Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr. of New Jersey arrived back on Capitol Hill on Tuesday after a nearly four-month absence, and announced on the House floor that he received a depression diagnosis that led to an extended hospital stay.

“Now, when people hear the word ‘depression,’ many people think, simply feel, it means feeling sad, but depression is so much more than that,” Kean said. “It is physical, it is emotional, and until you experience it yourself, it is difficult to fully understand how powerful this illness can be.”

Kean said he wanted to get back to Congress as quickly as possible, understanding the importance of representing his constituents, but ultimately decided to follow his doctor’s recommendations to stay under their care. 

“The doctors recommended that I remain in the hospital to address my illness. They explained to me that this would be the fastest way to recovery, and to be honest, I was hesitant. I didn’t think that I had time for it. I had responsibilities to my family, I had responsibilities to my constituents, I had responsibilities to this institution, and like many people, I believed that I could simply push through, but I agreed to follow my doctor’s recommendations again, not believing that it would result in a long-term stay,” he said.

Kean has not voted in the House since March 5, missing more than 100 roll call votes during his time away.

The congressman had not publicly addressed the reason for his absence prior to Tuesday, raising questions on his whereabouts.

During his absence, Kean won the Republican primary (where he was unopposed) in his reelection bid and received President Donald Trump’s endorsement. Kean will face Democrat Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, in November for New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, a toss-up district Democrats hope to flip.

Kean, on Tuesday, did not answer multiple questions from reporters on why he didn’t communicate with his constituents earlier about his health issues.

In his floor remarks, Kean said he believed he would’ve been back on Capitol Hill in a few weeks, but soon began to realize that there is “no timeline for healing, there is no timeline for recovery, only the work of getting better one day at a time.” 

“Today I am grateful that I listened to my doctors. I am grateful for the exceptional care that I received from doctors, nurses, and support staff. I am grateful that I accepted help, because today I stand before you healthier, stronger, and excited to return to the work that I love,” he said.

He then thanked his family, staff, constituents, and medical team for their care and understanding, going on to advocate that “asking for help is not a weakness, it is a strength.” 

“This is not a partisan issue. It touches every community, every family and every corner of this country. If sharing my story encourages even one person to seek help, if it gives one family the courage to have a difficult conversation or reminds one person that recovery is possible, then this moment will have been worthwhile,” he said as he concluded his speech.

If you or a loved one is experiencing a mental health crisis, please call or text the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. You will reach a trained crisis counselor for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You can also go to 988lifeline.org.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will decide later this year whether state bans on the possession of AR-15 firearms and similar semi-automatic “assault style” guns violate the Second Amendment. 

Ten states plus D.C. ban the weapons, which have been used in many of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, including Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, and Uvalde, Texas.

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

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. by executive order, reaffirming in a 6-3 ruling more than a century of legal precedent and national tradition that babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.

The decision is a blow to Trump, who had lobbied the court to uphold his Day 1 order and attended oral arguments in the case, becoming the first sitting president to do so. 

Trump had argued that children born to unlawful immigrants and temporary visitors, like tourists and foreign students, do not qualify for citizenship under terms of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted after the Civil War to address the status of former slaves and their descendants. 

Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups opposing the policy change warned that it would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to non-citizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans, who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate. 

An estimated 255,000 children born every year to non-citizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”  

Every lower court to have considered Trump’s unprecedented order deemed it unlawful, issuing injunctions to put it on hold. The high court’s decision preserves the status quo. 

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, says all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940.

The administration insisted children born to parents who are not American citizens or legal permanent residents are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they still owe political “allegiance” to a foreign nation.

The Supreme Court previously rejected that argument in 1898. 

“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.

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

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rolled back longstanding limits on the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with individual candidates for federal office — a ruling that could unleash a wave of new spending before the midterms. The Supreme Court said the spending limits violate the First Amendment.

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

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state bans on transgender girls from participating in girls’ and women’s competitive sports, reversing a pair of lower court decisions that had blocked the bans as violations of Title IX and the 14th Amendment.

The 6-3 decision came from Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The ruling in a pair of cases from West Virginia and Idaho effectively upholds laws in those two states, plus 27 others that block trans girls from teams consistent with their gender identity.

The decision marks the first time the high court has weighed in on the heated national debate over transgender athletes.  

The court’s ruling is a major setback for the estimated 122,000 transgender American teenagers who participate in high school sports, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA.

For trans teens and their families, the dispute has involved a matter of immutable identity and equal opportunity.  

For many states and top U.S. athletic organizations, including the U.S. Olympic Committee and NCAA, the inclusion of trans athletes has been seen as creating an unfair and unsafe playing field.

The competitive advantage boys and men have physically over girls and women has been well established in physically demanding sports by medical research and serves as a primary basis for distinctions between the sexes in athletics.

Studies have shown testosterone produced during male puberty does lead to more muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, greater body height and longer limbs on average for boys and men, according to the American College of Sports Medicine.

Many transgender teens who have received gender-affirming medical treatment from a young age argue that they lack any physiological advantage because they have not undergone male puberty.

Twenty-one states allow transgender girls to compete on girls’ sports teams, including California and New York, which have laws explicitly protecting the right of trans girls to play.

Becky Pepper Jackson, the only known openly transgender athlete in West Virginia in any sport, sued her state in a bid to continue competing on her high school track team where she throws discus and shot put. Jackson recently won the state championship in girls shot put.

“I’ve been a girl forever, and playing on the guys’ team is going backwards,” she told ABC News in an interview last year.

When West Virginia’s law takes effect, she will no longer be allowed to participate in girls competitive sports leagues. Competing with boys, she said, would “go against who I am.”

Becky, who has openly identified as a girl since third grade, said she has never undergone male puberty, thanks to puberty-blocking medication.

Idaho college student Lindsay Hecox, a former track and cross-country runner who was barred from trying out for her school teams, sued over her state’s ban in 2020. Last year, she asked the Supreme Court to drop her case because she no longer wished to compete in sports and didn’t want to be in the spotlight. However, Idaho fought to keep the case alive.

Lower courts concluded separately that the state bans discriminate “on the basis of sex” in violation of Title IX, the landmark civil rights law that has promoted equal opportunities for women and girls in athletics, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority reversed those decisions and reinstated the laws.

Last year, the same majority upheld a Tennessee law banning some gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors, rejecting claims that the law discriminated “on the basis of sex” and saying that states should have leeway to regulate health care in an area of scientific uncertainty.

In 2020, however, the high court concluded in a landmark decision that a Michigan transgender woman fired by her employer for being transgender was discriminated against “on the basis of sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Neil Gorsuch explained in his majority opinion at the time that her termination was “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”

Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe transgender girls should only be allowed to play on boys’ teams, consistent with their gender assigned at birth, according to a June 2025 Gallup survey.

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

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego is under federal investigation for suspected campaign finance violations, a person familiar with the matter confirmed to ABC News.

According to multiple reports, Gallego, a Democrat, used campaign funds to fly his family to the Caribbean, Miami, Nantucket and Puerto Rico. He also allegedly used funds to pay for childcare.

Campaign funds may be used to pay for a candidate’s childcare expenses that are incurred as a direct result of campaign activities, according to the Federal Election Commission.

On Monday, the Senate Ethics Committee closed its inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations after finding no evidence that Gallego violated Senate rules or applicable law, according to a letter released by his office.

In regards to the federal investigation, a Gallego spokesperson told Axios that “it’s the least surprising news of the week that this comes immediately after the Senate Ethics Committee cleared Senator Gallego of right-wing smears pushed by the administration.”

ABC News has reached out to Gallego’s office for comment on the investigation. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the probe.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The United States and Iran are sharing conflicting messages about the prospects of a meeting between key negotiators in Qatar this week, injecting even more uncertainty into a peace process that is supposed to be focused on addressing Iran’s nuclear program but has so far been dominated by the Strait of Hormuz.

Talks between the countries were originally scheduled to take place in Switzerland this week and center on nuclear issues, but the venue and agenda for the planned high-level and technical meetings changed following a fresh round of tit-for-tat strikes between the U.S. and Iran over the strategic waterway, a U.S. official and another source said.

While the Trump administration is pushing for direct talks, it is still unclear whether Iranian and American officials will meet face-to-face or communicate solely through Qatari mediators, they added.  

President Trump announced on Monday that a meeting would take place in Qatar’s capital on Tuesday at Tehran’s request.

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” Trump said in a social media post on Monday morning.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later said the U.S. would be represented by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, adding that both high-level and technical talks with Iran were expected to take place.

Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for Iran’s foreign ministry, painted a different picture of the upcoming meetings. He said that while an Iranian delegation would travel to Doha to discuss the implementation of the interim deal between the U.S. and Iran, their trip bore no connection to Kushner and Witkoff’s visit.

“There are no negotiation meetings with the U.S. side at any level scheduled in the coming days,” Baghaei asserted.

The Iranian regime’s apparent hesitancy to resume in-person talks is a significant step back from the high-level talks that took place in Switzerland earlier this month following the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the countries. After that meeting, Vice President JD Vance reported that lengthy conversations with senior Iranian officials had resulted in a “good foundation for a successful final deal,” and said they made progress towards the creation of a “mechanism” to ensure the Strait of Hormuz would remain open.

The interim deal stipulates that Iran should “make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.”

But Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the strait, and on Thursday, it attacked a container ship transiting the waterway–setting off a four-day exchange of strikes with the U.S. that stymied ship traffic.

Trump administration officials are eager to restore conditions in the Strait of Hormuz to their pre-war norm, but sources told ABC News that recent intelligence reports predict Tehran will continue threatening to resume its chokehold on the waterway — a reality that gives Iran significant leverage over the global economy.

The memorandum of understanding also calls for Iran and the U.S. to hammer out a sweeping agreement within 60 days. Almost a quarter of that time has now expired.

While the interim deal says that period can be extended by mutual agreement, Trump has repeatedly declared he wouldn’t let Iran draw out the negotiations.

“We’re negotiating from a position of pure strength, pure strength. They know that,” Trump said on Thursday.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — After victories in New York City, democratic socialists are taking their fight against the Democratic establishment to Colorado.

On Tuesday, Rep. Diana DeGette will face her toughest reelection fight yet, against 29-year-old attorney and democratic socialist Melat Kiros, who was born months after she won her seat in Congress, 30 years ago.

Kiros, who was fired from her law firm in 2023 after writing an open letter criticizing her employers’ response to pro-Palestinian protests, told ABC News she hopes to build on the movement’s momentum from last Tuesday in New York and channel voters’ anger with the political system.

“Ultimately, folks are really tired of the party failing to meaningfully represent the values and policies that are extremely popular with our base,” she said. “And we’re looking for leaders that are unbought and unafraid to stand up to a lot of these corporations and special interests that have gotten us into this mess in the first place.”

While Kiros has netted the endorsement of progressive stalwart Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and some left-leaning groups, the race does not break down evenly along ideological fault lines. DeGette is a leading member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who has led Democratic messaging on abortion rights and served as a House impeachment manager during President Trump’s second impeachment trial.

Unlike some incumbent Democrats facing primaries, she has criticized Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza and voted against additional U.S. military aid to Israel.

“Denver knows I don’t back down. That’s why I’m taking on Donald Trump to protect our reproductive freedom, abolish ICE, and pass Medicare for All. Together we’ll win and deliver on our progressive values,” DeGette said in a statement to ABC News.

In a recent interview with ABC affiliate KMGH-TV, DeGette argued that her time in Congress is an asset to her constituents.

But that long record has also made her a target for frustrated progressives, who sense momentum after democratic socialists Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez defeated establishment-backed Democrats in two New York City primaries – including the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus – last week, with the help of democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“They see Melat as someone who has put up a fight – not just against Republican fascism, but also against the Democratic establishment that has failed voters,” Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats, told ABC News.

The group has helped Kiros and her allies knock on tens of thousands of doors and make more than 200,000 calls to potential voters since last week.

DeGette’s record “is very progressive, and she’s not a moderate,” Doug Friednash, an attorney who was chief of staff to former Gov. John Hickenlooper, told ABC News. “A lot of young voters are demanding change … they look at rising health care costs, gas prices, and there’s a view that the establishment hasn’t done enough.”

Outside of Denver, the Democratic establishment faces tests in primaries for governor and Senate.

Hickenlooper, now serving as Colorado’s junior senator, faces progressive state senator Julie Gonzales in the primary.

And Sen. Michael Bennet is locked in a competitive race against Attorney General Phil Weiser to replace outgoing Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.

Weiser, who served in the Obama administration and as Colorado’s attorney general since 2019, has positioned himself as the insurgent in the race against Bennet, linking the longtime senator to Washington.

And in Colorado’s 8th district, a battleground seat currently held by a Republican, Democrat Manny Rutinel, a 31-year-old state representative, is vying for the Democratic nomination against former state lawmaker Shannon Bird.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday limited law enforcement’s use of sprawling “geofence warrants” that track a suspect using cellphone location data from a broad swath of users, including people with no connection to a crime. 

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that collection of location data through a geofence warrant implicates the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures — a setback for the federal government, which argued the warrants were a critical law enforcement tool that did not amount to a search at all.

“An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information — even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company,” Kagan wrote for the majority. 

Kagan concluded that location data — which she described as “a personal journal of a user’s movements” — resembles other kinds of private materials such as emails, photographs or documents and should be “shielded from the ‘inquisitive eyes’ of the government.”

“Today’s decision follows from the same judicial obligation, to guard against the same risk of undue encroachment. The Fourth Amendment applies, too, when officials tap into Google’s ‘database of physical location information.’ That database is new, but the principle covering it is not: That principle is instead the one our history has given. The Fourth Amendment must, as ever, protect against unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual,” Kagan wrote. 

In effect, the ruling requires authorities to obtain a narrowly tailored warrant before examining cellphone data of a broad swath of users in an area.

While the Supreme Court ruled that location data is protected by the Fourth Amendment, the justices did not weigh in on the legality of the search that prompted the legal challenge — instead leaving that issue for the lower courts to reexamine.

The landmark decision stemmed from a case involving a 2019 bank robbery in Virginia. Law enforcement was able to track down the robber using a geofence warrant that included the location data for every cellphone within a 150-meter radius of the robbery.

While Okello Chatrie, the suspect and Supreme Court plaintiff, eventually pleaded guilty to the armed robbery and was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison, his lawyers have argued that the warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it allowed law enforcement to “to search first and develop suspicions later.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito argued the ruling was an “irresponsible escapade” and “destabilizes longstanding Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a ruling with direct bearing on the midterm elections, the Supreme Court on Monday narrowly upheld a Mississippi law allowing tabulation of late-arriving mail-in ballots so long as they were postmarked by Election Day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the 5-4 majority, wrote that federal election statutes — which say nothing about ballot receipt — do not override states’ ability to set their own policies for handling tardy votes by mail. 

“The Framers recognized the difficulty of crafting election laws applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country. So instead of constitutionalizing election law, they decided that a discretionary power over elections needed to be lodged somewhere. Suffice it to say, that power was not lodged in this Court,” Barrett wrote.

The decision is a loss for the Republican Party, which brought the case, and the Trump administration, which has pushed to override state election rules nationwide by imposing strict federal limits on voting by mail.

The president on Monday called the Supreme Court’s decision a “tremendous loss” and again called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, his signature election and voting reforms legislation.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has repeatedly said there aren’t enough Republican votes for it to pass.

The 29 states that currently accept some timely cast but late-arriving mail-in ballots — sometimes up to several days after polls have closed — will be able to continue providing a grace period.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that the decision flouts the meaning of “election day” as set forth in federal law.

“Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences,” Alito wrote. “The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.”

The outcome is a win for Mississippi, which had defended its policy of accepting ballots up to five days after voting had ended, and voting rights advocates who had argued that decades of legal precedent supported the primary authority of states to run their own elections. 

Voters heavily reliant on the U.S. Postal Service, such as rural, overseas and disabled voters, had feared a higher risk of having ballots rejected if delivery is delayed, election watchdog groups said.

Lateness is the primary reason mail ballots are rejected nationwide, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

During the 2024 election, 28 million mail ballots were cast in the 14 states with postmark deadlines and grace periods, according to EAC. Roughly 725,000 were not counted because they were late. 

The Supreme Court ruling comes as Trump has pushed aggressively to increase federal oversight of mail-in voting. 

A Trump executive order signed in March 2026 would require states to submit approved voter lists to the U.S. Postal Service, which in turn would be tasked with ensuring ballots are only delivered to eligible residents. 

Last week, Federal District Court Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts put the order on hold, writing in her decision, “The Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone. Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power.”

The Postal Service has not yet implemented a proposed policy change to comply with Trump’s order, but a top USPS official confirmed to Congress that his agency would refuse to deliver ballots unless states turn over lists of voters. 

“No law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS. The voting-related guidance currently issued by USPS is not binding on the States, merely recommended,” Talwani’s ruling said. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.