Politics

(NEW JERSEY) — New Jersey is set to hold its gubernatorial elections this year, with hotly contested primaries set for next month — and many experts are saying the high-stakes race could be a harbinger for the mood of the country ahead of 2026’s critical midterm elections.

“This is going to be the first real test for the potential Democratic backlash against the Trump administration. We’ve seen a little bit from special elections that Democratic voters are motivated to turn out. Does that continue going forward in the fall in New Jersey?” Daniel Bowen, a political science professor at The College of New Jersey, told ABC News.

Brigid Callahan Harrison, the chair of the Political Science and Law Department at Montclair State University, told ABC News that the race might not only be a “bellwether” for how voters feel about President Donald Trump and the upcoming midterms, but that it could indicate both how partisan allegiances are shifting in New Jersey and the strength of Trump’s endorsement of Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli.

Harrison points to Kamala Harris’ small margin of victory in New Jersey, too. Harris won New Jersey by around 6 percentage points in 2024; then-Vice President Joe Biden won the state by about 16 percentage points in 2020.

At stake in the race are also issues in New Jersey such as immigration enforcement and sanctuary cities, and the cost of housing and general affordability — issues that have divided and animated Americans around the country and that are set to take center stage in the midterms as well.

Democrats contend with a crowded field

The Democratic primary features six figures hoping to succeed incumbent and term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy and to keep the governorship blue.

Polling shows that U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who represents the state’s 11th Congressional District, is leading the pack. Sherrill’s experience as a former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot and network of political supporters from a previous run for Congress work in her favor, Harrison said.

Another Democratic candidate, Josh Gottheimer, has represented New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District since 2017. The former political operative is widely seen as a moderate. Similar to other candidates, Gottheimer is positioning himself as ready to take on Trump. He has also framed himself as being the best one to tackle affordability in the state.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was an educator in Newark Public Schools and a member of the city council before being elected mayor for the first time in 2014. He was arrested earlier this month while joining members of Congress at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Newark. Trespassing charges against Baraka have since been dismissed.

Steven Fulop was first elected mayor of Jersey City in 2013. The ex-Goldman Sachs investment banker and former Marine has overseen population growth, increased development and municipal reforms.

Steve Sweeney, a former ironworker who served as New Jersey’s state Senate president for more than a decade, spent two decades as a lawmaker in that chamber before losing to a Republican in 2021. He has touted his strong support from unions and experience as a legislator.

Sean Spiller, the president of the New Jersey Education Association — the state’s largest teacher’s union — has pointed to his experience as the former mayor of the city of Montclair as evidence that he is able to take on issues such as affordable housing and investing in childcare.

As the June 10 primary gets closer, experts say they’re all facing some of the same headwinds. After New Jersey eliminated its old primary ballot design, which used to allow most county parties to give preferential placement to their endorsed candidates, candidates now must focus more on their own get-out-the-vote operations, Harrison said.

“Nobody’s run in a race like this,” she said.

Republicans play the Trump card — as he endorses a returning challenger

Republicans are hoping to flip New Jersey’s governorship red — and point to the closer-than-expected margin between Trump and Harris in 2024 as evidence that it’s in reach.

A recent New Jersey Republican Party fundraising email encouraged voters to “finish the job” and “flip New Jersey red, for good.”

Experts said the presidential results might not necessarily indicate how competitive the gubernatorial race will be. Bowen said that New Jersey’s off-cycle gubernatorial elections often show voters largely voting against the incumbent party in power in the White House, although he added that Republicans also see the race as intertwined with Democratic incumbent Murphy finishing up his time in office.

Still, most of the Republican candidates have been eager to align themselves with Trump.

Trump has endorsed the Republican front-runner Ciattarelli in the race that the president wrote is being “closely watched by the entire World.”

Ciattarelli has been involved in local politics for decades, serving various roles including councilman and state assemblyman. He has had his sights on governor since 2017, where he ran for the first time but lost the primary. Ciattarelli succeeded in clinching the Republican nomination in 2021, but ultimately lost to Murphy.

Ciattarelli, who says his top priority is making the state more affordable, has shifted his stance on Trump over the years. In 2015, he issued a statement calling Trump “out of step with American values” and “not fit” to be president. But he now supports the president, and endorsed Trump in the 2024 election.

Trump, recently wrote on his social media platform that Ciattarelli, “after getting to know and understand MAGA, has gone ALL IN, and is now 100% (PLUS!)”

After the endorsement, Ciattarelli told Fox News that he will support the president’s agenda. He has acknowledged his previous comments about Trump, too, but compared himself to Vice President JD Vance — who at one point also did not support the president but is now vice president under Trump.

Ashley Koning, the director of the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, told ABC News that Trump’s endorsement could help encourage undecided Republican voters to favor Ciattarelli. She said the center’s polling showed that with Republican voters who were split, about half said an endorsement from Trump would make them more likely to vote for that candidate.

Conservative talk show host Bill Spadea previously ran unsuccessful campaigns for the U.S. House and the state assembly, and has said he isn’t afraid to call out both parties. He has expressed a desire to end taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood and replicate the Department of Government Efficiency in New Jersey, in addition to promising to combat illegal immigration and increase affordability. Still, he said he has disagreed with Trump on “multiple occasions.”

Jon Bramnick, a former state senator, appears to be less supportive of Trump. Last April, he made it clear that he would not vote for Trump in the 2024 presidential race, though he also said he probably wouldn’t vote for the Democratic candidate either.

Still, some of Bramnick’s positions reflect stances similar to Trump’s. In addition to branding himself as the “toughest candidate on immigration,” Bramnick also seeks to end sanctuary state policies in New Jersey, and introduced the “New Jersey Laken Riley Act,” which intends to align the state’s law with Trump’s legislation.

Mario Kranjac, the former mayor of the town of Englewood Cliffs, is running a pro-Trump campaign, branding himself as a “political outsider.” Justin Barbera, a contractor, is also running a pro-Trump campaign, telling the New Jersey Monitor he is guided by his military and Christian background.

Even with Ciatterelli standing out as the front-runner, Bowen said that nothing is certain until the primary wraps.

“It certainly looks like the race is Ciatterelli’s to lose at this point — although, of course, in a primary, anything can happen,” Bowen said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(STERLING, VA.) — Calling them “pioneers,” President Donald Trump praised the top investors in his cryptocurrency meme coin at an exclusive black-tie dinner Thursday as protesters outside the event chanted and displayed signs blasting the gala as a pay-for-play event.

Two hundred and twenty cryptocurrency traders, including many from overseas, pumped tens of millions of dollars into Trump’s meme coin to gain admission to the gala through a contest that awarded invitations to the top investors — with at least some of the funds flowing directly into the Trump family’s coffers.

Among those spotted arriving for the event at Trump’s private golf club outside Washington were Lamar Odom of the NBA and “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” fame, controversial cryptocurrency mogul Justin Sun, and Kendall Davis, an Austin-based cryptocurrency investor, who told ABC News that he “came here to advocate for things to be done right in the crypto space.”

The top 220 holders of Trump’s meme coin — a type of digital currency that’s often based on an internet meme — collectively spent upwards of $140 million for a seat at the table on Thursday, according to an analysis by the data analytics firm Nansen. According to CNBC’s reporting of blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis’ data, 58 crypto wallets had made millions from their Trump coin investments as of May 6 — while roughly 764,000 crypto wallets had lost money.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the gala was not a White House event and that the president was attending in a personal capacity. The White House did not release a list of the event’s attendees.

Protesters outside the event — which included Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. — chanted slogans and displayed signs reading “Stop Trump’s Crypto Corruption” and “America is not for sale” as attendees made their way into the venue.

Trump, addressing attendees at the dinner, said that he always puts the country “way ahead of the business” and added, “You can’t say that about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden,” according to social media posts.

On the topic of cryptocurrency, Trump attacked the previous administration and touted his own administration’s support of crypto.

“The Biden administration persecuted crypto innovators, and we’re bringing them back into the USA where they belong. They were fleeing. They were leaving our country,” Trump was seen saying in a social media video posted by an attendee.

Many of the dinner guests were overseas investors, and several of them told ABC News they had flown into the country just for a chance to see the president of the United States.

One attendee, who asked that he not be identified, told ABC News he flew in from Taiwan for the dinner.

“The second day Trump made the announcement about the dinner, I bought a bunch of tokens,” he said. The attendee said he didn’t have anything specific he wanted to hear from Trump, but that he wanted to attend the dinner because “I just think to have opportunity to come to an event like this is very rare.”

Another attendee, who asked to be identified only by his first name, Alex, told ABC News he is an investment banker from Moscow, Russia, who currently resides in Cancun.

He said he didn’t understand much of what Trump spoke about at the dinner because of the language barrier, but that he’s a supporter of Trump and that he was happy to see him.

Attendee Bryce Paul, in a video he posted to social media, likened Trump’s meme coin gala to crypto’s “Iwo Jima” moment — where attendees would be “raising the flags, behind the enemy lines, right here in the swamp of D.C.”

“I’m just one of 220 people that are invited,” Paul said. “There’s no media, there’s no recording, there are no plus-ones. It’s just truly some of the most influential figures in crypto, in policy, and of course, the man himself.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be able to survive a legal challenge, thanks in part to a Japanese zipper company that sued the Nixon administration 50 years ago.

Earlier this week, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Donald Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs — basing his ruling on the precedent from a 1970s court case — but stopped short of issuing an order affirming the president’s right to impose sweeping tariffs.

In a largely technical ruling issued on Tuesday, U.S. Judge T. Kent Wetherell II transferred one of the first lawsuits challenging Trump’s tariffs to a different federal court while also weighing in on the legality of the controversial tariffs. Florida-based planner company Emily Ley Paper sued over the tariffs in April, asking Wetherell to invalidate them because Trump lacks the power to impose tariffs himself.

According to the judge, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 gives Trump the authority to set tariffs for reasons other than raising revenue. Wetherell wrote that Trump’s justification for the tariffs — both stemming the flow of illicit drugs into the country and resolving a trade imbalance — is sufficient to satisfy the terms set by Congress.

“This is a civil action commenced against the United States and it ‘arises out of’ a federal law—IEEPA—so the dispositive question framed by the parties’ filings is whether IEEPA ‘provid[es] for … tariffs,'” he wrote. “Defendants contend that it does; Plaintiffs contend that it doesn’t. The Court agrees with Defendants …”

The decision is at best a symbolic victory for the Trump administration, which is fending off a half dozen lawsuits challenging the legality of the recent “Liberation Day” tariffs.

Judge Wetherell ultimately decided to transfer the case from a federal court in Florida to the Court of International Trade in New York, meaning that, despite his favorable view of the tariffs, he won’t be the one deciding the case.

But the decision marks the first time a federal judge has suggested Trump’s imposition of tariffs falls within his authority as president, offering a positive sign that the Trump administration may find a receptive audience at the Court of International Trade. During two hearings over the last week, judges at the Court of International Trade have wrestled with the same question about Trump’s authority.

The question comes down to the interpretation of the 1970s law that Trump used to impose his tariffs. The IEEPA gives the president the right to “regulate” imports but does not explicitly mention tariffs. Lawyers challenging the tariffs have argued that Trump’s interpretation of the law oversteps his authority by treading into an issue controlled by Congress, but the Trump administration has pointed judges to a court decision related to the IEEPA’s legal predecessor — the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — to guide the way.

Back when President Richard Nixon confronted the country’s 1971 economic crisis with steep tariffs on Japanese goods, a zipper company based in Japan called Yoshida sued Nixon over the tariffs.

The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the predecessor to the Court of International Trade, sided with the government and held that the TWAE gives the president the power to impose tariffs.

According to Wetherell, the same reasoning would apply 50 years later to the IEEPA, meaning Trump has the power to impose tariffs without the help of Congress. “The reasoning in Yoshida is persuasive, and the Court sees no reason why it would not apply to IEEPA because the operative language of IEEPA is identical to the operative language in TWEA,” the judge wrote.

Despite losing its legal battle, Yoshida remains in business today. Now operating under the name YKK, it produces more zippers than any other company in the world.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) –House Republicans approved the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” encompassing President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda early Thursday. But clearing the House is just the first hurdle for the bill, which will also have to pass muster with a Senate Republican conference that is already telegraphing that changes to it are coming.

Trump is pushing for swift action on his megabill, urging senators in a post on X to act “as soon as possible” after the narrow victory in the House.

“We can celebrate this pass in the House for a couple of hours, but now it’s time for the Senate to get to work,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during Thursday’s White House press briefing. “The president has great relationship with … Senate Majority Leader [John] Thune, and of course, so many friends on the Senate side of the Hill. And he’s expecting them to get busy on this bill and send it to his desk as soon as possible.”

Senate Republicans say they’re clear-eyed about wanting to pass Trump’s legislative agenda into law as swiftly as they can, but have every intention of modifying the bill to leave their own distinct mark on the package and working to change things they object to.

Majority Leader Thune said Wednesday that “there are things that we need to adjust or modify or change,” adding that Speaker Mike Johnson “fully understands and accepts that.”

Chief among the issues GOP senators have raised about the bill is that it adds trillions of dollars to the national debt.

“[The] House bill is going to add about $4 trillion to the debt ceiling. The Senate bill adds $5 trillion. There’s nothing fiscally conservative about expanding the debt ceiling more than we’ve ever done it before,” Republican Sen. Rand Paul said Thursday. “This will be the greatest increase in the debt ceiling ever, and the GOP owns this now … the deficit this year will be $2.2 trillion the GOP owns that now too.”

Some Senate Republicans are calling for steeper spending cuts so that raising the debt limit would not be part of this bill.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, a notable fiscal hawk, has also signaled strongly that he would not support the bill in its current form, given that it raises the deficit.

“It’s so far off the mark. It’s so bad. I’ve been trying to interject reality. I’ve been trying to interject facts and figures,” Ron Johnson told reporters on Wednesday afternoon at the Capitol, as the House was still advancing the bill through the Rules Committee.

“Currently the fiscal situation is not even in the conversation in the House debate. We’re missing the forest talking about twigs and leaves. Medicaid, that’s, that’s a tree. That’s a big enough issue. But all this, all this, all these little tweaks they’re trying to make to get the deal completely ignores the elf in the room.. which says, on average, I mean, current [Congressional Budget Office] estimate, on average, we’ll have a $2.2 trillion deficit, per year,” Sen. Johnson added.

A few GOP Senators seemed more supportive of the bill, but noted there was significant work needed to be done in order to pass through the upper chamber.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said “a lot of it looks pretty good,” adding that it’s a “good start.”

“Still, I think there’s some opportunities for more efficiency, some more savings, and we have to look at the specifics of some of the renewable investment tax credits and production tax credits, and I think that even if we’re going to revise them, we’ve got to make sure that businesses who believe the government was setting this as a priority don’t have a lot of stranded costs,” he added.

If the bill is retooled by the Senate, it risks a complicated path for the speaker down the road when the bill goes back to the House. Republicans have set a Fourth of July deadline for both chambers to pass the bill and get it to Trump’s desk.

Passing this massive package through the Senate is also no cakewalk for Thune, who will only be able to afford to lose three of his members if it comes up for a vote on the Senate floor.

The House-passed bill includes new tax cuts, cuts to social safety net programs and changes to the food assistance program, SNAP — all of which have led Democrats to lambaste the legislation for creating benefits for some of the richest Americans and cuts for some of the poorest.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer slammed the bill in a post on X Thursday morning.

“This is not one big, beautiful bill. It’s ugly,” Schumer said. “There’s nothing beautiful about stripping away people’s healthcare, forcing kids to go hungry, denying communities the resources they need, and increasing poverty.”

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray called the bill a “scam” in a post on X, urging all Republicans to vote no.

“House Republicans don’t want you to know they just passed a bill that makes health care MORE expensive and kicks MILLIONS off Medicaid, all to pass tax cuts for billionaires & giant corporations,” Murray wrote. “We need to make sure America knows. And we need to kill this bill in the Senate.”

Leavitt criticized Democrats as being “out of touch” with Americans.

“Every single Democrat in the House of Representatives who voted against all of these common sense and massively popular policies,” Leavitt said during Thursday’s White House press briefing. “The Democrat Party has never been more radical and out of touch with the needs of the American people.”

The Senate will also have to contend with the rules governing what can be included in such a package. Making sure that the bill passes muster with the Senate parliamentarian could lead to additional changes to the bill that Mike Johnson will eventually have to sell to his conference in the House.

As Trump now prepares to negotiate with Senators, Leavitt told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce that she was not aware if those conversations had started already.

What did GOP holdouts get?

Speaker Johnson had to work with his right flank to get the megabill passed in the House, which he managed to do by one vote. So what changed to get those more than a dozen holdouts on board?

Not much, several hard-liners told ABC News.

After laboring for days to push for steeper spending cuts and repeatedly railing against the spending that added to the bloated national deficit, many of the holdouts caved.

“The Freedom Caucus was instrumental, and we held it out as long as we could to get the cuts, as long as we could. We couldn’t do it any longer. We live to fight another day,” Republican Rep. Ralph Norman, a key holdout, told reporters.

Norman says there was no specific deal struck between Trump, the speaker and the hard-line holdouts — even after a high-stakes, last-ditch meeting at the White House Wednesday.

Chair of the House Freedom Caucus, Andy Harris, wouldn’t give the bill his vote. He voted “present.”

Republican Rep. Keith Self, another hard-liner, told ABC News that he waited until the last minute to vote yes on the bill. He didn’t fully support the bill, but didn’t want to be the one to tank it.

“We got something … I would have preferred to go further too, to be honest with you, but we did what we could, and we fought the good fight,” Self said.

That number of “more than a dozen” holdouts also included Republicans from states like New York and California, pushing for a higher cap on the state and local tax deduction. Speaker Johnson raised that cap from its proposed $30,000 to $40,000, and increasing 1% a year thereafter. That was enough to get their support.

But, for the spending hawks, it’s unclear how they can characterize this as a win.

Leavitt said Thursday that she believes that Trump would want to see the two Republican representatives who voted no on the bill — Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson — should be primaried.

“I don’t think he likes to see grandstanders in Congress. What’s the alternative? I would ask those members of Congress. Did they want to see a tax hike? Did they want to see our country go bankrupt? That’s the alternative by them trying to vote no,” Leavitt said.

ABC News’ Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has barred Harvard from allowing international students to enroll at the university, after the school lost its ability to use the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.

The SEVP program allows for noncitizens to study at the university under a specific visa.

“As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ policies, you have lost this privilege,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote in a letter to the university.

Harvard said the move by the Trump administration is not legal.

“The government’s action is unlawful. We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably. We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community,” the school said in a statement on Thursday. “This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”

Noem wrote to Harvard in April requesting a tranche of information be given to DHS in order for the school to retain its SEVP status.

According to the letter, she asked Harvard to give information over on student visa holder’s “known” illegally activity; violent activity; threats to students or faculty; disciplinary actions taken as a result of being involved in a protest; information on whether the student obstructed the school’s learning environment; and the coursework that the student is taking to maintain the visa status.

Noem said the school did not provide adequate information in response, and that it is a “privilege, not a right” for students to study at American universities.

“The revocation of your Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification means that Harvard is prohibited from having any aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status for the 2025-2026 academic school year.,” she writes. “This decertification also means that existing aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status must transfer to another university in order to maintain their nonimmigrant status.”

Noem said that “consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump Administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.”

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday, in a rare deadlocked 4-4 ruling, said Oklahoma cannot create the nation’s first religious charter school funded directly with taxpayer dollars.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic, did not take part in the decision, recusing from the case early on, presumably given her ties to the Notre Dame Law School clinic that supported the Catholic archdiocese’s effort to create the school, but she did not explain her decision.

The Supreme Court issued a one-line opinion upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that taxpayer-funded religious schools would violate both the state and U.S. constitutions.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned ruling, so it is not known how each justice voted on the issue.

The court action leaves in place lower court rulings that said the arrangement would have violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The decision is a setback for a religious freedom movement that has notched major gains in recent years under the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority, including rulings allowing the use of taxpayer-funded school vouchers, scholarships, and capital improvement grants by religious organizations.

First Liberty, a major religious right advocacy group behind faith-based cases at the high court, represented the Oklahoma state school superintendent, Ryan Walters, who was pushing for religious charters.

Walters vowed to keep fighting for them.

“Allowing the exclusion of religious schools from our charter school program in the name of 19th century religious bigotry is wrong,” said Walters. “As state superintendent, I will always stand with parents and families in opposition to religious discrimination and fight until all children in Oklahoma are free to choose the school that serves them best, religious or otherwise.”

The Supreme Court ruling is almost certainly not the final word on the issue, however.

Because the high court divided evenly, its decision is not a binding precedent nationwide and sets the stage for the entire court to reconsider the issue in a future case, perhaps from another state.

The decision is being greeted with relief by advocates for public schools and independent charter schools, who feared that a ruling in favor of St. Isidore of Seville, the Oklahoma Catholic school, would create major disruptions to education systems nationwide.

Forty-five states have charter school programs, encompassing 8,000 schools that serve 3.8 million kids.

Some states, opposed to funding of religious charter schools, had warned they may be forced to curtail their charter programs or end them entirely.

The American Federation of Teachers, which filed an amicus brief in the two related cases before the court, celebrated the court’s block of taxpayer-funded religious charter schools.

“Today, the court let the decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court stand, which correctly upheld the separation of church and state and backed the founders’ intention to place religious pluralism over sectarianism,” AFT President Randi Weingarten said. “We are pleased that four of the justices agreed that we must preserve and nurture the roots of our democracy, not tear up its very foundations.”

“We respect and honor religious education. It should be separate from public schooling,” Weingarten added. “Public schools, including public charter schools, are funded by taxpayer dollars because they are dedicated to helping all—not just some—children have a shot at success. They are the bedrock of our democracy, and states have long worked to ensure that they remain secular, open and accessible to all.”

ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House’s Make America Healthy Again Commission offered a range of critiques about chronic disease in America in a report released Thursday,

Chiefly, the report blames many chronic illnesses on ultra-processed foods, sedentary behavior and over-reliance on digital devices among children, and chemicals in the environment. It also suggests childhood vaccines need to be studied further.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who leads the commission, told reporters on a call Thursday that the report is the “most radical consensus by a government agency in history about the state of America’s health.”

“It is very strong. It’s very frank, and it is a clarion call to do something with utmost urgency to end this crisis, and that’s what we wanted,” Kennedy said.

However, the 69-page document leaves many questions unanswered, including how much it will cost to address the chronic illnesses that Kennedy is focused on and what steps might be taken to curtail them.

Kennedy told reporters that the commission doesn’t yet have a budget to fund the future health initiatives, noting officials plan to develop policy recommendations in the next 100 days.

“There is no budge,” Kennedy said. “At this point, there’s no concrete policy that could be funded in a budget. We’re going to work out the policy recommendations over the next 100 days.”

“The next stage of this process is to come up with policy recommendations for the president, and then we’ll spend the next four years implementing those policy recommendations,” he continued.

Despite the lack of budget details, Kennedy maintained that addressing the chronic health issues would save money in the long term.

“We’re going to save a lot more money in the long run and even in the short run, we can reduce the numbers, which we intend to do during this administration,” Kennedy said.

Officials including Calley Means, a special government employee and adviser to Kennedy who has fought against the presence of ultra-processed foods and pesticides, praised the report.

“The fact that an official U.S. government document … gives credibility to complaints about pesticides and names specific pesticides in there is a monumental symbol,” he told ABC News.

Though the officials largely highlighted improving Americans’ diet, which Kennedy said President Donald Trump had directed the commission to look into, Kennedy also emphasized “exposure to toxic chemicals, a lack of physical activity and chronic stress and over-medicalization.”

He said these factors have made American children “the sickest kids in the world.”

On the issue of pesticides in food — which found a lot of industry pushback in the last few weeks as the report neared its due date — Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who both have more direct oversight than Kennedy over the industry, were careful to ensure that farmers would not face any surprises.

While Kennedy and others in the MAHA movement have questioned the safety or health of the ingredients in foods on store shelves, Rollins stressed that the U.S. food supply remains safe.

“The food supply is 100% safe,” Rollins said. “It isn’t just safe. It is the safest in the world. And it’s really, really important that we continue to make sure that people understand that,” she added.

Rollins pledged that Kennedy and the MAHA Commission will not “compromise the ability of our American agriculture to do what they do best,” and Zeldin said that any moves to regulate pesticides would be carefully considered against the cost to farmers.

“American farmers rely on these products, and actions that further regulate or restrict crop protection tools, beyond risk-based and scientific processes set forth by Congress, must involve thoughtful consideration of what is necessary for adequate protection, alternatives and cost of production,” he said.

Zeldin added that any quick changes in agricultural practices could have “adverse impact on American agriculture and the domestic food supply.”

The report also calls for new studies on childhood vaccines, which dozens of high-quality studies have found to be safe and effective.

Although the report states that vaccines protect children from infectious diseases, it also claims parents are concerned about their “appropriate use” and their “possible role” in chronic diseases among children.

“Despite the growth of the childhood vaccine schedule, there has been limited scientific inquiry into the links between vaccines and chronic disease, the impacts of vaccine injury, and conflicts of interest in the development of the vaccine schedule. These areas warrant future inquiry,” the report states.

Dozens of studies have failed to find a link between an increased number of vaccines and more chronic disease among children.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday, in a rare deadlocked 4-4 ruling, said Oklahoma cannot create the nation’s first religious charter school funded directly with taxpayer dollars.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the decision, recusing from the case early on, presumably given her ties to the Notre Dame law clinic that supported the Catholic diocese, but she did not explain her decision.

The Supreme Court issued a one-line opinion upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling that taxpayer-funded religious schools would violate both the state and U.S. constitutions.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned ruling so it is not known how each justice voted on the issue.

The court action leaves in place lower court rulings that said the arrangement would have violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The decision is a setback for a religious freedom movement that has notched major gains in recent years under the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority, including rulings allowing the use of taxpayer-funded school vouchers, scholarships, and capital improvement grants by religious organizations.

The ruling is almost certainly not the final word on the issue, however.

Because the Supreme Court divided evenly, its decision is not a binding precedent nationwide and sets the stage for the entire court to reconsider the issue in a future case, perhaps from another state.

The decision is being greeted with relief by advocates for public schools and independent charter schools, who feared that a ruling in favor of St. Isidore of Seville, the Oklahoma Catholic school, would create major disruptions to education systems nationwide.

Forty-five states have charter school programs, encompassing 8,000 schools that serve 3.8 million kids.

Some states, opposed to funding of religious charter schools, had warned they may be forced to curtail their charter programs or end them entirely.

ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After weeks of internal GOP wrangling, the Republican-led House early Thursday passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” critical to advancing President Donald Trump’s tax and immigration agenda.

A smiling Speaker Mike Johnson announced the massive measure passed by a single vote — 215-214 — and was greeted with applause. He had struggled to get it done — as he had promised — by Memorial Day, before lawmakers go on recess.

The sweeping package of tax cuts, Medicaid reform and immigration spending delivers on many of the president’s domestic campaign promises.

Following debate that stretched Wednesday through the entire night and into early Thursday morning, the vote was a triumphant moment for Johnson, who conquered sharp divisions among his conference “through a lot of prayer” amid a historically low 3-vote majority.

“The bill gets Americans back to winning again, and it’s been a long time coming,” Johnson proclaimed during his speech on the floor moments before the final vote. “It quite literally is again morning in America, isn’t it, all right?”

Trump celebrated the passage of what he called “THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” in a social media post, calling it the “most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!”

He said it fulfilled his campaign promise of “No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime.” He also recognized the tax deductions when consumers purchase an American-made vehicle, funding for the Golden Dome defense system, and the “TRUMP Savings Accounts” incorporated in the legislation.

“Great job by Speaker Mike Johnson, and the House Leadership, and thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill!,” Trump wrote.

“Now, it’s time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!” Trump added, before slamming Democrats.

During the final House vote, Republican lawmakers approached the speaker with congratulatory handshakes and back slaps. Someone also played Queen’s “We Are The Champions” off a phone for about 10 seconds while the vote was underway.

Republicans cheered, whistled and applauded when the threshold for passage was achieved at 6:54 a.m.

The successful vote, with one GOP lawmaker voting present, sends the reconciliation bill to the Senate, where the Republican majority is expected to revise the legislation over the next month or longe

Two House Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, opposed the vote alongside the entire House Democratic Caucus. Rep. Andy Harris, the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present.

Johnson took a victory lap following the vote – holding a news conference alongside his leadership team and committee chairs – after Republicans pulled off the improbable and passed the president’s signature legislative package.

“It’s finally Morning in America again,” Johnson beamed as he reported his earlier comment. “The media and the Democrats have consistently dismissed any possibility that House Republicans could get this stuff. They did not believe that we could succeed in our mission to enact President Trump’s America first agenda, but this is a big one, and once again, they have been proven wrong.”

After a marathon hearing that ended overnight, the House Rules committee voted 8-4 to tee up action on the House floor.

The committee vote came after changes to several of the bill’s provisions, including a change to when Medicaid work requirements would kick in.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, one of the GOP holdouts that had put the bill’s fate in question, was absent for the committee’s votes.

The key procedural step was needed before advancing the legislation to a final vote.

The slow march toward passage comes after Trump met with House Speaker Mike Johnson and members of the House Freedom Caucus on Wednesday, aiming to shore up support for the bill.

That meeting came after earlier negotiations with hard-liners fell apart Tuesday. The GOP is far from unified around the bill, which they earlier had said they hoped to move to a vote on Wednesday. Several sticking points, primarily regarding Medicaid work requirements and a cap on state and local tax deductions, still need to be worked out.

After the meeting, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “The meeting was productive and moved the ball in the right direction. The President reiterated how critical it is for the country to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill as quickly as possible.”

Clearing the House is just the first hurdle for the bill — it will also have to pass muster with a Senate Republican conference that is already telegraphing that they plan to make changes.

Here are the major changes to the bill in the 42-page amendment:

Medicaid: The start date for new Medicaid work requirements will now kick in “no later than December 31, 2026.” The original bill had the work requirements starting in 2029.

This alteration is a win for hardliners who have for days been pushing for steeper spending cuts to be included in the package. Medicaid work requirements are expected to reduce spending in the bill.

There is also a new incentive for states to not expand Medicaid. Medicaid expansion states are increasing state-directed payments up to 110% to maintain the structure.

State and Local Tax Deductions: SALT deduction rises to $40,000 for incomes under $500,000. This is a substantive change from the $10,000 cap that was implemented by Republicans in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

This is a concession geared toward satiating blue-state Republicans in states like New York and California. Many of them conditioned their support for the package on lifting or raising the cap on these deductions. Moderates will brand this as a big win.

Maga Savings Account: The amendment changes the names of these accounts. Instead of MAGA Accounts, they will now be called “Trump” Accounts. The president’s last name appears in the manager’s amendment +50 times.

Expedited cuts to clean energy credits: Some of Biden-era clean energy tax credits will phase out sooner, allowing Republicans to recoup costs to apply toward the overall cost of the bill. To receive credits, new projects must break ground within 60 days or be “placed in service” by the end of 2028.

Billions in border security reimbursements: The Department of Homeland Security appropriates $12 billion to states for costs associated with Biden-era border actions through September 30, 2029. The DHS Secretary can authorize grants to assist with immigration enforcement.

Ends tax on silencers: The manager’s amendment delists silencers from the National Firearms Act, effectively ending a tax on transferring silencers.

ABC News’ Kelsey Walsh contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The future of President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would fund his second-term agenda could depend on SALT.

The State and Local Tax deduction has been a wedge between Democrats and Republicans but now a division between GOP House members from high-tax districts and fiscal hardliners who look at it as subsidizing blue states.

Adding more confusion over the debate is the president himself, who has flipped since his first term in office.

What is SALT?

The SALT deduction allows taxpayers to itemize state and local taxes in their filing, including property taxes.

Residents of states like New York, New Jersey and California, along with cities like Salt Lake City, Miami and Houston, which have a larger share of wealthier taxpayers and homeowners, used the deduction the most, according to IRS data.

The Tax Foundation, a non-profit that analyses tax data, found in 2017 that about 90% of the value of the deduction went to families making more than $100,000.

Prior to 2017, taxpayers had an unlimited total SALT deduction. The average SALT deduction was around $13,000 nationwide and below $15,000 in most counties, according to the non-profit group the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Fissures develop after Trump puts limits on SALT

During his first term, Trump’s massive 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act made huge cuts to federal spending to pay for tax breaks for wealthier Americans. The bill capped the SALT deduction at $10,000.

Democrats and Republicans in those states that had benefitted from the higher SALT cap protested against that section of the bill, arguing that it would harm their constituents.

“It’s a geographic redistribution of wealth,” then-New York Republican congressman Lee Zeldin told CNBC in 2017. “When you are taking extra money from a state like New York or New Jersey to pay for a deeper tax cut elsewhere.”

Zeldin, who was Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency in his second term, was among the 13 Republican House members who voted against the bill.

House Republicans, who ultimately prevailed, contended that SALT benefited the wealthiest Americans.

“This is about giving hardworking taxpayers bigger paychecks, more take-home pay,” then-Speaker Paul Ryan said after the bill passed the House.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly slammed Trump and Republicans for capping the SALT deduction and called for it to be eliminated.

“Congress has placed a bullseye on New York State — you don’t have to be a partisan nose to smell a rat, but I tell you, this plan stinks,” he told reporters in 2017.

Trump ignored the criticism then, but his messaging changed after he was voted out of office in 2020.

Trump changes his tune, but not everyone plays along

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump pledged to end the cap. He didn’t mention that he championed and signed the 2017 bill that created it.

“I will turn it around, get SALT back, lower your Taxes, and so much more,” Trump posted on Truth Social in September, just before a campaign rally in Nassau County, New York, one of the counties with the most SALT deductions.

He made the same claim at the rally, but didn’t offer any details.

While New York Republicans welcomed the reversal, Democrats, including Schumer, called Trump out for his hypocrisy.

“His tax bill did it, a dagger aimed at blue states that want to spend a little more to help people with housing, and health care, and education, transportation,” Schumer said on the Senate floor the day after the rally. “All of a sudden, now that he is on Long Island, Donald Trump’s selective amnesia kicks in and he totally reverses himself on SALT.”

Trump has continued to push for SALT changes, but not everyone in his party has jumped on board.

Salt in the budget wounds

SALT has become a sticking point in Republican infighting over Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Several GOP House members, including Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, vowed to vote no on the bill without a SALT cap increase.

“So, this is, as it stands, I have been very clear. This does not have my support,” he told reporters last week.

Lawler said Republican hardliners were “screwing a whole host of people who are getting hammered by property taxes.”

GOP Rep. Nick LaLota of New York declared “there is no deal without a true SALT fix.”

Exasperated House GOP fiscal hardliners pushed back against any deal to raise the SALT cap as they seek to reduce the debt.

“You need to get behind the cuts that we need to find the savings that we need to find. Stop b—-ing,” Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said of his colleagues pushing to raise the SALT cap. “The reality is, we’re $37 trillion in debt and we have a $2 trillion deficit. This is a math problem.”

In a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, Trump told them “Don’t let SALT impede this bill,” claiming they could fight for raising the cap later.

An overnight tentative deal that would raise the cap to $30,000 threatened GOP leadership’s hopes to get the bill to the floor for a vote.

Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chairman of the conservative House Freedom Council, said the SALT deal pushes hardliners “further away from a deal.”

“This bill actually got worse overnight,” Harris told Newsmax on Wednesday. “There is no way it passes today.”

“We may need a couple of weeks to iron everything out but it’s not going anywhere today,” he said.

Hardliners were to meet with Trump on Wednesday afternoon to see if he can break the impasse.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.