(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department’s number three-ranked official suggested overnight in a since deleted post that the Trump administration would be moving forward with an alternative plan to compensate victims of claimed Biden-era “weaponization.”

The post came just hours after the acting attorney general committed to Congress that DOJ was scrapping plans for a so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The fund was created in exchange for Trump agreeing to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS as well as two civil claims related to the Russia collusion investigation he faced during his first term in office and the 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Stanley Woodward, the associate attorney general who signed off on the president’s controversial settlement, responded approvingly to a suggestion pushed by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on X Tuesday that victims of so-called Biden-era “weaponization” could still be compensated through claims under the requests under the Federal Torts Claims Act.

“We’re on it.” Woodward posted at 10:45 p.m. Tuesday evening in response to Graham’s post. Woodward’s post was deleted Wednesday morning, and a DOJ spokesperson has not responded to ABC’s request for comment as to why it’s no longer on his X account.

The post comes just hours after acting AG Todd Blanche told House lawmakers that the administration was permanently scrapping plans for its “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

Blanche, however, under pressure from Democrats did not commit to putting the department’s position into writing.

Democrats could seek to seize on Woodward’s post as evidence the administration is seeking an alternate way to pay Jan 6 rioters.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(LOS ANGELES) — Votes are being counted in the closely watched primary election to determine Los Angeles’ next mayor.

Voters in the nation’s second-largest city had their choice of 14 candidates to choose from in a race that included incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, reality TV personality Spencer Pratt and city Councilwoman Nithya Raman.

ABC News projects that Bass will advance to a runoff, though it is currently unclear which candidate she will face in the runoff election.

During the campaign, candidates running for the top office in Los Angeles focused on a variety of issues afflicting the Southern California metropolis, including recovery from the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homelessness, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and more.

While the primary is nonpartisan, Bass has served Congress as a Democrat, Raman is a self-described Democrat, and Pratt is a registered Republican.

Here is a rundown of the candidates, the issues and how the election will function.

The candidates

While 14 candidates are running for office, three front-runners have emerged in polls: Bass, Pratt and Raman met in the only televised debate of the race on May 6.

Bass, a Los Angeles native, entered politics in 2004 after a career in medicine as a physician assistant. The mayor served in the California State Assembly, rising to the speaker of the assembly before running for Congress in 2010.

She served six terms in the House as a Democrat before becoming the first woman and second African American mayor of Los Angeles in 2022.

Raman, running as a progressive, launched her campaign earlier this year, just before the deadline, and has been a member of the city council since 2020.

Raman, who holds degrees from both Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, describes herself as an “urban planner” on her website.

Pratt, who has generated headlines since announcing his candidacy earlier this year, is running as an outsider in the field. Pratt rose to fame in his 20s serving as a villain archetype on the hit reality TV show “The Hills.”

The former reality star has said his political ambitions were fueled by his association with the Palisades wildfire, which claimed his home.

The issues

No topic has been more prominent in the mayoral campaign than the Los Angeles fire response and recovery. When fires ravaged the region in early 2025, more than 10,000 structures were destroyed as more than 30,000 acres of the city burned.

Pratt has been the most outspoken critic of the city’s response. Bass has defended her actions while also admitting the city must learn from the fire. Raman has also criticized the “dysfunctional” response to the fires.

Homelessness, another key issue candidates have focused on down the stretch, was hotly debated on the debate stage last month. Bass has cited what she says are inroads on the issue, saying L.A. had seen a decrease in homelessness under her administration.

Raman’s campaign has stressed the importance of bringing unhoused people indoors, while Pratt has focused on what he sees as the core cause of homelessness: drug addiction.

The candidates also have different stances on what the city’s approach to ICE should be. Last year, ICE raids became a flashpoint for widespread protests across the city.

As mayor, Bass has pushed back on ICE’s presence in Los Angeles, saying in a press release in March, “Los Angeles will not stand for ICE’s fear, intimidation and unlawful targeting.”

Raman’s plan to address ICE in Los Angeles includes appointing a police chief “committed to protecting immigrants” and ensuring the Los Angeles Police Department “does not coordinate with federal immigration enforcement,” according to her website.

Pratt recently told ABC News the future mayor would not be able to work with ICE because of California’s sanctuary law status, adding, “I’m going to make the streets so safe the federal government is not going to need to come to L.A., because they’re going to be like ‘Wow this mayor has these streets safe and clean.'”

Other hot topics at play in the primary is the revival of Hollywood, LAPD funding, affordable housing and more.

How the primary works

According to the city of Los Angeles election code, the Los Angeles mayoral primary can result in either an outright winner or a runoff, depending on final vote tallies.

A candidate will be determined the winner if they receive a majority of votes in the primary. In the case that does not happen, the top two vote-getters will advance to a runoff in the general election in November.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Alabama Republicans to use a contested 2023 congressional map that a lower court last week called “intentional race-based discrimination” in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.

The move is a significant win for the GOP, allowing the state to eliminate one of two majority-Black districts occupied by Democrats, even as election experts and state administrators have warned of major confusion for voters with the late change.

Civil rights groups lamented the decision as a stark example of the impact of the court’s historic April decision in Louisiana v. Callais which rolled back longstanding voting rights protections for minority voters.

In an unsigned opinion Tuesday, the court’s conservative majority said the unanimous three-judge panel — which included two Trump appointee — in the Alabama dispute failed to apply “updated” standards the justices issued in the Callais decision for proving a political process is not equally open for minority voters.

The court said the panel “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith” by concluding state lawmakers had “discriminatory animus.”

The court’s decision concluded that the judges also erred in blocking the 2023 map even though the minority voters challenging it could not provide an alternative map that offered the same political advantages sought by Republicans.

Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey praised the decision, and her office confirmed the state would hold a special primary using the new maps with redrawn districts on Aug. 11.

“The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed what I have said all along and that is that Alabama knows our state, our people and our districts best,” Ivey said in a statement. “Today’s decision is a win for the people of Alabama and our elections.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a lengthy dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused her colleagues of “unleashing chaos” and “confus[ing] voters.”

The map change will require state officials to change the voter registrations of hundreds of thousands of voters in a matter of days and educate them on where to cast new ballots.

“Just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”

In 2024, Alabama had been required to use a map with two majority-Black districts, one of which was won by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures.

The new map could allow Republicans to flip Figures’ seat.

The NAACP slammed the Supreme Court’s decision as discriminatory.

“The Supreme Court continues to unleash chaos in our democratic process, and with this latest action, gives Alabama approval to use a congressional map that had previously been found to be intentionally discriminatory,” NAACP General Counsel Kristen Clarke wrote in a statement. “This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame. Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season.”

-ABC News’ Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.