(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump, speaking in the Oval Office on Wednesday alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, said his administration is going to “go into other cities” to combat crime.

“We’re going to have a surge of strong, good people, patriots. And they’re going to go in, they straighten it all out,” Trump said.

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

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democratic senators are alleging that the Department of Homeland Security potentially violated the Hatch Act by asking airports across the country to play a video featuring DHS Secretary Kristi Noem blaming Democrats for the impacts of the government shutdown.

“This appears to be a flagrant violation of Sec. 715, which states ‘No part of any funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be used by an agency of the executive to branch… for the preparation, distribution or use of any… film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself,'” Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal wrote in the letter to DHS citing a section from the Anti-Lobbying Act. 

The Hatch Act restricts certain political activities by federal employees and by some state, Washington, D.C., and local government workers who are involved or work in federally funded programs. Penalties for violating it include removal from federal employment, suspension without pay, demotion, or blocking a party from federal jobs for up to five years, according to the Office of Special Counsel.

“The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation,” according to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel’s website.

In response to ABC News’ request for comment on the call for an investigation, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said “DHS responds to official correspondence through official channels.”

“It is TSA’s top priority to ensure that travelers have the most pleasant, efficient, and safe air travel security experience possible. It is a simple statement of fact that Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government, and because of this, most of our TSA employees are working without pay. It’s unfortunate our workforce has been put in this position due to political gamesmanship. Our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government,” she said.

The letter followed a number of airports nationwide declining to play the video, saying their facilities’ policies bar the showing of political content. Some of them also pointed to the Hatch Act. 

Among the major airports that declined to show the DHS video are LaGuardia, Newark Liberty, John F. Kennedy, Charlotte Douglas International, Seattle-Tacoma, San Francisco, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta, Chicago O’ Hare, Phoenix International and Colorado Springs.

As of Wednesday afternoon, officials at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Michigan and Bismarck Airport in North Dakota said the video was being shown on screens controlled by TSA at the airports and out of their control. Both airports said they were not involved in the decision to play the video. A spokesperson for Detroit Wayne Airport said it has requested that TSA stop playing the video. 

The letter to DHS led by Blumenthal and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed was  cosigned by 15 other senators and asks the department to “immediately remove these videos from all TSA checkpoints and cease illegally using federal funds for partisan political messaging.”  

The senators also asked DHS to provide information on the funding used to produce the video, including the cost, the approver of the funds, whether anyone from the Trump administration was consulted on the video, and if any outside contractors or organizations were involved in its creation to assess whether any federal laws were violated or funds misused, according to the letter. 

A similar letter was sent by Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, ranking member on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, to the Office of Special Counsel demanding an investigation into the video, adding that the OSC is responsible for enforcing the Hatch Act. 

“When viewed in its totality, Secretary Noem’s video can only be reasonably interpreted as a partisan message intended to misleadingly malign the Trump Administration’s political opponents, convince Americans to blame ‘Democrats in Congress’ for the ongoing government shutdown, and influence their future votes — all while omitting the fact that Republicans currently control the White House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives,” Cantwell wrote in the letter.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(TEXAS) — One of the Texas Democrats who attempted to block Republican efforts to redraw the state’s congressional maps mid-decade is looking to bring that fighting spirit to the governor’s mansion.

Austin-area state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat, on Tuesday launched a bid to unseat Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

Hinojosa told ABC News she believes Texas voters desire a spirited, fresh candidate to take on Abbott, who is running for a fourth term.

“I think Americans are done with politics as usual and are interested in shaking off labels and just wanting to see something real,” she said. “I’m as real as you get — a mom who got mad [who] ran for office.”

A former Austin ISD school board president, Hinojosa will center education, and campaigning on behalf of Texas public schools, in her bid. Hinojosa was elected to the statehouse in 2016.

“After 10 years, I now understand where our money is going and our money is going to vendor contracts and to enrich the billionaire class and not to the needs of Texans,” she said.

Hinojosa was part of the first wave of legislators who, this summer, left the state to deny their Republican counterparts a quorum, which brought the Abbott-backed special session to implement new GOP-favored congressional maps to a screeching halt. 

The quorum break kicked off a national redistricting saga; high-profile Democrats, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Illinois. Gov. JB Pritzker, and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul hosted these lawmakers to protest the maps.

Pritzker took on an outsized role in the showdown, helping coordinate the travel and lodging of dozens of state lawmakers as they camped out in Illinois and ran out the clock. Former President Barack Obama even called into their Illinois’ encampment and offered support. 

Texas Republicans did eventually pass new congressional maps after establishing a second special session, though Texas Democrats, Hinojosa among them, heralded their collective action as a win. Newsom and California Democrats, in turn, launched their own effort to pass blue-leaning maps, bringing the issue to voters on a proposition this November.

Hinojosa said her involvement in the quorum break “opened my eyes” that voters are ready for a fight.

“I can run for governor because I have faith in Texans that they will have my back and that they are in this with me. That quorum break did expand my understanding of where Texans, where voters are today in 2025 when it comes to what they want to see their leaders doing,” she said.

But Hinojosa, a self-described populist, has a lot of ground to gain. No Democrat has won a statewide office in Texas since 1994. And Texas’ Latino population has been slowly edging toward Trump over the last few elections. Trump led former President Joe Biden by 6 points in the state in 2020 — and the gulf grew in 2024, when trounced former Vice President Kamala Harris by 14 points. 

She must also edge out serious Democratic challengers in the primary. Andrew White, the son of former Texas Gov. Mark White, is also running. And she faces the potential of more well-known Democrats jumping into the fray. (Though Hinojosa says both Rep. Joaquin Castro and former congressman Beto O’Rourke have told her they’ve ruled out a gubernatorial run.)

Despite it all, she feels she can navigate these challenges. And is making a bet that Texas voters feel the same.

“People want change. I’m the candidate of change. Greg Abbott is the candidate of status quo, of the insider club enriching themselves with our taxpayer dollars. So, I feel very good about being a candidate that represents the desires and what Texans want to see in a leader,” Hinojosa said. 

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(FLORIDA) — A Florida judge issued a protective order against Republican Rep. Cory Mills after he was accused by a former girlfriend of threatening to release sexually explicit videos of her, according to court documents.

The judge ordered the congressman to refrain from contacting Lindsey Langston, who was named Miss United States in 2024 and is a Republican state committeewoman from Columbia County.

Langston alleged in July that Mills threatened to release videos of her after their breakup earlier this year and that he threatened to harm any future partners, according to a report obtained from the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office in Florida.

In the order, the judge wrote that Langston has “reasonable cause to believe she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of another act of dating violence” and said the evidence supported Langston’s assertion that Mills had caused her “substantial emotional distress” and that Mills offered “no credible rebuttal” to her testimony.

The order, which remains in place until January 2026, prohibits Mills from contacting Langston in any way and from coming within 500 feet of her residence or place of employment.

In her first comments since the judge’s decision, Langston said she now “feels like I’m able to live my life again.”

“I do feel that justice was served, and I can’t even describe the relief that I felt once I got the phone call that I had been issued the injunction for protection. I felt like I’m able to live my life again,” Langston said on a Zoom call Wednesday with reporters, sitting next to her attorney.

Mills previously said in a statement to ABC News, “These claims are false and misrepresent the nature of my interactions,” and accused a former Florida primary opponent of “weaponizing the legal system to launch a political attack against the man who beat him.”

In the order, the judge said he did not find Mills’ testimony to be “truthful.”

“The court, considering the totality of the testimony and the circumstances, does not find the Respondent’s testimony concerning the intimate videos to be truthful,” the judge wrote.

Speaker Mike Johnson, on Wednesday, was asked about allegations against Mills and told reporters, “I have not heard or looked into details of that. I’ve been a little busy. We have a House Ethics Committee; if it warrants that, I am sure they’ll look into it.”

“You have to ask Rep. Mills about that,” the Speaker added when pressed. “I mean, he’s been a faithful colleague here. I know his work on the Hill. I mean, I don’t. I don’t know all the details of all the individual allegations and what he’s doing in his outside life. Let’s talk about things that are really serious.”

Langston’s attorney Bobi Frank said Wednesday that her client plans to cooperate with any future investigations, including with the House Ethics Committee, and said she had been in contact with “other individuals” involved the matter and alleged that “Miss Langston is not alone.”

ABC News has reached out to Mills for a comment.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared ready to limit how a key part of the Voting Rights Act long aimed at protecting equal opportunity for racial minority voters is applied to the drawing of state election maps. 

During oral arguments in a complicated case challenging the drawing of a second majority-black district in Louisiana, the court’s conservative majority suggested race may have improperly predominated as a factor in its creation.

At the same time, it was not clear whether a majority of the court was prepared to issue a more sweeping ruling that any use of race as a factor in redistricting is unconstitutional. 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has long been a guardrail against states “packing” Black voters into districts and “cracking” communities of color into other districts with an aim of diluting their electoral influence.

Courts that have found a violation of Section 2 then order states to redraw their maps, with an eye on race, to ensure minority voters are given fair chance at political participation. 

The law does not require proof of intent to discriminate — prohibiting any discrimination in effect — but several conservative justices suggested that plaintiffs should have to show at least some possibility of intent, a tougher standard to meet. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who could be the key vote in the case, voiced particular concern about the indefinite use of race to draw maps compliant with Section 2.

“This court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an end point,” Kavanaugh said. 

“What is not grounded in case law,” replied Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which is defending Louisiana’s map, “is the idea that an entire statute should somehow dissolve simply because race may be an element of the remedy.”

The court’s longstanding precedents have said that race cannot be a primary motivating factor when drawing congressional districts under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but they also grant states have breathing room to consider race in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. 

The court most recently upheld Section 2 in a 2023 decision. 

“What Section 2 does is to say where the effects [of a congressional map] are discriminatory such that … African Americans here are not being given the same voting opportunities as white people are, then a remedy is appropriate,” Justice Elena Kagan told Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga. “That remedy doesn’t have to be race-based, but sometimes it is race-based in order to correct the racially discriminatory situation that exists.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson most vigorously defended the legacy of Section 2 and its use to create two majority-black districts in Louisiana, describing the Civil Rights-era law as a “tool” to identify racial disparities. 

“It’s like a tape measure that we’re looking [at] as to whether or not certain circumstances exist, and those circumstances that Congress is worried about – unequal access to electoral opportunity,” she said. “That’s why it doesn’t need a time limit, because it’s not doing any work other than just pointing us to the direction of where we might need to do something.”

Justice Samuel Alito said outright that he believed lower courts did not correctly apply the Supreme Court’s precedents around Section 2 to the maps at issue in Louisiana. 

“There’s a serious question about whether the Black population within the district in question in the illustrative map was geographically compact,” he said, referring to one of the legal requirements for a VRA-compliant map. 

A decision in Louisiana’s favor could, at the very least, require the state to redraw its map under more race-neutral criteria ahead of the 2026 midterm election. The two majority-black districts are represented by Democrats. 

A broader conclusion in the case could upend congressional maps nationwide, potentially triggering the redrawing of race-neutral districts in multiple states and in turn putting minority representation at risk in legislatures nationwide.  

Nelson argued that a further rollback of the Voting Rights Act would be “catastrophic.” 

 “If we take Louisiana as one example, every congressional member who is Black was elected from a VRA opportunity district,” she said. “We only have the diversity that we see across the south, for example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act.” 

The court is expected to release a decision before the end of its term in June 2026.  How quickly it releases its ruling could determine whether or not states will have sufficient time to redraw maps — if necessary — before midterm voting begins.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.