A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions, on June 23, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday bolstered the ability of federal border agents to remove from the country lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, who may have committed a crime involving "moral turpitude."
In a 6-3 decision by Justice Clarence Thomas in Blanche v. Lau, the court said border agents do not bear the burden of having to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that an immigrant seeking to re-enter the country after a trip abroad had committed a crime before denying them admission, but need only show that there was reason to believe they had.
"The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote. The ruling effectively makes it easier for border officials to strip lawful permanent resident (LPR) status from people as they arrive at U.S. ports of entry.
It is also a setback for plaintiff Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and U.S. green card holder who was deemed inadmissible at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 as he was returning from a trip to China. Officials denied his formal re-entry into the U.S. because he faced New Jersey state charges for trademark counterfeiting at the time, though he was conditionally allowed readmission.
.S. immigration law states that green card holders who legally leave the U.S. for short periods should be allowed to re-enter, but there are exceptions – among them if the green card holder is convicted of or admits to having committed "a crime involving moral turpitude."
A year later, Lau pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported. He continued to contest his removal, arguing that the crime didn't constitute one of "moral turpitude."
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the government must bear the burden of first proving that a green card holder had, in fact, committed a crime before stripping their status.
"I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote, in part. "With today's the decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation" of the law.
Rain clouds roll over the United States Supreme Court building on June 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. The high court handed down three decisions Thursday, including United States v Hemani where the court ruled 9-0 to limit a federal ban on drug users' Second Amendment right to own firearms. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that oil giant Exxon Mobil can sue the Cuban government over more than $1 billion in seized property, potentially giving the United States greater financial leverage over the cash-strapped country.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that state-owned companies can't argue they are protected by sovereign immunity to fight litigation over assets seized by Cuba's communist government.
The decision -- as well as a similar case last month when the Supreme Court ruled companies can be held liable for using seized property -- comes as the Trump administration ratchets pressure on the struggling island nation through embargoes and a criminal indictment of former leader Raul Castro. The decision could open the door to more litigation over assets seized by the Cuban government, adding pressure to the economically distressed country.
The case revolved around the interpretation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, which was passed by Congress after Cuba shot down two unarmed planes flown by humanitarian organization Brothers to the Rescue. The law established the right of U.S. nationals to sue over property seized by the Cuban government, though every president until President Donald Trump waived that provision.
The day Trump allowed lawsuits against Cuba in 2019, Exxon Mobil sued over their property in the country -- including hundreds of gas stations, an oil refinery, depots and packaging plants -- valued at more than $1 billion. In court, the Cuban government argued that the companies were protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and that Exxon would need to show they were exempted from that law for the case to proceed. Both the district and circuit courts sided with Cuba -- eventually leading the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed those rulings in the opinion on Tuesday. "It would make little sense for Congress to construct an elaborate statute authorizing suits against the Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities if, because of the FSIA, almost no suits could ever get through the courthouse door,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that “the entire architecture of the Helms-Burton Act" establishes that sovereign immunity does not apply and that ruling otherwise would "badly undermine Congress’s design and thwart the President’s statutorily authorized assessment of current developments in Cuba."
"After the President has allowed suits under the Act to go forward, there is no additional FSIA hurdle that a plaintiff must clear in order to sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities," wrote Kavanaugh. "The Helms-Burton Act authorizes private suits against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities -- suits that would largely be nonstarters if subjected to the FSIA’s requirements."
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the majority, writing that the Helms-Burton Act falls short of the high legal bar to show that it eliminates claims of sovereign immunity.
"Nothing in the text or 'architecture' of the Helms-Burton Act suggests that Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of these defendants -- much less that it did so with the requisite unmistakable clarity," Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a similar defeat for Cuba, ruling that cruise lines Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian and MSC can be held liable for using a port confiscated by the Cuban government.
An exterior view of the U.S. Capitol on September 9, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Bonnie Cash/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Congress is one step closer to passing its most far-reaching housing reform legislation in decades.
The Senate voted 85-5 on the final passage of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act on Monday.
With midterm elections months away, Congress is taking noteworthy and rare bipartisan action to tackle one element of affordability, a talking point in races across the country this year.
The bill comes as a recent Zillow analysis found the cost of buying a starter home is $1 million or more in a record 242 cities across the country.
The legislation aims to address the nation's housing shortage by increasing the supply of homes and overall homeownership. This is achieved through loosening regulations to encourage housing construction and limiting Wall Street investors' ability to buy homes that could go to families instead.
A 2024 study from the government-sponsored housing enterprise Freddie Mac estimated that U.S. faces a shortfall of 3.7 million units contributing to its housing crisis.
The bill also provides grants to turn vacant buildings into affordable housing.
By increasing the supply of homes for sale, the legislation is intended to lower home costs for Americans.
With the Senate passing the bill 85-5, the legislation now moves to the House of Representatives, where it is also expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisanship as early as Tuesday night when they return from their recess break.
Once through Congress, the bill will head to the desk of President Donald Trump to become law.
"Today's vote proves that it is possible to find bipartisan common ground on legislation that actually helps the American people, and importantly, it proves that bipartisan legislation doesn't have to be the weakest, most milquetoast agreement that doesn't offend anyone or do too much to help anyone," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said on the Senate floor ahead of Monday's vote.
"I don't say this a lot, but today I'm proud to be a member of the United States Senate," Warren said.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, discussed how the bill can give Americans more options on Monday.
"When you put more housing supply on the market, more people have a chance to become first-time homebuyers," he said. "Today, the average first-time homebuyer is 40 years old. That is just too old."
Republican Sens. Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rick Scott (Fla.) and Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) voted against the legislation. Over the weekend, Sen. Rick Scott explained his objection to the legislation, arguing that the federal government cannot successfully impact housing regulation.
"Well, I don't see how it's going to drive down the cost of housing. What's going to drive down the U.S. cost of housing, two things, if you balance a budget, interest rates are going to come down, one of the biggest with lousing," Scott said on Fox News' Saturday in America. "Number two, most of regulation with respect to housing is not the federal level. It's at the local level, what cities and counties are doing. The federal government cannot drive the cost of housing down."
The entrance to a U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) detention facility is seen following a shooting, on September 25, 2025 in Dallas, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday announced is seeking to fine an immigration attorney who allegedly filed false asylum claims -- the first time the agency has filed such a claim.
Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, announced five notices of intent to fine attorney Vinod Doddamani, who they say filed 32 immigration cases in which he filed 64 fraudulent documents.
Doddamani faces a $250,000 fine for what DHS says is a pattern of filing allegedly false asylum claims. He allegedly filed the "identical or nearly identical in language and substance, containing the same or nearly the same factual narrative and supporting details regarding the alleged persecution," according to DHS.
The action against Doddamani comes after DHS's top lawyer last month directed ICE to go after lawyers who filed fraudulent asylum claims in immigration court. DHS has never sough to punish lawyers who have allegedly file fraudulent claims before.
Filing a false immigration claim violates anti-fraud statues, according to DHS General Counsel James Percival, and those who file them should be held accountable, according to a memo from Percival and reviewed by ABC News.
“Fraudulent asylum claims threaten the safety of Americans by overwhelming our burdened immigration system and delaying the removal of dangerous criminal aliens,” said Percival. "By holding [Doddamani] accountable, we are sending a message to other immigration attorneys who engage in fraud across the country: your days of abusing and defrauding our immigration system are over."
ABC News has reached out to Doddamani's attorney for comment.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A narrowly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a Louisiana man the ability to sue state prison officials for damages after they forcibly shaved him bald behind bars, allegedly violating his religious rights as a devout Rastafarian.
In a 6-3 decision, the court's conservative majority said federal law did not permit the plaintiff, Damon Landor, to seek money from individual state employees.
Landor, whose locks of hair had grown uncut for 20 years, has said he felt "raped" by the experience.
The ruling was a victory for states, which said such claims could bankrupt them.
Religious rights advocates warned that it would severely restrict the ability of victims of religious discrimination to sue for justice and accountability.
At issue in the case was the Religious Land Use and Incarcerated Persons Act of 2000, which requires states that receive federal funding for their prisons to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs of inmates and allow them to bring lawsuits seeking "appropriate relief."
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the court's opinion, said the law did not allow individual prison officials to be held personally liable since they were not technically part of the financial "contract" between the federal government and the state.
"Under the Spending Clause, Congress's power to spend money does not include the power to regulate," Gorsuch wrote of the Constitution's provision that allows Congress to put conditions on funds sent to states. "Spending Clause statutes can bind only those who voluntarily and knowingly undertake obligations by agreement with the federal government."
"That essential element is missing here," Gorsuch concluded.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, accused her colleagues of "pulling a rabbit out of the hat" and ignoring decades of precedent.
"The Court reduces some of Congress's greatest legislative achievements--federal laws that secure civil rights, environmental stability, healthcare, and more--to nothing more than the wheelings-and-dealings of an especially wealthy private party," Jackson wrote.
"Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons -- no matter how blatant -- will often be left remediless," Jackson said in dissent. "And encroachments on prisoners' statutory rights are likely to happen with fair frequency, as state-empowered prison officials will have little incentive to abide by federal law, even if it is handed to them on a piece of paper."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which had supported Landor in the case, called the decision a "devastating blow to the religious freedom and dignity of incarcerated people."
"This decision sends a dangerous message that prison officials may escape accountability even for egregious violations of federal law," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Richard Garnett, a Notre Dame Law professor and expert on religious rights, said the ruling highlights the Constitution's limits on Congress' ability to regulate states by offering money with strings attached.
"Our fundamental constitutional commitment to religious freedom for all does and should extend to those being punished for crimes. Today's ruling, and its understanding of federal-state relations, make it all the more important for state governments to respond by putting in place policies, and remedies, that will protect vulnerable inmates from abuses like the one suffered by Mr. Landor," Garnett said in a statement.
Congressional candidate Claire Valdez speaks during a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) rally at Kings Theater on June 18, 2026 in New York City. Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier are challenging incumbents in Democratic primary contests. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) -- The first major test of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s political influence could come Tuesday as three of his congressional endorsees face competitive primary races.
Two Democratic congressmen in New York City are facing challenges from progressive candidates endorsed by Mamdani, while two other races in the city each have multiple candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, including a Kennedy family member.
The Empire State is once again expected to play a pivotal role in the battle for control of the House this November.
North of the city in the Hudson Valley, a crowded Democratic field is seeking to flip Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler’s seat.
And in the state’s sprawling 21st Congressional District, which stretches from the top of the Catskill Mountains to the Canadian border, a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump is taking on a state GOP-backed assemblyman in the race to replace Rep. Elise Stefanik.
1 city, 4 high-profile races
New York City largely leans blue, but the primary races are showing deep divisions among Democratic voters.
“I think what's interesting about primaries, especially in New York, is that they're the main contest because they tend to have an outsized influence on the general election,” said Hostos Community College assistant professor Helen Chang.
When drivers cross into Brooklyn, they are greeted with a sign noting that Mamdani is the mayor and Antonio Reynoso is the borough president.
While Mamdani and Reynoso’s names might appear together on the sign, they are not on the same page in the 7th District race in which Reynoso is a candidate. Reynoso is supported by New York Attorney General Letitia James, but Mamdani is backing state Assemblywoman Claire Valdez. Julie Won, a city council member, is also running.
In Manhattan and Brooklyn's 10th District, Rep. Dan Goldman is being challenged by Mamdani-endorsed former comptroller Brad Lander, while in the 13th District, which covers parts of Manhattan and the Bronx, the mayor is supporting community advocate Darializa Avila Chevalier over Rep. Adriano Espaillat. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is backing Espaillat and Goldman.
Mamdani did not endorse a candidate in Manhattan’s 12th District. The race has been dominated by the artificial intelligence industry, with spending both supporting and opposing state Assemblyman Alex Bores.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed state Assemblyman Micah Lasher in the race, while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is backing former President John F. Kennedy’s grandson, Jack Schlossberg. Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway, health researcher Nina Schwalbe and attorney Laura Dunn are also running.
Noteworthy contests to the north
In the northern suburbs, the 17th is one of the state’s handful of swing districts. Home to Bill and Hillary Clinton, the district has been represented by Lawler since 2023.
Several Democrats are looking to make the district blue again, including former National Security Council Counterterrorism Director Cait Conley, Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson, Tarrytown Village Trustee Effie Phillips-Staley, former reporter Michael Sacks and retired Air Force officer John Cappello.
Further upstate in the state’s northernmost district, Republican primary candidate Anthony Constantino has aimed to closely align himself with Trump.
Constantino, who received the president’s endorsement, is the CEO of Sticker Mule and made headlines in 2024 by placing a large “Vote for Trump” sign atop his building.
Rival candidate Robert Smullen, a state assemblyman and retired Marine Corps officer, was endorsed by the chair of the New York Republican State Committee.
Steny Hoyer arrives in Christianborg Palace on January 16, 2026 in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo by Martin Sylvest Andersen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- At the beginning of this year, after spending more than four decades in Congress and serving as the number two Democrat in the House under Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer, 87, announced his plans to retire at the end of his current term.
Hoyer's announcement instantly launched a crowded race to replace him in southern Maryland’s deep-blue 5th Congressional District, which has ballooned to include more than 20 Democratic primary candidates. Voters head to the polls Tuesday to decide who will be the Democratic nominee for Hoyer’s seat, as well as other federal, state and local offices on the ballot in Maryland’s midterm primary election.
Shortly after announcing his retirement, Hoyer chose his intended successor -- the longtime Democrat endorsed his former aide Maryland state Del. Adrian Boafo. The district is unlikely to elect a Republican, so whoever wins the Democratic primary is on a glide path to victory in November.
Boafo, who served as Hoyer’s campaign manager, also picked up endorsements from other Democratic heavyweights in the state like Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks.
Those running against Boafo include former Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker, healthcare CEO Quincy Bareebe, Prince George’s County Councilwoman Wala Blegay and former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who rose to national prominence for his testimony in congressional hearings about defending the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. Dunn ran for the House in the 3rd District in 2024 and finished second in the Democratic primary.
The debate over the influence of pro-Israel and pro-cryptocurrency super PAC money has played a central role in the race to replace Hoyer, as Boafo’s opponents have criticized the millions of dollars his campaign has received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s United Democracy Project (UDP) PAC and Protect Progress, a crypto-aligned super PAC.
"Adrian has spent the last year laser-focused on the issues impacting Marylanders. His opponents continue to try and make the race about anything else besides what this race is actually about: the people of this district and the real need to have a fighter who stands up to this President," Boafo's campaign manager, Oren Adams, told ABC News in a statement.
In the northwest part of the state, former Rep. David Trone -- who gave up his seat representing Maryland’s 6th District to launch an unsuccessful run for Senate in 2024 -- is trying to make a political comeback after losing to Alsobrooks in the 2024 Democratic primary. Trone, a businessman who has self-funded his campaigns to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, is hoping to reclaim his seat from his successor, Rep. April McClain-Delaney, the wife of former Rep. John Delaney, who also once represented the 6th District before leaving to seek higher office.
At the top of the ballot, Moore seeks the Democratic nomination for what would be his second term in the governor’s mansion. The high-profile governor is seeking re-election as his name continues to be floated as a potential contender for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028.
Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz makes a speech during the '10th Austrian World Summit' climate conference at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna, Austria, June 16, 2026. (Salih Okuroglu/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge on Monday tossed out multiple Justice Department subpoenas to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other officials tied to a federal investigation regarding the state's cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, according to a newly published legal opinion.
Patrick Schiltz, chief judge of the Minnesota federal district court, found that the subpoenas were "part of a broader campaign to coerce state and local officials" to aid the Trump administration in supporting federal immigration activities that "played out against the backdrop of the Trump administration's well-established history of using criminal investigations to retaliate against and pressure the President's political and personal adversaries."
"The fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate," Schiltz wrote in his order released Monday.
The subpoenas, which were issued on Jan. 20 against the backdrop of the Trump administration's aggressive immigration surge in Minnesota that drew widespread protests, sought an expansive amount of information from Walz and others including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the Hennepin County Attorney's Office and Board of Commissioners.
In his opinion quashing the subpoenas, Schiltz lambasted the government for their "extraordinarily broad" request examining materials "that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct." It's almost unheard of for federal judges to quash criminal subpoenas from Justice Department prosecutors.
"The Department has launched a significant incursion into matters that the Constitution reserves to sovereign states, and one would expect that the Department would not have done so unless it was aware of compelling evidence of criminal or at least suspicious behavior," Schiltz said.
Pointing to a series of statements from President Donald Trump, including social media posts previewing a "DAY OF RECKONING AND RETRIBUTION" was coming for Minnesota -- followed by a leak just three days later of a purported federal investigation in Walz and Frey -- Schiltz said there was a clear pattern established of the government using its powers purely to punish Trump's adversaries for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
justify the subpoenas, which he said had such a remote connection to potential criminal conduct "as to be spurious."
"The Department suggests that requiring city officials to report known ICE activity to the City Council could result in the dissemination of that information-and that dissemination of that information could, in turn, result in other individuals evading or interfering with future ICE activity," Schiltz wrote. "This reasoning piles speculation upon speculation, while also taking aim at perfectly legal-indeed, constitutionally protected-behavior. As a general matter, any citizen who happens across law-enforcement activity has a constitutional right to observe it, to record it, and to mention it to anyone they'd like-including members of the Minneapolis City Council."
The order follows a similar move by the chief district judge in Washington, D.C., in March that quashed subpoenas tied to the DOJ's investigation of then-Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, after Judge James Boasberg determined the probe was based on no clear evidence and appeared purely rooted in Trump's animus towards Powell.
"Today's ruling is a victory for the rule of law and our democracy. A federal district judge found that the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into me and other Minnesota elected officials was politically motivated, unconstitutional, and meritless," Walz said in a statement.
"The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President's political opponents," Walz said. "This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration's lawlessness -- in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law."
Frey, in his own statement, said that "criticism of our government is not a crime."
"One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution," Frey wrote. "Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve."
In a statement responding to the ruling, a DOJ spokesperson did not say whether the Justice Department plans to appeal Schiltz’s order.
“The department takes the unlawful obstruction of federal law enforcement operations extremely seriously and will continue to act in full compliance with the law to investigate these matters,” the spokesperson said.
The Lincoln Memorial is seen on June 20, 2026 in Washington, DC. The National Park Service continues to work to control and remove the algae bloom that has turned the pool green following the Trump Administration's recent $14 million repair, resealing and painting project. (Photo by Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Three-time U.S. Olympian David Hearn told ABC News that police arrested him on Friday after he touched a piece of blue coating that was partially detached from the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Hearn said he went on a bike ride on Friday afternoon and stopped by the Reflecting Pool as a “curious, concerned citizen”. Given his background in materials science, Hearn says he was interested to see the situation for himself after reading about reports of algae in the water and paint peeling off.
“I saw a piece of this loose end of this blue coating … I reached out and touched the end of that piece that was loose but still attached to the bottom,” Hearn told ABC News. “I was able to reach out and touch the edge of that that was still attached at the bottom and handled it a little bit.”
Hearn, who represented the U.S. in canoeing, said he was able to feel and bend the coating a bit.
“I did not remove, I did not damage, I did not rip, tear, break, destroy or harm any part of the Reflecting Pool,” Hearn said.
“The condition of that part and all other parts of the Reflecting Pool were in the same condition after I walked away as they were before I walked up to it.”
Hearn said as he was touching the material, a National Park Service employee told him to stop touching it. He said he then walked back to his bike where National Guardsmen told him that the Park Police wanted to talk to him.
“I had no idea I was about to be arrested,” Hearn said. “They didn’t say they were charging me, but they did start to handcuff me. They did not ever read me my rights. They did not allow me any phone calls for the ensuing five hours, and they did not detail the charges that were going to be leveled against me.”
The National Park Service has not replied to a request from ABC News about Hearn's arrest or any others.
Hearn is set to appear in court on July 9.
Hearn said he was “fully cooperative” the whole time, did not resist and was held for five hours before being released Friday night.
Asked whether he is worried about what will happen to him next, Hearn said: “I am concerned. I’m very wary of our current government; I’m a single citizen being singled out in this way by my government. It’s not fair, and it’s not right.”
The Reflecting Pool has been plagued with algae and peeling paint in the days since the Trump administration completed a $14.65 million renovation. Visitors have been flocking to the pool over the weekend and some have taken to social media with photos and videos showing the algae and peeling paint.
President Donald Trump claims, without evidence, that the damage was committed by vandals, saying Saturday in a lengthy post on his social media platform that the pool would need to be partially drained to repair the peeling lining.
Trump said multiple people had been arrested for vandalism and blamed the condition of the pool on someone pouring "corrosive and destructive chemicals" into the pool and that "They took some form of knife or blade, and put a 250 foot long gash into the beautiful facade of what took so much work, competence, and money to build and complete."
An administration official said on Sunday that as of Saturday night, five individuals had been arrested for vandalism, and five others had been issued citations.
The official added that 14 police reports had also been filed for alleged vandalism, including the alleged crime Trump described.
Hearn said he has "a lot of support.”
“I have several very respectable law firms who are offering to provide pro bono counsel, and we will be vigorously defending against these charges," he said.
Sen. Ted Cruz questions Secretary of State Marco Rubio as he testifies during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 02, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- From calling it "the worst foreign policy blunder in decades" to calling President Donald Trump's memorandum of understanding with Iran "out of step" with his stated objectives, several Republican senators have broken with the president over the agreement.
Core concerns from some of Trump's closest Hill allies have revolved around the significant economic opportunity for Iran to rebuild with few concessions in return outlined in the short-term agreement Trump signed on Wednesday.
"I do have concerns that certain aspects of this deal are stepping in the wrong direction," Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Fox News on Thursday.
"[Trump] deserves enormous credit for making Iran weaker than it's been in decades, and we need to make sure that we don't squander the leverage that we built across six years," the Arkansas senator said.
Cotton's comments are notable as he has been one of the Senate's most hawkish voices on the war in Iran and has pushed the president to continue to attack the Iranian regime.
Others Republican senators had similar views of the deal, arguing that it gives Iran immediate relief on oil revenues and pledges to work to unfreeze $24 billion in Iranian assets and help create a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran.
'An exceptionally bad idea'
"History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think unfortunately the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said of the reconstruction fund. "I don't want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah, and I hope that we don't."
"I support President Trump, and I think his leadership on Iran has been extraordinary. I believe he is getting poor advice, and I think sending billions of dollars to Iran is a mistake," he added.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker, of Mississippi, issued a bruising statement about the MOU, saying the proposal to create a $300 billion account to fund the rebuilding of Iran "would make Iran's payoff under President Obama's 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison."
The memorandum says the U.S. and Middle East partners would develop a $300 billion account for reconstruction and economic development, but Trump said the U.S. wouldn't be contributing to it.
"We're not putting up 10 cents," Trump said Wednesday. "People can decide to do that, but that's up to them."
Wicker also said he opposes lifting sanctions on Iran, unfreezing Iranian assets or forcing Israel to stand down against Hezbollah.
"The Iranian regime has not renounced its ultimate goal -- death to America, death to Israel. The regime wiill invest every penny it receives to further that aim," Wicker said.
Additionally, while the agreement calls for the toll-free reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, senators said the future of the strait is unclear and could potentially open the door for Iran to impose fees for safe passage.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said whil. "some important things" have been accomplished by the campaign against Iran, "I'm afraid we will look back at this and see a missed opportunity to basically eliminate the threat going forward because there is nothing to stop the regime from beginning to block the Strait of Hormuz again basically at will."
No demands of Iran on nuclear weapons
Senators also had concerns over the MOU not demanding that Iran destroy its stockpile of highly enriched uranium and that it doesn't doesn't provide a mechanism to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons in the future, which was one of Trump's main objectives.
Instead the MOU says Iran reaffirms a longstanding commitment not to pursue a nuclear weapon and to negotiate what to do with the country's nuclear stockpile.
"Since Day 1, I have supported President Trump's efforts to end Iran's 47-year threat to the United States and our partners. I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President's goals," Wicker said in his Thursday statement.
"The terms of the MOU that have been released start off at the outset with 10s of billions of dollars immediately being released to Iran before they make a single nuclear concession. I think that's a mistake," he said.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., also expressed doubts about the agreement, saying, "Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed."
Graham: Upside outweighs the downside
Other Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham, voiced initial skepticism over the agreement but said he was cautiously optimistic that a possible future deal would ease his initial concerns.
While Graham said some of the criticism of the MOU is valid, without it "there's no pathway to diplomacy to end the nuclear ambitions of Iran. What does that leave you with? War continuation of the status quo, so the upside of signing the MOU was greater, I think, than the downside."
"Time will tell, but I'm glad we're on the course on the path to diplomacy, and we'll know in the coming weeks what kind of deal we will get.
Graham said he told Trump's Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff "Pursue a good deal, but be ready to walk away."
The administration has pushed back on some of those criticisms saying the sanction relief and asset access it has made to Iran is tied to "very concrete nuclear commitments" Iran has made, as well as saying that there will be further negotiations toward a final agreement, calling the memorandum a framework, not a final agreement.
Vice President JD Vance addressed skeptics during a White House press briefing on Thursday.
"People say the Iranians will never change their behavior. Well, maybe that's true," he said. "And if so, they don't get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn't it worth trying? Isn't it worth seeing whether this incredibly weakened position that the president of the United States has put the Iranians under, whether that motivates them to change their behavior, not just vis-a-vis the West, but vis-a-vis the Middle East."
Vice President J.D. Vance takes a question from a reporter during a news conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on June 18, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Vice President JD Vance on Thursday directly contradicted what is in the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, touting it as a "win-win" and insisting Iran will only reap financial benefits if they "change their behavior."
"They don't get anything unless they change their behavior," Vance said during a briefing at the White House Thursday morning.
That conflicts with what U.S. officials had said was in the MOU, which states that "immediately upon signing," the Treasury Department will allow the export of Iranian crude through waivers -- a financial windfall for Iran, which has faced sanctions for years. Vance digitally signed the MOU with Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf before President Donald Trump physically signed it Wednesday.
ABC News pushed Vance on the financial rewards that Iran is already receiving simply for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. As part of the agreement, the U.S. is removing its naval blockade of Iranian ports, and Iran will allow commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed after the war started, to be restored to pre-war levels. ABC News asked how Iran is allowed to sell their oil freely without making any new concrete nuclear commitments.
"They've made very concrete nuclear commitments. They have committed to the destruction of the highly enriched [uranium] stockpile that they have in their possession," Vance said, adding that lifting the Strait of Hormuz blockade has promoted "the free flow of energy ... across the world."
However, Vance's comments conflict with what the deal says. There is no firm commitment from Iran to get rid of their nuclear stockpile -- just a commitment to negotiate "the disposition" of it over the next 60 days.
Also, allowing Iran to freely sell oil on the global market now is an economic windfall for Iran, which could generate more than $60 billion a year in revenue, experts told the Wall Street Journal.
Furthermore, Vance defended the oil waivers by arguing the U.S. will gain insight into Iran's economy.
"So by lifting the blockade, that's the significant thing that has changed. And by lifting the sanctions, we're actually going to be able to see a little bit where their financial system actually sends money and receives money. That's a real benefit to the American people. And that's really the only thing that has changed by the change in sanctions," Vance said.
He also repeatedly stressed that U.S. taxpayer money will not flow directly to Iran -- "not a single penny, by the way, from the United States of America under any circumstance." But a final deal could still allow Iran to reap huge financial benefits, including the unfreezing of assets and a $300 billion reconstruction account for Iran -- the details of which will be sorted in the 60-day period.
Pressed on whether Iran can be trusted to change its behavior, Vance asked "isn’t it worth trying?"
Democrats -- and some Republicans -- have expressed concerns about the MOU. Chuck Schumer, the Senate's top Democrat, said Iran "took Trump to the cleaners" in negotiations over the MOU in remarks on the Senate floor Thursday. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said of the MOU on Thursday: "Iran's left stronger, we're left weaker."
"You know, I've seen skeptics of the deal. People say 'the Iranians will never change their behavior.' Well, maybe that's true. And if so, they don't get any of the benefits of the bargain. But isn't it worth trying? Isn't it worth seeing whether this incredibly weakened position that the president of the United States has put the Iranians under, whether that motivates them to change their behavior, not just vis a vis the West, but vis a vis the Middle East," he said.
Iranian Supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei said Thursday that Iranian officials entered the agreement from a position of strength, portraying the U.S. president as having pushed aggressively for the deal out of desperation.
(WASHINGTON) -- Janeese Lewis George won the Democratic primary for mayor of Washington, D.C., held earlier this week, according to a projection from the Associated Press on Thursday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Students walk through the halls between classes at Rippowam Middle School on September 14, 2020 in Stamford, Connecticut. (John Moore/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Nayleen Escalante-Villatoro, a sixth grader at Brookland Middle School in Washington, D.C., has struggled significantly with attending school.
She said whenever there are family problems that force her mother to take off work, she has to step in.
"Me and my older sibling stay home to watch the little ones," Nayleen told ABC News, adding, "It makes me feel stressed because I'm missing school and I'm not learning."
This not only frustrates Nayleen, but it also impacts her studies: "I have to do a lot of makeup work after all the missing assignments that I haven't done," she added.
Kids like Nayleen face a multitude of challenges at school -- when they're there.
From the rigors of learning how to read and write to addressing mental health concerns and outside distractions, students juggle more than just their classroom workloads. A combination of these issues and other societal factors has fueled an attendance crisis that's led to a spike in student chronic absenteeism -- defined as missing at least 10% of the school year -- in recent years, according to experts who spoke to ABC News.
While one in three students nationwide experienced chronic absenteeism during the 2021-2022 academic year, the rate is declining, from up to 30% to roughly 24% by the start of the past school year, according to estimates from the Return 2 Learn tracker reviewed by ABC News.
Government officials are also collecting data on K-12 chronic absenteeism but the Department of Education recently told ABC News it couldn't yet provide it. Its National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) told ABC News in 2023 that chronic absenteeism increased from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, there's been no silver bullet to the problem. Different states have taken their own approach, from going door-to-door to check on students to providing high-impact tutoring at school. Education and health experts also emphasize family engagement, community relationships, extracurricular activities and outdoor recreation are potential solutions for chronically absent students.
Hedy Chang, CEO of Attendance Works, a nonprofit focused on addressing absenteeism, said that when kids aren't showing up to school, it's an indication that engagement isn't happening.
"When you treat it as a matter of engagement, that's when we build the relationships with families, which make them trust schools and it builds a relationship so that we can actually find out what are the underlying causes of why kids aren't showing up," Chang told ABC News.
United Family Advocates Executive Director Joanna Lack is calling for more attention to those underlying causes. Lack worked on the issue for many years as the chief performance officer in Camden, New Jersey, and has since transitioned to the non-profit organization dedicated to keeping families safe and together.
"We've been looking at the wrong problem instead of opening up the hood and saying 'What's actually going on here?'" she said.
Home life among 'constellation' of issues
Student absenteeism is often correlated with household or child welfare problems that impact the student's school life, according to UFA's Lack.
"Chronic absenteeism is like the symptom that you experience, but it's not the disease, and we've been treating it like it's the disease," Lack said.
The Department of Health and Human Services does not have a specific initiative targeting chronic absenteeism. However, Head Start and the Family Opportunity, Resilience, Grit, Engagement-Fatherhood (FORGE) program under the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) both aim to improve outcomes in child welfare and enhance early childhood education, according to HHS officials.
Chang said there isn't an urgent need for new federally funded programs or aid, just better use of ones that are available.
"I need existing programs to think about how they use chronic absence data to collaborate and work together to support kids and families and make sure the kids who need their resources, or the schools that need their resources, are getting it," she said.
There's a "constellation" of issues that contribute to increased absences, from child welfare involvement to unstable housing, but Lack noted that families are complex and kids don't come in silos.
Activity makes a 'huge difference'
Nayleen is one of the thousands of students across the country who participate in extracurricular activities through the SCORES program, which creates safe environments where young people can build connections with their communities, according to its website. She said DC SCORES -- which provides soccer, poetry, and service-learning programs -- has helped her return to class more regularly.
She explained that playing soccer with DC SCORES has empowered her and she looks forward to talking to her coach after attending school.
"It helps me because whenever I'm going through stuff he will understand me," she said. "Sometimes he will help me. He will sit down and have a talk with me," she said, adding, "Whenever I'm down, he will ask me if I'm OK."
At the last month's inaugural National Executive Forum on Health and Outdoor Recreation, which combined outdoor recreation industry and health leaders to promote using recreation as a pillar of public health, experts told ABC News that recess makes a "huge difference" for holistic growth in adolescents.
Outdoor Recreation Roundtable President Jessica Turner emphasized that being outside is fundamental to student health.
"We've stepped back so far from incorporating the outdoors into our lives and to step back into it doesn't take very much," Turner told ABC News. "It's not a heavy lift."
Schools supporting parents and kids
Chang, of Attendance Works, said chronic absenteeism isn't inevitable.
She stressed that schools are starting to adopt more effective family engagement strategies for those dealing with attendance issues.
Shavar Jeffries, CEO of the KIPP Foundation, which operates the largest public charter school network in the nation, has utilized some simple yet effective solutions to correct absenteeism.
Jeffries told ABC News that when a student doesn't show up, they call the family "immediately."
"'Johnny, Mary, didn't come to school today. We really need them because they are going to miss an opportunity to learn,'" he said, adding "Then, frankly, sometimes we also say: You got to figure it out."
"Get your baby to school because they can't learn to fulfill that potential if you're not able to do that," Jeffries added.
The names of enslaved people who lived in the President's House are carved into a monument in Independence National Park on August 9, 2025 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Trump administration revealed the list of materials that the National Park Service removed from parks across the country that relate to civil rights, diverse populations, science and the environment.
The list was made public on Wednesday as part of a court filing brought by various organizations. The Interior Department is appealing a federal judge’s order to restore those materials ahead of America 250 celebrations on July 4.
Included in the list are vague descriptions of the materials that were removed and their location. The list, however, does not provide images of the content that NPS found objectionable.
Examples of items that were removed include signs about climate change at parks like Acadia National Park in Maine and Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York; materials involving civil rights at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and at the Medgar and Myrtle Evans Home National Monument in Jackson, Mississippi; materials involving slavery at the President’s House in Philadelphia and materials on women’s rights at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge at the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York.
The list also includes reasons for the removals.
“Disparages Americans past or living” appears to be the reason provided by NPS for the removal of items related to civil rights, diverse communities, slavery and atrocities committed by the United States against Native Americans.
“Unrelated to beauty, abundance and grandeur of the national landscape” was listed as the reason for the removal of items related to science and the environment.
A spokesperson for the Interior Department confirmed to ABC News in a statement that the government is appealing the judge’s order to restore the items.
“We fully believe politically charged language denigrating our Founding Fathers is inappropriate and only further divides Americans,” the spokesperson said. “Through President Trump, we have encouraged Americans to visit our cultural and historic sites and engage in meaningful conversations about the moments that have shaped our country.”
The spokesperson added that the government seeks to “strengthen our shared understanding and ensure that future generations inherit not just the land we love, but the truth of the journey that brought us here.”
ABC News reached out to the Interior Department and NPS for further comment.
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley ordered the restoration of the materials in a Friday ruling and cast their removal by NPS as “a dangerous precedent of censorship and sanitization.” She ordered the government to restore all items by July 3.
The federal government has filed a motion asking for an emergency stay pending appeal, which would block the restoration as the appeals court considers the case. In the motion, the government argued that the restoration of the materials would cause "irreparable harm.”
In response, Kelley ordered the government to produce the list of changes and the condition of the materials, writing that this information was necessary for her to consider the government’s argument.
The removal of materials, which relate to civil rights, diverse communities, science and the environment, was made in compliance with a March 27, 2025, executive order in which President Donald Trump ordered the Interior Department to remove content that cast the United States’ “founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.”
The complaint filed in February challenges the removal of the materials and was brought by a coalition of organizations committed to preserving history, the parks and the environment.
"National parks belong to the American people and censorship of any kind goes against the values these places represent," said Alan Spears, a senior director " said Alan Spears, a senior director at the National Parks Conservation Association, one of organizations suing NPS. "Americans count on national parks to help us understand our full, rich history. Stories of triumph and tragedy alike deserve to be told out loud at parks."
Cherry blossoms at the Supreme Court on a windy morning in Washington, D.C. (John Baggaley/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a longstanding federal ban on guns for unlawful users of any controlled substance is unconstitutional as applied to a Texas gun owner who used marijuana several times a week.
The decision set new limits on federal prosecution of gun owners who are targeted simply for having a history of drug use. It was especially welcomed by millions of American cannabis users who have had to disarm or risk up to 15 years behind bars.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's opinion that unlawful drug use alone cannot be grounds to seek to send someone to prison and potentially force them to give up firearms for life.
"We do not question that sometimes an individual's unlawful use of marijuana (or any other controlled substance) may render him a danger to others," Gorsuch wrote. "But, again, the government disclaims the need to show anything like that in this case. ... affording the government that kind of broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun would risk allowing it to quickly swallow the Second Amendment."
The Justice Department has said it prosecutes roughly 300 cases a year in which a violation of the drug-user gun ban is a leading charge.
Gorsuch said the opinion was narrow and did not disturb other provisions of the law, which includes a ban on guns for drug addicts, ban on guns for people presently intoxicated and prohibition of firearms for those deemed a danger to themselves or others.
The ruling would not, for example, have prevented the prosecution of Hunter Biden under the law since he was a known and admitted drug addict while in possession of a firearm.
The decision was most immediately a victory for plaintiff Ali Hemani, a Texas man who admitted to using marijuana "every other day" while keeping a Glock 9mm pistol in his home. He was prosecuted by federal authorities for a single charge of unlawful possession as a drug user but was neither intoxicated nor physically holding the weapon when arrested.
A federal appeals court tossed out the Hemani indictment saying the ban as applied to him was unconstitutional. The justices agreed with that decision.
While more than 40 states have legalized marijuana in some form, it remains prohibited under federal law.
"Today's unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana," said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union.
"With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government's ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties," Wang wrote in a statement. "The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous."
The decision was also praised by the National Rifle Association as "a major victory for the Second Amendment and peaceable gun owners across America."
"No one should be deprived of their God-given right to keep and bear arms for engaging in nonviolent conduct, and there is no historical justification for doing so," said NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford in a statement to ABC News.
Gun safety advocates, which had joined the Trump administration in opposing a rollback of the drug-user gun ban, said the bulk of the law remains a robust and "common-sense" public-safety measure.
"Although the Court said that the particular law at issue in this case cannot be upheld specifically as to the person challenging it, it reaffirmed the ability of legislatures to restrict firearms access by certain categories of people," said Kris Brown, president of Brady, a gun safety group.
Jay Clayton, US attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), during the Bloomberg Global Credit Forum in New York, US, on Wednesday, June 3, 2026. (Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Wednesday's confirmation hearing for Jay Clayton to be the next director of national intelligence has been postponed, according to Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Tom Cotton, after President Donald Trump pushed for it to be canceled.
"It’s regrettable that the president has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today," Cotton wrote on X. "Mr. Clayton is a patriot and a highly qualified nominee, as the president has said repeatedly. While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future."
Trump, in an early morning social media post, said the confirmation process for Clayton would not continue until his pick to replace Clayton as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Jamie McDonald, is confirmed.
"Regarding the approval of our Great Patriot, Jay Clayton, we are cancelling the Senate Hearing RE: DNI today, and will not be going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney," Trump wrote. "In the meantime, Bill Pulte will remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence."
Cotton, a Republican, at first rebuked Trump's push for a delay, saying the Senate panel would proceed unless Trump specifically directed Clayton not to show or withdrew his nomination altogether.
Trump announced last week he was nominating Clayton to permanently lead ODNI amid backlash from Democrats and Republicans to his appointment of Bill Pulte to be acting director.
Pulte is best known in the Trump administration for launching probes into several of the president's perceived political enemies over allegations of mortgage fraud and possible misuse of authority. Targets of the investigations include Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell. They've all denied wrongdoing.
Pulte's appointment stalled efforts to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- which allows the federal government to collect communications of foreigners abroad without a warrant. The program's legal authorization lapsed over the weekend.
Trump on Wednesday said that he wanted both his SAVE America Act bill and an extension to FISA to now pass together.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the chamber's top Democrat, slammed Trump's latest moves.
"Trump is twisting himself up in knots and jumping through hoops to make it impossible to reauthorize FISA right now, and he is embarrassing his Republican colleagues in the process," Schumer said. "Trump can blame Democrats all he wants, but no one is going to believe him."
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, when asked Wednesday about the Senate's path forward on FISA and Clayton's nomination, said they're taking a day-by-day approach.
"All I know is that Chairman Cotton is planning to proceed -- because you all know with the hearing -- and then from there on, we'll have to take it a day at a time until we get more clarity on kind of what the White House position is on this," Thune said.
Algae can be seen in the water of the Reflecting Pool with the Washington Monument in the distance on June 16, 2006. (Elise Spenner/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) -- The National Park Service continued a push Tuesday to eradicate algae from the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool as tourists and locals gathered to view the green-tinged water.
The Department of Interior has deployed both a hydrogen peroxide treatment and nanobubble ozone technology, a DOI spokesperson said, to rid the pool of algae blooms that have discolored the landmark and marred the rollout of President Donald Trump's renovation project.
Algae bloomed late last week just days after the completion of the renovation, turning the pool from deep blue to green and murky. A DOI spokesperson told CNN in a statement that the algae was "residual" and came from reactivated supply lines.
Workers were spotted dumping hydrogen peroxide into the pool Tuesday morning in videos posted to X.
The nanobubble ozone technology is "actively killing algae" and other contaminants, the spokesperson wrote. The nanobubble process releases tiny gas bubbles filled with ozone into the water, which helps to eliminate algae blooms.
Rangers from the National Park Service were also in place midday Tuesday to continue scraping algae off the bottom of the pool. A tubing system was set up in an apparent effort to siphon contaminated water out of the pool and into storm drains.
The DOI spokesperson wrote that the hydrogen peroxide would have "no harmful side effects to marine life or to the environment."
The water was noticeably cloudy, one Park Service ranger said, due to stirred-up algae that had not yet been extracted from the pool.
White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told ABC News on Tuesday, "under regular NPS maintenance, a high-tech nanobubble ozone technology will be deployed to kill the algae and keep the Reflecting Pool crystal clear."
Trump has touted the pool renovation in public and on social media. He said in May that the landmark was "going to have the great color," claimed the pool was "filthy" and "dirty" before the updates and criticized his predecessors for failed renovation attempts.
But the plan -- originally an expedited effort to resurface the pool and revamp its filtration in advance of America's 250th birthday -- ballooned into a nearly $15 million endeavor, federal contract records show, and a public headache for the administration.
Employees from Greenwater Services -- an Ohio-based organization that specializes in water purification and the nanobubble technology -- were on site Tuesday and were seen filling plastic water bottles with samples from the pool.
Federal records show the government paid Greenwater $1.7 million in April to install new filtration technology for the Reflecting Pool.
Greenwater directed ABC News to the DOI in response to a request for comment.
Algae has long plagued the 1920s construction -- a broad, shallow pool in which it and Cyanobacteria easily proliferate, especially during warm summer months. Former President Barack Obama made his own attempt at renovations in 2012 when he paid $35 million to construct a plumbing system that pulls water from the Tidal Basin and purifies it in a treatment plant.
Longtime Washington resident Redmond Walsh was biking by the pool on Tuesday and spoke to ABC News. He said he first inspected the pool on Sunday and posted a video of the green algae to X, where it now has 2 million views along with many detractors who claimed that he posted outdated material from 2012.
Walsh was back on Monday and Tuesday to check in on the progress. He said he would post an update to his followers saying that the pool was "getting a little better."
Tourists said they weren't surprised that the algae returned after the renovation.
David Janes, an engineer visiting from Louisville, Kentucky, said he thought the government was "back to square one" and is "going to have to do it all over again."
An exterior view of the Department of Education building on March 13, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Department of Education is expected to announce a major step in the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the agency -- moving special education services and civil rights responsibilities to the departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice (DOJ), respectively, according to sources familiar.
The sources told ABC News the HHS is expected to receive the Offices of Special Education Programming (OSEP) and Rehabilitative Services Administration (RSA). The Justice Department will be responsible for the agency’s civil rights oversight. Transferring the offices will impact millions of students and families, including 7 million people who receive around $15 billion in grants through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the law creating free and appropriate education for children with disabilities.
President Donald Trump campaigned in 2024 on closing the agency.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
An Iranian flag flutters in the wind as ships remain anchored on May 16, 2026, in the Strait of Hormuz near Larak Island, Iran. Negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over opening this critical waterway have largely stalled as the countries have rejected each other's proposals to end the war that began when the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on February 28. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance both signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, which would cease fighting on all fronts for 60 days and is expected to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to all traffic, a senior administration official said Monday.
The official said the signatures were done digitally and that a formal signing will happen in Geneva, Switzerland on Friday.
While the official said the details of the agreement will be released within the next 24 to 48 hours, Trump on Monday said the text of the memorandum of understanding would be released "pretty soon," but sometime after Friday.
"This is a very powerful document, and I want it to be released. So, probably pretty soon," Trump said during a press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron shortly after landing in France for the G7.
Trump said "it depends" if he will attend the signing ceremony in Geneva on Friday, but that Vance would be there.
Senior administration officials on Monday acknowledged there was still significant work to be done during the detailed nuclear negotiations to come, but asserted they now had direct relationships with “a number of people at the highest levels of Iranian government” and had reached “what we believe will be an understanding in the next phase.”
A senior administration official said the memorandum of understanding "provides for the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz," which Iran closed after the war started. The official also emphasized "immediate -- just to be clear here, it takes a little bit of time, because you know you have mines in the strait."
Spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, Esmaeil Baqaei, said that, according to the MOU, Iran will be responsible to provide "the security and safe traffic of the ships," adding that Tehran will do so in cooperation with Muscat and in consultation with stakeholders.
On Monday, the president said that "the strait is already partially opened" and that it will be fully opened by Friday. They are still working to clear the area of sea mines, he said.
"I think it will adjust very, very quickly, and I think obviously the prioritization will be on the heavy tankers, you know, the gas, the oils. I think that will actually flow very quickly," the official said.
The U.S. blockade of Iranian naval ports will lift as well, but the U.S. Navy warns that it will remain in place until the agreement is formally completed.
On the topic of tolls, the official said that the MOU ensured the Strait of Hormuz be "toll-free for 60 days," with the expectation that it will become part of the "final agreement as well."
Iranian officials said that a ceasefire in Lebanon is included within the deal. However, Israel's defense minister said after the agreement was announced that Israel does not plan to remove its forces from southern Lebanon.
When pressed about Israel's role in the MOU, one of the senior U.S. administration officials responded, saying that Israel withdrawing from Lebanon was "not a condition of the deal."
"The deal is a ceasefire, and it will not be a one-way ceasefire, meaning that if Iran is not able to control Hezbollah, and if they attack Israeli positions or Israeli towns, Israel will have the right to defend themselves and respond," a senior administration official said.
The senior U.S. administration official said that MOU's outline includes "verifying that [Iran is] not building a nuclear weapon and not funding radicalism and terrorism in the region." In return, the official said it would open up the Iranian economy.
Iranian officials have long publicly maintained that the country's nuclear program operates only for civilian purposes, although Western officials have said their uranium enrichment has gone beyond what would be needed for civilian use. Iran has also said it does not have ambitions to create nuclear weapons, a claim that American officials have disputed.
The officials also said the MOU does not reduce the U.S. force posture in the region.
The senior administration official confirmed that so far "zero dollars of unfrozen assets" have been released to Iran at this point.
The officials made clear that there are not specific things that Iran has to do to receive sanctions relief, but that it’s tied to Iran "behaving more appropriately" in general.
"Their economy is in rough shape, and they need relief badly, and so hopefully we'll find a way to get to a deal quickly, and if not, President Trump has a lot of tools in his arsenal that he'll be able to use," the senior administration official said.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom attends the FIFA World Cup 2026 Group D match between USA and Paraguay at Los Angeles Stadium on June 12, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (Jamie Squire/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Monday that the Department of Justice is investigating him as well as his wife, and claimed that President Donald Trump is "coming after me because I'm considering running for president."
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
