Politics

(NEW YORK) — Three years after affirming a constitutional right of Americans to carry a gun for self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether states can limit the carry of firearms on private property open to the public without first receiving the property owner’s consent.

The case involves a Hawaiian law and similar measures in four other states –- California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey –- where lawmakers set a strict “default rule” prohibiting the possession of handguns in privately-owned places where other members of the public might congregate, unless the owner affirmatively gives permission.

The laws govern locations such as stores, shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, arenas, farms, and private beaches. It does not involve public property, which is subject to different rules.

“This law is extremely restrictive. It bans public carry in 96.4% of the publicly available land in the County of Maui,” said Alan Beck, an attorney for three Maui residents and members of the Hawaii Firearms Coalition who are challenging the law.

“They’d like to carry dropping off money at the ATM late at night or just going to have lunch at a restaurant,” Beck said. “They are unable to carry in any private business that is open to the public that is unwilling to put up a sign saying ‘guns allowed.'”

While property owners have the inherent right to exclude guns from their premises, Beck says the onus should be on them to make their wishes clear, otherwise expect that members of the public can freely exercise their Second Amendment rights as a matter of standard practice.

Unlike Hawaii, 45 states permit licensed handgun owners to presume they can legally carry their weapons onto private property open to the public, unless the owner explicitly bans guns by issuing verbal instructions or posting a sign.

“The express purpose of this law is to make it so that less people exercise their constitutional rights,” Beck said.

Hawaii officials argue in court documents that never in the nation’s history has there been a “right to armed entry onto private property without consent” and that its law is meant to protect a property-owner’s right to exclude guns without having to take extra steps.

“The basic principle is that private property owners are empowered to set the rules for their property, and the state can make it easier for private property owners to do so,” said Douglas Letter, chief legal officer at Brady, a gun safety group.

“Hawaii’s law is obviously eminently reasonable,” Letter added. “Visitors simply must get a private property owner’s permission to bring a firearm onto that property.”

The Supreme Court will evaluate the Hawaii law using a test laid out in a landmark 2022 decision in which Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the conservative majority, said only gun regulations consistent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” can stand.

Hawaii points to an 1865 Louisiana law and 1771 New Jersey law as imposing nearly identical property restrictions as its current measure. The plaintiffs say they are “outlier” examples and not the historic norm. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Hawaii’s law, holding that “a national tradition likely exists of prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property without the owner’s oral or written consent.”

Beck and co-counsel Kevin O’Grady said they expect the justices will likely reverse that ruling in their favor. “Just because Hawaii is giving lip service to the Second Amendment when they’re doing the kind of things they’re doing — and doing these mental gymnastics to try to justify this law,” O’Grady said, “it will not be tolerated by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a forthcoming memoir, claimed that the running mate vetting team for Vice President Kamala Harris during her 2024 run for the presidency asked him if he were ever an agent of the Israeli government, ABC News has confirmed.

The New York Times first reported Shapiro’s claim.

Shapiro writes in his memoir “Where We Keep the Light,” which is set to be released on Jan. 27, that he was asked last minute by Dana Remus, a former White House counsel and member of the vetting team, if he had ever been an agent for Israel. He said that told Remus he found the question offensive, according to excepts reported by The New York Times.

He wrote that he was also asked by Remus if he ever spoke with an undercover Israeli agent, to which Shapiro said he responded in part, that if they had been undercover, “how the hell would I know?”

Shapiro wrote in his memoir that he understood Remus had to do her job, but criticized the line of questioning, according to the excerpts.

Shapiro — who is Jewish and has been outspoken about his religion, as well as his support of Israel and criticism of the current Israeli government — said he was also asked more general vetting questions about Israel and his handling of campus protests about Gaza.

“I wondered whether these questions were being posed to just me — the only Jewish guy in the running — or if everyone who had not held a federal office was being grilled about Israel in the same way,” Shapiro wrote, according to the excepts.

ABC News has reached out to spokespeople for Shapiro and Harris, and to Remus about the questions she allegedly asked Shapiro.

While Shapiro was a reported contender for Harris’ running-mate spot, amid major debates within the Democratic Party over the Israel-Hamas war and the U.S.-Israel relationship given Israel’s conduct in Gaza, he faced scrutiny from progressives over his pro-Israel views, as well as some previous time spent volunteering in Israel, including on an Israeli army base. 

He also faced questions over his college writing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where he expressed doubts that Palestinians could come to a peace agreement with Israel.

Shapiro and his spokespeople said at the time that his time volunteering did not include military activity, and that his views on the conflict had evolved to support a two-state solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

The vetting process for running mates is known to be intensive and often tries to get ahead of questions that may be asked publicly of candidates.

Harris, in her memoir “107 Days,” wrote that during the vetting process for running mates, she spoke with Shapiro “about how to handle the attacks he’d confronted on Gaza and what effect it might have on the enthusiasm we were trying to build,” and that they discussed the opinion piece Shapiro wrote in college.

“He said he felt he’d been able to deal with critics by stating clearly that his youthful opinion had been misguided and that he was fully committed to a two-state solution. He had also publicly called Netanyahu ‘one of the worst leaders of all time,'” Harris wrote.

She also framed the decision against Shapiro as more about his ambition and fears that he would be frustrated with the vice presidential role — claims Shapiro has rebuffed. Shapiro campaigned as a Harris surrogate even after not getting the running-mate nod.

Some Jewish officials who served in President Joe Biden and Harris’ administration have slammed the alleged vetting question, saying that it ties into antisemitic tropes that American Jews have dual loyalties between the United States and Israel. 

President Donald Trump faced similar, separate allegations of conflating Israel and Jews during his 2024 presidential campaign.

Aaron Keyak, former deputy special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism at the State Department and a board member of the Combat Antisemitism Movement, told ABC News on Monday that he was surprised at “how blatant the rhetoric was when it comes to playing into antisemitic tropes.”

“What’s even the point of asking that question in that way? Were they trying to send some sort of message to Gov. Shapiro? Were they trying to intimidate him?” Keyak said.

Keyak, who is Jewish, said he had also been asked questions during the vetting process for his own Biden administration State Department role that he later heard non-Jewish appointees were not. He said he was not able to share the specifics of the questions, but that the implications of the questions were similar to what Shapiro had allegedly been asked.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — New Jersey Democratic Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill criticized President Donald Trump on Sunday for pursuing the acquisition of Greenland while the cost of living remains a top issue in the United States.

“There is not one person in New Jersey that wakes up in the morning and says, ‘Gee, I hope today’s the day that the president dumps billions of dollars into buying Greenland while my grocery store costs continue to go up,'” Sherrill told ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl.

Two days before her inauguration, Sherrill talked with Karl in an exclusive interview and pledged to lower costs as governor without going into specific policies she would pursue.

Sherrill said that tariffs Trump has imposed during his first term are raising costs for Americans.

“Right now, the doors to opportunity are being shut down at every level. We see a president who constantly is running this tariff regime, putting more money in his own pocket and raising costs on everybody else,” Sherrill said. “So we are fighting against that.”

Sherrill was elected in November by a double-digit margin, outperforming former Vice President Kamala Harris’ margin in the presidential race in the Garden State. Asked by Karl what lessons the Democratic Party should take away from her victory, Sherrill said Democrats should “listen to people.”

“Get on the street and listen to your constituents or would-be constituents,” Sherrill said. “But the best thing I can do now for the Democratic Party is to govern effectively, to deliver on the promises I made, because, as I’ve mentioned, there’s an affordability crisis.”

Sherrill has previously said she will declare a state of emergency on utility costs, thereby freezing existing rates, on Day 1 in office.

Karl also asked Sherrill about the ongoing immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis, where protesters clashed with federal agents over the weekend.

“[ICE is] assaulting people on the street. They’re busting through windows in cars … people are getting shot and killed by these out of control proto-military agents,” Sherrill said. “I think the president’s trying to incite the protesters so that he can take America’s eyes off the fact that his militia that he’s building around this country is actually attacking American citizens.”

Karl asked Sherrill, a Naval Academy graduate who flew helicopters in the Navy, “You’re a military veteran … what would it mean if he actually goes through with the threat to invoke the Insurrection Act and send those active duty troops that are now on standby into Minneapolis?”

“[Trump] seems to be trying to incite an insurrection so he can then put troops on the street for the insurrection,” Sherrill said. “This is something that every single American should be concerned about.”

Trump administration officials have said there are no plans to pull federal agents out of Minneapolis, and have defended the conduct of ICE agents following multiple shootings. The fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7 by ICE agent Jonathan Ross sparked backlash from Democrats and some residents of the city.

After threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act, Trump told reporters on Friday that he didn’t think he needed to invoke it now.

“If I needed it, I’d use it. I don’t think there’s any reason right now to use it, but if I needed it, I’d use it. It’s very powerful,” Trump said.

Immigration enforcement operations also took place in Sherrill’s home state of New Jersey last week, with one raid in Princeton on Thursday leading to two arrests.

Sherrill previously said that she supports her state’s Immigrant Trust Directive, which orders New Jersey police officers not to comply with ICE operations, but opposes it being signed into law, citing concerns about the law being blocked in court.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Republican Rep. Michael McCaul warned on Sunday that any U.S. military intervention to obtain Greenland would put America at odds with its NATO allies — and possibly spell the end of the alliance itself.

“What do you make of what’s going on with the president in Greenland? And now he’s slapped tariffs on eight of our allies in Europe; he’s not ruling out military force to get Greenland. What is going on?” “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl asked McCaul, who serves as chairman emeritus of both the House Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees.

While McCaul acknowledged the strategic importance of the autonomous island, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and noted that previous Presidents have considered acquiring the territory, he said the U.S. already has a treaty that allows “full access” to protect Greenland — effectively negating the purpose of any invasion. 

“The fact is, the president has full military access to Greenland to protect us from any threat,” McCaul said. “So if he wants to purchase Greenland, that’s one thing. But for him to militarily invade would turn Article 5 of NATO on its very head and, in essence, press a war with NATO itself. It would end up abolishing NATO as we know it.”

McCaul added, “If we want to put more military in there, we can; we don’t have to invade it. If he wants to buy it, that’s fine. But I don’t see a willing seller right now.”

Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen echoed McCaul’s point on “This Week,” and accused the president of “lying” when he says obtaining Greenland is about national security.

“Denmark and Greenland have both said to the United States, ‘You can take what measures you need to protect the security of the United States and, of course, the NATO alliance,'” Van Hollen said. “We have a base there already, and we can expand that base.” 

“This is not about security,” Van Hollen told Karl. “This is about a land grab. Donald Trump wants to get his hands on the minerals and other resources of Greenland, just like the real reason he went into Venezuela had nothing to do with stopping drugs from coming.”

Asked if there was any action that Congress could take to prevent Trump from using force to take over Greenland, Van Hollen called on Congress to invoke the War Powers Resolution.

“We could, for example, cut off any funds that could be used for military purposes with respect to Greenland; we could take action under the War Powers Resolution,” Van Hollen said. “But a lot of our Republican colleagues talk big until it comes time to vote. We saw that just this past week, where two Republican senators who had voted in favor of moving forward the War Powers Resolution on Venezuela backed off. So they have to stop giving Donald Trump a blank check.”

Van Hollen also criticized Trump’s threats to intervene militarily in Iran amid reports that thousands of protesters have been killed in demonstrations against the country’s regime.

“I don’t believe we should be using American military force to try to impose democracy on Iran,” Van Hollen said.

“We should support the protesters,” he added. “But the president of United States should not suggest that we’re going to come in there and provide military support to get rid of the regime.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS)– Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey defended himself and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Sunday, insisting they’ve “done nothing wrong” amid what sources say is a new federal investigation targeting the two Democratic officials.

“If the rumors are true, this is deeply concerning, because this is way more important than just me. This is a very serious matter, and this whole investigation would ultimately be the product of one of the most basic foundational responsibilities that I have as mayor, which is to speak on behalf of my constituents,” Frey told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl. “There are other countries where you get put away for the things that you say. There are other countries where you get investigated for saying something that runs counter to what the federal government states. But in this country, it’s not that way.”

Frey said his office has not received a subpoena from the Department of Justice. He said he intends to comply with the investigation.

“Look, we have done nothing wrong, so of course we will comply in it, but at the same time, we need to be understanding how wild this is. We are doing everything possible right now to keep people safe in our city. We have spoken out to make sure that our residents are protected and people’s constitutional rights are upheld. Speaking out in that way is not illegality,” Frey said.

ABC News reported Friday night that the Justice Department was investigating whether Frey and Walz have been obstructing federal law enforcement activities in the state, according to multiple U.S. officials.

In response, Walz accused the administration of “weaponizing the justice system and threatening political opponents.”

Without directly confirming the investigation, shortly after news broke Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X, “A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law.”

In a separate interview on “This Week,” Rep. Michael McCaul — a Republican member and former chair of the House Homeland Security Committee — said that investigating political leaders like this is “uncommon.”

“It’s a federal offense to impede a federal investigation like we’re seeing in the streets right now. I think that is very uncommon to go after political figures like that. I think it may be more of a statement more than anything else. But you know, we’ll see,” the Texas lawmaker said.

Frey and Walz have clashed with the Trump administration in recent weeks. Up to 3,000 federal agents have been surged to Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement operations and investigate fraud allegations. Those agents have been met by protesters demanding they cease operations and leave the state.

On Jan. 7, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Minneapolis resident Renee Good, a mother of three. The deadly altercation prompted outrage from residents, local officials and Democratic lawmakers, as well as continued protests, which have been mostly peaceful. The Trump administration has defended the officer, asserting he was acting in self defense because it says the shooting victim was attempting to run him over with her vehicle.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said there are no plans to pull federal agents from the city.

Walz put the Minnesota National Guard on standby over the weekend in case protests got out of hand. While there were some clashes between protesters and counterprotesters, the Guard has not been deployed to the streets.

On “This Week,” Frey said the federal agents’ presence is to blame for the inflamed tensions on the ground.

“The intensity is caused by the unwanted, uninvited people that are here in the form of ICE,” Frey said, adding that there around about five times as many federal agents in the city than there are city police officers. “The calm exists where you don’t have ICE agents. So, if you are looking to restore order and prevent chaos, there’s a very straightforward antidote, and that is for ICE to leave.”

Frey said he doesn’t regret telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minneapolis after the fatal shooting of Good.

“I don’t regret it at all,” Frey said. “If I seemed like I was angry and frustrated, I was. And part of my responsibility as mayor is to channel what in our city are feeling. And the people in our city were angry. They were upset.”

McCaul, the Texas Republican, called on everybody to tone down the rhetoric and try to deescalate tensions.

“I think we need to — on both sides — start calming down the rhetoric. I’m glad the president did not invoke the Insurrection Act. To throw our military in the middle of all of this just sort of escalated the violence,” he said.

The president has not ruled out invoking the 1807 law that would allow him to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. However, he said on Friday, “I don’t think there’s any reason right now to use it.”

While the administration has defended federal agents’ conduct, McCaul said he thinks “maybe some [officers] need to go maybe have some enhanced training.”

Asked about Vice President JD Vance and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller asserting ICE officers have “immunity” from federal prosecution, McCaul said, “That’s not accurate.”

“I mean, if there’s an unlawful use of force, that is something that can be prosecuted by — under federal law,” said McCaul, who previously worked for the DOJ. “They don’t have full immunity if, you know, if they violate the use of force laws. But at the same time, people who impede a federal investigation don’t have immunity from that either.”

However, McCaul agreed with the administration that immigration enforcement operations are necessary due to the surge in undocumented immigrants who entered the country under the Biden administration.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — From the campaign trail to Capitol Hill, a growing number of Democrats have said they believe President Donald Trump has committed impeachable offenses in his first year back in office.

But with their focus on the midterms, fewer elected Democrats are willing to commit to impeaching Trump if they win back control of the House, given likely Republican control of the Senate and potential for backlash from voters. 

Trump has predicted that Democrats will impeach him if they retake the House, and Republicans plan to make that threat a key piece of their midterm messaging.

“They will do anything to stop the Trump agenda,” Rep. Dan Meuser, a Republican from Pennsylvania, said of Democrats. “People, if they don’t want a two-year president, who they voted for pretty overwhelmingly in 2024, can’t allow the House to flip.”

Instead, many Democrats said they are focusing on the cost of living and the state of the economy.

“There’s a lot for me to be concerned about,” said Rep. Eugene Vindman, a Democrat from Virginia.

Vindman is an Army veteran and former national security official who played a role in raising concerns about Trump’s 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the center of his first impeachment.

“The American people are concerned about costs, and meanwhile, the president is pursuing foreign adventures,” Vindman told ABC News.

Impeachment calls have picked up in 2026 amid the U.S. attack on Venezuela and the Justice Department’s investigations into Trump’s perceived opponents. A number of progressive Democrats from liberal districts and candidates in crowded blue-seat primaries have called for the impeachment of Trump and key cabinet officials.

Democrats are also setting their sights on Cabinet officials: More than 80 Democrats have cosponsored Illinois Democrat Rep. Robin Kelly’s articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem following the deployment of federal agents to Minnesota and the killing of a Minneapolis woman by a federal agent. 

Still, Democratic leaders are moving cautiously ahead of the midterms, when they will need to gain at least three seats to win control of Congress.

“If candidates and members of Congress are not relentlessly focusing on people’s everyday lives, they are making a mistake,” former Democratic Rep. Cheri Bustos, who led the House Democrats’ campaign committee, told ABC News.

“There’s so much of what President Trump has done, is doing, will do that can be labeled ‘impeachable offenses,’ but in the end what good is it going to do? Even if the House has the votes, the Senate will not go along with it,” she said.

The House has already rejected two impeachment pushes from Rep. Al Green, a Democrat from Texas. In June, 128 Democrats voted with Republicans to block his charges over the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities without approval from Congress. 

In December, just 23 Democrats voted with Republicans to kill a second effort focused on Trump’s comments about Democrats who posted a social media video urging service members to refuse illegal orders, while another 47 voted present.

In a statement after that vote, House Democratic leaders called impeachment a “sacred constitutional vehicle” requiring a “comprehensive investigative process” that had not taken place.

“None of that serious work has been done, with the Republican majority focused solely on rubber stamping Donald Trump’s extreme agenda,” Reps. Hakeem Jeffries, Pete Aguilar and Katherine Clark said, arguing that voting “present” allowed them to “continue our fight to make life more affordable for everyday Americans.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said there’s “definitely a rising clamor for impeachment.”

“Of course, it requires a majority vote of the House to get there, but we need a structured method of thinking through all the lawlessness and criminality taking place,” Raskin said.

Kat Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old activist who is running for Congress in Illinois, has argued that Democratic leaders need to “grow a f—ing spine,” and do more to challenge the Trump administration.

She has spoken out and protested against ICE activities in Chicago, and has pleaded not guilty to charges that she interfered with law enforcement during a protest outside an ICE facility in Illinois last fall that went viral on social media.

“One of the most critical failures in American politics is how our leaders have instilled this feeling that we shouldn’t fight for the world we want to see, that we shouldn’t take measures towards a future that we want to live in,” she told ABC News.

“Impeachment is just another tool in the accountability machine that’s supposed to work, but it doesn’t,” she said.

Raskin, who would lead impeachment proceedings in a Democratic House, said he would be “moving very quickly” in the next two months on “announcing a systematic way of thinking” about the various actions of the Trump administration that Democrats find objectionable, and potentially worth investigating.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon was expected to send additional military assets to the Middle East in coming days, according to several people familiar with the discussions, including possibly the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group.

Such a move is considered a typical precaution at times of heightened tensions because of the 30,000 troops stationed throughout the region in countries like Qatar, Jordan, Syria and Iraq.

The added firepower would serve as a deterrent to attacks by adversaries against U.S. bases. But it also would give President Donald Trump additional options to strike Iran later if he chooses.

Examples of assets that could be surged include an aircraft carrier strike group accompanied by cruisers and missile destroyers, as well as Air Force fighter squadrons and land-based air missile defense systems.

Discussions of the additional military assets come as Trump threatened to attack Iran’s government because of violent clashes with protesters. Officials in Tehran responded by threatening to strike back at U.S. bases if he followed through.

According to one person familiar with the discussions this week, Trump was told that a military strike against Iran could be extraordinarily dangerous and potentially risk the lives of U.S. service members in the region, particularly if the government in Tehran felt it was on the brink of collapse. NBC News was first to report this detail.

On Wednesday, Trump told reporters he opted against strikes for now because the U.S. had been told “on good authority” that the killing of protestors in Iran had stopped. Trump also said Friday that 800 planned executions in Iran had been halted, a claim that could not be immediately verified.

In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied Tehran had any plans to execute protesters.

Several sources said there had been long-running concerns among U.S. officials that the military didn’t have the right mix of assets in place to protect against a potential massive retaliatory strike from Iran, given that Trump had surged much of the military’s force to the Caribbean to support the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.

There is currently no aircraft carrier in the Middle East, although officials say there are six Navy ships, including three missile destroyers. The Pentagon declined to comment.

If the Lincoln is deployed to the Middle East from the South China Sea, it’s expected to take longer than a week to arrive. The USS Lincoln was spotted earlier this week on satellite sailing away from the Philippines.

ABC News’ Chris Looft contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Friday marks a key procedural deadline for how Democrats will figure out which states will hold the first presidential nominating contests of 2028, amid broader debates within the party over diversity and voter representation, and which states will show which candidates are viable for the long haul. 

The Democratic National Committee set a Friday afternoon deadline for state parties to apply to have their 2028 presidential nominating contests be held in the period before Super Tuesday, the first Tuesday in March during a presidential calendar year where the most primaries are held.

The order of the primaries and caucuses matters because the early contests help indicate which candidates have momentum and are striking a chord with voters, and often narrow the candidate field ahead of Super Tuesday.

The debate about the order is also about diversity and voter representation in the Democratic Party. Some Democrats have argued that states with larger Black and minority populations should be prioritized, to reflect the diversity of the country, while others say the party should prioritize traditional “early states,” such as New Hampshire, to spur turnout and buzz, even though their populations may be less diverse. 

Traditionally, Iowa has held first-in-the nation caucuses and New Hampshire has first-in-the-nation primaries. But in 2024, a reshuffled DNC primary calendar pushed the states from the first two slots on the party’s official calendar and officially put South Carolina first.

While Iowa Democrats found a compromise with the DNC by switching their in-person caucus to an entirely mail-in voting process, New Hampshire’s primaries were kept in January, causing conflict between the state and national party. 

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart, in a statement to ABC News, said that the party is applying to hold its caucuses before Super Tuesday, and said Democrats need to keep Iowa toward the front of the line in order to stay competitive with Republicans.

“No matter what the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides, Republican presidential candidates will be in Iowa,” Hart wrote. “It was a mistake for the DNC to cut us out of the calendar, letting Republicans’ attacks go unanswered in Iowa while millions of dollars in advertising, organizing and the worldwide media flooded our state.”

Some state party leaders have said their states being early in the calendar will help candidates show if they can stick it out throughout 2028.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley said the case his party is making to the DNC is that New Hampshire is a prime state for 2028 candidates to build up support and to show their viability. He said its small size allows for easy campaigning in a purple state, “which is exactly what you need in the November general election.”

New Hampshire also has a state law requiring it to hold the nation’s first presidential primaries, which is what led in large part to the disarray in 2024 between the state party and the DNC. But Buckley said that it’s not a factor right now.

“It’s not about the tradition, it’s not about the law; it’s really about our involvement, and we just think that we have an unmatched record of being able to give the opportunity for candidates to talk to voters one-on-one,” Buckley said.

Buckley said New Hampshire’s population of union members, as well as the large percentage of students of color in the public school systems of the state’s two largest cities make it a great state for candidates to test the waters.

But the South Carolina Democratic Party said it wants to stay first in the calendar. 

Party Executive Director Jay Parmley told ABC News that the state is making its case to the DNC to remain in the early window because it’s compact and allows unknown candidates to compete. Also, Parmley said the state does not have a major population center, so candidates need to fan out across it. 

Regarding the debates surrounding diverse primary states, Parmley pointed to how the state has a “diverse electorate,” and highlighted its Black community. Around 1 in 4 registered voters in South Carolina are Black, according to data from the South Carolina Election Commission.

“Our Black electorate — it legitimizes and rewards the role of Black voters and as the backbone and soul, if you will, of the Democratic Party.”

Nevada’s Democratic Party also confirmed it’s submitting a bid to go early, arguing that galvanizing the state’s minority and working-class populations is critical for the Democrats. 

In a draft of their application, the state party wrote, “The Democratic Party is facing a critical moment where we must be strategic in our efforts to earn back Latino support, craft an economic message that resonates across the country, begin the work to reach working-class voters, and turn out diverse communities. We cannot afford to have overwhelmingly college-educated, white, or less competitive states kick off the process of selecting our party’s nominee.”

Michigan is also submitting a bid to be among the early states similar to how it was in 2024, the state’s party confirmed to ABC News — arguing in part that Michigan is the most important and diverse of the battleground states.

“For Democrats to have the strongest presidential candidate, the early nominating states should closely mirror Democratic voters nationwide and be representative of America,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel said in a statement to ABC News.

Illinois’, North Carolina’s and Georgia’s state Democratic parties also confirmed to ABC News that they are submitting bids. As Georgia’s state’s presidential primaries are usually held after Super Tuesday, they’d have to work with the Republican-dominated state legislature to move up the date.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday said he is considering imposing tariffs on countries that don’t support his efforts to acquire Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory.

“I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security,” Trump said at an unrelated event on rural health care at the White House.

His comments leave many questions about what it would mean with recent U.S. trade agreements struck with European allies, particularly those with the United Kingdom and European Union.

Trump’s tariff threat comes after European nations have voiced objections to Trump’s repeated messaging about taking over Greenland, either by buying the island territory or by using military force.

In a show of support for Greenland, French President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday that a group of French troops were on the ground there to take part in military exercises with Danish forces and those from other NATO countries, including Germany, Norway, and Sweden.

Macron’s announcement came a day after top officials from Greenland and Denmark, following meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House, said “fundamental disagreements” remained with the Trump administration on the issue.

“It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen told reporters after the meeting. Rasmussen called that outcome “totally unacceptable.”

Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of House members and senators on Friday touted “constructive” conversations with members of Denmark’s parliament during a delegation trip to Copenhagen.

The group — which included Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, Democratic Sen. Peter Welch, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, Democratic Rep. Sarah Jacobs, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer and others — said the visit was to nurture the relationship between Denmark, Greenland and the United States and to reassure NATO partners that many members of Congress do not support any effort by the United States to acquire Greenland.

“I think it’s important that it be recognized that when it comes to matters of relationships with our friends, with our allies, as we have here in Denmark, as we have in Greenland, that it is — it is not a subject of Republicans versus Democrats. It is a recognition, again, of a strong and continuing relationship over decades,” Murkowski said.

Coons, who led the delegation, said the trip was designed for members of Congress to “listen respectfully” to NATO allies and to return to the United States “share those perspectives so that we can lower the temperature”.

“There’s a lot of rhetoric, but there’s not a lot of reality in the current discussion in Washington,” Coons said.

Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, one of Greenland’s representatives in the Danish parliament, said the group also discussed pressure that people in Greenland feel in light of President Trump’s recent rhetoric.

“We have also talked about the human dimension, the pressure that people are feeling back home in Greenland. I think it was well received, and of course, they understand the concerns that we have in Greenland,” Larsen said. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A set of recent polls have highlighted American voters’ opposition to taking over Greenland — and even greater opposition to taking it over by military force.

A Quinnipiac University poll found 55% of voters opposed to the United States trying to buy Greenland, with majorities of Democratic voters (85%) and independent voters (58%) opposed and a majority of Republican voters in support (67%). Greenland, though, is not for sale — with Danish and Greenlandic officials saying the island can’t be bought. Greenland is a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Opposition rises to nearly 9 in 10 voters when asked if the U.S. should try to take Greenland by military force, something President Donald Trump has said “is always an option.” Just 9% of U.S. voters say they support the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force.

In all, 86% of voters, including 95% of Democrats, 94% of independents and 68% of Republicans oppose the U.S. trying to take Greenland by military force.

Notably, few polls find this level of agreement on policy issues — and most Republicans rarely disagree with Trump.

The president is trying to take over the autonomous Danish territory, claiming earlier this week that “we need Greenland” and citing national security as a reason for the acquisition. Now, France and other NATO countries have sent troops for military exercises after representatives from Denmark and Greenland said they had “fundamental disagreements” with the U.S. 

A Reuters/Ipsos poll also found low levels of support for Trump’s push to take over Greenland. Just 17% of Americans said they approved of U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland, including a 40% minority of Republicans. Support was even lower among Democrats (2%) and others (9%).

When asked about taking Greenland using military force in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, just 4% of Americans said it was a good idea, including only 8% of Republicans.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll offered a “don’t know” response to those answering their survey, and large minorities of Americans said they did not have opinions on these issues.

Two-thirds of Americans say they are concerned that the U.S. acquiring the self-governing territory that is part of Denmark could harm NATO and U.S. relations with European countries. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats, 4 in 10 Republicans and 7 in 10 independents.

The Quinnipiac poll was conducted Jan. 8-12 among 1,133 registered voters and has a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted Jan. 12-13 among 1,217 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.