分类： 未分类

CBS News poll on America at 250 — its successes and its challenges

June 29, 2026 / 7:10 PM EDT / CBS News
By Fred Backus, Jennifer De Pinto

Two hundred fifty years on, Americans generally see their nation as a success story — even if it’s one that they feel still has work to do.

A big majority say the nation has succeeded in achieving its founding ideals, at least a fair amount, if not a great deal.

We, the people, think of ourselves— America’s people — as the best thing about the country. Most of us like having a nation of many different ideas and cultures, and we share common views on what constitutes “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

And for a country that produced the light bulb and the internet, today it is still the ideas laid out in the founding that many offer up as America’s best invention of all.

Yet, Americans also see a nation facing challenges today:

Almost half the country marks this milestone feeling that America’s best days are in its past.

The American Dream is seen under pressure, often unattainable.

And just as economic opportunities are entwined with our political history, they’re seen today just as defining as democracy itself. But those who think opportunity is only for a few feel democracy, too, is under threat.

Views of the future and past are linked.

Those who say the U.S. has done a great deal in achieving its founding ideals are the most optimistic about the future, and tend to think U.S. democracy is secure.

Opportunity and the American Dream

Americans today have skepticism about the availability of opportunity. Just half of Americans are even somewhat confident that the American Dream is attainable today, and most think it’s mainly just a few people at the top who have a chance to get ahead.

Americans see a connection between economic opportunity and the nation’s fortunes: those with the least confidence in the attainability of the American Dream are the most likely to see America’s best days as being in the past.

They also connect it to a threat to democracy: Most who think only a few have a chance to get ahead in today’s society think U.S. democracy is under threat.

What unites us

Most Americans think they generally get along, and it’s politics that drives them apart — a view shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.

In fact, it is political division, even as much as economics, that people see as the biggest challenge over the next half-century.

Most think America works best when it has many different cultures with different values.

And we share common views of what constitutes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Pride and patriotism

Most Americans say they are at least somewhat but not necessarily very patriotic. The percentage that have described themselves as very patriotic has fluctuated over the years, reaching its peak after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, though in recent years it has been at historic lows.

Most Americans also are at least somewhat proud, if not very proud, when looking back over the course of U.S. history. The two are linked — those who describe themselves as very patriotic are the most likely to say they are very proud.

Majorities of all age, gender, and racial groups describe themselves as at least somewhat proud. Older Americans and men are particularly likely to be so.

A large majority of Black Americans call themselves patriotic today, but just over half describe themselves as somewhat or very proud when looking back on 250 years of American history.

Politically, Republicans proclaim the most pride and patriotism, and they are more sweeping in their praise for the U.S. than Democrats or independents.

A majority of Republicans think the U.S. has succeeded a great deal in achieving the ideals upon which it was founded (not just somewhat), and while most Americans describe the U.S. as at least one of the greatest countries, Republicans say it stands alone as the single greatest country in the world.

Whether they consider the U.S. the best country or among the best, most Americans across the political spectrum say they would rather live in the United States than anywhere else.

Looking ahead to America at 300

As they think ahead to the 2076 tricentennial, Americans’ outlook is one of cautious optimism. On balance, more people believe things in America will be better than worse, compared to today. This is especially so among those who feel America’s best days are ahead.

And that includes many younger people, who are feeling more positive than older people about the state of America 50 years from now.

But Americans do foresee some hurdles ahead.

While many think American military power will be stronger in 50 years, fewer are confident in the strength of America’s democracy (particularly those who think democracy is threatened today) and its economic power, and even more are skeptical about its morality and values.

Today, most Americans feel politics drives people apart, and it seems they don’t think that will disappear. When asked what will be America’s biggest challenge over the next 50 years, political division, along with economic affordability, tops the list.

This CBS News/YouGov survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,150 U.S. adults interviewed between June 23-26, 2026. The sample was weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, as well as 2024 presidential vote. The margin of error is ±2.7 points.

US Sen. Dan Sullivan’s same-name challenger can be on primary ballot, Alaska Supreme Court rules

2026-06-29 7:37 PM ET / Associated Press

Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for US Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo in Petersburg, on Friday, June 26.

Katie Holmlund/AP

AP—

The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican US Sen. Dan Sullivan is qualified to run for the seat and ordered elections officials to place him on the August primary ballot.

The ruling came hours after arguments Monday and just days after state court Judge Thomas Matthews found the Division of Elections had “abused its discretion” in booting the challenger Sullivan from the ballot. The state Supreme Court, in a brief ruling, affirmed Matthews’ decision but sent back to the division the issue of how the challenger should be listed on the ballot, “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

The court said a full opinion explaining its decision would be released later.

US Senator Dan Sullivan speaks to reporters as he walks into the Senate Chamber of the Capitol Building on April 15.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The division’s director, Carol Beecher, issued a decision June 15 that found the challenger’s candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. But Matthews said Beecher’s decision was not based on the requirements set out by the US Constitution to serve in the Senate — which address age, citizenship and residency — or on state laws or regulations.

The dust-up over the two Dan Sullivans began with the challenger filing his candidacy about a month ago and has roiled one of the most closely watched US Senate races in the country. Alaska’s race is one of about a half-dozen Senate contests across the nation this year that are considered competitive and that could determine control of the chamber for President Donald Trump’s final two years in office.

The filing prompted accusations by the senator and his allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that the challenger is a sham candidate intent on sowing chaos. That led to an investigation of his candidacy by Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees elections.

特朗普称美伊将在多哈会谈 伊朗予以否认

2026年6月30日 06:58 / 联合早报

伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃6月29日说，伊朗技术代表团前往多哈与美方“无关”，双方并未安排任何会谈。 （路透社）

美国总统特朗普说，美国和伊朗的谈判团队本周在卡塔尔首都多哈会晤，但伊朗方面说未来几天不会同美国举行任何级别的谈判。

综合路透社和新华社报道，伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃（Esmaeil Baghaei）星期一（6月29日）接受媒体采访时说，伊朗技术代表团前往多哈与美方“无关”，双方并未安排任何会谈。

巴加埃说：“未来几天，我们不会与美方举行任何级别的谈判会谈。”

他说，伊朗当前重点是确保伊美谅解备忘录相关条款得到执行，为此正严肃跟进执行情况。伊方关于备忘录第10条涉及的石油销售问题，美方已签发必要许可，伊方在跟进执行情况；关于第11条涉及的伊朗被冻结资产解冻问题，相关执行进程也在推进中。伊朗专家代表团将在多哈跟进相关事项。

巴加埃还说，根据备忘录第13条，启动最终协议谈判的前提是第1、4、5、10和11条开始执行并持续落实，因此伊方目前尚未进入最终协议谈判阶段。

美国总统特朗普29日在Truth Social贴文说：“伊朗请求举行会谈。会议明天将在多哈举行。”白宫发言人莱维特过后告诉福克斯新闻，总统特使威特科夫和特朗普女婿库什纳将飞往多哈，参加美伊高级别会谈。

Alito blasts latest SCOTUS ballot ruling as invitation to ‘voter fraud’ risks

June 29, 2026 4:29pm EDT / Fox News

Alito outlined a hypothetical where late mail-in ballots reverse a 15,000-vote election night lead, warning the scenario could shatter voter confidence

By Robert Schmad Fox News

The Supreme Court issues a 5-4 decision upholding Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted post-election day if postmarked by the deadline. ‘Fox News Sunday’ anchor Shannon Bream and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo dissect the ruling, highlighting it as a setback for Republicans challenging such state laws. They explain states retain significant discretionary power over election procedures, with potential for congressional oversight.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/49f97453-e290-4ef0-a083-be119973847b

Listen to this article

3 min

Justice Samuel Alito cautioned on Monday that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow ballots received after Election Day to be counted could lead large sections of the public to view elections as illegitimate.

While Alito had legal concerns with the majority’s ruling, arguing that they misinterpreted when the “electorate’s choice” occurs, he closed his dissent by issuing a practical warning. Allowing late-arriving ballots to determine the outcomes of elections long after Election Day will, according to Alito, severely damage the trust Americans place in their electoral system.

“Not only is today’s decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences,” he wrote. “The majority’s holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans’ confidence in election integrity.”

SUPREME COURT RULES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY

Justices pose for their official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2022.(Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

Alito went on to describe a hypothetical scenario where the outcome of a presidential election hinges on a single state that allows late-arriving mail ballots to be counted. In the scenario described by the justice, one candidate leads by 15,000 votes on election night only for the opposing candidate to slowly gain votes and, a few days before electors are scheduled to vote, pull ahead by just under 100 votes.

“If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh also noted during the case’s oral arguments.

Alito didn’t simply claim that the ruling could affect how people view elections; he argued that it could open the door for fraud.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY

The Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on, April 1, 2026.(Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections. Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud,” Alito continued. “In 2005, a committee chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker found that absentee voting was ‘the largest source of potential voter fraud’ in American elections.”

While instances of voter fraud carried out using mail-in ballots have been recorded, there is no evidence that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 or 2024 presidential elections.

Democrats, meanwhile, argue that allowing states to process ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward, is essential to ensuring that all eligible voters have a say in who governs them.

SUPREME COURT RULES ON MAIL-IN BALLOTS RECEIVED AFTER ELECTION DAY

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez poses for portraits on Capitol Hill on July 27, 2023, in Washington, D.C.(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

“I’m relieved the Supreme Court is not interfering with Washington’s mail-in ballot system,” Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., wrote on X. “If you work a shift job, have young kids, or live out in the woods, you can’t just knock off for the day to go stand in line at a polling place. For decades, Washington’s secure vote by mail system has made it easy for these folks to participate in democracy and make their voice heard.”

The majority, however, did not address whether allowing late ballots to be counted was good policy, stating that such a consideration is outside the scope of what the court has authority to rule on.

“Finally, plaintiffs assert that requiring ballots to be received by Election Day protects election integrity and increases voter confidence in election results,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. “As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts.”

John Roberts fought for decades to get rid of the 1935 precedent that had limited a president’s firing authority

2026-06-29T22:53:44.589Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/john-roberts-1935-humphreys-executor-presidents-fire-anyone

For more than 40 years, since his service as a young Reagan administration lawyer, Chief Justice John Roberts has pressed for an exceptionally powerful US president, one who could fire the heads of independent agencies at any time.

In one memo to the White House counsel in 1983, Roberts asserted, “the time is ripe to reconsider the constitutional anomaly of independent agencies.”

When he was appointed chief justice in 2005, he began laying the groundwork to reverse Supreme Court precedent that permitted Congress to limit the president’s firing power.

“Without such power,” Roberts wrote in a 2010 case, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Roberts’ effort climaxed on Monday as he led a majority to reverse a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that had allowed Congress to restrict the president’s authority to fire agency heads to ensure their independence. From his seat at the center of the elevated bench, the chief justice observed that the court had been steadily backing away from the 1935 precedent, which he insisted conflicted with constitutional history and structure.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” he declared.

Controversy over the regulatory sphere can seem dry, compared to Supreme Court battles centered on the Second Amendment, abortion and reproductive rights, religion, and immigration. But the work of US independent agencies cuts a swath across American life, for better or worse, imposing requirements on businesses and individuals in areas of public health and safety, consumer protection, with the goal of enhancing the common good.

“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” Roberts wrote, expanding on his position in his 36-page opinion. “That President is not all powerful – not by any means. But he is not impotent either. He and he alone is vested with ‘the executive Power’ of the United States.”

Roberts’ sweeping approach to presidential power has manifested itself in multiple cases over the years, perhaps most notably in 2024 when the chief justice and fellow conservatives gave Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution, pointing to the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority.

His long-game effort to curtail independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, at the center of the ruling Monday, is not unlike his successive moves curtailing the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That drive culminated earlier this term as the court rolled back federal protections for Black and Latino voters.

Roberts’ strategic patience paid off. In both, he was assisted by the additional appointments of likeminded conservative justices that created a 6-3 supermajority.

And in the same vein, the three liberal justices again were left only to dissent.

On Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered an oral dissent for the left-wing justices, emphasizing the importance of insulating independent regulators from the pressure of a president who may want to infringe on fair-trade regulations, such as overseen by the FTC, but also workplace safety, nuclear energy and chemical hazards that regulatory agencies manage.

Sotomayor said Congress had long relied on the 1935 precedent to set up a workable regulatory system of government.

“(T)he Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted,” Sotomayor wrote, “elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.”

Congressional legislation establishing the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies dictates certain terms in office for commissioners and permits removal only for some wrongdoing, defined as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

When Trump returned for his second term, he set out to remove Democratic-appointed commissioners at a number of agencies, including Rebecca Slaughter, who was in the middle of a seven-year term at the FTC. The commission was established in 1914 to protect consumers and safeguard against unfair business practices.

Slaughter received an email from Trump in March 2025 saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”

Lower court judges sided with Slaughter as she tried to claim her post, based on 1935 precedent. As the Trump administration appealed, it lifted phrases from Roberts’ past decisions to argue that it was time to fully reverse the nine-decade decision.

Trump officials, along with Roberts and many fellow conservatives, subscribe to a “unitary executive theory” of presidential control that gives him power over the vast bureaucracy.

The justices did carve out an exception on Monday for the Federal Reserve, which Roberts said in the separate case of Trump v. Cook is based on the country’s long tradition of an independent central bank.

Slaughter, at a news conference after the court action, decried the decision against her and the Fed exception.

“Somehow Wall Street is special and gets special treatment, but other than that, the agencies that look out for everyday Americans do not,” Slaughter said.

After oral arguments in her case last December, and remarks from conservatives who hold the majority, it seemed inevitable that the Trump administration would prevail. And given Roberts’ history in transforming this area of the law, it appeared he would write the opinion himself.

https://www.cnn.com/

In the courtroom Monday, Roberts began by explaining that James Madison took the lead among America’s founders in conceiving of all executive power vested in the president, to appoint and oversee those who carry out the nation’s laws.

The chief justice portrayed Humphrey’s Executor as an outlier. The case began when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire an appointee of his predecessor, President Herbert Hoover, to the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president lacked the power unless authorized by Congress.

That decision undermined an earlier ruling, the 1926 Myers v. United States, that had allowed the president to remove postmasters from office without congressional consent.

For as long as Roberts has worked in government, first for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and then as a jurist, he has put forth a robust concept of executive power. He has sought a return to the “seminal,” as he called it, Myers ruling.

On Monday, he highlighted his prior decisions, in 2010 and 2020, that lifted Congress’ restrictions on the president’s removal power and relied on the 1926 Myers case.

From the bench on Monday, he noted the Myers decision had been written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had earlier been president of the United States. Taft believed, Roberts recounted, that the vesting of the executive power in the president was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws, which included the ability to remove officials over whom he lacks responsibility and control.

As Roberts inflated that 1926 ruling, Sotomayor diminished it.

“If Myers is the ‘best’ support for the majority’s position, its theory is a castle built on sand. For one thing, as the majority admits, Myers did not address for-cause removal protection; the challenged statute instead required Senate consent to removal.”

Her sharpest comments came as she scoffed at Roberts’ reasoning tied to presidential accountability.

Sotomayor, who has often criticized President Trump, suggested that rather that “accountability,” the decision would lead to “instability.”

“I’m going to guess,” she said, looking up from her page at courtroom spectators, “… maybe you should, too.”

Sotomayor concluded, “The president emerges with more power than ever before.”

Roberts, composed as ever, appeared unfazed: More power for the president – that has been precisely his aim.

伊朗：霍尔木兹海峡排雷工作由伊朗独自进行

2026年6月30日 07:05 / 联合早报

阿联酋霍尔法坎集装箱码头附近海域可见到不少大型船舶。 （法新社）

伊朗外交部副部长加里巴巴迪说，霍尔木兹海峡的排雷工作将由伊朗独自进行。

路透社报道，加里巴巴迪星期一（6月29日）在X平台发文说，根据德黑兰和华盛顿签署的伊斯兰堡谅解备忘录，霍尔木兹海峡的排雷工作将完全由伊朗负责。

《纽约时报》称加里巴巴迪此番表态，罕见地承认了伊朗曾在海峡布雷，且显然是对法国总统马克龙当天讲话的回应。

马克龙星期一在巴黎会见阿曼苏丹海赛姆后说，法国将与阿曼及其他国家合作清理霍尔木兹海峡的水雷。

加里巴巴迪说，当前局势“敏感且复杂”，并强烈奉劝法国不要采取“挑衅行为”使局势进一步复杂化。

Trump nominates Keith Sonderling as labor secretary

June 29, 2026 / 7:23 PM EDT / CBS News

By Caitlin Yilek

Caitlin Yilek is a politics reporter at CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked for the Washington Examiner and The Hill, and was a member of the 2022 Paul Miller Washington Reporting Fellowship with the National Press Foundation.

Washington — President Trump said Monday he will nominate Keith Sonderling to lead the Department of Labor permanently.

Sonderling was elevated to the role in an acting capacity after Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer left the position in April.

“Throughout his career, Keith has proven his dedication to delivering strong results for the Hardworking People of our Country, and I know he will do an incredible job in his new role,” Mr. Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

This is a breaking story; it will be updated.

特朗普：美伊多哈会议或许重要或不重要

2026年6月30日 07:48 / 联合早报

特朗普6月29日在椭圆形办公室坚称，美国“在军事上正在取得胜利”，并重申必须阻止伊朗制造核武器。 （彭博社）

美国总统特朗普说，美伊多哈会议“或许重要或不重要”，而伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬说，伊朗在决策中“秉持理性，维护人类尊严”。

路透社报道，特朗普星期一（6月29日）在白宫椭圆形办公室告诉记者，“我们在军事上正在取得胜利”，并重申必须阻止伊朗制造核武器。

谈到美伊多哈会议，他说：“多哈会议或许重要，或许不重要。我们拭目以待。”

伊朗电视台6月18日发布照片​​，显示伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬手持美伊谅解备忘录，上面有他和美国总统特朗普的签名。（法新社）

美伊技术团队本周赴卡塔尔首都多哈，特朗普29日早前在社媒平台发文说，应伊朗请求，美伊代表团星期二（30日）在多哈举行会议。但伊朗外交部发言人巴加埃（Esmaeil Baghaei）同日接受媒体采访时说，伊朗技术代表团前往多哈与美方“无关”，双方未来几天并未安排任何级别的会谈。

佩泽希齐扬在X平台贴文说：“我们应对‘无理吹嘘和无端威胁’的方式，是在决策中秉持理性，维护人类尊严，并在采取行动时“果断且无畏”。

佩泽希齐扬也说：谅解是双边事情，如果美方遵守谅解备忘录，我们也会履行我们的义务。”

Gallego spokesperson says Trump is ‘targeting’ the Democratic senator with DOJ investigation

2026-06-29T21:48:44.691Z / CNN

By Morgan Rimmer

PUBLISHED Jun 29, 2026, 5:48 PM ET

Sen. Ruben Gallego speaks during a news conference at the US Capitol on June 18, 2026.

Alex Wong/Getty Images/File

A spokesperson for Sen. Ruben Gallego said Monday that President Donald Trump is “targeting” the Arizona Democrat with a Justice Department investigation into his campaign finances.

Reacting to a report of the inquiry in Axios, the spokesperson accused the Justice Department of having been “weaponized” and said the administration was effectively trying to quiet those who criticize it.

“Trump is targeting Senator Gallego while the most weaponized Department of Justice in history is turning a blind eye to Trump’s unprecedented corruption that’s raising costs for families, and instead targeting anyone who gets in their way — like the Federal Reserve, members of Congress doing their oversight duty, and now Senator Gallego,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson said Gallego’s office did not have independent knowledge, outside of the Axios report, into the DOJ investigation or what it was seeking to uncover. Axios reported that the investigation stemmed from a “whistleblower complaint” out of Southern California.

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

“It’s the least surprising news of the week that this comes immediately after the Senate Ethics Committee cleared Senator Gallego of rightwing smears pushed by the administration weeks ago,” the Gallego spokeperson said.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna speaks with reporters as she departs a vote at the US Capitol on June 24.

Francis Chung/Politico/AP

Earlier Monday, Gallego’s office released a letter from the Senate Ethics Committee revealing the panel closed a complaint filed against him by Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna. The inquiry, which alleged “campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature,” would be separate from an investigation by federal law enforcement.

“Based on the investigation of the Committee, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct,” the letter said.

Ethics panel clears Gallego as Luna declares, ‘Once a creep, always a creep’

The panel found no evidence that Gallego violated federal law or Senate rules after a nearly monthlong investigation

June 29, 2026 2:04pm EDT / Fox News

By Alex Miller, Adam Pack, Fox News

Gallego says friendship with embattled Swalwell ‘clouded his judgment’

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., former Rep. Eric Swalwell’s “best friend” in Congress, said that their relationship “clouded his judgment” over rumors about his conduct.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/be6baa44-dc8a-4531-a4ef-512d7e7c9d6f

Listen to this article
3 min

The Senate Ethics Committee has dismissed a complaint against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., that alleged the lawmaker committed sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations.

The probe was spurred by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., who earlier this year charged that there were “very disturbing” allegations against a sitting senator in the wake of the scandal-filled downfall of former-Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a close friend of Gallego’s.

But after a nearly monthlong investigation into the matter, the committee told Gallego in a letter on Monday that there wasn’t evidence to back up Luna’s claims.

‘DISTURBING’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UNNAMED SENATOR UNDER REVIEW IN WAKE OF SCANDALS ROCKING CONGRESS

The Senate Ethics Committee dismissed allegations of sexual misconduct and campaign finance violations made by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., against Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., on Monday after a roughly monthlong investigation.(Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

“We are writing to inform you that the Select Committee on Ethics (the Committee) dismissed a complaint filed against you by Representative Anna Paulina Luna,” the panel stated. “Specifically, the complaint alleged campaign finance violations and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature.”

“In response to your request for an investigation, the Committee referred these allegations to you and requested additional information on April 17 and May 15, 2026,” the letter continued. “Based on the investigation of the Committee, the Committee did not find evidence that your actions violated Federal law, Senate Rules, or related standards of conduct.”

Gallego said in a statement that the Ethics Committee’s decision “reaffirms what I have said about these accusations from the beginning: they were right-wing conspiracies peddled by far-right activists like Anna Paulina Luna, the White House and their allies.”

SENATOR GALLEGO SAYS LONGTIME FRIENDSHIP WITH SWALWELL ‘CLOUDED MY JUDGMENT’ AS RUMORS SWIRLED IN DC

“I look forward to an apology from Rep. Luna for weaponizing the ethics process while refusing to investigate historic corruption that’s making life harder for families,” Gallego said. “In the meantime, I will continue fighting for Arizonans and holding Trump Republicans accountable for high costs and new wars.”

But an apology from Luna is unlikely.

The lawmaker shot back on X that the allegations “are not conspiracy theories. You’re a gross example of representation.”

SWALWELL FRIEND GALLEGO DEFENDS CAMPAIGN-FUNDED SUPER BOWL, MIAMI TRIPS: ‘GO WHERE THE MONEY IS’

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations.(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

“Need I mention you leaving your pregnant wife during your campaign for Senate? There are plenty of people who know about your antics,” Luna said.

“The good news about D.C. is everyone talks, and eventually the reporters come forward with your texts,” she continued. “Do yourself a favor and keep raising for your legal defense fund. Once a creep, always a creep, and you’re gonna need it.”

Luna’s allegations against Gallego came shortly after Swalwell resigned from the House following a bombshell report from The San Francisco Chronicle that the ex-lawmaker allegedly sexually assaulted a former staffer.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Gallego moved to quickly put distance between himself and Swalwell and argued that his tight-knit relationship “clouded my judgment,” regarding rumors that swirled about the ex-lawmaker for years in Washington, D.C.

Gallego has recently come under scrutiny for a report from Politico that he spent thousands in campaign cash on luxury travel, Super Bowl tickets and childcare.

“This is not breaking news,” Gallego told the outlet. “With the rising costs of childcare and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”

Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.