(WASHINGTON) — A U.S. submarine on Tuesday sank an Iranian warship in the Indian Ocean, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday, the first time since WWII the U.S. has sunk an enemy combatant ship by torpedo.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate will vote Wednesday on a Democratic-led Iran war powers resolution, according to a press release from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and bill co-sponsors Sens. Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff.
The resolution would direct the removal of United States armed forces from hostilities within or against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. It comes after recent U.S. strikes on Iran that killed several Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.
There is no timeline in the bill, so if it passed and President Donald Trump signed it, the U.S. would have to draw down troops.
Because this bill is privileged, it would only need 51 votes to advance and ultimately be approved by the Senate. It’s not yet clear whether the legislation will have that support, but at this time it seems unlikely to advance.
Earlier this year, a similar resolution concerning military action in Venezuela passed an initial procedural test vote when a small handful of Republican senators voted with Democrats to move it forward. Some of those Republicans were ultimately swayed to revoke their support for that legislation during a vote on final passage, and the bill was ultimately defeated by Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote.
This time around though, Republicans seem even more inclined to support Trump’s actions in Iran.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, of Missouri, was one of the Republicans who initially supported the Venezuela war powers resolution before ultimately voting against it during a vote of final passage. His switch in position during that vote in January came after Trump attacked Hawley and the other Republicans who initially supported the proposal in a post on social media.
Hawley told ABC News on Tuesday that he would vote against the Iran war powers resolution.
The legislation cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
“I think they’re in compliance with the statute. The statute gives them 60 days, gives the administration 60 days to conduct activity without having to come back to … Congress for authorization, unless they’re ground troops. My view has always been, ground troops will require congressional authorization. So they’re currently none involved, none have been involved, and they’re following the War Powers Act,” Hawley said.
Still, Democrats say the vote is critical. Sen. Kaine, of Virginia, who is leading the Iran resolution and who has been an outspoken proponent of Congress’ role in declaring war, said the vote will show where everyone stands on the conflict.
“We’re going to put everybody on the record [Wednesday]. Nobody gets to hide and give the president an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Kaine said on Tuesday. “Everybody’s got to declare whether they’re for this war or against it.”
Without the support of at least a few Republicans, the Iran resolution is likely to fail to advance during Wednesday’s vote.
Even if this legislation were to pass, it would still require approval in the House and the signature of the president to become law. It is highly unlikely Trump would sign the bill should it make it to his desk.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(NEW YORK) — While President Donald Trump says Operation Epic Fury could last several weeks, a question some are raising is how long U.S. and allies’ missile defense stockpiles can last in an extended conflict with Iran.
Trump has insisted that the U.S. is well equipped to fight, with a “virtually unlimited supply,” and other Gulf states have pushed back on claims that they are running missiles.
How much of the U.S. interceptor stockpile is being used up to defend against Iran’s continued heavy missile and drone attacks is classified, but it’s expected to be among questions lawmakers have for top Trump administration officials this week when they brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Some experts are also raising concerns about America’s cache of the expensive air defense missiles as the Iranian military continues to target U.S. assets and other allies in retaliation.
Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center think tank and former assistant professor at the Air Command and Staff College, told ABC News that the conflict is becoming a “war of attrition.”
Watch special coverage on Nightline, “War with Iran,” each night on ABC and streaming on Disney+ and Hulu.
The U.S. and Israeli militaries are now in a race to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities, including launchers and production facilities, before the U.S. and Israel’s own stockpile of air defense interceptor missiles in the region is depleted, according to Grieco.
“The question is becoming who runs out of missiles first. Does the defender run out of interceptors,” she asked, referring to the armies of the U.S., Israel and the Gulf states. “Or does Iran run out of missiles, or their ability to launch missiles?”
“If the Iranians are able to launch with the kinds of numbers they have been launching over the past 48 hours over the next four to five weeks, that does not seem sustainable from an interceptor perspective,” she added.
“But if those numbers drop off because the U.S. and Israel destroy the launchers themselves, or their storage facilities, and the numbers drop dramatically, then we could potentially sustain this campaign,” Greico said.
Retired Lt. Gen. Dan Karbler, former commander of the U.S. Space and Missile Defense Command, told ABC News Live Tuesday that extensive drone use by the Iranian military has prompted the use of smaller short-range missiles as interceptors.
“We don’t want to shoot Patriot missiles at the drones,” he said. “So, some of our short-range air defense, more capability of that type of nature needs to flow into countries so we’re using our short-range missiles to take out these drones not our very limited patriot missiles.”
President Trump attempted to assuage concerns about the stockpile Tuesday — but also acknowledged the number of some of the highest-grade munitions is “not where we want it to be.”
“The United States Munitions Stockpiles have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better — As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons,” Trump wrote on social media early Tuesday morning.
And even as he says the U.S. will “easily prevail” in this war and that the U.S. is prepared for the operation to go on for “whatever it takes,” Trump wrote that “Wars can be fought “forever,” and very successfully, using just these supplies.”
The U.S. was already concerned about its stockpile before this war as the Russian-Ukraine conflict, the Israeli-Gaza conflict and last summer’s conflict with Iran have dramatically increased demand for Patriot and THAAD missiles, according to Greico.
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles that are used to defend against Iran’s most powerful ballistic missiles are in particularly short supply. Grieco estimated that if the U.S. uses its THAAD missiles at same rate as the 12-day conflict with Iran last year, it likely only has enough for about two weeks now at most.
Grieco said it will take a long time, and be costly, for the U.S. and other countries to replenish their antimissile stockpiles, which are more time consuming and expensive to produce than the Iranian weapons they defend against.
Iran has not launched missiles at the same scale so far compared to the attacks during conflict with Israel last year.
Israeli officials and independent experts said they believe that may reflect a strategy by Iran to run down air defense supplies with relatively smaller but steady attacks over a longer period.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(NEW YORK) — ABC News projects Texas Sen. John Cornyn will face a runoff against state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the Replican Senate primary in Texas. The Associated Press has projected that Texas state Rep. James Talarico will win the Democratic Senate primary.
The Senate primaries are among those in the state that have national implications and will shed insight into American attitudes one year into President Donald Trump’s second term.
Trump has made it clear that he is keeping a close eye on the state, announcing endorsements in select House races but staying on the sidelines for the Senate race.
In a House race that Trump didn’t make an endorsement in, state Rep. Steve Toth will defeat incumbent four-term Rep. Dan Crenshaw, The Associated Press projects.
State significance
The race between Cornyn, who is seeking his fifth term in the Senate, and Paxton is the “most expensive Senate primary on record,” according to tracking firm AdImpact, with over $122 million dedicated to ad spending and reservations.
On the Democratic side, Talarico defeated Rep. Jasmine Crockett, according to the Associated Press, in a battle between two rising stars in the Democratic Party who both hope to flip the seat for the first time in decades.
This election also marks the moment in which redistricting will begin to play out. Following Trump’s encouragement last summer, Texas spearheaded the redistricting wars — triggering a Supreme Court case, sparking national debate over mid-decade gerrymandering, and prompting other states to follow suit.
Now, newly drawn maps are likely to deliver five GOP pickups for the House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a razor-thin majority.
While Texas’ 23rd Congressional District is expected to stay red, the showdown between Trump-endorsed incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales and Brandon Herrera will be one to watch, especially after multiple Republicans have called upon Gonzales to resign following an alleged relationship with his former staffer who died by suicide.
In the gubernatorial race, ABC News projects Trump-endorsed Gov. Greg Abbott, who is running for his fourth term in a state where governors do not have term limits, will face state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic candidate.
Meanwhile, retired MLB baseball star Mark Teixeira is projected to win the Republican primary for Texas’s 21st congressional district, the Associated Press projects.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is urging states to stop removing children from their homes over gender-identity disputes at the behest of child welfare agencies without their parents’ approval.
In a letter first obtained by ABC News, the Health and Human Services Department’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reminds state child welfare agencies that under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), they are barred from removing children from their home because a parent doesn’t agree with the child’s gender identity.
“When states overstep their bounds, ACF will take action to deter inappropriate policies that drive unnecessary interactions with child welfare systems. This is one such example,” ACF Assistant Secretary Alex Adams wrote in a statement Tuesday.
The Trump administration cited multiple examples — from Illinois to California — where children who may reject the sex they were assigned at birth and perceive themselves as a different gender were removed from their homes without parental consent and placed in the child welfare system.
However, Shannon Minter, vice president of legal at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR), told ABC News that he is not aware of any state removing children from parents based on their response to a transgender child.
Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Minter called the effort a broader push by the Trump administration to “eliminate” all protections for transgender young people.
“No one is advocating for removing children because a parent is struggling to understand,” he said, adding, “But child welfare professionals need the discretion to assess when rejection crosses the line into real harm — the same way they would for any other child.”
Morissa Ladinsky, a clinical professor in pediatrics at Stanford University in California, argued that children aren’t typically removed from their home without parental consent in this fashion.
“My experience tells me that there is likely more to the story,” Ladinsky told ABC News, adding that she has not seen removal over gender disputes fall under the domain of Child Protective Services.
As the division of HHS that promotes welfare assistance and supports the economic and social well-being of children and families, the agency has said ACF’s duty is to protect families and keep them together. ACF’s letter also stressed that parents hold the right to refuse removal according to their religious beliefs and moral convictions around gender identity.
The letter said breaking the law could violate the First Amendment and states could risk losing federal grant funding under CAPTA.
“What we’re doing with this letter is we’re putting states on notice,” Adams told ABC News.
“When policies are either increasing the number of kids committed to the system inappropriately or they’re deterring foster families from stepping up, I do think there was a role for ACF to weigh in,” he said, adding, “It does merit federal action.”
The letter to states bolsters an initiative to protect children from the foster-care system amid a shortage of facilities nationwide with only 57 foster homes for every 100 vulnerable kids coming into the system, according to Adams.
The letter comes at the directive of President Donald Trump’s Fostering the Future for American Children and Families executive order and follows the president’s call during his State of the Union address last week for a federal ban on gender transitions for minors.
“Surely, we can all agree no state can be allowed to rip children from their parents’ arms and transition them to a new gender against the parents’ will,” Trump said during his address. “We must ban it and we must ban it immediately.”
Gender identity is described as how a child perceives and calls themself, which can be the same or different from the sex that was assigned to them at birth, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
However, if a child sees themself as different than the sex assigned at birth, parents have the right to reject this self-identification, the ACF letter says. Under federal law, CAPTA states that a child may not be removed from the home without proof of “abuse” or “imminent risk of harm.”
The Trump administration has stated that restoring power to parents is one of its top health, education and humanities priorities. But the letter warns that states are usurping parental rights and potentially misinterpreting the CAPTA law if they remove children from their homes without evidence of “abuse or neglect.”
Under ACF, the health department’s human services division administers the largest federal child care program and other federal services that helps millions of households nationwide.
Prior to ACF’s letter to states, lawmakers have taken several child care-related actions against the nation’s health agency under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In a previous letter to Kennedy first reported by ABC News, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other congressional Democrats said the agency’s alleged “disregard” for child welfare undermines the government’s core child-protection obligations amid federal immigration crackdowns.
Adams stressed Tuesday’s letter is supported by the whole organization, including Kennedy, and the secretary has demonstrated his commitment to improving child welfare outcomes across several different domains.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday denied that Israel forced his hand into attacking Iran, and in another new explanation, said he ordered the U.S. strike on Iran because he concluded Tehran was going to attack the U.S. first after negotiations stalled.
Trump also acknowledged most of the individuals the U.S. favored to next lead in Tehran have been killed, including some in a new strike on Tuesday.
Hosting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, Trump for the first time took questions in public on the war, now in its fourth day and expanding throughout the Middle East.
Amid scrutiny over why the U.S. military campaign against Iran was necessary, and mixed messages from the administration, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Monday that the strikes were triggered in part because the U.S. knew Israel was going to attack Iran and Iran would retaliate.
“Did [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu pull the United States into this war?” ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott asked Trump on Tuesday.
“No. I might have forced their hand,” Trump replied. “You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.”
“Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first. And I didn’t want that to happen. So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand. But Israel was ready and we were ready,” Trump continued, appearing to contradict Rubio.
Rubio also told reporters Monday that, despite his comments, Israel didn’t force Trump’s hand. House Speaker Mike Johnson, after a Gang of 8 briefing on Capitol Hill on Monday, said Israel was determined to act “with or without the U.S.”
Trump did not provide evidence for why his administration believed Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Previously, American intelligence agencies had found Iran would not have had missiles capable of reaching the U.S. for another nine years, until 2035.
Trump said most of Iran’s military infrastructure, including its navy and air force, has been “knocked out.”
“We’re hitting them very hard,” Trump said, later adding: “They’re going to be in for a lot of hurt.”
On what’s next for Iran and who America would like to see take over, Trump admitted most of the individuals identified to potentially replace Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have also been killed.
“Most of the people we had in mind are dead … And now we have another group, they may be dead also based on reports,” Trump said. “So, I guess you have a third wave coming in pretty soon. We’re not going to know anybody.”
“I guess the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who’s as bad as the previous person,” Trump said. “That could happen.”
Trump also poured cold water on the idea of Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, being an option to lead the country.
“Some people like him, and we haven’t been thinking about too much about that. It would seem to me that somebody from within maybe would be more appropriate,” Trump said. “I’ve said that he looks like a very nice person. but it would seem to me that somebody that’s there that’s currently popular if there is such a person.”
Meanwhile, the war is widening in the Middle East as Iran seeks retaliation for the U.S. and Israeli attacks. Tehran has struck nearly a dozen countries in the region, which Trump said he was “surprised” by.
“They hit countries that had nothing to do with what’s going on,” Trump said, criticizing Iran for striking civilian infrastructure like hotels.
The State Department has warned U.S. citizens to leave the region and closed several embassies. So far, six U.S. service members have died in the war and more have been wounded, according to U.S. officials.
ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers pressed Trump on the Americans who are currently stranded in the Middle East and why there wasn’t an evacuation plan to get them out. The president said because it “happened all very quickly.”
“I thought we were going to have a situation where we were going to be attacked. They were getting ready to attack Israel. They were getting ready to attack others,” he said.
The State Department later said it was working on securing military aircraft and charter flights for Americans who want to evacuate.
As for further impacts on Americans, Trump said oil prices could likely rise temporarily as the conflict plays out.
“People felt that it’s something that had to be done. So, if we have a little high oil prices for a little while, but as soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe, lower than even before,” Trump said.
In the Oval Office, President Trump also notably took aim at several European allies who he said have not supported his administration’s strikes on Iran.
“This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with,” Trump said as he rebuked British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for initially not letting U.S. aircraft to use the Diego Garcia base that the U.K. controls.
Trump also threatened to cut off all trade with Spain after the country said the U.S. cannot use its joint military bases for operations against Iran.
Germany’s Merz said he would speak with Trump about the “day after” in Iran.
“We are on the same page in terms of getting this terrible regime in Tehran away,” Merz said.
Earlier Tuesday, Trump posted on social media that it is “too late” for talks with Iran and warned the U.S. has enough weapons to fight “forever.”
“Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies,” Trump wrote in a social media post, despite having said on Monday that the U.S. would “easily prevail” in the conflict and campaigning in opposition to prolonged foreign entanglements.
The president has said the war with Iran could last for several weeks.
ABC News’ Karen Travers contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem faced questions about immigration enforcement operations as she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday — refusing to apologize or retract her statements about a U.S. citizens shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis as “the definition of domestic terrorism.”
When pressed by Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, about why Noem labeled Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis in January, a domestic terrorist without evidence, she would not admit she was wrong.
“We are working in those situations where there’s a tragic loss of life and that there is something that our agents are involved in, that we continue to deliver information,” she said.
Durbin then asked, “Is it so hard to say you were wrong?”
“I absolutely strive to provide factual information and will continue to do that,” Noem responded, adding that when the agency fails, they admit wrongdoing. Noem has yet to admit she has been wrong about how she characterized the Pretti shooting, as some have suggested.
Noem also said her characterization of Pretti — whose conduct she called following the shooting “the definition of domestic terrorism” without evidence — was based on information relayed to her in the hours after the incident.
Shortly after the shooting of Pretti, a Minneapolis Veterans Affairs ICU nurse, Noem drew criticism for insinuating he wanted to “massacre” law enforcement before the evidence and investigation was complete. Pretti was licensed to carry a handgun. Video from multiple angles showed that Pretti did not try to draw his gun from his waistband before or during the scuffle with federal agents.
Tuesday’s hearing marks the first time Noem is appearing before Congress after tensions in Minneapolis and the killing of Pretti as well as Renee Good, who was shot and killed by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis in January.
Two Senate Republicans have said Noem should be out of a job, and Democrats have called for her impeachment. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he stands by Noem.
Later in Tuesday’s hearing, Noem said that there are no plans to deploy agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the polling places in November after President Donald Trump recently doubled down on his controversial suggestion that Republicans “nationalize” elections, saying the “federal government should get involved” in elections.
“We have no plans to have ICE officers or law enforcement at polling locations. States are responsible for running their elections, and we’re giving them tools and mitigation efforts that they can utilize in order to make sure they maintain the integrity of those elections, and that individuals can trust their systems to ensure that their vote counts,” Noem said.
Noem’s appearance on Tuesday marks the first of two days she is set to testify on Capitol Hill. She will testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Her testimony comes as some parts of Noem’s agency — from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Transportation Security Administration to the Coast Guard — are shut down amid a funding fight over Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats have said they will fund the department only if changes are made to the agency in the wake of the shooting deaths of Good and Pretti.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday said it’s “too late” for talks with Iran and warned the U.S. has enough munitions to fight “forever.”
“Their air defense, Air Force, Navy, and Leadership is gone,” Trump wrote of Iran in a post to his social media platform. “They want to talk. I said ‘Too Late!'”
The comments come as the administration’s war with Iran enters its fourth day and as questions remain on why the urgent military action was necessary and how long it will last.
Trump could face those questions and others from reporters when he hosts German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office at 11:15 a.m. ET.
The president has not given a formal address to the nation on the attacks on Iran, instead posting video statements to social media or speaking to individual reporters at various news outlets.
Overnight, apparently responding to questions raised about stockpiles of U.S. weapons being used to intercept Iranian missiles and drones, Trump posted that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited” supply.
“Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies,” Trump wrote in a social media post, despite having said on Monday that the U.S. would “easily prevail” in the conflict and campaigning in opposition to “forever wars.”
Trump, though, did acknowledge in the post that the stockpile of some of the country’s highest-grade munitions is “not where we want it to be” and blamed that on U.S. support for Ukraine in fighting Russia’s invasion.
Still, Trump concluded the post by stating: “The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!”
Trump’s social media post on Tuesday that it’s “too late” for talks with Iran comes just days after he told The Atlantic: “They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them.”
Plus, mixed messages have come from the administration on Iran’s future. Trump over the weekend encouraged Iranians to rise up and topple the government, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday rebuffed the idea that regime change was the U.S. objective for striking Tehran.
Meanwhile, the war is widening in the Middle East as Iran seeks retaliation for the U.S. and Israeli attacks, which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several senior leaders. Tehran’s struck more nearly a dozen countries, and the State Department has warned U.S. citizens to leave the region and closed several embassies.
So far, six U.S. service members have died in the war and more have been wounded. Trump, in an interview with NewsNation, teased retaliation for the killing of American troops.
ABC News’ Fritz Farrow and Meghan Mistry contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is facing two days of grilling on Capitol Hill as Democrats question her leadership of the Department of Homeland Security amid criticism of immigration enforcement operations and threats to the homeland after U.S. strikes against Iran.
Noem is testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday; she will testify before theHouse Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Her testimony comes as some parts of Noem’s agency — from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Transportation Security Administration to the Coast Guard — are shut down amid a funding fight over Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrats have said they will fund the department only if changes are made to the agency in the wake of the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis involving federal law enforcement.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Monday that Noem will face “tough” questions after “stonewalling” Congress.
“Secretary Noem is the public face for an abominable anti-immigrant crusade. Her agents continue to wreak havoc on our cities and act with unspeakable cruelty against children, immigrant families, and American citizens,” Durbin said. “The American people are horrified by what they’re seeing, and Secretary Noem stonewalled Congress for months because she knew her conduct was egregious. She will be asked tough questions and held accountable for her reckless and deadly enforcement agenda.”
The secretary’s testimony is the first time she will be appearing before Congress after tensions in Minneapolis and the killing of Good and Pretti.
Saying she had another meeting to get to, Noem left midway through her last hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee in December under intense questioning from Democrats over ICE operations and tactics.
In the hours following the shooting of Pretti, a Minneapolis Veterans Affairs ICU nurse, Noem drew criticism for insinuating he wanted to “massacre” law enforcement before the evidence and investigation was complete. Pretti was licensed to carry a handgun. Video from multiple angles showed that Pretti did not try to draw his gun from his waistband before or during the scuffle with federal agents.
Two Senate Republicans have said Noem should be out of a job, and Democrats have called for her impeachment.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he stands by Noem.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday blocked a New York state court ruling that had ordered the Empire State’s congressional map redrawn ahead of the 2026 midterms.
A state judge in New York ruled earlier this year that New York must redraw its congressional map and cease using its current one because the current map’s 11th Congressional District violates the state’s Constitution and dilutes the votes of Black and Latino voters.
U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the Republican representing the district, had appealed the ruling initially in state court and later asked the Supreme Court to block the order, as did other Republicans.
The district currently covers Staten Island, along with several neighborhoods across the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge in Brooklyn.
In a statement posted on social media, Malliotakis praised the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that it “helps restore the public’s confidence in our judicial system and proves the challenge to our district lines was always meritless.”
“The plaintiffs in this case attempted to manipulate our state’s courts to use race as a weapon to rig our elections. That was wrong and, as demonstrated by today’s ruling, clearly unconstitutional,” Malliotakis’ post said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state court order that knocked down New York’s current map “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race” and that the court had no choice but to step in — even so close the election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a sharply worded dissent, accused her colleagues of prematurely intervening in a state-law case, even before New York courts had fully resolved the appeals.
“By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election,” Sotomayor wrote. “It also invites parties searching for a sympathetic ear to file emergency applications directly with this Court, without even bothering to ask the state courts first.”
The ruling from SCOTUS allows appeals to play out in lower courts, but it means New York will not be redrawing its map for the 2026 election.
“This blatantly political case violated both the New York State and federal constitutions and, as Justice Alito stated, the lower court’s decision was a full-blown racial gerrymander,” New York Republican Party chair Ed Cox wrote in a statement Monday.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.