(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration is facing growing questions for spending millions of taxpayer dollars to air unusual TV ads promoting Trump and his administration in the weeks ahead of the midterm elections. 

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump defended the ads, saying they are "for the spirit of our country" and not a political endorsement for Republican candidates on the ballot this November or for his administration's policies.

"You have to understand; I'm not promoting a candidate. I'm not promoting myself because I'm not running for office. I'm promoting the country," Trump said to reporters during an event in the Oval Office. 

"Now, if somebody said that that's wrong, I'll gladly pay the money. But these are ads for the country," he said.

Trump has implored Republican voters to "pretend" that he is on the ballot in the November midterm elections to boost voter turnout for GOP congressional candidates.

At a separate event Wednesday, Trump again argued that his involvement on the campaign trail is crucial for party success. 

"I hope you can believe that I'm running. They like to say, 'Oh, nobody wants him.' Well, everybody that has me wins," Trump said.

The federal government has spent at least $2.5 million to air three different television ads, according to an estimate from AdImpact, an advertising agency that analyzes ad spending across television.

A total of $20 million from the Department of Homeland Security's budget has been allocated for the effort.

Ethics watchdogs and several Congressional Democrats -- as well as some Republicans -- have said the ads are inappropriate. Some critics have said the ads could violate federal propaganda law.

“It’s a great message, I like the message, but it shouldn’t be paid for by taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Monday. 

Four ads have been aired since last week. One of the ads features Trump in monochrome, slowly walking down a hallway, describing “the final battle” against "the deep state,” “the globalists,” and “the sick political class that hates our country.”

Another ad includes a montage of clips and images of Trump at events and rallies featuring onscreen text about the "largest tax cuts in history."

The latest ad, released Wednesday, focuses on the U.S. war with Iran, now in its eighth month. Audio of Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth plays in the background as U.S. military footage, including unclassified strikes, is displayed.

The video in the ad appears to be the same as one played during the Republican midterm convention last month. And it played Wednesday before Hegseth addressed 600 service members in his State of the Force speech at the Marine Corps base at Quantico, Virginia.

The ads all say "Paid for by the U.S. Government" across the bottom of the screen as they end.

The White House has defended these spots as educational public service announcements (PSAs) and has said the ads are “very clearly not campaign ads” and instead “a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it’s worth defending.”

On Tuesday, Democratic Sens. Patty Murray and Chris Murphy sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin accusing the department of “a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars.”

In the House, Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin and George Whitesides have asked federal watchdogs to investigate the ads.

Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and Whitesides wrote to the Government Accountability Office and U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Wednesday, describing the commercials as “desperate pre-election propaganda."

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr said Wednesday that the ads paid for with government funds don’t “merit any sort of FCC review.”

“It doesn’t strike me as anything at all out of the ordinary,” Carr said of the ads, during a press conference with reporters. 

Asked about allegations that the ads are “propaganda,” Carr laughed.

The White House has “explained that these are just normal-course public service announcements, PSAs, that you see all the time. I don’t think there’s anything unique or different about it,” he said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The United States knew Iran or its proxies were going to "try and do an attack, possibly on a United States asset in the [United Kingdom]," Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said Thursday of the arrest and release of five men near a Royal Air Force base used by the U.S.

Mullin told Fox News the U.S. "had already been watching" the situation with British officials and the U.S. was "giving them a heads-up."

His comments come after U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Wednesday he believes Iran "played a part" in last weekend's incident at a Royal Air Force base in England that hosts U.S. warplanes involved in the conflict with Iran.

"They were also feeding information to us, so this was something we were paying attention to already, we just didn't know where it was coming from," Mullin said, adding that Iran is always a threat to the United States and its allies.

"This was a little bit more specific, so we were on heightened alert about the direct threat we had here but didn't know where it was coming from, so when we saw it we were able to act quick," Mullin said.

Five British nationals from London between the ages of 23 and 25 were arrested early Sunday in possession of three vans near RAF Fairford, police said, which has long been a key hub for U.S. Air Force operations in the Middle East -- including in the conflict with Iran.

Police said the men were suspected of terrorism and explosives offenses, prompting speculation that the detainees were planning to target the RAF base, possibly on behalf of a foreign power.

Investigators said a search of the suspects' vehicles found no improvised explosive devices and authorities said they were released on bail on Monday after "extensive interviews."

On Thursday, the U.K. Counter Terrorism Policing unit announced it had arrested another man -- a dual U.K./Iranian citizen -- in connection with the case on suspicion of "preparation of terrorist acts." It also said a second man had been questioned "under caution" and that it had searched two properties.

Mullin expressed frustration that the five men were released, but, "It doesn't mean these individuals are just running loose. We -- as in our partners and us -- have eyes on these five individuals. We not going to let them slip through the cracks."

Asked if he planned any response to the possible attack, President Donald Trump said Wednesday the U.S. is "studying it right now. We're studying it. We're studying it very hard."

Asked about how the U.K. has responded, Trump said, "The U.K. did release a number of people that we caught wanting to blow up a base. We caught them early and I'm trying to figure out if that's for real, if they actually did it."

Burnham said Wednesday that his government believes Iran was involved.

"There are strong indications that Iran played a part in what happened over the weekend at RAF Fairford, but of course it remains an ongoing complex and serious police investigation, and of course we are working closely with our colleagues in the United States of America," Burnham said.

Reacting to those accusations, Iranian Foreign Minister Aragachi said, "I can confirm Iran's belief that releasing supposed terrorists working for foreign states really says it all. You're barking up the wrong tree."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration is readying its new, controversial federal school choice program that administration officials contend will “supercharge” education for millions of families nationwide, while critics worry it could undermine funding for public schools.

Officials from the Treasury and Education departments on Thursday released the rules for its Education Freedom Tax Credit, a new program that allows students and families to use taxpayer-funded scholarships for the K-12 education of their choice. The program, passed into law in 2025 as part of the Republicans' sprawling tax and spending bill, launches on Jan. 1. 

The program works by creating incentives for individuals and organizations to donate money they would otherwise owe in taxes to non-profit charities known as Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). Those SGOs would in turn use the donations to fund K-12 student scholarships for students’ education, including tuition, academic services and supplies, as well as other equipment and services relevant to their enrollment in public, private, and other school options. The SGOs' money can be used for everything from private school tuition to books and supplies for public school students to homeschooling needs. All spending from the SGOs would be reimbursed by the federal government.

The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service estimate the program will cost around $26 billion annually and fund as many as 2.2 million scholarships each year by 2030.

Public school advocates have expressed concern that the Education Freedom Tax Credit will steer government money away from state-funded public schools towards private schools.

The new rules are forcing skeptical Democratic governors to choose whether or not they want to opt in -- choosing to walk away could mean the loss of millions of dollars in federal funding. They have until Jan. 1 to decide.

“It will be the largest budgetary shift for K-12 [education] certainly in 11 years,” Narric Rome, managing director for government relations at education nonprofit Accelerate, told ABC News.

“For some states, and for some parts of the country, this is a ‘Help is on the way,’ and for others, it's a concern of where are their dollars going and are they going to the students that need it the most,” he said.

The Trump administration argues that if states opt-in to the program, funds can be used for both public and private school students and their educational needs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the administration is transforming America’s education system to “meet the needs” of each student.

Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wis., has decried the advancement of the tax credit -- $1,700 for individuals or up to $3,400 for married couples filing jointly.

“It's not for public schools,” said Moore, whose mother was a public school educator. "People will argue that they're making an investment in education, but they're only making an investment in these private academies. 
They're not making investments in public education,” she argued.

“People are not going to get a $1,700, 100% tax credit, which doesn't exist anywhere else in tax law, which means it's a direct pull from the treasury to go into one of these corporate entities for private schools,” she argued.

Many Republican-controlled states have already opted in to the program. As 28 million children in participating states will become eligible starting next year, conservatives argue it gives “countless students” the chance to pursue the education they deserve with less bureaucracy.

So far, Democratic governors in North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and New York have indicated that they will participate.

“Education freedom is the key to unlocking opportunity and success for our next generation of students,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told ABC News in a statement.

“I am profoundly grateful to President Trump and our partners at Treasury for ensuring that every child has access to the education they need, not one limited by ZIP code, family income, or government‑imposed barriers,” she wrote.

Under the proposed rules and safe harbors, approximately 96% of children in participating states would be eligible to receive the scholarship funds, according to the agencies.

The program establishes a new, permanent, dollar-for-dollar credit of up to $1,700 for individuals for donations to non-profit scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) or up to $3,400 for married couples filing jointly, according to the Treasury Department.

The regulations released on Thursday state that families' income eligibility limit is three times the median income for the county or metro area they live in adjusted for family size. Eligibility is determined by families who live in states that have opted into the program.

There will be a 60-day comment period before final implementation of the program. Donations start Jan. 1, but states have until Feb. 15 to submit their list of SGOs.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- An email sent to Kennedy Center staff earlier this week by the center's executive director says the building will "remain temporarily closed" pending an ongoing safety assessment.

In the email, sent on Wednesday and obtained by ABC News, the center’s executive director and chief operating officer, Matt Floca, gave no indication that the building will be reopening anytime soon after the President Donald Trump-aligned Kennedy Center board voted last month to close it for renovations after a federal judge's ruling blocked Trump's name from appearing on the outside of the building.

Floca said no one can access the building's grand hallways without permission and a hard hat, pointing to an ongoing "emergency egress assessment" of the building's overhanging soffits -- the underside of the building's distinctive overhanging roof.

Floca said that the ongoing assessment will "determine whether, and under what conditions, the building can safely support occupants and be evacuated," given that certain exits would be blocked during soffit repairs.

"We currently expect the assessment to be completed within the next one to two weeks and will share an update when it is complete, or sooner if the expected timing changes,” Floca wrote in the email. "This is an assessment timeline, not a reopening date. The immediate safety determination is separate from the scope and schedule of the broader renovation program."

Floca said the main corridors of the building -- the Hall of States, Hall of Nations and Grand Foyer -- remain off limits, and that entry "requires express authorization and compliance with all prescribed safety controls, including hard hats and any other required personal protective equipment."

Wearing such safety equipment "does not, by itself, authorize entry," Floca noted.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered an update on the center's closure by Friday, and Floca is expected to provide the judge with the same information he put in his Wednesday email, which was first reported by NBC News.

Floca, in a court filing last week, cited several "documented hazards" within the building as well as corrosion on the soffits around it.

In May, Cooper issued an order blocking the planned two-year closure of the center for renovations, saying the board had not properly weighed the impact of the closure on the center’s finances and programming when it voted on the plan in March.

The Justice Department has since asked the judge to dissolve that order so planned renovations can proceed. However, Cooper has yet to rule on that motion.

Trump has appealed the judge's order that the board cannot re-add Trump's name to the building.

In a TIME magazine interview out Thursday, Trump said he would be willing to save the Kennedy Center, but that it's in "terrible, terrible shape," adding that his administration should be recognized for stepping in to renovate.

He also refused to commit to not demolishing the performing arts center without the consent of Congress.

"I'm not committing to anything," Trump told TIME. "We're going to see how it plays out in court."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- A judge on Thursday dismissed the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool vandalism case against former Olympian David Hearn with prejudice, closing the door to re-charge him in the future.

Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman wrote in an order filed in D.C. Superior Court that the "because the government’s legitimate interest in maintaining the possibility of a future prosecution seems so marginal, and because of the extraordinary possibility that Mr. Hearn will nonetheless face a meritless, politically motivated prosecution, the Court 'has an obligation to protect him from the uncertainty [that a dismissal without prejudice] entails, and from what, objectively, would be harassment.'"

Hearn, a former U.S. Olympic canoeist, was accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in a felony indictment, but after prosecutors said they found evidence that the government's own contractor was responsible for the damage, the Justice Department asked to drop the charge without prejudice -- which would allow them to prosecute Hearn in the future for the same alleged crime, bound only by a six-year statute of limitations.

President Donald Trump blasted U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro's move to drop the case, saying she "choked" and "folded like an umbrella," and continued to push allegations that vandals were responsible for cutting and tearing the pool lining.

Defense attorneys, in asking that the case be dismissed with prejudice, argued that Trump's public rejection of Pirro's decision to drop the charges against Hearn did not "provide Mr. Hearn with meaningful finality consistent with the Constitution's speedy trial and double jeopardy protections."

Judge Edelman, who in August dismissed the vandalism case against Hearn and said he would wait to determine whether to grant the dismissal with prejudice, touched on "pressure" from Trump in the order.

"... due to the pressure that the President of the United States has placed on his subordinates in the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia over the past two months, [Hearn] would be prosecuted for a crime that that same Office has determined he did not commit, and that his odds of future prosecution may be heightened by the nature and extent of his political activities."

In the order out Thursday, Judge Edelman said dismissing without prejudice would expose Hearn to be charged with a crime that prosecutors have already stated did not occur.

"Today’s dismissal with prejudice ensures that the DOJ cannot bring this case against him again. This decision is a victory for the rule of law and for an innocent American seeking justice," Judge Edelman said in the order.

"The Court respects the authority of the Office of the United States Attorney to decide which cases to prosecute and which to dismiss. However, in the exceptional circumstances posed by this case, the government has no right to retain the ability to compound the errors it has already made, or even to threaten to do so, at Mr. Hearn’s expense," the order later states.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Hearn's defense team said in a statement that the "dismissal with prejudice ensures that the DOJ cannot bring this case against him again. This decision is a victory for the rule of law and for an innocent American seeking justice."

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump said in an interview out Thursday that he would be open to pardoning members of his administration, pointing to former President Joe Biden’s blanket pardon to relatives and members of the administration out of concern they would be politically targeted after he left office. 

"Yeah, sure, I'd do that," the president answered when asked by TIME magazine earlier this week if he was "considering pardoning members of your administration prior to the end of your term?"

The president further said that Biden "gave pardons to everyone."

Biden issued preemptive pardons to several close family members in the final minutes of his presidency in 2025, saying that his family "has been subjected to unrelenting attacks and threats, motivated solely by a desire to hurt me" and that he had "no reason to believe these attacks will end" after he left office.

Those pardons included James Biden, Joe's younger brother; Sara Jones Biden, James' wife; Valerie Biden Owens, Joe's younger sister; John T. Owens', Valerie's husband; and Francis W. Biden, Joe's younger brother.

In 2024, Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden, who was convicted on tax evasion and federal gun charges.

Trump's pardon comments mark the first time he has publicly said he would consider pardoning members of his administration.

Last year, he issued pardons to some to his political and financial supporters as well as several high-profile individuals allegedly involved in his attempt to overturn the election. In his first term, he pardoned several advisers, members of his campaign and one former member of his administration, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

In the interview, Trump expressed his belief that if the Democrats emerge victorious in the midterm elections, “they'll probably go after" him, but he said he will also target them back. 

Trump still expressed confidence that Republicans will "do okay" in November, as long as he is on the campaign trail. 

"No, I think we'll do OK if I campaign, and I intend to," he said, when asked if he believes that Democrats will take control of Congress.

He then went on to tout some of his endorsement victories including for Republicans Darline Graham and Ed Gallerin -- who defeated Rep. Thomas Massie in the primary for Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District.

Asked about his record low poll numbers, Trump called them "fake" and insisted that he could easily beat anybody who ran against him.

"They're fake numbers. I would beat anybody running today by 20 points," Trump said. "Your numbers that you have are fake."

Trump's cover of TIME magazine will mark his 56th such appearance, according to the outlet. That's more than any other figure in history, surpassing former President Richard Nixon's record.

Trump's interview will be the cover story for TIME's Oct. 26 issue.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Two members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are on opposite tickets in Arizona's closely watched governor's race, and Mormon women are reaching sharply different conclusions about what their faith asks of them at the ballot box.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Rep. Andy Biggs, an ultra-conservative ally of President Donald Trump, is running to unseat Gov. Katie Hobbs, who picked former Mesa Mayor John Giles, a church member and a Republican-turned-independent, as her running mate.

Some Republican and independent Mormon women told ABC News that Giles' presence on the ballot and Biggs' vote against certifying the 2020 election have pushed them toward Hobbs. Others say their views on parental rights and transgender issues draw them to Biggs.

About 442,000 Latter-day Saints live in Arizona, per the church's 2025 count. That's roughly 6% of the state's population. The split could matter in a state Hobbs won by just about 17,000 votes in 2022.

“Some of these races are close, you know, 5,000 votes, 10,000 votes. That's well within the margin that [John] Giles adds to the ticket,” said Tyler Montague, a Republican strategist. 

"We're a huge group, and I definitely think it would be smart to be courting Mormon voters, Mormon women, because we are high propensity turnout voters," said Ronna McDaniel, former Republican National Committee chair and a church member.

"So go the Mormon wives, go the state, really," said Stacey Pearson, a Democratic strategist in Arizona.

Biggs has defended his record of election denialism as raising legitimate questions about election administration.

"You have a lot of people that are character voters, and they view Biggs' participation in the attempts to overthrow the election as a severe lack of character," Montague said.

Montague also argued abortion, long the issue binding religious conservatives to Republican candidates, may have less influence this year after Arizona voters approved a ballot measure protecting abortion access in 2024. "It's not as salient an issue," he said.

Jane Andersen, Arizona state director of Mormon Women for Ethical Government, said principle and conduct can outweigh loyalty to a party. The group does not endorse candidates, and its membership is roughly 40% Republican, 34% Democratic and 26% independent nationally.

"When we've had statewide candidates on the Republican side that have been such outliers, and … their approach to politicking has been so harsh, so negative, so out of line with how the women conduct themselves in daily life, they've chosen to walk away from that person," Andersen said, "even if maybe the policies might seem like they align more."

Suzanne Lunt, a 60-year-old teacher in Gilbert, left the party after the Jan. 6 insurrection, briefly re-registered as a Republican to run for the Arizona House, lost, then returned to independent. She is voting for Hobbs and Giles.

"Our church leaders have taught us that we should try to vote for people with integrity," Lunt said. “I try to find leaders who I know I can trust, who follow the rule of law, and who are ready to work with all kinds of people and not just toe the party line."

Sylvia Jencks, 51, an independent from conservative San Tan Valley, is also voting for Hobbs.

"I want somebody who cares about Arizona and not just what the president wants," Jencks said. But she faulted Democrats, too, saying the party is "focusing on the wrong things" instead of strengthening the state’s economy.

Tatiana Pena, 43, a South Phoenix mother of five and lifelong Republican, is voting for Biggs because of what church leaders have taught about protecting "family values."

"They don't talk politics, but they have given us warnings," Pena said. "One of the biggest warnings is to defend the family unit in society. That to me outweighs everything else."

For her, that means restricting transgender women's access to women's restrooms and girls' sports, and opposing gender-transition care for minors.

Tyler Bowyer, Turning Point USA's chief operating officer and a church member from Mesa, agreed, arguing that Mormon women are "most moved by the trans policies that have been pushed by the left."

For Brittany Romanello, a University of Arkansas professor who studies Mormon political behavior, the divide shows shared faith no longer guarantees a vote.

“Women are looking at the values, the controversies, the morals …This is not the 2012 election, where people just expected people to vote for Mitt Romney because he's LDS," she said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) -- Major changes are coming on Oct. 1 for the tens of millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for food assistance from the federal government.

In the short term, most families will see a slight bump in their monthly payments to help afford groceries. But in the coming months, households will face stricter eligibility requirements and changes to how the benefits are administered that could ultimately result in far fewer benefits.

An estimated five million Americans -- including more than 1 million children -- have already lost SNAP assistance over the past year as part of President Donald Trump’s signature tax and spending law, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Short-term boost in benefits

Every year on Oct. 1, the federal government adjusts its monthly SNAP benefits to account for inflation. These cost-of-living adjustments apply across all states.

For a typical single-person household in one of 48 states (not including Alaska or Hawaii), checks will go from a maximum of $298 to $306 per month. That’s an extra $8 monthly.

For a family of four, checks will go from $994 to $1,023 per month. That’s an extra $29 per month, or $348 per year.

These inflation adjustments are intended to help families keep up with the rising cost of food. Grocery prices are up 2.2% in the past year.

Big funding changes

While these adjustments will help alleviate some cost pressures for current SNAP recipients, a major overhaul to the program is resulting in fewer people receiving benefits.

As part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” states are required to pay for a larger share of SNAP administrative costs while the federal government pays less. Now, states will be required to cover 75% of those administrative costs -- a 25% increase. This change takes effect Oct. 1 and will leave states with millions of dollars of additional costs to cover. 

Additional cost shifts are also looming for states. Starting in 2027, states with a SNAP recipient error rate above 6% would also be on the hook for funding a portion of SNAP benefits themselves -- expected to cost states hundreds of millions of dollars extra per year.

In anticipation of these sweeping changes, some states are already seeing a big drop in SNAP enrollment.

According to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Arizona, Florida and Louisiana were some of the states that saw the biggest change in participation, with Arizona seeing its numbers cut nearly in half. 

Changing eligibility requirements

The Republican-backed law has already imposed stricter requirements on SNAP recipients. 

Under the law, work requirements apply to able-bodied adults without dependents aged 18 to 64, up from the previous age limit of 54. 

The law also changed work requirements for families responsible for a dependent. Now, families with children age 14 and older are no longer eligible for an exemption from those work requirements. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Texas GOP Senate nominee Ken Paxton told donors at a private fundraiser last week that President Donald Trump's midterm convention in Dallas earlier this month had hurt him politically, according to audio obtained by The New York Times.

In a recording, a person believed to be Paxton is asked, "Do you feel like he’s a little bit of a drag?" It's not clear in the audio about whom the questioner is referring.

"So to be honest with you, the numbers -- when we did that convention -- it dropped our numbers. Everybody’s numbers dropped. Right now, yeah, not good," someone reported to be Paxton said in response to the question.

Three other people with knowledge of the event confirmed to the New York Times that Paxton was at the private fundraiser -- with two of those people recalling Paxton's response about the GOP midterm convention.

The Paxton campaign pushed back against the report, calling it "manipulated nonsense." When ABC News asked specifically whether the campaign was claiming the audio was manipulated, the Paxton campaign did not respond.

ABC News reached out to the White House for comment, but did not receive a response.

Paxton's comments are noteworthy, given how he has aligned himself with Trump, earning his endorsement ahead of the Texas Senate runoff earlier this year. Trump backed Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP primary.

A recent ReconMR Texas Poll found that the Senate race in Texas remains tight, as 49% of likely voters said they would vote for Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico if the election were held today and 43% said they would vote for Paxton.

During the GOP midterm convention, Trump both praised Paxton and mocked him for his appearance.

"He may not dress right, he may not talk exactly perfectly, and he may not be the best-looking guy I've ever seen. But you know what he is? He's the greatest attorney general in America, and he deserves to be your next senator," Trump said in early September.

Paxton's comments about the midterm convention also paint a larger picture of how some GOP candidates feel Trump's low approval rating, along with the political environment where voters are concerned about prices, could hurt them politically.

Several Republicans running in competitive statewide and federal races are joining growing calls in their party to end the war in Iran, including battleground Senate candidates Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa and Sen. Jon Husted of Ohio.

Trump is scheduled to travel to Texas later this week to deliver economic remarks at a truck manufacturing company -- a visit that comes five weeks before Election Day and as Texas is home to many key races.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad probe into the safety of AI systems, including Anthropic and OpenAI,  a senior FTC official confirmed to ABC News on Wednesday.

The New York Post was first to report on the investigation.

The probe is looking into allegations of unfair or deceptive acts by AI companies and potential harms to consumers. The agency could issue formal demands for AI companies to turn over information, a senior FTC official confirmed.

The FTC has the broad legal authority to investigate companies and enforce consumer protection laws. Its investigations can result in civil penalties.

ABC News has reached out to Anthropic and OpenAI for comment on the FTC investigation.

The FTC probe comes as AI leaders issue warnings about the threat of AI and calling for steps to slow it down before it outsmarts humans. Lawmakers' calls for regulations for the AI industry have also grown.

President Donald Trump -- who earlier this month called warnings about the dangers of artificial intelligence a "HOAX" -- hosted key tech leaders at the White House on Tuesday, saying they signed a "constitution" to police themselves.

"This is a statement of principles that you'll see, a statement of standards, commitments that are voluntary on behalf of the industry," said Speaker Mike Johnson. "It sets forth expectations."

Asked whether the agreement is binding, Trump said it's "morally" binding.

ABC News' Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is set to announce on Wednesday that the Pentagon will cut 20% of positions reserved for generals and admirals, doubling a reduction he ordered last year as part of a broader effort to shrink the military's senior ranks, according to two U.S. officials.

Hegseth is expected to announce the move during a "State of the Force" address on Wednesday at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia, where he will outline his agenda for the force over the coming year. The new target doubles the 10% overall reduction in general and admiral positions he ordered in 2025.

The speech follows Hegseth's appearance at Quantico last year, when he abruptly summoned the military’s top brass from around the world and used the address to rail against what he framed as declining standards, demanding there would be "no more beardos" and "no more fat generals."

Much of the speech was also devoted to culture-war grievances.

"No more identity months, DEI offices, dudes in dresses," Hegseth declared last September to a room full of the military's top leaders.

At the time, the Pentagon also directed all of its troops to watch video of the speech.

This year, commanders across the services were asked to nominate mostly junior and mid-ranking troops to attend, according to officials familiar with the matter.

The nominees are expected to include high-performing service members, such as troops recognized for major achievements or winners of military competitions, according to officials. Those selected must also be in compliance with military fitness and body fat standards, a routine requirement for official travel and attendance at major events.

It is unclear exactly how the new cuts will be carried out, or whether such a dramatic reduction amid the Iran war would disrupt day-to-day military operations. The services have already been reducing the number of senior officers in part by consolidating commands and organizations, allowing some positions previously held by two generals or admirals to be overseen by one.

The cuts can also mean some commands could be downgraded to a lower level rather than eliminated outright or different parts of the military being shut down completely.

The services have been directed to complete those cuts to the most senior ranks, which can end up being dozens of roles by January, one official explained. 

There are currently 841 active-duty flag officers.

The move also follows a broader purge of the military’s senior ranks under Hegseth, who has fired or sidelined a string of top officers without publicly explaining the rationale. Among them was Gen. Randy George, who was removed as the Army’s top officer; Gen. CQ Brown, who was fired as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Adm. Lisa Franchetti, who was removed as chief of naval operations.

Before leaving the administration in September, then-Army Secretary Dan Driscoll repeatedly warned the White House that Hegseth’s removal of senior officers and efforts to block others from advancing were thinning the Army's leadership ranks, according to people familiar with the situation. Driscoll told Trump the moves were leaving the service with a smaller pool of experienced officers to fill future senior commands.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- With just weeks until the high-stakes midterm elections, President Donald Trump is set to headline rallies in Republican-favoring states this week -- with critics asking why the president is not instead focusing on key battleground states instead.

Some Republicans and experts say the goal is to boost midterm election turnout among Republican voters more generally who might have been less motivated to vote this year, and that this sort of travel to "safe" states during midterm years is not unprecedented. One expert said Trump's low national approval ratings could be seen as a risk -- and a reason he’s not stumping in more competitive areas.

Trump will join a "Midterm Rally" on Thursday, Oct. 1 in Durant, Oklahoma, and another in Mobile, Alabama on Friday, Oct. 2, according to announcements by the Republican National Committee last week.

Both rallies will be in congressional districts and states that appear to favor the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm elections.

Durant, for instance, is located in Oklahoma's 2nd Congressional District, which Trump won by more than 50 percentage points in 2024, according to data compiled by the Associated Press. This district, held by GOP Rep. Josh Brecheen, is also expected to be solidly Republican in the midterms, as are the statewide governor and Senate races, according to ABC News race ratings.

Mobile, meanwhile, was redrawn after mid-decade redistricting to be in Alabama's 1st Congressional District. The redrawn district, favoriting Republicans, would have voted for Trump in 2024 by around 40 points.

The 2nd Congressional District, which formerly included part of Mobile, is currently represented by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures, but now leans Republican post-redistricting, according to ABC News race ratings -- although Figures and his supporters plan to put up a fight to hold the seat. And the statewide Senate and governor races in Alabama are considered solid Republican, according to ABC News race ratings.

Trump will also be heading to states with more competitive races. Later in October, he is set to attend rallies in Ohio, Iowa and Nebraska -- states that voted for him in 2024 but are hosting competitive Senate races in 2026.

Trump, asked about the upcoming red-state campaign trips in the Oval Office on Monday, said "we have great people" in those races, and slammed the Democratic candidates.

But Democrats are arguing that Trump is going to red states like Alabama because Republicans are nervous.

"We're scaring the hell out of them," Democratic gubernatorial candidate and former Sen. Doug Jones argued on MS NOW on Sunday. "They think ... Alabama's a firewall. Now they've got to protect a firewall. Well, it's not a firewall anymore."

But Republicans say that Trump's red state rallies will benefit the GOP more broadly.

An official with the RNC made the case to ABC News on Thursday that the rallies will help turnout in neighboring media markets in Texas and Florida. Republicans are trying to hold on to a Senate seat and governorships in both states.

Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst and the managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, told ABC News that he found the Oklahoma and Alabama events to be "head-scratchers," and didn't buy the media market argument: "Why not just go to Texas and Florida?"

Separately, RNC National Press Secretary Natalie Baldassarre said in an appearance on Newsmax on Monday that the GOP has the "resources" and "record cash on hand, so the goal here is to drive people to the polls."

Georgia-based Republican strategist Ryan Mahoney told ABC News he also felt Trump's travel to red states was about turning out voters who otherwise might not show up. He added that some Republican-base voters may be disenchanted by Trump because of the higher cost of living -- an issue that has plagued the president, according to recent polling.

"There's no shortage of states, solid-red districts, solid-red states [that] are starting to suffer with Republican base voters who lack enthusiasm and motivation to get out and vote," Mahoney said.

Still, Mahoney said the GOP should be more focused on competitive races: "it's not a good look for Republicans."

Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, told ABC News there's merit to the argument that Trump will turn out unmotivated GOP voters with these rallies.

"Trump has this ability, at least when he's on the ballot, to turn out some people who don't typically vote, to kind of remake the electorate to some extent," he said.

But Dallek also pointed to low national approval ratings for Trump -- just 33% of Americans approve of Trump and 67% disapprove, according to a recent CNN poll -- that he said have created a "toxic" brand for the president, which he said could be why he is not stumping in more competitive areas.

Kondik was also skeptical that Trump appearing "front and center" at rallies may be helpful for unmotivated GOP voters who have fallen out of the president's coalition.

From a historical perspective, however, Dallek pointed out that it's not unprecedented for a sitting president to head to "safe" territory during a midterms election cycle. He pointed to Barack Obama, who, for instance, attended rallies in 2010 in Los Angeles and Maryland, as well as George W. Bush in 2006 (who attended rallies in states such as Indiana and Georgia.

"[Trump] is following a pattern that many of his predecessors have followed, which is when they are unpopular in midterm elections, to the extent they travel, they go to their base," he said.

ABC News' Hannah Demissie, Benjamin Siegel and Gaby Vinick contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration used funds from the Department of Homeland Security to air TV ads featuring President Donald Trump in recent days, according to sources familiar with the matter. 

The money was moved into a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) account for "commemorative events" on Sept. 19, and federal contract data shows that a contract of $20 million was awarded the next day to the LMD Agency, a Maryland-based advertising agency for a "National Media Campaign." Days later, the ads began airing.

CBP is the the agency within DHS that is responsible for securing the nation's border and ports of entry. The funds appear to have been drawn from Trump's signature tax and spending bill passed in 2025. The bill provided $6.2 billion for a variety of border security improvements, but also for "commemorating efforts and events related to border security."

LMD Agency did not immediately respond to ABC's request for comment. The Wall Street Journal first reported the source of the federal funds. 

DHS has been known to use funds for advertising campaigns, including spending millions of advertisements encouraging people who are in the country illegally to self-deport. 

The federal government has spent at least $1.7 million to air three different TV ads featuring Trump in recent days, according to an estimate from AdImpact, which tracks and analyzes political ad spending across TV, digital and connected TV channels.

DHS directed inquires to the White House. In a statement to ABC News, a White House spokesperson said: "These public service announcements are about reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country." 

Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee responded by sending a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding he answer questions about the breakdown of the funds, whether the ads are expected to continue, and DHS's role in facilitating their airing.

"The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself -- while doing nothing to help them afford health care or housing," the letter says. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump celebrated the Senate's passage of the Protect College Sports Act, saying that the legislation will "save college sports" and is a "really big deal."

"This is a really big deal. It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves," Trump wrote in a Monday night social media post.

Trump has long been an advocate for this legislation and said in August that he would sign the bill "immediately" if it came across his desk -- urging both the House and Senate to advance it.

On Monday night, the Senate passed the act with a vote of 77-22, bringing a massive restructuring of college athletics one step closer.

The legislation establishes a federal framework for college athletics to create one set system over the current patchwork of differing state rules. It creates one rulebook on how athletes can earn money from their name, image and likeness (NIL) and puts a cap on the amount of money schools can directly share with their athletes. 

But it’s not just about money. The bill also deals with transfers, eligibility and media rights. Athletes can transfer to another school one time without losing a year of eligibility and student-athletes are given five years of eligibility with exceptions for certain circumstances such as a serious injury. The legislation also gives colleges the ability to negotiate broadcasting agreements collectively to give them more control over how their games are marketed and distributed. 

Supporters of the bill say that it will add much-needed stability to the world of college athletics that has rapidly changed in recent years due to increasing NIL deals and frequent transfers. Senators -- including Sen. Ted Cruz -- argue that creating one national set of rules will reduce uncertainty and establish clear guidelines for compensation, eligibility and media rights.

"This bill puts an end to the chaos plaguing college athletics. It protects NIL opportunities because student athletes deserve the opportunity to benefit from their talent, without being taken advantage of by unscrupulous agents and backdoor deals, it creates clear, enforceable rules for eligibility and transfers. It protects our traditions and rivalries," Cruz said on the Senate floor ahead of Monday's vote.

While the bill received bipartisan support in the Senate on Monday, there were still concerns from many senators, largely around the amount of leverage the bill gives to the NCAA. The NCAA will now be in charge of overseeing school compliance on certain portions of the bill while also being granted immunity from federal antitrust lawsuits when enforcing its rules.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, one of the bill's opponents, argued that the legislation could give the NCAA greater legal protection and authority without giving athletes an equivalent role in negotiating the rules that govern them. 

"You don't need a bill of this sweeping scope to address what are a set of minor but important practices in college athletics that have gotten out of control. We could have either passed a very narrow bill here to address the agent issue and the transfer issue, or we could have done what happens in most industries, which is just say to the NCAA and to the colleges, tough luck. Congress isn't going to come in here and micromanage your relationship with the athletes. If you want to work something out, sit down and talk to the athletes about it," Murphy said.

On Monday night, the NCAA thanked the senators who supported the legislation and looked ahead to the next hurdle: House passage.

"The NCAA thanks the many senators who sponsored this bill -- including Senators Cruz, Cantwell, Schmitt and Coons -- as well as the many other senators who voted for the bill, for their bipartisan effort to protect this uniquely American tradition of college sports in the decades to come," the NCAA wrote in a social media post. "Now the bill moves to the U.S. House of Representatives and there is much work left to do to ensure student-athlete benefits are codified into federal law and future generations of young people can access those benefits and use college sports as the launching point for their careers."

The bipartisan piece of legislation still faces obstacles in the House.

The Congressional Black Caucus has come out against the bill because they believe it doesn't include strong enough protections and economic opportunities for Black athletes. Additionally, some conservative House members have expressed criticism for similar legislation, arguing the government is trying to have too much oversight over college sports.

The House remains out of session for their midterm recess and it is unlikely that they will be called back to Washington early to consider the legislation. 

So while the legislation is now in the red zone, it’s going to take more than a "tush push" to get it into the end zone and onto the president's desk.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Former special counsel Jack Smith is set to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to defend his two criminal investigations of President Donald Trump amid growing calls from Republicans that Smith himself face prosecution by Trump's Justice Department. 

Smith, who secured indictments against Trump over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss and his alleged unlawful retention of classified documents after leaving the White House, has repeatedly said he believes he could prove Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and defended the actions of his investigative team. 

Trump has long denied wrongdoing and neither case ultimately made it before a jury following his 2024 election victory, after which Smith moved to dismiss both indictments based on DOJ policy barring prosecution of a sitting president. 

In an opening statement to the committee obtained by ABC News, Smith is expected to say, "I stand by my decisions as Special Counsel, including my decision to bring charges against President Trump. I made these decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election." 

"If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that President was a Republican or a Democrat," his statement says. 

Trump has repeatedly said Smith should face prosecution and he has become a central target of House and Senate Republicans, who have argued his investigations were fueled by political animus and represented a "weaponization" of the Justice Department.

Senate Democrats have cast Republicans' attacks on Smith as misleading and hypocritical in light of what they argue is Trump's blatant weaponization of the department to pursue his political enemies. 

Attorney General Todd Blanche said in July testimony that the department was investigating a criminal referral from Republicans who accused Smith of lying in prior public testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

In a lengthy rebuttal to Blanche, Smith's attorneys argued the referral was based on "spurious" claims that took his testimony out of context in order to create a pretext for the Justice Department to investigate him. 

"During his testimony, Mr. Smith provided truthful, responsive answers and candidly discussed his work," Smith's attorneys said. "This referral reflects a chilling eagerness to weaponize the justice system by attacking a career, nonpartisan public servant who faithfully and fearlessly performed his duties by following the facts and the law."

In the nearly two years since Smith's office was shuttered following Trump's 2024 election win, nearly every prosecutor and line agent associated with Smith's investigation have either resigned or been fired. 

The Justice Department and FBI have also handed over scores of records from Smith's probes to Republican lawmakers who have released them in piecemeal disclosures alleging, without evidence, that they expose corruption or otherwise unethical behavior by Smith's investigative team. 

In Tuesday's hearing, specifically, Republicans are expected to accuse Smith of unlawfully targeting their phone records during the course of his investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss. 

Smith has repeatedly defended his office's actions with respect to the subpoenaed records, and has said the records were only targeted because they were made in the period where Trump and other White House officials were seeking to disrupt certification of Joe Biden's 2020 election win -- which ultimately led to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. 

"I didn't choose those members, President Trump did," Smith said in prior testimony regarding lawmakers whose records his office obtained.

Another factor looming over Smith's Tuesday testimony is that he is technically barred from discussing details from his other criminal investigation of Trump's alleged unlawful retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort. 

The Trump-appointed federal judge who previously dismissed the classified documents case, Aileen Cannon, has a standing order that prohibits Smith or any other government official from revealing information that could be part of his final report detailing the probe. An appeals court is currently weighing a lawsuit filed by First Amendment advocacy groups seeking to lift Cannon's order and make the report public. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Leaders of top artificial intelligence companies are set to attend a lunch meeting with President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson at the White House on Tuesday amid growing fears about the threat of the rapidly innovating technology.

The meeting comes as AI leaders are issuing dire warnings about the threat of AI and calling for steps to slow it down before it outsmarts humans. Following those warnings, lawmakers are weighing what -- if any -- action should be taken.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg will attend the meeting, a source familiar confirmed to ABC News. Another source familiar said that Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic will also attend. And Google CEO Sundar Pichai will also attend, a Google spokesperson confirmed to ABC News. Jensen Huang from Nvidia and Alex Karl from Palantir are also expected to attend, ABC News has confirmed.

Zuckerberg has pushed back on calls from other tech leaders to collectively slow down AI, saying "every lab has the responsibility and incentive to move at the pace required to train its models safely."

The meeting will also include other tech leaders.

This won't be the first time that top tech leaders have met with Trump on the issue. The Meta CEO also attended the state dinner at the White House for Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, along with the CEOs of OpenAI, Nvidia, Microsoft, Google, AMD, SpaceX and executives from Amazon and Apple. Amodei also had dinner with Trump late on Sunday night.'

The president has said that the warnings about the technology and calls to slow down AI development are a "hoax."

"AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a HOAX[...]," Trump said in a social media post in mid-September, before comparing the warnings to his impeachments.

The president has made clear that he does not believe in regulating the technology. Just last week while addressing the United Nations General Assembly, Trump said the U.S. "rejects" a global attempt to regulate AI.

Johnson told reporters two weeks ago about the meeting, saying there would be "a deliberate discussion about the responsibility of the companies to maintain safety, and what role, if any, the government has to play in that."

While Johnson called on the companies to "self-regulate," he also also stressed that the U.S. should not lose its competitive edge in the space.

"We cannot have a moratorium on the development of AI, because then we will lose our edge to China, and that has serious national security implications for," Johnson said.

On Monday, Johnson said the the fears of the threat of AI is a Chinese psychological operation and are politically motivated.

"This is what Democrats do. They glom on to something and say, 'This is doom and gloom and everyone will die if we don't win,'" he told Fox Business. "Don't buy it. It is a Chinese psyop."

The White House has not responded to ABC News when asked about the meeting.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the oldest sitting U.S. senator, lamented the possibility that a Democratic governor could appoint his successor if he were to die in office, according to video of remarks he delivered late last week.

"At 93 years of age, I don't know how many more groups of Republicans like this I’m going to have a chance to talk to," Grassley said on Friday during the GOP's annual Reagan Dinner in West Des Moines. "But I want to take advantage of it. But one of the reasons I'm worried about who's going to be elected governor -- I don’t plan on dying in office -- but if I did, I don’t want a Democrat governor choosing my successor."

Grassley, who celebrated his 93rd birthday on Sept. 17, is currently serving in his eighth term in the Senate -- set to expire Jan. 3, 2029.

If Grassley were to die in the next two years, the next governor of Iowa -- set to be elected this fall -- would make a temporary appointment to fill the seat until the 2028 election.

A late June Fox News poll found Democrat Rob Sand, Iowa's state auditor, with a 9-point lead over Republican Zach Lahn among registered voters in the state. A New York Times/Siena poll conducted around the same time found a much closer contest with the candidates essentially neck-and-neck among likely voters.

Grassley has not announced whether he will seek a ninth term in the Senate in 2028.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Trump administration officials said on Monday that the United States has no plans to sell weapons to China after U.S. Ambassador to China David Perdue indicated during a televised interview that President Donald Trump offered a weapons deal to China's Xi Jinping during a high-profile summit last week.

"President Trump continues to say, 'Hey, we sell arms to other people around the world,'" Perdue said Sunday during an appearance on Fox News. "He actually asked President Xi would he like to buy some at one point."

Perdue did not provide further details about the offer, and he did not reveal Xi's response.

A U.S. official denied there were plans to sell weapons to China.

"The U.S. government has no plans to sell weapons to China," the official said to ABC News on Monday. 

The State Department also denied a potential sale, saying in a statement to ABC News that "U.S. law prohibits arms sales to China and there is no offer or plan to sell arms to China."

Asked about Perdue's comments in the Oval Office on Monday, Trump said he "didn't discuss it" with Xi, suggesting he meant Taiwan instead of China.

"I never heard of that one. I'm going to have to ask him. You mean we're going to sell? Now they'd probably like to buy it because we do make better equipment than them. So maybe it's a good idea. Yeah, but, we didn't discuss it," Trump said, later adding "I think he probably was talking about Taiwan."

A U.S. weapons sale offer to China would be extraordinary, as China is viewed as the primary strategic and economic competitor of the U.S. and is designated as a foreign adversary. The U.S. has placed extensive economic sanctions on China, including economic restrictions, investment bans and contract limits on companies, groups and schools tied to the Chinese military.

The two geopolitical rivals are also competing in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence and have opposing views over Taiwanese sovereignty.

And in recent weeks, Beijing has come under scrutiny for allegedly providing another U.S. adversary -- Iran -- with satellite imagery in their ongoing conflict with the U.S. and other regional allies.

Perdue told Fox News that Xi had "assured" Trump during their bilateral meeting last week that they were "looking into" the allegations about supporting Iran with satellite imagery.

The Trump administration notably downplayed taking action against China for allegedly helping Iran despite the United States' stated goal of targeting all countries with financial ties to Iran as part of the U.S. Treasury's offensive "Operation Economic Outcast."

"When they say that China spies on us, I say, 'You’re right, and we spy on them too,' you know? We spy on them too," Trump said earlier this month. 

When asked by reporters on Friday if the two leaders had discussed the war in Iran, Trump replied, "We did," adding without providing details: "I think we’re going to do great."

The potential offer to China comes as the Trump administration continues to press pause on a proposed $14 billion arms sale to the island of Taiwan, a de facto independent nation.

China has long claimed the sovereign territory as its own and regularly conducts large-scale military drills, live-fire exercises and daily air and naval patrols to apply pressure on the island. Taiwan relies heavily on U.S. military support to push back on China's encroachments.

Perdue said that the administration was not denying Taiwan access to weapons needed for its defense, asserting: "President Trump is as strong on Taiwan as I've ever seen anybody. He's made it very clear that we have not changed the One China policy."

"President Xi has heard that repeatedly from President Donald Trump. President Trump has already sold 50% more arms to Taiwan than any other president since 1979," Perdue added.

ABC News' Nicholas Kerr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump will announce the construction of a massive new steel plant during an Oval Office event on Monday, a White House official said.

The project, which will be built by Mesabi Metallics in Iowa, will command a $15 billion investment from the company and is the first mega-steel plant built in the United States since the 1960s, the official said. The first steel production is expected to be in 2030 and, once fully built out, will produce 10 million tons of steel annually, making it among the largest in the U.S. 

The company also recently invested $2.5 billion in a new iron ore mine in Minnesota, which the official said will allow the project to be fully integrated in the U.S. from mining to production. The mine is expected to produce 7.5 million tons of iron ore annually and will create 350 new jobs in Minnesota. Another 1,750 jobs are expected in Iowa, the official added.

"Today’s announcement underscores the President's historic efforts to revitalize the U.S. steel industry -- supporting local communities, strengthening supply chains, and protecting our national security," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement confirming the announcement.

Executives from Mesabi Metallics are expected to attend the event on Monday, as well as Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Executive Director of the White House's National Energy Dominance Council Jarrod Agen and John Jovanovic, chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the details of the project. 

The Wall Street Journal noted that Mesabi Metallics is backed by the Essar Group, an Indian multinational conglomerate, which first proposed the mine and mill project 20 years ago, and ultimately failed. The mine project filed for bankruptcy a decade ago, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) -- Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz, said Sunday that the Democratic party needs to do a “better job” if they were to win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.

“I think we have to have answers. We have to have, we have to pass legislation. We have to send it to the president's desk. Hopefully, if it benefits the American people, he will sign it,” Kelly told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz.

Many of November’s elections are shaping up to be tight races, with some recent polls indicating Democrats could come out on top. Charlie Cook, founder of the Cook Political Report, also appeared on “This Week” Sunday and predicted that Democrats would win both the House of Representatives and the Senate -- something he said earlier this week would be less a as “blue wave,” but rather a “red undertow.”

“It's hitting some places more than other places, but it isn't pro-Democrat. It's anti-Trump basically, and Republicans that have been supported by the president,” Cook said.

Kelly said that many Americans are frustrated with the Republican party and administration.

“I think there's going to be a big turnout. I think some of these races are going to be close, and it really comes down to the fact that the American people are just struggling and Republicans and this president don't have an answer,” Kelly said.

Kelly also cited the war with Iran as a big factor that could be driving voters to pull the lever for Democrats.

“War and tariffs caused by Donald Trump and enabled by the Republicans in the United States Congress are just killing the American people. I mean, they cannot afford their lives, and when you can't, when you're having a hard time feeding your kid, I mean, nothing else really matters,” Kelly said.

The war with Iran has severely limited the flow of oil through the critical Strait of Hormuz, spiking oil prices. This week at the United Nations, Iran’s president proposed a seven-day plan to reopen the strait, which President Trump rejected.

“Well, I'm rejecting their deal. They want to make a deal where we open the Strait immediately because they're losing so badly,” said Trump on Saturday.

“The president got into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline, without an exit strategy. He's stuck,” said Kelly.

“This thing has been a disaster and it's been a mistake, and it's because of the failed leadership of this president,” Kelly added.

Prior to the war with Iran, "the straits were open and we didn't have" dead and wounded service members, Kelly further said. "This thing has been a disaster, and it's been a mistake, and it's because of the failed leadership of this president.”

Raddatz also asked Kelly about artificial intelligence and Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. In a lavish state visit last week, Xi met with the president in Washington, D.C., with many hoping progress would be made on a deal to regulate the development of AI. Kelly said that he thinks the two leaders instead agreed to set up “sort of a working group.”

“That's not an agreement. It doesn't look like they had a serious discussion about this. This technology is moving very, very quickly. It could be very disruptive to hardworking Americans, could lose their jobs,” said Kelly. “There's safety concerns about this, and the White House, specifically the president, doesn't seem to think we should put any guardrails in place."

Kelly also expressed the desire to stay ahead of China in AI development -- a sentiment echoed by Trump. In a post on social media, the president claimed in part "there is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so."

"At the same time, we can't allow the Chinese to win the race to getting the best AI technology. That would be a mistake," Kelly added.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.