Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Tammy Duckworth is introducing legislation Friday that would put restraints on the current and former political appointees to be nominated as inspectors general. 

The Inspector General’s Independence Act would bar President Donald Trump and future presidents from nominating political appointees who have served or are serving in their administration from serving as an inspector general. 

“Whether this is acquisitions or our VA or DoD or Commerce or HHS, inspectors general are supposed to be calling balls and strikes and be independent and say, ‘Hey, you can’t do that,'” Duckworth told ABC News. “But if you put a political appointee in that position they are going to lean in favor of who put them there.”

The move comes nearly one year after the administration moved to unilaterally dismiss 17 inspectors general across a number of agencies at the beginning of Trump’s second term. 

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed back on the administration’s move at the time, raising concerns that the firing of inspectors generals would introduce partisanship into a role that is meant to serve as an independent watchdog. Lawsuits challenging the viability of those firings are going through the courts.

“There have been lawsuits that are in courts right now that say that those firings were illegal,” Duckworth said. “So this piece of legislation in particular will make it very clear that what he did was illegal, and not just leave it to courts to interpret existing law.” 

Duckworth points to the nomination and subsequent Senate confirmation of Cheryl Mason as Veterans Affairs inspector general as one example of why the legislation is critical.

Mason was appointed to fill a vacancy left after the administration fired the previous inspector general. She was serving as a senior adviser to Trump’s Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins at the time she was nominated by the president to serve as the department’s IG.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee in June, a number of Democratic lawmakers, including Duckworth, raised concerns about Mason’s ability to serve as an independent watchdog for the agency she had served in as a political adviser.

Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the committee chairman, also raised questions about how Mason would ensure her independence, but ultimately voted with all Republicans to confirm her.

Mason at the time vowed to serve as an independent actor, citing her years of experience at VA working at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals before returning as an adviser. Her role as an adviser, she said at the time, was to gather information and convey it in a nonpartisan manner.

“I consider myself to be an impartial, independent aid to the department because that’s my role,” Mason told senators on the panel when questioned about her loyalty to the VA secretary. “I am loyal to the veterans. That’s who I am loyal to.” 

“I work for the president and the secretary,” Mason said in the hearing when pressed by Democrats about her independence. “But also if confirmed will work for this committee.”

Mason was confirmed by the Senate in July by a vote of 53-45. No Democrats voted to confirm her. 

Duckworth’s legislation would have barred Mason from being nominated. Her bill, if passed, would prevent similar politically aligned nominees from serving as IGs.

The legislation is being co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, Kirsten Gillibrand and Peter Welch. It does not currently have any Republican co-sponsors.

It’s unclear whether it would have the necessary support to advance through either chamber of Congress, and unlikely that President Trump would sign it into law.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Three House Democrats said they are under federal investigation for their participation in a November social media video telling military and intelligence service members that they can refuse illegal orders — joining two Senate Democrats who are also facing the wrath of the Trump administration for appearing in the clip.

Democratic Reps. Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander and Chrissy Houlahan shared on Wednesday that they were being investigated by federal prosecutors after the group of Democrats — who had previously served in the military or in the intelligence community — said in a video posted on social media that U.S. service members have a right to refuse unlawful orders.

Crow said because of the video, President Donald Trump is “using his political cronies in the Department of Justice to continue to threaten and intimidate us.”

“But he’s picked the wrong people,” Crow, a former Army Ranger, continued in a video post on X Wednesday. “We took an oath to the Constitution, a lifetime oath when we joined the military and again as members of Congress. We are not going to back away. Our job, our duty is to make sure that the law is followed. We will not be threatened, we will not be intimidated, we will not be silenced.”

Goodlander, who served as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, agreed in a social media post Wednesday that “these threats will not deter, distract, intimidate, or silence me.”

“It is sad and telling that simply stating a bedrock principle of American law caused the President of the United States to threaten violence against me, and it is downright dangerous that the Justice Department is targeting me for doing my job,” Goodlander said in the post.

Houlahan, an Air Force veteran, said in a post on X Wednesday that the group of Democrats are “being targeted not because we said something untrue, but because we said something President Trump and Secretary Hegseth didn’t want anyone to hear.”

The trio of statements come after Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat, said earlier this week that she was under federal investigation for her participation in the video.

Slotkin said the investigation inquiry came from U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, a Trump ally.

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office said Thursday that they could neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation into the other lawmakers.

The basis of the investigation is not clear.

The latest fallout from the video comes after Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who also appeared in the video, was censured by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a censure letter, Hegseth said that the video “Undermines the Chain of Command; Creates Confusion About Duty; Brings Discredit Upon the Armed Forces; and Is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”

The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days.

Kelly responded by filing a lawsuit against Hegseth, arguing that the censure violated his constitutional rights.

Democrats involved in the video have defended its message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Democrats featured in the video, saying in social media posts in November that they are “traitors” whose actions are “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Asked in November 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.”

In an interview with ABC News after the censure, Kelly said he still would “absolutely not” change his message to U.S. troops about not following illegal orders.

In his video, Crow similarly said he would not back down from his message.

“I am more emboldened than ever to make sure that I am upholding my duty, and I will not back down,” Crow said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS) — President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in federal troops as protests unfold in Minneapolis against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote in a social media post.

Democratic officials in Minnesota have decried ICE’s presence after two shootings involving federal law enforcement in the span of a week. Gov. Tim Walz called the ICE operations a “campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government” and encouraged residents to “protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.”

Trump previously threatened to invoke the 1807 law, which hasn’t been used in over 30 years, last June amid protests in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration crackdown and deployment of the National Guard and again in October for Chicago.

What to know about the Insurrection Act
Generally, the use of federal troops on U.S. soil is mostly prohibited. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act limits the military from being involved in civilian law enforcement unless Congress approves it or under circumstances “expressly authorized by the Constitution.”

One exception is the Insurrection Act, a law signed by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807.

The Insurrection Act states, in part: “Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”

Another provision states it can be used “whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”

Some legal experts have warned the law is overly broad and vague, and there have been various calls for it to be reformed to provide greater checks on presidential power.

The Insurrection Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises over its history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, including by presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

Most of its uses involved federal troops being deployed, though a few situations were resolved after troops were ordered to respond but before they arrived on the scene, the Brennan Center noted.

When it was last used in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush to send the National Guard to Los Angeles, it was at the request of then-GOP Gov. Pete Wilson as riots exploded in the city after the acquittal of white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King.

Invoking the act without coordination with state officials is something that hasn’t been done since President Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s to deal with civil unrest.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The United States seized another tanker in the Caribbean Thursday morning, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced — saying in a social media post that the vessel was “operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced the seizure in an X post along with video of the operation, which she said happened without incident.

“Early this morning, a Coast Guard tactical team conducted a pre-dawn boarding and seizure of Motor Tanker Veronica in the Caribbean,” she said.

“As another sanctioned ghost fleet tanker, Motor Tanker Veronica had previously passed through Venezuelan waters, and was operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean,” she added.

The U.S. Southern Command said the Marines and sailors from Joint Task Force Southern Spear launched from USS Gerald R. Ford and “apprehended Motor/Tanker Veronica without incident.”

This is the sixth tanker linked to Venezuela boarded by U.S. troops in the last several weeks, following growing escalations between the U.S. and Venezuela.

The tanker’s seizure comes less than two weeks after U.S. military forces captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are facing federal charges including narcoterrorism conspiracy and conspiracy to import cocaine. Both Maduro and his wife have entered not guilty pleas.

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

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS) — President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in the U.S. military as tensions intensify in Minneapolis following a second shooting in a week involving a federal officer amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the city.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote in a social media post.

On Wednesday night, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, needed to be stopped from “terrorism.”

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting,” Blanche posted on X. “Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

ABC News has reached out to Walz and Frey’s offices for comment on Blanche’s statement.

The deputy attorney general’s blunt post came after Walz earlier on Wednesday evening had issued a sharp rebuke of the federal government’s law enforcement presence after a federal officer shot a person who they said had fled a traffic stop and then, along with two other people, began attacking the officer.

The shooting came one week after Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, was fatally shot by an ICE agent. The Department of Homeland Security has said that Good was allegedly attempting to run over law enforcement officers, a claim disputed by local officials.

“It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government,” Walz said in an address on Wednesday. He urged residents to “protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.” 

Frey, who has called on ICE to “get the f— out” of Minneapolis, said on Wednesday “the situation we are seeing in our city is not sustainable.”

Trump previously threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act last summer when protests were unfolding in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration crackdown and deployment of the National Guard.

The law, which authorizes the use of the military on U.S. soil for certain purposes, hasn’t been enacted for decades. It was last implemented was in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles riots following the murder of Rodney King at the request of the governor. It hasn’t been used without coordination with a governor since the 1960s.

Overall, the Insurrection Act has been used in response to 30 crises over its history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, including by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

The Insurrection Act states, in part: “Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, said on Wednesday that she is under federal investigation for a video that she and other Democratic lawmakers posted on social media last year that told military service members that they could refuse illegal orders.

“Last week, U.S. Attorney from the District of Columbia, former Fox host Jeannine Pirro, reached out asking to interview me because of a 90-second video that I filmed in November,” Slotkin said in a video posted to X this morning. “This is on top of an FBI inquiry that came in from the counter terrorism division late last year.”

Slotkin, a former CIA officer, first learned that she was being investigated when she was contacted by federal prosecutors — a detail first reported by The New York Times, and confirmed to ABC News by her office.

A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office says they neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation. It’s not clear what the basis of the investigation may be.

In the November video under investigation, Slotkin appeared alongside other Democrats who previously served in the military or in the intelligence community telling U.S. service members that they have a right to refuse unlawful orders.

In November, a CIA spokeswoman attacked Slotkin for her participation in the video, saying in a social media post that the senator joins “the ranks of disgraced former intelligence officers” who have abused their “credentials to advance a malicious and disingenuous political agenda.”

The video has been a subject of focus because of separate actions taken by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who was also featured in the original post on social media. Hegseth last week moved to censure Kelly, which led Kelly to file a lawsuit against Hegseth arguing the censure violated his constitutional rights.

The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days.

Democrats involved in the video have defended their message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.

Much like Kelly, Slotkin vowed that she won’t be silenced by the investigation.

“This president does not represent the views of the majority of Americans. Even if you voted for him, I do not believe that his vision of America is shared by a majority of Americans because this country is worth fighting for,” Slotkin said in her post on Wednesday. “Our freedom of speech is worth fighting for. Our values, our core values are worth fighting for and right now speaking out against the abuse of power is the most patriotic thing we can do.”

President Donald Trump has criticized the Democrats featured in the video, saying in social media posts in November that they are “traitors” whose actions are “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

Asked in November 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.”

Hegseth said in his censure letter that the video “Undermines the Chain of Command; Creates Confusion About Duty; Brings Discredit Upon the Armed Forces; and Is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”

In her video on Wednesday, Slotkin said that following Trump’s posts, threats against her and her family have gone “through the roof.”

“I went on 24/7 security from Capitol Police, I had a bomb threat at my house. My parents were swatted in the middle of the night and my siblings had cop cars placed in their driveways,” Slotkin said.

She said this investigatory move comes from “the president’s playbook.”

“Truth doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy, and he then weaponizes the federal government against them. It is legal intimidation and physical intimidation meant to get you to shut up.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday significantly expanded the ability of candidates for political office to challenge rules governing an election, rolling back lower court decisions that had said a candidate needed to show concrete harm in order to bring a suit.

The 7-2 decision handed a victory to Republicans in Illinois who are contesting a state policy of counting timely cast but late-arriving mail ballots up to two weeks after Election Day.

It also promises to increase litigation nationwide ahead of the midterm election.

“Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s opinion.

Roberts concluded that candidates — by virtue of running for office alone — should have the ability to bring legal challenges over rules governing how campaigns are conducted and votes are cast and counted.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan concurred with the court’s judgment in the case but on different grounds, saying candidates should need to show a “pocketbook injury” or other “actual or imminent injury” before being allowed to sue.

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority of breaking from settled law and “unnecessarily thrusting the judiciary into the political arena.”

“By carving out a bespoke rule for candidate-plaintiffs — granting them standing to challenge the rules that govern the counting of votes, simply and solely because they are candidates for office — the Court now complicates and destabilizes both our standing law and America’s electoral process,” Jackson wrote.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The FBI conducted a search of a Washington Post reporter’s home Wednesday morning in search of alleged classified information, according to the newspaper.

The reporter, Hannah Natanson, was at her home in Virginia when FBI agents knocked on her door to execute the search warrant, the newspaper reported.

Agents seized a phone, two laptop computers – one of which was issued to her by the Washington Post – and a Garmin watch, according to the paper.

Investigators told Natanson that the warrant was part of an ongoing investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, according to the newspaper. Perez-Lugones, whom an FBI affidavit describes as a government contractor, was charged in federal court in Maryland last week for alleged unlawful retention of national defense information, according to the affidavit.   

Natanson was informed by investigators that she is not the focus of the probe, the newspaper said, adding that she “covers the federal workforce.”

The FBI did not respond to an ABC News request for information about the search. However, FBI Director Kash Patel said in a social media post Wednesday that the FBI “executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor – endangering our warfighters and compromising America’s national security. The alleged leaker was arrested this week and is in custody.”

“[A]t the request of the Department of War, the Department of Justice and FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post journalist who was obtaining and reporting classified and illegally leaked information from a Pentagon contractor. The leaker is currently behind bars,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X Wednesday morning.

“I am proud to work alongside Secretary Hegseth on this effort. The Trump Administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country,” Bondi’s statement continued.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said on Wednesday the panel plans to move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she defied a subpoena for a deposition as part of the panel’s probe into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

It comes a day after Comer, a Republican, said the committee plans to hold former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress as well after he refused to appear for a scheduled deposition. Comer said the committee will vote next Wednesday on holding the Clintons in contempt of Congress.

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined her husband in defying a bipartisan, lawful congressional subpoena to show up today,” Comer said, later adding, “We’re going to hold both Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress.”

Comer, asked if he’d be willing to have the Clintons appear for a public hearing, said “that’s something we can talk about.”

On Tuesday, the Clintons sent the committee a scathing four-page letter that potentially signaled a protracted fight with Congress over a move they blasted as “partisan politics.”

“Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences,” the Clintons wrote in the letter. “For us, now is that time.”

The Clintons blasted Comer, saying in the letter that, “There is no plausible explanation for what you are doing other than partisan politics.”

“We are confident that any reasonable person in or out of Congress will see, based on everything we release, that what you are doing is trying to punish those who you see as your enemies and to protect those you think are your friends.  Continue to mislead Americans about what is truly at stake, and you will learn that Americans are better at finding the truth than you are at burying it,” they wrote.

For months, Republicans on the committee have demanded that the Clintons provide testimony to lawmakers, citing the former president’s travels on Epstein’s private aircraft in the early 2000s and the Clinton “family’s past relationship” with Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. The panel initially issued subpoenas for the Clintons on Aug. 5 to appear in October. 

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

Hillary Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein. She has no personal knowledge of Maxwell’s activities with Epstein,” Kendall wrote. “President Clinton’s contact with Epstein ended two decades ago, and given what came to light much after, he has expressed regret for even that limited association,” an Oct. 6 letter to the committee says. 

Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and denies having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes. No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.

Comer wrote in a letter to Kendall in October that the committee is “skeptical” that the Clintons have only limited information and stated it was up to the committee, not the Clintons, to make determinations of the value of the information.

Last month, in response to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Justice Department released several photographs of former President Clinton apparently taken during his international travels with Epstein and Maxwell from 2002 to 2003, although the released photographs contained no information identifying when or where they were taken. Following that disclosure, a spokesperson for the two-term Democratic president argued that the Trump administration released those images to shield the Trump White House “from what comes next, or from what they’ll try to hide forever.”

To hold someone in contempt of Congress, the Oversight Committee would first mark up and then vote to advance the contempt resolution. Once the committee approves the resolution, which is expected given the GOP majority, the resolution now could go to a vote in the full House.

A simple majority is needed to clear a contempt resolution on the floor. Notably, it does not require passage in the Senate.

The resolution, if passed, would direct the speaker of the House to refer the case to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — under the Department of Justice — for possible criminal prosecution.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration announced Tuesday it will end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalis in March, effectively forcing as many as 2,400 people out of the U.S., despite the president’s remarks last month that Somalia was “barely a country.”

Somali migrants with TPS will be required to leave the country by March 17, Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced Tuesday. That is, unless a court pauses the TPS revocation.

“Temporary means temporary,” Noem wrote in a statement to ABC News. “Country conditions in Somalia have improved to the point that it no longer meets the law’s requirement for Temporary Protected Status. Further, allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests. We are putting Americans first.”

The move comes after President Donald Trump has recently criticized Somali immigrants, describing them as “garbage” and saying he doesn’t want them in the United States during a Cabinet meeting last month.

“We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships,” Trump said as he addressed supporters in Pennsylvania last month.

DHS made a reference to Tuesday’s announcement in an X post that had a black and white photo of Trump in the Oval Office that referenced the 2013 movie “Captain Phillips,” which dramatized the 2009 merchant boat hostage situation by Somali pirates.

“I am the captain now,” DHS wrote in the post.

TPS is given to nationals of select countries who are unable to return home safely due to conditions such as famine, war and environmental disasters. Immigrants who have TPS designation can not be removed by DHS and are given an Eligible for an Employment Authorization Document that allows them to legally work in the U.S.

Somalia has been under a TPS designation since 1991, when civil war broke out and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians. It has been renewed several times over the last 34 years as the conflict has grown.

The State Department currently has a travel advisory — in effect since May of last year — warning people not to travel to Somalia due to “crime, terrorism, civil unrest, health, kidnapping, piracy” and other issues.

Noem did not go into further detail about her description of improved conditions in Somalia, which appear to contradict the State Department’s advisory.

As of Tuesday, there are 2,471 Somali nationals currently in the U.S. under TPS, with 1,383 in the country with pending TPS applications, a source with knowledge of the data told ABC News.

As of 2024 there are nearly 260,000 Americans of Somali descent living in the U.S, according to the census. Of that population, more than 115,000 are foreign-born and more than 93,000 — or more than 80% — of the foreign-born population are naturalized U.S. citizens, according to the census data.

Trump has repeatedly bashed the American Somali community, particularly the ones living in Minnesota, which has the largest share of Somali nationals in the country, according to the census.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has slammed Trump for his comments targeting Somalis.

“We’ve got little children going to school today, who their president called them ‘garbage,'” Walz said at an event last month.

Trump has repeated his criticisms against the Somali community following reports of fraud in the state, allegedly perpetrated by Somali immigrants against Minnesota’s social services system.

The allegations are being investigated; Minnesota officials have disputed the allegations.

The Trump administration has revoked and refused to renew TPS protections for several countries since he took office last year — including for Venezuelan nationals.

However, those decisions have been fought in court cases that have argued that DHS has made its moves in part by racial animus, citing the president and Noem’s rhetoric.

ABC News’ Armando Garcia contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.