Politics

(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s challenge to his “one of a kind” felony hush money conviction in New York should be removed from state appellate courts and heard in federal court, an attorney for the president argued Wednesday.

Just over a year after Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard arguments Wednesday on Trump’s efforts to move his appeal of the verdict from state court to federal court.

“The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court,” attorney Jeffrey Wall told the three-judge panel. “And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous one of its kind prosecution.”

Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.

New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge — the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law — saying it was the “only lawful sentence” to prevent “encroaching upon the highest office in the land.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, an attorney for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Steven Wu, argued that it’s now too late to move the case.

“After sentencing, removal is no longer available,” Wu said during oral arguments.

Wu also argued the purpose of removal is to decide where to hold the trial.

“It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review,” Wu said.

Wall, who served as an acting solicitor general in Trump’s first administration, argued that the time limit to ask for removal to federal court does not apply if Trump can show good cause.

“Why shouldn’t we be looking for some more specific signs that Congress actually intended this?” Judge Susan Carney asked.

“It’s the first-ever prosecution by a district attorney of a president,” Wall responded. “As long as you have colorable federal defenses, and it has something to do with your job, you get to come into federal court notwithstanding the state’s interest.”

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included “official acts” undertaken while he was president, and that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts — which was decided after Trump was convicted in May — would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.

“There was evidence that came in at trial that triggered federal immunity,” Wall told the appellate panel.

Wu countered that the evidence offered involved discussion about a crime that related to Trump’s actions before he became president.

“It’s a highly unusual case, would you agree with that?” Judge Raymond Lohier asked.

“This defendant is a very unusual defendant,” Wu conceded — but he argued that should not automatically usurp the state’s interest in enforcing its laws.

The judges did not immediately rule, but said they would take the arguments under advisement.

If the appeals court grants Trump’s request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.

Although Trump has in the past asserted that, as president, he would have the right to pardon himself for federal offenses, Pace University Law School professor Bennett Gershman told ABC News that would not apply in this case.

“It’s still a state crime — you’re now just talking about where the case is litigated,” Gershman said. “I’m not even sure that pardoning yourself is even allowed, but that’s an open question that’s never been addressed.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi rejected that President Donald Trump’s pardons for hundreds of rioters who assaulted police during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol creates a double standard with the administration’s aggressive response to violence at immigration protests in Los Angeles.

“Well, this is very different,” Bondi said Wednesday in an on-camera gaggle with reporters at the White House. “These are people out there hurting people in California right now. This is ongoing.”

Trump’s and other officials’ attempts to stoke outrage over videos showing attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles has been the subject of some mockery on social media — with Democrats and other critics of the administration posting comparisons to the assaults law enforcement were subject to on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob descended on the Capitol.

More than 140 officers suffered injuries during the Jan. 6 riot as they were beaten by objects ranging from baseball bats and hockey sticks to rocks and even an American flag.

Trump’s pardons for nearly all of the 1,600 people charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol extended to more than 450 charged with assaulting or impeding officers — 300 of whom still had not had their cases fully adjudicated.

The dismantling of the Department of Justice’s Jan. 6 investigation further halted investigations of roughly 60 people suspected of assaulting police during the riot who had yet to be charged, according to statistics released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington prior to Trump taking office.

During Bondi’s confirmation hearing prior to Inauguration Day, she said she believed any pardons for Jan. 6 defendants should be evaluated on a “case-to-case basis” and suggested she would be opposed to pardons for people accused of assaulting law enforcement officers.

“Let me be very clear in speaking to you: I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer in this country,” Bondi said at the time.

Bondi has not publicly commented on Trump’s pardons since then, though FBI Director Kash Patel did notably distance himself during his confirmation hearing from Trump’s pardons for violent Jan. 6 offenders.

“I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement,” Patel said. “And I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement.”

In her gaggle with reporters Wednesday, Bondi repeatedly dodged questions about the administration’s views on the legal standards that must exist in order to invoke the Insurrection Act.

She instead pointed to what she argued appears to be improved conditions on the ground that shouldn’t warrant such aggressive intervention by the administration.

“Right now in California, we’re at a good point,” Bondi said. “We’re not scared to go further. We’re not frightened to do something else if we need to.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a stark warning about the threat of nuclear war in a video posted to her personal account on X, marking a sharp contrast with past comments made by former President Donald Trump on the same topic.

Gabbard, who recently visited Hiroshima, Japan, reflected on the devastation caused by the atomic bomb dropped during World War II in a post on Tuesday. In the video, she warned that political elite and warmongers are fomenting fear and tension, pushing us closer to “the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.”

The three-minute video shows Gabbard visiting several landmarks in Hiroshima. The video also describes in detail what a nuclear event could mean for the United States — including a simulation of a nuclear attack on San Francisco, California, which appears to destroy the Golden Gate Bridge.

Gabbard’s remarks were similar to previous remarks she’s made on the campaign trail, however, the video was posted days after she traveled to the Shangri-La Dialogue, a major Asian conference held in Singapore, earlier this month.

“This isn’t some made-up science fiction story. This is the reality of what’s at stake, what we are facing now, because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” Gabbard said in the video.

“Perhaps it’s because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won’t have access to,” she added.

Gabbard called on people to “speak up and demand an end to this madness.”

“We must reject this path to nuclear war and work toward a world where no one has to live in fear of a nuclear holocaust,” Gabbard said.

Gabbard’s position is in sharp contrast to Trump’s previous remarks on the use of nuclear weapons during WWII.

In 2016, while campaigning in San Diego, California, Trump criticized then-President Barack Obama for visiting Hiroshima, calling him “pathetic.” He added that he didn’t care that Obama visited, “just as long as he doesn’t apologize” for dropping the bomb: “Who cares.”

More recently, on Jan. 20, 2024, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump brought up Hiroshima again, this time to make a point about presidential immunity: “Hiroshima, not exactly a nice act, but it did end the second World War, probably. Right?”

Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, told ABC News that Gabbard and the president align on their plans for peace and prevention of war.

“Acknowledging the past is critical to inform the future. President Trump has repeatedly stated in the past that he recognizes the immeasurable suffering, and annihilation can be caused by nuclear war, which is why he has been unequivocal that we all need to do everything possible to work towards peace,” Henning said in a statement. “DNI Gabbard supports President Trump’s clearly stated objectives of bringing about lasting peace and stability and preventing war.”

Gabbard’s Tuesday remarks also echoed rhetoric from her time as a Democratic presidential candidate, when she warned about neoconservatives, neoliberals and Trump himself.

In 2019, Gabbard said Trump “tore up the Iran nuclear agreement, and has taken action since, step by step, to further push us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war, to the brink of war with Iran, that would be far more devastating than the war in Iraq, and leading us to the point where every single day that there is no nuclear deal with Iran, Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”

But when she endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign as an independent last August, Gabbard shifted her focus to President Joe Biden. Speaking at the National Guard Association conference, she said the Biden-Harris “administration has us facing multiple wars on multiple fronts and regions around the world, and closer to the brink of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”

Gabbard’s initial bid for president in 2020 was sparked by a mistaken ballistic missile alert that sent people in Hawaii into panic, thinking they were under attack. That moment inspired the former Hawaii congresswoman to center much of her campaign on ending wars and seeking peace. Although she has now aligned herself with the Republican Party and the Trump administration, this moment suggests Gabbard is still staking out an independent position on America’s global posture — one deeply rooted in her long-standing skepticism of the Washington establishment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s political operation has approached Texas Republicans about redrawing the Texas congressional map ahead of next year’s midterms, in a bid to protect Republicans’ fragile House majority, multiple sources familiar with the discussions told ABC News.

Texas Republican lawmakers, who met on the topic at the U.S. Capitol Monday night, described the conversations on the topic as preliminary, and most declined to discuss the initial conversations, which were first reported by The New York Times.

“I’m not going to comment on it,” said Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas.

“We’re still kind of cogitating,” said Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas.

Currently, Republicans hold a 25-12 majority of the state’s seats. One Houston-area Democratic seat is vacant, after the death of Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Texas.

If Republicans in Austin decided to move forward with redistricting, it’s not clear how they would reconfigure the map. One Republican source familiar with the discussions said that as many as five seats currently held by Democrats could be targeted.

But the source pointed out that any effort to draw Republican voters into Democratic seats could backfire — leaving more seats vulnerable to legal challenges, or for Democratic pickups in a wave election.

“There’s an old Southern saying: Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered,” the source said to ABC News about the potential risks of redrawing the map.

A second Republican source familiar with the discussions told ABC News that Texas GOP figures have discussed the potential for redistricting with the White House.

Republicans currently have a 220-213 majority in the U.S. House, with three vacancies. They began the session with a narrow five-seat majority and could face a potential redrawing of the Wisconsin congressional map depending on the outcome of several lawsuits filed with the state supreme court.
Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said the conversations show that Republicans are “definitely” worried about losing seats in November, given that the current map, approved in 2021, was drawn by Republicans for the coming decade.

There is one active federal lawsuit over the current map, brought by advocates who have argued it discriminates against voters of color.

“I don’t think there’s any question about that. I mean, why else would you want to do that knowing how unsettled that could make the electorate feel?” Veasey said.

Asked about GOP worries about losing control of the House, Babin said, “We’re always concerned about the midterms. Who wants to go into the minority? I don’t.”

Redistricting before the next census would be unusual, but not unprecedented in Texas.

In 2003, Republicans led by former Rep. Tom DeLay pushed through an early redrawing of the maps to wrestle control of the majority of the state’s seats from Democrats, sparking a political fight that made its way to the Supreme Court.

The White House and Gov. Greg Abbott’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

“I can’t control it, so I don’t care,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who suggested that his district could be one of those redrawn.

“If we were to really go through with it, districts like mine would obviously be the ones that are targeted because I live in the suburbs. I’m the one you have to take from the rural areas and put in the suburbs, so I’d be basically going back to my old district I guess.”

Republicans’ conversations come as some Democrats have, once again, set their sights on making gains in Texas.

The Texas Democratic Party has launched a new organizing effort with the Texas Majority PAC, an outside group backed by liberal megadonor George Soros, the PAC announced this week.

Texas Republicans are expected to huddle on the topic with White House representatives this coming Thursday, lawmakers told ABC News.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Smithsonian tried to affirm its autonomy from outside influences in a statement on Monday after President Donald Trump announced that he fired National Portrait Gallery head Kim Sajet for being a “highly partisan person.”

The institution, which is the world’s largest museum, education and research complex, sent the statement after a Monday Board of Regents meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, according to a document the Smithsonian sent ABC News on Monday.

Board of Regent meetings are held at least four times a year. Vance and Roberts are both ex officio members, meaning they act in advisory roles.

“All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the Secretary, with oversight by the Board,” the Smithsonian said in its statement. “Lonnie G. Bunch, the Secretary, has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.”

The panel is also comprised of senators appointed by the president, including Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI); Representatives selected by the Speaker of the House, including Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL); and nine Citizen Regents, according to a document the Smithsonian sent ABC News on Monday.

The Smithsonian’s statement comes after Trump’s May 30 announcement on social media that he fired Sajet, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery director. He described Sajet as “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.”

Sajet rejected artist Julian Raven’s 2016 Trump painting for submission in the National Portrait Gallery, according to a statement from a Smithsonian spokesperson on Tuesday. She is still reporting to work at the Portrait Gallery, the spokesperson noted.

“While the vast majority of our content is rooted in meticulous research and thoughtful analysis of history and facts, we recognize that, on occasion, some of our work has not aligned with our institutional values of scholarship, even-handedness and nonpartisanship. For that, we must all work to do better,” Bunch, the board secretary, said in a message to Smithsonian staff on Monday after the board meeting.

“Our institution must be a place where people feel inspired and challenged, but most importantly feel welcome. … As always, we thank the President and Congress for their steady commitment to the Smithsonian and to preserving it for our visitors and our country.”

The museum also appeared to address the Trump administration’s concerns about biased content and staff at the institution in its statement on Monday.

“To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes,” the Smithsonian said in its statement Monday.

The museum did not respond to ABC News’ questions regarding deadlines for museum directors to make changes and report back to the board, and the vice president’s office did not immediately reply to a request for a statement.

Trump signed an executive order last month placing Vance in charge of supervising efforts to “remove improper ideology” from all areas of the Smithsonian and targeted funding for programs that advance “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology,” according to the Associated Press.

The president also fired members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’ board of trustees and installed himself as chairman of the institution in February.

ABC News’ Kyra Phillips, April Williams, Molly Nagle and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON)  — Democratic senators on Tuesday were walking a line between criticizing the White House for sending troops to put down protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles and the violence the administration says caused it to act.

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania called out some in his party for not condemning the violence.

“I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos,” Fetterman said in a post on X on Monday.

“My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement,” Fetterman continued.

But some of his colleagues on Capitol Hill say they can support the sentiment behind the protests without condoning violence.

“We can do two things at one time. We can condemn protests that get out of control, and we can acknowledge that Donald Trump has no interest in standing up to violent protesters,” Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday when asked about Fetterman’s comment.

“He pardoned every single violent protester that tried to attack our Capitol and destroy our democracy,” he said. “The fact of the matter is, Donald Trump is not looking to create peace. He’s not looking to calm the situation. He’s looking for a fight,” Murphy continued.

Murphy and other Democrats repeated that local and state government officials in the city of Los Angeles and the state of California have said they don’t need federal help with holding protesters that have engaged in violence or property destruction accountable.

“[They] all say, ‘We’ve got this under control.’ It is unfortunate — not necessary to mobilize U.S. Marines who are trained for the Pacific, not for the streets of Los Angeles,” Democratic Sen. Chris Coons said.

“It is, of course, important that anyone who attacks police officers or sets fire to vehicles or carries out vandalism, being interrupted and arrested. I support peaceful protest,” Coons said.

Coons and Murphy said Trump’s moves are a distraction from other — perhaps more important — matters in Washington, like the “big, beautiful bill” Trump wants to get passed to fund his agenda, which Democrats are lobbying against.

“Last week, every one of you was asking me about the fight between Elon Musk and Trump, and how Musk was denouncing the ‘big, beautiful bill’ as debt and deficit and how a few nervous Republicans were recognizing that taking health care away from 16 million Americans was a really bad idea,” Coons told reporters.

“No one’s asking me about that this week. You’re only asking me about Los Angeles. It is a critical issue … I’m not diminishing the significance of the issue, but it’s a reminder that here in the Senate — what is right in front of us is the so-called “big, beautiful bill, which will have consequences for millions of Americans in terms of increasing hunger and decreasing access to health,” Coons added.

Murphy said Trump is trying to “create headlines in other places.”

Republican senators stood behind the president’s decision to send in the troops.

Sen. Rand Paul said Democrats’ reaction to the protests is “appalling” and a reason why voters don’t agree with them.

“I think it’s another reason why you’re seeing the demise of the Democrat brand around the country. You got a city on fire. You got people marching with foreign flags, people marching with a Mexican flag in L.A., resisting federal law, interfering with federal law. You have the governor and the mayor, both Democrats, saying they will interfere and will not uphold federal law,” Paul said.

Republican Sen. Rick Scott blamed Democrats’ position on immigration for the unrest.

“If you look at what’s going on in LA, it shows exactly what Biden Democrats did by opening their borders the way they did, and allowing people, millions and millions and millions of people, to come in here. They’ve caused all this,” Scott said.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, who stirred controversy in Trump’s first term in 2020 for urging him to deploy the National Guard to stop the George Floyd riots, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday calling for “an overwhelming show of force to end the riots” and blaming Democrats for letting them happen.

“Is anyone surprised? Democrats also stood idly by or even celebrated as the Black Lives Matter riots ransacked our cities five years ago,” he wrote. “If anything, these riots are worse. At least the [Black Lives Matter] rioters didn’t wave foreign flags.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president’s bid to move his case to federal court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president’s criminal hush money case from state to federal court.

Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included “official acts” undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts — which was decided after Trump was convicted in May — would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.

“The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity — including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President’s official acts, as President Trump’s removal notice alleges occurred here — supplies good cause for post-trial removal,” Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court.

Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge — the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law — saying it was the “only lawful sentence” to prevent “encroaching upon the highest office in the land.”

“I did my job, and we did our job,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump’s conviction. “There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken.”

Bragg has pushed back on Trump’s attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing.

“These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment,” prosecutors have argued.

Trump’s appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents.

With Trump’s former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump’s request.

“The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal,” they argued.

If the appeals court grants Trump’s request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom.

In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SAN ANTONIO) — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he was deploying the Texas National Guard to multiple locations across the state to “ensure peace and order.”

The deployment comes ahead of planned protests this week in Texas, including on in San Antonio.

A statement from Abbott’s office obtained by ABC News’ affiliate KSAT confirmed the deployment, saying Guardsmen were ready to “uphold law and order across our state.”

“Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles,” Abbott’s office said in a statement. “Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be swiftly held accountable to the full extent of the law.”

Abbott’s move comes amid the escalating protests in Los Angeles, where activists have been protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

The protests in Los Angeles have at times turned violent. And President Donald Trump ordered both the National Guard and the Marines to Southern California in recent days.

“Peaceful protest is legal,” Abbott said on Tuesday. “Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest.”

He said the Texas National Guard would “use every tool & strategy to help law enforcement maintain order.”

Assistant Chief of the San Antonio Police Department Jesse Salame also confirmed to KSAT that Guard members have been sent to San Antonio.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to use “heavy force” against “any” protesters at the military parade being held in Washington this weekend.

“We’re going to celebrate big on Saturday,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office right after he spoke about sending the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to quell protests there. “If any protesters want to come out, they will be met with very big force.”

The parade to honor the Army’s 250th anniversary also falls on the president’s 79th birthday and comes just days after Trump ordered troops to Los Angeles to respond to protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

“People that want to protest will be met with big force,” he said, noting that he hadn’t heard of any plans to protest at the military parade in Washington yet. “But this is people that hate our country. They will be met with heavy force.”

ABC News reached out to the White House for comment on what kind of force Trump was referring to in his comments Tuesday.

Trump has touted the size and anticipated spectacle of the military parade, saying on Monday, “We have many tanks. We have all sorts of new ones and very old ones old from World War I and World War II,” and that the military and the U.S. roles in victories in World War I and World War II need to be celebrated as other countries do with their militaries.

“It’s going to be a parade, the likes of which I don’t know if we’ve ever had a parade like that. It’s going to be incredible,” he said, adding that “thousands and thousands of soldiers” will march through the streets in military garb from various eras of the U.S. military. “We have a lot of those army airplanes flying over the top, and we have tanks all over the place.”

Twenty-eight Abrams tanks, 28 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, 28 Stryker vehicles, and four Paladin self-propelled howitzers will participate in the parade, as will eight marching bands, 24 horses, two mules and a dog.

Fifty aircraft will fly overhead as well.

The U.S. Secret Service and Washington officials said Monday they were tracking nine small protests but that they didn’t expect any violence.

“From a Secret Service perspective, it’s simply people using that first amendment right to protest because we’re not going to do anything with that,” said Matt McCool, the special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s Washington Field Office. “But if that turns violent or any laws are broken, that’s when [the Metropolitan Police Department], Park Police, Secret Service will be involved.”

Still, the National Guard, including the District of Columbia National Guard and those from other states, will be activated but not armed.

Outside of Washington, progressive groups plan to hold protests against the Trump administration as the parade occurs, with the flagship “No Kings” protest occurring in Philadelphia.

ABC News’ Anne Flaherty and Beatrice Peterson contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday once again aligned himself with President Donald Trump, saying the president is “absolutely right” to send the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles as protests over against Immigration and Customs Enforcement continue — and sided with the president’s criticism of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, adding that the California governor should be “tarred and feathered.”

Johnson said Trump is “fully in his authority right now to do what he is doing” to “maintain order” — including deploying 4,000 National Guardsmen and 700 Marines to Los Angeles as demonstrators clash with law enforcement amid the protests.

“President Trump has put his hand on the table and said ‘Not on my watch,’ and we applaud that so we’re standing with him,” Johnson said during a news conference.

Johnson would not weigh in on whether Newsom should be arrested — a suggestion Trump made Monday — but said Newsom should be “tarred and feathered.”

“Look, that’s not my lane. I’m not going to give you legal analysis on whether Gavin Newsom should be arrested, but he ought to be tarred and feathered,” the speaker said.

Newsom fired back in a post on X: “Good to know we’re skipping the arrest and going straight for the 1700’s style forms of punishment. A fitting threat given the @GOP want to bring our country back to the 18th Century.”

The California governor responded to Trump’s arrest comment on Monday, calling it “an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.”

Johnson accused Newsom of focusing more on rebranding himself than protecting the state and its citizens.

“Do your job, man. That’s what I tell Gavin Newsom, do your job,” Johnson added. “Stop working on your rebranding and be a governor. Stand up for the rule of law. And he’s not doing that.”

Newsom has called the deployments by Trump “a blatant abuse of power” and sued the administration over the move.

Johnson took the opportunity to plug the House-passed tax and immigration bill, where negotiations are underway in the Senate. The immigration woes at the center of the Los Angeles protests can be remedied by the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that supports Trump’s legislative agenda, Johnson said. He called on Democrats to end the “chaos” and “nonsense” and support the bill.

The legislation boosts spending for the military and border security as well as extends the Trump 2017 tax cuts — while making some cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other assistance programs. It could also add $3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Other congressional Republicans appear to be in lockstep behind Trump and his decision to deploy National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles.

“… What [Trump’s] doing [is] enforcing the rule of law,” Republican Rep. Ralph Norman said, adding that “Trump’s doing the right things.”

Republican Rep. Ron Estes said he supports Trump’s decision and said he believes “it’s important that we have the rule of law and order in the United States.”

Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer said that he supported Trump’s decision to deploy the Marines, saying he hopes their presence “deters” people from violence and brings “peace.”

“Hopefully their presence will be a deterrent to violence. Obviously, there’s a right to assemble, and there’s a right to peacefully protest — and then there’s what they’re doing. So clearly, the state needs help, and the president’s sending help, hopefully, hopefully it’ll bring some peace,” Cramer said.

Cramer said that Trump, as the president and therefore the authority on federal immigration policy, has a “responsibility” to act in response to the protests.

“The president has a responsibility to the United States, and he has a federal nexus with regard to immigration policy, and he’s exercising it, and I think he’s exercising exactly what he said he’d do and what people elected him to do,” Cramer said.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy backed Trump’s decision to deploy the troops.

“I think he didn’t have a choice,” Kennedy told ABC News of Trump’s move to deploy the National Guard and Marines.

“I think he needs to follow the law, but I think he needs to send in federal troops because it’s clear to me the governor and the mayor were going to do nothing. Zero, zilch, nada. He might have met with the rioters and offered them a cup of hot cocoa and a hug and some enthusiastic encouragement, but in terms of containing the riots, they weren’t going to do anything.”

Several Republican senators were quick to criticize Newsom, too.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn said he thought Newsom “probably would love it” if there were an effort to arrest him.

“Make him a hero and a martyr,” Cornyn jested.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.