Politics

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday told reporters he hasn’t made a final decision about what comes next in his pressure campaign on Iran but he made clear he was “not happy” with the current negotiations over his demand that Tehran end its nuclear program.

Trump spoke as left the White House for a trip to Texas amid the massive U.S. military buildup he’s ordered in the region.

“I’m not happy with the fact that they’re not willing to give us what we have to have,” Trump said. “So, I’m not thrilled with that. We’ll see what happens with talking later. We’ll — we’ll have some additional talks today. But no, I’m not happy with the way they’re going.”

“Well, we haven’t made a final decision,” he added. “They cannot have nuclear weapons, and we’re not thrilled with the way they’re negotiating. So, we’ll see how it all works.”

Asked if there’s a risk that U.S. strikes could lead to prolonged conflict in the Middle East, Trump said “there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything both good and bad.”

Trump, who has yet to explain why he might soon order a strike on Iran and what his overall objective is, also spoke of regime change in Tehran, but only in vague terms.

Asked if his team had told him U.S. strikes now will lead to regime change right away, Trump said no.

“No, nobody’s told me that. You don’t know. I mean, nobody knows. There might be and there might not be,” he said.

Trump repeated that he preferred diplomacy over military action.

“We have the greatest military anywhere in the world. There’s nothing close. I’d love not to use it, but sometimes you have to,” he said.

His remarks came after it was announced earlier Friday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would travel to Israel on Monday and Tuesday, with rising tensions with Iran said to be high on his agenda.

That trip announcement came just hours after the U.S. embassy in Israel ordered the departure of nonessential employees and family members.

Meanwhile, in an interview aboard Air Force Two on Thursday, Vice President JD Vance told The Washington Post that there was “no chance” of a drawn-out war in Iran as a result of potential strikes that are being weighed by the White House.

“The idea that we’re going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight — there is no chance that will happen,” Vance told the Post.

Vance’s comments come as the U.S. and Iran held indirect talks on Thursday in Geneva, Switzerland, which concluded without a resolution so far.

Vance added that while he doesn’t know what President Donald Trump will do in Iran, he described the range of options as strikes that would “ensure Iran isn’t going to get a nuclear weapon” or actions that could lead to a diplomatic solution.

The vice president told the Post that he remained a “skeptic of foreign military interventions” and said he believed the president was as well. He added that “we all prefer the diplomatic option,” while conceding, “but it really depends on what the Iranians do and what they say.”

Vance dismissed questions from the Post about his past criticisms of the U.S. involvement in Iraq and if he could have foreseen being part of an administration now flirting with the prospect of regime change.

“Well, I mean, look. Life has all kinds of crazy twists and turns,” Vance said. “But I think Donald Trump is an ‘America First’ president, and he pursues policies that work for the American people.”

“I do think we have to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. I also think that we have to avoid overlearning the lessons of the past. Just because one president screwed up a military conflict doesn’t mean we can never engage in military conflict again. We’ve got to be careful about it, but I think the president is being careful,” he said.

Vance’s comments came ahead of his meeting with Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi and other U.S. officials Friday in Washington to discuss Iran, a source familiar with the meeting confirmed to ABC News.

The scheduled meeting follows Thursday’s gathering in Geneva between special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, with Al Busaidi for indirect talks between Iran and the United States.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As the first primaries in the 2026 midterm elections kick off on Tuesday, Democrats once again are dealing with divides in their party, including over generational change and immigration enforcement, in contests where progressives are taking on incumbents.

One of these faceoffs is set for Tuesday in North Carolina. Nida Allam, 32, vice chair of the Durham County Board of Commissioners, is mounting a primary challenge from the left to Democratic Rep. Valerie Foushee, 69. Allam previously lost to Foushee in the 2022 primary in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District.

“We have an opportunity to push and champion not just Trump and the right-wing administration, but also our own party; that this seat could be the most powerful tool for progressives and Democrats in the South, but it’s only as powerful as the person sitting in that seat,” Allam told ABC News in an interview.

Allam has the support of progressive stalwart independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who campaigned for her in mid-February and told supporters at a rally, “At a moment when the oligarchs are tightening their grip on our society, we need leaders like Nida, leaders who answer to working families and not the billionaire class.”

Foushee, in a statement to ABC News, pushed back on Allam’s claims that she is not progressive or present enough, pointing to her endorsement by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and to securing millions for the district.

“My opponent’s claim that I have been absent from my role with zero ability to describe what more she would have done in Congress under the Republican majority demonstrates that she is trying to apply for a job that she does not understand,” Foushee wrote.

Similar primary rumbles are set to play out over the coming months, including in Colorado’s June 30 primaries. Melat Kiros, 28, a Ph.D student and barista, is running against longtime incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette, 68, who has represented the state’s 1st Congressional District since 1997.

Kiros previously worked for a law firm and wrote an open letter in 2023 criticizing how law firms were responding in 2023 to pro-Palestinian protests. “I was asked to take the letter down. I said no, and then I was fired,” Kiros said. (The firm, Sidley Austin, did not reply to a request for comment from ABC News.)

Kiros says she draws a direct contrast with DeGette on the U.S.-Israel relationship and that DeGette’s opposition to further offensive aid to Israel does not go far enough.

The debate surrounding U.S. support for Israel, or whether Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide, has sometimes been cast as a divide between younger and older Democrats. (Israel strongly disputes the allegations of committing genocide in Gaza and has said it took care to avoid civilian casualties during its military campaign against Hamas.)

Kiros believes the divide is more complicated than a generational one, but said young people “are seeing on our phones a genocide happening in real time … and want to see representatives who are committed to actually holding Israel accountable and ending this genocide.”

DeGette’s campaign did not provide comment or respond to a request for an interview when contacted by ABC News. She told NBC News in December more broadly, “We must defend our democracy against Donald Trump and work to solve our problems with dignity, justice, and a future grounded in compassion, not cruelty.”

Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, says the divide among Democrats over support for Israel — or even how to refer to its actions — reflects a “broader debate within the party about both Israel, but also America’s role in the world and what it should stand for … it’s a moment of flux in that way for the Democratic Party.”

“The moderates are in a tough spot,” he added, as moderates may oppose policies by Israel’s leadership but disagree with the claim that Israel was committing a genocide and feel Israel had the right to defend itself. “It’s a bit harder to message or navigate the complexities of the issue.”

Another flashpoint in some of these primaries is the future of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), especially in the wake of the shootings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis last month.

Jonathan Paz, a 32-year-old former city council member from the Boston suburb of Waltham, is mounting a primary challenge to Massachusetts Rep. Katherine Clark, 62, who currently serves as the House Minority Whip — the second-most powerful Democrat in the House.

Paz told ABC News, “She seems determined to write strongly worded letters. I’m calling to disband ICE and cut all their funding … [people] don’t want that empty rhetoric. They want to dismantle this agency because they want to see the violence stop.”

He added that he feels Clark did not do her job as whip — the whip works to get party members aligned on how to vote — given that 21 House Democrats voted for continuing Department of Homeland Security funding as part of ending a partial government shutdown.

Clark has called for guardrails and restrictions on ICE, and urged voting against the appropriations bill with DHS funding; she also said in early February that she was denied access to an ICE facility in her district while trying to conduct oversight.

“Katherine is doing the work to hold ICE and the Administration accountable and end its reign of terror in our neighborhoods,” Clark’s reelection campaign said in a statement to ABC News.

The progressive challengers more broadly lay bare another ongoing debate within the Democratic Party: whether the party should stand behind incumbents or usher in a new generation of younger and potentially more progressive lawmakers.

“What the voters in this country are fed up with is the corruption of this political system that continues to reward and profit billionaires at the expense of everyone else,” Usamah Andrabi, communications director at the progressive group Justice Democrats, told ABC News.

The group recently unveiled a slate of 12 primary endorsements, including Allam and Kiros.

But others within the Democratic ecosystem have cautioned against reading too much into the progressive versus moderate primary challenges.

David de la Fuente, deputy director for politics and research at the centrist group Third Way, told ABC News he would point to how those challenges are happening often in safely blue districts, not competitive toss-up seats.

He also argued against conflating generational change with an ideological shift to the left.

“Young candidates, whether they’re moderate or progressive, are representing change and a generational shift. That is a tale as old as time,” he said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Bill Clinton, in his historic deposition with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee on Friday, denied any knowledge of the crimes committed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, going on to say the subpoena of his wife Hillary Clinton “was simply not right.”

In his opening statement, he stated that he will often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to a release of his opening statements.

The former president is facing questions from the committee as part of its investigation into Epstein in Chappaqua, New York — marking a historic moment for a former president. Friday’s deposition is the first time a former president has appeared in front of a congressional panel since former President Gerald Ford in 1983.

He is facing questions under oath about his relationship with Epstein and photos that show the former president with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes.

The former president’s testimony comes a day after the committee questioned former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton over the couple’s dealings with the convicted sex offender.

In her deposition Thursday, Hillary Clinton said she did not know Epstein, could not recall ever encountering him and never visited him on his island or at his home or office.

Hillary Clinton, on Thursday, also gave a preview of how her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will handle his own deposition.

“I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in ’08 were like most people — they did not know what he was doing. And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow,” she said.

Hillary Clinton said after her deposition that the committee asked her over and over if she knew Epstein. She said there were also questions that were off subject — about UFOs and the debunked “Pizzagate” conspiracy.

“So if they are going to fulfill their responsibilities to literally investigate the investigations, which is what they originally said was the scope of their work, I think they could have spent the day more productively,” she said.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.

“No one is accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Thursday morning ahead of Hillary Clinton’s deposition. “They’re going to have due process, but we have a lot of questions, and the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.”

Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.

Bill Clinton told New York Magazine through a spokesperson at the time that “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of 21st century science.”

Maxwell said in a recorded interview last year with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, that it was she, not Epstein, who had a friendship with Bill Clinton, and that she was the one who suggested and organized his trips on Epstein’s aircraft.

The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead. 

David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.

Kendall contended the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.

Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote.

The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote. 

At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.

Democrats on the committee said they hope this week’s testimony from the Clintons spark Republican committee members to investigate more of Epstein’s ties to President Donald Trump. 

Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said that he cut off contact with his former friend more than 20 years ago.

While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s investigation. 

“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Bill Clinton, in his historic deposition with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee on Friday, denied any knowledge of the crimes committed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, going on to say the subpoena of his wife Hillary Clinton “was simply not right.”

In his opening statement, he stated that he will often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to a release of his opening statements.

The former president is facing questions from the committee as part of its investigation into Epstein in Chappaqua, New York — marking a historic moment for a former president. Friday’s deposition is the first time a former president has appeared in front of a congressional panel since former President Gerald Ford in 1983.

He is facing questions under oath about his relationship with Epstein and photos that show the former president with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes.

The former president’s testimony comes a day after the committee questioned former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton over the couple’s dealings with the convicted sex offender.

In her deposition Thursday, Hillary Clinton said she did not know Epstein, could not recall ever encountering him and never visited him on his island or at his home or office.

Hillary Clinton, on Thursday, also gave a preview of how her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will handle his own deposition.

“I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in ’08 were like most people — they did not know what he was doing. And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow,” she said.

Hillary Clinton said after her deposition that the committee asked her over and over if she knew Epstein. She said there were also questions that were off subject — about UFOs and the debunked “Pizzagate” conspiracy.

“So if they are going to fulfill their responsibilities to literally investigate the investigations, which is what they originally said was the scope of their work, I think they could have spent the day more productively,” she said.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.

“No one is accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Thursday morning ahead of Hillary Clinton’s deposition. “They’re going to have due process, but we have a lot of questions, and the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.”

Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.

Bill Clinton told New York Magazine through a spokesperson at the time that “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of 21st century science.”

Maxwell said in a recorded interview last year with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, that it was she, not Epstein, who had a friendship with Bill Clinton, and that she was the one who suggested and organized his trips on Epstein’s aircraft.

The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead. 

David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.

Kendall contended the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.

Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote.

The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote. 

At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.

Democrats on the committee said they hope this week’s testimony from the Clintons spark Republican committee members to investigate more of Epstein’s ties to President Donald Trump. 

Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said that he cut off contact with his former friend more than 20 years ago.

While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s investigation. 

“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former President Bill Clinton is set to give a closed-door deposition to the House Oversight Committee on Friday as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein in Chappaqua, New York.

The former president’s testimony comes a day after the Republican-led committee questioned former secretary of state and first lady Hillary Clinton over the couple’s dealings with the convicted sex offender.

In her deposition Thursday, Hillary Clinton said she did not know Epstein, could not recall ever encountering him and never visited him on his island or at his home or office.

Hillary Clinton said after her deposition that the committee asked her over and over if she knew Epstein and there were questions that were off subject — about UFOs and the debunked “Pizzagate” conspiracy.

“So if they are going to fulfill their responsibilities to literally investigate the investigations, which is what they originally said was the scope of their work, I think they could have spent the day more productively,” she said.

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.

“No one is accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Thursday morning ahead of Hillary Clinton’s deposition. “They’re going to have due process, but we have a lot of questions, and the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.”

Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.

Bill Clinton told New York Magazine through a spokesperson at the time that “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of 21st century science.”

Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes said in a recorded interview last year with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, that it was she, not Epstein, who had a friendship with Bill Clinton, and that she was the one who suggested and organized his trips on Epstein’s aircraft.

The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead. 

David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.

Kendall contended the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.

Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote.

The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote. 

At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.

Democrats on the committee said they hope this week’s testimony from the Clintons spark Republican committee members to investigate more of Epstein’s ties to President Donald Trump. 

Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said that he cut off contact with his former friend more than 20 years ago.

While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s investigation. 

“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Thursday denied a request to impose a preliminary injunction that would have blocked construction of the White House ballroom.

While finding that the National Trust has raised “novel and weighty” arguments against the ballroom construction, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, says he does not have the power to halt it under the arguments the group has raised.

Leon’s ruling suggests an amended complaint by the historic preservationists, raising so-called ultra vires claims — effectively, that Trump has operated outside the law — would be a better basis for a cause of action.

“Unfortunately, because both sides initially focused on the President’s constitutional authority to destruct and construct the East Wing of the White House, Plaintiff didn’t bring the necessary cause of action to test the statutory authority the President claims is the basis to do this construction project without the blessing of Congress and with private funds,” Leon said.

A statement from the National Trust expresses disappointment over the judge’s decision but adds that the group is “pleased” that Leon encouraged the organization to file an amended complaint claiming that Trump has acted beyond his legal authority. The group says it will do so “promptly.”

Leon pledged to “expeditiously consider” an amended complaint from the National Trust raising ultra vires claims. But until one is filed, he wrote he has “no choice but to deny” the group’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Not long after, Trump falsely claimed that a federal judge “completely erased” a lawsuit seeking to stop the construction of the White House ballroom. 

“Great news for America, and our wonderful White House! The Judge on the case of what will be the most beautiful Ballroom anywhere in the World, has just thrown out, and completely erased, the effort to stop its construction,” Trump wrote in the post on Truth Social. 

The president then continued to claim that “not one dollar” of taxpayers’ money is being used and that the project was “ahead of schedule, and under budget.” 

At a hearing last month, the judge aired his sharp skepticism about what he called a “Rube Goldberg contraption” of raising private money to fund the ballroom construction, adding he believed it was designed to avoid congressional oversight.

The Trump administration preemptively asked Leon in early February to stay any injunction he might issue, warning that the project is “imperative for reasons of national security.”

The government’s filing also says halting the construction would “leave an unsightly excavation site in President’s Park indefinitely.”

Trump initially said in July that the $400 million ballroom project would not interfere with the existing White House structure. Later, when crews began tearing down the East Wing, an official said the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized” as the massive 90,000 square foot ballroom is built.

Earlier in February, the Commission of Fine Arts voted to approve Trump’s design plan.

The panel, made up entirely of new members appointed by Trump, did so near unanimously without further review over the “vast, vast majority” of public comments opposing the project.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Gregory Meeks knows the pivotal role Black men can play in a young person’s life.

“In high school, my [Black] male teacher was Mr. Ozzie and he guided me, you know, through some difficult times and through good times,” Meeks, D-N.Y., told ABC News.

He praised Ozzie for giving him life advice and will never forget how his former teacher inspired him to pursue politics.

“He got me involved in student government at the time,” Meeks said, adding “Without the foundation, I would never be here.”

In interviews with ABC News over the last year, lawmakers across a broad spectrum discussed their relationship with the Black male figures who taught them during their formative years. Having a Black male — and a diverse group of educators — benefits “everyone,” not just Black students, according to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and education experts who spoke with ABC News.

However, less than 2% of all U.S. public school teachers are Black men, according to recent government data. It stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in America’s public schools and prompted a massive white resistance to the new law of the land.

Leslie T. Fenwick, author of “Jim Crow’s Pink Slip: The Untold Story of Black Principal and Teacher Leadership,” ​​told ABC News that the resistance — by mostly white Southern politicians — helped cause the shortage of Black male educators, and Black educators as a whole were forced out in droves.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the latest data on Black male teachers are a “concerning statistic.” Still, the Louisiana native told ABC News that he had “many” Black male teachers over the years.

“One of my favorites was Mr. Tilmer Keels,” Johnson recalled. “He was our band director in middle school. He was such a great inspirational leader,” Johnson added.

Johnson, Meeks and their colleagues overwhelmingly described Black male teachers as supportive, encouraging, and provided positive images for young people.

“They [Black male educators] were very significant for me, and we need more than just one,” Meeks said. “I should be able to talk about three, four, five, six, seven, eight of them,” he added.

Bipartisan appreciation

There’s bipartisan support throughout Congress for these impactful teachers.

Rep. Troy Carter, D-La., said teaching is one of the “most important” careers one can choose. Illinois Democratic Rep. Danny K. Davis, one of the oldest lawmakers on Capitol Hill, said his roles in public service include teaching.

Jonathan L. Jackson’s father, civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson who passed away last week, served as a role model for Black youth across the nation. In the classroom, Jackson said he had at least two Black male teachers throughout high school who he said impacted his worldview.

“People need someone to look up to,” Jackson told ABC News. “That’s why we should be pushing specifically for more African American males in science, education, humanities, histories and all the other good things.”

Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., is also pushing to increase representation in the classroom.

“I’m an advocate for having more male teachers in general, but certainly Black male teachers,” he said, adding, “I think you need a picture of what you want to become in the world.”

Recruitment and retention

Over years of reporting, several Black male educators at public, charter and private pre-K-12 schools have told ABC News that they feel underappreciated and overstretched — with their numbers in the profession already small and appearing to dwindle, according to experts.

Today, 100 years after the first observance of what would become Black History Month, roughly three dozen Black males are serving in Congress. The ones who spoke to ABC News believe Black men deserve a space in the classroom.

Bobby Scott, the top Democrat on the House Education & Workforce Committee who grew up in the segregated South, doesn’t remember ever having a Black male teacher — from elementary school all the way through to when he earned his law degree from Boston College. He noted that teachers and coaches hold an important place in a child’s upbringing, stressing that there should be more Black male educators in schools.

Eric Duncan, the director for preschool-12th grade policy at the nonprofit organization The Education Trust, argued Congress holds the power to bolster the Black male educator through a multitude of levers that would incentivize them to stay in the profession, including scholarships, mortgage assistance, and teacher tax credits.

Duncan, a former social studies teacher, said Black male educators need to feel empowered. Their dismal numbers would improve if the legislative branch keeps level funding for teacher pipeline programs, he said.

“Congress has a role, I think, in continuing to appropriate those funds and continues to keep those programs for the teacher prep programs in the districts that are doing the hard work of trying to recruit and retain Black male educators in their schools,” he said.

“Artificial barriers” impeding progress

The Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling had a crippling impact on the retention of Black male teachers.

More than 70 years after the resistance to the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling, some lawmakers say they feel different factors of the teaching profession keep men out of the classroom, including credentialing and salaries.

Rep. John James, R-Mich., said he wishes there were more avenues for Black men to become teachers but “artificial barriers” are impeding their progress.

“The licensing and certification, the time and the money required, this erects artificial barriers to create mentors and role models, particularly for young Black men who don’t necessarily have that in their life,” James told ABC News.

Last session, multiple teacher salary bills introduced in the House and Senate never received a vote. Freshman Rep. Shomari Figures, D-Ala. said Congress has a collective obligation to address the problem.

“The salary piece of it is certainly a big thing, but we also got to get real about, you know, conditions in schools,” Figures said.

“How are we making the environment the best suitable for teachers to want to stay and remain in the classroom long term?”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is bashing two of the Democrats who repeatedly interrupted his State of the Union speech by shouting at him, calling them “LUNATICS” who “look like they should be institutionalized” in a social media post on Wednesday.

During his Tuesday evening address, Trump attacked Democrats several times, with his comments on his immigration crackdown eliciting jeers from Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who repeatedly said the president was “killing Americans” — a reference to the fatal shootings of Minnesota residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement earlier this year.

Their fatal shootings were amid the administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” which sent federal agents to Minnesota as part of its immigration enforcement. Border czar Tom Homan announced earlier this month that the effort was ending.

“When you watch Low IQ Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, as they screamed uncontrollably last night at the very elegant State of the Union, such an important and beautiful event, they had the bulging, bloodshot eyes of crazy people, LUNATICS, mentally deranged and sick who, frankly, look like they should be institutionalized,” Trump said.

In his social media post, Trump also said “we should send them back from where they came — as fast as possible.”

Omar, who fled Somalia and came to the U.S. as a refugee when she was a child, has been living in the country since she was 12 years old and is a U.S. citizen. Tlaib was born and raised in Detroit; she is the daughter of Palestinian immigrant parents.

Trump’s social media post about Omar and Tlaib mark his first comments the day after his major address.

Omar has been the target of verbal attacks from Trump for years. Earlier this year, his attacks have come alongside escalated rhetoric describing the Somali community in Minnesota, the largest in the nation.

During Tuesday night’s speech, Democrats remained seated when Trump asked members of the chamber to stand if they supported the idea that the American government was “to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

“You should be ashamed of yourselves,” Trump said at the seated Democrats.

“You have killed Americans,” Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, repeatedly shouted as Trump continued talking.

Tlaib, who was seated next to Omar, also shouted at the president throughout his speech. She even appeared to repeatedly mouth “K-K-K” as Republicans chanted “U-S-A, U-S-A.”

Omar told CNN Wednesday morning that she had no regrets for calling out the president during the speech, especially since Trump did not mention the fatal shootings of Good and Pretti.

“It was really unavoidable. The president talked about protecting Americans, and I just had to remind him that his administration was responsible for killing two of my constituents,” she said.

The speech was punctuated at times by other interjections, including from Tlaib, a Democrat of Michigan and outspoken critic of the president, who at one point in the speech called Trump “the most corrupt president.”

After the president said that Democrats “are crazy,” Tlaib, who was wearing a pin that said, “F*** ICE,” stood briefly, then sat down again before again shouting at Trump from her seat.

“How’s those Epstein files?” she shouted as the president spoke.

Neither Omar nor Tlaib were asked to leave the chamber, but they were among the many Democrats who left before Trump finished his speech, which lasted one hour and 48 minutes — making it the longest speech before a joint session of Congress in history.

House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked after the speech if Omar or Talib would see any consequences for their actions.

“We’ll find out,” Johnson responded.

ABC News’ Sarah Beth Hensley and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — During his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Donald Trump awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor, the nation’s highest decoration for valor in combat — one for heroism from more than 70 years ago and the other for heroism in the most recent U.S. military action. 

One of the recipients was Chief Warrant Officer 5 Eric Slover, a special operations helicopter pilot severely wounded in the raid that captured Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro. As Slover’s Chinook swept in, rounds fired from the ground tore through the cockpit and into his legs and hip.

“Eric was hit very badly in the leg and hip, one bullet after another. He absorbed four agonizing shots, shredding his leg into numerous pieces,” Trump said as Slover stood with the aid of a walker.

Slover was presented the award by Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, a break from tradition in which the president personally presents the award.

In recent decades, the review and awarding the Medal of Honor comes after exhaustive reviews and interviews with witnesses that can drag on for years. That had become the norm with heroic actions that occurred in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the announcement of Slover’s award marks a break with that pattern as he was awarded the medal just 52 days after his mission, a short turnaround similar to what was seen in World War II.

First lady Melania Trump presented the second Medal of Honor to retired Navy Capt. E. Royce Williams, a 100-year-old retired Navy captain whose extraordinary dogfight during the Korean War remained classified for decades, even to his wife, as the encounter could have ignited World War III.

“At 100 years old, this brave Navy captain is finally getting the recognition he deserves,” Trump said. “He was a legend long before this evening.”

According to Navy records, on Nov. 18, 1952, during the Korean War, Williams launched from an aircraft carrier on what was supposed to be a routine patrol. Then came a warning that seven MiG-15s were inbound. The three other American aircraft in Williams’ formation were unable to engage with the MiGs.

The MiGs he faced were Soviet aircraft flown by Soviet pilots at a time when the Soviet Union was not officially a combatant in the conflict. Public acknowledgment of the clash risked escalating into direct confrontation between nuclear powers, a step that, in 1952, many feared could ignite a third world war.

What followed was 30-minutes of aerial combat. By the time it ended, he had shot down four enemy jets. His own aircraft, a F9F-5 Panther, was riddled with more than 250 bullet holes, yet he managed to guide it back to the carrier and land safely on deck.

There was no celebration waiting for Williams. Instead, he was told he could not speak about what had happened and the encounter was immediately classified. He didn’t even tell his wife until the 1990s, when the records of the fight were declassified.

ABC News’ Luis Martinez contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a rising star in the Democratic Party who captured the governor’s office last year by a large margin, delivered the Democrats’ response Tuesday night to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address,

In her roughly 12-minute speech, delivered live in front of a crowd in colonial Williamsburg, Spanberger focused on affordability and made pointed remarks about Trump’s hardline immigration policies.

“Let me ask you, the American people watching at home, three questions,” Spanberger said. “Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?”

Spanberger, who was inaugurated in January after serving three terms in the House of Representatives, hit on key issues of affordability, including lowering the persistently high costs of housing, health care, energy and groceries despite the Trump administration’s insistence that some of these costs have come down.

“Democrats across the country are laser focused on affordability in our nation’s capital and in state capitols and communities across America,” Spanberger said.

The daughter of a law enforcement officer and a nurse, Spanberger focused relentlessly on affordability throughout her 2025 gubernatorial campaign. Despite the economy being the top issue Trump ran on in the 2024 election, it’s been one of the issues he’s struggled with the most during his second term, as Americans still haven’t felt the “Trump boom” they were promised.

In an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, 57% of Americans disapprove of how Trump’s handling the economy, and 64% disapproved of how he’s handling tariffs on imported goods.

Spanberger, a former CIA officer, also criticized the Trump for his role on the world stage, saying he is contributing to greater worldwide uncertainty, saying, “Our president has endangered the long and storied history of the United States of America, being a force for good.”

A former federal law enforcement officer who worked on narcotics and money-laundering cases for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Spanberger also addressed what critics call the chaos caused by the Trump administration, which continues its immigration enforcement efforts that Americans are seeing in their communities.

“Our president has sent poorly trained federal agents into our cities where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans,” Spanberger said in her speech. She referred to mothers being taken away from their babies and children — including “a little boy in a blue bunny hat” –being sent to “far-off detention centers.”

She added: “Our broken immigration system is something to be fixed not an excuse for unaccountable agents to terrorize our communities.”

The governor gave her speech live from Colonial Williamsburg, the restored 18th century capital where Virginian representatives voted for its delegation to Congress to propose independence for all 13 colonies from Great Britain, and later adopted the Virginia Declaration of Rights — which influenced the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

“In his speech tonight, the president did what he always does,” Spanberger said. He “lied, he scapegoated, and he distracted. And he offered no real solutions to our nation’s pressing challenges, so many of which he is actively making worse.”

Spanberger has been able to appeal to both Democratic and Republican voters. She won the governor election in November by more than 15% — the largest margin for a Democrat in the state since 1961 — winning counties that voted for Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024.

There were at least two major counter events that several Democrats planned to attend, including MoveOn’s People’s State of the Union, which is promoting the participation of more than 20 members of Congress; and the “State of the Swamp” event by Defiance.org that features a handful of celebrities appearing by video or in person, such as Robert De Niro.

Spanberger prepared for her remarks by watching speeches other Democrats have delivered in response to Trump’s previous addresses to Congress.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.