Politics

(WASHINGTON) — As House Speaker Mike Johnson eyes a vote next week on a to-be-announced health care package, a growing number of House Republicans are revolting against leadership by trying to force a vote on extending the expiring Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies.

Nearly a dozen Republicans — many from swing districts — have signed onto dueling bipartisan discharge petitions to extend and reform the subsidies in the hopes of bypassing leadership and triggering a vote on the House floor. 

This move comes as the subsidies are set to expire at the end of the month, which will prompt health premiums for more than 20 million Americans to soar. 

While Johnson has not yet unveiled the specifics of his plan, an extension of the ACA subsidies is currently not expected to be included in the package. Johnson said the bill will “probably” be unveiled over the weekend ahead of next week’s anticipated vote. 

The speaker and GOP leaders, during a closed door meeting this week, provided Republicans a list of several options to address health care costs, according to multiple sources. Some of those options, sources said, include Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), cost-sharing reductions and making changes to pharmacy benefit managers. 

Lawmakers told ABC News they left that meeting with no clear consensus on how to address health care.

“You’re going to see a package come together that will be on the floor next week that will actually reduce premiums for 100% of Americans who are on health insurance,” Johnson said at his weekly news conference. “The overall system is broken, and we’re the ones that are going to fix it.” 

A group of mainly moderate Republicans, though, want to see the subsidies addressed by Congress before the expiration date. 

The discharge petitions would need 218 signatures for a vote to occur in the House, and it’s unclear if enough Democrats will provide their support to reach that threshold.

Most House Democrats have signed onto another petition led by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to extend the subsidies for three years. 

Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania filed a discharge petition that would extend the subsidies for two years, establish income caps for enrollees and regulate pharmacy benefit managers.

New Jersey Democrat Rep. Josh Gottheimer filed a separate but similar bipartisan discharge petition to extend the subsidies with reforms. 

As of Thursday, 11 Republicans had signed on to both discharge petitions.

Johnson threw cold water on the efforts by vulnerable Republicans hoping to hold a vote on the subsidies. 

“We’re working on a package of legislation that will reduce premiums for all Americans, not just 7% of them,” he said. 

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who supports both discharge petitions, warned about the impacts not extending the subsidies will have on the midterm election for Republicans.  

“I think it will be used like a sledgehammer a year from now. The reality will be bad,” he said. 

Bacon said if Congress fails to act, “all our constituents are going to be paying a lot more for their premiums and that’s unacceptable.” 

In the Senate, meanwhile, two competing health care proposals aimed at addressing the expected premium spikes — one championed by Democrats and the other by Republicans — failed to advance on Thursday, leaving the Senate back at square one.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem found herself in the hot seat on Capitol Hill on Thursday, defending herself from Democrats who sharply questioned the Trump administration’s hardline immigration actions.

In one notable exchange, Rep. Seth Magaziner, D-R.I., asked Noem if DHS had deported any military veterans — and she said the department has not. 

Magaziner then referred to a tablet with a man named Sae Joon Park on the screen, joining the hearing by Zoom.

Magaziner said Park is a Purple Heart recipient who was shot twice while serving with the U.S. Army in Panama in 1989, who was deported to Korea by the Trump administration.

“Like many veterans, he struggled with PTSD and substance abuse after his service,” Magaziner said. “He was arrested in the 1990s for some minor drug offenses, nothing serious. He never hurt anyone besides himself, and he’s been clean and sober for 14 years.”

When asked if she would thank Park for his service, Noem responded to the congressman, “Sir, I’m grateful for every single person that has served our country and follows our laws.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson later said Magaziner failed to mention that Park had a criminal history, although the congressman did address that in his remarks. 

“In 2010 an immigration judge issued him an order of removal. Park’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals that same month was dismissed by the Board in April 2011,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in the statement. “With no legal basis to remain in the U.S. and a final order of removal, Park was allowed to self-deport to Korea.”

In response to a question from Magaziner, Noem committed to reviewing Park’s case.

Magaziner also introduced a military veteran named Jim Brown, from Troy, Missouri, who was sitting in the gallery behind Noem. Browns’s wife — a native of Ireland — has lived in the U.S. for 48 years before being detained and facing deportation, the congressman said. Her only criminal record was writing two bad checks totaling $80 several years ago, Magaziner said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Trump administration has expanded its review of colleges and universities across the country this year, threatening to withhold critical funding from some institutions if they do not comply with administration’s policies.

Many universities rely on federal funding for a sizable portion of their research funding. According to Neeli Bendapudi, the president of Penn State University, it is “important” that the federal government “continue that tradition of investing in our higher education system because it’s a huge competitive advantage.”

She, along with several university presidents, recently spoke with ABC News’ Linsey Davis in a wide-ranging discussion on the future of higher ed for ABC News’ “All Access with Linsey Davis.

Bendapudi said that if Penn State had received the administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence” memo, which offers preferential access to federal funding for higher education institutions, the university would have rejected it.

“It’s very important for universities to have the academic freedom to discuss,” she said. “It’s hard to imagine an institution of higher education where you’re not confronted by ideas and experiences that are not just echo chambers of your own. That is part and parcel of what it means to get a degree, right? So it’s very critical for us. Whoever you are, when you come in, we embrace you, you’re part of the culture of Penn State and we want you to succeed.”

In March, the Department of Education’s office for civil rights launched dozens of investigations into private and public higher education institutions, accusing the institutions of “allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and one university for allegedly administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race.”

Amid the investigation, a hold on federal funding put millions of dollars for critical research efforts at risk and threatened the progress of scientific innovation at various institutions.

Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, was among those higher education institutions that were investigated by the Trump administration over the past year.

Cornell’s president, Michael Kotlikoff, announced on Nov. 7 that the university had reached a $60 million agreement with the government that would restore more than $250 million in funding for research grants. Cornell was fined $30 million and agreed to invest an additional $30 million for research to support America’s farmers, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. The federal investigation into the university has since been closed.

Kotlikoff reflected on the agreement during the conversation on “All Access,” saying Cornell had multiple “complaints” lodged against the university through the DOJ’s office of civil rights.

“When we started out this discussion with the federal government, we had two goals. One was to restore our relationship with the federal government and restore our funding. And the second was to do it in a way in which we did not compromise our principles,” Kotlikoff said. “We did not have the government dictate our policies or our procedures. And I think we achieved both of those goals, but as part of that, we did agree for the government to end these suits at Cornell, which would have cost us in excess of 30 million to fight, [and] it was costing many careers while our grants were suspended.”

According to the memo, which was reviewed by ABC News, the administration demanded that universities ban the use of race, sex, religion in hiring and admissions; freeze tuition rates for five years; cap the undergraduate enrollment of foreign students; require that applicants take the SAT or a similar admission test as well as change governance structures in the universities that punish conservative ideas.

A White House official confirmed to ABC News in October that letters were sent to nine universities to get feedback about the memo and try to secure agreements. Since then, the offer was extended to other higher education institutions – none of which have agreed to the compact so far.

The University of Arizona in Tucson was one of the nine institutions that received the memo on Oct. 1. In a statement, university president Suresh Garimella said he had “not agreed” to the so-called “compact.”

Garmella said that some proposed federal recommendations “deserve thoughtful consideration” and some are “already in place at the U of A,” but he added that “principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding, and institutional independence are foundational and must be preserved.”

“As a result, the university has not agreed to the terms outlined in the draft proposal,” Garmella said, indicating that the university submitted a statement of principles to the U.S Department of Education.

Garmella reflected on the university’s decision to reject the compact during the conversation with other presidents on “All Access.”

“The University of Arizona, I believe, demonstrated a serious and a transparent and a constructive approach to this national policy discussion,” Garmella said, adding that the university’s “comprehensive” response to the draft proposal “reflected our commitment to academic excellence, to accountability, to meaningful engagement.”

ABC News’ Arthur Jones II and Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) —  The Senate on Thursday failed to advance two competing health care proposals aimed at addressing a spike in costs that are expected for tens of millions of Americans who receive enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits.

Both plans, one put forward by Democrats and the other championed by Republicans, failed to get the 60 votes needed.

Now, lawmakers will have only a matter of days remaining to address the expiration of the enhanced tax credits, and there’s little indication that any sort of breakthrough is on the horizon.

Here’s what the plans entailed.

Democratic plan: 3-year extension of expiring enhanced tax credits

The Democratic plan proposed a three-year extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are otherwise set to expire on Jan. 1. The enhanced subsidies were originally put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During remarks on the floor Wednesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Democratic plan the “only realistic path left” to address the looming premium spike.

“We have 21 days until Jan. 1. After that, people’s health care bills will start going through the roof. Double, triple, even more,” Schumer said. “There is only one way to avoid all of this. The only realistic path left is what Democrats are proposing — a clean direct extension of this urgent tax credit.”

Even though Democrats are in the minority, they got a vote on their proposal as part of a deal struck by a small group of Senate moderates to reopen the federal government after a 43-day shutdown, which centered around Democrats’ efforts to address the expiring tax credits.

“What we need to do is prevent premiums from skyrocketing and only our bill does it is the last train out of the station,” Schumer said.

But Majority Leader John Thune made clear Wednesday that Republicans would not support the Democratic plan.

Thune called the Democratic proposal a “partisan messaging exercise” and said that Democrats’ claim that their plan would lower health care costs represented a “tour of fantasy land.”

Republicans have for months been saying that the premium subsidies require reform. Without changes, Republicans say, the enhanced subsidies create opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse and have driven up the overall cost of premiums.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate Democrats’ proposal would add nearly $83 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. CBO also estimates that enacting the Democrats’ legislation would increase the number of people with health insurance by 8.5 million people by 2029.

Pointing to the cost of extending the subsidies, Thune said Democrats ought to put forward a program that makes modifications to the program.

“That’s not what they did … No changes,” Thune said. “Just continue to run up the cost. Run up the cost in the individual marketplace like that — but have the American taxpayers pay for it and then go tell people that you’re trying to keep their premiums down,” Thune said. “This does nothing, nothing, to lower the cost of health insurance.”

Republican plan: Do away with the enhanced tax credits and create HSAs

Republicans offered an “alternative” plan on the Senate floor on Thursday.

The Republican proposal, championed by Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, would do away with the enhanced tax credits and instead take the extra money from those tax credits and put it into health savings accounts for those who purchase bronze-level or “catastrophic” plans on the ACA exchanges. Republicans say this will help Americans pay for out-of-pocket costs.

Under the plan, individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 in HSA funding for those between age 18 and 49 and $1,500 for those age 50-64. Republicans say these funds could be used to help cover the higher deductibles on lower cost plans.

Republicans said that their plan will reduce premiums through cost-sharing reductions and tout that the plan stops payments to insurance companies. Thune called it a “very different business model” than what Democrats proposed.

“The question is do you want the government deciding this, ordo you want to put this power and these resources in the hands of the American people?” Thune said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “American taxpayers. Patients. That’ what we’re about.”

Schumer had called it “dead on arrival.”

“I want to be very clear about what this Republican bill represents, junk insurance,” Schumer said. “Let me tell my Republican colleagues: it is dead on arrival. The proposal does nothing to bring down sky-high premiums; it doesn’t extend the ACA premiums by a single day. Instead, Republicans want to send people $80 dollars and pretend that is going to fix everything.” Schumer said.

Cassidy called Schumer’s categorization of his plan as a “junk plan” “so ironic.”

“These are Obamacare plans. These are the plans they put in place, except that when they did the plans, they’ve got $6,000 deductibles, or $7,500 deductibles. We addressed that deductible. We make these plans better,” Cassidy said. “We Republicans are trying to make it better. We want money in your pocket for your out-of-pocket [costs], and they want you to front the whole thing.”

Democrats also took umbrage with provisions in the GOP bill that prevent funds from being used for abortions. Schumer, on the Senate floor, called it a “poison pill.”

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, was asked if she saw any way that Democrats could support the bill.

“Not with the choice issues in it, where they have made it that women cannot get access to an abortion through their plan,” Murray said. “I don’t see any way that this helps the people that are being hurt right now by the tax credits going away.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is now voting on two separate plans aimed at addressing a spike in health care costs that are expected for tens of millions of Americans who receive enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits unless Congress acts.

Both plans, one put forward by Democrats and the other championed by Republicans, are almost certain to fail.

After they do, lawmakers will have only a matter of days remaining to address the expiration of the enhanced tax credits, and there’s little indication that any sort of breakthrough is on the horizon. 

Democratic plan: 3-year extension of expiring enhanced tax credits

The Democratic plan that will receive a vote on Thursday proposes a three-year extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are otherwise set to expire on Jan. 1. The enhanced subsidies were originally put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During remarks on the floor Wednesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Democratic plan the “only realistic path left” to address the looming premium spike. 

“We have 21 days until Jan. 1. After that, people’s health care bills will start going through the roof. Double, triple, even more,” Schumer said. “There is only one way to avoid all of this. The only realistic path left is what Democrats are proposing — a clean direct extension of this urgent tax credit.”

Even though Democrats are in the minority, they are getting a vote on their proposal, as part of a deal struck by a small group of Senate moderates to re-open the federal government after a 43-day shutdown, which centered around Democrats’ efforts to address the expiring tax credits.

“What we need to do is prevent premiums from skyrocketing and only our bill does it is the last train out of the station,” Schumer said. 

But any health care proposal in the Senate will require 60 votes to pass, which means members of both parties would need to lend votes to approve a plan. 

Majority Leader John Thune made clear Wednesday that Republicans will not support the Democratic plan. 

Thune called the Democratic proposal a “partisan messaging exercise” and said that Democrats’ claim that their plan would lower health care costs represented a “tour of fantasy land.”

Republicans have for months been saying that the premium subsidies require reform. Without changes, Republicans say, the enhanced subsidies create opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse and have driven up the overall cost of premiums.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate Democrats’ proposal would add nearly $83 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. CBO also estimates that enacting the Democrats’ legislation would increase the number of people with health insurance by 8.5 million people by 2029.

Pointing to the cost of extending the subsidies, Thune said, Democrats ought to put forward a program that makes modifications to the program. 

“That’s not what they did … No changes,” Thune said. “Just continue to run up the cost. Run up the cost in the individual marketplace like that — but have the American taxpayers pay for it and then go tell people that you’re trying to keep their premiums down,” Thune said. “This does nothing, nothing, to lower the cost of health insurance.” 

Republican plan: Do away with the enhanced tax credits and create HSAs

Republicans will offer an “alternative” plan on the Senate floor on Thursday.

The Republican proposal, championed by Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, would do away with the enhanced tax credits and instead take the extra money from those tax credits and put it into health savings accounts for those who purchase bronze-level or “catastrophic” plans on the ACA exchanges. Republicans say this will help Americans pay for out-of-pocket costs.

Under the plan, individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 in HSA funding for those between age 18 and 49 and $1,500 for those age 50-64. Republicans say these funds could be used to help cover the higher deductibles on lower cost plans. 

Republicans say that their plan will reduce premiums through cost-sharing reductions and tout that the plan stops payments to insurance companies. Thune called it a “very different business model” than what Democrats are proposing. 

“The question is do you want the government deciding this, ordo you want to put this power and these resources in the hands of the American people?” Thune said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “American taxpayers. Patients. That’ what we’re about.“

This bill is also unlikely to pass the Senate on Thursday. Schumer called it “dead on arrival”.

“I want to be very clear about what this Republican bill represents, junk insurance,” Schumer said. “Let me tell my Republican colleagues: it is dead on arrival. The proposal does nothing to bring down sky-high premiums; it doesn’t extend the ACA premiums by a single day. Instead, Republicans want to send people $80 dollars and pretend that is going to fix everything.” Schumer said. 

Cassidy this morning called Schumer’s categorization of his plan as a “junk plan” “so ironic.”

“These are Obamacare plans. These are the plans they put in place, except that when they did the plans, they’ve got $6,000 deductibles, or $7,500 deductibles. We addressed that deductible. We make these plans better,” Cassidy said. “We Republicans are trying to make it better. We want money in your pocket for your out-of-pocket [costs], and they want you to front the whole thing.”

Democrats also take umbrage with provisions in the GOP bill that prevent funds from being used for abortions. Schumer, on the Senate floor, called it a “poison pill.”

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, was asked if she saw any way that Democrats could support the bill today.

“Not with the choice issues in it, where they have made it that women cannot get access to an abortion through their plan,” Murray said. “I don’t see any way that this helps the people that are being hurt right now by the tax credits going away.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is poised to vote on Thursday on two separate plans aimed at addressing a spike in health care costs that are expected for tens of millions of Americans who receive enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits unless Congress acts.

Both plans, one put forward by Democrats and the other championed by Republicans, are almost certain to fail.

After they do, lawmakers will have only a matter of days remaining to address the expiration of the enhanced tax credits, and there’s little indication that any sort of breakthrough is on the horizon.

Democratic plan: 3-year extension of expiring enhanced tax credits

The Democratic plan that will receive a vote on Thursday proposes a three-year extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are otherwise set to expire on Jan. 1. The enhanced subsidies were originally put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During remarks on the floor Wednesday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the Democratic plan the “only realistic path left” to address the looming premium spike. 

“We have 21 days until Jan. 1. After that, people’s health care bills will start going through the roof. Double, triple, even more,” Schumer said. “There is only one way to avoid all of this. The only realistic path left is what Democrats are proposing — a clean direct extension of this urgent tax credit.”

Even though Democrats are in the minority, they are getting a vote on their proposal, as part of a deal struck by a small group of Senate moderates to re-open the federal government after a 43-day shutdown, which centered around Democrats’ efforts to address the expiring tax credits.

“What we need to do is prevent premiums from skyrocketing and only our bill does it is the last train out of the station,” Schumer said.

But any health care proposal in the Senate will require 60 votes to pass, which means members of both parties would need to lend votes to approve a plan.

Majority Leader John Thune made clear Wednesday that Republicans will not support the Democratic plan. 

Thune called the Democratic proposal a “partisan messaging exercise” and said that Democrats’ claim that their plan would lower health care costs represented a “tour of fantasy land.”

Republicans have for months been saying that the premium subsidies require reform. Without changes, Republicans say, the enhanced subsidies create opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse and have driven up the overall cost of premiums.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate Democrats’ proposal would add nearly $83 billion to the federal deficit over the next decade. CBO also estimates that enacting the Democrats’ legislation would increase the number of people with health insurance by 8.5 million people by 2029.

Pointing to the cost of extending the subsidies, Thune said, Democrats ought to put forward a program that makes modifications to the program.

“That’s not what they did … No changes,” Thune said. “Just continue to run up the cost. Run up the cost in the individual marketplace like that — but have the American taxpayers pay for it and then go tell people that you’re trying to keep their premiums down,” Thune said. “This does nothing, nothing, to lower the cost of health insurance.” 

Republican plan: Do away with the enhanced tax credits and create HSAs

Republicans will offer an “alternative” plan on the Senate floor on Thursday.

The Republican proposal, championed by Senate Health Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, would do away with the enhanced tax credits and instead take the extra money from those tax credits and put it into health savings accounts for those who purchase bronze-level or “catastrophic” plans on the ACA exchanges. Republicans say this will help Americans pay for out-of-pocket costs.

Under the plan, individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level would receive $1,000 in HSA funding for those between age 18 and 49 and $1,500 for those age 50-64. Republicans say these funds could be used to help cover the higher deductibles on lower cost plans. 

Republicans say that their plan will reduce premiums through cost-sharing reductions and tout that the plan stops payments to insurance companies. Thune called it a “very different business model” than what Democrats are proposing.

“The question is do you want the government deciding this, ordo you want to put this power and these resources in the hands of the American people?” Thune said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “American taxpayers. Patients. That’ what we’re about.”

This bill is also unlikely to pass the Senate on Thursday. Schumer called it “dead on arrival”.

“I want to be very clear about what this Republican bill represents, junk insurance,” Schumer said. “Let me tell my Republican colleagues: it is dead on arrival. The proposal does nothing to bring down sky-high premiums; it doesn’t extend the ACA premiums by a single day. Instead, Republicans want to send people $80 dollars and pretend that is going to fix everything.” Schumer said.

Cassidy this morning called Schumer’s categorization of his plan as a “junk plan” “so ironic.”

“These are Obamacare plans. These are the plans they put in place, except that when they did the plans, they’ve got $6,000 deductibles, or $7,500 deductibles. We addressed that deductible. We make these plans better,” Cassidy said. “We Republicans are trying to make it better. We want money in your pocket for your out-of-pocket [costs], and they want you to front the whole thing.”

Democrats also take umbrage with provisions in the GOP bill that prevent funds from being used for abortions. Schumer, on the Senate floor, called it a “poison pill.”

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee, was asked if she saw any way that Democrats could support the bill today.

“Not with the choice issues in it, where they have made it that women cannot get access to an abortion through their plan,” Murray said. “I don’t see any way that this helps the people that are being hurt right now by the tax credits going away.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — There’s a new serif in town!

The Calibri font is going the way of the typewriter at the State Department after Secretary of State Marco Rubio inked a memo mandating that the agency use only Times New Roman for official communications – and size 14 to boot, according to a department official.

The new directive, which was sent to all diplomats, is the latest action by the Trump administration to roll back diversity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The change is effective immediately, according to the directive.

Two years ago, Rubio’s predecessor, Antony Blinken, switched the State Department font to Calibri, on the recommendation of the State Department’s office of diversity and inclusion, in part to assist individuals with certain visual disabilities, such as low vision and dyslexia.

“Switching to Calibri achieved nothing except the degradation of the department’s official correspondence,” Rubio wrote in an “action request,” first obtained by Reuters and The New York Times.

The Times New Roman typeface “aligns with the President’s One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations directive, underscoring the Department’s responsibility to present a unified, professional voice in all communications,” according to the State Department official, who said Times New Roman is considered more “formal and professional.”

“To restore decorum and professionalism to the Department’s written work products and abolish yet another wasteful DEIA [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility] program, the Department is returning to Times New Roman as its standard typeface,” Rubio wrote in the memo. 

Rubio noted that Times New Roman had been the department’s official typeface for nearly 20 years, until the 2023 change.

State Department employees are expected to use Times New Roman for internal memoranda, papers prepared for principals, or documents shared externally, because the State Department leadership believes “consistent formatting strengthens credibility and supports a unified Department identity,” according to the directive.

Serif typefaces, which include Times New Roman, remain the standard in courts, legislatures and across federal agencies where the permanence and authority of the written record are paramount, the directive said.

“Aligning the Department’s practice with this standard ensures our communications reflect the same dignity, consistency, and formality expected in official government correspondence,” the State Department official said.

Molly Eagan, the CEO of VISIONS, a nonprofit that advocates for services to help the visually impaired, said in a statement to ABC News that font choices are crucial to accessibility.

“The State Department’s decision to move away from Calibri may seem minor, but for many people with vision impairment (myself included), readability is not a small detail – it’s essential. Calibri and other sans-serif fonts are widely recommended because they are easier to read for people with visual impairments,” Eagan said.

“At VISIONS, a nonprofit serving people who are blind or visually impaired across New York for nearly a century, we see every day how simple choices – like font, spacing, contrast, and layout – directly affect whether information is truly usable. This change is a reminder of why accessibility should remain a core consideration in all public communication,” Eagan added.

ABC News’ Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. has seized a tanker off the coast of Venezuela, President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday, amid escalating tensions between the administration and the South American nation.

“It’s been a very interesting day, from the standpoint of news. As you probably know, we’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela,” Trump said as he kicked off a roundtable event at the White House.

“Large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually. And other things are happening, so you’ll be seeing that later and you’ll be talking about that later with some other people,” Trump continued.

The oil tanker that was seized is referred to as a VLCC, or Very Large Crude Carrier, two sources told ABC News. VLCC’s are large oil tankers and can carry up to around 2 million barrels of oil.

The vessel was bound for Cuba, the sources said. The U.S. Coast Guard conducted the seizure, according to two sources.

Trump stayed mum when pressed for more details on the tanker during the roundtable event, but claimed it happened for “very good reason” and that photos would be released later.

When asked what happens to the oil on the ship, Trump said that the U.S. will likely keep it. Pressed further on who owns the tanker, Trump declined to respond.

Venezuela has the largest known oil reserves in the world, and oil exports are the government’s main source of revenue.

The U.S. hadn’t overtly interfered in oil exports during its pressure campaign on Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro’s regime until now.

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is dropping his end of a bipartisan probe into the military’s Sept. 2 strike that killed two survivors in the Caribbean, his spokesperson said Wednesday.

“The video and classified briefings from the Pentagon were sufficient to convince Chairman Rogers that this was a legal action,” the spokesperson told ABC News in an email. “He’s also been clear that this information needs to be shared with the rest of HASC’s members, and we expect that to happen next week.”

Rogers was among a group of lawmakers who viewed the video of the second strike during a classified briefing.

The spokesperson added that Rogers’ decision was not arbitrary.

“He sought and received the information needed and wants our members to have access to that too,” the spokesperson said.

Rogers’ decision to end his part in the congressional inquiry came after he talked privately on Tuesday with Adm. Alvin Holsey, the top commander of U.S. Southern Command who announced he plans to retire after less than a year on the job. A Pentagon official told ABC News that Holsey was “asked to retire on good terms.”

Rogers also was among those who viewed the video of the second strike during a classified briefing.

Rogers’ decision does not put an end to congressional questions into the incident, as Democrats and now several Senate Republicans are calling on the administration to release the full video of the Sept. 2 strike on an alleged drug boat.

Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the committee, last month previously promised “vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances.”

Wicker has notably been more willing to challenge the Pentagon’s handling of several issues than most Republicans, including military aid to Ukraine.

Wicker’s spokesman did not respond to questions about where the inquiry stands. 

Reed told ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Selina Wang earlier this week that he still has major questions about the Sept. 2 strike, and that the Trump administration is refusing to provide answers. Reed is calling for the video of the strike to be declassified and made public.

“I think anybody who saw that video would be quite disturbed about it,” Reed said.

Lawmakers say that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told them behind closed doors on Tuesday that he’s still reviewing whether he can release video of the strike without compromising classified information.

Democrats said that didn’t make sense because Hegseth was willing to release video of the initial strike, which was posted to President Donald Trump’s Truth Social account. 

Trump on Monday backtracked on releasing the video of the Sept. 2 strike that killed two survivors as he attempted to distance himself from the controversy.

Politico first reported Rogers’ intention on Tuesday. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MIAMI) —  Eileen Higgins, the Democratic former Miami-Dade county commissioner set to become Miami’s next mayor after prevailing in Tuesday night’s runoff election, achieved political milestones for the city with her victory.

Higgins will become the city’s first woman to serve as mayor. She also flipped the position in the major Florida city to Democratic control after it was in Republican or independent hands for almost three decades.

“Tonight, our city chose a new direction,” Higgins told supporters on Tuesday night.

The win marks another win for Democrats after a spate of election victories in November and a closer-than-expected special congressional election in Tennessee earlier this month.

She prevailed in the majority-Hispanic city amid concerns among Democrats over losing support among Latino voters in last year’s elections.

Higgins, in an interview with ABC News on Monday, said that she has served a Republican-leaning district for years as a “proud Democrat” and that she knows she could only win if Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike turn out for her.

But that does not mean she would check her Democratic affiliation at the door.

“People know I serve in a nonpartisan race, but I bring my Democratic values with me. … I’m proud to be a Democrat, but the people here know I’m going to serve everybody. I always have and I always will,” Higgins told ABC News.

One of her main focuses was on affordability, particularly as it pertains to housing, building on an issue that has been top of mind for voters nationwide in many polls and one that Democratic candidates, such as New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, honed in on in their own races.

She also campaigned on improving public transit and infrastructure, which ties into one area where she believes she will be able to work with the White House. Asked if there’s anywhere she can see herself collaborating or working with the Trump administration, Higgins said she has worked with senior administration officials across both of President Donald Trump’s terms, particularly on infrastructure.

“And I think we can find areas where we can collaborate together. … when it comes to things that matter to our community, I’m open to working with anyone on any party, and I have a proven track record of working with whoever’s in the White House, both during President Trump’s first term, his second term, and then, of course, working well with President Biden when he was president as well,” Higgins said.

Asked about where she might clash with the president or advocate for a different approach, Higgins said, “For me, the treatment of immigrants is front and center.”

She brought up how a significant amount of Miami-Dade County residents are immigrants covered under Temporary Protected Status, a program meant to safeguard immigrants from some countries from deportations. The administration has repeatedly attempted to end protections for immigrants enrolled in the program, including Venezuelans, claiming it is no longer in the national interest to continue offering protections..

“The federal government has said they are going to remove protections for all of those people, and they just have done that for Venezuelans. I fear for the economy of Florida, should that happen. And I hope and will continue to advocate for change in direction so that we can move forward as one of the strongest economies in the world,” Higgins said.

She faced off against Republican candidate and former City Manager Emilio Gonzales. While the race was technically nonpartisan, campaigning fell along partisan lines to an extent.

The national Democratic Party also lent Higgins support by making calls and recruiting volunteers. Trump, meanwhile, posted on social media on Sunday, “Vote for Republican Gonzalez. He is FANTASTIC!”

The election also came after a judge ruled earlier this year that city officials could not push elections back to 2026 without voter approval, after the Miami city council voted, and Miami Mayor Francis Suarez signed off, on canceling November’s elections and holding them in 2026 instead.

They had argued the alignment with statewide elections would lower costs and increase turnout, but the decision was met with pushback for being done via ordinance rather than a vote from the public.

Gonzales, who had sued the mayor and council, told ABC affiliate ABC Miami on Tuesday night, “Listen, I feel great. I have to feel great. Obviously I don’t like the result, but you know what? Bigger issue: we had an election. Six months ago, we weren’t sure we were going to have an election … we need to all do everything we can to make sure that [Higgins] succeeds, because if she succeeds, our city will succeed.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.