Politics

(DETROIT) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday is turning his focus to the economy amid his administration’s intense foreign policy push with a speech at the Detroit Economic Club.

Trump’s remarks come as many Americans remain concerned about high prices.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll found 64% of registered voters said the cost of living is a “very serious problem” in the United States. On the economy overall, nearly half of voters said they think it’s getting worse, and 57% of voters said they disapproved of Trump’s handling of the issue.

As Trump left the White House on Tuesday, he touted new inflation data and continued his pressure campaign on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to lower interest rates.

“We have very low inflation. So, that would give ‘too-late Powell’ the chance to give us a nice, beautiful, big rate cut, which would be great for the country,” Trump told reporters. “But rates are falling also, and growth is going up. We have tremendous growth numbers. So, growth is going up. So, I’ll be talking about that today in Detroit, the big speech, and I can only say that the country is doing well.”

Powell is now facing criminal investigation by the Justice Department over his testimony last year about the renovation of the central bank’s headquarters in Washington. Powell said he believes the probe is politically motivated.

When asked by ABC News on Tuesday if he approved of the investigation, Trump said, “He’s billions of dollars over budget. So either he’s incompetent or he’s crooked. I don’t know what he is. But certainly he doesn’t do a very good job.”

Inflation held steady at 2.7% in December, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed, its lowest level since July but still higher than the Fed’s target rate.

Tuesday’s trip to Michigan is the latest stop in the administration’s push to sell the president’s economic agenda to voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

November’s off-year elections in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia showed pocketbook issues were top of mind for voters. Democrats who focused on affordability won big in those races, according to exit polls. Trump has derided affordability as a “Democratic hoax.”

Trump’s faced criticism from some in his own party, including former Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for not doing more to address the high cost of living and focusing too much on foreign affairs.

In recent days, Trump’s announced several economic proposals — including a ban on large institutional investors from “buying more single-family homes” and a 1-year, 10% cap on credit card interest rates. Trump’s housing plan has been met with some skepticism from analysts, and banks have pushed back on his pitch to cap credit card interest rates.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, previewing Trump’s Detroit speech on Monday, told reporters he would discuss recent news on inflation and mortgage rates.

“These economic policies are really coming into fruition now that we’re in 2026 and we’ll be seeing more tax cuts into the pockets of the American people later this spring as well. So, it’s all good news on the economic front, and I know the president looks forward to talking about that tomorrow in Michigan,” Leavitt said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The chairman of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee said the panel will move forward with contempt of Congress proceedings against former President Bill Clinton after he failed to appear for a subpoenaed deposition on Tuesday as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The committee had threatened to hold the former president and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress if they did not appear for separate scheduled closed depositions set for Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively.

“I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up. And I think it’s important to note that this subpoena was voted on in a bipartisan manner by this committee. This wasn’t something that I just issued as chairman of the committee. This was voted on by the entire committee in a unanimous vote of the House Oversight Committee to subpoena former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” Oversight Chairman James Comer said Tuesday morning.

“We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress,” Comer, a Republican, later added.

A lawyer for the Clintons, David Kendall, has not responded to requests for comment on whether Hillary Clinton will appear on Capitol Hill for her Wednesday subpoenaed deposition. 

In a four-page letter posted on social media Tuesday morning, the Clintons publicly called out Comer for threatening to hold them in contempt of Congress.

“Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves,” the letter states.

The Clintons contend in the letter that Comer’s approach to the committee’s work on the Epstein investigation has “prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role” and that the chairman has “done nothing” to force the Justice Department to comply with its disclosure obligations required by Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year.

“We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” the Clintons wrote.  “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”

For months, Republicans on the committee have been demanding 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. 

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

“There is simply no reasonable justification for compelling a former President and Secretary of State to appear personally, given that their time and roles in government had no connection to the matter at hand,” Kendall wrote in one of the letters sent to the committee in October of last year. He argued that the committee should excuse the Clintons, as the committee had done for five former attorneys general who were each excused after certifying to the committee that they had no relevant knowledge.

Bill Clinton has not 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 in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.

Former Secretary of State 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. 

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.

“[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” Comer wrote.  

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.”

“So, they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña wrote on X Dec. 22.

Ureña did not respond to an email inquiry from ABC News on Monday.

What is contempt of Congress?

The House of Representatives can hold an individual “in contempt” if that person refuses to testify or comply with a subpoena. The contempt authority is considered an implied power of Congress.

“Congress’s contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction,” according to a report from the Congressional Research Service. 

Any person summoned as a congressional witness who refuses to comply can face a misdemeanor charge that carries a fine of up to $100,000 and up to a year in prison if that person is eventually found guilty. 

What would the process look like?

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. 

History of contempt

Congress has held Cabinet officials in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a House subpoena, including Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in 2019 and then-Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012. The DOJ never prosecuted them even though the House voted to hold them in contempt.

The House held Peter Navarro, a former top trade adviser in the Trump administration, in contempt of Congress in 2022 for defying a subpoena to provide records and testimony to the now-defunct House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Navarro was sentenced to jail time. 

Steve Bannon, a Trump ally, was also held in contempt of Congress in 2022 for not complying with the Jan. 6 select committee. Bannon was also sentenced to prison time.

The GOP-led House voted to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress in 2024 over the DOJ failing to provide audio of then-President Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur. The DOJ did not prosecute the case, but the audio was released.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly on Monday filed a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth arguing that Hegseth’s censure of him last week over his inclusion in a social media video that told U.S. service members they have a right to refuse unlawful orders violated his constitutional rights.

“Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him — and this or any administration — accountable. His unconstitutional crusade against me sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military: if you speak out and say something that the President or Secretary of Defense doesn’t like, you will be censured, threatened with demotion, or even prosecuted,” Kelly said in a statement.

The senator’s lawsuit also names the Department of Defense, Secretary of the Navy John Phelan and the Department of the Navy as defendants.

Kelly alleges, among other things, that actions taken against him violate his First Amendment right to free speech, the speech and debate clause that protects lawmakers and his right to due process.

ABC News has reached out to Department of Defense for comment.

Hegseth censured Kelly on Jan. 5 for “conduct [that] was seditious in nature,” referring to the video Kelly participated in in November alongside other Democrats who previously served in the military or in the intelligence community.

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

The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days. Kelly retired as a Navy captain and receives retirement benefits for his more than 20 years of service.

Kelly retired as a Navy captain and receives retirement benefits for his more than 20 years of service.

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

“Let me make this perfectly clear, though, that Gabby and I are not people that back down,” Kelly said last Tuesday during an appearance with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, on “Good Morning America.” “From anything, from any kind of fight.”

 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is drawing backlash from former Federal Reserve and Treasury officials as well as current members of Congress, including those in President Donald Trump’s own party.

A bipartisan group of top economic officials released a blistering statement on Monday calling the probe an “unprecedented attempt to use prosecutorial attacks to undermine” the central bank’s independence.

“This is how monetary policy is made in emerging markets with weak institutions, with highly negative consequences for inflation and the functioning of their economies more broadly. It has no place in the United States whose greatest strength is the rule of law, which is at the foundation of our economic success,” read the statement from Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, Tim Geithner, Jacob Lew, Hank Paulson and others.

The investigation, announced by Powell in a rare video message on Sunday, is related to Powell’s testimony last June about the multi-year renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings in Washington. But Trump has made Powell a frequent target of his attacks and push to cut interest rates.

White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who is on Trump’s short list to be the next Federal Reserve chair, said time will tell if the probe is a pretext for firing Powell over interest rates.

“Well, in the fullness of time, we’ll find out whether it looks like a pretext,” Hassett, who denied involvement in the probe, told CNBC in an appearance on Monday. “But right now, we’ve got a building that’s got, like, dramatic cost overruns and, you know, plans for the buildings that look inconsistent with the testimony. But, you know, again, I’m not a Justice Department person. I hope everything turns out OK.”

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who serves on the Senate Banking Committee, said he will oppose the confirmation of any Trump nominee to the Federal Reserve until legal matters concerning Powell are resolved, which could make it difficult for a nominee to advance out of committee.

“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump Administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none. It is now the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice that are in question,” Tillis said in a statement on Sunday night.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, in a post on X on Monday, said Tillis is “right in blocking any Federal Reserve nominees.”

“After speaking with Chair Powell this morning, it’s clear the administration’s investigation is nothing more than an attempt at coercion. If the Department of Justice believes an investigation into Chair Powell is warranted based on project cost overruns — which are not unusual — then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice. The stakes are too high to look the other way: if the Federal Reserve loses its independence, the stability of our markets and the broader economy will suffer,” Murkowski posted on X.

House Financial Services Chairman Rep. French Hill, a Republican, said  pursuing criminal charges against Powell is “an unnecessary distraction.” Sen. Kevin Cramer, another Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said that he does not believe Powell is a criminal and that he hopes the criminal matter will soon be put to rest.

House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters on Monday that “if the investigation is warranted, then they’ll have to play that out.” When pressed if he believed the probe is warranted, Johnson said, “I have not reviewed his testimony, so I am not sure, but that’s not really my lane.”

A spokesperson for Attorney General Pam Bondi said Bondi “has instructed her U.S. Attorneys to prioritize investigating any abuse of taxpayer dollars.” Powell said in his statement the probe was fueled by Trump’s monthslong pressure campaign on him to lower interest rates.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, slammed Trump as a “wannabe dictator” over his campaign against Powell.

“Acting like the wannabe dictator he is, Trump is trying to push out the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and complete his corrupt takeover of America’s central bank so that it serves his interests, along with his billionaire friends,” Warren said in a speech about the future of the Democratic Party ahead of 2028 at the National Press Club.

President Trump denied any involvement in the criminal probe during a brief interview with NBC News on Sunday night but continued his criticism of Powell’s leadership.

ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday will for the first time wade into the heated national debate over whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ and women’s sports.

The justices will hear arguments in a pair of cases from Idaho and West Virginia, where federal courts have blocked state laws that would prohibit trans girls from participating on teams consistent with their gender identity.

The outcome of the cases will determine the fate of those laws and similar measures in 27 other states. There are an estimated 122,000 transgender American teens who participate in high school sports nationwide, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School.

Lower courts have concluded separately that the bans discriminate “on the basis of sex” in violation of Title IX, the landmark civil rights law that has promoted equal opportunities for women and girls in athletics, and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

The states are asking the justices to overturn those decisions and reinstate their laws, arguing that sex and gender identity are not synonymous when it comes to women’s athletics and that allowing transgender girls to compete against cisgender girls is unfair and unsafe.

“It really comes down to one simple question,” said West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey in an interview with ABC News. “Is it legal and constitutional for states to delineate their athletic playing fields based on the immutable physical characteristics that people have that are associated with their sex that’s assigned at birth?”

Becky Pepper Jackson, a high school sophomore from Bridgeport, West Virginia, who competes in discus and shot put on the track and field team, brought the legal challenge to her state’s law in 2021. She is the only known openly trans athlete in West Virginia in any sport.

“Someone has to do it. Someone has to do this for all of us,” Becky, 15, told ABC News in an exclusive interview. “Otherwise these laws and bills are just going to stand.”

Transgender athletes make up just over 1% of the more than 8 million teenage student athletes nationwide, according to the Williams Institute.

Idaho college student Lindsay Hecox, a former track and cross-country runner who was barred from trying out for her school teams, sued over her state’s ban in 2020. Last year, she asked the court to drop her case because she no longer wished to compete in sports and didn’t want to be in the spotlight. However, Idaho fought to keep the case alive.

“Everyone has had the experience of being told, look, you can’t play. You have to sit on the bench, or you can’t make the team. And everyone knows how that feels,” said Sasha Jean Buchert, an attorney with Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ advocacy group involved with the cases.

“That’s what’s happening to transgender kids right now,” Buchert said. “And the scope of [these bans] is absolutely absurd.”

Becky, who has openly identified as a girl since third grade, said she has never undergone male puberty, thanks to puberty-blocking medication, and has no physiological advantage over her peers.

“She has testosterone from her adrenal glands just like every female out there, but that’s the only testosterone she has,” said her mother, Heather Jackson. “She’s actually not the biggest person on her team. There’s people taller than her; there’s people shorter than her. She’s just an average female teenager.”

As a young cross-country runner, Becky was consistently at the back of the pack. More recently, she earned a spot in the state championship for discus and shot put, where she placed third and eighth, respectively.

“I put in time over the summer and after practices just trying to improve my technique and get better,” she said.

Her performance at an eighth grade track meet in 2024 drew protests from other athletes who claimed she made them uncomfortable in the locker room and on the field.

“I just didn’t think it was right,” said Sabrina Shriver, 16, a former discus thrower who refused to compete against Becky at the meet and later quit the sport because of her participation in the league. “It was just, I don’t know, we all just felt uncomfortable and we’re just, we didn’t want any part of it.”

The competitive advantage boys and men have physically over girls and women has been well established in physically demanding sports by medical research and serves as a primary basis for distinctions between the sexes in athletics.

Studies have shown testosterone produced during male puberty does lead to more muscle mass, larger hearts and lungs, greater body height and longer limbs on average for boys and men, according to the American College of Sports Medicine.

Before puberty, however, “sex differences in athletic performance are minimal,” the group says research shows.

A key issue in the West Virginia case is a dispute over whether Becky, 15, possesses an advantage at all, given she has not undergone male puberty, takes estrogen supplements and does not produce high levels of testosterone.

“If [sports leagues] look at the medical records of individuals like the Olympic committee does, testing people — they test for performance enhancing medications or drugs that their athletes take — so if we can look at those levels, let’s look at her levels,” Heather Jackson said.

McCuskey says a testing regimen is just not practicable and that Becky can still compete, but on a boys team. “We have to be able to draw a line here,” he said.

“Becky is bigger and stronger and faster than the females that she’s competing against,” said the attorney general.

He has urged the Supreme Court to stay out of the debate, arguing in a court brief that West Virginia’s law “implicates ‘fierce scientific and policy debates’ that elected legislators are best able to resolve.”

The U.S. Olympic Committee, the NCAA and 29 states ban transgender girls and women from competing on teams consistent with their gender identity. The other 21 states do not have bans, including California and New York, which have laws explicitly allowing trans athletes to compete.

Last year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld a Tennessee law banning some gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors, rejecting claims that the law discriminated “on the basis of sex” and saying that states should have leeway to regulate health care in an area of scientific uncertainty.

In 2020, however, the Court concluded in a landmark decision that a Michigan transgender woman fired by her employer for being transgender was discriminated against “on the basis of sex” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Justice Neil Gorsuch explained in his majority opinion that her termination was “for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”

Becky, Lindsay, and their attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal say the same reasoning should be applied to sports bans.

“There’s been a number of setbacks that we’ve experienced over the last few years in the courts, but I do have a sense of optimism with this case in light of the fact that the legal issues at play here are some of the same issues at play five years ago,” said Buchert, the Lambda Legal attorney.

Notwithstanding the legal arguments, 69% of Americans say transgender girls should only be allowed to play on boys teams, according to a June 2025 Gallup survey.

The Trump administration also supports the exclusion of transgender athletes from sports teams. An executive order signed in February 2025 says “it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities.”

Becky says, while she understands public opinion, she is unable to “go against who I am.”

“I’ve been a girl forever,” she said, “and playing on the guys’ team is going backwards.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith said Sunday that the Trump administration was “attempting to cover up what happened” in the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three, by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday.

ABC News obtained cell phone video of the incident that was taken by the ICE agent who fired the shots.

“I think what we are seeing here is the federal government — [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem, Vice President [JD] Vance, [President] Donald Trump — attempting to cover up what happened here in the Twin Cities, and I don’t think that people here and around the country are believing it,” Smith told ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

 Trump administration officials have asserted that Good was attempting to run over the ICE officer with her car, prompting the officer to shoot her in what they say was self-defense. Noem said Good’s actions were an act of “domestic terrorism.”

Local officials and many Democratic lawmakers have disputed DHS’s assessment of the incident.

“You are saying the administration is trying to cover up this shooting. That’s a pretty serious charge. What do you mean exactly,” Raddatz asked.

“What I mean by that is that you can see everything that they are doing is trying to shape the narrative, to say what happened, without any investigation,” Smith said.

Smith went on to criticize the administration for its response to the shooting.

“What I think is essential to keep in mind here is that if we’re going to trust the federal government, how can we trust the federal government to do an objective, unbiassed investigation, without prejudice, when at the beginning of that investigation they have already announced exactly what they saw — what they think happened.”

Smith said she has “seen nothing in any of the eyewitness videos, nor in any of the eyewitness reports from this tragic day, that would suggest that [Good] was in any way a threat to these officers.”

“Legally, do you think the ICE officer — certainly said he feared bodily harm. Is that possible in your eyes?” Raddatz pressed.

“It’s hard for me, looking at the evidence that I have seen, to imaging how he could feel bodily harm,” Smith said.

The FBI is investigating the shooting, but Minnesota officials said that the federal government has cut them out, blocking state agencies from accessing case material.

“And then they bar, from participating in the investigation, the unbiased state investigators who frequently collaborate with federal investigators on — when there are things that need to be looked into. So, I mean, I think they have just completely destroyed any credibility as they have so quickly rushed to judgement.”

The fatal shooting of Good sparked country-wide protests against ICE presence in American cities. In Minneapolis, local officials maintain that the protests have been mostly peaceful.

Here are more highlights from Smith’s interview:

On the actions of the ICE officer around the shooting, as captured by videos
Smith:  I understand how law enforcement, professional law enforcement, is trained. They are trained to deescalate situations, not make some worse, not make conflict worse. They are certainly trained to step out of the way of a moving vehicle, not place themselves in the middle of a moving vehicle. And no professional law enforcement would like, exchange words or banter with somebody who is engaged in their legal right to protest and then lose control, which is, you know, which looks to me like what happened here.

Message to people protesting shooting, ICE’s presence in communities
Smith: Of course it is essential that we have peaceful protests. And what I have been saying to people, in all the opportunities I have when I talk to people on the street is that, that the Trump administration wants to foment chaos and division and fear and even violence. And it is essential that we do not fall into that trap, that our, our strength is in our unity, our strength is in our peaceful demonstrations. And, you know, we will not give in. We will not sort of cave in to the fear and the chaos that they are trying to create, they are creating, but we will meet that with unity and with peace.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House will host America’s oil titans Friday as President Donald Trump is expected to lay out his plan for a post-Nicolas Maduro Venezuela with an economic revamp of its oil industry as its centerpiece.

The president, who said a recovery plan for Venezuela could require years of American involvement, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday that the U.S. would be “running the oil” and that he expected “at least $100 billion” of investment from the major companies.

“We’re going to rebuild the oil and the oil infrastructure, we’ll be in charge of it,” Trump said. “It’s going to do great, make a lot of money, and we’re going to take it from there, but we’re going to rebuild the country. And ultimately, you’re going to have elections.”

A White House official told ABC News that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has led the administration’s Venezuela policy, will attend the meeting that will include Chevron, Exxon, Conoco Phillips, Continental, Halliburton, HKN, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Trafigura, Vitol Americas, Repsol, Eni, Aspect Holdings, Tallgrass, Raisa Energy and Hilcorp.

A handful of those companies are European.

Only hours after American aircraft returned from an audacious mission in Caracas to arrest Maduro and take him to the U.S. for prosecution, Trump identified oil as the key to the U.S. strategy, asserting that American oil companies would quickly seize on a market newly friendly to them, generating revenues for America’s energy industry and establishing favorable ties with Venezuela. Trump and Rubio have said those revenues would ultimately benefit the people of Venezuelan people, some 82% of whom live in poverty, according to a 2024 report by the United Nations.

A risky choice for private industry

Experts told ABC News that the plan’s heavy reliance on the private American oil sector will present the industry with a risky choice to do business in a country some argue is less stable and harder to predict after the toppling of its president.

“The very first thing on oil all the oil companies checklist is going to be the outlook for political stability – durable political stability – that, by the way, needs to last a lot longer than the Trump administration,” said Clayton Seigle, a senior fellow at the Centers for Strategic and International Studies who focuses on energy security.

On Tuesday, the White House announced Venezuela would relinquish 30 to 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S., which would then sell the crude on the market and store revenues in American accounts.

Rubio on Wednesday fleshed out a three-phase strategy, including stabilization in Venezuela, economic recovery, and finally, a political transition there.

“They understand that the only way they can move oil and generate revenue and not have economic collapse is if they cooperate and work with the United States,” Rubio said. “And that’s what we are going to [see] happen.”

Rubio said the U.S. would continue enforcing a legal “quarantine” of illicit oil tankers transiting to and from Venezuela to bend Caracas to Washington’s will, citing the U.S. seizure of two such tankers this week. A third was seized Friday morning.

“We don’t want [Venezuela] descending into chaos,” he said, arguing the threat to the tankers would force the government, run by interim President Delcy Rodriguez, to the table.

Venezuela’s leadership, which has condemned the U.S. attack on its capital and the ouster of its president, has signaled a lukewarm embrace of cooperation on oil.

“Venezuela is open to energy relations where all parties benefit,” Rodriguez said.

Democrats called what the administration labels “leverage” as a form of brute control over the country.

“This is an insane plan,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. “They are talking about stealing the Venezuelan oil at gunpoint for a period of time – undefined – as leverage to micromanage the country. I mean, the scope and insanity of that plan is absolutely stunning.”

‘Realist’ view of facts on the ground

Kimberly Breier, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the first Trump administration, said the U.S. plan – which removed Maduro from power but kept the rest of his regime, including other U.S.-sanctioned officials, in place – was a “very realist” view of the facts on the ground.

“I think this is a transition to a transition,” Breier said. “I think this current situation is an intermediate step where there’s a hope and a plan that you’re going to be able to get the regime to do some of the harder things that are going to need to be done to allow for a real democratic transition to the rightfully elected government.”

Whether the energy dimension of the plan, which would require U.S. energy companies to work with the same regime that was hostile to them, is only “a hope and an aspiration” at this stage, said Seigle. “We don’t know how feasible it is.”

Oil executives who will sit down with the president in Washington will bring a checklist of questions on sanctions, tax regime, property rights, and political stability, experts told ABC News. Investments the White House might ask of them, which would include rebuilding and modernizing infrastructure, would require years and billions of dollars, they said.

“When it comes to energy, item number one is giving confidence in enduring political stability,” Seigle said.

The administration knows that oil companies “are looking for stability,” said Breier, who is now a senior adviser at Covington. “I think they’re looking for a leader that they think is not a transitional leader.”

“Certainly, oil companies operate all over the world in places that are not democracies. But from a policy standpoint…the durable, lasting leadership of Venezuela is the democratically elected one,” she said, referring to Edmundo Gonzalez, who won the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election but has been exiled.

Oil execs may not be ready to jump in

Oil companies will “express interest and to sincerely look into the matter and try to understand what their contributions could be and maybe some of the associated planning,” Seigle predicted. “But I do not think that we will see major new commitments from U.S. oil companies to leap into the Venezuelan operating environment until a lot of things on their checklists are satisfied.”

“The problem is [the administration] got the sequence backwards,” he said. “The sequence is the oil companies need to see that Venezuela is an attractive environment with a long runway of stability, and then in the future, the oil can flow.”

Breier said the energy dimension of the president’s plan is part and parcel of a broader set of objectives to counter migration and drug flows and promote a democracy in the country.

ABC News reported that the administration has made two demands to Rodriguez that must be met for the U.S. to allow the country to pump more oil. Venezuela must cut its economic ties with China, Russia, and Iran, sources said, and must agree to partner exclusively with the U.S. on oil production and favor America when selling heavy crude oil.

Breier said the reporting rings true with her experience at the State Department, where she worked with the former opposition leader of Venezuela, another elected president in exile, Juan Guaidó.

“With the Guaidó team, there were conversations about…not going [through] all this trouble for [Venezuela] to then cut deals with the Russians and the Chinese and the oil sector,” she said. “So that’s a very consistent approach.” Breier said the administration’s approach will be “private sector led” by Western companies, including the Europeans.

The White House “view[s] US companies as the most nimble and able to go in and start rebuilding the sector quickly so that you don’t end up with the U.S. taxpayer having to put the tab for reconstructing Venezuela,” she said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House on Thursday presented the latest plans for the East Wing renovation project, the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, in a public meeting of the National Capital Planning Commission.

The project’s architect, Shalom Baranes, said during the meeting that the White House is considering adding a one-story addition to the West Wing to restore “symmetry” to the complex after the East Wing ballroom project is complete.

His comments came after announcing a two-story colonnade would connect the East Room in the White House to the new ballroom.  

“The White House is therefore considering the idea of a modest one-story addition to the West Wing colonnade, which would serve to restore a sense of symmetry around the original central pavilion.”

Baranes also clarified details about the expansion project, telling commissioners the East Wing expansion would include a second floor, and that the new ballroom would have roughly 40-foot ceilings, be roughly 22,000 square feet of the nearly 90,000 square foot project, and be able to accommodate up to 1,000 seated guests.

Phil Mendelson, the Washington City Council Chairman and member of the planning commission, said he felt the East Wing design could appear to be “overwhelming” the existing White House structure.

Baranes said the 45,000 square foot project would “exactly” match the height of the White House when completed.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly increased the size and cost of the ballroom project. Last month, he said it would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations.

Answering questions from commissioners, Baranes said the potential project would add a story to the West Wing colonnade, and not the West Wing building proper.

He also offered no timetable for the potential addition and did not present any new renderings or drawings.

Josh Fisher, a White House official who also supplemented the presentation, said the Trump administration is also considering changes to Lafayette Park and the visitor screening areas on the White House complex in the future.

Will Scharf, a senior White House official who sits on the Capital Planning Commission, noted that Trump is hosted at Windsor Castle when he visits the United Kingdom, but when the King of England visits the White House, he may be hosted in a “tent” on the White House lawn.

“That, to me, is not a good look for the United States,” he said.

James Blair, another Trump appointee on the commission, said the current White House can’t “accommodate” efforts for the president to “break bread” with groups of lawmakers.

Other commissioners affiliated with the city expressed some reservations about the scale of the project and the fact that demolition started before the plan was presented.

The White House announced the ballroom construction project in late July, and demolition began suddenly on the East Wing in late October, when workers were spotted tearing down the wing of the White House that contained the first lady’s offices.

Scharf pointed out that demolition began at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum before the renovation plan was presented to local bodies.

In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit to stop the East Wing construction project by claiming the administration had circumvented the required review process for federal projects. 

In a hearing in that case, the administration told a federal judge it would submit plans for the project to the relevant federal oversight bodies. 

The judge said he would hold a follow-up hearing on the White House’s process in January and declined to stop construction at the time. 

Days later, the administration submitted formal applications and plans for the renovation project to the NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts, a White House official confirmed to ABC News at the time.

In its filing in the case brought by the historic preservation group, the Justice Department argued that without a permanent ballroom, the White House can no longer meet the needs of the president as he fulfills his constitutional duty to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”

“It is entirely fitting, then, that the presidential residence and workplace be equipped for that purpose. Given modern needs, the White House is not,” the Justice Department argued.

Even as it determined in late August that the White House ballroom would have “no significant impact” on the surrounding grounds, the National Park Service did highlight some of the adverse effects of the project, presaging concerns that have since been echoed by preservationists, architects and designers.

“The new building’s larger footprint and height will dominate the eastern portion of the site, creating a visual imbalance with the more modestly scaled West Wing and Executive Mansion,” the NPS report noted. “Adding a second story to the East Colonnade will further modify the setting, contrasting with the single-story design of the West Colonnade and changing the traditional spatial organization and sightlines of the grounds.”

Such changes, the report indicated, “will adversely alter the design, setting, and feeling of the White House and grounds over the long-term,” while the destruction of the East Wing would result in “the permanent loss of a component that has been integral to White House operations since 1942.”

Still, the “environmental assessment” — prepared by the deputy director of the park service and signed by its comptroller — concluded that the benefits of a new ballroom for state functions would outweigh the adverse effects “by reducing reliance on temporary event infrastructure, minimizing wear on the grounds, and improving functionality for large gatherings.”

The White House announced the ballroom construction project in late July, and demolition began suddenly on the East Wing in late October, when workers were spotted tearing down the wing of the White House that contained the first lady’s offices.

Trump has repeatedly increased the size and cost of the construction 90,000 square foot ballroom project. Last month, he said it would cost $400 million, after an initial estimate of $200 million. The White House has said the project will be funded by private donations. 

The president has also moved to fill both advisory boards supervising the ballroom project with his own aides and appointees. 

He also spent some of his vacation working on the project: Last Friday in Florida, he visited Arc Stone & Tile, an Italian stone importer, and spent roughly an hour at the showroom before purchasing onyx and marble for the ballroom.

The White House expects to make its final presentations to the Commission of Fine Arts in February, and to the National Capitol Planning Commission in March, and will submit its final plan for the project by the end of January, a White House official told ABC News. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The House on Thursday failed to override two of President Donald Trump’s vetoes of GOP-backed bills that passed unanimously in the House and Senate, falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority on either vote.

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

 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Ahead of Thursday’s vote on a three-year extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, Democrats are boasting that several Republicans are expected to defy their leadership team.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed pride in the “bipartisan coalition” created ahead of Thursday’s vote on a three-year extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies after nine Republicans crossed the aisle Wednesday night to set up passage in the House.

“I hope today there will be more Republicans joining this leader,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, gesturing towards Jeffries at a news conference Thursday.

Jeffries called the vote “an opportunity to take a meaningful step forward to lower the high cost of living for everyday Americans, particularly as it relates to health care, but it’s a battle that we will continue to wage on behalf of the American people.”

Wednesday’s procedural vote passed by a 221-205 margin. Nine Republicans — Reps. Mike Lawler and Nick LaLota of New York, Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Maria Salazar of Florida, David Valadao of California, Thomas Kean of New Jersey, and Max Miller of Ohio — voted with Democrats to pass it.

The subsidies, which expired at the end of 2025, were enhanced during the COVID-19 pandemic to increase the amount of financial assistance to those who were already eligible and to expand eligibility to more people.

A tangible path forward that sends legislation through Senate to the Resolute Desk to address the expired subsidies remains in question.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Thursday that there’s “no appetite” in the upper chamber for an extension and pointed instead to ongoing bipartisan talks between senators and House members.

“We’ve had that vote, as you know, already,” Thune said. “But we’ll see what happens from the working group, and if they can come up with something that has reforms. And we’ll go from there.

The Senate last month rejected a three-year extension of the subsidies when the measure fell short of the 60-vote threshold, though four Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska — all crossed the aisle in support of the measure.

An estimated 22 million of the 24 million ACA marketplace enrollees are currently receiving enhanced premium tax credits to lower their monthly premiums, and many are seeing their premiums soar in 2026.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would increase the federal deficit by about $80.6 billion over the next decade.

If the measure is enacted, the number of people with health insurance would increase by 100,000 people in 2026, 3 million in 2027, 4 million in 2028 and 1.1 million in 2029, relative to current law, the CBO reported.

According to the CBO, the 4 million increase in 2028 would result from changes in several types of coverage: 6.2 million more people would be enrolled through ACA health insurance marketplaces; 400,000 million more people enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program; 500,000 fewer people would purchase nongroup coverage outside the marketplaces; and 2.1 million fewer people would have employment-based coverage.

President Donald Trump has publicly expressed his opposition to extending the enhanced subsidies.

“I’d like not to be able to do it. I’d like to see us get right into this. I don’t know why we have to extend — this can be done rapidly if the Democrats would come along,” Trump said on Dec. 18 in the Oval Office.

After Speaker Mike Johnson resisted pressure to allow a vote on the subsidies late last year, a quartet of House Republicans — Fitzpatrick, Lawler, Bresnahan and Mackenzie — banded together before the holiday break and signed on to a Democratic discharge petition to force a vote on an ACA extension, much to the chagrin of GOP leaders.

ABC News’ Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.