Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court has formally granted the Trump administration’s request to move forward with construction of the White House East Wing ballroom project as litigation continues, all but guaranteeing the building will be substantially completed before any final judgments and appeals are resolved.

Notably, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three liberal justices in dissenting, writing the ruling is “no victory for the separation of powers” and allows the “likely” infringement on Congress’s power to continue.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to block the construction of the ballroom project, arguing that only Congress has the authority to approve substantial changes to the White House, and that it never delegated that authority to President Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump unilaterally initiated demolition of the White House East Wing in late 2025 to make way for the ballroom.

The court’s majority wrote in an unsigned opinion Monday that the Trust likely lacked standing to bring the suit to begin with and that the government has established it would be irreparably harmed by being blocked from above-ground construction as the case played out.”Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the court wrote.

The decision effectively preserves the status quo. The Trump administration had told the court that a crew of 250 workers has been working around the clock to finish the 90,000-square-foot structure and that it is 65% complete and work will continue. 

Trump is taking a victory lap over the Supreme Court’s opinion, writing on his social media platform Monday, “I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”

Trump once again slammed the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s lawsuit against the construction of the ballroom, calling it “baseless.” 

“The Ballroom is totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer,” Trump claimed, though questions continue to swirl around where such funding is coming from. 

Federal law gives Congress control over federal property, including the White House grounds, but has also long allowed presidents to undertake the “care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurbishment, and improvement … of the Executive Residence.”

In the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Roberts wrote: “The White House is not just any building, and — when it comes to historic preservation — Hoagland [member of National Trust for Historic Preservation] is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.”

Roberts argued it would have been better to “ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

Earlier this month, Roberts had issued an administrative stay of a lower court order halting most above-ground construction on the White House ballroom project. The move allowed construction on the project to continue temporarily.

The lower court had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in demolishing the East Wing and beginning to erect the structure without congressional approval. A divided appeals court earlier this month affirmed that finding.

Administration officials have estimated the entire project — which Trump has called a “military complex” essential for national security — could cost $400 million, while other independent analysts have put the true figure at much higher. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion out Monday, has formally granted the Trump administration’s request to move forward with construction of the White House East Wing ballroom project as litigation continues, all but guaranteeing the building will be substantially completed before any final judgments and appeals are resolved.

This is a developing story.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Calling it a matter of “exceptional importance,” the Trump administration has filed an urgent appeal with the Supreme Court seeking the immediate removal of 29 active-duty service members who are transgender even before their case challenging the Pentagon ban goes to trial in January. 

Several courts have found that the ban was likely rooted in animus and violates servicemembers constitutional rights to due process and equal protection – a conclusion the government strongly disputes.   

While the justices last year gave Trump the green light to move forward broadly with a ban on service members who have a history of gender dysphoria, federal judges in a separate case, U.S. v. Talbott, last June blocked the military from discharging more than two dozen individual plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit challenging the policy. 

Solicitor General John Sauer called the ruling allowing those plaintiffs to remain in their positions “gravely erroneous.”

“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” Sauer wrote in the government’s petition. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review. The Court should thus take this opportunity to address the constitutionality of the [Department of Defense Secretary] Hegseth policy and reverse the decision below, whose reasoning cannot be squared with this Court’s precedents or deference to the military.”

The justices will consider this fall whether to hear the case at this early stage, before any final ruling on the merits by a lower court.

In the meantime, the 29 plaintiffs – who are active-duty, reservists, National Guard members and a person seeking to enlist – will remain in the force. 

“As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards,” said Jennifer Levi, an attorney representing the transgender service members with the LGBTQ legal advocacy group GLAD Law. “There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday stressed his strong support for controversial data centers, a key issue ahead of midterm elections, with the president urging communities to “let Data Reign.”

“The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor. If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Monday morning.

The president has long emphasized the importance of artificial intelligence advancement, repeatedly expressing his desire for the U.S. to beat China in the global AI race.

“If we kill the Golden Goose, you will only have yourselves to blame. China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!” Trump wrote.

Data centers provide the computing power necessary to process large amounts of data, such as the kind needed to run AI systems. They typically house thousands of computer servers and require tremendous amounts of land, water for cooling, and energy, potentially straining local power grids, while employing few workers long-term, relative to their size.

The issue of data centers has been a hot topic ahead of the midterm elections, with AI companies spending millions on congressional races and primaries for and against candidates on the issue of artificial intelligence regulation.

Asked on Monday about Trump’s post and how it might land ahead of the midterms, Vice President JD Vance said the president’s message was focused on the economics around data centers.

“What the president said about data centers is they’re an important part of the AI economy. But when people build them, they have to build the power plants along with the data centers,” Vance said.

Vance acknowledged the backlash surrounding data centers, expressing his belief that the concern stems from higher utility and electricity bills. But he argued that this wouldn’t be a problem if companies take advantage of deregulation efforts.

“I think probably 99% of the backlash to data centers has come in areas where building a data center means higher utility and higher electricity for the people on the ground,” Vance said. “So I think what these companies have to do is take advantage of some of the federal deregulatory efforts that we’ve undertaken. If you build a data center, you should be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out. And if that is happening, I don’t think the data centers are that controversial,” Vance said.

Earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP’s campaign committee, wrote a memo to AI companies operating in Ohio and warned that backlash to data centers could hurt incumbent Republican Sen. John Husted’s chances at reelection. 

Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott also recently paused new data center projects to ensure compliance — something that Trump had criticized as a “mistake.”

“I saw Texas the other day sort of is against data centers. I think it’s a mistake. And I’m not taking positions, I just think it’s a mistake, because there are other communities that want it. When a community wants it, it means a lot of money is going to come into that community,” Trump had said during a Punchbowl interview earlier this month.

In the Punchbowl interview, the president expressed his belief that data centers are “tremendously important for the economics” and said they could be “bigger than oil.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The prediction market Kalshi on Monday announced its first-ever lifetime ban against disgraced former Rep. George Santos, who previously settled a regulatory investigation into his trades with a hefty fine and a temporary ban from using prediction markets. 

The platform also announced penalties against three political candidates who the site accused of wagering on their own races in violation of its insider trading rules.

Kalshi said Santos improperly manipulated the price of contracts on the platform by making public statements about his planned attendance at the State of the Union address earlier this year and then wagering on that contract. 

Kalshi “found that Santos made these statements with the intent to manipulate the price of the Yes or No contracts that he intended to purchase. Ultimately, these statements did in fact manipulate the price of said contracts,” according to Kalshi’s regulatory filings. 

Santos, on X, reacted to the ban by posting, “Hey @Kalshi thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform. Let’s see how much longer you guys are around for.” 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission previously leveled its own penalties against Santos, including a disgorgement of his winnings and a $17,500 fine. 

The other penalties announced Monday were levied against political candidates Ben Midgley, who ran as a Republican candidate for governor in Maine; Stephen Cloobeck, who briefly ran as a Republican for California governor; and Laurie Buckhout, who is running for Congress as a Republican in North Carolina against Democratic Rep. Don Davis.

Each purchased “event contracts” related to their own races, in violation of Kalshi’s rules, the platform said Monday. 

As candidates, all three “qualified as a decision maker for the contract and had direct influence on the outcome of the Underlying event,” the platform wrote in regulatory filings. The exact nature of their wagers was not revealed in documents released Monday.

Kalshi said all three cooperated with its investigation. 

Cloobeck, a billionaire real estate developer, “purchased approximately $10,000 worth of contracts related to his own candidacy,” Kalshi wrote. “Under the terms of the settlement, Kalshi suspended Cloobeck from direct or indirect access to Kalshi for a period of three years and imposed a financial penalty of $31,770.” 

Midgley and Buckshot wagered less than $1,000 on the site and faced penalties of a few thousand dollars each, the platform said. Both were also suspended from the platform for three years. 

Earlier this year, ABC News reported that Kalshi had penalized three other political candidates who had wagered on their own races. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Presidential helicopter Marine One lost communication with air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport for the second time this month, according to audio reviewed by ABC News.

The incident occurred on Thursday, just one hour after federal officials released a report saying the problem was fixed.

President Donald Trump was about to take off from the White House Ellipse when Marine One pilots gave a three-minute warning to controllers, but in air traffic control audio another helicopter can be heard relaying the information to the tower after controllers failed to respond.

Moments later, a controller can be heard saying she did not hear anything from Marine One. 

“Marine One is trying to reach you. Three minutes to lift,” a nearby helicopter pilot said to the tower.

“Oh I couldn’t hear any of that. Thank you,” a controller responded.

A few minutes later, Marine One tried to contact the tower two more times, but the controller didn’t hear the transmission and asked another chopper in the air if they can hear Marine One.

“Hey Nighthawk 8, do me a favor, I can’t hear Marine One,” the controller said. If you hear Marine One can you let me know?”

Once Marine One lifted off from the Ellipse, it regained communication ability with the tower and proceeded to take Trump to Joint Base Andrews, where he boarded Air Force One.

A similar incident happened on Aug. 4, when Marine One took off at the same time an American Airlines regional jet was lifting off from nearby Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).

The two aircraft came within .82 miles and 700 feet vertically, but were not on a collision course. Normally all air traffic is held until the president’s helicopter is out of the area. 

FAA rules require that commercial aircraft maintain a minimum of 1.5 miles horizontal separation and 500 feet vertical separation from any helicopter passing near DCA.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration launched an investigation. FAA engineers determined that a radio transmitter did not allow line of sight to Marine One’s temporary landing area on the White House Ellipse. The temporary landing zone is being used while White House construction takes place on the South Lawn. 

The FAA moved the transmitter to the top of the control tower at Reagan National Airport from a local residential area. Tests conducted following the move showed Marine One had no further communication issues, according to the NTSB report released Thursday. 

The FAA released a statement to ABC News, but did not explain how this happened again. 

“The FAA took immediate action following the Aug. 4 incident involving Marine One, including relocating an antenna to improve communications between DCA air traffic controllers and Marine One pilots and reviewing the procedures involved,” the agency said. “The three-minute notification was communicated by alternate means, acknowledged by a controller and positive contact was established with Marine One before takeoff.”

The NTSB continues to lead this investigation.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — For a second time, a federal judge on Friday rejected President Trump’s attempt to move his criminal hush money case to federal court, where his conviction could be vacated.

“The grounds for a second removal cited by Defendant, Donald J. Trump, are neither new nor legally sufficient. He has failed to show good cause and diligence,” Judge Alvin Hellerstein decided.

Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford. He is appealing his conviction.

A federal appeals court ordered Hellerstein to take a second look at Trump’s attempt to move the case from state to federal court after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark immunity opinion.

“I reaffirm my former decision. The president’s motion is denied,” Hellerstein said.

Trump has argued the Supreme Court’s controversial 2024 presidential immunity decision, which established sweeping protection from prosecution for “official acts,” made some of the evidence and testimony from the prosecution’s case off-limits.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a highly anticipated speech Friday morning, Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh voiced concern about persistently high inflation, saying the central bank should focus on bringing down prices — but stopped short of explicitly calling for an interest rate hike.

“We must be confident that underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed. Otherwise, we have work to do,” Warsh said in remarks prepared for delivery at the Fed’s annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

The remarks signaled a strong commitment by the newly installed Fed chair to fight inflation.

Inflation eased slightly in July, the most recent month on record, but has spiked in recent months fueled by higher oil prices from the Middle East crisis. Overall prices have been increasing at a pace above the Fed’s 2% target for more than five years, which Warsh said is a responsibility that lies “squarely” with the central bank.

“The Fed’s predominant focus right now should be on prices,” said Warsh, who is in his third month in the role after replacing Jerome Powell.

Typically the Fed hikes interest rates to tame high prices. Warsh did not directly comment on the central bank’s interest rate plans, noting the practice of “forward guidance” — where the Fed telegraphs its next moves in advance — “should be limited” and “has overstayed its welcome.”

President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on the Fed to cut interest rates.

Investors are now pricing in a roughly 60% chance the Fed increases its key borrowing rate next month, up from 35% Thursday ahead of Warsh’s speech, according to CME FedWatch.

“We believe that markets heard what they needed to hear to believe that Warsh will tighten monetary conditions to restrain inflation, and that he will encourage the FOMC to pull the trigger soon,” said Carl Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, in a research note after Warsh’s speech.

Warsh said Friday that he is “impressed by the overall performance of the economy, which appears to have strengthened.” He pointed to solid consumer spending and a steady job market. But Warsh noted that certain sectors of the economy like housing and agriculture “are showing strains.”

He also detailed how artificial intelligence is reshaping the economy, with more than half of capital expenditure growth this year so far attributed to the buildout of AI.

“We’ve come to a hinge point in history,” Warsh said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department notified a federal judge Thursday night the Kennedy Center will delay implementation of its board’s resolution honoring President Donald Trump for more than a month.  

In a filing late Thursday, the DOJ said the effort to add Trump’s name to the facade and plaza will “not be effectuated before October 8, 2026.”

The Trump administration’s filing came following a two-hour hearing Thursday during which U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper urged the center to delay its plans to give him more time to consider his decision.

The hearing Thursday featured the lead attorney for Ohio Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, who sits on the Kennedy Center’s Board of Trustees as an ex-officio member, repeatedly accusing the Kennedy Center board of thumbing its nose at the court by voting to honor Trump after Cooper ordered his name off the building in a decision earlier this year. 

“I don’t say this lightly,” said attorney Nathaniel Zelinsky.  “We view this as outright defiance.”

“Are they attempting a renaming?” Zelinsky asked. “Absolutely, yes. They are doing the same thing they were told they couldn’t do before.”

Cooper did not signal at the hearing that he necessarily agreed.  Nor did he leap at the chance to issue an order stopping the board from immediately moving forward with its plans to honor Trump as the man who “renovated and restored” the center.  

Instead, he used the hearing to probe both sides on the legality of the board’s move earlier this month to again add Trump’s name to the famed cultural institution.  

Cooper seemed to grapple with whether the renaming of the plaza after Trump violates a 1983 law blocking “additional memorials” in the center’s “public areas.” 

“Could a plaza just outside the building be considered the ‘public area’ of the building?” Cooper asked Zelinsky. 

Zelinsky pointed to the Justice Department’s most recent filing in the case, in which administration lawyers said the board’s intent was to rename “the complex” after Trump.  

But the administration’s lawyer insisted the Kennedy Center would continue to exist as a memorial to John F. Kennedy.

“There is no renaming here,” said Justice Department attorney Brantley Mayers.  “The board has not taken any action to rename.”  

Mayers also said there was “no evidence” that the move to add Trump’s name back onto the building is imminent, even as he said it was “clear that recognizing the president will help address both the financial and structural issues” he said the center faces.  

Cooper shrugged off the bluster of the Trump administration’s most recent filing, which suggested the performing arts center could face demolition in the event he issued an order permanently blocking President Donald Trump’s push to renovate the facility with additions intended to recognize Trump personally.

“That may be great atmospherics,” Cooper told Mayers. “But I gotta say, the first four of five pages of your brief seem to be a non-sequitur.  We’re here to discuss whether the board’s resolution was consistent with my order and consistent with the statutes.”

Cooper said he’ll need to take some time to “give the issues the attention they deserve” and asked the DOJ to delay any plans to give him time to rule. 

Cooper suggested he might impose an order keeping the status quo if center management didn’t go along. 

Zelinsky had asked the judge to act more urgently, pointing to the “overnight” move to add Trump’s name to the center following a similar vote by the board earlier this year.

“They don’t contest that the last time they did this, they ruined the marble,” Zelinsky said.  “Talk about an irreparable injury! They’ve drilled into it and they’re going to be poised to do that again.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Thursday night blocked the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of a new rule restricting mail-in voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a temporary order preventing the United States Postal Service from increasing its oversight of mail-in voting, following an executive order from President Donald Trump that would effectively employ the Postal Service as the primary enforcer of mail-voter eligibility.

Talwani blocked the newly finalized rule for at least 14 days. 

The same judge had previously blocked Trump’s executive order but lifted that decision on Wednesday after the Supreme Court ruled Monday she had initially acted too quickly.

With the judge’s latest order, it is likely the legal battle over the USPS rules will eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court.

Dozens of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the USPS directive in April, arguing it is unconstitutional since states — not the federal government — have primary authority for administering elections.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled Monday that the states lacked standing to challenge Trump’s order at that stage since nothing had formally impacted how they will administer elections, but the high court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump’s order.

The judge’s order Thursday comes after state attorneys general brought a new challenge after USPS published a finalized rule governing steps states must take to print ballots to be carried and tracked by mail carriers.

In her order Thursday pausing the now finalized USPS plan, the judge wrote: “Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away,” she wrote.

The new rules finalized by the USPS last week add verification requirements to all mail-in ballots, falling short of Trump’s expectations but providing additional scrutiny.

Under the proposed change, states would be required to collect and report basic voter information, such as a voter’s name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Currently, there is no standardized requirement or method for states to track this information, instead letting each state independently decide how its mail-in voting system operates.

State election authorities would then be required to input this information into a “federal ballot mail portal” before the ballot is accepted into the mail stream.

The USPS said it would not deliver ballots to any state not in compliance with these changes.

In a statement Thursday night, New York Attorney General Letitia James said: “This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections. The USPS does not have the authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail. My office will keep fighting to ensure this rule cannot disrupt our midterm elections.”

Trump issued an executive order in March seeking to restrict mail-in voting, directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a federal citizenship list and give it to the states; the Department of Justice to target state officials who give ballots to noncitizens; and the USPS to direct states to abide by certain mail-ballot design and tracking requirements.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.