KTBB News, Weather, Talk

(WASHINGTON) -- U.S. Park Police are seeking assistance in identifying a person wanted in connection to a "destruction of government property" investigation related to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Park Police posted on social media Wednesday a video of the alleged incident that shows a person reaching into the Reflecting Pool and appearing to pull something from the water. The video is somewhat blurry and shot from a distance. ABC News has reached out to National Park Service and Park Police about the source of the video.

The incident allegedly occurred at 3:36 p.m. ET on Friday, June 19. Park Police said anyone with information on the identity of the individual should contact their tip line.

The bulletin comes as President Donald Trump continues to blame vandals for alleged damage at the Reflecting Pool after his administration's $16 million renovation.

The White House has yet to provide evidence that shows the alleged vandalism to the site.

"The Reflecting Pool that you've heard so much about, which is so incredible, it's been gruesomely vandalized by thugs, bad people, but soon will be looking as beautiful as it looked just two weeks ago," Trump said on Wednesday night as he kicked off Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair with remarks on the National Mall.

"In fact, I looked at it just a little while ago, it looks perfect already," the president continued. "But we’re fixing it. The vandals got to it, they’ve largely been caught and are being prosecuted. We can't let that happen to our country."

The Interior Department and the U.S. Park Police, though a spokesperson earlier this week, confirmed there had been several arrests and federal citations for alleged vandalism. Trump said on Tuesday that six people had been arrested.

Trump also said earlier this week that the Reflecting Pool will be drained again for "permanent repair" around the Fourth of July.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can cancel the temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Haitians and Syrians, concluding that the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion with little-to-no judicial oversight to decide when they must return home.

The ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on the approximately 1.3 million people who rely on TPS to live and work in the United States legally, and advocates said they fear it will have devastating and possibly deadly long term costs for those refugees.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that courts cannot override the federal government's determination about TPS status in most cases.

TPS status, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides work authorization and protection from deportation -- as long as the Homeland Security Secretary certifies that a foreign country is unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or "extraordinary and temporary conditions."

Alito concluded that the law establishing the TPS program did not give courts the authority to second guess the DHS's determinations about which countries merit the protected status, which was created to shield immigrants from countries ravaged by war or national disasters.

"The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents' non-constitutional claims. It allows 'no judicial review of any determination ... with respect to the ... termination of a TPS designation," Alito wrote.

Though the ruling centered on the TPS of Haitians and Syrians, the ruling effectively gives the Trump administration the green light to carry out similar terminations, which they have already done for 13 countries.

James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security's General Counsel, praised Thursday's ruling.

"The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense," he said in a statement.

Attorneys for the Haitian plaintiffs said in a statement Thursday that the ruling "will directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths."

"This decision will endanger Haitian TPS holders who fled their homeland in pursuit of what generations of immigrants yearned for when they made the painful decision to leave all they have known. to live in safety," Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber told ABC News in a statement.

"It's a very sad day, not only for Haitian TPS holders but for anyone who believes, as we do, that immigrants are one of America's greatest strengths," they added. "The responsibility to save these lives is now with Congress--and we urge the Senate to pass the extension of TPS now pending in that chamber. "

It is unclear if Congress will vote on an extension, however, Trump has repeatedly called for the end of TPS protections and would not likely sign off.

The court's liberals also lambasted the decision, arguing that the statements made by President Donald Trump about some of the countries whose status was cancelled -- including making baseless claims that Haitians eat dogs and cats during the 2024 presidential race -- demonstrate that race played a role in the decisions.

"The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print," wrote Justice Kagan. "The references--of filth, disease, and primitiveness--are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes."

The court's liberals also argued that the statute creating TPS does allow courts to review if DHS carried out legally-required procedures to cancel the status -- something the plaintiffs allege did not happen.

"It does nothing to stop courts from reviewing things other than the Secretary's 'determination[s]' concerning TPS designations," Kagan wrote.

Immigrant advocacy groups have warned about the possible sweeping consequences of this ruling, saying it will open the door for an "astonishing human tragedy."

Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake in 2010 and has since been hit by subsequent natural disasters, political unrest following a presidential assassination, and waves of rampant gang violence.

More than 113,000 Haitian TPS holders work in Florida alone, which is home to a high proportion of America's seniors, according to the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

Syria devolved into civil war around 2011 and has been considered by the U.S. government a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades. A major earthquake in 2023 plunged the country into a deeper economic and humanitarian crisis.

"This is an awful harbinger for what we expect this administration to try to do for other TPS designations. Hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here for decades now see heartbreaking chaos ahead," FWD.us President Todd Schulte said in a statement Thursday.

Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in separate acts last year, moved to terminate TPS status for Haiti and Syria by certifying that, in her estimation, conditions on the ground in those countries were sufficiently safe for immigrants to return.

Those decisions were blocked by lower courts, which concluded that Noem did not follow proper procedures for cancelling TPS and may have also unlawfully discriminated against the immigrants on the basis of race.

Pastor Carl Ruby, a prominent community leader in Springfield, Ohio, who has sought to stand up for Haitians there after Trump's false comments about them eating pets rattled the community and preceded numerous bomb threats.

"This is the worst possible outcome," Ruby told ABC News through tears. "I had always held out hope that we would get a good decision and can't believe that we're here now."

Ruby contended that there was racial motivation behind the administration's actions.

"If you look at the history of the president's comments about Haiti and Haitians, it's clear that this wouldn't be happening if these were refugees from Norway. I just feel like we have failed as a country and I don't think I've ever been as disappointed in our country as I am right now," he said.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who has defended the Springfield community, said deporting Haitians "is a mistake."

"As a result of today's ruling, the over 10,000 Haitians who have been living in Ohio (mostly in the Springfield area) legally through TPS will now be here illegally and will be subject to immediate deportation," the governor said in a statement.

"This also means that while these Haitians were working and contributing to our community and economy yesterday, today it is now illegal to employ them," he added.

"The situation in Haiti could hardly be much worse. The violent gangs run most of the country. The government barely functions. And, the economy is in shambles," DeWine said.

-ABC News' Laura Romero, Armando Garcia and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibits the carry of a firearm onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives express consent. 

In a 6-3 decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the law imposed "severe restrictions on the daily activities" of lawful gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment.

"Rather than allowing all to enter private property open to the public unless specifically prohibited, these new laws provided that no one carrying a firearm may enter without express authorization," Alito wrote. 

"The Hawaii law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms," the opinion said. 

The ruling, which likely also invalidates similar laws in California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey, is a setback for gun control advocates that had argued the measures were necessary for public safety in places like shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, farms, arenas and private beaches. 

Hawaii had argued that there is no such thing as a right to armed entry onto private property without consent, pointing to a handful of historical examples of similar laws since America's founding. 

But the court's conservatives concluded that those analogues were "outlier legal rules adopted in a few locales."

"Overwhelming evidence shows an enduring American tradition permitting public carry," Alito wrote. 

While private property owners may still prohibit firearms on their premises, the onus now falls entirely on those owners to post signage banning guns. The default rule, in essence, is that lawful gun owners may carry their weapons unless told otherwise, according to the decision. 

Forty-five states presume that it is okay to carry guns on private property open to the public unless property owners make their contrary wishes clear. 

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the ruling "only further binds the hands of modern legislatures attempting to balance and protect their residents' interests."

"Today's decision makes one thing clear: The Court's objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law," Jackson wrote.

The National Rifle Association, which backed the challenge to the Hawaii law, praised the majority decision in a statement on X.

"Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places," wrote NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford. 

Brady, a gun safety group, slammed the court's decision as "deeply dangerous" and one that "privileges guns over everything and all people in society."

"This common-sense law is what the people of Hawaii wanted, but the court has complete disregard for that community will. Ultimately, the court makes it clear that it cares little about the threat of gun violence posed to the American people," said Kris Brown, the group's president.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Hours after President Donald Trump blasted Sen. Bill Cassidy for supporting a war powers resolution that narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday, Cassidy helped to deliver Trump a victory by voting with the majority of Republicans late Wednesday to block a separate resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers in Iran from advancing.

The Senate voted 47-50-1 late Wednesday to block a war powers resolution led by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine from moving forward. The resolution, which aims to limit Trump's ability to wage war in Iran but does not have the force of law, had narrowly advanced in a previous procedural vote.

It was a remarkable departure for Louisiana Republican senator who, just hours previously, was in a shouting match with the president during a lunch between Trump and the GOP conference.

Cassidy said he later received a briefing from Vice President JD Vance and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Iran.

"I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns," Cassidy posted.

Cassidy wasn't the only Republican who changed his vote on the latest war powers vote.

Sen. Rand Paul voted 'present' instead of voting to support the resolution as he had previously been doing.

"Tonight I will vote present on the War Powers resolution. My opinion on the debate over war and executive power has not changed and I have voted that way several times," Paul posted on X ahead of the vote. "But since hostilities seem to be over and the President asked me to give consideration to his negotiating position, I will do so. My vote of present is a way to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace."

Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted in favor of the resolution, as they have in the past. All other Republicans voted against it.

Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. All other Democrats voted for it.  Sens. Mitch McConnell and Michael Bennet were absent during Wednesday night's vote.

Trump celebrated Wednesday's vote in a post on his social media platform.

"Wow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for," Trump said in the post. "Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice!

The earlier clash between Trump and Cassidy came as the president met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill.

At one point, Trump called Cassidy a "lunatic," according to multiple sources. Cassidy did not dispute that when asked by ABC News.

After the meeting, Cassidy acknowledged that he lost his temper with Trump.

"He asked why would anybody vote for the War Powers Act? As he continued, I said, 'is that a rhetorical question, or would you like to really know?' He said, 'I'd like to know.' I stood and said, 'You have not told the American people what's going on. It was supposed to last four weeks. It's lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved, and I want to know what's going on,'" Cassidy said.

The White House had dismissed the earlier Senate vote on the resolution, saying it was of "no significance."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Under a newly proposed rule, the U.S. Postal Service will refuse to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand over a list of approved voters to the Trump administration, Postmaster General David Steiner told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

Democrats lambasted the proposed policy during the hearing, arguing the rule was unconstitutional and "another backdoor way of trying to influence this election."

"Yes or no -- if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?" asked Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich. 

"Under our proposed regulation, no. We would tell the state that we need the manifest," Steiner said.

The proposed rule puts the Postal Service at the center of President Donald Trump's push to increase federal oversight of elections, though Steiner argued the policy is routine and an attempt to make sure ballots are delivered "securely, efficiently, and accurately."

According to the proposal, states would need to provide to the Postal Service the names, addresses and ballot barcode numbers for individuals to receive a mail-in ballot. 

That list of information is less than what's included on a state's voter roll -- which often include voter registration data and other sensitive data -- but in line with an executive order Trump signed in March to increase federal oversight of elections. 

At least five lawsuits have challenged that executive order, but some of those cases have stalled because the policy has not yet been enacted. The comment period for that proposed rule is open for the next week.

"It really is trying to help the state make sure that the ballots that they send to the voters actually get there and get to those voters, and so it's strictly a manifest for us to make sure that the right ballots are going to the right people," said Steiner, an attorney who previously served as the CEO of Waste Management.

However, Senate Democrats argued the policy is a veiled attempt to increase federal control over the election. 

"Just because President Trump wants to do this does not make it law, doesn't make it right, doesn't make it constitutional. There is certainly a massive difference between general mail requirements and regulating elections," Peters said.

"The U.S. Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don't win in these November elections, they were rigged," said Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.

When pressed on whether the Postal Service would refuse to send ballots to states that refuse to turn over that information, Steiner repeatedly deflected but acknowledged that under the proposed rule, the Postal Service would withhold the ballots.

"If you don't get Michigan's voter rolls for the general election in November, will you move those ballots in your mailboxes?" asked Slotkin.

"Remember, right now we only have a proposed rule, so there are no new rules," Steiner answered.  "We will move those ballots in accordance with whatever rule is in effect at that point in time."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.