Today is
Wednesday June 03, 2026
(NEW YORK) -- The results of House, governor and mayoral primary elections in six states on Tuesday night show some promising signs for incumbents and the Democratic establishment and the potential limits of an endorsement from President Donald Trump.
They also show what a key toss-up race jolted by a congressman's absence will look like in the November midterms.
Here are some takeaways from the June 2 primaries.
Karen Bass is first LA mayor in more than 20 years to face runoff
In Los Angeles' closely watched nonpartisan mayoral primary race, embattled incumbent Mayor Karen Bass has reason for enthusiasm after months of uncertainty, while reality star Spencer Pratt still has to play the waiting game, although he appears to have put up a strong showing. ABC News projected on Tuesday that Bass will advance to a runoff in November, meaning she will have a shot to keep her seat.
Bass, the first woman and second African American elected to lead the city, is the first Los Angeles mayor to face a runoff in more than two decades.
Bass dedicated her reelection campaign to emphasizing her past experience and achievements in the role, but faced scrutiny over her record and battled criticism for her handling of last year's Los Angeles wildfires. Bass, who was away from the city on a planned diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades Fire first erupted, has pushed back on criticism over her management of the fire, saying earlier this year that her focus "is on the lives and on the homes."
Criticism of Bass gave an opening to Spencer Pratt, the former star of "The Hills," who ran a campaign focused on calling out Bass' handling of the fires and saying that he'd fix a city he felt had become broken.
It's still unclear if Pratt will advance to the next round with Bass, or whether progressive city councilmember Nithya Raman will end up in the runoff. As of Wednesday morning, Pratt is in second place and leads Raman by around 8 percentage points, but there is still around an estimated 40% of the vote left to be counted.
Pratt's current second-place position, which could shift, might be read by some as a limit on the allure of celebrity candidates. However, it could also be seen as a sign of the strength of Pratt running a campaign with a clear message and going beyond relying just on name recognition.
In the state's marquee race for governor, meanwhile, it's still too early to tell which candidates will advance in the top-two primary -- with many mail ballots still to be counted.
As of Wednesday morning, Trump-endorsed Republican Steve Hilton and former Health Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat, have the most votes, with billionaire businessman Tom Steyer -- a Democratic candidate who spent tens of millions in the race -- running behind them.
In Iowa, a loss for Trump-supported candidate in gubernatorial primary and potential win for the Democratic establishment
Trump's key endorsements during the 2026 election cycle have usually resulted in wins for his preferred candidates, including in Kentucky's recent 4th Congressional District primaries where a Trump-backed challenger unseated the maverick GOP Rep. Thomas Massie.
But one major Trump-backed candidate in Iowa conceded in his primary.
Republican Rep. Randy Feenstra, who currently represents Iowa's 4th Congressional District and was mounting a statewide bid for governor, conceded late Tuesday to GOP opponent and "Make America Healthy Again" movement supporter, Zach Lahn, in the gubernatorial primary in Iowa.
As of Wednesday morning, he trailed Lahn by around 1 percentage point.
Lahn will face Iowa state auditor Rob Sand, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary, in November. Democrats have feted Sand as a candidate who can flip the governorship by appealing to voters across the aisle, although he'll still face an uphill battle in a state that voted for Trump by 13 points in 2024.
Meanwhile, Iowa state Rep. Josh Turek's projected win by over 20 percentage points in the Iowa Democratic primary for Senate could be seen as a win for establishment Democrats, in a year when progressive challengers have been making waves in primaries across the country and occasionally unseating incumbents.
Turek himself is not an average politician. He has a unique background, as a four-time Paralympian born with spina bifida after his father was exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. But he was also, to an extent, seen as the Democratic establishment's choice, given that he received support from Democratic groups that are aligned with Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who did not formally endorse Turek, and took on positions that tacked to the center.
Turek will face Trump-backed Rep. Ashley Hinson, the projected winner of the Republican primary, in what is set to become one of the most closely watched Senate races of 2026. The seat is opening up as Republican incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst is retiring.
Key New Jersey matchup gets set amid Kean's absence
ABC News has projected that Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy helicopter pilot, will be the Democratic nominee for Congress in New Jersey's 7th Congressional District, in what is set to be a closely watched matchup between incumbent GOP Rep. Tom Kean and Bennett this November -- especially given Kean's unusual absence from Congress for months. Trump has backed Kean regardless of his absence.
New Jersey's 7th District was already a top target for Democrats this year even before Kean's disappearance occurred. The district is rated as a toss up-by the Cook Political Report, and Trump just barely carried it in 2024.
Kean flipped the seat in 2022 for Republicans, just a few years after Democrat Tom Malinowski flipped the seat when he won it in 2018. But Kean has been absent from Congress for months, and has not voted since March 5. For weeks, Kean's office has defended the congressman's hiatus -- telling reporters that he is addressing an unspecific medical issue.
Kean said in a statement on Tuesday afternoon, "I am optimistic about the road ahead, and ready to earn the support of voters in every corner of this district." A spokesperson for Kean also told ABC News that the congressman voted by mail last week.
ABC News' Emily Chang, Clarissa Gonzalez, Juhi Doshi, Gaby Vinick, Lauren Peller, John Parkinson and Jay O'Brien contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- Two physician associate groups have sued the Trump administration over a federal rule limiting student loan borrowing for some graduate degree programs that impact healthcare professionals, including physician associates and assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners and other clinical providers.
The American Academy of Physician Associates (AAPA) and the Physician Associates Education Association (PAEA) filed a lawsuit aimed at reversing a Department of Education regulation that the plaintiffs claim violates the Administrative Procedure Act. They are separately requesting an emergency injunction that seeks to block the rule from taking effect for PA students on July 1.
The complaint also claims that the rule exceeds the Education Department's statutory jurisdiction and is therefore unlawful. The Government Accountability Office website said the Administrative Procedure Act prescribes the minimum procedural steps an agency must follow in its administrative proceedings.
The lawsuit alleges the Education Department overstepped its legal authority by disqualifying a PA degree from being categorized as a professional degree.
The new rule entitled the Reimagining and Improving Student Education-Federal Student Loan Program (RISE) -- which is based on an existing regulation -- finalized the definition of "professional" and "graduate" programs, restricting student loan borrowing limits to $200,000 and $100,000 total for professional and graduate degrees respectively. The $100,000 total cost for PA students is capped at $20,500 annually.
AAPA's CEO Lisa Gables said the rule will have "devastating consequences" for the PA workforce.
"PA programs meet every element of the professional degree definition that Congress established in law," Gables wrote in a statement. "They award entry-level master’s degrees, require rigorous clinical training, and lead to professional licensure in all 50 states."
She added, "We are in court to ensure the law is implemented as Congress intended."
According to the Education Department's final regulation, pharmacy and dentistry are among the list of eleven professional degree programs –- including medicine, law and clinical psychology degrees –- eligible for the $200,000 cap, but teaching, nursing, and physician associates are now capped at the lower limit.
The median PA program tuition is nearly $97,000 for residents before fees and additional costs, according to AAPA.
The recent move is drawing widespread concern from public service advocates as the healthcare groups stress that the federal loan limits will push many students to be dependent on private student loans, which have stricter approval requirements, unfavorable interest rates, and limited repayment plan options.
The rule would harm the associations' ability to provide member services and advocacy and the groups' members would also suffer "negative consequences" if PA students do not have access to the higher loan amounts that allow them to attend PA programs, according to the complaint.
Rory O’Sullivan, at D.C.-based policy think-tank Arnold Ventures, argued that loan limits should be based on degree program outcomes, not what field of study the degree is in.
Wednesday's filing comes as 24 states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration on similar grounds in May, arguing that the rule would widen the nursing shortage because the borrowing limit would disincentivize students from entering the field.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon defended her department’s rule at an annual budget hearing on Capitol Hill last month.
"These particular programs have not been reclassified as nonprofessional," McMahon said during the House Education committee hearing. "They were never classified as professional degrees – that just wasn't a part of the equation."
"There's been no other measure that has been taken to try to bring down the cost of education," McMahon contended.
The Department of Education emphasized that loan caps are "common sense" and place downward pressure on the cost of tuition across the country.
Ellen Keast, the press secretary for higher education at the Education Department, told ABC News in a statement, "For two decades, colleges and universities have been able to charge virtually unlimited tuition, even as many student loan borrowers see little to no return on their investment."
"During this time, tuition has risen faster than any other household expense, and 71 percent of graduates with debt report delaying major life milestones, while institutions have taken in billions at the expense of young Americans' financial stability," Keast said.
She added: "The Trump Administration is working to correct this longstanding imbalance by ending a system that pushed students into debt they often could not repay and by promoting access to high quality education that serves students, not institutional bottom lines."
'My dream of being a PA is probably shot'
Wednesday's complaint said the rule will burden students, like Ben Pinckney from New York, and deter them from applying to PA programs. The plaintiffs said it effectively creates scenarios where those aspiring PAs are unable to afford the cost of attendance because the vast majority of PA students need the higher loan limits authorized for the "professional student" to be able to attend PA school.
Pinckney told ABC News in an exclusive interview he has dreamed of becoming a PA for years but said he’s still struggling to find an affordable graduate school within the student loan caps. The 46-year-old recent college graduate said an emergency room PA saved his life when he was the victim of a shooting years ago and that inspired him to pursue medicine as a profession.
"Not only did he save my life in the physical, but [also with] the conversations we used to have," Pinckney told ABC News, adding "My mentality and my way of thinking changed because of the PA."
Pinckney, who later served in the U.S. Army as a combat medic, said he voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 but believes the Trump administration's rule is "hurting both sides" by making the PA degree harder to obtain.
"It's less about politics and more about helping providers or potential providers get the schooling they need, so that we can go into the communities that we want to go into and help those people," Pinckney said.
PAs treat patients under the supervision of a physician in healthcare settings, including hospitals, doctors' offices, and outpatient clinics, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Advocates stress that the department's decision could strain critical patient care access and the majority of students pursuing PA degrees, who will comprise a significant share of the nation's healthcare workforce over the next decade.
Pinckney said it's heartbreaking because his goal of becoming a healthcare provider – within an already overburdened healthcare system – remains in limbo. "If nothing changes, then my dream of being a PA is probably shot," Pinckney said. "If nothing is done short of someone giving me, you know, a huge grant or scholarship, then this chapter for me is over," he later added.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- The Pentagon is increasingly strained by a growing list of unplanned and rising expenses over the last year, with fuel costs emerging as one of the most significant pressures.
Defense Department records show the average price the agency paid for fuel climbed from $154.14 per barrel in October to $195.72 in April – a nearly 27% increase in just six months, documents show. Those costs are averages across two dozen types of fuels the military uses, including gasoline and jet fuel.
Oil and fuel prices have surged during the Iran war. That surge could saddle the Pentagon with more than $1 billion in unplanned costs this year to power its jets, tanks and other military equipment, based on the department's fuel consumption in recent years. The Defense Department purchases some 80 million barrels of fuel annually.
Commanders are also grappling with surging civilian fuel and commercial airfare costs, adding to the financial strain on a military that depends heavily on both. Troops typically use commercial flights and rental cars to travel to different training events, and are often compensated for miles driven in personal vehicles.
Because of that, travel is being heavily scrutinized, with some formations dramatically reducing travel for training and other events or outright canceling the bulk of it since at least April, multiple U.S. officials explained to ABC News and documents show.
"Current energy market dynamics are increasing fuel costs, which can affect the costs of transporting personnel, supplies and equipment," Lt. Col. Orlando Howard, an Army spokesperson, said in a statement, adding that the service is prioritizing travel and equipment usage to preserve funding for critical operations and readiness requirements.
According to internal documents and multiple U.S. officials, the Army has been forced to make sweeping cuts to training as it grapples with a $4 billion-$6 billion shortfall through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
That shortfall is attributed to a confluence of factors, including the Iran war, expanding missions on the U.S. southern border, and the National Guard’s ongoing mission in Washington, D.C., which is aimed to double in size to some 5,000 troops for the summer.
Compounding those issues are rising fuel costs, all spurring intense financial scrutiny. The reductions have eliminated dozens of training courses, including programs for medical personnel, engineers and artillery troops. The service has also sharply curtailed helicopter flight hours, limiting many crews to minimum flying requirements, internal service plans show.
But it is not only the Army that is feeling the strain of financial belt-tightening – some of the other services also face unexpected expenses that could impact training cycles.
Adm. Daryl Caudle, the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, warned lawmakers in May that the sea service might start running out of money soon.
"You see a large Navy force in the Middle East. So we're burning bright … but it does come at cost, and it comes at operational costs,” Caudle told the House Armed Services Committee, adding that the service will start running out of money in the summer.
“I will have to start making decisions to change training, operations, certification events, those type of things we do to generate our force, in the July timeframe and their current expenditure,” he said.
One internal Army assessment in April found that the financial pain could leave units slated to deploy to Europe next year with what the assessment framed as an insufficient amount of training. The review, which examined the Army’s III Armored Corps – a roughly 70,000-soldier formation headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas – concluded it could take more than a year to restore affected units to their pre-Iran war training levels.
The military's complex web of fuel purchasing provides some protection against market volatility. In many cases, the Pentagon purchases fuel through contracts 18 months in advance.
But those agreements include provisions that allow prices to be adjusted if the market shifts, limiting the department's ability to fully insulate itself from sustained increases.
Fuel prices surged in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, destabilizing markets. The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. climbed past $5 for one week that summer, according to federal data. That year, Congress twice gave the Pentagon more money for fuel, totaling $5.2 billion.
Additionally, the Defense Department is using far more fuel this year than it projected when budgets were set more than a year ago, with the Air Force burning through 10% more than it projected it would, Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the chief of staff of the Air Force, told lawmakers in May, amid the ongoing war with Iran.
That could mean the use of hundreds of thousands of gallons of extra fuel. The Defense Department is by far the federal government's largest fuel consumer, burning roughly 227 million gallons of diesel and about 2.2 billion gallons of jet fuel annually since 2021, according to Pentagon data.
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps is not facing any notable funding shortfall, nor has it had to scale back any training, according to the service, though it is significantly smaller than the other branches of the military.
“Annually, we adjust our budgeted spend plans to address various contingencies as they arise, ensuring we prioritize our most critical mission requirements,” a Marine Corps spokesperson said in a statement.
ABC News' Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(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.
Trump said in an interview taped Tuesday on podcast "Pod Force One" that he wasn't dropping the fund, but that the court had "ruled against it."
In the podcast interview, which was scheduled to begin just ahead of Blanche's hearing, Trump said that the people who he gave pardons to –- presumably referring to the Jan. 6 rioters -- should be "reimbursed for a crooked government."
-ABC News' Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
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.
WASHINGTON (AP) — When President Donald Trump’s administration announced last week that it would require green card seekers to apply from their home countries instead of in the U.S., immigration attorney Flavia Santos Lloyd’s phone began ringing off the hook with clients worried about the implications for them.
Lloyd wasn’t sure what to tell them, but she knew the confusing new policy would slow down applications.
“It has a chilling effect because we have some cases that we were going to proceed and I can tell already, we should wait and see what’s going on,” she said.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced Friday that foreigners in the U.S. who want a green card will need to leave and apply in their home country, barring some unspecified exceptions.
The announcement, which potentially affects hundreds of thousands of green card applicants a year, was the latest immigration policy unveiled by Trump’s Republican administration to stun and confound lawyers, advocates and immigrants. It’s also part of a pivot by the administration to target legal pathways to immigration, after focusing since last year mostly on migrants in the U.S. illegally.
“This is simply an attempt to try to limit and scare people away from the legal immigration process,” immigration attorney Charles Kuck said, adding that he expected legal action against the change. “This is a scare tactic.”
As worried immigrants and their employers flood immigration law offices with questions, it’s unclear what the effect will be, what exceptions might be allowed and how the policy will play out on the ground.
Some green card seekers were already facing questions about why they should be allowed to apply from the U.S.
A confusing rollout for the new policy
For more than half a century, foreign nationals with legal status have been able to apply for and complete the process for permanent residence in the United States — including people married to U.S. citizens, holders of work and student visas, and refugees and political asylum-seekers, among others.
That appeared to change suddenly on Friday, when USCIS announced the shift on its website.
“From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances,” the agency said. In response to questions by The Associated Press, USCIS said only people who provide an “economic benefit” or “national interest” could likely apply from the U.S.
It said nonimmigrants, such as students or temporary workers, are in the U.S. temporarily and should leave when that time is up.
USCIS also issued a more detailed policy memo designed as guidance for its staffers who decide these cases. Immigration experts who were trying to decipher the news said the memo was more nuanced, leading to confusion over what the change actually entailed.
One immigration law firm, Boundless Immigration, in a blog post on its website stating its interpretation of the policy, said officers were being instructed to “apply existing discretionary standards more rigorously” but surmised that the policy doesn’t completely stop the adjustment of status process for “eligible applicants” depending on the category of visa they have.
The company cited previous policy memos about citizenship acquisition that had not prompted harsher steps in practice.
Immigration firms and advocates left guessing who’ll be impacted
Shev Dalal-Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the guidance may be targeting people who overstayed their visas, such as the parent of a U.S. citizen who remained after a visa expired, an employee of a company who transferred to the U.S. or people in the country on visas specific to clergy and other religious workers.
“It seems like maybe who they’re targeting is potentially those whose period of stay lapsed while they were here,” she said.
Kevin Miner, a partner with the immigration law firm Fragomen, said he expected that people on employment-based visas, like H-1Bs, would be exempt. Known as dual-intent, these visas allow people on nonimmigrant visas in the U.S. to seek a green card. Those dual-intent visas were specifically mentioned in the memo as areas of possible exception.
“Those probably are cases that will continue to precede business as usual and that we won’t see a significant impact,” said Miner, who said the announcement Friday took people by surprise.
Matthew Soerens, the U.S. director of church mobilization for World Relief, an organization that helps resettle refugees in the U.S., said language in the memo referring to cases in which immigrants have to adjust their status in the U.S. gives the organization “hope” and “expectation” that the guidance doesn’t apply to refugees.
Refugees are people who are fleeing their homeland who meet a specific set of criteria to be admitted to the U.S. after lengthy vetting. They are required to do that green card processing a year after arriving in the U.S. and can’t go home because of the risks they’d face there, Soerens said.
Trump’s administration has slashed the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. this year and limited them to white South Africans.
People who entered the country under humanitarian parole, which allows presidents to admit people for humanitarian reasons and which President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration expanded dramatically, could also be impacted, Soerens said.
Many of those people might have already had family in the U.S. or they married a U.S. citizen — both of which potentially give them pathways to apply for a green card that could now be complicated.
All of these nuances make it difficult to provide general legal advice to people, said Dalal-Dheini.
“It’s going to be a very case by case specific thing,” she said.
Immigrants facing questions about their applications, group says
The American Immigration Lawyers Association said several people in green card interviews under the new guidance faced questions Tuesday that haven’t previously been asked of applicants.
One person who was applying to get a green card based off their marriage to a U.S. citizen was asked why they applied to adjust their status in the U.S. instead of going back to their home country and applying at the embassy there. They were asked if there were any factors that would prevent them from applying back at their home country and if they still had family there.
Another person was asked to file a form demonstrating why they should be allowed to apply from the U.S. and were told evidence should prove they wouldn’t be a financial burden or a “public charge” on the U.S. and could include their 2025 tax return, a letter from an employer stating their salary and bank statements.
Lloyd, the immigration attorney, said she has sent emails to her corporate and noncorporate clients telling them that she is monitoring the situation and she will reach out to them as soon as she has more guidance and practical applications.
She said she thinks the policy will deter some companies from pursuing green cards for their clients.
“I don’t want everybody to panic,” she said. “My advice to them is wait and see.”
(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump is expected to hold a Cabinet meeting at Camp David on Wednesday, a White House official confirmed to ABC News.
Sources told ABC News that the plans are subject to change due to possible inclement weather in the Washington, D.C., area.
According to the White House official, all Cabinet members are expected to attend, and the meeting will "highlight recent successes of the administration including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates."
The travel to the presidential retreat was first reported by the New York Post.
The trip would be Trump's first return to Camp David in almost a year.
Trump previously visited the retreat in Catoctin Mountain Park in Frederick County, Maryland, last June in what the White House described at the time as "a regular off campus retreat of principals attended by the President and Vice President."
The decision to hold an official Cabinet meeting at Camp David marks a departure from typical practice, though it is not unprecedented. Trump held a Cabinet meeting there in September 2017, as well, which was closed to the press.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(COLUMBIA, S.C.) -- The South Carolina Senate on Tuesday effectively killed a proposed congressional map that could have allowed Republicans to flip the seat held by Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn, a major rebuff to a mid-decade redistricting effort promoted by President Donald Trump.
The Republican-controlled state Senate voted Tuesday afternoon to adjourn their special legislative session until June 10, after the state holds its June 9 primaries, without nearing a final vote on the map.
The adjournment means that possible redistricting in the state before the 2026 midterms appears all but dead.
Early voting in the primaries began Tuesday, which opponents of the map argued meant it was too late to redistrict without running into major legal issues.
Lawmakers adjourned after a procedural vote to limit debate on the map failed, and after multiple Republican state senators spoke out against the map on the Senate floor, with some citing the start of early voting as why it was too late to redistrict.
"The deadline has passed, voting has begun. It is time to conclude the matter," Republican state Sen. Richard Cash said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. "Now I know there is going to be a lot of anger and frustration that we did not get the job done. I get it. Many of us are also frustrated and disappointed at what is a very unsatisfying outcome, but we need to face it. The time clock for getting this done ran out, and the time clock for in-person voting started at 8:30 this morning."
A subsequent statement attributed to the South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus blamed South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, for calling a special session too close to the primaries and cited the possibility that ballots cast today would be thrown out as the reason the legislature adjourned.
The proposed congressional map could've helped the Republican Party flip the state's 6th congressional district, held by Clyburn, the longtime Black representative who is the state's lone Democrat in Congress.
Clyburn slammed the redistricting effort in a press conference earlier Tuesday.
"As I stand here, our state senate is debating whether or not to recreate this congressional district in order to fulfill orders from the White House to say to the 29% of African Americans in South Carolina, the 43% of Democratic voters in South Carolina, irrespective of your presence, you are not deserving of a single member of Congress of the seven that we have," Clyburn said.
"That is a challenge to the goodness of South Carolinians, and nothing has made me more incensed than to see this kind of imposition on the people of South Carolina," Clyburn said.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- A three-judge panel in a federal court in Alabama ruled unanimously on Tuesday that state Republicans are still blocked from using their 2023 congressional map, which would have potentially helped Republicans in November.
Alabama had moved forward with using the 2023 map after state lawmakers had said the Supreme Court's historic decision in Louisiana v. Callais in late April cleared the way for it.
The judges, including two appointed by President Donald Trump, concluded that the high court's recent ruling on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has no bearing on this case, in which lower courts found the 2023 map represents a constitutional violation.
"Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination," the judges wrote in their ruling.
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. But in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, some state lawmakers and the governor delayed some of Alabama's House elections, although others were held on May 19 as scheduled.
As of now, Alabama must move forward with the 2024 map, unless, the court noted on Tuesday, lawmakers want to attempt to enact a new congressional district plan at this late hour, which it is free to do.
Figures, in a statement to ABC News, said that he also expected further legal battles. The 2023 map was expected to potentially help Republicans flip Figures' seat in November.
"I am pleased with the Court's decision, but this case is still not over," Figures said. "Although we expected the Court to reach this decision given the overwhelming evidence, we fully expect the State to immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled."
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he is "disappointed" by the decision and said there will be an appeal effort.
“I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map that has been in place for decades. I find nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s vacatur order of May 11 that would provide a basis for this outcome; thus, we will immediately appeal this decision to the Supreme Court," Marshall said in a statement.
"This is a very fluid situation, and I will do my best to keep the People of Alabama apprised of our efforts. Know this—in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when.”
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- In a rare move on Thursday, the Supreme Court spared the life of an "intellectually disabled" death row inmate, dismissing an appeal by Alabama officials who claimed the man's multiple IQ scores show he is competent and eligible for execution.
The justices were narrowly divided, 5-4, in allowing a lower court ruling to stand that determined death for Joseph Clifton Smith, a convicted first-degree murderer, would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment.
The high court did not formally explain its decision.
More than 20 years ago, the high court outlawed the execution of intellectually disabled people convicted of capital crimes.
The heart of the Smith case involved a dispute over who qualifies as intellectually disabled and how to analyze conflicting intelligence quotient – also known as IQ – test scores in making the determination.
The decision on Thursday left that question unanswered.
“The court is not equipped in this case to provide any meaningful guidance on how courts should assess multiple IQ scores,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
While state officials had asked the court to set out a clear standard, Sotomayor suggested a case-by-case approach, considering legal precedent and “the views of medical experts,” should continue.
“If a conflict among the states or lower courts emerges and a case properly presents the issue, it may be appropriate for this court to weigh in with more specific guidance,” she wrote. “The court rightly decides it is inappropriate to do so in this case.”
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.
"The court shies away from its obligation to provide workable rules for capital cases," Justice Alito wrote in a dissent joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Roberts. "In doing so, the court disserves its own death-penalty jurisprudence, states' criminal justice systems, lower courts, and victims of horrific murders."
Justice Thomas wrote separately to call for a reinstatement of the death penalty for intellectually disabled people.
Smith, who will now spend life behind bars, confessed to a 1997 murder during a robbery, but challenged his death sentence on ground he has had "substantially subaverage intellectual functioning" since a young age.
He has taken five separate IQ tests over nearly 40 years, scoring 75 in 1979, 74 in 1982, 72 in 1998, 78 in 2014, and 74 in 2017.
People below 70 are generally considered to have an intellectual disability, but major American medical groups urge a holistic assessment that also looks at social and practical skills.
The groups note that standardized test scores alone should not be conclusive. Smith's score of 72, for example, could be 69 when factoring the 3-point margin of error.
Smith, who alleges he suffered physical and verbal abuse as a child, consistently functioned at two grade-levels below his placement in school, according to court documents. Smith's school classified him as "Educable Mentally Retarded" in 7th grade before he eventually dropped out.
Two lower federal courts ruled that a holistic analysis of Smith’s IQ scores and other evidence, including his behavioral history and school records, proved he is intellectually disabled.
"Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, and the Eighth Amendment does not override the death sentence he earned for murdering Durk Van Dam," Alabama argued in its brief to the court. "Whether and how to weigh multiple IQ scores is left to state discretion."
The state argued intellectual disability can only be proven by an IQ score of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence.
By one estimate, as many as 20% of the 2,100 people on death row in the U.S. may have some degree of intellectual disability, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- The Justice Department on Wednesday charged former Cuban President Raul Castro with murder over his alleged role in shooting down two planes that were carrying humanitarian aid in 1996, according to a newly unsealed court docket. The shootdown resulted in the deaths of three Americans.
The indictment marks a major escalation in the United States' ongoing pressure campaign to achieve regime change of the island nation's Communist-led government, though it's not immediately clear whether the 94-year-old Castro will ultimately see the inside of a U.S. courtroom.
The indictment charges Castro with seven counts including conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, destruction of aircraft and murder for each of the four passengers aboard the planes being flown by Brothers to the Rescue, a group that conducted rescue missions for Cuban exiles who sought to flee the country.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and other senior officials are expected to speak about the charges later in Miami.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- A batch of closely watched primaries in six states on Tuesday both set up some key midterm election matchups and gestured to major forces shaping the Democratic and Republican parties -- from the strength of President Donald Trump's endorsement to the road to the White House in 2028.
Here are some of takeaways from Tuesday night's results.
The strength of Trump's endorsement, again?
President Donald Trump had turned his ire on Rep. Thomas Massie, the maverick Republican representing Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, given Massie's push to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, his vote against the president's sweeping domestic tax policy legislation and his vocal opposition to the Iran war.
Trump constantly excoriated Massie and endorsed his primary opponent Ed Gallrein and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth even campaigned with Gallrein on Monday. The primary also became the most expensive House primary on record, with more than $32 million in ad spending.
Massie had held firm -- adamant that his constituents would pull through for him. But the power of Trump's endorsement was more firm, just as it had been in the Louisiana Senate primary last Saturday, where Trump-endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow and state Treasurer John Fleming advanced to a runoff after Trump had turned against incumbent Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy.
"We weren't really running against Ed Gallrein, we weren't running against Donald Trump. We were running for what we believe in," Massie told supporters on Tuesday night.
Mixed results for Trump in Georgia
But it seems Trump's endorsement could not carry his candidate of choice, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, over the finish line outright in the Georgia Republican gubernatorial primary. Jones now heads towards a June 16 runoff against billionaire businessman Rick Jackson.
In remarks Tuesday evening, Jackson, who entered the race just three months before the primary, said his campaign sent an "earthquake" through the political establishment and called Jones a political insider.
"We have 28 days to finish it, and the choice could not be more clear or more important. Burt Jones is a political insider. I'm the opposite. I don't owe the lobbyists anything. I don't need the establishment's permission. I cannot be bought, and I will not back down," Jones said Tuesday evening.
What Tuesday meant for potential 2028 presidential candidates
Tuesday was a good night for Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, a rumored 2028 presidential candidate, as all four of the primary candidates he endorsed in Pennsylvania's battleground U.S. House districts -- where Democrats hope to flip seats held by GOP incumbents -- were projected by ABC News to win, although one of the four, Paige Cognetti, was unopposed.
Shapiro's success on Tuesday could bolster his standing among Democrats both in the state and nationally -- possibly helpful if he does launch a bid for the presidency -- although he still faces the general election campaign for governor against state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, and Democrats still face an uphill battle trying to flip all four seats they are targeting.
And down south in Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp, who has not ruled out a presidential run in 2028, also played a hand in shaping the state's GOP Senate primary. Kemp backed Derek Dooley, a former football coach who is projected by ABC News to face a runoff against Rep. Mike Collins in a race that Trump did not endorse in.
Kemp, who opted out of running for Georgia's Senate seat after being recruited by Republicans, threw the full force of his political weight behind elevating Dooley from a political unknown to a candidate for one of the most-watched Senate races in the country.
Working behind the scenes, Kemp made calls to donors to build support for Dooley, and Kemp's PAC, Hardworking Americans Inc., has also invested millions in the race to support Dooley, the son of legendary former University of Georgia football coach Vince Dooley.
Kemp also campaigned heavily with Dooley in the lead-up to Georgia's primary.
Kemp has had a rocky relationship with Trump since refusing his pressure to overturn Georgia's election results in 2020. But Kemp remains popular among Georgians, winning reelection against a Trump-endorsed primary challenger in 2022.
ABC News' Emily Chang and Halle Troadec contributed to this report.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump, over the noise of drills and hammers, showed off the construction site for his controversial White House ballroom in a tour with reporters on Tuesday.
Trump described the massive project, which started with a demolition of the White House East Wing, as a fortress for himself and future presidents.
"This is a shield that protects everything that's inside, everything that's on top," Trump said. He also said that it would be the "safest building ever built, in my opinion."
With poster board mock-ups in hand of what the finished product will look like, Trump spoke above the hollowed construction site. The underground complex, Trump said, will be six stories deep and include a military hospital, research facilities and meeting rooms.
"Impenetrable steel" and window glass that is "approximately four inches thick" are among the security features, according to Trump. The roof, he said, will have "massive drone capacity" and will act as a "drone port" so "it protects all of Washington."
Asked for additional detail about a "drone port," the White House offered no additional explanation, referring ABC News to Trump's comments Tuesday morning.
In March, a judge rules that Trump can't build the ballroom without authorization from Congress, though he said security-related work could go on. An appeals court then stepped in to allow all construction of the project for now while they consider the case more fully. A hearing in the case is set for June 5.
Trump on Tuesday appeared to argue that the entire building was interconnected.
"The roof goes with the ground floor; the ground floor goes with the roof. The roof also goes down into the basement. Everything is connected. Intertwined, elevators, heating, air conditioning. It's one building. That's why we're trying to explain that this is one well-knit building," Trump said.
During the tour, Trump also maintained his claims that the White House ballroom itself will not cost any taxpayer money.
"So, all of this was paid for by myself. And because I keep hearing like I'm not. We are making a gift of this. This is a gift. This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer," Trump said.
The president, who has said that he is one of the people paying for the project, has not publicly released how much he has donated. The White House also said they aimed to raise the funds for the ballroom, the cost of which jumped to $400 million, through private donations.
"This is a gift to the United States of America, and more than a gift. It's going to be one of the most beautiful buildings that's ever been built in the country or in Washington, D.C.," Trump said on Tuesday.
His comments come as some congressional Republicans seek $1 billion in funding, some of which would go to the building project. Democrats have panned the proposal.
"Congress is approving money for security ... But this building, I mean, I -- I put up the money to build this building, along with a lot of great patriots," Trump said.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
(WASHINGTON) -- Vice President JD Vance and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche faced questions Tuesday on the $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to compensate those who allege they were wrongly targeted under the Biden administration.
Both notably declined to rule out potential payouts for individuals who assaulted law enforcement, including the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Vance insisted that requests would be analyzed on a "case-by-case" basis and that "anybody can apply."
The fund, which was first reported last week by ABC News, was announced Monday as part of a settlement agreement in Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.
It has already drawn condemnation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle amid growing questions over how the funds will be distributed and whether they could be awarded to political backers of the president.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday that he is "not a big fan" of the fund.
"And I am not sure exactly how they intend to use it. But my understanding is that was just announced. I don't see a purpose for that," Thune told reporters at the Capitol.
Vance, Blanche pressed on who will be eligible for payouts
ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl, during a press briefing on Tuesday, asked Vance about the fund.
"Why should taxpayers be paying to settle a $10 billion lawsuit that was brought by the president of the United States, and should people that attacked the Capitol building and assaulted police officers, should they be eligible, should they receive money? Should they receive money from this fund?" Karl asked.
Vance didn’t directly answer, instead claiming that none of the money would go to Trump personally, his administration or his family, but that "anybody can apply for it." Vance added that even Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden's son, would be eligible to ask for funds.
"I understand that everybody is eligible to apply for this one. I mean, you're eligible, but I assume you're not going to apply, and you don't think you should get money out of this fund. So, isn't it just as easy to say that people that attacked police officers should not get taxpayer money from this fund?" Karl followed up.
"Well, look, Jon, we're not trying to give money to anybody who attacked a police officer. We're trying to give money -- not give money -- we're trying to compensate people where the book was thrown at them, they were mistreated by the legal system,” Vance said.
In a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier Tuesday, when pressed whether individuals who assaulted Capitol Police officers would be eligible for payments, Blanche similarly said, "Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they're a victim of weaponization."
Blanche wouldn't commit to setting a policy that bans funds being distributed to anyone who assaulted police, saying the commissioners overseeing the fund will be tasked with deciding who is eligible.
"But why not this specific issue of violent acts, convicted of violent acts against police officers? Do you feel they should get compensation after being convicted of violent acts?" Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley asked the acting attorney general.
"My feelings don't, don't matter, senator," Blanche replied.
Blanche was also questioned on whether he would rule out certain individuals from being eligible for payments, specifically Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. The acting attorney general reiterated that anyone can apply.
"The commissioners will set rules, I'm sure. That's not for me to set, that's for the commissioners. ... And whether an individual Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned, applies for compensation is -- anybody in this country can apply," Blanche said.
Blanche won't say who will be commissioners, claims there will be 'full transparency'
The acting attorney general sought to compare it to an Obama-era initiative that set up ways to settle claims brought by Native Americans who had alleged they had been subject to widespread mistreatment by the government
He also argued that the fund won't solely be used to compensate supporters of the administration.
"It's not limited to -- to Republicans, ... it's not limited to Biden weaponization, it's not limited to in any way, scope or form to Jan. 6 or to Jack Smith," Blanche said at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. "There's no limitation on the -- on the claims."
Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen lambasted Blanche for seeking to compare the $1.776 billion fund to the Obama-era initiative for Native Americans.
Van Hollen noted that specific fund received sign off from a federal judge, whereas Monday's announcement had no judicial involvement or approval.
Facing questions about who would be eligible for possible payouts, Blanche told lawmakers he will "commit" to "making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their job."
Blanche, though, did not name who will be on the five-person commission -- nor did he say who he would appoint.
He also said he has "no idea" if Trump will make suggestions.
Blanche also claimed there will be "full transparency" on the fund, but with caveats.
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, Blanche was questioned over whether disbursements from the $1.776 billion will be subject to public disclosure.
Blanche said he wanted to be "careful" in his answer given privacy laws that might restrict the Justice Department from disclosing certain information, but otherwise said there would be "full transparency" via regularly quarterly reports that will be released by the department regarding the commission's actions.
"The reason why I want to be careful of my answer is because there's obviously laws that exist around privacy that would -- may prevent some of the information that commission takes in from being fully public," Blanche said. "Beyond that, there will be full transparency, and I commit to you that beyond the ... laws that exist around privacy and privileges and whatnot."
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.