President Donald Trump suggested that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego if it were allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, drawing condemnation from California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the remarks “deranged and dangerous.”

Trump’s comments during a political rally in Nebraska on Monday come in the wake of two foiled terror plots in recent weeks, including an attack on an Israel-bound passenger flight in the Middle East and a potential attack on a U.K. airbase used by the U.S. Air Force. On Monday, prior to the rally, Trump said an Iran-linked threat to the base prompted the U.S. to move its bombers elsewhere.

The investigations into both incidents remain underway, but politicians have drawn tentative links to Tehran. U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham said there were “strong indications” that Iran played a role in alleged plot that would have targeted the base. Trump said he “personally” believes Iran was behind the attempt to hijack the flight. Neither Burnham nor Trump offered further details to support their statements.

In his speech on Monday, Trump sought to assuage concerns about the economic impact of the Iran war, calling it a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe” and “keeping our country safe.”

Defending his war effort, Trump suggested that if Iran was to develop a nuclear weapon, they could “take out” an American city. He then went a step further, singling out two Democratic-led cities in California. 

“Let them take out Los Angeles, let them take out San Diego.” The crowd cheered at the remarks.

Los Angeles is the second-most populous city in the United States, while San Diego is home to several major American military installations, including the Naval Base San Diego — principal homeport of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Trump then pivoted back to his messaging on the war, assuring the crowd that the conflict was a “small price to pay” in the grand scheme of things and that the war was “essentially almost over with.” “And they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it, let me tell you they need it. But it’s going to end very soon, and it’ll end one way or the other,” he added.

The remarks drew swift condemnation from state leaders, including Newsom and the cities’ mayors, and at least one Republican running for Congress in a battleground district.

Jim Desmond, a Republican running for an open congressional seat representing parts of San Diego County, condemned the remarks on social media.

“I vehemently disagree with President Trump’s comments. America must stand up to Iran and defend our interests, but the first responsibility of our Commander in Chief is to protect the American people and our homeland,” Desmond, a Navy veteran, wrote. “No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage.”

Newsom, who has often sparred with the president, repeatedly condemned Trump’s remarks Monday night, calling them “disgusting and disqualifying” in a second social media post. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called Trump’s remarks “dangerous” and suggested they could “potentially compromise our safety.”

“The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives,” Bass said in a statement on social media. “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria similarly denounced Trump, saying that his city “is not collateral damage.”

“We are not expendable,” Gloria wrote, telling Trump to “keep our city out of your reckless war talk.”

Steven Cheung, the White House director of communications, addressed the criticism on Tuesday, saying, “The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality. He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped. America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the devout Catholic conservative who has long warned of animus against religion in America, says in a new book that he believes the court’s landmark decision extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was “perhaps the decisive point in our nation’s turn against religious liberty.”

Alito, who dissented sharply in the 2015 case, made the claim at Catholic University of America three years after Obergefell v Hodges in a speech that was not open to the public or widely covered at the time. The remarks were published this month in “So Ordered,” a collection of Alito speeches that he says reflect his judicial philosophy and outlook on the country.

“In dissent from that ruling,” he said in the 2018 address, “I expressed my worry that equating the expression of certain views with bigotry — or, if you like, with dignitary harm — would drive believers out of public life.”

Alito suggests that his prediction has come to pass.

“Quite suddenly, religious liberty has become controversial,” Alito said in a newly published 2022 speech to the Magnificat Foundation, a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting Catholic culture and traditions.

Throughout the book, the justice cites a string of lawsuits to reach the Supreme Court in recent years as evidence that “support for religious liberty has cratered.”

The cases involve businesses threatened with punishment for refusing to provide services for gay weddings and faith-based organizations harmed by government health or employment regulations without any religious exemption.

“What we see in these and other cases,” Alito says in the 2022 speech, “is a refusal to live in peace with those who violate the new moral code.” He says the dynamic will “virtually guarantee that the Supreme Court will continue to see a steady stream of religious-liberty cases.”

Court sided with religiously affiliated parties

In nearly all the cases Alito cites as examples of religious animus, the court ultimately sided with the religiously affiliated parties over their opponents.

The court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who was sued for refusing to create a wedding cake for a gay couple and later defended a Christian wedding website designer who objected to creating sites for same-sex ceremonies.

When the Affordable Care Act mandated that employers provide insurance plans with no-cost contraceptive coverage, the high court ruled that some private employers can opt-out as a matter of faith and that federal agencies must be allowed to exempt religious employers from the rule.

The court recently ruled that states must allow religiously affiliated private schools to participate in state-funded private tuition programs and tax credit initiatives. Last year, it gave parents the right to opt-out their kids from teachings that conflict with sincere religious beliefs.

The conservative majority blocked a bid by the city of Philadelphia to exclude Catholic Social Services from its foster care program over LGBT discrimination and later effectively struck down state laws banning LGBT conversion therapy, which some religious advocates said amounted to a gag order against Christian teaching about human sexuality.

Recent decisions have also expanded protection for religious exercise on the job — siding with a former public school football coach who had been disciplined for praying at midfield after games — and mandated broader employer accommodations for the faithful who need to skip work to attend worship services.

Alito joined the majority in all of those cases and has voted in favor of faith-based interests in many others over his 20 years on the high court.

Same-sex marriage remains a flashpoint

The issue of same-sex marriage rights, which was narrowly decided 5-4, remains a flashpoint.

In 2025, Alito said publicly that while he strongly opposes the ruling, he is “not suggesting that the decision should be overruled,” even as fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas has openly urged his colleagues to do so.

Nevertheless, Alito suggests in his book that the marriage decision has effectively silenced Americans whose sincere religious beliefs favor limiting unions to one man and one woman, likening them to Catholics who were sidelined in post-Reformation England.

They “had been so beaten down that they were ‘a people who shunned the light of day.’ They were ‘found in corners, and alleys, and cellars, and the housetops, or in the recesses of the country,'” he said in a newly-published speech delivered in 2021 at Thomas Aquinas College.

“What I predicted in my dissent is coming to pass,” Alito said of same-sex marriage opponents.

Some advocates see differently than Alito

While many religious liberty advocates openly share Alito’s concerns, some have voiced a different view of the current state of affairs.

“We continue to win unparalleled court victories at every level of the judiciary furthering the religious liberty of all Americans, resulting in more religious freedom today than at any other time in our lives,” wrote Jeff Mateer, executive vice president and chief operating and legal officer of First Liberty Institute in the group’s 2025 annual report. The nonprofit group calls itself the “nation’s largest legal advocacy firm dedicated to defending religious liberty” and frequently brings cases to the high court.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, another high profile nonprofit religious advocacy group, says in its 2025 report on religious freedom in America that “faith in the public square is on the rise.” “Americans are moving away from a timid, behind-closed-doors view of religious freedom,” Becket found.

One of six Catholic justices on the current court, Alito, who calls freedom of religion a “pet issue,” concedes the legal victories for religious exercise rights but maintains a critical view of threats to people of faith.

“It says a lot that the parties whose free-exercise rights were violated had to take their claims all the way to our Court,” he said at the 2021 event.

The book also highlights the justice’s views on originalism and textualism; the role of judges in American life; and what he calls “threats” to the Constitution.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump said Monday night that he will no longer use taxpayer funds to pay for a multimillion-dollar pro-Trump ad blitz ahead of the midterm elections, saying his super PAC will now pay for them. 

While he dismissed criticism of the ads as “a rather standard thing to do,” he said he had decided to run them on his own dime rather than that of the U.S. government in a post on his social media platform.

“I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc,” Trump wrote, referring to his super PAC.

The move comes after the U.S. government bankrolled a series of ads that aired nationally and heavily featured the president. One of the ads was a direct copy of a spot Trump’s campaign ran in 2024.

A White House official confirmed to ABC News Monday night that MAGA Inc. will pay for ads moving forward but defended them as something previous administrations have used.

“Presidential Public service announcements are nothing new. Administrations of both parties have used public service announcements to explain policy and make the case for the nation’s direction,” the official said.

Earlier Monday, Vice President JD Vance defended using taxpayer money to run the ads, claiming they are “public service announcements.”

“They’re not partisan. They’re not — you know, it’s not like we’re advocating for a particular candidate. We’re trying to tell a story, I think, about how great the United States of America is,” Vance said.

Trump defended the ads last week at an event in the Oval Office, saying they were “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. 

“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.

The federal government has spent at least $2.5 million to air the TV 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 had 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.

Four ads have been aired over the last two weeks. One 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 last week, 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 last Wednesday before Hegseth addressed 600 service members in his State of the Force speech at the Marine Corps base at Quantico, Virginia.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

The Supreme Court appeared divided and searching for consensus Monday in a major case involving climate change that could determine whether local governments can sue producers of fossil fuels for potentially billions of dollars in damages over alleged marketing deception and the impacts of global warming. 

Boulder, Colorado, which brought the case against Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, needs only four votes to win after Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the case without explanation. A victory for the city would clear the way for its claims — and dozens of similar cases elsewhere — to move forward in state courts but would likely not be the final word in the dispute. 

“This case involves an unprecedented effort to use state law to regulate global conduct,” argued Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the energy companies. “If Boulder’s claims are allowed to go forward, some 90,000 municipalities across the country will have the ability to make national and international energy policy by asking juries to impose catastrophic damages on selected fossil-fuel producers.”

During nearly two hours of oral argument, Shanmugam argued that the Constitution, federal law and Supreme Court precedent make clear that matters of air and water pollution are subject to federal law (and the EPA) — not state-by-state rules.  

The city and county of Boulder counter that the pursuit of financial damages is not about “regulating” or shutting down the companies but instead about recouping costs from alleged harms inflicted by deceptive marketing and dangerous side-effects of fossil fuels. 

“When somebody in New York defames a citizen of Boulder on national television or somebody in California releases a computer virus on the Internet or a biological virus into the world and it causes mass damage in Colorado, it has never been thought that only federal law can provide a remedy,” the city’s attorney Kevin Russell argued. 

Both sides also tangled over whether the Supreme Court should even be reviewing the case at all, since it has not yet gone to trial in Colorado. If the court were to gridlock 4-4, the case would proceed in state court and potentially return to the justices again later. 

The court could also choose to make clear that state-law damages claims could go forward, or that federal law preempts the claims altogether. 

Most of the justices appeared torn over what kind of decision to write. 

Justice Elena Kagan, appearing sympathetic to Boulder’s argument, likened the lawsuit to major class-action cases against tobacco companies and opioid drug manufacturers in states hit hard by fallout from widespread use of those products. 

“I’m waiting to see the distinction,” said Kagan, “because this complaint talks a lot about misrepresentations that are made by [the energy companies].”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared most inclined to side with Exxon and Suncor, citing what he called a “wall of precedent” that supports blocking state lawsuits against the companies because air and water transcend state boundaries.  

“We don’t have to reinvent the wheel,” Kavanaugh said, “because we’ve said this multiple times, and Congress presumably, when doing the Clean Air Act and Clean Air Act amendments, has relied on this court’s precedents establishing that this kind of pollution is a federal law matter unless Congress speaks otherwise.”

Chief Justice John Roberts asked tough questions of both sides.

“You would concede that there are some situations in which an individual who engages in conduct in State B causes harm to somebody in State A can be sued under the law of State A, right?” Roberts asked Shanmugam, suggesting Boulder’s suit could be rooted in longstanding tradition.  

“We would concede that,” he replied. 

Later, however, Roberts also raised concerns about the nationwide implications of allowing Boulder’s suit to proceed.

“Presumably, if you prevail,” he said, “just the next day, a municipality in every single state will file a lawsuit, they’ll probably copy your pleadings, and then there will be at least 50, you know, different cities … causes of action filed.”

“The mere fact that there’s going to be a lot — there could be a lot of litigation, I don’t think there’s anything in the Constitution that says” the federal government can short-circuit the states,” Boulder attorney Kevin Russell replied. 

A decision in the case — Suncor v Boulder — is expected by the end of June 2027. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

President Donald Trump is heading to Grand Island, Nebraska, for a rally on Monday evening, the latest in a campaign travel swing that includes notable stops in red states and one that comes as both parties eye critical races in the state.

Last week, Trump held rallies in Alabama, Oklahoma and Ohio; Nebraska is similarly red-leaning. Trump won the statewide vote in Nebraska three times by around 20 points each time. In 2020 and 2024, the Democratic candidate each time got one electoral college vote from Nebraska because Nebraska splits its electoral college votes.

But in the Senate race this year in Nebraska, incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, first elected to the Senate in 2024 in a special election after previously serving as Nebraska’s governor, is facing a closely watched general election matchup against independent Dan Osborn, a union steamfitter who ran a closer-than-expected race for Senate in 2024 against GOP Sen. Deb Fischer.

Early in-person voting in Nebraska begins on Monday, the day of the rally.

Ricketts has argued that he’s best suited to keep delivering for Nebraska and that his opponent is secretly a Democrat.

There is no Democrat on the ballot for Senate in Nebraska, as the Democrat who won the Senate primary withdrew. Democrats are rallying behind Osborn as one of a few red-state independents running for Senate this year, although Osborn has insisted he won’t caucus with either party.

Ricketts has alleged that “Democrat Dan,” as he nicknamed Osborn during a recent debate, is trying to mislead voters while planning to effectively serve  as a Democrat.

Ricketts has also faced newfound scrutiny after an ad released by an outside group last week featured a woman who called out his vote in 2022, while governor, to pardon a man who served a prison sentence for sexually assaulting her. Ricketts told reporters after the ad was released, “The pardon was granted nearly three decades after the crime, and anyone who knows me knows that I have always protected Nebraskans. That is my job, and it always has been.”

Osborn, meanwhile, has argued that he will be a fully independent voice for Nebraska and that voters there need change.

He also recently apologized for leaked audio from a campaign event where he maligned hypothetical Trump voters as having lives that “suck,” saying he was trying to discuss the anger he said Trump tapped into during his presidential runs.

ABC News has not independently obtained the audio; Osborn has not disputed the remarks.

Trump, in a recent video he posted on his social media platform, praised Ricketts as someone who “will always put Nebraska first, and he’ll always put America first,” while slamming Osborn as someone who “will say anything to win. He’s dying to get to Washington so he can betray you, but we will not let that happen.”

There’s also a major U.S. House race in Nebraska, although it’s not in the congressional district where Trump is going on Monday. Grand Island is in the state’s 3rd District, represented by Rep. Adrian Smith and favored to remain Republican-held.

But the state’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, is a top target for Democrats. Incumbent Republican Rep. Don Bacon is retiring; Omaha City Council member Brinker Harding, a Republican, and businesswoman Denise Powell, a Democrat, are running.

Ricketts has indicated during recent interviews that he will attend Monday’s rally, telling media outlets on Wednesday, “We will welcome President Trump to Grand Island on Monday, and we will be talking about the things we’ve done between Senate Republicans and the president to put more money back in people’s pockets.”

Harding, however, will not be at the rally, his spokesperson confirmed to ABC News on Thursday, because of “previously scheduled events.” Harding has Trump’s endorsement, although he has also sought sometimes to show where he disagrees with Trump.

Given Nebraska’s agriculture industry, the rises in the prices of fertilizer and fuel because of the war with Iran hurting trade have become major issues, as has the administration’s temporary lift on beef tariffs, which both Ricketts and Osborn have criticized.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

To walk deep into the mountain forests at the doorstep of the Rocky Mountains, is to encounter the fragrant majesty of century-old ponderosa pine trees famous for lining ski slopes, National Park trails and residential neighborhoods.

Now, those iconic Colorado trees — already under strain from record heat and prolonged drought — are threatened by a rapidly growing outbreak of silent killers: the mountain pine beetle.

The size of a grain of rice, the native forest insect can attack a tree in a matter of weeks, feeding upon its critical tissues and effectively strangling it from within.

“Once a tree has been attacked, it’s likely to die,” said Sarah Hart, a forest ecologist with Colorado State University. “For managing large landscapes, we really don’t have particularly effective strategies to stop it.”

WATCH: Outbreak: Hidden Costs of the Climate Crisis at 7 and 9 p.m. ET Monday on ABC News Live PRIME, streaming on Hulu, Disney+ and ABC News apps.

More than 700,000 acres in Colorado are affected, officials say. Climate change is blamed for supercharging the emerging outbreak, with no end in sight.

Some state officials have called them “zombie forests”: ponderosa that appear to be healthy but are under existential threats from a changing climate that may result in extinction in some areas. 

“We’ve had this dearth of precipitation, above-average temperatures — It’s kind of like attacking the bank when there’s no security guard,” said Dan West, an entomologist with the Colorado State Forest Service. “These trees are standing there with not a lot of defenses.”

The cost of responding to the pine beetle outbreak, along with the financial impacts from other climate-change influenced environmental threats, are at the heart of a major Supreme Court case being argued Monday in Washington.

The City of Boulder and Boulder County, Colorado, in 2018 sued major fossil-fuel producers Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, seeking financial damages under state public nuisance law.

Their complaint alleges the companies “knowingly caused and contributed” to climate change by promoting fossil fuels “while concealing and/or misrepresenting the dangers,” including “devastation” to forests from an “epidemic” of mountain pine beetles.

Exxon and Suncor, which declined interviews for this story, argue in court papers that the Boulder lawsuit is based on a “dubious theory,” insisting local harms from the global phenomenon of climate change cannot be pinned on individual companies.

They’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to toss the case out.

“National issues should be decided at the national stage, and that means Congress needs to be the one to decide what are the rules for who pays, who ultimately pays, what are standards for imposing those costs,” said Michael Williams, solicitor general of West Virginia, which has joined 25 other states backing Exxon and Suncor.

“If these suits go forward, higher gas prices are maybe the smallest consequence. I think it’s even bigger than that and you’re going to see some of these industries potentially shutter entirely,” Williams said.

Boulder city and county officials declined interview requests about the case.

Longtime Boulder resident Paul Chinowsky, a civil engineer specializing in climate impacts, said he doesn’t want the oil companies to go bankrupt but agrees they should chip in for alleged harms from their product.

“Let’s be real. We can’t live today without some level of fossil fuels, but we need regulation,” Chinowsky said in an interview in his neighborhood on the outskirts of Boulder.

“We see streets getting resurfaced. We see drainage systems getting updated, and we think of it all as, well, this is just a part of regular maintenance. Climate change is putting an accelerator on that,” he said.

Boulder and Boulder County say in court documents that they’ve spent millions on road repairs, storm drainage improvements and utility upgrades to keep pace with other environmental threats amplified by climate change.

“It’s become a significant element of the city’s budget,” said John Tayer, CEO of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce. “There are direct costs associated with the change in climate. Just everything from rising heat, which leads to greater air conditioning costs. It can slow down outdoor work because of the risk to the workforce from heat exposure. It’s across the board.”

Then there is the mountain pine beetle.

Driving from Boulder along Interstate 70 into the Front Range, rust-colored clusters of dead ponderosa pine streak the mountainsides. From above, the scale of the crisis is even more dramatic.

Bark beetles killed more than 54 million acres of pines across the West in the early 2000s, an area the size of the state of Utah. The new outbreak is expected to be much worse for communities in fire-prone areas. 

“We’ve seen a lot of sporadic wildfire activity when you have a lot of dead trees like this,” said Dan Gibbs, a veteran wildland firefighter who heads Colorado’s Department of Natural Resources, “Bark beetle-kill timber burns differently than I would say a green, alive forest.”

Teams of state foresters are scrambling to clear beetle-killed trees from hillsides near residential communities to reduce fuels for fire, one dead tree at a time. The cost to state taxpayers: $10,000 per acre, Gibbs said.

“Fire hazard, impacts to recreation, impacts to watersheds — the [dead trees have] a huge ripple effect on almost daily life of Coloradans and visitors,” he said.

If the nation’s highest court allows Boulder to sue Exxon and Suncor for damages, it won’t halt a pine beetle outbreak that state officials say will last from years to decades. But supporters of the case hope it brings increased accountability — and more funding to protect Colorado’s ponderosa pines and the people who love them.

“Oftentimes the people and the organisms that are facing the most dramatic impacts of climate change are not the ones who are benefiting from what’s causing climate change,” said Hart. “I do think that there should be greater accountability for those negative effects.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.