Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, US Customs and Border Protection, Commissioner Rodney Scott, and Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Todd Lyons testify before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, February 12, 2026 in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Rand Paul had strong words on Thursday for the heads of the federal agencies spearheading the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in Minneapolis and across the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection commissioner Rodney Scott, and Citizenship and Immigration Services director Joseph Edlow were testifying in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
“Witness the thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota, and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths,” Paul, the committee’s chairman, said. “It’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost. To restore trust in ICE and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement, and pledge to reform. I hope the leadership of ICE and Border Patrol here today will participate in a meaningful way.”
Paul and ranking member Sen. Gary Peters went frame by frame on videos of the shooting of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old Minneapolis nurse killed in an encounter with federal agents last month. Federal officials initially said that Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “attacked” officers carrying out immigration duties.
State and local officials said Pretti was lawfully carrying a gun, with a concealed carry permit, and video reviewed and verified by ABC News does not appear to show that Pretti drew his gun on the agents and instead was holding up a cell phone, not a gun, to record agents during the incident.
Another Minneapolis resident – Renee Good — was also shot and killed by federal agents in early January. Federal officials say that the agents acted in self defense after Good allegedly tried to ram them with her car, which local city officials and her family have disputed.
Paul said that it isn’t so much about the specifics of the investigation, but rather the training that CBP and ICE agents receive.
“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head and face in the snow was de-escalation,” Paul said of video showing agents scuffling with Pretti and a woman moments before the shooting. “But your officer, you need to know they…had a verbal encounter with them. She did not place her hands on the officers. She wasn’t trying to get their weapon. It’s not great. I mean … I don’t like to see these encounters either, but is it appropriate for the officers to respond to a verbal, barrage of words or whatever? Is it proper, to physically throw a woman down or throw anyone down if the only action is verbal?”
Both Scott and Lyons agreed that it wasn’t de-escalation if the only action against the agents had been verbal.
“I understand you not wanting to make conclusions yet, but nobody believes you’re gonna because you made conclusions immediately,” Paul told the law enforcement leaders. “Not you. But people within the government made conclusions immediately that [Pretti] was a terrorist and an assassin … people aren’t believing there’s going to be an honest investigation.”
In the hours after the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti committed an “act of domestic terrorism” and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called him a “would-be assassin” and a “terrorist.”
Paul added at the hearing, “I think it’s terrible police work, but there has to ultimately be repercussions.”
Scott said that he would not jump to conclusions and asked the nation to do the same. He said he was committed to releasing the officers’ body-worn-cameras once the investigation is complete.
“There’s body-cam video, that’s all being looked at,” Scott said. “And until all that evidence is evaluated, I can’t jump to a conclusion on either direction. I would ask America to do the same thing, but I am committed to transparency, to making sure all the information we have is made public when it’s appropriate.”
Paul said that he saw “nothing, not even a hint of something that was aggressive on [Pretti’s] part.”
“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years. There needs to be a conclusion,” Paul said. “We need to have answers here and there needs to be an announcement. These are the new policies. This is how we’re going to interact with the public, because the public needs to know to, you know, if I go to a protest and I shout something at people, could I be killed?”
Scott also did not say whether the gun was accidentally discharged by officers in the Pretti case, citing an ongoing investigation.
U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly speaks on the failed grand jury indictment against him during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on February 11, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In a biting opinion that chastised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Republican-appointed judge on Thursday blocked the Defense Department from trying to punish Sen. Mark Kelly over a video he and other Democrats made urging service members not to follow illegal orders, accusing Hegseth of “trampling” on the Arizona senator’s First Amendment rights and suggesting Hegseth should be more “grateful” for the wisdom of retired service members.
“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Washington D.C. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in his opinion.
Leon sharply questioned Trump administration lawyers on whether there was legal precedent for the Defense Department’s attempt to demote and reduce retirement benefits for Kelly, who has been sharply critical of the White House.
“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.”
The Justice Department could appeal the decision, although it’s not clear if it would. The Pentagon and Hegseth on Thursday did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case has drawn considerable attention as a major test of the First Amendment rights of military veterans and the government’s separation of powers. Kelly was suing the Pentagon for threatening to demote him in rank and reduce his military retirement benefits because of a video he made with other Democrats that urged troops not to comply with illegal orders, which they did not specify.
Hegseth accused Kelly of violating a federal law that prohibits undermining good order and discipline within the military and accused him of hiding behind his position as a U.S. senator to do so.
In a video posted online to social media on Thursday, Kelly said he is grateful for the judge’s opinion.
“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case and the clarity of his ruling, but I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong,” he said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Kurt Cobain of Nirvana during MTV Live and Loud: Nirvana Performs Live – December 1993 at Pier 28 in Seattle, Washington, United States. (Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic, Inc)
Authorities in Seattle have confirmed that the case on the death of Kurt Cobain, which was ruled a suicide in 1994, remains closed.
“In the death examination for Kurt Cobain, the King County Medical Examiner’s Office worked with the local law enforcement agency, conducted a full autopsy, and followed all of its procedures in coming to the determination of the manner of death as a suicide,” the public health public information officer for Washington State’s King County says in a statement to ABC Audio. “We’re not able to provide specific details about what informed our conclusion, as the autopsy records are private under state law and can only be released by the next of kin.”
The statement comes after the U.K. tabloid The Daily Mail published a story on an independent, unofficial investigation claiming that the late Nirvana frontman was killed in a homicide.
“Our office is always open to revisiting its conclusions if new evidence comes to light, but we’ve seen nothing to date that would warrant re-opening of this case and our previous determination of death,” the statement reads.
A statement from the Seattle Police Department adds, “Kurt Cobain died by suicide in 1994. This case is closed.”
If you are in crisis or know someone in crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing 988, by calling 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or by visiting 988lifeline.org. You can also contact the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741.
When Jason Aldean heard “How Far Does a Goodbye Go,” he knew it was the beginning of his 12th studio album.
“I knew this was the first one we had to put out there,” he wrote on Instagram, sharing more in a “Story Behind the Song” video with the song’s writers, Tully Kennedy, Kurt Allison, John Edwards and John Morgan.
“It got me excited to go in the studio and cut it,” Jason recalled. “And no-brainer … as soon as I heard it, I’m like, ‘That’s our first single, that’s what’s gonna launch the album and we’ll figure out the rest of it after that, but that’s what’s gonna go.’ So far, so good.”
“How Far Does a Goodbye Go” came out in September, and currently sits at #2 on both the Mediabase and Billboard Country Airplay charts.
The full Songs About Us album follows on April 24.
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency has walked back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
Calling it “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history,” the EPA announced Thursday that it was “eliminating both the Obama-era 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond.”
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the announcement in the White House, alongside President Donald Trump.
“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” Zeldin said in a statement after the announcement. “The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream.”
The EPA said the decision would “[save] American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion,” and “restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks.”
In a statement to ABC News prior to Thursday’s announcement, the EPA called the endangerment finding “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” adding, “in the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
Community members pay respects at a “Memorial Garden” filled with flowers, photos and mementos outside the Tops Friendly Market on Jefferson Avenue on July 14, 2022 in Buffalo, New York. (John Normile/Getty Images)
(BUFFALO, N.Y.) — Nearly four years after 10 Black people were gunned down in a racially motivated mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, supermarket, the victims’ families have reached a settlement with the firearms accessory company listed as a defendant in the case.
The Georgia-based manufacturer Mean Arms has agreed to pay $1.75 to settle a lawsuit filed in 2023, accusing the company of providing online instructions on how to remove a locking device it manufactured for AR-15-style rifles to turn the guns into assault weapons, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced.
“Today, justice looks like accountability, and we have ensured that this device will never be sold in our state again,” James, who filed the lawsuit along with the group Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center, said in a statement on Wednesday.
Mean Arms did not immediately respond to a request from ABC News for comment on the settlement. The company agreed to the settlement “without admitting or denying any allegations, claims, or assertions in the complaints filed in this action,” according to court papers filed in New York Supreme Court in Buffalo.
On May 14, 2022, the gunman, Payton Gendron, a self-professed white supremacist, opened fire with a Bushmaster XM-15 rifle in a Tops supermarket on Buffalo’s East Side neighborhood, killing 10 Black shoppers and injuring three other people.
According to the lawsuit, Gendron followed step-by-step instructions provided by Mean Arms to remove a device sold attached to the weapon called an MA Lock, which prevented the rifle from accepting magazines with more than 10 rounds. New York law bans the possession of assault weapons with high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The removal of the lock allowed Gendron, who was 18 at the time of the shooting, to attach a 30-round magazine and convert the gun into an illegal assault weapon that he used in the attack, according to the lawsuit.
“With a pistol grip and the high-capacity magazines, he did not have to stop to reload his weapon, and when he did reload, he could do so quickly. As a result, he was able to kill 10 people and injure three others,” according to James’ statement.
As part of the settlement, Mean Arms agreed to permanently stop selling the MA Lock in New York and, according to James, remove any statements that claim the MA Lock is legal in New York and state on all packaging that the device cannot be sold or resold in New York.
“This has not been an easy fight and no amount of money will ever make up for the loss of our loved ones, but through this courageous action and in this instance, justice has prevailed and this settlement will provide additional fuel for the fight ahead,” said Garnell Whitfield, the former Buffalo fire chief whose 86-year-old mother, Ruth Whitfield, was killed in the massacre.
Gendron pleaded guilty in November 2022 to 15 state charges, including domestic terrorism motivated by hate, murder and attempted murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Gendron is scheduled to face a federal trial this coming summer, in which he could get the death penalty if convicted.
“We will never forget and stop fighting for our 10 neighbors who were senselessly taken away from us in a tragic, racist act of terror,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a statement. “As we continue to help the families and community heal, I’m grateful to the Attorney General for her partnership in seeking justice for those impacted and working to keep New Yorkers safe by ensuring our nation-leading gun laws are being followed.”
Harry Styles, ‘Kiss All The Time, Disco Occasionally’ (Columbia Records)
Wanna hear Harry Styles’ album Kiss All The Time. Disco, Occasionally. weeks before it comes out? He’s making it possible for some fans to do just that.
Harry’s announced that listening parties, where fans will be able to hear the album in full, will take place in 40 cities starting Feb. 18. “We wanna dance with all our friends,” the caption on Instagram reads. The album officially arrives March 6.
Fans who signed up for Harry’s text subscription list or his tour presale received emails or texts with a link to an entry form to fill out in order to register for a chance to attend the sessions. Los Angeles and Madison, Wisconsin, are the two U.S. locations for the sessions. One of the questions on the form is, “What do you think listening to the album will feel like?”
Recently, Harry announced a one-night-only concert at Co-op Live in Manchester, England, on March 6, release day, during which he’ll perform the album live in its entirety. Tickets were priced at just 20 pounds, or the equivalent of $27.23.
American Rock Singer and Guitarist Jimi Hendrix (1942-1970). (Photo by Avalon/Getty Images)
New York City is set to honor the legacy of rocker Jimi Hendrix. It was just announced that the city plans to co-name West 8th Street in Greenwich Village Jimi Hendrix Way.
The street is where Hendrix’s legendary Electric Lady Studios is located. Opened in August 1970, Electric Lady was the first commercial studio owned by an artist. Hendrix died just three weeks after its opening.
The naming is set to take place Feb. 24 at 11 a.m., and was the result of a campaign led by Experience Hendrix LLC President and CEO Janie Hendrix, NYC District 2 council member Harvey Epstein, and guitarist and writer Jeff Slate.
The naming ceremony will coincide with the launch of a new education partnership with E Street Band guitarist Stevie Van Zandt’s TeachRock, which uses music and pop culture to expand learning in schools. The partnership will result in the addition of a Hendrix curriculum for middle and high school students.
“Jimi Hendrix didn’t just play guitar—he reimagined what art could be,” says Van Zandt. “I want TeachRock to transport students into that same sense of possibility and discovery I felt the first time I saw Jimi perform. His story, lyrics, and sound remind young people that creativity has no limits.”
Janie Hendrix, Van Zandt and Epstein will attend the street naming ceremony, along with group of local TeachRock teachers and students. It will take place on the corner of 8th Street and 6th Avenue.
This isn’t the first time the street has been named after Hendrix. In 2024, the same street in Greenwich Village was temporarily renamed after the Rock & Roll Hall of Famer in connection with the release of the documentary Electric Lady Studios: A Jimi Hendrix Vision.
Viola Davis attends the Academy Museum 5th annual gala in Partnership with Rolex at the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures on Oct. 18, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. (Emma McIntyre/Oscars/Getty Images for Academy Museum of Motion Pictures)
The NAACP announced Thursday that Viola Davis will be the recipient of the prestigious Chairman’s Award.
She’ll receive the honor at the upcoming 57th NAACP Image Awards, which air live from the Pasadena Civic Auditorium on Feb. 28.
“The Chairman’s Award honors individuals who excel in public service and leverage their unique platforms to ignite and drive meaningful change,” according to the announcement.
“Viola Davis is a generational talent who has commanded audiences with her powerful and transcending performances,” Leon W. Russell, chair of the NAACP National Board of Directors, said. “Through a career defined by excellence and courage, she has used her platform to work towards opportunity and equity, crafting an undeniable legacy for generations to come. We look forward to celebrating her and the trailblazing path she has created for herself, and others to follow.”
Past award recipients include Kamala Harris, Amanda Gorman, Samuel L. Jackson, the late civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis, Ruby Dee, Danny Glover, Rev. James Lawson, Tyler Perry and then-Sen. Barack Obama.
Davis, who holds EGOT status, is also nominated for an NAACP Image Award for her role in the action-thriller G20.
The public can vote to determine winners in select categories. Voting ends Friday.
U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff questions U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi as she testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 7, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Win Mcnamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Adam Schiff of California and a group of fellow Democrats are launching a probe into Freedom 250, a new non-profit group closely aligned with President Donald Trump that is raising private funding for high-profile events surrounding America’s 250th birthday this summer.
Freedom 250 — a nonprofit subsidiary of the National Park Foundation, the congressionally chartered fundraising arm of the National Park Service — was announced by the White House X account in December 2025, as an alternative for the congressionally chartered “America250” commission that is planned to celebrate the nation’s birthday this year.
The New York Times is reporting on allegations that the Freedom250 group is exchanging access to Trump for donations, and concerns have been raised in Congress about the arrangement between the group’s donations and their political fundraising.
Schiff’s inquiry, first shared with ABC News, raises concerns about the large sums of private donations and alleged “pay-to-play” access implications involved in the Freedom 250 effort.
When asked to respond to Schiff’s inquiry, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “President Trump is ensuring that America gets the spectacular birthday it deserves. The celebration of America’s 250th anniversary is going to display great patriotism in our Nation’s Capital and throughout the country.”
Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Gary Peters joined Schiff in sending a letter on Wednesday to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, demanding the White House produce a list of Freedom 250 donors and describing any benefits, access, recognition or other consideration donors have received or been promised related to their contributions.
The senators raised concern that the potential coordination between the Trump administration and Freedom 250 could violate federal bribery, conflict of interest and ethics statutes. Schiff’s inquiry is also asking for an explanation on the ethical guidance the group received from the Office of Government Ethics or White House ethics officials.
“It is imperative that Congress and the public understand how decisions are made, who exercises control, and what guardrails exist to prevent inappropriate donor influence. Absent clear rules, this structure risks blurring the line between legitimate civic fundraising and pay‑for‑play access tied to official government functions, an all too familiar feature of the current Administration,” the senators wrote.
Trump — who repeatedly promised on the campaign trail a grand celebration for America’s 250th birthday that would be comparable to past world’s fairs — announced Freedom250 in December as a public-private partnership to spearhead the festivities.
On Tuesday, congressional Democrats accused the Trump administration of trying to alter plans to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday and using the National Park Foundation to solicit money from private donors.
Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman claimed “Trump and his Freedom 250 party planners are working to obscure reality with a fake narrative.”
“America250 could have been an honest celebration. Trump didn’t have control over the congressionally charted nonpartisan organization leading the celebration,” Huffman said, adding that Trump is working to “monetize it.”
During a hearing in the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Jeff Reinbold, the foundation’s president and CEO, promised anonymity to donors who requested it. Reinbold also said he would not provide Congress with any contracts signed by Freedom 250 donors.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Dexter claims Freedom 250 is using public money meant to go to America250, which was created in 2016. Dexter asserted that Freedom 250 is co-mingling fundraising for Trump with private donations for the nation’s birthday celebrations.
“This leaves us all guessing which one of Donald Trump’s billionaire buddies and which foreign interests are buying access,” Dexter said.
