Politics

(NEW YORK) — Bruce Blakeman, the Republican county executive of Nassau County in New York, announced Tuesday that he will run for governor of the Empire State.

His announcement sets up a potentially contentious primary against U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, in a primary that now pits two major allies of President Donald Trump against each other in what was already a challenging race for Republicans.

“We want to put New York first. We want to make it more affordable. We want to make New York safer, and we want to make people in New York happy again,” Blakeman said in an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday morning announcing his campaign.

Blakeman was first elected as Nassau County Executive in 2021 after previously serving on the Hempstead Town Council and as a commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

He received some attention in recent years for signing a county law in 2024 banning using masks to hide one’s identity, and a separate one that banned transgender people from participating in women’s sports at places owned by the county.

Any Republican candidate could face a steep challenge winning statewide in New York, which voted for Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris for president in 2024 by around 13 percentage points – although that marked a rightward shift from 2020, when then-Vice President Joe Biden won the state by around 20 percentage points.

Blakeman, asked on Fox News if a Republican in New York has a chance to become governor, pointed to his success in winning in a county where Democrats outnumber Republicans as a sign of his appeal among “crossover” Democrats and among different groups. According to data from the New York State Board of Elections, Nassau County had around 70,000 more active registered Democratic voters than Republican voters as of Nov. 1.

His entrance into the race comes around a month after Stefanik, a close ally of Trump, announced her own run for governor and collected several endorsements, including from local county Republican groups and the chairman of the New York Republican Party.

The winner of the Republican primary could end up taking on incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is running for reelection and has made combatting Trump a major focus in recent months. Hochul faces her current lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado, in the Democratic gubernatorial primary.

Bernadette Breslin, a spokesperson for Elise Stefanik’s campaign, called Blakeman “an early Christmas present” for Hochul and said Blakeman is getting in the way of “Republicans’ best chance to win.”

“Elise is the strongest candidate against Kathy Hochul by a long shot. Elise has outrun President Trump on the ballot by more than any Republican in New York State including Bruce,” Breslin wrote. “Elise has led the most effective attacks on the Worst Governor in America Kathy Hochul as Bruce Blakeman has worked overtime to torpedo fellow Republicans.”

Trump has a strong relationship with Stefanik but has not made an endorsement in the governor’s race.

Asked if he’d make an endorsement on Monday as reports about Blakeman’s bid circulated, he told reporters, “I’ll think about it. But he’s great. And she’s great. They’re both great people. We have a lot of great people in the Republican Party.”

Blakeman, asked about Trump’s comments, downplayed any equivocation — saying the president does not need to endorse for now — while praising the president for his work on the economy.

“Well, I don’t think the president has to make a decision now — let’s see how it plays out,” he said.

“But let me tell you something, he’s done more for America in the last 11 months than any president in my lifetime. He’s done a great job with the economy. He’s going out now — he’s going to be in Pennsylvania today, talking about economic development, creating prosperity,” Blakeman said. “Those are the same things that I want to do in New York State. So I cherish his friendship and I appreciate his leadership.”

Hochul, meanwhile, wasted no time in tying Blakeman to Trump.

“Bruce Blakeman is another MAGA cheerleader running to do Donald Trump’s bidding in New York — and raise your costs. Not on my watch,” she wrote on X on Tuesday.

At an event on Monday, she called out both Blakeman and Stefanik, telling reporters, “Let’s see how they out-MAGA each other in a primary.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump, after initially saying he had “no problem” with releasing the video of the Sept. 2 strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea that killed two survivors, is now reversing course and deferring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“I didn’t say that,” Trump claimed when pressed on Monday by ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott about his Dec. 3 comments.

“Whatever Hegseth wants to do is OK with me,” Trump said on Monday.

In an interview with Politico published on Tuesday morning, Trump further distanced himself from the controversy when asked if he believed the second strike on the survivors was necessary.

“Well, it looked like they were trying to turn back over the boat. But I don’t get involved in that. That’s up to them,” Trump said.

Though last week, Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson spoke about Trump and Hegseth’s responsibility for the strike.

“At the end of the day, the president and the secretary are the ones directing these strikes, and any follow-up strikes that were directed by Adm. Bradley, the secretary 100% agrees with,” Wilson told reporters at a briefing at the Pentagon on Dec. 2.

ABC Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang asked the president in the Oval Office on Dec. 3, “Will you release video of that strike — so that the American people can see for themselves?”

Trump responded, “I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have, we’d certainly release no problem.”

Officials have confirmed there were four military strikes against the alleged drug boat on Sept. 2, the first strike killing nine of the 11 people aboard. About 40 minutes later, a second strike was ordered to kill the two survivors. Two additional strikes were ordered to sink the boat, officials said.

Some Democrats and legal experts have suggested that the killing of survivors could constitute a war crime.

Hegseth, who was heading to Capitol Hill on Tuesday with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine to brief the “Gang of Eight” on national security matters, has not committed to releasing the video of the strike. The defense secretary cited concerns that releasing the video could expose sources or methods that would need to be protected.

Hegseth also has suggested the survivors killed posed an imminent threat.

Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee who has seen the video of the strike, pushed back on the description provided by Hegseth and other Republicans.

Smith, during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, called the video “deeply disturbing” and said “it did not appear that these two survivors were in any position to continue the fight.”

Members of Congress are attempting to pass new legislation to force Hegseth to provide lawmakers the unedited footage of the strike.

Trump was asked in the interview with Politico if Hegseth should testify under oath about the Sept. 2 strike.

“I don’t care if he does. He can if he wants. I don’t care,” Trump said. He added that he believes Hegseth is “doing a great job.”

The Sept. 2 boat strike is part of what the administration has called its “war” on drug cartels. There have been more than 20 military strikes against vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific, killing more than 80 people.

ABC News’ Rachel Scott and Mary Bruce contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Amid criticism that he’s been focused heavily on foreign policy rather than an “America First” agenda, President Donald Trump will kick off what will be a year focused on domestic travel and touting his economic agenda with a speech in the battleground state of Pennsylvania on Tuesday, a White House official confirmed to ABC News.

Trump will push back against criticism of the economy and preview his upcoming economic plans.

“The president will be traveling to Pennsylvania to discuss how he and the Administration continue to focus on delivering on his Day 1 priority of ending Joe Biden’s inflation crisis,” the White House official said in an email to ABC News.

Trump may also hold another event similar to what is planned for Pennsylvania later this month and additional events are expected after New Year’s Day, the White House official said.

Trump has faced pushback, including from Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former top ally, for not doing more to address the high cost of living. In response, Trump has claimed that affordability is being used as a “buzzword” by Democrats ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Last week, Trump called the issue of affordability the “greatest con job.”

“It’s a con job. I think affordability is the greatest con job. They look at you and they say, ‘affordability.’ They don’t say anything else. Everyone says, ‘Oh, their prices were so low.’ No, they had the worst inflation,” Trump said, referring to Democratic critiques of his economy.

Trump defended his economic agenda in an interview with Politico published on Tuesday morning, touting the revenue his global tariffs have generated while saying he would consider more carve-outs for goods impacted by the levies that Americans find too expensive.

Trump also pushed back on critics, including Greene, who said he’s been too focused on foreign affairs.

“Most of my time is spent here. But when I do go outside, it’s only going outside for here. For instance, settling and solving the problem with China, that has a huge effect in the United States. Making deals with Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, all of these countries, you’re talking about trillions and trillions of dollars. So I could … I guess I could say let’s not deal with anybody. We wouldn’t have much of a country,” Trump told Politico.

Although Trump has extolled his economic plans, a recent Gallup poll found that only 36% of Americans approve of his handling of the economy, while 62% disapprove and 2% have no opinion.

And it’s clear that the Trump administration is feeling pressure to address concerns about the cost of living following November’s elections, which saw voters across New Jersey, Virginia and New York City push back against the president’s agenda.

In the weeks that followed, the Trump administration made shifts in its economic plans, including rolling back tariffs on some food imports in an attempt to lower grocery prices, and floating the idea of a 50-year mortgage.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News on Tuesday morning that Trump is “going to give a positive, economic-focused speech” in Pennsylvania and called on Republicans to “be more vocal about touting the accomplishments of this administration.”

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said Trump will campaign for Republican candidates in the midterms “like it’s 2024 again.”

“The president started raising money for the midterms the day after the election, and he’s sitting on a huge war chest to help these people. And he’ll use it, and he’ll use himself, and he’ll use his money that he’s raised, probably his money too, and, and, and nobody can outwork him, so there’s every reason to be confident, but we have to actually get it done,” Wiles said on “The Mom View” podcast on Monday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As candidates and political parties gear up for the 2026 midterm election campaign, the Supreme Court on Tuesday will consider whether long-standing legal limits on coordinated spending — enacted to prevent corruption — violate the First Amendment.

The case was brought by Republican senatorial and congressional campaign committees along with then-Sen. JD Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot, both Ohio Republicans, against the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with enforcing the rules.

The coalition seeks to eliminate limits on the ability of parties, which often have a fundraising advantage over individual candidates, to more freely and directly finance TV ads and organizing efforts of candidates they favor. The practice is known as coordinated spending.

Oral arguments will take place before a Supreme Court that has been consistently skeptical of campaign finance regulations on free speech grounds, narrowing the scope of contribution limits and in 2014 famously rolling back caps on corporate campaign spending with the Citizens United decision.

The Trump administration, which controls the FEC, is declining to enforce or defend coordinated spending limits. In its place, the Democratic National Committee and a Supreme Court-appointed attorney will argue for why they should be preserved.

“This has been held constitutional at least twice before by the Supreme Court and more times by lower courts,” said Marc Elias, the Democratic attorney defending the law. “The entire campaign finance system is built upon these limits.”

Congress in 1974 set limits on the amount of money American individuals, organizations and political parties can give directly to candidates, and the Supreme Court has upheld them as permissible protections against bribery in the electoral process.

In 2025, the political contribution limits are $3,500 per person to an individual candidate and $44,300 per person to a national party committee per year, according to the FEC.

At issue in this case are added limits set by Congress on the amount of money a political party can spend in direct coordination with a candidate.

The FEC’s coordinated spending limits are computed based on each state’s voting-age population and the number of members of Congress. For Senate nominees, the cap is between $127,200 and $3.9 million in 2025; for House nominees, the limit is $63,300 in most states, according to the FEC.

Advocates say the spending limits prevent quid pro quo corruption between a candidate and party, and prevent individuals from attempting to circumvent contribution rules by essentially funneling donations to a candidate through the party, which is subject to the higher caps.

“If those contributions, which dwarf the base limits on [individual] contributions to candidates, are effectively placed at a candidate’s disposal through coordinated spending, they become potent sources of actual or apparent corruption,” argue attorneys for Public Citizen, a nonprofit voter advocacy group, in a brief to the high court.

More than a dozen states and independent election watchdog groups have also urged the court to leave campaign-finance rules to legislators, arguing they are better positioned to establish policies for elections than judges are.

The defenders of the limits also contend that the Republican plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring the case. They say that because the Trump FEC is not going to enforce the rules, there is no injury to the parties involved and that Vance and Chabot are not even active candidates for office who would be affected by the coordinated spending limits.

Republicans insist coordinated spending limits are unconstitutional suppression of free speech and that they are ineffective in the purported goal of curbing corruption.

“One of the key functions of a political party is to make sure that its candidates will vote for the party’s platform once in office,” the Republican committees tell the Supreme Court.

The case — National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission — is expected to be decided by the end of June 2026 when the Supreme Court’s term concludes.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINTON) — The Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to allow President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission purely for policy reasons, likely rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials in a decision that would expand presidential power.

The case could transform the federal government and effectively end the independence of some two dozen bipartisan agencies that Congress had designed to be insulated from political interference and direct White House supervision. 

All six of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices indicated during oral arguments in the case, Trump v. Slaughter, that a president should have absolute control over the leadership of any government body carrying out executive functions, such as rulemaking and law enforcement. 

They pointed to Article II of the Constitution which says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President” and that he alone “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Such a ruling would overrule or substantially limit a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision involving the FTC — Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. — which had affirmed limits on a president’s ability to fire members of the commission only for cause. 

“Humphrey’s Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was,” Chief Justice John Roberts said bluntly. 

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the earlier Supreme Court had egregiously erred, opening the door for Congress to circumvent the president altogether if it wanted to. 

Could every Cabinet office “be headed by a multi-member commission whose members are not subject to at-will removal by the president?” he asked Amit Agarwal, the attorney representing the terminated FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. 

The Supreme Court’s three liberal members vigorously defended the agencies as they were designed by Congress — and signed into law by prior presidents — as legitimate sentinels of the public interest and regulatory continuity across administrations. 

“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Trump administration Solicitor General John Sauer. 

Justice Elena Kagan said she worried about a slippery slope. 

“The result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive unchecked, uncontrolled power not only to do traditional execution [of the laws] but to make law,” Kagan said, referring to the agencies’ regulatory authority. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned of the “danger” in allowing a president to replace members of independent commissions with “loyalists and people who don’t know anything” about the agency’s expertise.

Independent agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses historically overseen by subject-matter experts from both parties. 

“If the petitioners get their way,” said Agarwal, “everyone is on the chopping block.”

Few of the conservatives seemed concerned about the consequences. 

“It’s been suggested if we rule for you, the entire government will fall,” Alito told Sauer. 

“The sky will not fall. In fact, the entire government will live with accountability,” Sauer replied. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the justices most often in the majority camp on the Supreme Court’s decisions, made a point of downplaying the impact of potential fallout.

“Overruling or narrowing Humphrey’s won’t affect the existence of these agencies,” he pointed out. Sauer agreed. 

Kavanaugh also suggested the Supreme Court is likely to carve out two exceptions to a ruling that would give a president greater control: the Federal Reserve Bank, which is also an independent agency, and administrative courts, such as the tax court, which are operated out of the executive branch.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case involving Trump’s unprecedented attempt to fire a Democratically-appointed member of the Federal Reserve, Lisa Cook. She currently remains on the job after the justices declined Trump’s request to stay a lower court decision.

The outcome in the Slaughter case will determine whether or not there will be any Democrats left on the FTC or other regulatory bodies, and whether any of the other independent agencies will be truly “independent” any longer. 

A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2026. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The mother of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s nephew was ordered released from immigration detention on Monday, according to her attorney.

Bruna Caroline Ferreira, who is in the process of obtaining a green card and previously held DACA status, was ordered released by an immigration judge on a minimum bond of $1,500.

Ferreira’s attorney, Todd Pomerleau, told ABC News that he argued at a hearing that his client is not a “criminal illegal alien,” as described by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), nor that she is a flight risk.

Ferreira is expected to be released Monday or Tuesday, according to Pomerleau.

The White House did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment.

DHS confirmed two weeks ago that Ferreira had been detained. A reporter with ABC New Hampshire station WMUR spoke with Leavitt’s brother, Michael Leavitt, who also confirmed the arrest and said Ferreira had been detained a few weeks previously.

A DHS spokesperson then described Ferreira, a Brazilian national, as a “criminal illegal alien” who had a previous arrest for battery and had overstayed a visa that expired in 1999.

“ICE arrested Bruna Caroline Ferreria, a criminal illegal alien from Brazil. She has a previous arrest for battery. She entered the U.S. on a B2 tourist visa that required her to depart the U.S. by June 6, 1999,” the DHS spokesperson said. “She is currently at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center and is in removal proceedings. Under President Trump and Secretary Noem, all individuals unlawfully present in the United States are subject to deportation,” the spokesperson said.

“Bruna has no criminal record whatsoever, I don’t know where that is coming from. Show us the proof,” Pomerleau told Boston ABC station WCVB after Ferreria’s arrest was announced. 

Pomerleau also said then that Ferreira entered the country lawfully, previously held DACA status and was in the process of obtaining a green card. He further said that his client was arrested in her car in Massachusetts after being stopped with no warrant, adding that he now has to litigate her case in Louisiana, thousands of miles away from her home.

Pomerleau also told WCVB that he did not believe that his client’s connection to Karoline Leavitt could affect the case, adding that he believes it’s just “happenstance.”

ABC News’ Armando Garcia, Jason Volack and Hannah Demissie contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Members of Congress are tracking to pass new legislation that would compel Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to provide lawmakers the unedited military video of 11 people being killed in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 2 after an initial strike on a suspected drug boat left two passengers alive in the water.

A provision tucked into the annual, must-pass Pentagon spending and policy bill says the Defense Department should hand over unedited copies of video to the House and Senate Armed Services committees. If the department does not comply, Hegseth’s travel budget would be slashed by 25% until the relevant videos are turned over, according to the legislation.

The provision could be amended before the bill is voted on in either chamber.

The House is expected to hold a floor vote on the bill this week. The Senate must take it up for a floor vote by the end of the month.

At issue is whether the Sept. 2 military strike on the alleged drug boat amounted to a war crime. Officials have confirmed there were four military strikes against the boat — the first strike killing nine of the 11 people aboard. Some 40 minutes later, a second strike was ordered to kill the remaining two survivors. Two more strikes were ordered to sink the boat, officials say.

Lawmakers who have seen portions of the video of the strikes in a classified briefing last week have described the state of the survivors before being killed by the U.S. military in starkly different terms. Democrats insisted the survivors were helpless and should have been rescued to comply with international laws that call for either sides in a conflict to help combatants who fall overboard or are shipwrecked. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, however, said the survivors were trying to “flip” the boat “so they could stay in the fight.”

President Donald Trump last week said he is open to releasing the video.

“I don’t know what they have, but whatever they have, we’d certainly release, no problem,” he told reporters in the Oval Office last Wednesday.

Hegseth, however, has not committed to doing so. Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum on Saturday, Hegseth said he was concerned that releasing the video could expose sources and methods tied to an ongoing operation. He said the military uses “bespoke capabilities, techniques, procedures” that would have to be protected.

“I’m way more interested in protecting that than anything else. So, we’re viewing the process, and we’ll see,” he said.

Hegseth also has suggested that the people killed in the strike were an imminent threat.

“I was told, ‘Hey, there had to be a reattack, because there were a couple folks who could still be in the fight [with] access to radios.’ There was a link-up point of another potential boat, drugs were still there … I said, ‘Roger, sounds good,'” Hegseth said.

Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee who was briefed on the video, said there were no radios and called Hegseth’s description “ridiculous.”

“They ought to release the video. If they release the video, then everything that the Republicans are saying will clearly be portrayed to be completely false and people will get a look at it and they will see,” Smith said.

ABC News’ Lauren Peller and Allison Pecorin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is set to announce a $12 billion aid package for American farmers on Monday, a White House official confirmed to ABC News.

The package is set to include $11 billion in one-time payments to crop farmers through a new Department of Agriculture bridge payment program. The remaining funds will then go to other crops not covered by that program.

The long-promised aid package is intended to provide relief to farmers who have been hurt directly by Trump’s trade policies, including his global tariffs.

The news of the aid package announcement was first reported by Bloomberg.

A White House official confirmed that Trump will announce the package at an event with farmers at the White House on Monday afternoon.

Impact of tariffs on farmers

The aid package comes as the U.S.-China trade war has hit soybean farmers especially hard. Through most of this fall, during a bumper harvest season, China had blocked all purchases of soybeans from the U.S.

China was the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans in 2024, accounting for $12.64 billion in sales, according to the USDA.

During Trump’s high-stakes meeting with Chinese President Xi in late October, the U.S. and China announced a framework trade agreement that included a deal on soybeans. China agreed to purchase 12 million metric tons of soybeans in the final two months of this year and 25 million metric tons in 2026, 2027 and 2028 — on par with levels before the trade war.

So far, China has purchased about 2.2 million metric tons of soybeans from the U.S. since the end of October, USDA data shows.

New package comes after Argentina bailout controversy

The administration’s new actions also come on the heels of the administration’s $20 billion bailout of Argentina, a move many American farmers and lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle criticized.

This fall, as China stopped buying all soybeans from U.S. farmers, it purchased soybeans from Argentina instead. So as the U.S. was giving a financial lifeline to Argentina, a country that directly benefited from the trade war, American farmers said they felt left behind.

“Farmers VERY upset [about] Argentina selling soybeans to China right after USA bail out Still ZERO USA soybeans sold to China,” Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa wrote in a September social media post about the bailout.

Trump, in his first term, also took action to bail out American farmers. His administration approved two packages in 2018 and 2019 totaling $28 billion for farmers impacted by his economic policies.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINTON) — For more than 100 years, independent government agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses all free from direct political interference and supervision by the White House.

A major case before the Supreme Court on Monday could upend that tradition and dramatically transform the federal government, eliminating a spirit of bipartisanship and policy continuity that Congress had intended to instill in key areas of American life when it created the agencies.

At issue is President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the Federal Trade Commission on grounds that her service is “inconsistent with the administration’s priorities.” She was appointed to a seven-year term in 2023.

Lower courts have held that Slaughter’s termination was illegal since federal law stipulates a president may only remove a commissioner for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The for-cause removal protection was intended to insulate the FTC from politics.

Trump argues the arrangement is unconstitutional and that a president must have full control over the leadership of government bodies that set policies and enforce regulations.

If he prevails, presidents could win unfettered power to terminate members of independent agencies at-will, which in turn could mark the end of their independence.

“Congress designed these agencies, like the FTC, like the [Federal Reserve], like [Securities and Exchange Commission], the whole panoply of independent agencies to have bipartisan voices so that there could be accountability and transparency,” Slaughter said in an interview with ABC News earlier this year.

Some two dozen organizations, including the Federal Election Commission, Federal Communications Commission and National Transportation Safety Board, are also made up of members appointed by presidents for a fixed term and protected by law from removal for purely political or policy reasons.

Trump has also tried to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and Federal Reserve — all of whom have challenged their removals in court.

The Constitution “vests all ‘the executive Power’ in the president and requires him to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” Trump’s attorneys argue in their brief to the high court, quoting from Article II. They insist the language inherently includes power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.”

In a unanimous 1935 decision, however, the Supreme Court upheld the design of independent agencies, concluding their role as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies makes them distinct from executive branch departments and not subjected to a president’s whims.

Several members of the current Supreme Court have publicly indicated they believe the ruling should be overturned or at least not applied to this case.

“I think we all expect the Court to give the president a lot more control over these so-called independent administrative agencies and bring back some political accountability within the executive branch,” said Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor and an ABC News legal contributor.

“We also have to hope that will force Congress to stop delegating vast and vague powers to the executive branch and these agencies once they’re under his direction,” she added.

The implications for the public could be significant, some legal experts say.

“It may influence how agencies conduct investigations, enforce regulations and oversee markets, while introducing uncertainty into regulatory oversight that affects investment and long-term planning,” said Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department attorney and appellate litigator with the law firm K&L Gates.

In other words, giving a president full control of independent agency leadership will allow him to align agency actions with the administration’s agenda — bolstering power of the executive branch while opening the door to significant policy changes following each presidential election.

The FTC currently has no Democratic members on the five-member panel after Trump dismissed Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, in March.

In September, the Supreme Court rejected Slaughter’s bid to remain on the commission while the litigation is pending. The 6-3 decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting, signals that the likely outcome of her case will be in Trump’s favor, analysts said.

The Supreme Court’s decision will also determine the fate of Cathy Harris, a Trump-fired member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne Wilcox, a Trump-fired member of the National Labor Relations Board, both of whom are also contesting the president’s actions on grounds identical to Slaughter’s.

One independent agency not directly implicated in the case: the Federal Reserve. While removal protections for members of the central bank’s board of governors are similar to those at the FTC and other agencies, the justices have made clear in their view that the bank is different.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned opinion in May.

Trump’s unprecedented attempt to remove a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a separate case next month.

A decision in both cases is expected before the end of the court’s term in June 2026.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration’s surge in law enforcement has created a chilling effect on student attendance in school districts nationwide, but it appears that preliminary data and attendance trackers from some districts do not show a large-scale enrollment plunge due to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations near school grounds.

In September, President Donald Trump sent additional federal troops to aid immigration enforcement in Chicago. Despite this, the Chicago Public Schools system said its attendance remains “largely consistent” with last year as some student groups are seeing dips in attendance at “discrete points” — referring to individual, separate events — this fall.

In Washington, D.C., the city’s local law enforcement has always worked alongside federal agencies. After it saw a surge in troops in August and September during a 30-day federal takeover, preliminary data shows the city’s attendance rate was within one percentage point of the same time period in the previous school year for “all students,” according to the Office of the State Superintendent of Education. That office said the preliminary data from Sept. 30 included each student group and racial ethnicity group.

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the nation’s second largest school system after New York City’s, has a 94% attendance rate for the 2025-2026 school year, according to the district’s website.

Falling birth rates, self-deportation, migration and other factors have caused a drop in K-12 enrollment and attendance in certain parts of the country so far this year, according to data from school districts around the country, including the Los Angeles and Miami-Dade County public school systems, which both saw 4% decreases in 2025-2026 enrollment.

Fear from immigrant communities

Despite preliminary estimates of student enrollment, the Trump administration’s immigration curb has left immigrant families and communities fearful of returning to school each day — from the nation’s capital to Los Angeles, California — according to education leaders and experts who spoke to ABC News. The immigration operations near LAUSD, home to over 400,000 students, coincided with a drop in more than 16,000 students to start the current school year, according to an LAUSD spokesperson.

Coupled with existing factors like affordability and family migration, Superintendent Alberto M. Carvalho said the widespread disruptions from immigration arrests in town have put a strain on students in the school district. He also suggested that the district is experiencing enrollment patterns that are “deeply connected” to the realities immigrant families are facing.

“When families are afraid to be seen, or when they cannot afford to remain in their communities, they are less likely to enroll, reenroll, or stay in public schools,” Carvalho said in a statement to ABC News.

“Our responsibility is to ensure every child — regardless of where they were born — feels safe in our schools. We will continue to stand firmly with our immigrant communities and protect every student’s right to a welcoming, stable, and supportive education,” Carvalho added.

The Trump administration has lifted longstanding restrictions that kept ICE from conducting immigration enforcement raids on K-12 schools and other sensitive areas, including churches and hospitals, but this decision was made to ensure students and school communities are safe from criminal activity, according to Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

McLaughlin stressed that the agency is not invading or raiding classrooms, and shared a DHS memo outlining the department’s approach with ABC News.

“ICE agents use discretion,” it read. “Officers would need secondary supervisor approval before any action can be taken in locations such as a school. We expect these to be extremely rare.”

‘[She] probably won’t go to classes’

In Charlotte, North Carolina, on the first day back to school after federal agents implemented an operation dubbed Charlotte’s Web, an immigration enforcement action around Mecklenburg County last month, 30,000 students were absent from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the school district said.

The dip in attendance to start that week accounted for roughly one in every five students missing school, which was about a 14% drop from regular attendance rates, according to the school district. However, the district did not indicate that the federal law enforcement presence accelerated those absences.

Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx, who previously chaired the House’s Education and Workforce Committee, told ABC News that other North Carolina districts are experiencing absenteeism as well and there’s been little K-12 growth overall due to recent declines in birth rates. 

Pablo de la Canal, a career and technical education middle school teacher in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, told ABC News that he saw a noticeable absence in his immigrant students during the Charlotte’s Web operation.

According to de la Canal, he received an email on Sunday, Nov. 16, from an immigrant student’s parent, warning him that the student wouldn’t be attending school during the surge. In the email, which was reviewed by ABC News, the parent asked de la Canal if the child could do schoolwork at home to keep up, he said.

“[She] probably won’t go to classes, until we see how this [immigration operation] situation continues,” the email reads in part.

The teacher told ABC News that he wasn’t the only one to get such a message.

“I know that there were a couple other teachers that got, you know, similar emails from parents, basically letting us know that the kids were not going to show up for school,” de la Canal said.

Meanwhile, many school districts like Charlotte, Los Angeles and Chicago have been offering remote learning, including for the immigrant families who are wary of the federal law enforcement agents in their communities. School district leaders and experts have warned that both mixed-status and documented families are choosing between leaving home for school — as they risk being stopped by immigration agents — and migrating to districts in other cities.

In a statement this fall, Vanessa Cárdenas, the executive director of immigration reform advocacy group America’s Voice, argued that children are now paying the price.

“We do not need violence, chaos and fear in order to fix our broken immigration system,” Cardenas said. “We need a plan that works for America — and protects — not harms — all of our children.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.