Politics

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump vowed this week to rid Washington, D.C., of homeless encampments, issuing a warning that the “homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY.” Though what those plans will look like, including where people will go, is unclear, sparking concerns among advocacy groups.

While previewing an announcement regarding D.C., Trump told those experiencing homelessness in a social media post on Sunday, “We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.”

In his remarks the following day, Trump said that the federal government will be “removing homeless encampments from all over our parks” in D.C. as part of an effort to “rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.”

“There are many places that they can go, and we’re going to help them as much as you can help. But they’ll not be allowed to turn our capital into a wasteland for the world to see,” Trump said during a press briefing on Monday while announcing plans for the federal government to take over the D.C. police department and deploy National Guard troops in D.C.

Dismantling homeless encampments is not a new practice in D.C. for either the Trump administration or local government, Dana White, the advocacy director for Miriam’s Kitchen, a nonprofit focused on ending chronic homelessness in D.C., told ABC News.

“What is particularly startling is the vague language about removing them from the district altogether, without any details about where they would go, who would transport them, how that’s funded, what that means for their human and civil rights,” White said of Trump’s recent remarks.

Donald Whitehead Jr., executive director of the D.C.-based National Coalition for the Homeless, said that though Trump mentioned homelessness during Monday’s press conference several times, there was “no concrete information about how to address the issue,” such as resources that would be developed to address the issue in a non-punitive matter, or where people will be moved.

“Our question is, is this the same solution that we’ve seen with the immigration population? Are people just going to be moved to remote destinations?” he said.

“Really, for a homeless advocate, it was really an information-less press conference,” Whitehead said. “It points to it being more of a stunt than an actual conference about solutions to homelessness.”

The two executive orders issued Monday, which were the focus of Trump’s press briefing, did not specifically mention homelessness.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told reporters Monday that her office has not gotten any more details from the White House but will be following up with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“We really haven’t gotten any more detail about the plan, about the words that he said,” she said during a press briefing Monday afternoon when asked about Trump’s remarks on homelessness. “It wasn’t referenced in the executive order that came down.”

“I believe he had a previous executive order that also identified Attorney General Bondi as a point of contact as it relates to homelessness and such, so we’ll follow up with her,” Bowser continued.

On any given night in D.C., there are 798 unhoused people on the street, according to the Community Partnership, a nonprofit working to prevent homelessness in D.C.

In March, Trump issued an executive order for the removal of homeless encampments on federal land within D.C. Since then, the U.S. Park Police have removed over 70 homeless camps, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said Monday.

Last month, Trump also signed an executive order seeking to make it easier for cities and states to remove homeless people from the streets and into treatment centers by reversing judicial precedents and ending consent decrees. It also looks to redirect federal funds toward programs that tackle substance abuse and targets “housing first” policies, which prioritize permanent housing as the first step in addressing homelessness.

The orders have been met with pushback from homeless advocates, who contend that permanent, affordable housing with supportive services is a proven solution for chronically homeless people, and that dismantling homeless encampments is a counterproductive strategy to resolving homelessness.

“When we clear encampments, we disconnect people from the services they need to survive and to start the process of being housed, and often disconnects them from their belongings and from the communities that they formed in encampments,” White said.

Without affordable housing, people will most likely pop up in a new camp, he and Whitehead said.

“They’re basically moved from one site to another because there’s not enough shelter beds to meet the needs of the population in D.C.,” Whitehead said. “They don’t have a place to go. There isn’t enough shelter. There certainly isn’t enough housing.”

According to D.C.’s most recent census of people experiencing homelessness, released in May, there was an overall 9% decrease in homelessness in 2025 from the previous year, including an 18.1% decrease among families and a 4.5% decrease among single individuals.

White said Miriam’s Kitchen is working to make sure that single adults experiencing chronic homelessness are prioritized in funding and policy.

“It’s certainly a more tense environment, because folks who are unhoused and housing advocates alike don’t really know what to expect from this administration,” he said. “We’re just going to try to continue to provide our services as usual and prepare to respond rapidly as needed.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump announced Monday that he is putting Washington, D.C. police “under direct federal control” — invoking Section 740 of D.C.’s Home Rule Act, which deals with control of the city’s police force.

“We’re taking it back. Under the authorities vested in me as the President of the United States, I’m officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. You know what that is — and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,” Trump said.

Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has not yet publicly commented on Trump’s announcement. ABC News has reached out to Bowser as well as the Metropolitan Police Department for comment.

D.C.’s Home Rule Act of 1973 allows D.C. residents to elect a mayor, members of D.C. Council and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners. The act “is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,” according to D.C. Council.

Still, under the act, there is congressional oversight. Congress reviews all legislation passed the D.C. city council before it can become law and has authority over D.C.’s budget. Additionally, the president appoints D.C.’s judges and D.C. has no voting representation in Congress.

Section 740 of the Home Rule Act gives the president the ability to use D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department for “federal purposes” that the president “may deem necessary and appropriate.” On Monday, Trump said Attorney General Pam Bondi is taking command of D.C.’s police force.

Section 740 of the DC Home Rule Act does have some limitations. The emergency control will expire in 30 days, unless the Senate and House enact into law a joint resolution to extend it.

Asked about the 30-day timeframe on ABC News Live, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said the president has sent a “real clear message” about the direction he wants to take D.C.

“I think at the end of 30 days he will make the right decision as to what he is going to do at that point going forward,” she said.

Trump has long threatened to take control of D.C., saying he wants to crack down on violent crime in the district although police statistics show that in the past two years, violent crime in Washington, D.C., has fallen dramatically.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton — the non-voting delegate to the House of Representatives from Washington, D.C. — called Trump’s decision “an egregious assault on D.C. home rule.”

“There are more than 700,000 D.C. residents, and they are worthy and capable of governing themselves,” Norton said in a statement Monday. “The ultimate solution to ensure D.C. has control of its own resources is passage of my D.C. statehood bill, which would provide D.C. the same protections the states enjoy.”

She says the move helps justify the need to pass legislation she has repeatedly reintroduced to establish statehood in the District of Columbia.

On Capitol Hill, many Democrats have said the moves are a power grab by the president and a distraction from other matters, such as Trump’s involvement with the Jeffrey Epstein files.

“Violent crime in Washington, D.C. is at a thirty-year low. Donald Trump has no basis to take over the local police department. And zero credibility on the issue of law and order. Get lost,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote in a post on X.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said in a post on X that “Trump’s decision to take over the DC police isn’t about public safety” and is “another attempt to distract from Trump’s corruption and suppress dissent.”

In a post on X, Democratic Sen. Tina Smith wrote, “WHAT THE HECK IS IN THOSE FILES?!” — a reference to the Epstein files — accompanied by a video of Trump in the briefing room for his announcement.

Republicans have lauded the announcement, claiming that Trump is “making D.C. safe again.”

“President Trump is RIGHT. We can’t allow crime to destroy our Nation’s Capital,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a post on X. “Every American should be able to visit and enjoy Washington, D.C. without fear. House Republicans support this effort to CLEAN UP Washington, END the crime wave, and RESTORE the beauty of the greatest capital in the world.”

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley applauded Trump’s decision, saying on X, “Make DC beautiful — and SAFE — again!”

ABC News’ Jack Date, Isabella Murray and John Parkinson contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday confirmed he and his administration are considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug.

Trump told reporters that it was early in the process but that he hoped to make a decision on the matter within the coming weeks.

“We’re looking at reclassification and we’ll make a determination over the next — I would say over the next few weeks, and that determination hopefully will be the right one. It’s very complicated subject,” Trump said as he held a news conference in the White House briefing room.

Trump was in the briefing room to announce a federal takeover of Washington’s police force and deployment of the National Guard to deal, he said, with the city’s crime and homelessness. He was asked at the news conference if reclassifying marijuana would send mixed messages as his administration says it wants to “clean up” crime in the nation’s capital and potentially other cities.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that Trump was weighing rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 3 drug.

Classified as a Schedule 1 drug, marijuana is listed alongside heroin and LSD as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

By contrast, Schedule 3 drugs are define as those with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” and include ketamine, anabolic steroids and testosterone.

During the final year of the Biden administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration said it supported recommending the reclassification of marijuana.

Reclassifying marijuana would allow for more research into the drug and provide tax benefits to the cannabis industry.

Trump on Monday said he’s heard good and bad things regarding the drug.

“I’ve heard great things having to do with medical, and I’ve had bad things having to do with just about everything else. But medical, and, you know, for pain and various things,” Trump said.

“Some people like it, some people hate it,” the president said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday previewed his highly-anticipated meeting with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, saying he’s hopeful for “constructive conversations” but that it isn’t up to him to make a peace deal.

Trump confirmed last week he would sit down with Putin in Alaska as his imposed deadline for Moscow to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine came and went. No exact time or specific venue has been announced for Friday’s summit.

“This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit,” Trump told reporters in the White House briefing room, where he held a news conference on a federal takeover of Washington’s police force and deployment of the National Guard to deal, he said, with the city’s crime and homelessness.

“I think if it weren’t for me, he would not be even talking to anybody else right now,” Trump said of Putin. At the same time, Trump downplayed the idea that Friday’s talks will result in an end to the war in Ukraine.

“We’re going to see what the parameters are, and then I’m going to call up President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy and the European leaders right after the meeting,” Trump added. “And I’m going to tell them what kind of a deal — I’m not going to make a deal. It’s not up to me to make a deal.”

Trump said Zelenskyy wasn’t invited to be part of Friday’s meeting, but that he’d call the Ukrainian leader first after to relay what was discussed. He said if there’s a “fair deal” that he would reveal it to Zelenskyy and European leaders.

“And I may say, ‘Lots of luck, keep fighting’ or I may say, ‘We can make a deal,'” Trump said.

When asked by Trump how he’ll know whether a deal can be made, Trump responded: “Because that’s what I do. I make deals.”

Trump declined to share specifics on what he would consider a fair agreement between Ukraine and Russia, but again suggested that there would be “some land swapping.”

Trump said his goal was to set up a next meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin or between himself, Zelenskyy and Putin.

“I’ll be there if they need, but I want to have a meeting set up between the two leaders,” Trump said.

Friday’s meeting will mark the first time Putin will be in the U.S. since 2015. Trump on Monday mistakenly said he was “going to Russia” as he discussed the summit, though he also praised the fact that Putin is coming to the U.S. rather than the other way around.

“I thought it was very respectful that the president of Russia is coming to our country as opposed to us going to his country or even a third party place,” Trump said. “But I think we’ll have constructive conversations.”

Trump on Monday continued to express frustration with Putin and Zelenskyy, and again claimed the war wouldn’t have started if he were president. Trump had repeatedly claimed on the campaign trail that he would end the war within his first 24 hours in office, which he later said was an exaggeration. He described the yearslong conflict as “complex” with a “lot of bad blood” but that he would press Putin to pursue peace.

“I am going in to speak to Vladimir Putin and I will be telling him, ‘You have to end this war. You have to end it.’ And he wasn’t going to mess with me. This war would have never happened,” Trump said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — The battle over potential mid-decade redistricting in Texas — where the state’s congressional district lines could be redrawn well ahead of the upcoming census — continued Monday as dozens of Texas House Democrats remained out of state for a second week to block any potential votes on the map.

In Austin, the Texas House of Representatives is scheduled to meet and the redistricting bill is technically scheduled for a second reading (which would not be a vote to pass it out of the chamber). But this cannot happen without a quorum present; Republican legislators may try for another roll call vote to see if they still do not have a quorum.

The Texas Senate is also scheduled to meet and may vote on its own version of redistricting legislation, although if it votes the bill out of the Senate it cannot be voted on in the House until there is a quorum.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, separately, escalated legal efforts last week to get Democrats back to Texas or investigate who is funding their efforts.

Abbott has also said he will call special legislative session after special session to get the Republican-supported maps passed, even if Democrats run out the 30-day clock on the current session.

“I’m authorized to call a special session every 30 days. It lasts 30 days, and as soon as this one is over, I’m going to call another one, then another one, then another one, then another one. If they show back up in the state of Texas, they will be arrested and taken to the Capitol,” he told Fox News in an interview on Sunday.

“If they want to evade that arrest, they’re going to stay outside of the state of Texas for literally years, and they might as well just start voting in California or voting in Illinois, wherever they may be,” he continued.

But Democrats are also going on the offensive. Eric Holder, a former attorney general and current chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, is set to speak about redistricting with U.S. House Democrats on Wednesday.

In California, legislators have said they expect to unveil proposed new congressional maps this week that would possibly go in front of voters for approval in a special election in November. But running a statewide election with relatively little notice will be a challenge, the Secretary of State’s office has said.

On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom sent a letter to Trump saying it would drop its potential plans if other states would do the same.

“You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make,” Newsom wrote. Separately, governors in Florida, Indiana, and Missouri have indicated interest in potential mid-decade redistricting.

Some of the Texas House Democrats who have broken quorum will be appearing at pressers in Illinois on Monday excoriating the continued efforts to redraw the maps.

During an interview with NBC News on Sunday, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker took pride in housing Texas Democrats, calling President Donald Trump a ‘cheater.’

“[Republicans] know that they’re going to lose in 2026, the congress, and so they’re trying to steal seats, and so that is what these Texas Democrats are trying to stand up against and then don’t forget. The map that they put together, it violates the voting rights act and it violates the constitution,” Pritzker said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump is holding a news conference Monday to reveal plans he’s said “will, essentially, stop violent crime in Washington, D.C.”

“We’re here for a very serious purpose. Very serious, very,” Trump said. “Something’s out of control. But we’re going to put it in control very quickly, like we did in the southern border. I’m announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor. And worse, this is Liberation Day in DC, and we’re going to take our capital back.”

He said he was declaring a public safety emergency, putting the Washington, D.C., police department under federal control and deploying the National Guard.

“I’m announcing a historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse. This is Liberation Day in D.C., and we’re going to take our capital back,” he said.

The president promoted the news conference in multiple posts on his social media platform and on Sunday posted that it would “also be about Cleanliness and the General Physical Renovation and Condition of our once beautiful and well maintained Capital.”

In a separate post, Trump said the homeless should leave D.C., accompanied by photos of homeless encampments along his route from the White House to his golf club in Sterling, Virginia.

“The Homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” Trump wrote. “The Criminals, you don’t have to move out. We’re going to put you in jail where you belong.”

The news conference comes after Trump last week ordered an increase in law enforcement as part of an executive order he signed in March to “Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.”

Contrary to the president’s claim, preliminary year-to-date crime comparisons from Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department show that overall crime in D.C. has decreased by 7% since last year, with violent crime down 26% and property crime reduced by 5%.

A White House official said the law enforcement effort a “whole of government approach to improve overall public safety” and said that law enforcement will “be focused on high traffic tourist areas and other known hotspots.”

The official added that federal officers “will be identified, in marked units, and highly visible.”

Trump said Sunday that he has given D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser an opportunity to reduce crime rates but she has failed to do that.

“The Mayor of D.C., Muriel Bowser, is a good person who has tried, but she has been given many chances, and the Crime Numbers get worse, and the City only gets dirtier and less attractive. The American Public is not going to put up with it any longer,” he claimed.

Bowser said Sunday that Washington has spent the last two years driving down violent crime, “driving it down to a 30 year low, in fact.”

“It is true that we had a terrible spike in crime in 2023, but this is not 2023, this is 2025 and we’ve done that by working with the community, working with the police, working with our prosecutors, and, in fact, working with the federal government,” Bowser told MSNBC.

On Saturday, Trump said the nation’s capital has become “one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the World.”

Last week he threatened to deploy the National Guard to D.C. and, as he has on several occasions since he was inaugurated in January, suggested that there should be a federal takeover.

That call came after Edward Coristine, a former Department of Government Efficiency employee, was beaten after he tried to break up a carjacking in D.C.

“So whether you call it federalize or what. And that also includes the graffiti that you see, the papers all over the place, the roads that are in bad shape, the medians that are falling down, the median in between roads, it’s falling down,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

“We’re going to beautify the city. We’re going to make it beautiful. And, what a shame. Rate of crime, the rate of muggings, killings and everything else. We’re not going to let it. And that includes bringing in the National Guard, maybe very quickly.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement last week, “Washington, DC is an amazing city, but it has been plagued by violent crime for far too long. President Trump has directed an increased presence of federal law enforcement to protect innocent citizens. There will be no safe harbor for violent criminals in D.C. President Trump is committed to making our Nation’s capital safer for its residents, lawmakers, and visitors from all around the world.”

The seven-day law enforcement effort is being led by the U.S. Park Police but includes personnel from the Metro Transit Police Department, Amtrak Police Department, United States Capitol Police, Washington’s Metro Police Department, Homeland Security Investigations, Federal Protective Service, Enforcement and Removal Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, United States Marshals Service, United States Attorney’s Office-District of Columbia, Department of Interior, Pre-Trial Services Agency, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the White House official said.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision.

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees.

In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses.

More fundamentally, she claims the high court’s decision in Obergefell v Hodges — extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment’s due process protections — was “egregiously wrong.”

“The mistake must be corrected,” wrote Davis’ attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell “legal fiction.”

The petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent.

“If there ever was a case of exceptional importance,” Staver wrote, “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

Lower courts have dismissed Davis’ claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot. A federal appeals court panel concluded earlier this year that the former clerk “cannot raise the First Amendment as a defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect.”

Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law.

“Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention,” said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the now-married Kentucky couple that sued Davis for damages, in a statement to ABC News.

A renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent
Davis’ appeal to the Supreme Court comes as conservative opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples pursue a renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent and allow each state to set its own policy.

At the time Obergefell was decided in 2015, 35 states had statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only eight states had enacted laws explicitly allowing the unions.

So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal.

In June, the Southern Baptist Convention — the nation’s largest Protestant Christian denomination — overwhelmingly voted to make “overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God’s design for marriage and family” a top priority.

Support for equal marriage rights softening
While a strong majority of Americans favor equal marriage rights, support appears to have softened in recent years, according to Gallup — 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriages in 2015, rising to 70% support in 2025, but that level has plateaued since 2020.

Among Republicans, support has notably dipped over the past decade, down from 55% in 2021 to 41% this year, Gallup found.

Davis’ petition argues the issue of marriage should be treated the same way the court handled the issue of abortion in its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade. She zeroes in on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in that case, in which he explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell.

The justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote at the time, referring to the landmark decisions dealing with a fundamental right to privacy, due process and equal protection rights.

“It is hard to say where things will go, but this will be a long slog considering how popular same-sex marriage is now,” said Josh Blackman, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law.

Blackman predicts many members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority would want prospective challenges to Obergefell to percolate in lower courts before revisiting the debate.

The court is expected to formally consider Davis’ petition this fall during a private conference when the justices discuss which cases to add to their docket. If the case is accepted, it would likely be scheduled for oral argument next spring and decided by the end of June 2026. The court could also decline the case, allowing a lower court ruling to stand and avoid entirely the request to revisit Obergefell.

“Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too,” said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst and host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions.

“There is no world in which the court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case,” Isgur added. “It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement.”

Ruling wouldn’t invalidate existing marriages
If the ruling were to be overturned at some point in the future, it would not invalidate marriages already performed, legal experts have pointed out. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government and all states to recognize legal marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed in any state — even if there is a future change in the law.

Davis first appealed the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking to have the damages suit against her tossed out, but her petition was rejected. Conservative Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the decision at the time.

“This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them,” Thomas wrote in a statement.

Many LGBTQ advocates say they are apprehensive about the shifting legal and political landscape around marriage rights.

There are an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., including 591,000 that wed after the Supreme Court decision in June 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. Nearly one in five of those married couples is parenting a child under 18.

Since the Obergefell decision, the makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted rightward, now including three appointees of President Donald Trump and a 6-justice conservative supermajority.

Chief Justice John Roberts, among the current members of the court who dissented in Obergefell a decade ago, sharply criticized the ruling at the time as “an act of will, not legal judgment” with “no basis in the Constitution.” He also warned then that it “creates serious questions about religious liberty.”

Davis invoked Roberts’ words in her petition to the high court, hopeful that at least four justices will vote to accept her case and hear arguments next year.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said he will be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, Aug. 15 in Alaska.

“The highly anticipated meeting between myself, as President of the United States of America, and President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, will take place next Friday, August 15, 2025, in the Great State of Alaska. Further details to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he posted on his social media platform.

Earlier, he had hinted at the timing and location, saying, “I think you’ll be very happy.”

“We are going to have a meeting with Russia. We’ll start off with Russia and we’ll announce a location. I think the location will be a very popular one for a lot of reasons. But we’ll be announcing that a little bit later. I just don’t want to do it now because of the importance of what we just did,” Trump said as he hosted the leaders Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House for a peace summit.

Asked if this is Russia’s last chance to achieve piece, Trump responded, “I don’t like using the term ‘last chance.”

“I think my gut instinct really tells me that we have a shot at it. You’ll find that out later on, maybe even today, but we have a shot at it,” he said.

Friday marked the deadline Trump set for Putin to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine or face “secondary sanctions” against countries that buy oil from Russia.

But uncertainty remains as to whether the U.S. will hit Moscow with new economic penalties as focus turns to the one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin. Trump did not comment on the deadline as he took questions from reporters at the White House.

Trump on Thursday was asked directly if his Aug. 8 deadline for Putin to make peace or face consequences still applied.

“It’s gonna be up to him,” the president responded. “We’re going to see what he has to say. It’s gonna be up to him. Very disappointed.”

The White House was pushing for a trilateral summit between Trump, Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, though Trump said Putin meeting with Zelenskyy wasn’t a condition for he and Putin to meet.

Still, Trump said on Friday the Ukrainian president will get “everything he needs.”

“The European leaders want to see peace. President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace. And Zelenskyy wants to see peace,” Trump said.

The president was asked if Zelenskyy will have to give up territory in any deal to end the war, which began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

“We’re looking at that but we’re actually looking to get some back and some swapping. It’s complicated. It’s actually nothing easy, it’s very complicated. But we’re going to get some back, and we’re going to get some switched. There will be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both,” Trump responded.

Zelenskyy said in a statement Saturday, “We are ready, together with President Trump, together with all our partners, to work for a real and, most importantly, lasting peace — a peace that will not collapse because of Moscow’s wishes.”

“The Ukrainian people deserve peace,” Zelenskyy continued. “But all partners must understand what a worthy peace is. This war must be ended, and Russia must end it.”

U.S. Vice President JD Vance on Saturday met with Ukrainian and European officials in the United Kingdom.

In a Saturday evening address, Zelenskyy described the meeting as “constructive” and reiterated his faith in the U.S. and Trump’s ability to end the war.

“The President of the United States has the leverage and the determination,” Zelenskyy said. “Ukraine has supported all of President Trump’s proposals, starting back in February. A ceasefire – all formats have been supported.”

Trump, who once said he could end the Russia-Ukraine war within his first 24 hours in office and touted his personal relationship with Putin, has expressed increasing frustration with the Russian leader.

In mid-July, Trump said he was giving Putin a 50-day ultimatum to stop the fighting. He then moved up the timeline to 10 days, citing his disappointment with Putin.

“I want to be generous, but we just don’t see any progress being made,” Trump said at the time. “I’m not so interested in talking anymore. He talks, we have such nice conversations, such respectful and nice conversations, and then people die the following night in a — with a missile going into a town and hitting.”

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated last week when Trump announced he was moving nuclear submarines in response to what he called “highly provocative statements” from the deputy chair of Russia’s security council, Dmitry Medvedev.

Medvedev, also the former president of Russia, had sounded off on Trump’s ceasefire deadline, writing on social media that “each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.”

While Trump said the nuclear submarines would be moved in response, he and the White House would not specify what capabilities the submarines have or other questions surrounding the announcement.

Earlier this week, Trump indirectly upped the pressure on Russia by doubling his tariff rate against India over India’s imports of Russian oil.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(AUSTIN, Texas) — Texas Democrats on Friday again defied Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and the state GOP and did not show for a vote on a Republican-proposed redistricting plan

Shortly after, the state’s Republican attorney general went to court to try to remove some of them from office.

The GOP-proposed new congressional maps would give Republicans more seats in Congress — potentially allowing the GOP to keep control of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington.

Despite threats of arrest, restriction on pay and calls from the governor that they be removed from office, the majority of the Democrats did not appear for the special session when the Texas House convened Friday afternoon and no quorum was reached.

Democratic state Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House minority leader, earlier told ABC News Thursday that he believes his caucus would hold out on Friday and once again deny the legislature a quorum, though he said they would be willing to come back to Austin if state Republicans promise to focus solely on other issues before the special session, including flood mitigation and disaster preparedness.

Members who were present Friday do not have to return in person until Monday at 2 p.m. ET, when the Texas House Republicans will attempt to reach a quorum for the fourth time.

Democrats who have fled the state appear likely to stay away until Aug. 19, the end of the special session.

The defiance took place as Abbott has also requested the Texas Supreme Court to remove Wu from office.

Wu’s attorneys repsonded Friday afternoon asking the court to deny the governor’s request.

The attorneys argue, in part, that the court does not have jurisdiction over state legislators, that Rep. Wu would have a right to a jury trial, which the state supreme court cannot provide. That the governor does not have the standing to bring the case, according to Wu’s attorneys who added Abbott’s suit would “fail in any court.”

His lawyers also argued that the state constitution covers lawmakers for quorum breaking in certain circumstances.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told Fox News on Friday that he is willing to take other Democrats to court if they don’t return.

“If they show up today, we’re all happy, we can get our business done, and everybody is good. If they do not show up, we will be in an Illinois courtroom … [trying] to get them back to the state of Texas, hold them in contempt, and if they refuse to come, hopefully put them in jail,” he said.

He shrugged off concerns that the optics of arresting Democrats would give them a public opinion win.

“I think in Texas — I don’t know what it’s like in other states, but I do know in Texas, people expect their representatives to go to work,” Paxton said.

Paxton said on Friday afternoon that he had filed a lawsuit with the Texas Supreme Court petitioning for 13 of the over 50 Texas House Democratic members who left the state to break quorum to be removed from their positions.

The filing argued that these members “have absented themselves from the State with the express purpose of denying the House a quorum so that the Legislature as a whole cannot carry out its constitutional lawmaking function.”

“These cowards deliberately sabotaged the constitutional process and violated the oath they swore to uphold. Their out-of-state rebellion cannot go unchecked, and the business of Texas must go on,” the AG said in a statement.

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows targeted the wallets of the absent Democrats in an effort to draw them back.

On Thursday, he sent a memo to all members and their staffs requiring that any member who is absent from the special session to break quorum must collect their monthly paycheck in person. Direct deposits were suspended for those skipping out until the House reaches quorum, according to memo.

Burrows says that he expects more suits filed in other states to come after the one filed by Abbott Thursday to try to enforce the civil arrest warrants out of state, and that another legislator contacted the Sergeant at Arms of the Illinois House of Representatives asking for their assistance in bringing back members.

He added later that if the Department of Public Safety civilly arrests “our absent colleagues” during the weekend, legislators are on call and need to come back to Austin with a minimum of six hours’ notice.

Abbott has called for the Democrats’ arrest, and Republican Sen. John Cornyn has called on the FBI to track down those elected officials.

Congressional Democrats who sit on the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committee sent a letter Friday to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI director Kash Patel asking them to clarify and explain if and how their agencies are involved in locating Democratic Texas lawmakers who left the state to prevent a quorum in order to stop the new congressional maps.

“We write with great concern about the abuse of federal public safety resources for completely political purposes and without a law enforcement rationale that is reportedly taking place right now,” the members wrote.

The governor said in a podcast released Friday that he was willing to go further than creating more than five new seats the GOP could flip if the Democrats continued to block the GOP effort.

“We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we’re going to be adding on the Republican side,” he said during an interview on the podcast “Ruthless.”

In the meantime, Texas Democrats have fled to various blue states, including Illinois and California.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is slated to hold a news conference with those Democrats Friday afternoon, along with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and California state Democrats to show their support.

“The governor and state leaders have floated a potential statewide ballot measure that would reaffirm California’s commitment to national independent redistricting and allow voters to temporarily adjust the state’s congressional map only if Texas or other GOP-led states manipulate theirs,” Newsom’s office said in a statement.

California Democrats are preparing to respond to Texas Republicans’ proposed new congressional districts by possibly targeting five GOP-held districts in the Golden State, sources recently confirmed to ABC station KGO-TV. But the office of the California Secretary of State told ABC News that if legislators don’t move fast, it becomes nearly impossible for the state to run a statewide election that meets federal standards.

ABC station KGO-TV’s Monica Madden contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has directed the Pentagon to prepare options for the possible use of U.S. military force against drug cartels designated as terrorist organizations, two U.S. officials confirmed to ABC News on Friday.

One official said that any possible use of U.S. military assets is not imminent.

It remains unclear exactly what the authorization will allow and what military operations would be considered as potential options that the U.S. military has been authorized to prepare. There are sure to be questions about the legality of such operations.

The New York Times was first to report that Trump had signed a directive ordering the Pentagon to prepare military options against the cartels.

The Pentagon referred all questions to the White House.

Asked for comment, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told ABC News that “President Trump’s top priority is protecting the homeland, which is why he took the bold step to designate several cartels and gangs as foreign terrorist organizations.”

In February, the Trump administration designated Tren de Aragua, the Sinaloa Cartel, MS-13 and other drug cartels as global terrorist organizations following an executive order signed by Trump in January.

Appearing on EWTN on Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that designation allows the administration to use various means against the cartels which he described as being armed like terrorist or armies that control territory.

“I don’t know if it’s changed their behavior yet, but their behavior is going to have to change one way or another,” Rubio said in an interview when asked if the terrorist designation had changed the cartels’ behavior. “But it allows us to now target what they’re operating and to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever … to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it.”

“We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug dealing organizations,” Rubio continued. “Drug dealing is the kind of terrorism they’re doing.”

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.