push from Trump, Elon Musk and several Republican hardliners to impeach Boasberg and other judges faces steeper obstacles.

Johnson has not said where he stands on pursuing impeachment, but given the slim House majority, it would be extremely difficult to get the House Republican conference together to vote to impeach a judge.

If the House were to successfully impeach a judge, the Senate would be compelled to act in some way, but the odds of a Senate conviction are almost zero, as it would require support from at least 14 Democrats.

As the rhetoric ramps up between the Trump administration and the courts, the U.S. Marshals Service is warning federal judges of an increase in threats, ABC News reported. Chief Justice John Roberts last week issued a rare public statement amid Trump’s attacks on Boasberg, saying impeachment was not “an appropriate response” to legal disagreements and that the correct path forward was the appeals process.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Members of the Trump administration coordinated highly sensitive Yemen war plans on an unsecure group chat, which accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, he wrote in a report for the publication on Monday.

White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes shared with ABC News the statement he provided The Atlantic confirming the veracity of a Signal group chat, which Goldberg said included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“At this time, the message thread that was reported appears to be authentic, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to our servicemembers or our national security,” Hughes said in the statement.

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.