Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche testifies during a House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on June 02, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department’s number three-ranked official suggested overnight in a since deleted post that the Trump administration would be moving forward with an alternative plan to compensate victims of claimed Biden-era “weaponization.”
The post came just hours after the acting attorney general committed to Congress that DOJ was scrapping plans for a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
The fund was created in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as well as two civil claims related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.
Stanley Woodward, the associate attorney general who signed off on the president’s controversial settlement, responded approvingly to a suggestion pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on X Tuesday that victims of so-called Biden-era “weaponization” could still be compensated through claims under the requests under the Federal Torts Claims Act.
“We’re on it.” Woodward posted at 10:45 p.m. Tuesday evening in response to Graham’s post. Woodward’s post was deleted Wednesday morning, and a DOJ spokesperson has not responded to ABC’s request for comment as to why it’s no longer on his X account.
The post comes just hours after acting AG Todd Blanche told House lawmakers that the administration was permanently scrapping plans for its “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
Blanche, however, under pressure from Democrats did not commit to putting the department’s position into writing.
Democrats could seek to seize on Woodward’s post as evidence the administration is seeking an alternate way to pay Jan 6 rioters.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass looks on as she greets customers at Pann’s Restaurant on June 01, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. With one day to go before the California primary, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass continues to campaign across the city. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — Votes are being counted in the closely watched primary election to determine Los Angeles’ next mayor.
Voters in the nation’s second-largest city had their choice of 14 candidates to choose from in a race that included incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV personality Spencer Pratt and city Councilwoman Nithya Raman.
ABC News projects that Bass will advance to a runoff, though it is currently unclear which candidate she will face in the runoff election.
During the campaign, candidates running for the top office in Los Angeles focused on a variety of issues afflicting the Southern California metropolis, including recovery from the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homelessness, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and more.
While the primary is nonpartisan, Bass has served Congress as a Democrat, Raman is a self-described Democrat, and Pratt is a registered Republican.
Here is a rundown of the candidates, the issues and how the election will function.
The candidates
While 14 candidates are running for office, three front-runners have emerged in polls: Bass, Pratt and Raman met in the only televised debate of the race on May 6.
Bass, a Los Angeles native, entered politics in 2004 after a career in medicine as a physician assistant. The mayor served in the California State Assembly, rising to the speaker of the assembly before running for Congress in 2010.
She served six terms in the House as a Democrat before becoming the first woman and second African American mayor of Los Angeles in 2022.
Raman, running as a progressive, launched her campaign earlier this year, just before the deadline, and has been a member of the city council since 2020.
Raman, who holds degrees from both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describes herself as an “urban planner” on her website.
Pratt, who has generated headlines since announcing his candidacy earlier this year, is running as an outsider in the field. Pratt rose to fame in his 20s serving as a villain archetype on the hit reality TV show “The Hills.”
The former reality star has said his political ambitions were fueled by his association with the Palisades wildfire, which claimed his home.
The issues
No topic has been more prominent in the mayoral campaign than the Los Angeles fire response and recovery. When fires ravaged the region in early 2025, more than 10,000 structures were destroyed as more than 30,000 acres of the city burned.
Pratt has been the most outspoken critic of the city’s response. Bass has defended her actions while also admitting the city must learn from the fire. Raman has also criticized the “dysfunctional” response to the fires.
Homelessness, another key issue candidates have focused on down the stretch, was hotly debated on the debate stage last month. Bass has cited what she says are inroads on the issue, saying L.A. had seen a decrease in homelessness under her administration.
Raman’s campaign has stressed the importance of bringing unhoused people indoors, while Pratt has focused on what he sees as the core cause of homelessness: drug addiction.
The candidates also have different stances on what the city’s approach to ICE should be. Last year, ICE raids became a flashpoint for widespread protests across the city.
As mayor, Bass has pushed back on ICE’s presence in Los Angeles, saying in a press release in March, “Los Angeles will not stand for ICE’s fear, intimidation and unlawful targeting.”
Raman’s plan to address ICE in Los Angeles includes appointing a police chief “committed to protecting immigrants” and ensuring the Los Angeles Police Department “does not coordinate with federal immigration enforcement,” according to her website.
Pratt recently told ABC News the future mayor would not be able to work with ICE because of California’s sanctuary law status, adding, “I’m going to make the streets so safe the federal government is not going to need to come to L.A., because they’re going to be like ‘Wow this mayor has these streets safe and clean.'”
Other hot topics at play in the primary is the revival of Hollywood, LAPD funding, affordable housing and more.
How the primary works
According to the city of Los Angeles election code, the Los Angeles mayoral primary can result in either an outright winner or a runoff, depending on final vote tallies.
A candidate will be determined the winner if they receive a majority of votes in the primary. In the case that does not happen, the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff in the general election in November.
Steps to the United States Supreme Court, Washington DC, America. (joe daniel price/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Alabama Republicans to use a contested 2023 congressional map that a lower court last week called “intentional race-based discrimination” in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.
The move is a significant win for the GOP, allowing the state to eliminate one of two majority-Black districts occupied by Democrats, even as election experts and state administrators have warned of major confusion for voters with the late change.
Civil rights groups lamented the decision as a stark example of the impact of the court’s historic April decision in Louisiana v. Callais which rolled back longstanding voting rights protections for minority voters.
In an unsigned opinion Tuesday, the court’s conservative majority said the unanimous three-judge panel — which included two Trump appointee — in the Alabama dispute failed to apply “updated” standards the justices issued in the Callais decision for proving a political process is not equally open for minority voters.
The court said the panel “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith” by concluding state lawmakers had “discriminatory animus.”
The court’s decision concluded that the judges also erred in blocking the 2023 map even though the minority voters challenging it could not provide an alternative map that offered the same political advantages sought by Republicans.
Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey praised the decision, and her office confirmed the state would hold a special primary using the new maps with redrawn districts on Aug. 11.
“The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed what I have said all along and that is that Alabama knows our state, our people and our districts best,” Ivey said in a statement. “Today’s decision is a win for the people of Alabama and our elections.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a lengthy dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused her colleagues of “unleashing chaos” and “confus[ing] voters.”
The map change will require state officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in a matter of days and educate them on where to cast new ballots.
“Just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”
In 2024, Alabama had been required to use a map with two majority-Black districts, one of which was won by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.
The new map could allow Republicans to flip Figures’ seat.
The NAACP slammed the Supreme Court’s decision as discriminatory.
“The Supreme Court continues to unleash chaos in our democratic process, and with this latest action, gives Alabama approval to use a congressional map that had previously been found to be intentionally discriminatory,” NAACP General Counsel Kristen Clarke wrote in a statement. “This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame. Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season.”
-ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed during testimony before a House subcommittee on Tuesday that the Trump administration is backing down from establishing a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to benefit allies of President Donald Trump following heavy pressure from Republican congressional leadership.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Melania Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Weijia Jiang attend as Mentalist Oz Pearlman hosts The White House Correspondents Dinner at Washington Hilton, April 25, 2026. (Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The White House correspondents’ dinner has been rescheduled for July 24, after a shooting forced the cancellation of the annual event in April, White House Correspondents’ Association president Weijia Jiang said.
“Rescheduling was not automatic. It was a choice that the WHCA board made after thoughtful consideration and input from our members,” she said in a statement.
Cole Allen, 31, is accused of trying to assassinate President Donald Trump at the April 25 dinner at the Washington Hilton hotel. He was tackled by law enforcement after rushing through a security checkpoint at the hotel, where thousands of journalists as well as Trump and members of his Cabinet were gathered for the annual event, according to prosecutors.
Allen allegedly wrote that administration officials were his targets, according to a criminal complaint.
Allen has pleaded not guilty to attempted assassination of the President of the United States, assault on a federal law enforcement officer with a deadly weapon, transportation of a firearm and ammunition over state lines with the intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.
Jiang said the rescheduled dinner “will not only be an opportunity to carry out our program. It will be a statement that violence has no place in American life and a free press will not be intimidated into silence.”
“Our thoughts remain with the officer who was injured and with everyone who experienced that evening,” she added. “We are indebted to the US Secret Service, law enforcement and the hotel staff whose swift response protected our guests and our staff.”
Jiang did not say where July’s dinner will be held.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he’s appointing Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence, with Tulsi Gabbard set to leave her post on June 30.
Trump said that Pulte will remain the director of Federal Housing Finance Agency and also continue as a chairman of the mortgage groups Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
“William has deep experience managing the most sensitive matters in America, the safety and soundness of the Markets, and over 10 Trillion Dollars at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, a substantial increase from where it was just 12 months ago,” Trump posted to his social media platform.
Pulte does not appear to have a clear national intelligence background.
He is best known in the Trump administration for launching probes into several of the president’s perceived political enemies over allegations of mortgage fraud and possible misuse of authority. Targets of the investigations include Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell. They’ve all denied wrongdoing.
The Department of Justice had at one point investigated whether Pulte and his team were interfering in ongoing investigations. Pulte has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
Gabbard announced her resignation last month because of her husband’s battle with bone cancer.
Trump praised Gabbard for having done an “incredible job” and adding that the administration will “miss her.” He said at the time that Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Aaron Lukas would serve as acting DNI.
But in his announcement on Tuesday, Trump said he was tapping Pulte for the temporary role. Pulte would need Senate confirmation if nominated to serve in the role full time.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he’s appointing Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence, with Tulsi Gabbard set to leave her post on June 30.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The California Republic state flag waving along with the national flag of the United States of America on a clear day. 3D illustration render. (rarrarorro/Getty Images)
(LOS ANGELES) — During Tuesday’s midterm primary election in California, all eyes are on the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates looking to succeed current Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has termed out, in what has become the most expensive governor’s race on record.
California hosts “jungle” primaries, also known as non-partisan primaries, which means all candidates are listed on one primary ballot and the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. There are 61 candidates running for governor in the state.
Most expensive governor’s race on record
The gubernatorial primary has surpassed $315 million in ad spending and reservations, according to AdImpact, making this the most expensive governor’s race on record.
The crowded race features many Democratic candidates: former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, billionaire Tom Steyer, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Rep. Katie Porter, and California Superintendent Tony Thurmond. Republicans running include Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News contributor Steve Hilton.
Although Rep. Eric Swalwell suspended his campaign for governor — and resigned from Congress — in April amid sexual misconduct allegations, he will still remain on the ballot as he missed the deadline to withdraw his name. Swalwell said in April that he “will fight the serious, false allegations that have been made — but that’s my fight, not a campaign’s.”
Democratic candidates have remained locked in a tight race without a clear frontrunner.
According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll conducted in mid-May, Becerra and Hilton were leading the pack with 23% and 20%, respectively. They were followed by Steyer at 15%, Bianco at 13% and Porter at 12%.
While Democrats have been worried that the significant number of Democratic candidates could split up the vote, resulting in Republicans advancing to the general election, President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Hilton has also presented some concern among those who were hoping for the two Republican candidates to advance to the November election.
Under California’s top-two primary system, the prospect of two Republicans advancing to November has relied on Hilton and Bianco remaining closely matched in the polls. However, Trump’s endorsement could mean increased support for Hilton might come from those who previously backed Bianco. If Hilton gains while Bianco’s support holds steady or declines, a Democrat could overtake Bianco and acquire the second spot in the general election, strategists say.
Attention on LA’s mayoral race
Another California race that has captivated national headlines is the Los Angeles’ mayoral election, following the sudden rise of reality TV star Spencer Pratt and his media-forward campaign which has exploded across social media.
Pratt, who is a registered Republican running an independent campaign, is challenging the incumbent, Karen Bass, who is endorsed by Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris. She faces sharp scrutiny from critics for her leadership, especially for her initial absence during and response to Los Angeles’ devastating wildfires last year. Bass, who was away from the city on a planned diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades Fire first erupted, has pushed back on criticism over her management of the fire, saying earlier this year that her focus “is on the lives and on the homes.”
Progressive city councilmember Nithya Raman, who has been compared to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, is also in the running in the tight three-way race.
A candidate wins the nonpartisan mayoral race outright if they get more than 50% of the vote; otherwise, the race goes to a runoff in November between the top two vote-getters.
House races in the balance after redistricting
Following the passage of Prop. 50 last year, a ballot initiative championed by Newsom in retaliation to Texas redistricting, five districts in California are now redrawn in favor of Democrats. As Democrats eye new victories, some incumbent Republicans are consequently facing an uphill battle.
In California’s 11th Congressional District, voters get their first opportunity to weigh in on a representative to succeed Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, who is retiring after almost 40 years in Congress.
San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan, who was endorsed by Pelosi earlier this month, faces off against state Sen. Scott Wiener and Saikat Chakrabarti, a former software engineer who was once chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Another key race, California’s 22nd Congressional District, has become a proxy battle within the Democratic Party, as moderate state Rep. Jasmeet Bains, backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is facing off against progressive Randy Villegas, who has the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Both Democrats have argued they are the stronger candidate to flip the Latino-majority swing district by ousting incumbent Republican Rep. David Valadao over his vote in support of Trump’s cuts to Medicaid.
Pete Hegseth hosts a bilateral meeting with South Korean Minister of National Defense Ahn Gyu-back at the Pentagon on May 11, 2026 in Arlington, Virginia. This is Ahn’s first official visit to the United States since taking office. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth blocked the promotions to one-star admirals of several senior Navy officers who had already been selected for promotion by a board of senior Navy admirals, three sources familiar with the move told ABC News.
Secretaries of Defense have the authority to intervene in promotion lists for reasons of cause, but it is unusual to see Hegseth now having intervened in both the Army and Navy’s most recent promotions to the one-star rank.
The Navy officers removed from the Navy’s promotion list included African Americans, women, and white males who were removed for a variety of reasons, including their participation or involvement in military Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, sources said.
The official promotion list was released by the Pentagon on May 22.
Separately, Hegseth also made efforts to get one of his senior military aides on the promotion list or to get him promoted, sources added. However, Capt. William Francis Jr., a Navy SEAL serving as Hegseth’s assistant, could not be reviewed by the promotion board because he did not meet certain criteria, such as heading a major command, according to sources.
The New York Times was first to report Hegseth’s block of the promotions and the effort to promote Capt. Francis.
Hegseth’s tenure as defense secretary has been marked by his stated intent to remove policies he has framed as creating a “woke” military under previous administrations.
His critique of the military’s culture comes as minorities are quickly making up more of the ranks and as women have started to expand their footprint in the senior ranks.
Though Hegseth’s string of unexplained firings and promotion blocking has severely curtailed those gains for women.
The Pentagon’s chief spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement to ABC News, “As we’ve said before, military promotions are given to those who have earned them. The Department will never consider the color of a service member’s skin or their gender as a factor in promotions. Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, meritocracy reigns supreme at the War Department.”
Since Hegseth became defense secretary, 19 senior generals or flag officers have been fired or sidelined, with several of them being women or minorities.
Hegseth’s intervention in the Navy promotion list is similar to his intervention in the Army’s promotion list to brigadier generals, where four colonels were removed from the list. Those four colonels included two African Americans and two women.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge said Friday that President Donald Trump can’t close or rename the Kennedy Center, ruling that it cannot be officially named for anyone else unless Congress approves it.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the rebranding of the Kennedy Center as the “Trump Kennedy Center” violates the law, and ordered that Trump’s name be removed from the building within two weeks.
Cooper wrote that the administration “violated the Kennedy Center’s organic statute in purporting to rename the Center for President Trump, and in taking steps to effectuate that official renaming, such as installing signage with Donald J. Trump’s name on the front portico of the Center, altering the Center’s website to name the Center for President Trump, and in issuing official materials naming the Center for President Trump.”
Cooper also wrote “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”
Congress created the famed cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death.
Trump announced in December that the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees, which the president himself now chairs and filled with his hand-picked appointees, had voted “unanimously” to rename the building. Workers added signage with his name shortly after.
Trump also announced earlier this year that the Kennedy Center would be closed for two years starting in July for major renovations.
Cooper blasted the board for making an “ill-informed” and “seemingly preordained” decision to close the center.
“Finally, the Court is preliminarily persuaded that the Board’s March 16 vote to close the Kennedy Center pending a years-long renovation represents a dereliction of its common-law- derived duty of prudence,” Cooper wrote. “The current record reveals that the Board rendered this ill-informed and seemingly preordained decision without regard for how it would accomplish its full array of statutory responsibilities. The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one.”
The changes are being challenged in court by Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, who sits on the Kennedy Board of Trustees as one of its ex-officio members. “Today’s ruling rightly affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename and close the Center have no basis in law,” Beatty said in a statement Friday. “The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump. He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”
The Trump administration has defended the renovation as fulfilling the board’s “responsibilities to repair and improve the Center.”
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling, according to sources familiar with the matter.
ABC News has reached out to the White House for comment on the ruling.
ABC News’ Peter Charalambous and Steven Portnoy contributed to this report.
