Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Most Americans take President Donald Trump at his word when he talks about sending American citizens to foreign prisons, serving a third term as president and trying to take control of Greenland and Canada — even as sweeping majorities oppose each of these potential actions.

About 7 in 10 adults in this ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll think Trump is serious when he talks about sending American citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to prisons in other countries (71%) and the United States trying to take control of Greenland (68%).

Fewer, but still a broad 62%, say the same about his serving a third term, even though the Constitution prohibits him from running again. A slim majority, 53%, think Trump is serious when he talks about the United States trying to take control of Canada.

That doesn’t mean most people think these are good ideas: The survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Americans by wide margins oppose these proposals. At the high end, a vast 86% oppose the United States trying to take control of Canada. Eighty percent oppose Trump serving a third term, 76% oppose trying to take control of Greenland and 66% oppose sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.

See PDF for full results.

For his part, Trump insisted in an interview last week that he wasn’t trolling about trying to take control of Canada and Greenland. He also has said he is not joking about running for a third term; upping the ante, Trump 2028 merchandise appeared for sale on the Trump Organization’s website last Thursday.

Unsurprisingly, these proposals are especially well received by the 39% of Americans who approve of the way Trump is handling his job as president. One, indeed, reaches majority support — sending U.S. citizens who are convicted of violent crimes to foreign prisons, backed by 59% of Trump approvers.

Half of those in his base, 49%, support the United States trying to take control of Greenland. Forty-three percent in this group like the third-term idea; taking control of Canada lags, even among Trump approvers, at 29%.

Kidding me?

Notably, too, Republicans, conservatives and Trump approvers are most likely to say he’s not serious about any of these proposals. On the other side of the political spectrum, Democrats, liberals and Trump disapprovers are far more apt to think he means it.

Just 35% of Republicans think Trump is serious about taking over Canada, compared with 75% of Democrats. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans think he’s serious about a third term, compared with 88% of Democrats. And while more Republicans — just shy of six in 10 — think he’s serious about taking control of Greenland and sending U.S. prisoners abroad, again, these go much higher among Democrats.

On each item:

Third term

Opposition to a third term is substantial even among some of the key support groups that elected Trump last fall, including white men without four-year college degrees (74% of whom oppose another Trump term), white evangelical Protestants (70%), conservatives (67%) and Republicans (60%).

Wishful thinking may be a factor for some: Among Republicans who think Trump is serious about a third term, support for the idea rises to 60%. That compares with 24% among Republicans who don’t think he’s serious. On the other hand, a vast majority of Democrats (88%) think he’s serious about a third term; nearly none of them (3%) support it.

Canada/Greenland

When it comes to Canada and Greenland, perceptions of Trump’s intentions are associated with broader approval of his handling of U.S. relations with other countries — which has a strong partisan flavor. Among people who approve of his handling of international relations — 51% and 30%, respectively — support trying to take control of Greenland and Canada. Among those who disapprove of Trump’s work on international relations, support for these actions drops to 4% in the case of Greenland and 3% for Canada.

Notably, in partisan terms, 45% of Republicans support trying to take control of Greenland. That drops to 27% who support trying to take control of Canada.

Deporting Americans

As reported Friday, 47% of Americans support sending undocumented immigrants who are suspected members of a criminal group to El Salvador prisons without a court hearing. Fifty-seven percent in this group also support shipping out U.S. citizens convicted of violent crimes, while 41% oppose it.

At 32% overall, support for sending convicted Americans to foreign prisons peaks in especially Trump-friendly groups, including 59% of those who approve of his work in office, 58% of people who call themselves very conservative and 57% of Republicans. Support drops to 30% of independents and 12% of Democrats.

Methodology

This ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 18-22, 2025, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,464 adults. Partisan divisions are 30%-30%-29%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

Results have a margin of sampling error of 2 percentage points, including the design effect. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, with sampling and data collection by Ipsos. See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump nears the 100th day of his second presidency, polling shows Americans largely disapproving of his handling of the economy, tariffs, and recent stock market turmoil.

But his 2024 voters largely say they’re still confident in his handling of the economy, and they overwhelmingly stand by their vote for Trump.

“I believe Trump will turn things around; I’m glad he’s president,” said Jessianna Bartier, 53, of Ohio. “With Biden, I felt there was so much waste. He was causing a lot of damage economically,” she said, and she had felt depressed by the former president’s efforts. “Trump has definitely got his work cut out for him.”

According to a new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, only 39% of Americans approve of how Trump has handled the economy; fewer approve of his handling of tariffs on imported goods or recent stock market turmoil. Seventy-one percent of Americans said that Trump’s handling of tariffs will contribute to inflation in the United States, although 59% think tariffs will create more manufacturing jobs.

But among Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, 87% approve of how he is handling the economy, while 78% approve of his handling of tariffs. A softer 71% said they approve of his handling of recent turmoil in the stock market.

Furthermore, among 2024 Trump voters, 74% think his economic policies will put the U.S. economy on a stronger foundation for the long term; at the same time, 45% of those voters think it’s very or somewhat likely that his economic policies will cause a recession in the short term.

An overwhelming 96% of those who voted for Trump believe how they voted was the right thing to do.

Bartier, a former flight attendant, now works as a bartender and lives in Ohio. She said she used to be a Democrat but became Republican as she “started dating more mature men.” She said she has always voted because “my voice matters.”

Bartier said her family is struggling financially at the moment, because her fiance lost his job and her own income is “definitely not enough.”

But she’s optimistic that Trump will be able to strengthen the economy.

She has mixed feelings about Trump on some issues, saying she appreciates his border crackdown but is at odds with his views on LGBTQ issues and abortion.

But on tariffs, she said she feels they may cause challenges at first but will be effective later on — although the recent stock market turmoil does give her pause.

“I think the tariffs are, in the short term, going to hurt us economically; but in the long term, [they’re] going to bring back jobs to America,” she said. She acknowledged feeling uncertain about how the tariff news impacted stocks: “Do I like seeing the Dow go down on itself? No.”

“[Trump’s] gonna do what he’s gonna do. He’s kind of a rogue agent,” Bartier added.

Anthony Romano, 64, a retired purchasing agent who lives by himself in Philadelphia, said he feels positive about Trump but has some concerns about the stock market.

“Overall I think he’s doing a really good job,” Romano said, but he added that it “seems like the stock market has been crashing — it’ll put a lot of stress on people.”

Stocks have fluctuated in the wake of what some experts described as continued uncertainty over the White House’s tariff policies and announcements. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday that the White House is “setting the fundamentals for a strong dollar, a strong economy, a strong stock market”.

Romano said he’s still confident in the president, citing Trump’s experience as a businessman.

“I have my trust in him; he knows what he’s doing,” he said.

Another of Trump’s voters who took the poll, Deborah Williams, 71, of Nevada, considers herself an independent politically and said she just retired from running a home-based business. Her husband, 78, has a part-time job and earns minimum wage.

She said she’s keeping an eye on the economy, especially given their dwindled income, and is “cautious about where I’m spending my money these days,” including with travel.

On tariffs, she has mixed feelings. She’s concerned they could impact prices and may be being done too bluntly, but called Trump’s philosophy behind them “a noble idea.”

“I want America to be the tough kid on the block again,” Williams said, and she does not want think Americans should be paying for or subsidizing other countries’ expenses. “Trump’s my man for doing that at this point,” she said, adding later, “He has the opportunity to put our economy back together by playing hardnose with some of these people we import from.”

The poll only asks respondents for their first names; some respondents contacted by ABC News declined to share their last name.

Irene, 63, who works for the library and local government in a northern New Jersey town, told ABC News that she has mixed feelings over how the Trump administration has rolled out tariffs.

“I’m kind of favorable for the tariffs, because I think we have been taken advantage of by different countries,” she said. “It’s just that, maybe he’s going a little overboard or too fast with all of this. And the tariffs are going to affect a lot more than they were originally going to.”

She hasn’t felt any impact on her or her family’s finances yet. Asked what she hopes to see from the White House going forward, she said she was hoping for the economy she felt America had during the first Trump administration.

“I look back to when he was in the office the first four years, and I just felt like the economy was in better shape,” she said, mentioning interest rates and gas prices. “I was kind of hoping we could get somewhere towards that point.”

She also told the poll she feels a recession is somewhat likely, and she hopes it does not impact the jobs she holds or her finances.

“But I’m at the point where I’m trying to get in a better financial position, just in case that recession should happen, it won’t hit me as hard,” she said.

That has not caused her to rethink how she voted for Trump in November: “I’m still behind my vote because I definitely didn’t have a good feeling about the Democrats,” she said.

The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted online via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel® April 18-22, 2025, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 2,464 adults. Partisan divisions are 30%-30%-29%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.

Results have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, including the design effect. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.

See details on ABC News survey methodology here.

ABC News’ Gary Langer and Christine Filer contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — One hundred days ago this week, just hours after taking the oath of office and reveling before a crowd of thousands at Capital One Arena, President Donald Trump signed the first executive orders of his second term.

With the stroke of his pen, he maintained he could freeze environmental and other agency regulations Congress had authorized. With another, he withdrew the U.S. from an international climate agreement.

“You’re witnessing the dawn of the golden age of America,” he told the roaring crowd. “That’s what it’s going to be.”

Overall, he’s issued more than 130 executive orders and even more memorandums, declared at least eight national emergencies and engaged in a showdown with the courts that has prompted debate on whether a constitutional crisis is underway.

Driving much of his action is a legal theory advocated by conservatives that the Constitution gives a president nearly unquestioned control over the federal government.

Trump and his top officials also contend that he’s simply working to implement the agenda that Americans voted for in November.

But other constitutional and legal experts who spoke with ABC News call it unparalleled overreach.

“This really is unprecedented,” Elizabeth Goitein, the senior director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program, told ABC News.

“We’ve seen really broad theories of executive power advanced in previous administrations,” Goitein said. “There’s been a steady trend over the last few decades towards increasingly broad views of executive power, especially after 9/11. But this is unprecedented and it’s different in kind, not just in degree.”

Trump, in a recent interview with Time to mark 100 days, disagreed.

“Well, I don’t feel I’m expanding it,” Trump told the magazine when asked about amassing presidential power. “I think I’m using it as it was meant to be used.”

Trump’s ‘government by executive order’

Nearly every day since Jan. 20, Trump has signed executive actions in the Oval Office, often in front of television cameras. He’s signed the greatest number of executive orders in his first 100 days of any president going back 88 years.

“He’s trying to do government by executive order on a whole range of issues,” said David Schultz, a constitutional law expert at Hamline University.

Following Trump’s lead, his administration has carried out a dramatic purge of what Congress had set up as independent agencies, firing tens of thousands of employees, even those with civil service protections. He’s also sought to wipe out diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government.

Trump signed an order to diminish the Department of Education, with the ultimate goal of wiping away the agency established by law. He’s tried to effectively end birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment and has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

To move forward with his immigration and economic policies, Trump has declared national emergencies that Goitein, an expert on presidential emergency powers, said are unjustified.

Despite border crossings being down, Trump invoked the 1798 wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants his administration alleged to be gang members, affording them little to no due process.

He invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in order to impose sweeping tariffs on virtually all U.S. trading partners. Though it is Congress, not the president, that has the power to impose taxes and regulate trade — and the emergency power used by Trump makes no mention of tariffs.

At times, he’s used the power of the presidency to pursue retribution on political opponents. Seemingly contrary to his promise to end the “weaponization” of government and the justice system, he’s signed orders targeting specific law firms that took on clients or cases he disagreed with politically. He directed the Justice Department to investigate Chris Krebbs and Miles Taylor, two officials from his first term who’ve criticized him or challenged his 2020 election falsehoods.

Trump’s harshest critics say some action verges on authoritarianism, noting his open respect for “strongman” leaders, including China’s President Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

“Sometimes you need a strongman,” Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity last September while campaigning.

Pushback from the courts — but not from Congress

“Our Framers were envisioning that if a president tried to do things like this, Congress would step in,” said Schultz. “And right now, it looks like partisanship is more powerful than checks and balances.”

Despite having Republican majorities (albeit narrow ones) in the House and Senate, Trump has opted to largely go it alone on his agenda in his first 100 days. Republicans on Capitol Hill, so far, appear uninterested or unwilling to seriously challenge him.

“We’re all afraid,” GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, one of the few Republicans to be critical of Trump, told her Alaskan constituents last month. Murkowski added that “retaliation is real.”

While congressional pushback has been minimal, a clear clash is underway between the Trump administration and the courts as various groups and individuals challenge his policies.

Trump has berated judges who ruled against him as “radical left” and called for District Judge James Boasberg’s impeachment. He and Vice President JD Vance openly floated the idea of not abiding by lower court orders — “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Trump posted on social media — though later said they would comply with decisions from the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement in rebuke of the rhetoric — and though he didn’t mention Trump by name, the context was clear.

In a major escalation of the administration’s standoff with the courts, the FBI last week arrested a Milwaukee judge, Hannah Dugan, and accused her of obstructing immigration agents. An attorney for Dugan said she will “defend herself vigorously and looks forward to being exonerated.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, when asked about the incident, left open the possibility of the Justice Department taking more action against federal judges or even Supreme Court justices if they were obstructing the arrest of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

“He thinks he can either ignore or bully his way through,” Schultz said of Trump’s posture toward the judiciary. “And so far, he’s got a mixed record at best in terms of being able to do that.”

Several legal experts and presidential scholars who spoke to ABC News expressed concern that the courts will become inundated by Trump’s moves as his second term continues, and the system of checks and balances will continue to break down.

“The separation of powers is probably the most important protection that we have against presidents becoming kings,” said Goitein. “If this is the new normal, then we can say goodbye to democracy.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s administration is launching an investigation into Harvard University’s law journal over alleged discriminatory practices, expanding its weeks-long battle over federal funding with the elite institution.

The civil rights offices of the Education and Health and Human Services departments announced Monday they are investigating the Harvard Law Review, an independent, student-run organization that promotes legal scholarship.

The offices are investigating allegations that the journal discriminates based on race “in lieu of merit-based” standards, in violation of the Title VI anti-discrimination law, according to a release by the two agencies.

“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary within the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement on Monday.

The agencies said the Harvard Law Review risks losing federal funding if found to have broken Title VI law.

The Harvard Law Review has been published and edited by students for over 135 years. It aims to be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students, according to its website.

“Harvard Law School is committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations,” a spokesperson for the university said in a statement to ABC News, noting that the journal “is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the law school.”

The latest investigation comes after the Trump administration froze over $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard after the university refused to comply with a series of demands following an antisemitism task force review earlier this month.

Harvard University President Alan Garber said in a letter at the time that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The university has filed a lawsuit over the Trump administration’s threats to withhold funding, asking a judge to block the funding freeze from going into effect, arguing the move is “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

During a short conference on Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs scheduled oral arguments in the lawsuit challenging the funding freeze on July 21. In the meantime, the funding freeze will remain in effect.

The Internal Revenue Service is also considering revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status, sources told ABC News earlier this month.

In other developments, the Department of Education said Monday its civil rights office found that the University of Pennsylvania violated Title IX by allowing transgender athletes to compete on its women’s sports teams.

The department is demanding the university issue a statement to its community that it will comply with the law, apologize to athletes whose athletic participation was “marred by sex discrimination,” and restore all athletics records or accolades “misappropriated by male athletes.” The school has 10 days to resolve the violation or risk a referral to the Department of Justice.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration said it suspended $175 million in federal contracts awarded to Penn, citing the participation of a transgender athlete on a women’s swimming team.

A Penn spokesperson said at the time that the university has “always followed” NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student participation on athletic teams.

ABC News’ Peter Charalambous contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson met with President Donald Trump Monday afternoon in the Oval Office, where they huddled over the GOP’s political strategy heading into a pivotal period of legislative business — with their congressional majorities on the line.

As Congress returns to Washington following a two-week recess and the president approaches 100 days in office, Republicans hope to sharply reshape federal spending to align with the president’s domestic agenda.

After meeting with the president, Johnson returned to the Capitol to meet with top administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and leading congressional Republicans grappling over budget reconciliation.

“We’re working on the big, beautiful bill, the reconciliation bill,” Johnson told reporters. “Now is game time as the big developments will be coming together. We’re excited about that. I think it’s going to be a great piece of legislation.”

Flanked by White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and James Blair, assistant to the president, Bessent told reporters after the meeting on Monday that he found “great unity” among congressional Republican leaders, with the House and Senate moving quickly and “in lockstep” on a budget bill focused on Trump’s priorities.

The meeting included Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Johnson, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith.

“We think that they are in a substantial agreement, and that this is going to be a win for the American people. Very-pro growth,” Bessent continued.

He said there were “three legs” to the president’s economic agenda: trade, tax and deregulation. He said they hoped to get the tax portion of the budget package done by July 4.

“Both sides have proposals in front of the President, and we think there’s a path to deliver the requisite spending reforms to get a great pro-growth tax package, along with the president’s priorities that he laid out on the campaign trail,” Bessent said.

Hassett reiterated Trump’s claim that a billionaire tax cut is off the table. Bessent said priorities for the package would be to make tax cuts and the Jobs Act permanent, no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime, and deductibility for loans for American-made cars.

Asked if Bessent’s July 4 timeline was realistic, Thune said, “I think so. You know, I mean, it’s, it all depends on how progress goes in the next few weeks.”

“I think we, everybody, feels like we’re making significant progress in trying to get the House, the Senate and the White House, kind of in the same place. But it’s going to take time. It’s complicated — a lot of moving parts,” Thune said.

Republicans have begun releasing legislative text to codify their lofty ambitions to cut at least $2 trillion from federal spending over the next decade, with six markups scheduled this week and additional hearings anticipated in the coming weeks as conservatives face the latest test of their narrow majority.

“It’s going to solve a lot of problems,” Johnson predicted. “It’s going to be a turbo-boost for the economy, and we’re looking forward to getting that done.”

But as Trump reaches his 100th day in office this week, polling shows the public souring on the president’s job performance. Nevertheless, Johnson maintains the belief that the GOP is poised to defend its narrow majority — claiming Republicans “are playing offense.”

“We talked about the upcoming races, the midterm elections and we’re very bullish on it,” Johnson proclaimed. “There’s 13 Democrats sitting in districts that President Trump won. Those are the obvious targets. We have an offensive map. There’s only three House Republicans sitting in districts that Kamala Harris won. So it’s a lopsided map, it gives us a great opportunity and we’re going to go make history.”

Still, Johnson acknowledged there have been some ups and downs in the early stages of the administration.

“These presidential terms are roller-coaster sometimes. There’s been a little tumult in the markets with the tariff policy and all of that, but I think this is settling out,” Johnson said. “People are in very good spirits. They understand that this is a long game to be played.”

ABC News’ Isabella Murray contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department’s division tasked with enforcing the nation’s federal civil rights laws has recently seen a mass exodus of “over 100” attorneys, the newly confirmed official leading the division said in an interview this week.

“What we have made very clear last week in memos to each of the 11 sections in the Civil Rights Division is that our priorities under President Trump are going to be somewhat different than they were under President Biden,” DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview with conservative host Glenn Beck. “And then we tell them, these are the President’s priorities, this is what we will be focusing on — you know, govern yourself accordingly. And en masse, dozens and now over 100 attorneys decided that they’d rather not do what their job requires them to do.”

The resignations come as Dhillon and Attorney General Pam Bondi have made clear the priorities of the division — which was established in the wake of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s — would shift away from priorities like enforcing voting rights laws and cracking down on unconstitutional policing to culture war issues touted by President Trump in his 2024 campaign.

In recent weeks, the department has said it would pursue legal action against states that permit transgender athletes to participate in girls’ and women’s sports, withdrawn from a Biden-era lawsuit against Georgia’s voting laws and convened a task force to investigate incidents of “anti-Christian bias.”

Of the recent resignations, Dhillon said in the interview that she thinks it’s “fine” the attorneys opted to leave.

“We don’t want people in the federal government who feel like it’s their pet project to go persecute, you know, police departments based on statistical evidence or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence,” Dhillon said. “That’s not the job here. The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.”

At the same time, Dhillon said in the interview she was seeking to staff up the division so they could pursue issues like the administration’s actions targeting Harvard University.

“You need more lawyers, investigators and commitment to do the work, and you need the people in the United States identifying these things for us,” Dhillon said. “We’re going to run out of attorneys to work on these things at some point.”

Several top Democrats sent a letter to Bondi, Dhillon and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz Monday raising concerns over what they described as the “politicization” of the DOJ’s civil rights division.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MIDDLE EAST) — An F/A-18E fighter jet rolled off the side an aircraft carrier and sank to the bottom of the Red Sea, the Navy announced on Monday.

There was one enlisted crew member aboard the jet and a second enlisted crew member inside the tractor when the incident occurred.

Both personnel were able to jump out in time with only one person sustaining a minor injury, according to officials.

In the extraordinary mishap, the $70 million jet was being towed out of the hanger bay of the USS Harry S. Truman when the crew lost control.

“The F/A-18E was actively under tow in the hangar bay when the move crew lost control of the aircraft. The aircraft and tow tractor were lost overboard,” the Navy wrote in a statement.

“Sailors towing the aircraft took immediate action to move clear of the aircraft before it fell overboard. An investigation is underway,” the service added.

The USS Harry S. Truman has been operating in the Red Sea since last September when it was deployed to help protect commercial ships against near-constant attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen.

It’s not clear what contributed to the crew members losing control of the aircraft aboard the carrier, which has previously been targeted by the Houthis. According to a U.S. official, initial field reports suggest a sudden movement of the carrier due to Houthi fire might have been a factor in the incident.

But those reports remained unconfirmed while the investigation plays out.

The Truman carrier was involved in another incident earlier this year when it collided with a merchant ship near the Suez Canal. Its commanding officer was subsequently fired.

The carrier was slated to come home last month, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth extended its deployment while ordering another carrier — the USS Carl Vinson — to the region to bolster military power.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect additional reporting.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a social media post on the day of Canada’s election, President Donald Trump suggested that Canadians should vote for him in order for Canada to become the 51st state.

“Elect the man who has the strength and wisdom to cut your taxes in half, increase your military power, for free, to the highest level in the World, have your Car, Steel, Aluminum, Lumber, Energy, and all other businesses, QUADRUPLE in size, with ZERO TARIFFS OR TAXES, if Canada becomes the cherished 51st. State of the United States of America,” Trump said on Monday, seeming to refer to himself as the candidate.

He added, “America can no longer subsidize Canada with the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars a year that we have been spending in the past. It makes no sense unless Canada is a State!”

Despite Trump’s suggestion, Canadians cannot vote for him since he is not on the ballot. There are 16 registered political parties in Canada — with the Liberals and the Conservatives being the most dominant. Other parties include the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the United Party and the Canadian Future Party.

In response to the president’s post, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre issued a sharp reply, saying Trump should “stay out of our election.”

“The only people who will decide the future of Canada are Canadians at the ballot box. Canada will always be proud, sovereign, and independent, and we will NEVER be the 51st state,” Poilievre wrote in a post on X. “Today, Canadians can vote for change so we can strengthen our country, stand on our own two feet, and stand up to America from a position of strength.”

Canadian Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Mark Carney posted a video on X on Monday with the message: “This is Canada — and we decide what happens here.”

Latest polls show the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives, when only a few months ago the Conservatives held a 25-point lead.

Canada has a parliamentary system, meaning if the Liberals win a majority of seats in the election, or are able to form a minority government with members of another party, Carney will continue to serve as prime minister.

Nearly all of the polls for the election are expected to close by 9:30 p.m. ET on Monday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Rep. Gerry Connolly, the ranking Democrat on the powerful House Oversight Committee, announced he will “soon” step down from his role and won’t run for reelection because his cancer has returned.

“The sun is setting on my time in public service, and this will be my last term in Congress. I will be stepping back as Ranking Member of the Oversight Committee soon,” Connolly said in a statement. “With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter full of pride in what we’ve accomplished together over 30 years.”

Connolly, 75, who was first elected in 2009, defeated Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, 35, for the committee chair in December as the younger representative attempted to bring in a new generation of leadership.

Connolly announced he had been diagnosed with cancer of the esophagus in November.

“When I announced my diagnosis six months ago, I promised transparency,” he said in his statement Monday. “After grueling treatments, we’ve learned that the cancer, while initially beaten back, has now returned. I’ll do everything possible to continue to represent you and thank you for your grace.”

Connolly has served on the Oversight Committee since his first term and has led Democrats on the subcommittee on government operations since 2013. He won the chair vote, 131-84, according to multiple Democratic sources, cementing his role in one of the most high-profile positions in Washington to combat the Trump administration and a unified Republican majority in Congress.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democratic lawmakers are “urgently” calling for the White House to issue a full disclosure of financial transactions leading up to President Donald Trump’s sudden pause on a sweeping set of tariffs earlier this month, raising concerns that people close to the president “potentially violated federal ethics and insider trading laws” surrounding his actions.

Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Rep. Mike Levin, D-Calif., sent a letter on Monday, signed by a group of 23 other Democrats, to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, calling for a commitment from all senior White House and executive branch employees to “expeditiously” transmit all reports related to their securities transactions since the start of Trump’s term to the Office of Government Ethics, requesting, too, that all of this mandatory reporting be made public.

The letter, shared first with ABC News, also asks that any extensions granted to White House employees related to their accounting reports become public, noting that this was practiced during the first Trump administration.

“We are concerned that no periodic transaction reports have been posted on the OGE database for White House officials’ individual disclosures at any point since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025,” Schiff and Levin wrote.

“There is reason to doubt that not a single senior White House official or employee has made any financial transactions triggering a periodic transaction report since the start of the Administration,” the letter continued. “As an important point of reference, during the first Trump Administration, periodic transaction reports filed by senior White House officials were made publicly available on the OGE’s disclosure database, as required by the Ethics in Government Act and the STOCK Act.”

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

Hours before Trump announced he was rolling back tariffs to 10% to all countries except China, which sent the stock market soaring, he posted on Truth Social: “BE COOL! Everything is going to work out well. The USA will be bigger and better than ever before!” and “THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY!!! DJT.”

Stocks were down the morning before Trump’s Truth Social post. Nasdaq soared 12.1% at close, the index’s largest single-day gain since 2021, while the Dow jumped 7.8%, its biggest one-day increase in five years.

“Newly identified data raises concerns about potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws by individuals close to the President with access to non-public information,” Schiff and Levin’s letter reads.

Trump has said he hasn’t engaged in insider trading himself — but that he couldn’t definitively claim that members of his administration have not. “I can commit to myself, that’s all I can commit to,” Trump told reporters on Friday, when asked whether he could assure Americans that no one in his administration was insider trading with information about trade deals coming together.

Trump said he hires “honorable people” but said, “I have thousands of people that work for me, but I can’t imagine anybody doing that.”

The Democrats requested a response from Wiles no later than May 9, 2025, and for a “detailed plan” for how the administration plans to address any officials and employees who may have failed to file required disclosures from the start of the administration.

“By failing to take these steps, the Administration would be withholding critical information from the American people regarding potential violations of federal ethics and insider trading laws. We look forward to reviewing all required reports and disclosures,” Schiff and Levin wrote.

“Senior White House officials have influence over or become witting of consequential policy decisions that can have market moving impacts,” the letter said. “It is critical that such officials adhere to all applicable ethics, conflict of interest, and disclosure requirements.”

“The American public deserves nothing less than full transparency, particularly in the context of the harm done to pension funds and retirement savings as a result of the President’s erratic trade policy,” it continued

The letter was signed by Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Elizabeth Warren, Jeffrey Merkley and Elissa Slotkin, as well as Reps. Brad Sherman, Brad Schneider, Angie Craig, Jerry Nadler, Rashida Tlaib, Cleo Fields, Yassamin Ansari, Seth Magaziner, Pramila Jayapal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Nanette Diaz Barragán, Mark DeSaulnier, Madeleine Dean and Delia Ramirez.

Schiff had previously written to Wiles and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer over the rollbacks on Trump’s tariffs. In that letter, sent with Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., Schiff asked for an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. Schiff has not received a response from Wiles following his request, a spokesperson for the senator told ABC News.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.