Politics

(UVALDE, Texas) — Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales is denying allegations he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall — calling on the Uvalde police department to release its report on her death despite objections from her family. 

Regina Santos-Aviles, 35, died on Sept. 14 after she doused herself with an accelerant and set herself ablaze at her home on Geraldine Avenue in Uvalde, Texas, Bexar County officials determined.

Santos-Aviles served as regional district director for Gonzales, who lost an endorsement this week from the San Antonio Express-News following its reporting of an alleged affair between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles.

The Express-News reported that it obtained texts between a former Gonzales staffer and Santos-Aviles, in which Santos-Aviles claimed she engaged in an affair with Gonzales. 

Gonzales has repeatedly denied the affair with Santos-Aviles.

In a statement to ABC News, the Gonzales campaign did not comment on the reported text messages, and blamed his rival in the GOP primary, Brandon Herrera, for planting allegations in the press.

“Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place,” Gonzales told ABC News in a statement. “Her efforts led to improvements in school safety, healthcare, and rural water like never before. It’s shameful that Brandon Herrera is using a disgruntled former staffer to smear her memory and score political points, conveniently pushing this out the very day early voting started. I am not going to engage in these personal smears and instead will remain focused on helping President Trump secure the border and improve the lives of all Texans.”

Gonzales faces a primary fight with Herrera, a conservative influencer who he defeated by less than 400 votes in 2024. Herrera called on Gonzales to resign from office via a post on X on Wednesday. 

The Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that 9-1-1 calls, video, and police reports must remained sealed, though Gonzales is now calling on the Uvalde Police Department to release its report.

On Thursday, Gonzales posted on X suggesting an attorney representing the Santos-Aviles family was seeking an out-of-court financial settlement, which Gonzales described as “blackmail.” 

“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED. Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death. The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report. I will keep fighting for #TX23,” Gonzales said in the post.

Santos-Aviles’ widower, Adrian Aviles, denied Gonzales’ charge of blackmail while expressing his intent to block details of the incident from becoming unsealed.

“We have never blackmailed anyone,” Adrian Aviles wrote in a statement on X. “What we’ve seen instead is a consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect your image. You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face. We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it.”

The post continued: “Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper. Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent–people who deserve the truth, not more deception.”

Reached by ABC News, attorney Robert Barrera, who represents Adrian Aviles, said he is in possession of “substantial evidence” from Santos-Aviles’ phone “supporting the affair.”

Barrera added that Gonzales refused any out of court settlement and is now “attempting in an act of desperation to become a victim of his own conduct when it has now come to light that he has committed adultery with a staffer.”

Barrera declined to release the full letter sent to Gonzales’ lawyers.

Gonzales, 44, is married to his wife Angel and the couple have six children together. 

At the time of the incident, the three-term lawmaker provided a statement to San Antonio ABC station KSAT reacting to “the recent news” of Santos-Aviles’ death:

“We are all heart-stricken by the recent news. Regina devoted her profession toward making a difference in her community. She will always be remembered for her passion towards Uvalde and helping the community become a better place,” Gonzales stated.

Gonzales has already won President Donald Trump’s endorsement for reelection, as well as several law enforcement groups from Texas. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(UVALDE, Texas) — Texas Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales is denying allegations he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall — calling on the Uvalde police department to release its report on her death despite objections from her family. 

Regina Santos-Aviles, 35, died on Sept. 14 after she doused herself with an accelerant and set herself ablaze at her home on Geraldine Avenue in Uvalde, Texas, Bexar County officials determined.

Santos-Aviles served as regional district director for Gonzales, who lost an endorsement this week from the San Antonio Express-News following its reporting of an alleged affair between Gonzales and Santos-Aviles.

The Express-News reported that it obtained texts between a former Gonzales staffer and Santos-Aviles, in which Santos-Aviles claimed she engaged in an affair with Gonzales. 

Gonzales has repeatedly denied the affair with Santos-Aviles.

In a statement to ABC News, the Gonzales campaign did not comment on the reported text messages, and blamed his rival in the GOP primary, Brandon Herrera, for planting allegations in the press.

“Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place,” Gonzales told ABC News in a statement. “Her efforts led to improvements in school safety, healthcare, and rural water like never before. It’s shameful that Brandon Herrera is using a disgruntled former staffer to smear her memory and score political points, conveniently pushing this out the very day early voting started. I am not going to engage in these personal smears and instead will remain focused on helping President Trump secure the border and improve the lives of all Texans.”

Gonzales faces a primary fight with Herrera, a conservative influencer who he defeated by less than 400 votes in 2024. Herrera called on Gonzales to resign from office via a post on X on Wednesday. 

The Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that 9-1-1 calls, video, and police reports must remained sealed, though Gonzales is now calling on the Uvalde Police Department to release its report.

On Thursday, Gonzales posted on X suggesting an attorney representing the Santos-Aviles family was seeking an out-of-court financial settlement, which Gonzales described as “blackmail.” 

“I WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED. Disgusting to see people profit politically and financially off a tragic death. The public should IMMEDIATELY have full access to the Uvalde Police report. I will keep fighting for #TX23,” Gonzales said in the post.

Santos-Aviles’ widower, Adrian Aviles, denied Gonzales’ charge of blackmail while expressing his intent to block details of the incident from becoming unsealed.

“We have never blackmailed anyone,” Adrian Aviles wrote in a statement on X. “What we’ve seen instead is a consistent pattern of evasion, refusal to take accountability, and outright lies to protect your image. You’re a classic case of a two-faced politician who says whatever is convenient to save face. We chose to hold back the full police report and body cam footage for one reason only it shows my wife suffering severe burns in horrific detail. I will not allow that graphic material to become accessible to our 8 year old son in the future when he is old enough to search for or come across it.”

The post continued: “Nothing in that police report protects you, that decision is about protecting our child’s well-being, not concealing anything improper. Your actions have been disgraceful, and you continue to mislead your constituents with falsehoods. You may avoid responsibility here on earth, but one day you will answer to a higher authority. Today, though, you still answer to the people you represent–people who deserve the truth, not more deception.”

Reached by ABC News, attorney Robert Barrera, who represents Adrian Aviles, said he is in possession of “substantial evidence” from Santos-Aviles’ phone “supporting the affair.”

Barrera added that Gonzales refused any out of court settlement and is now “attempting in an act of desperation to become a victim of his own conduct when it has now come to light that he has committed adultery with a staffer.”

Barrera declined to release the full letter sent to Gonzales’ lawyers.

Gonzales, 44, is married to his wife Angel and the couple have six children together. 

At the time of the incident, the three-term lawmaker provided a statement to San Antonio ABC station KSAT reacting to “the recent news” of Santos-Aviles’ death:

“We are all heart-stricken by the recent news. Regina devoted her profession toward making a difference in her community. She will always be remembered for her passion towards Uvalde and helping the community become a better place,” Gonzales stated.

Gonzales has already won President Donald Trump’s endorsement for reelection, as well as several law enforcement groups from Texas. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a major blow to President Donald Trump by invalidating most of global tariffs, a cornerstone of his economic policy in his second term.

In a 6-3 decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court deemed that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give Trump the power to unilaterally impose tariffs. 

“We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution,” Roberts wrote. “Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

The Trump administration attempted to justify the tariffs by arguing that IEEPA says the president has the power to regulate “importation,” but Roberts said their read of the law was a stretch. 

“Based on two words separated by 16 others in Section 1702(a)(1)(B) of IEEPA—‘regulate’ and ‘importation’—the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time,” Roberts wrote. “Those words cannot bear such weight.”

Roberts said the court was highly skeptical of the claim that Congress had delegated to the president a “birth-right power to tax” though the passage of the 1977 law. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose tariffs and taxes, the majority concluded.

“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” the ruling said. 

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, arguing that Trump should have the power to impose tariffs during national emergencies.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Trump had publicly lobbied for months for the court to rule in his favor, including in remarks he delivered on Thursday about in Georgia. Trump, speaking on the economy, said “without tariffs, this country would be in such trouble right now.”

The White House has said it is prepared to present alternative avenues for imposing the tariffs under different legal authorities.

The Supreme Court’s ruling strikes down 70% of Trump’s global tariffs after they have collected more than $142 billion through December, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

While the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s sweeping tariff power under IEEPA, the tariffs Trump imposed using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — such as tariffs on steel and aluminum — remain in place. Trump has also suggested in the past that he might attempt to reframe the tariffs as “licenses,” though such a move would likely be challenged in court. 

Companies ranging from Costco to small businesses have sued the Trump administration to effectively “get in line” for refunds if the court deemed them unconstitutional.

The court’s majority did not explicitly address the issue of refunds or how that process would work.

Kavanaugh noted such in his dissent.

“Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” Kavanaugh wrote.

ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze and Zunaira Zaki contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — While the Democratic National Committee chose not to release its after-action report on the 2024 election, one prominent Democratic group is sharing feedback from a group of influential voters.

To some of them, Democrats can seem condescending, elitist and out-of-touch. And to win them over, candidates don’t need to take a specific policy position, but should communicate directly, authentically and with empathy.

Drawn from in-depth interviews and focus groups with more than 100 voters from battleground House districts and states, the “Baseline Report” released by MD PAC, a political action committee working to reshape Democratic Party, aims to help candidates and campaigns connect with voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 and either voted for Donald Trump or stayed home four years later.

The organization is affiliated with Majority Democrats, one of several groups working with candidates to remake and redefine the party’s image ahead of the midterms.

 “It’s not exactly a state secret that something went very wrong for Democrats in 2024,” Lis Smith, a senior adviser to Majority Democrats, told ABC News. “The responsible thing isn’t to bury our heads in the sand, it’s to figure out how to win their votes so we can move forward.”

Across the entire cohort, voters shared a sense of exhaustion and emotional burnout. They view both Democrats and Republicans skeptically, and they feel “unseen, unheard, and unrepresented by the federal government,” the group notes in its report.

According to the analysis and the group’s briefing on the findings, voters across the cohort felt a sense of economic strain, and a fear that the “floor could drop at any time,” as one of them told the group.

In 2024, Trump and Republicans won over a larger share of voters without college degrees, performing 4 points better than he did in 2020 among voters who are more economically vulnerable, according to ABC News exit polls.

Republicans also won more than half of voters whose total family income in 2023 was between $30,000 and $49,999, and $50,000 to $99,999, according to ABC News exit polls for the House of Representatives in 2024.

Smith recalled a conversation with a Democratic senator after the 2024 election that underscored how the party didn’t connect with voters’ concerns about the economy.

“They told me, ‘I would hear from voters about price of eggs and I thought it was a Fox News talking point,'” she said. “That suggested to me that a lot of members of Congress and their staffs are insulated from what voters are feeling. And this is a way to break through that.”

At a time when Democrats are grappling over the party’s positions on the U.S. relationship with Israel and whether to call for the abolishing or reform of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Majority Democrats’ report doesn’t recommend a specific set of positions for Democrats to adopt.  

“Voters were not demanding ideological purity. They expected leaders to be
flawed, change their minds, or even contradict themselves. What mattered was why — and whether the shift seemed honest,” the report reads.

While the report doesn’t dig into what went wrong for the party in 2024 and how Biden’s unsuccessful run for a second term impacted the fall results, the voters who participated expressed a desire to see politicians focus on issues that matter to them and show a willingness to disagree with their party.

“When voters were overwhelmingly telling us Joe Biden was too old to run for reelection, the Democratic powers that be responded, ‘Don’t believe your lying eyes,'” Smith said.

She also pointed to Democrats’ defending the Biden administration’s economic record by saying inflation was lower in the U.S. than in other countries.

“Democrats came off too often as defenders of the status quo,” Smith said. “That missed the mark, and going forward what we recommend is that Democrats understand the real, deep frustrations with economic and political systems.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In the weeks after federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota during a surge to apprehend undocumented immigrants for deportation, Americans oppose Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics by wide margins and President Donald Trump’s approval on immigration has dipped to the lowest of his second term, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.

Trump’s immigration rating hits new low for second term

Trump, who has focused much of his second term on the immigration crackdown, is now 18 percentage points underwater in how Americans rate his handling of immigration — with 58% disapproving and 40% approving — the worst ratings he has had on immigration in his second term, ticking down from his October ratings and almost exactly where he was in July 2019 when 40% approved and 57% disapproved of how he was handling the issue.

Despite his increasingly negative ratings on handling immigration since taking office, Americans don’t trust Democrats to handle the issue more. When asked who they trust to do a better job handling immigration, 38% say they trust Trump more, 34% trust congressional Democrats more and 24% trust neither.

Congressional Democrats are demanding a range of new restrictions on immigration enforcement amid a Department of Homeland Security funding spat and partial government shutdown. The White House and Democrats are still at odds, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday calling the Democrats’ latest move in the negotiations “very unserious.”

And even though he’s underwater on handling immigration overall, Trump’s ratings on handling the immigration situation at the U.S.-Mexico border are a bit better, albeit still slightly negative, with 47% of Americans approving of how he is handling the situation at the border and 50% disapproving.

Americans on deportations and ICE

Americans are roughly split over whether the federal government should deport all undocumented immigrants living in the United States, but a growing share oppose expanded ICE operations — and by a 2-to-1 margin, they oppose ICE’s tactics.

The results come following the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, by federal agents in Minneapolis on Jan. 24 — just weeks after the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.

Half (50%) of Americans support the federal government deporting the about 14 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. and sending them back to their home countries while 48% oppose this.

Support was even higher for deporting all undocumented immigrants ahead of the 2024 presidential election, when 56% of Americans supported sending all undocumented immigrants to their home countries. By last February that dipped to 51%.

Most Hispanic (64%), Black (58%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (56%) oppose deporting all undocumented immigrants while 58% of white people support widespread deportation.

Even if many Americans want mass deportations, 58% say Trump is going “too far” in deporting undocumented immigrants, up from 50% who said the same in October. Just 12% say he is “not going far enough” and 28% say he is “handling it about right.”

Seven in 10 Americans do not think most immigrants deported since January 2025 were violent criminals, including 33% who say “hardly any” of those deported were. Only 7% of Americans say “nearly all” of the immigrants who were deported since the beginning of the Trump administration were violent criminals.

A slim majority of Americans oppose ICE’s expanded operations to detain and deport undocumented immigrants in the U.S., 53% now, up from 46% in October.

Opinion breaks down on partisan lines, with 88% of Democrats opposed to ICE’s expanded operations and 81% of Republicans in support. A 56% majority of independents oppose ICE’s expanded operations. 

By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration laws, 62% to 31%. Half of Americans strongly oppose ICE’s tactics, including 89% of Democrats and 53% of independents. Only 4 in 10 Republicans strongly support the tactics ICE is using to enforce immigration law, rising to over half among MAGA Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who call themselves MAGA.

By a 13-point margin, Americans oppose abolishing ICE, 50% to 37%. Opinions are polarized: 7 in 10 Democrats support abolishing ICE, while 8 in 10 Republicans oppose it. More independents oppose abolishing ICE (45%) than support abolishing ICE (35%), with 2 in 10 independents saying they have no opinion on the issue.

ICE was established in 2003 as part of the Homeland Security Act following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the Justice Department administered immigration laws. The Abolish ICE political movement gained national attention in 2018 during the previous Trump administration’s family-separation policy.

An ICE memo issued in May gave federal agents the authority to enter the homes of people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without warrants signed by judges. A wide majority of Americans — including majorities across party lines — say that when federal law enforcement wants to forcibly enter someone’s home, they need to get approval from a judge; just 20% say getting approval from a federal agency is enough.

How Americans feel about Minnesota and personal impacts

Most Americans (54%) say they are either upset (17%) or angry (37%) over how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, with 72% of Democrats saying they are angry. More than 4 in 10 Americans say they are “not concerned” or “concerned but not upset” over the situation in Minnesota.

Nearly half of Republicans, 47%, say they are not concerned over immigration enforcement in Minnesota, along with 32% who say they are concerned but not upset. 

And while majorities of Asian and Pacific Islander (66%), Hispanic (59%) and Black Americans (61%) say they are upset or angry about how immigration enforcement has gone in Minnesota, that dips to 49% among white people.

There is a personal connection for many Americans — 42% say they are at least somewhat concerned that federal immigration enforcement agents could arrest or detain someone they know, including 33% who say they are at least somewhat concerned this could happen to a close family member or friend.

Hispanic (60%), Black (55%) and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans (53%) are all more concerned that federal immigration agents could arrest and detain a close friend, family member or someone else they know than white people (32%).

Replacing Kristi Noem, sanctuary cities and the border

By almost a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem amid the administration’s controversial immigration enforcement tactics, 44% to 23%, with 33% voicing no opinion on the matter.

Democrats are more aligned on replacing Noem than Republicans are. Three-quarters of Democrats support removing Noem, 7% oppose it and 18% have no opinion. Among Republicans, 45% oppose replacing Noem, 15% support it and a large 40% say they have no opinion on the matter. Among independents, 45% support Noem’s removal, 17% oppose it and 38% have no opinion.

By an 8-point margin, Americans oppose denying federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that limit their cooperation with ICE, 46% to 38%. Eight in 10 Democrats oppose this, over 7 in 10 Republicans support it.

Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.

See PDF for full results and detailed methodology.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As the U.S. considers waging a military offensive against Iran, President Donald Trump gathered with dozens of world leaders and heads of state for the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace, a peacekeeping body focused on rebuilding efforts in Gaza that will oversee an international stabilization force.

But Iran was still top of mind for the president, as he gave a 10-day timeline on Thursday to decide whether to continue diplomatic talks with Iranian officials or to order a military strike.

“We may have to take it a step further, or we may not. Maybe we’re going to make a deal,” Trump told the Board of Peace members. “You’re going to be finding out over the next probably 10 days, but this meeting today is proof with determined leadership, nothing is impossible.”

Asked by ABC News’ Karen Travis what the goal of a military strike would be, Trump refused to answer, “but we’re either going to get a deal or it’s going to be unfortunate for them,” he said.

Asked whether he had a deadline for Iran, Trump repeated his earlier timeline of 10 days.

“I would think that will be enough time — 10, 15 days, pretty much, maximum,” Trump said.

The president has been weighing his options on launching an additional round of military action against Iran for weeks since the regime’s brutal crackdown on protesters in January in which thousands of Iranians were estimated to have been killed.

A second American aircraft carrier — the USS Gerald R. Ford — is heading toward the Middle East, accompanied by destroyers and aircraft being redeployed from missions in the Caribbean region, a U.S. official told ABC News. The Ford is expected to join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the region, the latter having arrived there late last month.

Key Iranian nuclear personnel and facilities were targeted by Israeli and American forces during an intense 12-day conflict in June. But the strikes failed to resolve long-standing U.S. and Israeli grievances related to Tehran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal and its support for regional proxy groups.

Iran is expected to submit a written proposal aimed at resolving ongoing tensions with the U.S. following high-stakes indirect talks between Iranian and U.S. officials in Geneva on Tuesday, a senior U.S. official confirmed to ABC News on Wednesday.

It’s unclear when the written proposal will be submitted to the U.S. 

Iran agreed to make a written proposal on how to address U.S. concerns during the Geneva talks, the senior U.S. official said. U.S. officials are currently waiting on that proposal from the Iranians, according to the official. 

On Tuesday, a White House official said Iran would provide detailed proposals to address “some of the open gaps in our positions” in the next two weeks. 

U.S. national security advisers met in the Situation Room on Wednesday to discuss Iran, the official confirmed.

Additionally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the weekend of Feb. 28 to discuss Iran, the U.S. official confirmed. 

During his remarks Thursday, Trump said that “now is the time for Iran to join us on a path” to peace in the region. Trump later said explicitly that Iran “must make a deal” and said if it doesn’t, “bad things will happen.”

“And now is the time for Iran to join us on a path that will complete what we’re doing. And if they join us, that’ll be great. If they don’t join us, that’ll be great too. But it will be a very different path. They cannot continue to threaten the stability of the entire region, and they must make a deal. Or if that doesn’t happen, I maybe can understand. If it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. But, bad things will happen if it doesn’t,” Trump said.

Trump hosted the meeting with world leaders who pledged upwards of $7 billion that would go towards the rebuilding and reconstruction in Gaza.

The countries pledging are Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UAE, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Kuwait, Trump said.

While that amount is significant, an operational damage and needs assessment conducted last year by the United Nations, the European Union and the World Bank, estimated rebuilding Gaza could cost upwards of $70 billion and take years.

Despite that current shortfall, the president was optimistic about the future that the Board of Peace can help build in Gaza. 

“But we work together to ensure the brighter future for the people of Gaza, the Middle East and the entire world. I think that the Board of Peace, because it’s mostly leaders and unbelievably respected people, but mostly leaders of Middle Eastern countries, countries from all over the world, and they’ve been very generous with money also. And the United States, which I’ll say in a moment, is also very generous with money, because there’s nothing more important than peace, and there’s nothing less expensive than peace. You know, when you go to wars, it costs you 100 times what it costs to make peace,” Trump said.

Several European allies declined to join the board over concerns the peacekeeping body would rival the United Nations. The Vatican has also declined to join the board.

The United Nations Security Council gave the Board of Peace a mandate as part of its approval of the Trump administration’s 20-point plan for peace in Gaza.

Trump, who again criticized the U.N. during his remarks, said that the U.S. is going “to be working with the United Nations very close.”

“Someday I won’t be here. The United Nations will be, I think, is going to be much stronger,” he said. “The Board of Peace is going to almost be looking over the United Nations, and making sure it runs properly.”

Five countries have already committed troops to an international force that is supposed to deploy to Gaza, the commander of the force said Thursday.

Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo and Albania pledged to send thousands of troops for a Gaza stabilization force, according to Maj. Gen. Jasper Jeffers, the commander of the international security force.

Egypt and Jordan have committed to train police.

“With these first steps, we help bring the security that Gaza needs for a future of prosperity and enduring peace,” Jeffers said.

Jeffers did not provide details on how many troops each country would commit or how soon the force would deploy into Gaza, but he said the ISF would ultimately total 20,000 troops working alongside 12,000 Palestinian police. 

Trump also said the U.S. would contribute $10 billion to the Board of Peace, though he didn’t detail what the money would go towards. 

“And I want to let you know that the United States is going to make a contribution of $10 billion to the Board of Peace. Thank you. And we’ve had great support for that number. And that number is a very small number. When you look at, that compared to the cost of war, that’s — that’s two weeks of fighting. It’s a very small number. It sounds like a lot, but it’s a very small number. So, we’re committed to $10 billion,” Trump said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Commission of Fine Arts voted on Thursday to approve the design plan for President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom.

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.

Chairman Rodney Mims Cook Jr. moved to approve the plans as “final” after first voting to back the “concept” of the construction project.

One commissioner did not vote: James McCrery, the president’s White House architect who was sidelined on the ballroom project. McCrery recused himself and said it would be “inappropriate” for him to comment or vote on the plans.

The votes took place after Shalom Baranes, Trump’s new ballroom architect, presented updated design plans, with the most notable public change being the removal of a pediment on the proposed structure’s south side at the commission’s recommendation.

The commission fast-tracked the final vote, which was not set to happen on Thursday. The commission was set to review the project’s final design before taking their final vote, which would have been — at the earliest — during their next meeting scheduled for March 19.

Cook said the Pentagon “made some demands on the president” for greater security and that those secret design plans were integrated into the design.

More renderings of the proposed 90,000-square-foot addition in the location of the demolished East Wing were made available in a 31-page report submitted to commission last week, including a view of the building from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The votes to approve the proposal also came after Thomas Luebke, the panel’s secretary, presented the group with the public’s objection to the East Wing’s destruction last fall and the ballroom’s construction.

“Mind you, in more than two decades of case work here, for me, I’ve never seen as much public engagement on this,” Luebke said. “We literally have gotten, just in the past week or so, more than 2,000 various messages — way too much to go through individually.”

Luebke later added the messages were “overwhelmingly in opposition, over 99%, to this project.”

Luebke read excerpts from two public comments, one in favor and one against. The supporter of the ballroom argued that the addition was necessary to host formal events and “to have America be competitive in the eyes of world leaders.” The opposing commentator argued that the addition “represents an affront to our heritage, a circumvention of democratic processes and a misallocation of resources that could better serve the republic.”

Luebke said groups have also voiced opposition, including the National Mall Coalition, which said to the commission: “Please do not set a precedent that will be difficult, if not impossible, to overturn. We ask you to await the decision of the courts and not support further breach of public trust.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project. The judge in the case has expressed skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, and said he hoped to issue a decision this month.

The ballroom is a longtime goal for Trump, who said in a social media post that it will be “one of the greatest and most beautiful Ballrooms anywhere in the world.” Trump said the project will cost $400 million and be paid for by private donors.

He applauded the commission’s approval in a social media post Thursday afternoon, saying “Great accolades were paid to the building’s beauty and scale. Thank you to the members of the Commission!”

The National Capital Planning Commission — led by Will Scharf, Trump’s White House staff secretary — will also consider the ballroom project during its March meeting.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The National Park Service (NPS) on Thursday began restoring the panels that were removed from the slavery exhibit at the President’s House in Philadelphia.

The restoration comes after U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe ordered the Trump administration to do so by 5 p.m. on Friday. The outdoor exhibit is a memorial to the nine enslaved Africans who were held at the site by President George Washington.

NPS workers began restoring the panels ahead of the deadline, according to ABC station in Philadelphia, WPVI.

The deadline was set in an order filed on Wednesday by Rufe, who is overseeing Philadelphia’s federal lawsuit against the Trump administration over the removal of the slavery exhibit. The exhibit was taken down by the NPS on Jan. 23.

Rufe granted a preliminary injunction requested by the city of Philadelphia in a Monday ruling, ordering the Department of Interior, which oversees NPS, to restore the exhibit as the lawsuit moves forward.

In setting the deadline, Rufe cited the federal government’s “failure to comply” with her order to restore the exhibit.

The Interior Department appealed Rufe’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Wednesday.

On Wednesday evening, the department also filed an emergency motion for an immediate stay that would block the preliminary injunction granted to Philadelphia pending the federal government’s appeal.

“The Court should stay its preliminary injunction pending appeal because the Government is likely to prevail on the merits, will face irreparable injury absent a stay, and the remaining factors also support a stay,” the motion states.

Rufe ordered the city of Philadelphia to respond to the Trump administration’s motion for an emergency stay by 4 p.m. local time on Thursday.

ABC News reached out to representatives of the city of Philadelphia, NPS and to the U.S. Interior Dept. for further comment.

In granting the preliminary injunction and ordering the government to restore the exhibit, Rufe cited George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984, comparing their actions to those of Big Brother in the book.

“As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not,” she wrote.

“An agency, whether the Department of the Interior, NPS, or any other agency, cannot arbitrarily decide what is true, based on its own whims or the whims of the new leadership, regardless of the evidence before it,” she added in the ruling.

She also concluded that NPS should have consulted with the city before amending the exhibit.

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker called the judge’s decision a “huge win for the people of this city and our country.”

“We will not allow anyone to erase our history today,” Parker said on Tuesday.

The boards and panels that were removed told the stories of Austin, Christopher Sheels, Giles, Hercules, Joe Richardson, Moll, Oney Judge, Paris and Richmond — the nine enslaved Africans held by Washington as his home in Philadelphia.

They were removed to comply with President Donald Trump’s March 27, 2025, executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which directed the Interior Department to remove what they called “divisive, race-centered ideology” and narratives from federal cultural institutions, a department spokesperson told ABC News in a statement last month.

ABC News’ Peter Charalambous and Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The standoff between Democrats and the White House over Department of Homeland Security funding and immigration enforcement continued on Wednesday, with both sides digging in as the partial government shutdown hit its fifth day.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the counteroffer made by Democrats “very unserious,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries remained firm that Democrats would not back away from their demands for reform.

President Donald Trump, who had said he would be personally involved in negotiations, hasn’t yet spoken with Democrats, according to Leavitt.

“He hasn’t had any direct conversation or correspondence with Democrat lawmakers recently. It doesn’t mean he’s not willing to. I’m just not aware of any conversations that have taken place,” she told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Funding for DHS lapsed on Saturday, affecting agencies like the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

A majority of DHS employees are expected to work during the shutdown, though they could miss a paycheck.

FEMA has paused almost all travel related to the agency’s work, according to multiple sources familiar with the decision, though travel related to disaster relief will continue.

“These limitations are not a choice but are necessary to comply with federal law. FEMA continues to coordinate closely with DHS to ensure effective disaster response under these circumstances,” a FEMA spokesperson said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is at the center of the funding fight after two fatal shootings of American citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection remain operational due to billion-dollar infusions from Trump’s massive spending and tax-cut bill passed by Republicans in Congress last summer.

Democrats have asked for a range of new restrictions on immigration enforcement, including a mandate for body cameras, judicial warrants before agents can enter private property — rather than administrative warrants — and a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks. They also want stricter use-of-force policy and new training standards for agents.

The White House and Democrats have traded offers over the past week, though the details haven’t been released publicly. Both sides have called the other’s proposals “unserious.”

“We’ve been engaged in good faith negotiations with the Democrats … They sent over a counterproposal that, frankly, was very unserious. And we hope they get serious very soon because Americans are going to be impacted by this,” Leavitt said on Wednesday.

Jeffries said Wednesday the ball was in the White House’s court.

“We’ve reiterated our perspective on the types of things that are absolutely necessary in order for a DHS funding bill to move forward, all anchored in this principle that ICE needs to conduct itself like every other law-enforcement agency in the country, and stop using taxpayer dollars to brutalize the American people,” he said. 

Trump said on Sunday he didn’t like some of what Democrats are asking for, and emphasized his administration is “going to protect ICE.”

In the wake of the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis during the administration’s immigration crackdown and resulting protests, an ABC News review found multiple examples of public statements appearing to be in inaccurate that the agency initially made after using force. 

One example occurred last month in Minneapolis when Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan migrant, was shot in the leg by an ICE agent.

At the time, DHS said its agents were “violently assaulted … with a shovel and broom handle.” ABC News obtained a frantic 911 call made by apparent relatives saying agents fired the shot as Sosa-Celis ran away. Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, later said two of his agents appear to have made “untruthful statements” about the moments before the shooting. Both officers were placed on administrative leave and Lyons said they may face federal charges.

Another case unfolded in Chicago last October when Marimar Martinez, an American citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times by federal agents.

DHS initially said that the agents were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.” But an ABC News analysis of video footage shows that agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles, and that at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front. A CBP spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident and the Department of Justice dropped the charges against Martinez.

ABC News’ Luke Barr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — More renderings of President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom were made available in a 31-page report submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts, which is set to meet on Thursday.

The report showed the proposed 90,000-square-foot addition in the location of the demolished East Wing from several new angles, including the view from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Commission of Fine Arts was formed by Congress as an independent agency to weigh in on major capital-area building projects.

Thursday’s meeting, which will take place via videoconference, will feature new members recently appointed by Trump after the president dismissed all six of its members last fall.

The new members include James McCrery, the architect who previously led the ballroom project before being replaced; Roger Kimball, a critic and conservative columnist for The Spectator who has written favorably about the president; and Chamberlain Harris, a 26-year-old White House Deputy Director of Oval Office Operations who worked in the first Trump White House. 

In a statement to ABC News, the White House called Harris a “loyal, trusted, and highly respected advisor to President Trump” who will be “a tremendous asset to the Commission of Fine Arts.”

“She understands the President’s vision and appreciation of the arts like very few others, and brings a unique perspective that will serve the Commission well,” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said in the statement.

The commission wrote on its website that “upon the completion of President Donald J. Trump’s first term, [Harris] continued her work in Florida at the Office of the 45th President, managing President Trump’s Presidential Portrait Project in conjunction with the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution and the White House Historical Association.”

The Commission of Fine Arts is one of two panels tasked with reviewing projects in Washington. The report was also submitted with the National Capital Planning Commission ahead of its March meeting.

The administration has faced legal pressure to submit the plans to both panels for review after the initial demolition of the East Wing. 

The White House first announced the ballroom construction project, a longtime goal of Trump, last July.

Trump at first said the project would not interfere with the existing White House structure. But then in October, the entire East Wing was razed to make way for the ballroom, which Trump said would cost $400 million.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to stop the project. The judge in the case has expressed skepticism of the government’s arguments that the president has the power to build a ballroom with private donations and without express authorization from Congress, and said he hoped to issue a decision this month.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.