Politics

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday called on the Senate to keep the United States’ tariffs on Canada in place — hours before Democrats in the upper chamber could potentially force a vote aimed at blocking the president from imposing tariffs on the ally country.

Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner are leading the effort to end the international emergency — which Kaine has called a “made up emergency” — that Trump has declared against Canada, thereby shunting his administration’s authority to unilaterally impose tariffs. Trump has derived his authority to impose tariffs by declaring a national emergency caused by the flow of fentanyl and undocumented migration from Canada, Mexico and China. But Democrats are now challenging that emergency status.

“President Trump is saying that there is an emergency with Canada. Canada is a friend not an adversary. Canada is a sovereign nation not a 51st state,” Kaine said on Tuesday.

It comes just one day before Trump’s tariffs on Canada are expected to go into effect as part of “Liberation Day” — the president’s plans to roll out sweeping tariffs that he has said will impact “all countries.”

On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney vowed to respond with retaliatory tariffs if Trump slaps additional levies on Canadian goods as part of Wednesday’s expected tariff announcement.

Trump said in a social media post that the U.S. is “making progress to end this terrible Fentanyl Crisis” that he claims is coming from Canada, and said that “Republicans in the Senate MUST vote to keep the National Emergency in place, so we can finish the job, and end the scourge.”

During a press conference on Tuesday, Democrats argued that Trump is falsely imposing an emergency in order to give cover for the tariffs with hopes of raising revenue to pay for his tax cut plan. That’s why they say this vote is so important.

Trump criticized Kaine for his role in the effort to block tariffs.

“Don’t let the Democrats have a Victory. It would be devastating for the Republican Party and, far more importantly, for the United States,” Trump wrote.

Unlike most legislation in the Senate, this resolution will only need a simple majority of votes to pass, and it very likely may. Only a handful of Republicans would be needed to hit that threshold.

But there is nothing compelling the House, controlled by Republicans, to take up the legislation, and it’s almost certain that House Speaker Mike Johnson would stay far away from the resolution.

The Senate vote could get pushed to Wednesday as Sen. Cory Booker continues a filibuster he started at 7 p.m. Monday night. Booker is protesting against the national “crisis” he said Trump and Elon Musk created.

A number of Republicans have expressed skepticism about Canadian tariffs and now find themselves in a difficult place of having to choose whether to block Trump’s authority or cast a vote to try to forestall the tariffs.

Majority Leader John Thune said Monday that he’s unsure whether they’ll be able to defeat the resolution.

“We’ll see,” he said. “Obviously, as you know, and I’m among these, there is concerns about tariffs on Canada and, you know, what the ultimate objective is. If it’s about fentanyl and stopping the drug trade, drug war, that’s an issue obviously that there is a lot of interest. Obviously we want to give the president as much latitude as possible to deal with specific problems like that, but as you know, I’m in a very different place when it comes to across-the-board tariffs and Canada.”

Thune said on Tuesday that he hopes “we’ll have the votes.”

“The president declared the emergency to deal with the issue of fentanyl — flow of fentanyl into this country, not only from our southern border, but also from our north. That’s what the emergency declaration is about. And what this would do is undo that,” he said. “I think the president needs to have tools at his disposal to deal with what I think are national emergencies. And certainly, you know, the tens of thousands of people that are killed in this country every year, because fentanyl represents that. So I hope we’ll have the votes.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — First lady Melania Trump honored women from around the world during an award ceremony at the State Department, calling the eight honorees’ love “a powerful catalyst” for their work to fight injustice and advocate women and girls.

The first lady said she is inspired by “the women who are driven to speak out for justice, even though their voices are trembling,” and “the women who are motivated to rise up for their community when others remain indifferent.”

“Through their efforts, they instigate progress for all of humanity,” Trump said while speaking at the ceremony for the 19th International Women of Courage Awards.

The State Department says the awards are given to women who have “demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, and the empowerment of women and girls, and more, often at great personal risk and sacrifice.”

“Throughout my life, I have harnessed the power of love as a source of strength during challenging times,” Trump said. “Love has inspired me to embrace forgiveness, nurture empathy and exhibit bravery in the face of unforeseen obstacles.”

Among the recipients was Romanian Georgiana Pascu, who has been an advocate for institutionalized children and adults with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities, working toward their deinstitutionalization over the past 25 years, according to the State Department.

“Georgiana is a watchdog who defends the dignity of Romanians whose voices cannot be heard,” Trump said. “She fearlessly enters facilities designated as care centers to rescue people with disabilities who are unwittingly held captive.”

Pascu “usually shows up unannounced and discovers the unimaginable: helpless adults and children bound, sedated, starving and, in extreme cases, dying,” she said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he “affirm[ed] the importance of protecting women and girls and promoting their well-being [as] American goals.”

“They also happen to be a strong goal of our president, President Donald Trump,” Rubio said.

He honored Amit Soussana, an Israeli woman kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

After surviving 55 days of captivity and her release, Rubio noted that Soussana “shared details of the sexual violence she endured as a hostage, which allowed medical professionals to document the atrocities that she suffered.”

Soussana said it is an “an honor I never imagined receiving and one I wish I didn’t have to accept under these circumstances,” calling the moment overdue for the Israeli hostages who remain in captivity.

“In captivity, I had no control over my body, no control over my life,” she said. “I resisted as best as I could, but it was not enough to stop what happened to me. The darkness was suffocating. Yet even in the darkness, there was one thing they could not have taken from me: the strength my mother instilled in me, the belief that we must always stand for what is right, no matter the cost.”

The awards honored eight women from as far as Papua New Guinea and Burkina Faso and included a Filipino woman who helps protect coral reefs from illegal fishing and a Sri Lankan investigative journalist whose work combats corruption, according to the State Department.

While the first lady’s appearance marked a rare public showing, she is no stranger to the International Women of Courage Awards. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noted earlier Tuesday that this was the fifth year the first lady would participate in the award ceremony.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer were also in attendance.

Rubio noted that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was not in attendance, joking that she was “probably spying somewhere right now.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) —  The House voted on Tuesday to reject a rule that would have blocked Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s bipartisan discharge petition to allow proxy voting for new lawmaker parents up to 12 weeks after giving birth.

Nine Republicans joined with Democrats to vote against the joint “rule” — a procedural maneuver to advance legislation — which said the discharge petition by Luna, a hard-line Republican, and other similar bills that would address proxy voting are out of order.

House Republican leaders had said they would take the unprecedented step to block Luna’s petition — the latest move in a weekslong internal House GOP clash.

Luna’s legislation seeks to allow new mothers and fathers in the House to vote on legislation remotely. Luna had a child in 2023 as she was serving in Congress.

Democratic Reps. Brittany Pettersen and Sara Jacobs introduced the effort with Luna and Republican Rep. Michael Lawler in January.

“I am doing this because I believe this governing body needs to change for the better and young American parents need to be heard in the halls of Congress,” Luna said last week.

Pettersen spoke in favor of Luna’s resolution on Tuesday as she held her 9-week-old son, Sam.

As Sam cooed, squealed, squeaked and cried in his mother’s arms, Pettersen — with a burp cloth slung over her shoulder — pleaded for bipartisan cooperation to “modernize Congress” and address life events for lawmakers.

“No mom or dad should be in the position that I was in and so many parents have found themselves in. It is anti-woman, it’s anti-family and we need to come together,” she said on the House floor.

Pettersen is only the 13th member of the House to have given birth while serving in Congress — and returning to Washington after her son was born prematurely meant she “faced an impossible decision.”

“We have a long ways to go to make this place accessible for young families like mine,” Pettersen said. “For all of the parents here, we know that when we have newborns, it’s when they’re the most vulnerable in their life. It’s when they need 24-7 care.”

The extraordinary move from GOP leaders to block the legislation comes after Luna received 218 signatures on her resolution — enough needed to force the House to vote on the measure. Lawmakers use discharge petitions to circumvent leadership, who determine what legislation comes to the floor.

Speaker Mike Johnson and Luna have been at odds over proxy voting for new parents. The speaker has argued the effort is unconstitutional and made his case during the closed GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning, sources told ABC News.

Johnson has argued that proxy voting is the start of a slippery slope that could lead to more and more members voting remotely. Proxy voting was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, which many Republicans were against.

“I believe it’s unconstitutional. I believe it violates more than two centuries of tradition in the institution, and I think that it opens a Pandora’s box where, ultimately, maybe no one is here, and we’re all voting remotely by AI or something. I don’t know. I don’t think that’s what Congress is supposed to be,” Johnson said at a news conference last week.

Despite some Republican support for the bill, Johnson said “as the leader of this institution and the one who’s supposed to protect it, I don’t feel like I can get on board with that.”

“This is a deliberative body. You cannot deliberate with your colleagues if you’re out somewhere else. Now, there are family circumstances that make it difficult for people to attend votes. I understand that. I’ve had them myself,” he said.

Luna said in a post on X Tuesday that she asked that the legislation just cover new moms to vote by proxy “and they still said no.”

“The argument here is no longer making sense,” Luna wrote. “They say it is unconstitutional yet they voted by proxy.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar declared that it’s time for Republicans to stop with the “pro-family” lecturing.

“Republicans should stop lecturing people on being pro-family when they’re opposing this uniformly,” he said at the party’s weekly press conference on Tuesday.

Aguilar praised Rep. Pettersen for working across the aisle with Luna as Republican leadership has fumed about the bipartisan effort.

“It’s shameful and terrible. Our members will oppose these efforts, our hope is reasonable Republicans who have worked with us on these issues will oppose effort too,” Aguilar said about the discharge petition block. “It’s clear that Speaker Johnson is doing everything he can to undermine the will of the House. The majority of the members in the House of Representatives would support this legislation.”

The vote comes a day after Luna resigned from the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus over her legislation, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

“With a heavy heart, I am resigning from the Freedom Caucus. I cannot remain part of a caucus where a select few operate outside its guidelines, misuse its name, broker backroom deals that undermine its core values and where the lines of compromise and transaction are blurred, disparage me to the press, and encourage misrepresentation of me to the American people,” she wrote in the letter.

ABC News’ Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Employees at the Department of Health and Human Services began to receive notices of mass layoffs on Tuesday, days after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that 10,000 people would lose their jobs, including employees working on tobacco use, mental health and infectious disease.

The layoffs are expected to impact 3,500 employees at the Food and Drug Administration and 2,400 employees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — nearly one-fifth of the workforce at both public health divisions, which fall under HHS.

In total, and including roughly 10,000 people who have left over the last few months through early retirement or deferred resignation programs, the overall staff at HHS will fall from 82,000 to around 62,000 — or about a fourth of its workforce.

As news of the cuts spread, employees stood in long lines outside of their offices in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Georgia, some waiting for hours as security determined whether they could be let in the building or not. In some cases, employees were turned around after being informed that they no longer had a job.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Republican leaders will take an unprecedented step Tuesday when they are expected to block Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s bipartisan discharge petition to allow proxy voting for new lawmaker parents up to 12 weeks after giving birth — the latest move in a weekslong internal House GOP clash.

Republican leaders inserted specific language into the joint “rule” — a procedural maneuver to advance legislation — which says the discharge petition by Luna, a hard-line Republican, and other similar bills that would address proxy voting are out of order.

Tuesday afternoon’s vote is on the joint rule — which also includes other unrelated legislation. Luna is expected to vote against the rule. If others join her, the House could be paralyzed from moving on legislation.

Luna’s legislation seeks to allow new mothers and fathers in the House to vote on legislation remotely. Luna had a child in 2023 as she was serving in Congress.

Democratic Reps. Brittany Pettersen and Sara Jacobs introduced the effort with Luna and Republican Rep. Michael Lawler in January.

“I am doing this because I believe this governing body needs to change for the better and young American parents need to be heard in the halls of Congress,” Luna said last week.

This extraordinary move from GOP leaders to block the legislation comes after Luna received 218 signatures on her resolution — enough needed to force the House to vote on the measure. Lawmakers use discharge petitions to circumvent leadership, who determine what legislation comes to the floor.

Speaker Mike Johnson and Luna have been at odds over proxy voting for new parents. The speaker has argued the effort is unconstitutional and made his case during the closed GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning, sources told ABC News.

Johnson has argued that proxy voting is the start of a slippery slope that could lead to more and more members voting remotely. Proxy voting was used during the COVID-19 pandemic, which many Republicans were against.

“I believe it’s unconstitutional. I believe it violates more than two centuries of tradition in the institution, and I think that it opens a Pandora’s box where, ultimately, maybe no one is here, and we’re all voting remotely by AI or something. I don’t know. I don’t think that’s what Congress is supposed to be,” Johnson said at a news conference last week.

Despite some Republican support for the bill, Johnson said “as the leader of this institution and the one who’s supposed to protect it, I don’t feel like I can get on board with that.”

“This is a deliberative body. You cannot deliberate with your colleagues if you’re out somewhere else. Now, there are family circumstances that make it difficult for people to attend votes. I understand that. I’ve had them myself,” he said.

Luna said in a post on X Tuesday that she asked that the legislation just cover new moms to vote by proxy “and they still said no.”

“The argument here is no longer making sense,” Luna wrote. “They say it is unconstitutional yet they voted by proxy.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar declared that it’s time for Republicans to stop with the “pro-family” lecturing.

“Republicans should stop lecturing people on being pro-family when they’re opposing this uniformly,” he said at the party’s weekly press conference on Tuesday.

Aguilar praised Rep. Pettersen for working across the aisle with Luna as Republican leadership has fumed about the bipartisan effort.

“It’s shameful and terrible. Our members will oppose these efforts, our hope is reasonable Republicans who have worked with us on these issues will oppose effort too,” Aguilar said about the discharge petition block. “It’s clear that Speaker Johnson is doing everything he can to undermine the will of the House. The majority of the members in the House of Representatives would support this legislation.”

The vote comes a day after Luna resigned from the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus over her legislation, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

“With a heavy heart, I am resigning from the Freedom Caucus. I cannot remain part of a caucus where a select few operate outside its guidelines, misuse its name, broker backroom deals that undermine its core values and where the lines of compromise and transaction are blurred, disparage me to the press, and encourage misrepresentation of me to the American people,” she wrote in the letter.

ABC News’ Lalee Ibssa contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker on Tuesday morning was still speaking on the Senate floor, staging a filibuster he started at 7 p.m. Monday night, in what he called a protest against the national “crisis” he said President Donald Trump and Elon Musk had created.

On Monday night, he said he was set to last “as long as [he is] physically able.”

“I’m heading to the Senate floor because Donald Trump and Elon Musk have shown a complete disregard for the rule of law, the Constitution, and the needs of the American people. You can tune in on CSPAN, YouTube, X, and Facebook,” the senator posted on X as he took to the floor.

Booker, who said he would keep the Senate floor open through the duration of his remarks, said at the top of his speech that he “rise[s] with the intention of disrupting the normal business” of the chamber because he believes the country is in “crisis” due to the actions of the White House since Trump started his second term.

“I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis, and I believe that not in a partisan sense, because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended–so many of them identify themselves as Republicans,” Booker said.

“In just 71 days, the president of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans’ safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy and even our aspirations as a people For from our highest offices, a sense of common decency. These are not normal times in America. And they should not be treated as such,” he said.

So long as Booker is holding the floor, the Senate won’t be able to conduct other business unless he temporarily yields.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(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.