Politics

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge has dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that the appointment of the U.S. attorney who brought the indictments was invalid.

The judge dismissed the charges without prejudice, meaning the cases could potentially be refiled by an appropriately appointed U.S. attorney. 

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unconstitutional and that her actions bringing the case were “unlawful” and “ineffective.”

“Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice,” she wrote. 

Halligan, President Donald Trump’s handpicked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, sought the indictment of Comey and James over the objections of career prosecutors after Trump forced out previous U.S. attorney Erik Siebert who sources said had resisted bringing the cases.

Halligan, who had no experience as a prosecutor, sought the indictment after Trump, in a social media post, called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to act “NOW!!!” to prosecute Comey, James and Rep. Adam Schiff.

Comey pleaded not guilty in October to one count of false statements and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020, amid what critics call Trump’s campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.

Vice President JD Vance has said any such prosecutions are “driven by law and not by politics.” 

James, who successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and leads multiple lawsuits challenging his administration’s policies, pleaded not guilty in October to charges that she committed mortgage fraud related to a home she purchased in 2020.

Prosecutors said she falsely described a property she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, as a second home instead of an investment property in order to obtain a lower mortgage rate. James said she purchased the property for her great-niece and allowed her and her children to live in the house rent-free.”I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” James said in a statement following Friday’s ruling. “I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”

With the statute of limitations for Comey’s case set to expire, it is unclear whether the case could be refiled in time. Lawyers for Comey have argued that the statute of limitations has already run out. 

Unlike the case against Comey, the allegations against James appear to be well within the statute of limitations should the Department of Justice try to pursue the case again. 

Under federal law, the attorney general has the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days before the appointment power shifts to the judges in that federal district.  When U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber, who was President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the office, resigned on Jan. 20, Siebert was appointed as interim U.S. attorney.  

After 120 days, the power to appoint an interim U.S. attorney shifted from the attorney general to the judges in the Eastern District of Virginia, who used their authority to allow Siebert to continue serving in his role.  

“When that clock expired on May 21, 2025, so too did the Attorney General’s appointment authority,” Judge Currie wrote in her decision.

Siebert continued to serve lawfully in his position until September, when he resigned following a pressure campaign from the president. Within 48 hours of Trump’s social media post calling for the prosecution of his political foes, Bondi cited the same federal law that allows a 120-day interim appointment to authorize Halligan as the interim U.S. attorney. 

After both Comey and James were indicted, Bondi attempted to ratify Haligan’s appointment, but Judge Currie rejected that attempt to fix the issue after the fact. 

“The implications of a contrary conclusion are extraordinary. It would mean the Government could send any private citizen off the street — attorney or not — into the grand jury room to secure an indictment so long as the Attorney General gives her approval after the fact. That cannot be the law,” she wrote. 

According to Currie, the decision about who leads the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Eastern Virginia is now in the hands of the judges in that district, until Trump nominates and the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. attorney to take over.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge has dismissed the criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James on the grounds that the appointment of the U.S. attorney who brought the indictments was invalid.

The judge dismissed the charges without prejudice, meaning the cases could potentially be refiled by an appropriately appointed U.S. attorney. 

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie concluded that the appointment of Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was unconstitutional and that her actions bringing the case were “unlawful” and “ineffective.”

“Because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, I will grant Mr. Comey’s motion and dismiss the indictment without prejudice,” she wrote. 

Halligan, Trump’s handpicked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, sought the indictment of Comey and James over the objections of career prosecutors after Trump forced out previous U.S. attorney Erik Siebert who sources said had resisted bringing the cases.

Halligan, who had no experience as a prosecutor, sought the indictment after Trump, in a social media post, called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to act “NOW!!!” to prosecute Comey, James and Rep. Adam Schiff.

Comey pleaded not guilty in October to one count of false statements and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020, amid what critics call Trump’s campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.

Vice President JD Vance has said any such prosecutions are “driven by law and not by politics.” 

James, who successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and leads multiple lawsuits challenging his administration’s policies, pleaded not guilty in October to charges that she committed mortgage fraud related to a home she purchased in 2020.

Prosecutors said she falsely described a property she purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, as a second home instead of an investment property in order to obtain a lower mortgage rate. James said she purchased the property for her great-niece and allowed her and her children to live in the house rent-free.

“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” James said in a statement following the ruling. “I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”

With the statute of limitations for Comey’s case set to expire, it is unclear whether the case will be filed in time. Lawyers for Comey have argued that the statute of limitations has already run out. 

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Department of Defense on Monday said it is launching a “thorough review” into Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, citing “serious allegations of misconduct.”

The announcement comes days after President Donald Trump accused Kelly and other Democratic lawmakers of “seditious behavior” for a video in which they said that U.S. service members could refuse illegal orders.

In a statement posted to X, the Department of Defense said it “received serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, who is a retired U.S. Navy captain.

“In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 688, and other applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official comments will be limited, to preserve the integrity of the proceedings,” the statement read.

“The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses, and federal laws such as 18 U.S.C. § 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces. Any violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels,” the Pentagon said.

Kelly was one of six Democrats featured in a video last week addressed to military members.

“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from aboard, but from right here right at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders,” the group said. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

The message stoked more than a dozen social media posts by Trump, who called them “traitors” and said they should be “in jail.” At one point, Trump said their action could be “punishable by death” though later said, “I’m not threatening death, but I think they’re in serious trouble.”

Kelly, in an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, pushed back on Trump’s comments.

“What the president said is very serious. I didn’t think he would step over that line calling for the execution of members of Congress. And his words carry tremendous weight, more so than anybody else in the country, and he should be aware of that,” Kelly said.

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Sunday he would advise against Ukraine signing the peace proposal that President Donald Trump has offered to end its war with Russia unless more “ironclad” security guarantees are written into the agreement.

“Without that, I would not advise Ukraine to sign this. They can’t sign an agreement like Budapest and then allow Russia to invade again,” McCaul told ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

Peace talks continue as American officials are meeting on Sunday with a Ukrainian delegation in Geneva.

The latest proposal, which was presented to Kyiv Thursday, was drafted by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff with input from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to the White House. But it was done in coordination with Moscow and includes conditions that are widely seen as being in Russia’s favor, prompting concerns within Ukraine and Europe that it would effectively be a capitulation.

Among the concessions Ukraine is being asked to make in this proposal: limiting its military to 600,000 personnel, agreeing to never join NATO, and forcing Kyiv to give up territory in the east, including areas not yet occupied by Russia.

McCaul, a top member and former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he believes there’s “flexibility” in Trump’s 28-point plan and that his Thursday deadline for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to make a decision or risk losing American support to end Russia’s nearly four-year war in shouldn’t be a “take it or leave it” situation.

“I think there’s flexibility. I do know that Rubio said within the next 72 hours, we all know a great deal about whether this goes forward or not,” McCaul said. “It’s always he who has stated, the president, that he sees this as a vision, but not a done deal. So it should not be take it or leave it.”

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who also appeared on “This Week,” called the plan “awful.”

“My reaction is it’s awful. It would make Neville Chamberlain’s giving in to Hitler outside of World War II looks strong in comparison,” Warner said, arguing the plan is “almost a series of Russian talking points.

“This would be a complete capitulation and that’s why I think you’re hearing from Congress, both sides, people pushing back … It feels like this was a plan that they took almost entirely from the Russians,” Warner said.

Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he hopes this is merely a new starting point.

“To have this proposal forced upon them, I think as Zelenskyy said, Ukrainian dignity versus giving up a partner, I would hope the president would not be so weak as to try to force this plan on the Ukrainian and our other allies,” Warner said. “I think the president is seeing this one-sided plan kind of blow up in his face with pushback from the Ukrainians, from the Europeans, from members of Congress of his own party. And my hope is, he’ll come back and be a bit more reasonable.”

Here are more highlights from McCaul’s interview:

On the Russia-Ukraine peace proposal’s prospects
McCaul: The inception of this agreement seems to have come from a [Trump special envoy Steve] Witkoff discussion with the Russian [Kirill] Dmitriev, who heads up the Russian sovereign wealth fund. It’s unclear how much input was given by either Ukraine or our European allies. Rubio did say on the call that this is a United States document with input from Ukraine and from Russia. About 80% of this deal, I think, they’re going to find agreement with as they go to Geneva. The problem is going to be the 20% of really tough items to negotiate.

On the deal’s Thanksgiving deadline
McCaul: On all party sides, except the Russians I haven’t talked to, is that this is an ongoing negotiation process, so they’re really getting it started. What they — the way the White House described it last night was we had to start putting this pen to paper so we could get something accomplished. I do think it’s in Ukraine’s best interest to get something done now, rather than a year later, the military industrial war machine of Russia has now risen to a level that is very difficult now for Ukraine.

Here are more highlights from Warner’s interview:

On Trump saying he’ll speak with Venezuela’s president
Raddatz: Trump says he’ll be speaking with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Do you think that is a good idea? And what can you say to him?

Warner: I think the notion that Trump says, “We’ll talk to anyone” I think that is — I’m not going to critique him on that. If there’s a way to push Maduro out. Remember, our government and 50 other governments, most all of Western Europe, don’t — don’t recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, but it does not feel like there is an organized planning coming down again — America-only without any of our other allies in South America or Central America again, seems not the right approach.

On whether U.S. will go to war with Venezuela
Raddatz: Do you think he wants to go to war with Venezuela? Do you think he wants to —

Warner: I don’t know. I don’t know. I think he is trying to put outside pressure on Maduro, but by doing it in this kind of America-only approach, again, without giving any sign to, I think, even in the Republicans on the Hill, what his plans are, I’m not sure is the right way to do foreign policy. You couple this Venezuela misadventure with this desertion of Ukraine and this is not making America safer and it’s sure not putting America first.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani met in the Oval Office Friday discussing topics around affordability and safety in New York City, appearing cordial despite trading barbs for months.

“I just want to congratulate. I think you’re going to have hopefully a really great mayor and the better he does, the happier I am. I will say there’s no difference in party. There’s no difference in anything. And we’re going to be helping him, to make everybody’s dream come true, having a strong and very safe New York and congratulations, Mr. Mayor,” Trump said.

“It was a productive meeting focused on a place of shared admiration and love, which is New York City and the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers,” Mamdani said.

In the days leading up to their first face-to-face meeting, the two New Yorkers told the press they are looking forward to working together to help the Big Apple, especially when it came to affordability. Trump and Mamdani appeared cordial and shook hands after the 25 minute closed door talk and said they agreed on a lot.

“I’m not concerned about this meeting. I view this meeting as an opportunity for me to make my case,” Mamdani told reporters Thursday at a news conference.

Trump announced the meeting on Wednesday night on social media, repeating the “communist” label he’s been using against Mamdani, who is a member of the Democratic Socialist group, and putting his middle name, Kwame, in quotes.

In a radio interview with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade out Friday before the meeting, Trump said he believes the meeting will go well and that he came after Mamdani a little too hard during the election cycle.

“He’s got a different philosophy. He’s a little bit different. I give him a lot of credit for the run. They did a successful run, and we all know that runs are not easy, but I think we’ll get along fine,” Trump said. “Look, we’re looking for the same thing. We want to make New York strong, and you know, there’s such a different philosophy”

Ahead of the meeting, Robert Wolf, a former UBS executive who is close with former President Barack Obama, said on X that he had a Zoom call with Mamdani Thursday “discussing recent economic news and his upcoming meeting with President Trump.”

Mamdani has been a vocal critic of the administration over its policies, including increased deportations, cuts to government agencies and attacks on cities run by Democrats.

On election night, the 34-year-old mayor-elect spoke directly to Trump in his acceptance speech and told him to “turn the volume up,” as he vowed to protect immigrants.

“So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us,” he said.

When asked about the election night comments during his radio interview.

“I don’t know exactly what he means by turn the volume up, because turn the volume up. He has to be careful when he says that to me,” Trump said.

Since Mamdani won the June Democratic primary, Trump has spoken out against the state assemblyman, at one point threatening to deport Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, moved to New York as a child, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018.

“We’re going to be watching that very carefully. And a lot of people are saying, he’s here illegally,” Trump claimed with no evidence in July.

The president has also threatened to withhold federal funding to New York if Mamdani won the election.

Mamdani’s critics have raised skepticism about his proposals, calling them far-fetched and improbable, as some would require state approval. He has also come under fire for his past comments criticizing the NYPD and Israeli government actions in the Gaza conflict.

The mayor-elect has apologized for his comments against the department and vowed to fight for Jewish New Yorkers, while still being critical of the Israeli government’s polices during the conflict.

Mamdani has also repeatedly brushed aside the threats and said he will continue to speak out against the administration’s conservative policies.

“His threats are inevitable,” Mamdani told ABC News a day after the election. “This has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with intimidation.”

At the same time, Mamdani has said he was open to talking with Trump, especially when it comes to affordability issues, noting that Trump won his re-election promising to bring down rising prices.

“I have many disagreements with the president. I intend to make it clear that I will work with him,” Mamdani said Thursday.

The mayor-elect won the election on a campaign to help New Yorkers with costs, with proposals such as raising the income tax on New Yorkers who earn over a million dollars a year, providing free child care to parents with kids as early as six weeks old, and free public buses.

Following Mamdani’s victory and other key wins by Democrats, Trump has said in social media posts and news conferences that he and the Republicans are the party working to lower costs.

 “We’re fighting for an economy where everyone can win, from the cashier starting first job to a franchisee opening his first location to the young family in a drive through line,” he told a crowd in Pennsylvania on Monday.

-ABC News’ Aaron Katersky and Tonya Simpson contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Several Democrats accused by President Donald Trump of “seditious behavior” defended their message to military members that they can refuse illegal order. The president and administration officials suggested the action could be punishable by law.

The video featuring six Democrats who served in the military or in the intelligence community set off more than a dozen social media posts by Trump, who called them “traitors” and said their action could be “punishable by death.”

“I think it’s important to say that there is nothing more American than standing up for the Constitution, that’s what we were doing. President didn’t like it, so now he calls for us to be hanged,” Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly said on CNN’s “The Source with Kaitlan Collins” on Thursday night.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin, on MS NOW, said the message to military members was “chapter and verse” from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“I think his reaction is just characteristic of a political system that no one is proud of right now,” she said.

The president, appearing on “The Brian Kilmeade Show” on Friday, continued to lash out at the lawmakers.

“These are bad people. These are people that, in my opinion, broke the law. Now, what happens to them? I can’t tell you, but they broke the law,” Trump said.

But after some bipartisan backlash to his comments about the death penalty, Trump softened somewhat.

“I’m not threatening death, but I think they’re in serious trouble. In the old days, it was death … That was seditious behavior, that was a big deal. You know, nothing’s a big deal, today’s a different world,” he said.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday was forced to clarify to reporters on Thursday that “no,” Trump does not want to execute members of Congress.

But Leavitt called the video by Democrats “dangerous,” and falsely characterized Democrats of encouraging military members “to defy the president’s lawful orders.”

“It perhaps is punishable by law. I’m not a lawyer. I’ll leave that to the Department of Justice and the Department of War to decide,” Leavitt said.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, in an appearance on “Hannity” on Fox News on Wednesday, said he wanted to know why the lawmakers released the video.

“What is the reason that they all went on a video and encouraged young men and women to defy court orders without even giving a hint of what’s illegal, without even giving any suggestion of what law or what order they’re being asked to violate. You cannot do that in this country, especially if you’re a leader,” Blanche said.

“So what does the investigation look like? I think they should be held to account. I think that those congressmen should be required to answer questions and to answer questions about why they did what they did. And the American people deserve that, and so does President Trump,” he added.

When pressed if an investigation was underway, the deputy attorney general responded: “Look, we don’t, Sean, you know we don’t talk about investigations.”

In the video, which was released on Tuesday, none of the Democrats mentioned any specific illegal orders given to service members. It’s not clear whether service members have been asked to break the law.

Both Kelly and Slotkin, when asked why they felt the need to share the video message, pointed to recent administration actions that have raised legal challenges, including lethal strikes against alleged drug boats in Latin America and the deployment of National Guard troops in U.S. cities.

“He has talked about sending troops into more U.S. cities, he’s talked about invoking the Insurrection Act,” Kelly told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

“All of us had been getting outrage from folks in uniform, folks in the intelligence community saying like, ‘Hey, we’re really concerned,'” Slotkin said on MS NOW. “‘You know, I’m being deployed to a city or, you know, inside the United States, or I’m being asked to conduct strikes in the Mediterranean. And I don’t understand … like how this is legal?'”

Slotkin corrected that she meant strikes in the Caribbean Sea, where dozens of people have been killed in strikes the administration says is part of its “war” against drug cartels in the region.

The administration has defended the legality of the boat strikes and the use of National Guard troops in American cities, including Washington and Los Angeles.

“They’re suggesting … that the president has given illegal orders, which he has not. Every single order that is given to this United States military by this commander in chief and through this chain of command, through the secretary of war, is lawful,” Leavitt said on Thursday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As of Monday, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his government will be added to the U.S. State Department’s list of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organizations.

Declaring Maduro the head of a foreign terrorist organization — instead of a corrupt dictatorial regime, as the U.S. government has regarded him for years — is an unprecedented move that President Donald Trump insists gives him the authority to strike inside Venezuela, as some outside experts question his rationale.

What happens next is far from clear, in part because Trump hasn’t said what he wants to happen. When asked by a reporter at an Oval Office press conference on Nov. 17 what Maduro could do to placate the U.S., Trump called it a “tricky” question.

But some experts said that forcing Maduro from power without a long-term plan could leave a power vacuum, potentially giving way to violence and chaos.

“Any post-Maduro government will live or die based on the amount of security cooperation the United States is willing to provide,” said Henry Ziemer, an associate fellow with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told ABC News.

Here are three things to know about what could happen next:

Trump could use military strikes inside Venezuela and force Maduro to flee.

After weeks of lethal military strikes on suspected drug vessels, the State Department this week told Congress that Maduro wasn’t just a foreign leader but the head of “Cartel de los Soles.”

Experts told ABC News the term, which translates to “Cartel of the Suns,” is a general reference to corrupt Venezuelan officials, including those involved in the drug trade. The Cartel de los Soles has not been listed on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s annual National Drug Threat Assessment or in the United Nation’s World Drug Report.

The designation becomes official on Monday following a seven-day notice period to lawmakers, putting Maduro on the same list as terror networks like al-Qaida and the Houthi rebel group in Yemen. Maduro denies the allegation, instead calling for diplomacy.

Trump suggested the label gives him the authority to launch strikes, although legal experts told ABC News that claim is dubious. According to the Congressional Research Service, the list primarily serves “the purpose of imposing financial sanctions, immigration restrictions, or other penalties in pursuit of law enforcement or national security goals.”

In an interview with the right-wing One America News Network, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted the decision was about giving the president greater military options.

“Nothing’s off the table, but nothing’s automatically on the table,” he said.

Maduro could placate Trump, but there’s no clear path for that.

While labeling Maduro a terrorist leader, Trump also said he’s open to negotiations. But when asked if Maduro could do anything to get Trump to back down, the president wasn’t clear.

“You know, the question’s a little bit tricky,” Trump said Nov. 17 in the Oval Office. “I don’t think it was meant to be tricky. It’s just that, look, he’s done tremendous damage of our country, primarily because of drugs,” and “the release of prisoners into our country has been a disaster.”

Some U.N. officials and regional experts said that Venezuela facilitates and profits off the drug trade, but that drug smuggling routes in the Caribbean are primarily headed for Europe. The majority of drugs coming into the U.S. enter through Mexico and legal ports of entry, they say.

Maduro has denied profiting from the drug trade.

Some independent experts also said Trump’s claim that Venezuela is emptying its prisons and sending people with mental illnesses to the U.S. is not supported by evidence. According to the Migration Policy Institute, some 770,000 Venezuelan immigrants live in the United States — the vast majority arriving after fleeing Maduro’s authoritarian regime and the ongoing economic crisis there.

Trump’s endgame makes more sense when you consider the bigger picture, some conservatives say. The U.S. has long seen Maduro as a source of chaos and instability in the region, but has not been willing to try to force a change.

“I think what we’re doing sends a message to leaders across the hemisphere about the U.S. being very serious about protecting the American people against these narco threats and the weaponization of these illicit activities and criminal activities,” Andres Martinez-Fernandez, senior policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security, told ABC News.

“I do think you’re starting to see. … other governments in the region that are more forward-leaning and more aligned with the United States,” he said.

US strikes could trigger chaos inside Venezuela, experts warn.

David Smolansky, who is deputy director of international affairs for the Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, told ABC News that the opposition, which is in exile, is ready to “provide Venezuelans an orderly and democratic transition.”

“What we are focused on is to be ready when the transition begins,” he said, citing the 2024 election of Edmundo Gonzalez with 67% of the vote. “We’ve been ready for a while.”

A new Venezuelan government, though, would inherit serious immediate challenges. Analysts said a new government would need security, help in reforming Venezuela’s armed forces and intelligence support from the U.S.

Zeimer said one major challenge would be convincing people throughout the Venezuelan government that they will be safe without Maduro. And part of their calculation will be how successful a new regime could be.

“Maduro is nothing if not wily and adaptable,” Zeimer said. “He’s been able, time after time, to get the United States to negotiate, and use negotiations, basically as a way to release the pressure and commit to things that he has no plans on following through with and hang on to power.”

“I think he is still definitely trying to do that,” he added. “It is telling that he’s yet to flee.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday called several Democratic veterans and national security specialists “traitors” who should face the death penalty for releasing a joint video where they said that U.S. service members could refuse illegal orders — a move that has prompted some lawmakers to call the president’s rhetoric “dangerous” and “a threat.”

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???,” Trump wrote on social media Thursday morning.

Trump also reshared a social media post responding to the Washington Examiner’s article about the Democrats, calling for them to be hanged. 

In another post, the president said “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

In the video directed at military members, Democrats — including Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly — said that military service members can refuse illegal orders.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the congressional Democrats said in the video posted Tuesday.

“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from aboard, but from right here right at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders,” the group continued. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

None of the Democrats mentioned any specific illegal orders given to service members. It’s not clear whether service members have been asked to break the law.

ABC News has asked these lawmakers to clarify the orders in question.

The language in the video is similar to what is said in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states that service members are required to follow lawful orders, but can be prosecuted for following unlawful orders.

The Democrats who appeared in the video released a joint statement Thursday following Trump’s comments.

“What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty,” the Democrats said in the statement.

“But this isn’t about any one of us. This isn’t about politics. This is about who we are as Americans. Every American must unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity.”

Asked if Trump wants to execute members of Congress, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president did not — adding that the Democrats in the video are “encouraging [service members] to defy the president’s lawful orders.”

“Let’s be clear about what the president is responding to, because many in this room want to talk about the president’s response but not what brought the president to responding in this way. You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the United States military to active-duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president’s lawful orders,” Leavitt said during Thursday’s press briefing.

While the president has suggested this behavior by Democrats may be punishable by death, Leavitt said it may be “punishable by law.” She said the Democrats “knew exactly what they were doing” with their message.

“To signal to people serving under this commander in chief, Donald Trump, that you can defy him and you can betray your oath of office, that is a very, very dangerous message. And it perhaps is punishable by law. I’m not a lawyer. I’ll leave that to the Department of Justice and the Department of War to decide.”

Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s rhetoric in his social media posts “makes political violence more likely” and called for Trump to be condemned for his posts.

“Let’s be crystal clear, the president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is a threat, and it’s deadly serious,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday. “We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state. Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely.”

Schumer said Trump’s rhetoric could be dangerous in a political contentious environment.

“He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline, every senator, every representative, every American, regardless of party, should condemn this immediately, without qualification, because if we don’t draw a line here, there is no line left to draw,” Schumer said.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul also said rhetoric like this could be dangerous.

“I don’t think it’s a really — a good idea to talk about jailing your political opponents or hanging them or whatever else. I think we have political disagreements and we need to work them out in a political way,” Paul said. 

Paul warned the rhetoric in Trump’s posts could inspire violence.

“That kind of rhetoric isn’t good and it stirs up people among us who may not be stable who may think well ‘traitors,’ what do we do with traitors? It’s the death penalty. Maybe I’ll just take matters into my own hands, which is not something we should be encouraging,” Paul said.

House Democratic leaders on Thursday issued a joint statement condemning Trump’s posts on social media, calling on him to delete them “before he gets someone killed.”

“We unequivocally condemn Donald Trump’s disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress and call on House Republicans to forcefully do the same,” said the statement signed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson downplayed Trump’s social media comments, telling reporters Thursday that the president did not make a call to incite violence.

“He’s defining a crime,” Johnson said. “He, I’m sure, acknowledges that the attorneys have to figure all that out.”

A reporter pressed the speaker that Trump’s statement contended it was punishable by death.

“What I read was he was defining the crime of sedition,” Johnson said. “That is a factual statement. But obviously attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that.”

Johnson criticized the Democrats involved in the video, calling it a “wildly inappropriate thing for so-called leaders in Congress to do to encourage young troops to disobey orders.”

Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, a Marine combat veteran, slammed Trump’s comments, telling ABC News that the president “doesn’t understand the military.”

“He thinks the military is one of his personal little play toys,” said Gallego, who was not in the Democrats’ video. “He, for some reason, thinks that men and women upholding their oath is a contradiction to him as commander in chief — which, again, tells you he doesn’t really understand his role.”

ABC News’ Mary Bruce, Michelle Stoddart, Justin Gomez, Anne Flaherty, Devin Dwyer, Isabella Murray and Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Friday will mark the first time that New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and President Donald Trump will meet face to face following a war of words between the two leaders throughout Mamdani’s campaign and election.

And while Trump announced the meeting with an insult against the progressive Democrat’s policies, Mamdani has maintained that he is looking forward to the White House meeting to discuss his agenda, including tackling a “national crisis of affordability.”

“I’m not concerned about this meeting. I view this meeting as an opportunity for me to make my case,” Mamdani told reporters Thursday at a news conference.

Trump announced the meeting on Wednesday night on social media, repeating the “communist” label he’s been using against Mamdani, who is a member of the Democratic Socialist group, and putting his middle name, Kwame, in quotes.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that he was going to “work something out,” and meet with the mayor-elect in Washington.

“We want to see everything work out well for New York,” he told reporters.

Mamdani has been a vocal critic of the administration over its policies, including increased deportations, cuts to government agencies and attacks on cities run by Democrats.

On election night, the 34-year-old mayor-elect spoke directly to Trump in his acceptance speech and told him to “turn the volume up,” as he vowed to protect immigrants.

“So hear me, President Trump, when I say this: To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us,” he said.

Since Mamdani won the June Democratic primary, Trump has spoken out against the state assemblyman, at one point threatening to deport Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, moved to New York as a child, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018.

“We’re going to be watching that very carefully. And a lot of people are saying, he’s here illegally,” Trump claimed with no evidence in July.

The president has also threatened to withhold federal funding to New York if Mamdani won the election.

Mamdani’s critics have raised skepticism about his proposals, calling them far-fetched and improbable, as some would require state approval. He has also come under fire for his past comments criticizing the NYPD and Israeli government actions in the Gaza conflict.

The mayor-elect has apologized for his comments against the department and vowed to fight for Jewish New Yorkers, while still being critical of the Israeli government’s polices during the conflict.

Mamdani has also repeatedly brushed aside the threats and said he will continue to speak out against the administration’s conservative policies.

“His threats are inevitable,” Mamdani told ABC News a day after the election. “This has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with intimidation.”

At the same time, Mamdani has said he was open to talking with Trump, especially when it comes to affordability issues, noting that Trump won his re-election promising to bring down rising prices.

“I have many disagreements with the president. I intend to make it clear that I will work with him,” Mamdani said Thursday.

The mayor-elect won the election on a campaign to help New Yorkers with costs, with proposals such as raising the income tax on New Yorkers who earn over a million dollars a year, providing free child care to parents with kids as early as six weeks old, and free public buses.

Following Mamdani’s victory and other key wins by Democrats, Trump has said in social media posts and news conferences that he and the Republicans are the party working to lower costs.

“We’re fighting for an economy where everyone can win, from the cashier starting first job to a franchisee opening his first location to the young family in a drive through line,” he told a crowd in Pennsylvania on Monday.

-ABC News’ Aaron Katersky and Tonya Simpson contributed to this report

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday called several Democratic veterans “traitors” who should face the death penalty for releasing a joint video where they said that U.S. service members could refuse illegal orders — a move that has prompted some lawmakers to call the president’s rhetoric “dangerous” and “a threat.”

“This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???,” Trump wrote on social media Thursday morning.

On Thursday morning, Trump reshared a social media post responding to the Washington Examiner’s article about the veteran Democrats, calling for them to be hanged.

In another post, the president said “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

In the video directed at military members, Democratic veterans — including Sens. Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly — said that military service members can refuse illegal orders.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” the congressional Democrats said in the video posted Tuesday.

“The threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from aboard, but from right here right at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders,” the group continued. “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.”

None of the Democrats mentioned any specific illegal orders given to service members.

ABC News reached out to Slotkin’s and Kelly’s offices for comment.

Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump’s rhetoric in his social media posts “makes political violence more likely” and called for Trump to be condemned for his posts.

“Let’s be crystal clear, the president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is a threat, and it’s deadly serious,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday. “We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state. Every time Donald Trump posts things like this, he makes political violence more likely.”

Schumer said Trump’s rhetoric could be dangerous in a political contentious environment.

“He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline, every senator, every representative, every American, regardless of party, should condemn this immediately, without qualification, because if we don’t draw a line here, there is no line left to draw,” Schumer said.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul also said rhetoric like this could be dangerous.

“I don’t think it’s a really — a good idea to talk about jailing your political opponents or hanging them or whatever else. I think we have political disagreements and we need to work them out in a political way,” Paul said.

Paul warned the rhetoric in Trump’s posts could inspire violence.

“That kind of rhetoric isn’t good and it stirs up people among us who may not be stable who may think well ‘traitors,’ what do we do with traitors? It’s the death penalty. Maybe I’ll just take matters into my own hands, which is not something we should be encouraging,” Paul said. “So I have a lot of disagreement with Democrats but I try to keep it on a civil level and try not to call any of them ‘traitors’ or anything like that because I think that’s something that could inspire some people among us who aren’t stable.”

House Democratic leaders on Thursday issued a joint statement condemning Trump’s posts on social media, calling on him to delete them “before he gets someone killed.”

“We unequivocally condemn Donald Trump’s disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress and call on House Republicans to forcefully do the same,” said the statement signed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar.

The Democrats called on Trump to “immediately delete these unhinged social media posts and recant his violent rhetoric before he gets someone killed.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson downplayed Trump’s social media comments, telling reporters Thursday that the president did not make a call to incite violence.

“He’s defining a crime,” Johnson said. “He, I’m sure, acknowledges that the attorneys have to figure all that out.”

A reporter pressed the speaker that Trump’s statement contended it was punishable by death.

“What I read was he was defining the crime of sedition,” Johnson said. “That is a factual statement. But obviously attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that.”

Johnson criticized the Democrats involved in the video, calling it a “wildly inappropriate thing for so-called leaders in Congress to do to encourage young troops to disobey orders.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.