(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a unanimous decision in favor of a Georgia family whose home was wrongly raided by the FBI and was unable to sue for damages because of law enforcement immunity.
The court said their case can proceed under an exception in the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are pushing for an investigation into top Justice Department official Ed Martin over his stated plans to “shame” political opponents of President Donald Trump who he’s unable to charge criminally, as well as a host of other politically charged matters Martin has publicly pledged to pursue in his new position.
“I write to express my grave concern about Ed Martin’s stated intention to abuse his new roles as lead of the so-called “Weaponization Working Group” you constituted at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and as DOJ’s Pardon Attorney,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a letter transmitted to the Justice Department, which was first obtained by ABC News. “Following his disgraceful tenure as Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Martin apparently plans to continue his misconduct in his new roles at DOJ.”
The DOJ did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment on the letter.
Martin’s controversial tenure as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., in the opening months of Trump’s presidency thrust the office into turmoil and led several Senate Republicans to state publicly they wouldn’t support his permanent confirmation in the role.
But once the White House announced they were pulling Martin’s nomination, Trump said Martin would instead be appointed to several top positions working out of DOJ’s main headquarters — serving as an associate deputy attorney general, the U.S. pardon attorney and director of the so-called “Weaponization Working Group.”
Martin celebrated the news on his X account, posting ‘Eagle Unleashed,’ and in various interviews celebrated what he described as a mandate from Trump directly to target the alleged ‘weaponization’ of the department under the Biden administration.
“It’s classic Donald Trump, right? That somebody tries to block him and block his pick, and he decides to double down,” Martin told Breitbart News last month. “This is probably the greatest job I could ever envision.”
In a news conference announcing his departure from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Martin confirmed he planned to launch a probe of last-minute pardons issued by former President Joe Biden just before he left office — and suggested that officials he’s unable to charge would instead be publicly “shamed.”
“There are some really bad actors, some people that did some really bad things to the American people,” Martin said. “And if they can be charged, we’ll charge them. But if they can’t be charged, we will name them … And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are shamed. And that’s a fact. That’s the way things work. And so that’s how I believe the job operates.”
The approach would directly conflict with longstanding DOJ policy that prohibits prosecutors from naming or disparaging individuals who they don’t intend to charge criminally.
When asked about that policy by ABC News during the news conference, Martin said he would “have to look at what the provision you’re referring to, to see — we want to square ourselves with doing the things correctly.”
The letter from Senate Democrats said Martin’s statements “are a brazen admission that Mr. Martin plans to systematically violate the Justice Manual’s prohibition on extrajudicial statements by shaming uncharged parties for nakedly partisan reasons. Weaponizing DOJ in this manner will further undermine the public’s trust in the department in irreparable ways.”
In his early days as pardon attorney, Martin said he advised the president in his pardon of former Virginia county sheriff Scott Jenkins, who had been sentenced to ten years in prison for a federal bribery conviction.
“No MAGA left behind,” Martin posted on X in response to the pardon.
Durbin’s letter further cited reports Martin has “personally advocated” fast-tracking pardons for members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious conspiracy stemming from their roles leading up to the attack on the Capitol, after President Trump initially opted to commute their sentences in his sweeping clemency action for the nearly 1600 individuals charged in connection with Jan. 6.
Durbin’s letter requests Bondi provide a host of records related to Martin’s appointment and early days as head of the Weaponization Working Group and Pardon Attorney’s Office. It’s unclear whether DOJ will ultimately respond to Durbin’s demands given Democrats’ minority position on the committee.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — The House Oversight Committee is hearing from the high-profile Democratic governors of Illinois, Minnesota and New York on Thursday during a timely hearing about their states’ immigration policies that some members of the Republican-led committee call “sanctuary” policies that they claim shield criminal illegal aliens from immigration enforcement.
JB Pritzker of Illinois, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Kathy Hochul of New York are appearing at a closely watched hearing that comes as another Democratic-led state — California — is grappling with a slew of immigration-related protests that triggered President Donald Trump to deploy U.S. Marines and the National Guard to the area.
House Oversight Chair James Comer requested in April that these Democratic governors testify, claiming that the “Trump administration is taking decisive action to deport criminal illegal aliens from our nation, but reckless sanctuary states like Illinois, Minnesota, and New York are actively seeking to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.”
“The governors of these states must explain why they are prioritizing the protection of criminal illegal aliens over the safety of U.S. citizens, and they must be held accountable,” Comer said in a media advisory for the upcoming hearing.
Sanctuary states still enforce U.S. federal immigration laws, but the term often refers to a limited collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while enacting policies that are more favorable to undocumented people.
The Democratic governors have been preparing to testify and getting ready to defend their records on immigration and public safety, according to hearing material reviewed by ABC News. They’ll also highlight how their states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
“Despite the rhetoric of Republicans in Congress, Governor Pritzker will share facts about how this bipartisan public safety law is fully compliant with federal law and ensures law enforcement can focus on doing their jobs well,” a spokesperson for the Illinois governor said in a statement ahead of the hearing.
Also ahead of the hearing, the state of Illinois retained outside counsel to provide expertise in order to respond to the committee’s requests, the spokesperson said, claiming that “congressional Republicans are wasting taxpayer dollars all to find out that Illinois has always followed the law.”
A spokesperson for the Democratic Governors Association also suggested that their leaders were focused on governing rather than spending time on “political stunts.”
“While Republicans in D.C. spend their time pulling political stunts, Democratic governors are busy getting real things done for their states, lowering costs, and keeping people safe,” Johanna Warshaw, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement.
In March, the Oversight Committee held another newsy hearing with “sanctuary city” mayors including Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Those leaders defended their actions on immigration enforcement while Republicans on the committee accused them of increasing crime by defying Trump administration immigration policies.
On Wednesday, House Oversight Republicans released a three-minute digital ad to show “how sanctuary polices do not protect Americans,” which features buzzy news broadcasts about immigration-adjacent crimes, testimony from mayors earlier this spring at the “sanctuary cities” House hearing and video clips of Pritzker, Walz and Hochul speaking about immigration policy.
“Sanctuary governors are shielding CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS, then pretending the consequences don’t exist. Tomorrow Hochul, Walz, and Pritzker will be in the hot seat as their policies cause CHAOS in their states. Here’s what they don’t want you to see,” the Committee’s official account posted on X.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk called President Donald Trump on Monday night, two sources familiar with the conversation told ABC News, after their bitter public feud last week.
Musk posted on X early Wednesday morning, “I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.”
Musk, however, did not not clarify which posts he was referring to in his statement. The posts included slamming Trump for “ingratitude” over the 2024 election, agreeing with a call for Trump’s impeachment, knocking the president’s “big, beautiful bill” signature legislation, and even claiming Trump was in the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Musk’s call with Trump came after Vice President JD Vance and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles spoke with the billionaire late last week and urged him to end the feud, sources familiar with the call told ABC News.
The president had previously told Vance to speak diplomatically when asked about Musk publicly, according to a White House official.
The White House declined to comment.
In her press briefing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt would not comment on whether the relationship would be reconciled.
“The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning and he is appreciative of it. And we are continuing to focus on the business of the American people,” Leavitt said.
Last Friday, Trump told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk was a “man who has lost his mind.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(LOS ANGELES) — There are currently 4,100 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines in the greater Los Angeles area after President Donald Trump ordered them to protect federal buildings and federal law enforcement as protests opposed to ICE raids increased over the weekend.
Most of the attention has been focused on the crowd control assistance that these troops could provide around federal buildings, but Trump’s memo calling up National Guardsmen also said they would “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law.”
On Tuesday, the X page for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) posted photos of California National Guardsmen on the scene of a detention being carried out by an ICE agent with the caption “Photos from today’s ICE Los Angeles immigration enforcement operation.”
One of the photos was later reposted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s personal X account with the caption “This We’ll Defend.”
A U.S. official told ABC News that the photos showed National Guardsmen providing force protection to federal personnel and were not conducting law enforcement duties.
The Posse Comitatus Act prevents active-duty U.S. military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement duties though that restriction can be lifted when a president invokes the Insurrection Act, which President Trump has not done.
In the photos, the National Guardsmen were armed with rifles but it was unclear if they were loaded with ammunition. ABC News has previously reported that while the federalized troops are carrying weapons, their guns will not have ammunition loaded in the chamber, according to U.S. officials. But they will carry ammunition as part of their regular uniforms that can be used in the rare case of needed self-defense.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state of California have asked a federal court to stop the Trump administration from using federalized National Guardsmen and Marines to accompany ICE agents on immigration raids saying it will “escalate tensions” and raises questions if the force protection they are providing constitutes law enforcement duties which they are not allowed to do by federal law.
“Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” said the lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of Newsom. “They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians.”
“To preserve the peace, Plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to grant the circumscribed emergency relief requested through this motion for a temporary restraining order, which will prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city,” the motion requested.
A hearing on the state’s motion will be held on Thursday.
On Tuesday, Hegseth told a congressional committee that he and President Trump have the power to send National Guard and active-duty troops anywhere in the country to ensure that ICE agents can enforce the law.
“We believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country,” Hegseth told a House Appropriations Defense subcommittee.
“ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether it’s Minneapolis or Los Angeles,” he added.
On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Hegseth again defended using troops with ICE agents on immigration raids, saying it was needed to keep them from being attacked.
Democratic Sen. Jack Reed shot back, calling it “illegal.”
“Law and order is a civil function under the Constitution of the United States — civil enforcement, law enforcement authorities — not the U.S. military,” Reed said.
“This is not only, I think, illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and focus of the military,” he added.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s challenge to his “one of a kind” felony hush money conviction in New York should be removed from state appellate courts and heard in federal court, an attorney for the president argued Wednesday.
Just over a year after Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard arguments Wednesday on Trump’s efforts to move his appeal of the verdict from state court to federal court.
“The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court,” attorney Jeffrey Wall told the three-judge panel. “And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous one of its kind prosecution.”
Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.
New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge — the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law — saying it was the “only lawful sentence” to prevent “encroaching upon the highest office in the land.”
At Wednesday’s hearing, an attorney for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Steven Wu, argued that it’s now too late to move the case.
“After sentencing, removal is no longer available,” Wu said during oral arguments.
Wu also argued the purpose of removal is to decide where to hold the trial.
“It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review,” Wu said.
Wall, who served as an acting solicitor general in Trump’s first administration, argued that the time limit to ask for removal to federal court does not apply if Trump can show good cause.
“Why shouldn’t we be looking for some more specific signs that Congress actually intended this?” Judge Susan Carney asked.
“It’s the first-ever prosecution by a district attorney of a president,” Wall responded. “As long as you have colorable federal defenses, and it has something to do with your job, you get to come into federal court notwithstanding the state’s interest.”
Trump’s lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included “official acts” undertaken while he was president, and that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts — which was decided after Trump was convicted in May — would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.
“There was evidence that came in at trial that triggered federal immunity,” Wall told the appellate panel.
Wu countered that the evidence offered involved discussion about a crime that related to Trump’s actions before he became president.
“It’s a highly unusual case, would you agree with that?” Judge Raymond Lohier asked.
“This defendant is a very unusual defendant,” Wu conceded — but he argued that should not automatically usurp the state’s interest in enforcing its laws.
The judges did not immediately rule, but said they would take the arguments under advisement.
If the appeals court grants Trump’s request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
Although Trump has in the past asserted that, as president, he would have the right to pardon himself for federal offenses, Pace University Law School professor Bennett Gershman told ABC News that would not apply in this case.
“It’s still a state crime — you’re now just talking about where the case is litigated,” Gershman said. “I’m not even sure that pardoning yourself is even allowed, but that’s an open question that’s never been addressed.”
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi rejected that President Donald Trump’s pardons for hundreds of rioters who assaulted police during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol creates a double standard with the administration’s aggressive response to violence at immigration protests in Los Angeles.
“Well, this is very different,” Bondi said Wednesday in an on-camera gaggle with reporters at the White House. “These are people out there hurting people in California right now. This is ongoing.”
Trump’s and other officials’ attempts to stoke outrage over videos showing attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles has been the subject of some mockery on social media — with Democrats and other critics of the administration posting comparisons to the assaults law enforcement were subject to on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob descended on the Capitol.
More than 140 officers suffered injuries during the Jan. 6 riot as they were beaten by objects ranging from baseball bats and hockey sticks to rocks and even an American flag.
Trump’s pardons for nearly all of the 1,600 people charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol extended to more than 450 charged with assaulting or impeding officers — 300 of whom still had not had their cases fully adjudicated.
The dismantling of the Department of Justice’s Jan. 6 investigation further halted investigations of roughly 60 people suspected of assaulting police during the riot who had yet to be charged, according to statistics released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington prior to Trump taking office.
During Bondi’s confirmation hearing prior to Inauguration Day, she said she believed any pardons for Jan. 6 defendants should be evaluated on a “case-to-case basis” and suggested she would be opposed to pardons for people accused of assaulting law enforcement officers.
“Let me be very clear in speaking to you: I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer in this country,” Bondi said at the time.
Bondi has not publicly commented on Trump’s pardons since then, though FBI Director Kash Patel did notably distance himself during his confirmation hearing from Trump’s pardons for violent Jan. 6 offenders.
“I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement,” Patel said. “And I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement.”
In her gaggle with reporters Wednesday, Bondi repeatedly dodged questions about the administration’s views on the legal standards that must exist in order to invoke the Insurrection Act.
She instead pointed to what she argued appears to be improved conditions on the ground that shouldn’t warrant such aggressive intervention by the administration.
“Right now in California, we’re at a good point,” Bondi said. “We’re not scared to go further. We’re not frightened to do something else if we need to.”
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a stark warning about the threat of nuclear war in a video posted to her personal account on X, marking a sharp contrast with past comments made by former President Donald Trump on the same topic.
Gabbard, who recently visited Hiroshima, Japan, reflected on the devastation caused by the atomic bomb dropped during World War II in a post on Tuesday. In the video, she warned that political elite and warmongers are fomenting fear and tension, pushing us closer to “the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.”
The three-minute video shows Gabbard visiting several landmarks in Hiroshima. The video also describes in detail what a nuclear event could mean for the United States — including a simulation of a nuclear attack on San Francisco, California, which appears to destroy the Golden Gate Bridge.
Gabbard’s remarks were similar to previous remarks she’s made on the campaign trail, however, the video was posted days after she traveled to the Shangri-La Dialogue, a major Asian conference held in Singapore, earlier this month.
“This isn’t some made-up science fiction story. This is the reality of what’s at stake, what we are facing now, because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” Gabbard said in the video.
“Perhaps it’s because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won’t have access to,” she added.
Gabbard called on people to “speak up and demand an end to this madness.”
“We must reject this path to nuclear war and work toward a world where no one has to live in fear of a nuclear holocaust,” Gabbard said.
Gabbard’s position is in sharp contrast to Trump’s previous remarks on the use of nuclear weapons during WWII.
In 2016, while campaigning in San Diego, California, Trump criticized then-President Barack Obama for visiting Hiroshima, calling him “pathetic.” He added that he didn’t care that Obama visited, “just as long as he doesn’t apologize” for dropping the bomb: “Who cares.”
More recently, on Jan. 20, 2024, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump brought up Hiroshima again, this time to make a point about presidential immunity: “Hiroshima, not exactly a nice act, but it did end the second World War, probably. Right?”
Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, told ABC News that Gabbard and the president align on their plans for peace and prevention of war.
“Acknowledging the past is critical to inform the future. President Trump has repeatedly stated in the past that he recognizes the immeasurable suffering, and annihilation can be caused by nuclear war, which is why he has been unequivocal that we all need to do everything possible to work towards peace,” Henning said in a statement. “DNI Gabbard supports President Trump’s clearly stated objectives of bringing about lasting peace and stability and preventing war.”
Gabbard’s Tuesday remarks also echoed rhetoric from her time as a Democratic presidential candidate, when she warned about neoconservatives, neoliberals and Trump himself.
In 2019, Gabbard said Trump “tore up the Iran nuclear agreement, and has taken action since, step by step, to further push us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war, to the brink of war with Iran, that would be far more devastating than the war in Iraq, and leading us to the point where every single day that there is no nuclear deal with Iran, Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”
But when she endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign as an independent last August, Gabbard shifted her focus to President Joe Biden. Speaking at the National Guard Association conference, she said the Biden-Harris “administration has us facing multiple wars on multiple fronts and regions around the world, and closer to the brink of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”
Gabbard’s initial bid for president in 2020 was sparked by a mistaken ballistic missile alert that sent people in Hawaii into panic, thinking they were under attack. That moment inspired the former Hawaii congresswoman to center much of her campaign on ending wars and seeking peace. Although she has now aligned herself with the Republican Party and the Trump administration, this moment suggests Gabbard is still staking out an independent position on America’s global posture — one deeply rooted in her long-standing skepticism of the Washington establishment.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s political operation has approached Texas Republicans about redrawing the Texas congressional map ahead of next year’s midterms, in a bid to protect Republicans’ fragile House majority, multiple sources familiar with the discussions told ABC News.
Texas Republican lawmakers, who met on the topic at the U.S. Capitol Monday night, described the conversations on the topic as preliminary, and most declined to discuss the initial conversations, which were first reported by The New York Times.
“I’m not going to comment on it,” said Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas.
“We’re still kind of cogitating,” said Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas.
Currently, Republicans hold a 25-12 majority of the state’s seats. One Houston-area Democratic seat is vacant, after the death of Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Texas.
If Republicans in Austin decided to move forward with redistricting, it’s not clear how they would reconfigure the map. One Republican source familiar with the discussions said that as many as five seats currently held by Democrats could be targeted.
But the source pointed out that any effort to draw Republican voters into Democratic seats could backfire — leaving more seats vulnerable to legal challenges, or for Democratic pickups in a wave election.
“There’s an old Southern saying: Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered,” the source said to ABC News about the potential risks of redrawing the map.
A second Republican source familiar with the discussions told ABC News that Texas GOP figures have discussed the potential for redistricting with the White House.
Republicans currently have a 220-213 majority in the U.S. House, with three vacancies. They began the session with a narrow five-seat majority and could face a potential redrawing of the Wisconsin congressional map depending on the outcome of several lawsuits filed with the state supreme court.
Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said the conversations show that Republicans are “definitely” worried about losing seats in November, given that the current map, approved in 2021, was drawn by Republicans for the coming decade.
There is one active federal lawsuit over the current map, brought by advocates who have argued it discriminates against voters of color.
“I don’t think there’s any question about that. I mean, why else would you want to do that knowing how unsettled that could make the electorate feel?” Veasey said.
Asked about GOP worries about losing control of the House, Babin said, “We’re always concerned about the midterms. Who wants to go into the minority? I don’t.”
Redistricting before the next census would be unusual, but not unprecedented in Texas.
In 2003, Republicans led by former Rep. Tom DeLay pushed through an early redrawing of the maps to wrestle control of the majority of the state’s seats from Democrats, sparking a political fight that made its way to the Supreme Court.
The White House and Gov. Greg Abbott’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
“I can’t control it, so I don’t care,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who suggested that his district could be one of those redrawn.
“If we were to really go through with it, districts like mine would obviously be the ones that are targeted because I live in the suburbs. I’m the one you have to take from the rural areas and put in the suburbs, so I’d be basically going back to my old district I guess.”
Republicans’ conversations come as some Democrats have, once again, set their sights on making gains in Texas.
The Texas Democratic Party has launched a new organizing effort with the Texas Majority PAC, an outside group backed by liberal megadonor George Soros, the PAC announced this week.
Texas Republicans are expected to huddle on the topic with White House representatives this coming Thursday, lawmakers told ABC News.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) — The Smithsonian tried to affirm its autonomy from outside influences in a statement on Monday after President Donald Trump announced that he fired National Portrait Gallery head Kim Sajet for being a “highly partisan person.”
The institution, which is the world’s largest museum, education and research complex, sent the statement after a Monday Board of Regents meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, according to a document the Smithsonian sent ABC News on Monday.
Board of Regent meetings are held at least four times a year. Vance and Roberts are both ex officio members, meaning they act in advisory roles.
“All personnel decisions are made by and subject to the direction of the Secretary, with oversight by the Board,” the Smithsonian said in its statement. “Lonnie G. Bunch, the Secretary, has the support of the Board of Regents in his authority and management of the Smithsonian.”
The panel is also comprised of senators appointed by the president, including Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI); Representatives selected by the Speaker of the House, including Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL); and nine Citizen Regents, according to a document the Smithsonian sent ABC News on Monday.
The Smithsonian’s statement comes after Trump’s May 30 announcement on social media that he fired Sajet, the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery director. He described Sajet as “a highly partisan person, and a strong supporter of DEI, which is totally inappropriate for her position.”
Sajet rejected artist Julian Raven’s 2016 Trump painting for submission in the National Portrait Gallery, according to a statement from a Smithsonian spokesperson on Tuesday. She is still reporting to work at the Portrait Gallery, the spokesperson noted.
“While the vast majority of our content is rooted in meticulous research and thoughtful analysis of history and facts, we recognize that, on occasion, some of our work has not aligned with our institutional values of scholarship, even-handedness and nonpartisanship. For that, we must all work to do better,” Bunch, the board secretary, said in a message to Smithsonian staff on Monday after the board meeting.
“Our institution must be a place where people feel inspired and challenged, but most importantly feel welcome. … As always, we thank the President and Congress for their steady commitment to the Smithsonian and to preserving it for our visitors and our country.”
The museum also appeared to address the Trump administration’s concerns about biased content and staff at the institution in its statement on Monday.
“To reinforce our nonpartisan stature, the Board of Regents has directed the Secretary to articulate specific expectations to museum directors and staff regarding content in Smithsonian museums, give directors reasonable time to make any needed changes to ensure unbiased content, and to report back to the Board on progress and any needed personnel changes based on success or lack thereof in making the needed changes,” the Smithsonian said in its statement Monday.
The museum did not respond to ABC News’ questions regarding deadlines for museum directors to make changes and report back to the board, and the vice president’s office did not immediately reply to a request for a statement.
Trump signed an executive order last month placing Vance in charge of supervising efforts to “remove improper ideology” from all areas of the Smithsonian and targeted funding for programs that advance “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology,” according to the Associated Press.
The president also fired members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts’ board of trustees and installed himself as chairman of the institution in February.
ABC News’ Kyra Phillips, April Williams, Molly Nagle and Lalee Ibssa contributed to this story.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.