Politics

(NEW YORK) — The sinking of an Iranian warship Tuesday by a U.S. submarine thousands of miles from the war zone in international waters raises questions about whether the attack was legal under the rules of war.

Military law experts said the Iranian ship, which was in the Indian Ocean in international waters off Sri Lanka, would have been a lawful target had the U.S. declared war. The fact that it hasn’t done so makes the issue a murky one.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the attack an “atrocity.”

“The U.S. will come to bitterly regret precedent it has set,” he said.

Experts say the incident highlights the reason that a declaration of war by Congress is needed for the growing conflict, which has involved more than 12 countries, as Iran continues launching drones and missiles at countries beyond the Persian Gulf region.

The House of Representatives on Thursday voted against a war powers resolution. Similar legislation failed Wednesday in the Senate. Both votes largely followed party lines.

The submarine strike in international waters “underscores why Congress should have approved this in the first place,” said Retired Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former judge advocate general in the U.S. Air Force, “because this is a war [in which they’re] going to go after the Iranian Navy,” even when naval assets are outside the Middle East.

“The Iranian Navy is not small, right? It could be in places like outside of Sri Lanka and international water.”

Under the laws of armed conflict, were the U.S. and Iran in a declared war, the warship would represent a lawful target, former U.S. government lawyers told ABC News.

The issue with the submarine’s attacking the warship in international waters, VanLandingham said, was “political” in nature and not legal.

“When you’re going to have such global implications — that’s one of the reasons the founding fathers said Congress gets to decide wars of choice,” she said.

Brian Finucane, who was attorney-adviser at the State Department from 2011 to 2021, also said the submarine attack would have been lawful if the conflict was authorized.

According to Finucane, the U.S. would have an obligation under the Geneva Conventions to conduct search and rescue operations for survivors of the sinking.

A source familiar with Tuesday’s operation said the submarine took measures to support life-saving efforts before and after the ship sank in line with international law.

The military’s compliance with that international law was called into question when a second strike on an alleged drug boat killed survivors in international waters in the Caribbean Sea in September.

“The fundamental legal problems under both U.S. and international law” of the submarine engagement, Finucane said, “relate to the underlying use of force in this war against Iran.”

Authorization by Congress for the war is required by law because the U.S. offensive against Iran is not a response to an imminent threat, experts said. 

President Donald Trump and his administration have said Iran posed such a threat. Secretary Marco Rubio said the threat became more imminent because Israel planned to strike Iran and Iran would retailiate against Israel and the U.S.

While the president has called the conflict a “war,” senior officials in his administration — and top leadership in Congress — have refrained from using the word.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson said Wednesday the U.S. “is not at war now.”

The Pentagon’s top policy official, asked whether the U.S. was at war with Iran in a congressional hearing Thursday, would not use the term.

“I think we’re in a military action at this point,” said Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby. “I will leave to Congress and lawyers from the administration, et cetera, to determine.”

Ambiguity about the conflict’s label from across the government comes as Pentagon officials say the conflict will only “accelerate” in intensity — and potentially grow in scope.

The U.S. military mission is in a “throttle-up” posture, said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who would not confine the campaign to a time limit.

“The only limits we have in this is President Trump’s desire to achieve specific effects on behalf of the American people,” Hegseth said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Embattled Rep. Tony Gonzales announced Thursday evening that he will no longer seek reelection in Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, following calls from House Republican leadership to drop out of the race after the congressman admitted to having a relationship with a staffer.

“After deep reflection and with the support of my loving family, I have decided not to seek re-election while serving out the rest of this Congress with the same commitment I’ve always had to my district,” Gonzales wrote in a statement on X. “Through the rest of my term, I will continue fighting for my constituents, for whom I am eternally grateful.”

Gonzales’ statement touted various accomplishments from his three terms in Congress, with an emphasis on his “absolute dedication” to the U.S.

“My philosophy has never changed: do as much as you can, and always fight for the greater good,” he wrote.  

Gonzales’ announcement came the same day House Republican leadership on Thursday asked Gonzales to drop out of the race.

“The Ethics Committee has announced an investigation into Congressman Tony Gonzales’s conduct, and we urge them to act expeditiously,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Republican Whip Tom Emmer and Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain said in a joint statement.

“Congressman Gonzales has said he will fully cooperate with the investigation. We have encouraged him to address these very serious allegations directly with his constituents and his colleagues. In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for re-election,” they added.

Johnson told reporters later that the GOP’s call for Gonzales to drop his reelection bid — rather than resign from Congress — amounts to “a death penalty” for Gonzales.

“Leadership put out a statement. It speaks for itself. We’ve encouraged him to drop out of the race for reelection,” Johnson said. “Politically, that’s a death penalty.”

Gonzales on Tuesday night advanced to a runoff primary election on May 26 against conservative activist Brandon Herrera.

The next day, Gonzales spoke with talk show host Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo who asked if he had a relationship with his district director, Regina Santos-Aviles, who later died by suicide.

“Was there a relationship with this young lady, um, who was working in your office?” Pagliarulo asked Gonzales at the outset of the interview on Wednesday.

“I made a mistake, and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions,” Gonzales answered. “Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has. And my faith is as strong as ever. When you make mistakes like this, you know, it’s never easy. It humbles you.”

Gonzales said he looks forward to the House Ethics Committee’s investigation into the allegations.

The panel said it has established an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations that Gonzales “may have: (1) engaged in sexual misconduct towards an individual employed in his congressional office; and/or (2) discriminated unfairly by dispensing special favors or privileges.”

“I appreciate the opportunity to be able to provide all the facts and all the details that lead to exactly what occurred in the entire situation,” said Gonzales, who has declined to withdraw from his reelection bid.

The congressman had previously denied the relationship with Santos-Aviles.

Despite now admitting his relationship with her, Gonzales distanced himself from her death, claiming that he had not spoken with her since June of 2024, before she ultimately died the following year.

“You know, the facts are, I hadn’t spoken with Ms. Santos since June of 2024. She passed September of 2025. That was over a year ago. So, this is what I think is important as well — is this whole notion that I had anything to do with her death. I had absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing. And in fact, I was shocked just as much as everyone else,” Gonzales said.

Congressional payroll records show that Santos-Aviles was still employed in Gonzales’ office on the date of her death, Sept. 14, 2025.

Gonzales insisted that Santos-Aviles was treated well in his office and showed no signs of distress leading up to her death, claiming that she was “thriving at work.”

“I’ve always highlighted the great work that she had done for our office and the community,” Gonzales said, before pinning blame on the media coverage of the matter.

ABC News previously obtained explicit text messages from May of 2024 appearing to show Gonzales repeatedly request photos and ask Santos-Aviles about her sexual preferences.

Asked by Pagliarulo about the text messages, Gonzales insisted that there is “a lot more to the story that isn’t out there,” without commenting further on the content of any other communications with Santos-Aviles.

Asked if he understands the issues surrounding a boss having a relationship with his subordinate, Gonzales acknowledged that it’s an “important” and “serious issue that we have to talk about,” before again emphasizing the need for “all the facts.”

ABC News has obtained the Uvalde police report on Santos-Aviles death through a records request, but the report has not been posted publicly.

During Wednesday’s interview, Gonzales brushed off concerns from fellow House Republicans that have called for his resignation, saying, “you’re always going to have political enemies.”

“I don’t speak with those two on a regular basis, that we operate in different … groups, if you will,” Gonzales said, referring to Republican Reps. Nancy Mace and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have voiced concerns over the allegations against him. “But what I will say is you can never let those people slow you down in any form or fashion.”

Gonzales, who maintains President Donald Trump’s endorsement despite the allegations and ethics inquiry, said he has not spoken directly with Trump about the matter.

“I appreciate the president’s support,” Gonzales said.

“I was just actually in Corpus [Christi] when he came down to Texas. That was an incredible event. Everybody was energized,” Gonzales added, referring to the president’s trip last week where Trump gave the congressman a shoutout and congratulated him before the crowd.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House failed to adopt a war powers resolution that attempted to curtail President Donald Trump’s military actions in Iran.

It failed by a vote of 212-219. Republican Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson bucked GOP leaders by voting in favor; four Democrats voted against the resolution, including Reps. Greg Landsman, Henry Cuellar and Jared Golden.

The resolution, which only expresses the sentiment of Congress, called on the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces in hostilities against Iran or any part of the Iranian government or military unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force is enacted.

It came after recent U.S. strikes on Iran that killed several Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.

The measure was non-binding and not subject to the president’s signature or veto.

Speaker Mike Johnson argued Wednesday that the United States is “not at war” but only engaged in a “defensive operation” in Iran. 

“We’re not at war right now,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. “We’re in — four days into a very specific, clear mission and operation.”

Later on Wednesday, Trump contradicted Johnson, repeatedly referring to the conflict in Iran as a “war” hours after Johnson said it wasn’t.

Sitting next to Johnson during a roundtable on energy prices, Trump said “we’re doing very well on — on the war front, to put it mildly.”

Johnson had said that the “passage of a war powers resolution right now would be a terrible, dangerous idea.”

“It would empower our enemies. It would kneecap our own forces, and it would take the ability of the U.S. military and the commander in chief away from completing this critical mission to keep everybody safe,” he said Wednesday.

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats failed to meet a 51-vote threshold on an alternate Iran war powers resolution sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Sen. Rand Paul. The resolution failed behind a 47-53 tally. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday said Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin will replace Kristi Noem as Department of Homeland Security secretary.

Trump made the announcement on social media Thursday afternoon saying he was “pleased to announce that the Highly Respected United States Senator from the Great State of Oklahoma, Markwayne Mullin, will become the United States Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), effective March 31, 2026.”

“The current Secretary, Kristi Noem, who has served us well, and has had numerous and spectacular results (especially on the Border!), will be moving to be Special Envoy for The Shield of the Americas, our new Security Initiative in the Western Hemisphere we are announcing on Saturday in Doral, Florida. I thank Kristi for her service at ‘Homeland,'” Trump said in the post.

The news that the Oklahoma senator would take over Noem’s job came after several sources told ABC News that Trump had called Republicans and top allies asking if he should fire her.

The president had privately expressed deep frustration over Noem’s testimony during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, those sources with direct knowledge of the conversations said.

The sources said the president was upset with a particular moment during the hearing when Republican Sen. John Kennedy questioned Noem about a taxpayer-funded $220 million ad campaign. Noem repeatedly suggested the president was aware of the campaign and signed off on it.

A senior administration officials tells ABC News that the president did not sign off on a $220 million ad campaign.

“Absolutely not,” the senior administration official said.

Kennedy told reporters Thursday that Trump even called him about it.

“I’m not going to speak for him. You folks know him. You can ask him yourselves, but his, I want to put it this way, his recollection and her recollection are different,” Kennedy said.

Tuesday’s hearing was just the latest in several incidents that have sparked concern among Trump administration officials and some Republicans on Capitol Hill, sources tell ABC News.

Just days ago, Noem and her top adviser Corey Lewandowski made the decision to temporarily suspend TSA Precheck amid the partial government shutdown — which later had to be reversed after the White House stepped in, according to sources.

Noem has faced criticism in recent weeks over her handling of Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minneapolis after the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement. She was removed from leading operations in the state following the scrutiny, and Border Czar Tom Homan was sent in to take over.

During a Cabinet meeting in January, the president did not call on Noem to speak.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump says Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin will replace Kristi Noem as Department of Homeland Security secretary.

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

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told employees at an all-hands meeting that the company doesn’t “get to make operational decisions” about how its artificial intelligence technology is used by the Pentagon, according to a source familiar with the meeting.

“So maybe you think the Iran strike was good and the Venezuela invasion was bad,” Altman said in Tuesday’s meeting, according to the source. “You don’t get to weigh in on that.”

The comments came days after OpenAI announced they had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to deploy their models on their classified network, hours after the deal between Anthropic and the Pentagon fell apart.

OpenAI is best known as the company behind generative AI chatbot ChatGPT, while Anthropic is responsible for the chatbot Claude.

At the center of the fight between Anthropic and the Department of Defense is the question of who gets to control how AI is used by the military: the companies that make the technology or the government that deploys it?

Anthropic was the first AI company to be used on classified networks and its technology is widely considered the most advanced. The talks fell apart over Anthropic’s red lines: they were against their models being used for fully autonomous weapons or mass surveillance of Americans. The Pentagon argued they needed its technology for all lawful use cases.

The department, which was informally renamed as the Department of War via executive order last year, addressed the red lines in a social media post last week.

“The Department of War has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement,” spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote. “Here’s what we’re asking: Allow the Pentagon to use Anthropic’s model for all lawful purposes. This is a simple, common-sense request that will prevent Anthropic from jeopardizing critical military operations and potentially putting our warfighters at risk.”  

The Pentagon set a deadline of 5 p.m. last Friday for Anthropic to acquiesce to its demands or be essentially blacklisted. With negotiations at an impasse, Trump ordered the government to stop using the company’s products and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared Anthropic would be designated a “supply chain risk”, essentially cutting the American company off from government work.

According to a source, Anthropic still has not received a notification from the government about being designated a supply chain risk, outside of Hegseth’s tweet announcing it.

The breakdown in talks came hours before the U.S. launched strikes in Iran. According to multiple reports, Anthropic’s AI models were used for the U.S. operation in Iran.  

Anthropic is not commenting on those reports. In response, a Pentagon spokesperson tells ABC: “The Department declines to comment citing operational security.”

When OpenAI announced its deal with the Pentagon, Altman said it shared the same red lines as Anthropic.

“Two of our most important safety principles are prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and human responsibility for the use of force, including for autonomous weapon systems,” he said in a statement. “The DoW agrees with these principles, reflects them in law and policy, and we put them into our agreement.”

Days later, amid an onslaught of criticism, Altman said in a post this week that the company “shouldn’t have rushed” its deal with the Pentagon, saying that “it just looked opportunistic and sloppy.”

Altman unveiled an adjusted agreement with the Pentagon that he says provides stronger guarantees that the military won’t use OpenAI’s systems for domestic surveillance.

“We are going to amend our deal to add this language, in addition to everything else: ‘Consistent with applicable laws, including the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, National Security Act of 1947, FISA Act of 1978, the AI system shall not be intentionally used for domestic surveillance of U.S. persons and nationals,'” he wrote in a statement.

“There are many things the technology just isn’t ready for, and many areas we don’t yet understand the tradeoffs required for safety. We will work through these, slowly, with the DoW, with technical safeguards and other methods,” he added.

OpenAI says they believe their contract has even “better guarantees” than what Anthropic had originally signed with the Pentagon.

“This language makes explicit that our tools will not be used to conduct domestic surveillance of U.S. persons, including through the procurement or use of commercially acquired personal or identifiable information,” the company wrote in a statement. “The Department also affirmed that our services will not be used by Department of War intelligence agencies like the NSA. Any services to those agencies would require a new agreement.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A Democratic senator says Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In her appearance before the committee on Tuesday, Noem was asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., whether her adviser Corey Lewandowski, who is serving as a special government employee, has any role in approving DHS contracts, and she said no.

“Evidence suggests that your testimony was false. Internal DHS records show that Mr. Lewandowski has personally approved contracts at DHS, including, but not limited to, a multimillion-dollar contract,” according to a letter Blumenthal sent to Noem on Wednesday. “And current and former DHS employees have stated that Mr. Lewandowski’s signature is a green light for money to be transmitted to contractors.”

Blumenthal sent the letter on Wednesday night, after Noem’s testimony in front the House Committee. 

In a follow-up appearance before a House committee on Wednesday, Rep. Jared Moskowitz asked Noem if she would like to correct her answer from Tuesday.

“What I would say is that he is an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security,” she said.

Sources have told ABC News that Lewandowski is Noem’s de facto chief of staff, despite having a 130-day cap on being able to work at the department, due to his status as a special government employee.

According to multiple sources, Lewandowski and Noem both approve contracts and “nothing” gets to the secretary without Lewandowski’s approval.

“Mr. Lewandowski is a Special Government Employee,” a department spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News. “Mr. Lewandowski’s time is kept by a career DHS employee who submits the paperwork on a bi-weekly basis. He has completed all of the required Office of Government Ethics forms, including full financial disclosure and any investments by his family. Mr. Lewandowski does not receive a salary or any federal government benefits. He volunteers his time to serve the American people. He serves as an advisor. The Secretary, like all previous Secretaries, has various senior advisors.”

Oftentimes, Lewandowski travels with the secretary to her public events, and on multiple occasions ABC News has seen Lewandowski behind the scenes at events where the secretary is speaking.

Asked by two Democratic representatives if the two were romantically linked, Noem did not deny it and instead called the two Democratic members’ line of questioning “garbage.”

Lewandowski and Noem have both previously denied any romantic relationship. Both are married to other people. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As lawmakers debate the legal basis of President Donald Trump’s decision to launch strikes against Iran, the House is primed to vote on a war powers resolution Thursday afternoon that attempts to curtail military action.

The resolution, which only expresses the sentiment of Congress, calls on the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces in hostilities against Iran or any part of the Iranian government or military unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force is enacted.

It comes after recent U.S. strikes on Iran that killed several Iranian leaders, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran.

The measure is non-binding and not subject to the president’s signature or veto.

Nevertheless, passage remains an open question in the closely divided House and could depend on attendance Thursday.

Speaker Mike Johnson argued Wednesday that the United States is “not at war” but only engaged in a “defensive operation” in Iran. 

“We’re not at war right now,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. “We’re in — four days into a very specific, clear mission and operation.”

Later on Wednesday, Trump contradicted Johnson, repeatedly referring to the conflict in Iran as a “war” hours after Johnson said it wasn’t.

Sitting next to Johnson during a roundtable on energy prices, Trump said “we’re doing very well on — on the war front, to put it mildly.”

Johnson also expressed confidence that Republicans will defeat the resolution, despite some reservations voiced by a couple of conservatives.

“I think passage of a war powers resolution right now would be a terrible, dangerous idea,” Johnson said. “It would empower our enemies. It would kneecap our own forces, and it would take the ability of the U.S. military and the commander in chief away from completing this critical mission to keep everybody safe.”

The resolution’s prospects for passage rests largely on turnout in the House where Republicans hold a slim majority. Nine lawmakers missed votes on Wednesday, including four Republicans and five Democrats — enough truancy to sway the vote on Thursday.

The measure was debated on the House floor on Wednesday, though a vote was postponed until Thursday.

“We have lost our way,” Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, the bill’s Democratic sponsor, said during debate. “Let us declare with courage and clarity that we reject this illegal and unjust war in Iran. Let us choose moral renewal over further moral decay.”

At least two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie, the bill’s Republican sponsor, and Warren Davidson — have announced they will vote in favor of the measure, though a handful of moderate Democrats are expected to offset those defections by opposing the resolution themselves. 

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats failed to meet a 51-vote threshold on an alternate Iran war powers resolution sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine and Republican Sen. Rand Paul. The resolution failed behind a 47-53 tally. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A Democratic senator says Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In her appearance before the committee on Tuesday, Noem was asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., whether her adviser Corey Lewandowski, who is serving as a special government employee, has any role in approving DHS contracts, and she said no.

“Evidence suggests that your testimony was false. Internal DHS records show that Mr. Lewandowski has personally approved contracts at DHS, including, but not limited to, a multimillion-dollar contract,” according to a letter Blumenthal sent to Noem on Wednesday. “And current and former DHS employees have stated that Mr. Lewandowski’s signature is a green light for money to be transmitted to contractors.”

Blumenthal sent the letter on Wednesday night, after Noem’s testimony in front the House Committee.

In a follow-up appearance before a House committee on Wednesday, Rep. Jared Moskowitz asked Noem if she would like to correct her answer from Tuesday.

“What I would say is that he is an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security,” she said.

Sources have told ABC News that Lewandowski is Noem’s de facto chief of staff, despite having a 130-day cap on being able to work at the department, due to his status as a special government employee.

According to multiple sources, Lewandowski and Noem both approve contracts and “nothing” gets to the secretary without Lewandowski’s approval.

Oftentimes, Lewandowski travels with the secretary to her public events, and on multiple occasions ABC News has seen Lewandowski behind the scenes at events the secretary is speaking at.

When asked by two Democratic representatives if the two were romantically linked, Noem did not deny it and instead called the two Democratic members’ line of questioning “garbage.”

Lewandowski and Noem have both previously denied any romantic relationship. Both are married to other people.

The department didn’t immediately respond to the letter, or about Lewandowski’s role at DHS. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(INDIANAPOLIS) — If all politics is local, as the old saying goes, a pair of identical twins in Indiana proves that those local politics often start as a family affair — and don’t have to become uncivil.

Nick and Nathan Roberts may look exactly alike, but the 25-year-old brothers and members of the next generation of America’s civic leaders are anything but identical when it comes to their politics.

“From the time we were younger, he ended up in more right wing circles on the internet,” Nick said of his brother in an interview with ABC News Live PRIME. “I was in more of just more liberal circles. I don’t know what happened.”

They still live together with their grandparents, sharing a love of dogs, books and desire to travel the world. But that’s where the similarities end.

Nick Roberts, a diehard Democrat, is an Indianapolis city-county councilor and one of the youngest elected officials in the country.

Nathan Roberts, who identifies as a MAGA Republican, founded an Indiana political advocacy group last year and is a state organizer for Turning Point, the organization founded by Charlie Kirk.

“Our dad was conservative and our mom was liberal,” Nathan Roberts said. “I guess those are good examples of our family being divided.”

The Roberts twins, both college dropouts, are also Gen Z political outliers. More American twentysomethings identify as independents than any other group of adults, according to Gallup. Roughly one in four identify as Democrats, even fewer as Republicans.

“If you want to make a difference, you have to be involved,” said Nick Roberts. “And it’s easy, I think, to throw your hands up and say, ‘Well, I’m an independent. I hate both parties.’ But if you actually want to be engaged in the process, you have to kind of pick a side.”

“I think a lot of people go independent because it’s kind of like a sign of, like purity, like I’m above the thing,” added Nathan Roberts, “but really, it’s just like you not having much of a voice. I sort of understand and respect what people do when they go independent, I just don’t think it’s the right strategy.”

The twins got engaged in politics as Donald Trump rode down the escalator in Manhattan in 2015, launching his first presidential campaign. In 2020, they participated in their first campaigns and later supported rival candidates for president in 2024.

They say they agree on support for public safety, veterans issues and even protecting the environment. Their sharpest disagreement: immigration.

“I support law enforcement, but there’s come a point where, you know, we are nation immigrants,” said Nick Roberts. “Everybody came from immigrants at one point or another, and we have to do it humanely with laws, but not where we’re treating people inhumanely like we’ve seen over the last few months.”

Nathan Roberts rejects the view of an American “melting pot.”

“‘Nation of immigrants’ — those terms didn’t, none of them even existed until post-1900. You never heard George Washington saying America is a nation of immigrants,” he said.

On 95% of the issues, they sharply disagree and are dug in. When President Trump demanded Indiana redraw its election map to help Republicans in November, the twins even testified against each other in the statehouse.

Still, in what some see as a lesson for the country, the Roberts twins insist they manage never to get angry or unloving with each other.

“He’s very intelligent, and I love the fact he gets involved. You have all these people giving their opinions about stuff on the internet, but none of them lift a finger, besides maybe voting,” Nathan Roberts said of his brother. “He’s somebody who shows up to stuff.”

Nick Roberts said behind the “provocative” rhetoric, Nathan Roberts is reasoned and informed. “Though he pretends to be like a very inflammatory guy on social media,” he said, “I think he is very well-read on history and knows a lot of his stuff and the law, especially immigration.”

With no desire for higher political office for now, the Roberts twins say they’re just content to be councilor and constituent, as brothers, modeling civility and love despite the deepest political differences.

“Believe it or not, he’s actually not one of my most demanding constituents,” Nick Roberts said of Nathan Roberts with a chuckle.

“There’s been a time when I’m like, you know, you could change that, like, traffic sign to be slightly better and there wouldn’t be such a traffic jam at that place at 5pm,” Nathan Roberts quipped with a smile, “and he would be like that would be a good idea.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.